Crime and Policing Bill
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 16 Apr 2026 · 254 speeches · Official Report
Commons Reasons and Amendments
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu.
2A: Page 12, line 7, leave out “and (4)” and insert “to (5)”
2B: Page 12, line 9, at end insert- “(3A) In section 56 (guidance), after subsection (1) insert- “(1A) Guidance issued under this section may include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices under section 52 by authorised persons (within the meaning of section 52(1)).””
2C: Page 12, line 11, at end insert- “(5) In section 73 (guidance), after subsection (1) insert- “(1A) Guidance issued under this section may include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices under section 68 by authorised persons (within the meaning of that section).””
My Lords, in speaking to Motion A, I will speak also to Motions B, F and P in this group. Amendment 2 is intended to ensure that accredited or authorised persons or their employers may not profit financially from fixed penalty notices issued for breaches of community protection notices or public spaces protection orders. I have had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on a number of occasions and I fully understand the concerns he has raised that fixed penalty notices could be issued disproportionately where there is a financial incentive to do so. However, I must stress that this amendment risks weakening crucial enforcement action taken to address those who breach community protection notices or public spaces protection orders, and such a bar would, in effect, put an end to all outsourcing and could significantly reduce enforcement capacity. Therefore, I have tabled our Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu, which seek to ensure that statutory guidance is issued that addresses the need for proportionality in the issuing of fixed penalty notices. I have had an opportunity to discuss that with the noble Lord outside the Chamber, and I await his comments in due course. It would mean a statutory presumption in the Bill that the guidance addresses the use and proportionality of such fixed penalty notices. I turn to Amendments 6, 10, 11 and 12, and the very important issue of fly-tipping; I know that noble Lords have been exercised about it. I emphasise that I understand...
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 2D as an amendment to Amendment 2B, and Amendment 2E as an amendment to Amendment 2C-
2D: Leave out from “section” in line 3 to end and insert “must include provision setting out how to prevent authorised people or companies from being incentivised to issue fixed penalty notices under section 52 for the purposes of generating any direct or indirect financial benefit”
2E: Leave out from “section” in line 3 to end and insert “must include provision setting out how to prevent authorised people or companies from being incentivised to issue fixed penalty notices under section 68 for the purposes of generating any direct or indirect financial benefit””
My Lords, while I welcome that the Government have acknowledged the widespread concern over how these powers are being enforced, I must express my profound disappointment that they have chosen to strip out the robust amendment from the Bill which would have banned fining for profit in primary legislation. The Government should have retained that original amendment, which would have implemented a strict statutory ban preventing private companies from receiving financial benefits contingent on the number or value of the fixed penalty notices they issue. The Government have argued that a statutory ban risks weakening enforcement action and prefer to rely on statutory guidance to “ensure proportionality”. We are not talking about legitimate enforcement; we are talking about a cowboy enforcement economy that preys on the public. Under the Bill, the maximum fine for breaching a public spaces protection order or a community protection order will rise by 400% from £100 to a staggering £500. Without a firm legal prohibition, that drastic increase will only supercharge an industry that profits from punishing our citizens for anodyne actions. As we know from the damning new report from the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life, the surge in penalties is driven overwhelmingly by councils that employ private companies, which issue a staggering 75.7% of all penalties, despite making up only 11.2% of the responding councils. If your local authority employs a private contractor, companies...
I just want to say a few words to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, on their persistence on the question of penalties for the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence. On these Benches, we have entirely supported the creation of this new offence, which rightly bridges the gap between the simple possession of a knife in public and actually using it to threaten or harm someone. We have taken to heart the views of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, following the horrific Southport attack, which has been under discussion today in relation to the first report from Sir Adrian Fulford. The reviewer has made it absolutely clear that a four-year sentence is simply insufficient when there is clear evidence of an intention to cause mass fatalities. We welcome the fact that the Government have now listened to the strength of feeling in this House and formally accepted that the additional element of intent to use unlawful violence justifies a higher maximum penalty compared with possession-only offences. Again, we congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies, on tabling those amendments on Report, and we thank the Government for their movement on this. I beg to move Motion A1.
My Lords, I have involvement with two Motions in this group. The first is Motion E, which relates to Amendment 12, which would transfer the responsibility for dealing with fly-tipping from landowners to the local waste authority. When we considered the amendment on Report, there was strong support for the measure from around the House and it was carried. On Report, the House accepted the strong logic of the argument that dealing with illegal waste is a complex system, with government in all its facets-central, agency and local-holding the levers for the push factor: the landfill tax, approved facilities, disposal, and investigation, policing and prosecution. However, responsibility for dealing with the aftermath of a dump lies with the landowner and, through no fault of their own, they could face a huge bill-in a recent case, £40,000 for clearing up 200 tonnes. That is fundamentally unfair. This position was supported in a joint letter sent to the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on 19 March from Tim Bonner, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance; Gavin Lane, president of the Country Land and Business Association; Robyn Munt, vice-president of the National Farmers’ Union; Tim Passmore of the National Rural Crime Network; and John Read, founder of Clean Up Britain. That is a powerful and knowledgeable coalition, united in support of the approach set out in that amendment. However, I recognise that this is a complex issue, and indeed the Minister has, on...
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I do not need to repeat his excellent exposition of why Motion A1 is needed, although I stress that his original amendments were better, but we are where we are. It is important to note that this is not about preventing enforcement at all. We can all agree on the need to clamp down on the problem of anti-social behaviour. In a situation where fixed penalty notices for PSPOs are presently at record levels-they have gone up 32.5% in a couple of years-the public might believe that councils are doing their best to stamp down on anti-social behaviour. However, that would be misleading and misinformation, because, where we have private companies, they are paid a commission of that penalty income, which can be up to 80% to 90% of the fine paid. That gives them a direct incentive to issue as many penalties as possible. Motion A1 tries to ensure that we protect the public from unscrupulous incentivised enforcement agencies, which I think are corrupt. The main thing-if I can appeal to the Government-is that this does not actually tackle anti-social behaviour at all. If you live in an area with a private company, you might think that because everyone is being fined then the council are doing something about anti-social behaviour, but that is not true. I stress that those of us who support Motion A1 want to tackle anti-social behaviour and want a fair and just enforcement regime, but do not think that the private companies employed...
My Lords, I will respond to the amendments in this group on waste crime and fly-tipping. As we know, nearly one-fifth of all our waste ends up in the hands of criminals. The rising number of mega tips and the speed at which they are now appearing show the increasingly sophisticated nature of criminal networks and that they are operating with impunity, making vast profits at little risk. That causes direct costs to our economy of more than £1 billion annually, with devastating effects on the environment, communities and individuals. Since our last debate, as the Minister mentioned, the Government have published their 10-point plan on waste crime. More must be done, but I record my thanks to the Minister and the Government, because this is a very welcome step forward. We support the amendments before us, but none alone would shift the dial on this problem. Amendment 6, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, rightly seeks to make the polluter, not the landowner or the community, liable for clean-up costs. The Commons rejected this on the grounds that sufficient powers already exist. However, with 1.26 million fly-tipping incidents recorded in 2024-25, an increase of 9%, any conversation with any landowner or farmer in this country would show that the powers we have now are not adequate. The “polluter pays” principle remains unmet and clean-up costs can reach tens of thousands of pounds, which is simply bankrupting many individuals. In a similar vein, Amendment 12 would...
My Lords, Motions C, D and E relate to the several amendments on fly-tipping the Conservatives tabled on Report. I thank the Government for their amendment on points on licences for fly-tipping offences. Although our previous arguments in support of this policy were opposed by the Government, I welcome their Amendments 10A and 10B, even if it has taken us some time to get to this point. I also thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for his Amendment 12. We on these Benches wholly agree with the principle that it should be the responsibility of and the burden on the offenders who fly-tip to clean up the waste they deposit. I was disappointed to see the Government tabling Amendment D opposing the amendment that provides police the powers to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping offences. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out on Report that this is a business. That is why we need to disrupt the business model by confiscating the means to conduct this criminality. I simply cannot understand why the Government remain reluctant to take firm and decisive action on fly-tipping. They were reluctant to impose penalty points for the offence until they were defeated on Report. It is deeply disappointing that it is their intention to resist my amendment which would put into statute powers for the police to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping. If the Government oppose my Motion D1, I will test the opinion of the House. On the issue of knife crime, Amendment 15 increased the maximum...
I am grateful for the contributions that have been made in response to this group of amendments, both those in lieu from the Government and the amendments tabled by Members here today. I stress that the Government agree with the sentiments behind the amendments in this group. On Amendments 2D and 2E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I assure the noble Lord that while the amendments say that the statutory guidance “may” include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices, it is our firm intention to issue such guidance. Indeed, I will be happy to share a copy of the guidance in draft form with the noble Lord at an appropriate time when it is ready. The issue of fly-tipping has permeated through the discussions we have had in the last half an hour or so and I understand the strength of feeling on all sides of your Lordships’ House. That is why we have tabled the amendments in lieu to introduce penalty points for fly-tippers and I emphasise again to noble Lords that, in relation to Amendments 6 to 11, local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping, and courts can already impose cost orders on those convicted of fly-tipping. I should add, if I may, that Defra, with the support of the Home Office, is going to explore how the Environment Agency’s powers to address waste crime can be bolstered. We are going to consider how additional measures within the Police and Criminal...
My Lords, during the passage of this Bill, I have greatly admired the Minister’s geniality and stamina, but, sadly, this is not always matched by his delivery. I am afraid that the Government’s current approach really does not cut the mustard, and a number of mixed metaphors occur in the circumstances. The Minister said that they have a “firm intention”, but that is something of a pig in a poke and I will be asking the Government, as we proceed, to show rather more leg in this legislation, so with apologies for the metaphors, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Motion A, as amended, agreed.
Motion B
Moved by That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
6A: Because the courts already have sufficient powers to impose a compensation order to meet clean-up costs on persons convicted of offences under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1991.
Motion C
Moved by That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 10A and 10B in lieu.
10A: Page 18, line 14, at end insert the following new Clause- “Fly-tipping: penalty points on driving record (1) In Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (other offences for which penalty points are available), at the end insert- “An offence under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (unauthorised disposal of waste) committed by the driver of a motor vehicle used in or for the purposes of the commission of the offence. Discretionary Obligatory 3-9” (2) The amendment made by subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an offence committed before that subsection comes into force.”
10B: Page 230, line 37, at end insert- “(za) section ( Fly-tipping: penalty points on driving record );”
Motions B and C agreed.
Motion D
Moved by That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
11A: Because the police and local authorities already have sufficient powers to search and seize vehicles used in connection with the commission of offences under section 33 of the Environmental Protection
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Moved by leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 11.”
My Lords, fly-tipping is a scourge on our society. We on these Benches recognise it, the public recognises it and landowners recognise it. We consider that the addition of vehicle seizure is an important one, so I beg to move Motion D1 and test the opinion of the House.
Motion E
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.
12A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motions E and F. With the leave of the House, I beg to move.
Motion E agreed.
Motion F
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 15 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 15A in lieu.
15A: Page 31, line 16, leave out “4” and insert “7”
Motion F agreed.
Motion G
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 256 and 257 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 257A and 257B in lieu.
257A: Page 99, line 24, at end insert the following new Clause- “Taking down intimate image content (1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows. (2) In section 10 (regulated user-to-user services: safety duties about illegal content) after subsection (3) insert- “(3A) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to take down- (a) content in relation to which an intimate image content report is made to the provider (see section 20A(2)), and (b) any other content identified by the provider as the same, or substantially the same, as that content, as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours, after the provider receives the report (unless subsection (3B) applies). (3B) This subsection applies if the provider considers that- (a) the content is not intimate image content, or (b) the person making the report is not- (i) the subject of the content, or (ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf.” (3) After section 20 (duty about content reporting) insert- “20A Reporting of intimate image content (1) The duty in section 20(2) includes a duty to operate a service using systems and processes that allow users and affected persons to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider. (2) An “intimate image content report” is a report which- (a) declares that content present on the service is intimate image content, (b) declares that the report is made by- (i) the subject of the content, or (ii) a person acting on...
257B: Page 99, line 24, at end insert the following new Clause- “Taking down intimate image content: consequential amendments (1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows. (2) In section 10 (regulated user-to-user services: safety duties about illegal content)- (a) in subsection (4) for “and (3)” substitute “to (3A)”; (b) in subsection (5)- (i) the words from “each paragraph” to the end become paragraph (a); (ii) at the end of that paragraph insert “, and (b) subsection (3A).”; (c) in subsection (7) for “subsection (2) or (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3A)”. (3) In section 23(5) (record-keeping and review duties) for “or (3)”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, (3) or (3A)”. (4) In section 27 (regulated search services: safety duties about illegal content)- (a) in subsection (4) for “and (3)” substitute “to (3A)”; (b) in subsection (7) for “subsection (2) or (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3A)”. (5) In section 34(5) (record-keeping and review duties), for “or (3)”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, (3) or (3A)”. (6) In section 59(14) (meaning of “illegal content” etc) for “and “priority illegal content”” substitute “, “priority illegal content” and “intimate image content””. (7) In section 71(2)(a)(i) (duty not to take down content except in accordance with terms of service: exceptions) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”. (8) In section 136(5) (confirmation decisions: proactive technology)- (a) in paragraph (a) for “or (3)”...
My Lords, in moving Motion G, I will also speak to Motions H, J, K, L, M, W and Y. I will start with the collection of intimate image abuse-related amendments in lieu. These all flow from the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, on Report. I say once more, with feeling, that I thank the noble Baroness for engaging with us over the past few weeks, which she has done extensively. It is in the best traditions of your Lordships’ House. We have worked together to ensure-I hope-that the Government have taken the right direction with these amendments across the piece. I turn to the take-down powers. Amendments 257A and 257B in Motion G build on the Government’s existing provisions. They do that by making failure to comply with an Ofcom enforcement decision relating to the new take-down duties a criminal offence. That means that senior executives of the service could be personally criminally liable for the failure. Alongside that enforcement approach, the Government are also strengthening safeguards against malicious reporting. We will bring forward regulations that will enable Ofcom to scrutinise both the speed of intimate image removals and how clearly and effectively platforms enable users to report such content. We are determined that victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse should see swift action, clear routes for redress and transparency from platforms. Therefore, in addition to these amendments, the Government are working with Ofcom to...
Finally, I turn to the abortion pardon and deletion in Motion W. The Government remain neutral on the substance of Clause 191 and Lords Amendment 361, but we have a duty to ensure that the law is operationally and legally workable. Amendments 361A to 361E will ensure that the duty to remove certain details from the records of women previously convicted of, cautioned for, arrested for or investigated on suspicion of abortion offences in relation to their own pregnancies-some of which date back to at least 1861-is operationally workable. It will require relevant data controllers, including the police and HMCTS, to delete these details from relevant official records of which they are aware and, as far as is reasonably practical, to make the decision. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
Moved by
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 257C, 257D, 257E and 257F as amendments to Amendment 257A.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions H and J. In doing so, I declare an interest, as having received pro bono legal advice on intimate image abuse from Mishcon de Reya. Amendments 257C and 257E in Motion G1 seek to ensure that internet services record, collect and publish data on the proportion of content they remove in 48 hours. I am aware that Ofcom has transparency powers under Schedule 8 to the Online Safety Act to gather information from internet services and that these regulations can be developed further. I am keen that the Government address any remaining gaps to ensure that all internet services that Ofcom defines as being high-risk or medium-risk of sharing intimate image content, as Ofcom will outline in its hashing measures, are required to publicly report their takedown times. I was disappointed by the Government’s removal of the fine per day per account of £39,000 that noble Lords so overwhelmingly voted to support. While I acknowledge that Ofcom has the power to issue daily fines, I still believe that we must be more agile in our approach to ensure that no victim is left behind. I am keen to return to this issue in future legislation, when we have further information on how regularly Ofcom is issuing daily fines in response to this. I am very grateful for the vast movement the Government have made by introducing their amendments under Motions G, H and J in response to my amendments at Report and Third Reading. We have made huge progress on the deletion of...
Very briefly, I welcome the Government’s Amendments 263A to 263G, 264A to 264F, and 265A to 265C. I put on record how grateful I am to the Government for the constructive conversations that we have had to get to this place. I also put on record my view that these amendments mark the beginning of a new era in the regulation of harmful pornographic content in this country. I welcome the Government’s commitment to act swiftly on the outcome of this work, particularly the online/offline parity sprint, and I assure Ministers that we will hold them to account on that commitment. In reaching this point, I also echo my noble friend Lady Owen’s point about thanking the cross-party and team effort there has been to get to this point. In particular, I thank my team, Gemma Kelly in particular, and Clare McGlynn, who have been at the helm of these reforms and pushing this work through for a lot longer than I have. I quickly turn to Amendments 264A and 264F, which address duties on pornographic providers to ensure age and consent verification, and enable performers to withdraw consent. This process must not be about revisiting whether action is needed. The case for action has been made conclusively and the focus must now be on effective delivery, enforcement and regulation. Although I am wary of “review”-allergic to it, even-I accept that a tightly timed statutory process with a clear duty to return to Parliament and the power to act strikes the right balance between urgency and rigour....
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the work that she has done on the issues that have been raised in the House about pornography and online harm. I add my thanks to my noble friend and her honourable friend the Minister in the other place for the very competent amendment they have made in Motion W to the pardons on the decriminalisation of abortion.
My Lords, thanks should certainly be paid to the Minister for all her hard work in this area, but the House will also wish to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin and Lady Owen, for their hard work over many years, their persistence, their judgment and their success in a very difficult area of law and society. I suggest that although this House is very often criticised-sometimes with justification-the debates on this issue and the way we have moved the law forward with the very great assistance of the Government show this House working at its very best.
My Lords, both noble Baronesses have spoken extremely eloquently today. It has been a privilege, from these Benches, to be part of the cross-party coalition for both their campaigns. I pay tribute, as others have, to both of them for their persistence throughout the passage of the Bill. In particular, these Benches have strongly supported the comprehensive framework introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, who has tirelessly campaigned on non-consensual intimate images, and we welcome-this is a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt-the Government’s concessions today under Motion G, in particular the move to place the 48-hour take-down requirement firmly into the Bill. We also welcome the Government’s decision in Motion J to include a statutory non-consensual intimate image register. As the South West Grid for Learning and the Revenge Porn Helpline rightly stated this week, embedding this register in law is a “transformative move” and a “hugely important step forward” in protecting victims at scale. Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this. However, although we celebrate this progress, the Government’s amendments will continue to require scrutiny in two crucial areas. First, on the new statutory NCII register, the devil will be in the detail. As the SWGfL has highlighted, key questions remain around how this register will be operated in practice and, most importantly, enforced. Secondly, the Government’s amendments on image deletion...
We cannot let the best be the enemy of the good. Let us make no mistake: these amendments to the Bill are a huge victory for the noble Baroness and all victims and campaigners in this field. I very much hope that the noble Baroness receives the assurances from the Government that she is seeking.
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Owen and Lady Bertin, on behalf of all noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, for their sustained efforts on these important issues. Their work and amendments will surely help to protect women and girls, whether through legislation on the taking down of intimate images or greater protection for age verification in pornographic content. I also thank the Government, particularly the Minister, for their continued engagement on these topics. These Motions are evidence of what this Chamber can achieve through collaborative and productive dialogue.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions not just today but during the passage of this Bill, and for the thoughtful and constructive way in which everybody has engaged with these issues. I shall be brief and address only one or two of the points that were raised. The first is in relation to Motion G1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. Motion G strengthens accountability where platforms fail to comply with their duties to deal with non-consensual intimate images. Regarding Motion G1, we recognise the noble Baroness’s concern and want transparency beyond just the biggest platforms. That is why every regulated user-to-user service must be clear with users about how it is meeting the 48-hour takedown duty, while Ofcom can require detailed reporting where it will make the biggest difference. Through Schedule 8, the Online Safety Act allows Ofcom to require detailed information about how providers identify, deal with and take down illegal content. We will amend this through regulations to make it clear that these requirements cover compliance with the new NCII takedown duty, including average takedown times. Turning to the verification of age, again the Government recognise the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. We are not intentionally delaying these important changes for the sake of it. I think that the noble Baroness recognises that we all agree that this issue is important, but we cannot shy away from the complex legal and practical...
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
I thank the Minister for her response and am assured by it. I beg leave to withdraw Motion G1.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G) withdrawn.
Motion G agreed.
Motion H
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 258 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 258A in lieu.
258A: Page 99, line 24, at end insert the following new Clause- “Image deletion orders (1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows. (2) In Part 7 (financial orders and orders relating to property), after Chapter 4 insert- “CHAPTER 4A IMAGE DELETION ORDERS 161ZA Image deletion orders (1) In this code “image deletion order” means an order under this Chapter which- (a) is made in respect of an offender for an offence, (b) relates to a photograph or film which is in the offender’s possession or under their control, and (c) requires the offender to take steps specified in the order to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the photograph or film is put beyond use. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), a photograph or film is put beyond use if- (a) in the case of a physical item, it is destroyed; (b) in the case of data stored by any means by or on behalf of the offender, it is deleted; (c) in the case of content on an internet service, it is removed from the service or permanently hidden. (3) For the purposes of this section- (a) something is “deleted” if it is irrecoverable; (b) “content”, in relation to an internet service, has the meaning given by section 236(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023; (c) “internet service” has the meaning given by section 228 of that Act (and section 204(1) of that Act applies). 161ZB Image deletion orders: availability (1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual...
Motion J
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 259 and 260 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 260A to 260D in lieu. That this House do not insist on its Amendments 259 and 260 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 260A to 260D in lieu.
260A: Page 99, line 24, at end insert the following new Clause- “Intimate image material: reporting and registration Schedule ( Intimate image material: reporting and registration ) makes provision about the reporting and registration of intimate image material.”
260B: Page 228, line 38, after “81,” insert “Schedule ( Intimate image material: reporting and registration ) (except for paragraph 1),”
260C: Page 230, line 13, at end insert- “(ja) section ( Intimate image material reporting and registration ) and Schedule ( Intimate image material: reporting and registration );”
260D: Page 280, line 23, at end insert the following new Schedule- “SCHEDULE INTIMATE IMAGE MATERIAL: REPORTING AND REGISTRATION PART 1 TRUSTED FLAGGERS Duty to designate trusted flagger 1 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate persons as suitable to make intimate image reports to- (a) providers of internet services, and (b) providers of internet access services, for the purpose of assisting the providers to make judgments about whether content is intimate image content. (2) An intimate image report is - (a) a report that- (i) content identified in the report is a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, a person (P) in an intimate state, and (ii) P, or a person acting on P’s behalf, has informed the person making the report that P does not consent to the sharing of the photograph or film, or (b) a report of information provided to the person making the report by virtue of regulations under paragraph 2. (3) The Secretary of State must exercise the power in sub-paragraph (1) to designate at least one person. (4) The duty in sub-paragraph (3) ceases to apply if Secretary of State makes regulations under paragraph 3. (5) Terms used in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and in section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 have the same meaning in sub-paragraph (2)(a) as in section 66B. Duties to report intimate image content to trusted flagger 2 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Online Safety Act 2023 for, or in connection with, the imposition...
Motion K
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 263A to 263G.
263A: Line 20, leave out from “think” to the end of line 22 and insert “what is set out in subsection (1A) or (1B). (1A) That A and B were related, or pretending to be related, such that A was related to B as parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. (1B) That- (a) A and B were related or had been related, or were pretending to be related or to have been related, such that A was or had been related to B as step-parent, step-child, stepbrother, stepsister, foster parent or foster child, and (b) at least one of A and B was, or was pretending to be, under 18.”
263B: Line 37, leave out inserted paragraph (b)
263C: Line 38, at end insert- “(4A) For the purpose of subsections (1A) and (1B), A and B are not to be taken as pretending to be related if it is fanciful that they actually were or had been related in the way pretended. (4B) In subsection (1A)- (a) “parent” includes an adoptive parent; (b) “child” includes an adopted person within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002; (c) “uncle” means the brother of a person’s parent, and “aunt” has a corresponding meaning; (d) “nephew” means the child of a person’s brother or sister, and “niece” has a corresponding meaning. (4C) In subsection (1B), “step-parent”, “stepbrother”, “stepsister” and “foster parent” have the meanings given by section 27(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and “step-child” and “foster child” have corresponding meanings.”
263D: Line 57, leave out “[subsection removed]” and insert “(4B)(a) or (b)”
263E: Line 79, leave out inserted sub-paragraph (iii) and insert- “(iii) the person was not or had not been related to person B or A (as the case may be) in a way mentioned in section 67E(1A) or (1B).”
263F: Line 96, leave out inserted sub-paragraph (iii) and insert- “(iii) the person was not or had not been related to person B or A (as the case may be) in a way mentioned in section 67E(1A) or (1B), and”
263G: Line 137, after “relatives)” insert “in relation to an image showing a person under 18”
Motion L
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 264 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 264A to 264F in lieu.
264A: Page 99, line 24, at end insert the following new Clause- “Online pornography (age and consent verification): duty to review and report (1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the role of providers of internet services in- (a) verifying the age of individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on their services; (b) verifying whether individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on their services consent to the content being published or displayed. (2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a report of the review. (3) The Secretary of State must comply with subsections (1) and (2) before the end of the 12 month period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. (4) In this section the following terms have the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023- “internet service” (see section 228 of that Act); “pornographic content” (see section 236 of that Act); “provider”, in relation to an internet service of any kind (see section 226 of that Act).”
264B: Page 99, line 24, at end insert the following new Clause- “Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to amend Online Safety Act 2023 (1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows. (2) After section 217 insert- “Power to amend Act: pornographic content 217A Power to impose duties about pornographic content (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Act for or in connection with the imposition, on providers of regulated services or regulated services of a particular kind, of duties relating to- (a) verifying the age of individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on those regulated services (“age verification duties”); (b) verifying whether individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on those regulated services consent to the content being published or displayed (“consent verification duties”). (2) Age verification duties and consent verification duties may include duties relating to the systems and processes used to operate regulated services, or regulated services of a particular kind. (3) Consent verification duties may include duties relating to cases where consent previously given is withdrawn. (4) Regulations under this section may make provision requiring OFCOM to issue guidance to providers of regulated services, or regulated services of a particular kind, to assist them to comply with age verification duties and consent verification duties. (5) The provisions of this Act that...
264C: 264C Page 99, line 24, at end insert the following new Clause- “Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to make regulations (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with the imposition on providers of specified internet services of duties relating to- (a) verifying the age of individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on those internet services (“age verification duties”); (b) verifying whether individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on those internet services consent to the content being published or displayed (“consent verification duties”). (2) Age verification duties and consent verification duties may include duties relating to the systems and processes used to operate specified internet services. (3) Consent verification duties may include duties relating to cases where consent previously given is withdrawn. (4) The regulations may confer functions on- (a) a body established by the regulations, or (b) another body specified in the regulations, (“the regulator”). (5) The regulations may make provision- (a) establishing or modifying the constitutional arrangements of the regulator; (b) establishing or modifying the funding arrangements of the regulator. (6) The functions which may be conferred on the regulator include- (a) powers to, by notice, require providers of specified internet services to provide information to the regulator; (b) powers, in...
264D: Page 228, line 38, after “81,” insert “(Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to make regulations) ,”
264E: Page 230, line 13, at end insert- “(ja) sections “( Online pornography (age and consent verification): duty to review and report ), ( Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to amend Online Safety Act 2023 ), ( Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to make regulations ),””
264F: Page 232, line 7, at end insert- “(ba) sections “( Online pornography (age and consent verification): duty to review and report ), ( Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to amend Online Safety Act 2023 ), ( Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to make regulations ),””
Motion M
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 265 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 265A to 265C in lieu with the following amendments to Commons Amendment 265A-
265A: Page 99, line 24, at end insert the following new Clause- “Pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16 (1) After section 67G of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 insert- “67H Possession or publication of pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16 (1) It is an offence for a person (P) to be in possession of an image if- (a) the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63, (b) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person (A) engaged in sexual activity with another person (B), (c) a reasonable person looking at the image would think that A and B were real, and (d) a reasonable person- (i) looking at the image, and (ii) taking into account any sound or information associated with the image, would think that at least one of A or B was, or was pretending to be, under 16. (2) It is an offence for a person to publish an image of the kind mentioned in subsection (1). (3) Publishing an image includes giving or making it available to another person by any means. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d)- (a) the reference to sound or information associated with the image is- (i) when subsection (1)(d) applies for the purpose of an offence under subsection (1), to sound, or information, associated with the image that is in P’s possession, and (ii) when subsection (1)(d) applies for the purpose of an offence under subsection (2), to sound, or information, associated with the image that the person in subsection...
265B : 265B Page 230, line 13, at end insert- “(ja) section (Pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16)(5);”
265C: Page 230, line 30, after “(4),” insert “(Pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16 )(2) and (3),”
265D : Line 8, leave out from beginning to “and” in line 11
265E : Line 16, leave out from “that” to end of line 17 and insert “each of the conditions in subsection (1A) was met. (1A) The conditions are- (a) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person (A) engaged in sexual activity with another person (B), (b) A and B are real, and (c) at least one of A or B is, or is pretending to be, under 16. (1B) A person is not to be taken as pretending to be under 16 if it is fanciful that they are actually under 16 in the way pretended.”
265F : Line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 33
265G : Line 55, leave out “(1)(b)” and insert “(1A)(a)”
265H : Line 70, leave out “(1)(b)” and insert “(1A)(a)”
Motions H to M agreed.
Motion N
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 311, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 311A.
311A: Because it is premature to consider conferring powers on the Secretary of State to designate extreme criminal protests groups until the Secretary of State for the Home Department has received and considered the report by Lord Macdonald of River Glaven following his review of public order and hate crime legislation.
My Lords, in moving Motion N, I will also speak to Motions S, T, U and X. Amendment 311, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, seeks to introduce a proscription regime for extreme criminal protest groups. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the amendment with the noble Lord-before Report, during Report formally and informally since then. I understand the concerns that led to the adoption of Amendment 311. However, it remains the case that the Government cannot support this amendment. The amendment aims to minimise the risk of Palestine Action-style sign holders being arrested to challenge a proscription decision. I want to inform the House of the views of Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who has noted that supporters will still seek arrest to challenge the regime and the same disproportionality arguments would arise because the new offences closely mirror-and in some respects, go beyond-those under terrorism legislation. There is a broader risk, which again I have shared with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, privately, and which has been identified by the independent reviewer, that the proscription regime is undermined by the proposal and the threshold for proscription will naturally increase if there is an alternative designation available. The Government may be pressured not to proscribe terrorist organisations and instead pursue a less forceful and less effective measure. The designation test set out in the amendment is unclear,...
Finally, on Motions U and X and Amendment 359, noble Lords will know that it is a long-standing position, shared across the political spectrum, that the Government of the day do not comment on intelligence and security issues, including whether certain groups are being considered for proscription. I argue that this amendment would violate that important principle and unnecessarily bind the Government’s hands. We continue to take strong action to hold the Iranian regime to account. We have sanctioned 550 Iranian individuals and entities, including members of the IRGC, as well as placing Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. We will also legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to introduce a proscription-like power to address the threat of hostile activity posed by state and state-linked bodies, following the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s review. I cannot accept the proposals as originally planned, and I hope that they will not be moved today. Perhaps that is vain hope rather than expectation, but at least I have tried to put that on the record. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 311.”
My Lords, I was disappointed that the Government directed their Members in the Commons to vote down Amendment 311, which would have created a limited power for the Government to designate as an extreme criminal protest group organisations that attempt to influence public policy through a limited number of offences, including criminal damage, without labelling them as terrorists or criminalising simple expressions of support, such as holding up signs. I am grateful for the time that the Minister has taken to meet me directly on this matter on a number of occasions, as he said. He has characterised the Government’s objections in two areas. The first is the observations made by the Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, which were published on 31 March and the second is the review of public order legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which he assures me is due to report shortly. I shall deal with both those issues briefly. Jonathan Hall makes important points that we should all reflect on. He summarises his objections as: first, that the power potentially overlaps with terrorism proscription, but the relationship is unclear; secondly, that the existence of the new power will be used to undermine terrorist proscription; and, thirdly, that it is doubtful whether new offences are suitable for groups operating below the national security threshold. I shall take these three objections in turn. On the first point, if that...
My Lords, Motion S1 is in my name. On Report, your Lordships supported Amendment 342 for one overriding reason: to make sure that the tragic failures of the past are not built into future law. Three days ago, the Fulford report into the Southport tragedy was published. I had hoped that it might lead to a change of heart by the Government, but, regrettably, it has not. Fulford’s findings are stark: the tragedy was not caused by a lack of powers but by systemic failure. Risk information was mishandled, lost or watered down as it passed between agencies. No one was responsible for pulling the full picture together. Referrals went unanswered. Officers often acted without knowing what help or interventions were available, and some decisions were taken outside the bounds of what could reasonably be expected because the system had failed them. These failures cost lives. Fulford makes it clear that, unless the way agencies share and account for risk is strengthened, such failures will happen again. These were not one-off mistakes; they were the result of weak information management and an absence of co-ordinated leadership. The danger was not properly recognised because no one joined up the information and acted upon it. That is precisely the gap which my amendment is designed to close. The Government tell us that this should be left to guidance. They say that a statutory duty for multi-agency consultation would make the law too rigid and prevent judges exercising discretion. Surely...
Youth diversion orders are designed to deal with young people who pose a risk to others. They aim to provide a structured and preventive response, not simply punishment but guidance and support. To work effectively, they rely on a full understanding of the young person’s circumstances, their home life, their mental health, their school situation and any contact with social services. Without that picture, the court cannot make an order that truly fits the child’s needs or the level of risk that they pose. That is why a statutory duty to consult all relevant agencies is absolutely essential.
Last year, the number of under-17s arrested for terrorism-related offences reached a record high. Many of these young people have very complex lives; they may be both vulnerable and dangerous. Even the professionals in MI5, those at the heart of our national security, acknowledge that only a complete, joined-up view of a young person’s world can reveal both the risk and the remedy. We must never forget the human cost. Rhianan Rudd, a 16 year-old, was radicalised online, investigated and charged with terrorism offences that were later dropped. Just five months later, she took her own life. We must learn from such cases.
The duty proposed in Amendment 342 balances safeguarding and public protection. It allows the system to see the full picture and act wisely upon it. Putting the right information before the court will ensure that youth diversion orders are truly tailored to each young person and will prevent the kind of missed opportunity that we saw in Southport.
I urge the House to insist on this amendment, which would retain the statutory protections that we previously agreed. To disregard the lessons of Southport now that the Fulford report is before us would be a profound dereliction of duty. We are legislating to prevent future tragedies; we must not pass a law that risks repeating them.
My Lords, I will say a few words in relation to Motion N1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on extreme criminal protest groups. The House should be thanking the noble Lord for his enormous efforts and dedication in relation to this important subject over many years. There is no doubt about the gravity of the mischief that the United Kingdom is facing. There are extreme criminal protest groups and, sadly, people who believe that the way to advance their political views-to which they are perfectly entitled-about Gaza, Israel and other subjects is impermissibly to use violence against people and to smash up property. It is disgraceful, and the law needs to deal with these people powerfully and effectively. It is symptomatic of a malaise in our society: we saw this the other night at Finchley Reform Synagogue, and with the setting fire to ambulances in north-west London. It is all disgraceful, and every effort must be made by the law to ensure that this type of action can be addressed and remedied. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Walney, in his amendment on Report, which has now been considered by the Commons. However, I understand-and hope it is the case-that he will not be pressing his Motion today to divide the House. I am sure that is right, and it is right for the reasons the Minister gave. Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has made some powerful points that need to be considered carefully in relation to how we deal with extreme...
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee
My Lords, I sincerely apologise to the Minister for not being here for the beginning of his speech. He will be glad to know my athleticism, as I was running down the corridor, allowed for me to be in time for his reference to Motion T, which I will speak to briefly. It deals with the glorification of terrorism. I thank all those who supported the amendment on Report. I believe that, in doing so, we have collectively underlined the importance of dealing with this issue, which is becoming a gateway to extremism and, worse, terrorism. I thank the Minister in particular for his engagement and that of his officials, and for the constructive way in which they have engaged around the whole issue. As a result, I will not push Motion T1 to a vote today but look forward to engaging in the review that will be put in place after the Bill becomes law. I particularly welcome the opportunity to engage around the review’s terms of reference. I hope it will take the approach of engaging widely to ascertain how a narrative is taking hold in our society here in the UK that it is somehow acceptable to glorify terrorism to effect change, and look at the real damage it can cause to society. I also hope the review will take note of the fact that there has not been a single prosecution in Northern Ireland, despite the obvious ongoing glorification of terrorism there. I know that the Minister, and many in this House, recognise that this is a growing issue. If there is any doubt that it is very much...
My Lords, I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, throughout, and I continue to do so. I also thank the Minister for the time he has taken to engage on the issue and for recognising that this is a serious and pertinent problem. The glorification of terrorism has real consequences, as we have been hearing. It contributes to the normalisation of extremism, and that in turn makes us all less safe. I particularly welcome the Minister’s agreement to commission a review by Jonathan Hall KC. He seems to be rather busy and to have a lot on his plate, and I hope that this is a quick look at something. It is important that the review looks at all forms of glorification, including the very significant rise we have seen since 7 October 2023. We saw, for instance, young people in the days after 7 October wearing images of parachutes on their backs, imagery clearly associated with those Hamas terrorists who entered Israel and carried out the brutal attacks on civilians. That kind of conduct is not incidental; it reflects a climate in which acts of terror are being referenced in ways that risk admiration or endorsement.
We were also reminded very starkly, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, of that real-world consequence of this climate. It is not just that there is a nursery at the Finchley Reform Synagogue and it is a community centre, it is in the centre of a massive Jewish population. I have five grandchildren who live within yards of that synagogue, and that suspected arson attack. These incidents underline the seriousness of this moment; when the lines around terrorism are blurred and violence is framed in ways that risk justification or glorification, it fosters an environment in which hatred is emboldened and communities are feeling increasingly unsafe, as the Jewish community so acutely experiences and, sadly, continues to endure. This amendment speaks to an important principle that we must be vigilant in confronting extremism in all its forms, and unequivocal that glorification of terrorism has no place in our society.
I follow the noble Baroness by apologising to your Lordships that I was not here for the commencement of the Minister’s speech, but I heard the great majority of what he said, and I was also present for the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick. I want to emphasise my considerable support for subsection (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 311, which deals directly with the concerns that I expressed in Committee and on Report. I am deeply troubled by the fact that people who are expressing support for Palestine Action in the streets of London are in fact using shorthand simply to protest at what they think is going wrong in Gaza and the West Bank. I do not think that those people should be charged with or arrested for terrorism. The proposed new subsection deals directly with that, and I think it is a very useful way forward. I very much hope that in the review, or if any amendment to the Terrorism Act is brought forward, the provisions of that subsection would be incorporated into any change of law, because that subsection makes it plain that, unless somebody is doing something which is really in furtherance of a criminal offence, they are not to be treated as a terrorist simply for demonstrating.
Before we have any other contributions, I remind your Lordships that there is a very clear rule here, that if one is not present in the Chamber for the beginning of a group it is unacceptable to participate. Apologising and then proceeding is not the way that we do it.
My Lords, just before we progress, while the noble Lord on the Woolsack is absolutely right in what he has just argued, I have just witnessed three Members of this House not complying with the Companion . While my noble friend was wrong to do what he did, it is not for the noble Lord on the Woolsack to point out failures of procedure-it is for the Government Chief Whip or Deputy Chief Whip, who is present, to do so. If we all start not meeting our own individual responsibilities or discharging them properly, none of us is going to be complying with the Companion .
My Lords, I feel as though I have entered into a slightly surreal moment there, but I thank noble Lords for that clarification. I speak very briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is trying to do-having opposed it at an earlier stage, which is why I thought it was important to speak. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, were very helpful in outlining what we are confronting and what we face at the present time. I just raise some queries for the Minister to help me understand. One point that seems to have been made is that, if the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, were accepted, it would mean raising the threshold for proscribing an organisation. That did not make any sense to me because I would hope that, as legislators, we could make the finer distinctions between thresholds. We need some nuance here; otherwise, I fear that we will use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, which is what I fear has happened in relation to Palestine Action, potentially. The notion of an extreme criminal protest group is a new phenomenon and therefore one that requires new thinking. The intimidation and criminal damage are not spontaneous; they are organised by organisations that proclaim that they are organisations. That needs to be tackled but they are not terrorist organisations. The point about supporting Palestine Action, which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained very well in terms of holding up a sign,...
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord on the Woolsack about the inadequacy of an apology for late arrival in the Chamber, and I am bound to say it is not something I have ever had to make before, but I was late into the Chamber today and I apologise to the House, after others, that I was late for the start of this group. I will speak briefly, if the House permits. The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, to permit designation-
I stress that the Deputy Speaker made it clear that people who arrive late for the debate are not allowed to speak. I think it is difficult for the noble Lord, having heard the explanation and the discussion, to stand up and speak. I am sorry.
We are a self-governing House. If it is the will of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, speak briefly from the Front Bench, I suggest that we should hear him.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I hope I will be permitted to speak briefly. I have followed the arguments on all these matters throughout these proceedings.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, my understanding of the Companion is that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is correct in what he said: if it wishes, the House can set aside the Companion and hear from a noble Lord, but in that case a Motion has to be put and voted upon.
My Lords, I do not know whether this is helpful in any way-probably not-but as the proposer of the Motion, I really would appreciate hearing what the noble Lord on the Front Bench has to say on it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, on that basis, unless I am stopped, I will speak briefly. On the first Motion I was going to address, that of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, we have a great deal of sympathy for his proposal. Indeed, we would go so far as to say that it seems like a good idea. Its principal appeal is that it would permit a step falling short of proscription of an organisation, which would not involve anyone peacefully expressing support for that organisation at a demonstration or a protest being arrested, charged and possibly convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act. In that, I fully agree with the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, does not intend to press his Motion to a vote, and we on these Benches think he is right in that because our reservations remain. We abstained on Report, and our principal reason for doing so was that the amendment leaves in place the present law on proscription and does not oblige the Government to make a designation of a group as an extreme criminal protest group where the existing threshold for proscription is met, so we would be left with the position that the Government would have two alternative designations as options: one with consequences that we consider to be undesirable, far too severe and damaging; and the other with far less serious consequences. We think that risks introducing an element of muddle and a lack of clarity into this...
On Motion T1 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, we see no reason to change our position of supporting the amendment. We understand why she is not voting; it is right to await the further review. Nevertheless, her arguments are well put and persuasive. For my part, I am not sure that the Government are right to say that the Commons reason was correct and that public discourse around historical acts of terrorism would be criminalised by the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, limited her amendment on Report-largely in response to something I said in Committee-to those who glorify the commission of terrorist offences by presently proscribed organisations. I am not sure that public discourse around historic acts of terrorism would be criminalised by the provision proposed by the noble Baroness. I, and no doubt others in this House, have been extremely impressed by the way in which both the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, were united in making the point that glorification of terrorism affects communities across the United Kingdom, and that is the danger that her Motion seeks to address.
Finally, I come to the Motion relating to the IRGC to be moved by the Conservative Front Bench. We support Motion U1 and agree with the Conservatives in insisting on this amendment. Not only has proscription of the IRGC been Liberal Democrat policy for a number of years but these Benches can see no sustainable argument why the Labour Government should refuse to proscribe the IRGC and associated organisations. We say that not only in the light of the Iranian regime’s appalling oppression and murder of thousands of protesters in January this year but in view of the character and actions of the IRGC generally and of its associated organisations. It is of no help to the Government to resist this amendment on the basis that the Government keep the issue of proscription under review anyway.
Nor is it an answer to say that the IRGC is a state-linked body undertaking hostile state activity against the UK. We can test that by asking this question: if the IRGC were not exercising power in Iran, would it be rightly regarded as a terrorist organisation, justifying its proscription? I suggest the answer must be yes. If that is so, why should the organisation escape proscription just because it has usurped and exercised de facto power in Iran since 1979? There is no justification for it.
Certainly, the British Government’s position, which we support, is that we oppose the war in Iran because it is illegal. Certainly, we take the view that the position taken by the US Administration is inconsistent, misconceived, and entirely and dangerously wrong. However, those are not legitimate reasons for voting in a way that appears to condone the behaviour of the Iranian IRGC-supported regime. We have plenty of good reasons for disagreeing with the United States on Iran. I do not see why, in this Parliament, we should refuse to take a step showing our position on the IRGC and its associated organisations. By doing so, we would further antagonise the US needlessly and for no good reason, when we have plenty of other reasons for disagreeing with the President of the United States and his Administration.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for returning with her amendment. I understand the Government are offering to include alternative interventions in youth diversion order guidance, but I agree with the noble Baroness that these considerations should be consistently applied to ensure proportionality. We therefore support the original measure. Motion U1, standing in my name, returns once again to the issue of proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. I am sure that the Minister will once again attempt to use the fact that the last Government did not proscribe the IRGC as a justification for this Government’s position, and I recognise that fact. But the international situation is radically different now from that when we left government. Before this war even started, it was clear that the Iranian regime was ramping up its aggressive activities. At home, it wilfully oversaw the murder of over 40,000 protestors. Overseas, it continued to extend its influence through its backing of terrorist cells. In the UK alone, in 2025, security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots. This threat has only been exacerbated following the outbreak of war. Just last month, an Iranian man suspected of being a regime spy was arrested for attempting to break into a nuclear naval base in Scotland. We have seen the streets of our capital city filled with regime apologists on so-called Al-Quds day, leading to 12 arrests and countless...
I am grateful for the discussion we have had to date on these matters. As I made clear in my opening remarks-for those who heard them, at least-the Government cannot accept Amendment 311 as drafted. I fully appreciate the work of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on these issues, but as I have set out to the House already, and as I set out to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in particular, the independent reviewer has made clear his view that this would undermine the existing proscription regime. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also recognised that, and I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this was the position. With the review of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, coming forward, it is right that this amendment not be accepted today. I particularly welcome the recognition of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, of that. That is not to undermine the arguments he has made, but we are where we are at the moment. On Amendment 359, I stress that both this and previous Governments do not comment on organisations that are being assessed for proscription. As I mentioned in my opening remarks-for those who heard them-we have sanctioned 550 Iranian individuals, including members of the IRGC, so we are holding the Iranian regime to account. We have also put them in the foreign influence registration scheme. If I may say so, I take objection to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that our not proscribing the IRGC somehow supports the Iranian regime-it does not. I will not accept...
My Lords, I thank everyone for their insight on and support for the principle behind this matter, which is that urgent action is needed. In the light of what has been said, I am reluctantly content to withdraw my Motion. In doing so, I will leave the Minister with two thoughts. First, this will not go away. I hope the Minister will take away the urgent need to deal with this matter and bring forward a solution-this debate has shown that that is possible-in order to address the concerns set out in this Chamber and outside it. Secondly, I hope he will agree to meet with me and others to look in the meantime at an array of protections for the affected businesses, in advance of any legislative change. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion NI withdrawn.
Motion N agreed.
Motion P
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 333 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 333A in lieu.
333A : Page 11, line 29, at end insert- “(5) After section 83 insert- “83A Power of Secretary of State to change maximum duration of closure orders (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Chapter so as to alter- (a) the maximum period that a closure order under section 80 may specify as the period for which access to the premises is prohibited; (b) the maximum period for which a closure order may be extended under section 82; (c) the maximum duration of a closure order extended under section 82. (2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes. (3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” (6) In section 182(2) (orders and regulations), after paragraph (b) insert- “(ba) regulations under section 83A,”.”
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion P. I beg to move.
Motion P agreed.
Motion Q
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendmentusb 334, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 334A.
334A: Because the amendment is unnecessary given Lords Amendment 332 and the findings and recommendations in the final report on non-crime hate incidents published by the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council on 31 March 2026.
My Lords, I beg to move.
Motion Q1 (as an amendment to Motion Q)
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 334.”
My Lords, I urge noble Lords to support Amendment 334 and declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. The Minister will tell noble Lords that the amendment is unnecessary because the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council have recommended the abolition of the non-crime hate incident regime and the Government have amended the Bill to repeal the statutory NCHI code of practice. However, we knew all this when we voted for the amendment on Report. The Minister stood where he is about to stand and said all this a few weeks ago. The amendment repealing the code of practice had already sailed through unopposed. He told us what was going to be in the joint report and, lo, that is what is in the joint report. This was all priced in when this House decided to vote for the amendment. Nothing has changed, so there is no reason why any noble Lords should change their minds about supporting it. I have already set out the case for the amendment, which I remind noble Lords was co-sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a Liberal Democrat, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, a former Metropolitan Police commissioner, so I will not waste your Lordships’ time by repeating those arguments, but I would just like to make a couple of points. The joint report, while welcome, has left some loose ends, such as: what will become of historic non-crime hate incidents sitting on police databases? Is there a risk that they will be disclosed in enhanced...
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, has set out his reasons for insisting on his Motion Q1, which would delete records that the police hold non-crime hate incidents in certain circumstances which he outlined, even when the police had a concern about the pattern of behaviour and that it might lead to a crime. I take issue with the comments that the noble Lord has made in that the whole Motion talks only about this very narrow area of what should be held and reviewed. The concerns that we have from these Benches are about the repetition of proposed new subsections (1) and (2), which say that non-crime hate incidents “must not be recognised as a category of incident by any police authority in the United Kingdom”, and that: “No police authority or police officer may record, retain or otherwise process any personal data relating to a NCHI”. Noble Lords will remember that we were lucky enough to have the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, with us after the College of Policing report was published, and he pointed out that there is a balance between free speech and the targeting of vulnerable people. Other noble Lords spoke movingly about this balance too, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, from her and her family’s own experience. So from these Benches, we were pleased when the Government laid their amendments on Report, which set out that balance between freedom of speech, which must be protected, and threats to vulnerable people. Their proposal to use anti-social...
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for returning to the important issue of NCHIs. Our position as a party has not changed. With 60,000 annual police hours and a quarter of a million cases recorded, which is over 65 a day, this is the extent to which our police forces are having to go to record non-crimes. The Government have stated that they are not accepting my noble friend’s amendment, as the College of Policing has now published its review into the instrument, complete with recommendations. I welcome this review and that the Government have accepted its conclusions, but it bears no requirements for action. Similarly, while the statutory code of practice addressing the recording of NCHIs has been revoked, there is little reassurance that this will be replaced by a more satisfactory system. This amendment seeks to commit the Government to necessary action now. This measure needs to be on the statute book. Should my noble friend wish to test the opinion of the House, we will wholly support him. My Amendment 339B in lieu is a redrafted version of the amendment that I tabled on Report concerning the investigation of police officers for misconduct. I thank the IOPC for its engagement with me concerning this amendment. The version before your Lordships now is a more comprehensive drafting, but the underlying point remains the same. Where police officers are acquitted of criminal charges, all misconduct proceedings concerning that specific offence should be...
My Lords, I moved Motion Q at the beginning of the debate but was, I confess, slow out of the blocks. I should have spoken to Motion Q before Motion Q1 was moved, but I was concentrating on the Marshalled List and missed my opportunity. But the principles are the same. The Government cannot support Motion Q1 but will support Motion Q, because there has been careful consideration on the recording of non-crime hate incidents since Report. I have appreciated the opportunity to engage formally and informally with the noble Lord. However, he will know that since your Lordships’ House last considered this matter on 31 March, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council published their joint review of non-crime hate incidents, a review that was commissioned by the UK Government as well. The review recommended ending the current system and replacing it with a new national standard for incident recording and assessment. Under that approach, non-crime hate incidents would no longer exist as a stand-alone category. Instead, hate-related behaviour short of the criminal threshold would be recorded only where there are clear policing purposes within the established anti-social behaviour framework. The threshold for recording would be higher, more tightly defined and supported by trained police assessment and triage practices.
I accept, and I hope the House will accept, that that is what the House has been calling for, and for a considerable period of time. The Government have accepted those recommendations in full and are already acting by removing the statutory code of practice on non-crime hate incidents through the Bill, and implementation work with policing partners is now under way, with national guidance, consultation and training to follow. I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, from the Liberal Democrat Front Benches-although she is off screen at the moment-for the Government’s broad position.
Against that backdrop, it remains the case that the Government cannot support Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. It is important to note that the college’s review did not recommend the deletion of historic records of non-crime hate incidents on discovery. If noble Lords wish to vote for this, that is a matter for them, but such an approach risks removing information that may still be relevant in certain circumstances for safeguarding or risk management. I say this to every Conservative Peer opposite: are those noble Lords going to vote today to remove information that might help safeguard or provide risk management for the police for future activities?
My Lords-
I am very relaxed about that, because this side of the House-and I now see the support of Liberal Democrats-are happy to ensure that we have changed the regime, but we are also keeping information that will help safeguard and protect. If the noble Lord wishes to vote against that today and remove it, then it would be on his head if any consequences come from that.
I thank the Minister for giving away. I think the argument he has just made was a bit of a non sequitur. The only thing asked for in this amendment is that any NCHIs that the police come across in the course of their work which would not meet the new higher recording threshold be deleted. If they would meet the new higher recording threshold-if there is a legitimate policing purpose for retaining that information-then that would not be stopped by this amendment. The College of Policing and the joint council have agreed that the old regime is not fit for purpose and the recording threshold was far too low-which is why, as my noble friend said, over 65 a day have been recorded on average over the last 10 years. Given that, why not allow for those NCHIs which do not meet the new higher recording threshold-not all NCHIs, just those-to be deleted?
I am not willing to take that risk. It is a matter for noble Lords opposite. We are making a recommended change-we have accepted every recommendation from the College of Policing-but such an approach from the noble Lord risks removing information that may still be relevant. I am not willing to take that risk. The noble Lord’s amendment also, if I may say so, overstates the impact of non-crime hate incidents on Disclosure and Barring Service checks. Such records do not appear on basic or standard DBS certificates. They can be disclosed only on an enhanced check, and only where a chief officer reasonably considers the information to be relevant, applying statutory Home Office guidance and strict tests of seriousness, relevance and proportionality. Enhanced checks are used solely for the most sensitive roles involving children or vulnerable adults, and there is no evidence of systemic or inappropriate use of non-crime hate incident information in that context. I pray in aid that the House of Commons has disagreed with the noble Lord’s amendment for clear reasons. Its objectives are being met through the accepted review undertaken by police experts, and a blanket deletion requirement would be potentially harmful, removing information that-I say this again, and slowly-may be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities. Everybody in this House, every noble Lord who walks through a Lobby today to support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, is going to be...
On Motion R1, I agree with the Minister, not with my noble friend Lord Davies. It is important to remember-
We have wound the debate up, and apparently the noble Viscount was not present at the start of the debate. We have had the wind-up by the Minister. We now need to proceed to divide or not divide the House.
The risk we draw attention to is that information has been recorded against people’s names that the police would not today record under the new regime because they regard it as posing no risk. That is a risk that I and my noble friends are not prepared to take, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Motion Q agreed.
Motion R
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 339, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 339A.
339A: Because it is premature to legislate for changes to the arrangements governing misconduct investigations in respect of police officers acquitted of a criminal offence arising from the same conduct until the end-to-end review of the police misconduct system, announced by the Home Secretary in the Police Reform White Paper on 26 January 2026, has concluded.
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion R. I beg to move. Motion R1 (as an amendment to Motion R)
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 339B in lieu-
339B: After Clause 151, insert the following new Clause- “IOPC investigations where officer acquitted (1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5). (2) In section 13B- (a) in subsection (1), at end insert- “but this is subject to the exception in section 13BA.”; (b) in subsection (2), at beginning, for “The” substitute “Unless the exception in section 13BA applies, the”. (3) After section 13B, insert- “13BA No re-investigation on acquittal for the same conduct (1) Where this section applies, the Director-General may not make a determination under section 13B(2) to re-investigate the complaint, recordable conduct matter or DSI matter. (2) This section applies where- (a) the Director-General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be) has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4G) of Schedule 3, (b) as a result of the determination mentioned in paragraph (a), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and (c) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings. (3) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply only if- (a) the relevant authority has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and (b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or...
My Lords, I beg to move and test the opinion of the House.
Motion R agreed.
Motion S
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 342 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 342A in lieu.
342A: Page 215, line 5, at end insert- “(1A) The guidance may in particular include guidance about- (a) matters to be taken into account by chief officers of police before making an application for a youth diversion order, including alternatives to making an application; (b) how chief officers of police are to comply with their duties to consult under section 174.”
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion S, and I beg to move. Motion S1 (as an amendment to Motion S)
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 342.”
My Lords, I move Motion S1, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Motion T
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 357, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 357A.
357A: Because the encouragement offence is already sufficiently broad, and the amendment could mean that public discourse around historic acts of terrorism would be criminalised.
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion T and I beg to move.
Motion T1 (as an amendment to Motion T) not moved.
Motion T agreed.
Motion U
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 359, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 359A.
359A: Because the amendment is unnecessary as the Home Secretary already keeps under review whether new organisations should be added to the list of proscribed organisations, and the Government has already committed to take forward plans for a proscription-like power for state and state-linked bodies to tackle hostile state activity.
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion U-there is a pattern here-and I beg to move. Motion U1 (as an amendment to Motion U)
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 359.”
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say about the intelligence that the Government have, but I think the evidence has been very clear, on our news channels, about the terror that the IRGC has caused in its own country. The threat to the UK from the IRGC is evident to all but the Government, it seems, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Motion V
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 360, 368, 369, 370, 371 and 372 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 372A in lieu.
372A: Page 226, line 21, at end insert the following new Clause- “Section ( Power to amend Online Safety Act 2023: AI ): duty to make progress report (1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 31 December 2026, lay before Parliament a report about the progress that has been made towards making regulations under section 216A of the Online Safety Act 2023 (power to amend Act in relation to illegal AI-generated content). (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under that section is laid before Parliament before 31 December 2026.”
My Lords, we return to the extremely important subject of the regulation of chatbots, and I am grateful to all those who have engaged constructively on this issue throughout the Bill’s passage. We all share a determination to keep people, especially children, safe in what is a fast-changing online world. Noble Lords from across the House, but most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to whom I pay tribute, have spoken powerfully about the risks arising from AI chatbot services, particularly for children, and about the pace at which these technologies are being deployed. On many occasions, the noble Baroness has raised her concerns that there are gaps in the Online Safety Act regarding unregulated AI chatbots. The Government agree with this assessment, which is why we tabled on Report Amendment 367, to which the House has agreed, granting the Government the power to address that gap. The Online Safety Act provides a strong and workable foundation for tackling illegal content online; updating it to bring unregulated chatbots in scope is the most effective way of ensuring that these risks are addressed quickly and effectively. Building on the Act, rather than creating an overlapping and duplicative criminal regime, will be the most effective route to enforcing clear rules. Our power will ensure that all relevant services, including those operating from overseas, have to comply with illegal content duties, and will place them in scope of Ofcom’s considerable enforcement...
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 360, 368, 369, 370, 371 and 372.”
My Lords, the supporters of Motion V1 have decided, in the interest of time, not to speak, but they are very keen to indicate that there is passionate support across the House for what I will say now. Also, I have cut my speech very short, so that we can get to the vote. I am grateful to the Minister and Minister Narayan from the other place for their time last night, but I am disappointed that they agreed to meet only after they had already laid their amendment. At every point during the passage of the Bill, I have tried to get the Government to address the substance of the issues-the presence, right now, of chatbots that are grooming and coercing children, and that parents with a child in crisis have no one to turn to-but I have been met with process, not action. The Government’s amendment in lieu that offers a report by the end of the year to say what they have or have not done is an indication of process not action.
Since we voted on these amendments not even a month ago, an 18 year-old in Wales was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his mother after getting advice from DeepSeek. New research from Stanford University found chatbots reinforcing delusional and harmful ideas across all users. An inquest in Winchester heard that a 16 year-old boy died by suicide at Blackwater railway station only hours after asking ChatGPT the most successful way to kill himself on a train track. That is the human cost of inaction.
In this House, we have tabled multiple ways of protecting online, but so far they have been rebuffed. I quote the Prime Minister’s words on child online safety from this morning:
“Things can’t go on like this”.
It cannot go on like this. It is nearly two years since the Government came to power with a promise that they would act for children, but the bitter truth is that children are less safe in the UK today than they were in 2023 when the Online Safety Act was granted Royal Assent. The national consultation, the amendment before us and the vast Henry VIII power they are taking in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill describe a long, drawn-out process which, at best, will give Ofcom new duties in 2027, with no resolution on individual redress and no effective enforcement. Ofcom will have more duties but, for parents and children, nothing changes at all.
I have re-laid the amendments I laid on Report. The House supported them at that time. They would make it an offence to create or supply a chatbot that has not been risk assessed, misleads children into thinking it is human, is dangerously sycophantic, produces illegal content, produces content that is harmful to children, undermines children’s privacy and security, or produces language which aids terror attacks or threats to public safety. Critically, they cover enforcement and redress, including the offer of injunctive relief in the case of immediate danger.
This is a moral issue; it is about the safety of children. This is a practical issue; the danger is here now. This is a question of leadership. It is time to replace process with action. I do not want to have to say here again that another child has died because we did not act in time. I beg to move.
My Lords, we have heard harrowing evidence in this House on AI chatbots, including the tragic case of Sewell Setzer, a high-achieving child who was captured, coerced and encouraged to commit suicide by a companion chatbot. Today, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, gave another example. She has brought forward essential amendments to tackle this head-on by creating strict offences for supplying chatbots that produce harmful material, outlawing coercive design and holding senior tech executives personally liable. I pay tribute to her campaigning skills and absolute determination to hold these tech companies to account. The Government’s response is entirely inadequate. They have replaced targeted primary legislation with a sweeping, open-ended Henry VIII power for the Secretary of State to amend the Online Safety Act via secondary legislation at a later date and a statutory duty to write a progress report by December 2026. The progress report will protect absolutely no one today. Crucially, the Government’s approach focuses exclusively on illegal AI-generated content. It completely omits the harmful but technically non-illegal coercive designs that mimic human relationships and foster emotional dependency in children, and it abandons the principle of senior management liability. We need immediate ex ante risk assessments and clear statutory duties, not delayed reports and the convenience of executive powers. I urge the House to reject the Government’s Motion V and insist on the...
My Lords, the Government are clearly very well meaning. They are very strong on discussion but weak on action. It is very sad that they should be so weak, and I strongly support the speeches that have been made so far.
First of all, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has been an indefatigable campaigner on this issue. I share the objective of trying to ensure that we protect children from chatbots, and I want to be clear that the Government share the House’s objective as a whole. We are aligned on the need to address the harms that arise from AI-generated illegal content. This is a disagreement about the question of what is the most effective and enforceable way in practice. The amendment in lieu reflects the balance the Government wish to bring. Our regulatory approach maintains a coherent approach under the Online Safety Act and reinforces Parliament’s ability to scrutinise delivery. For those reasons, I urge the House to support the amendment in lieu. I know we are going to have a Division on this, but I hope that whatever the outcome of that Division, we can agree after it that this House is committed to ensuring that we protect children through regulation on chatbots. I hope the noble Baroness will not press her Motion V1, but if she does, I urge my noble friends to vote against it.
My Lords, there will indeed be a Division. I am grateful to the Minister for suggesting that he will bring to the House, to the committees and to me personally his regulations. But those regulations do not extend to enforcement or to redress, and they do not give parents and children anywhere to go. I am absolutely willing to work with the Government, but I will give them one more opportunity to work with me on this, and the only way I have is to send these amendments the other place so that they can bring forward plans for real change. For that reason, I ask the House to agree with Motion V1.
Motion V agreed.
Motion W
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 361A to 361E.
36 1A: Line 5, leave out “165 (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: England and Wales)” and insert “165A”
361B: Line 7, leave out “165A” and insert “165B”
361C: Line 17, leave out from beginning to “Expressions” in line 20 and insert- “(3) A relevant data controller must delete from relevant official records, so far as reasonably practicable, any details of which they are aware of a conviction, caution, arrest or investigation detailed in subsection (1). (3A) In subsection (3)- (a) “relevant data controller” and “relevant official records” have the same meaning as in section 95 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; (b) “delete”, in relation to relevant official records prescribed for the purposes of the definition of “delete” in that section, means record with the details of the conviction, caution, arrest or investigation concerned a statement that the details are to be treated as deleted under this section. (4) Other”
361D: Line 25, leave out ““165” insert “or 165A”” and insert ““165A” insert “or 165B””
361E : Line 7, leave out “165A” and insert “165B”
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Levitt has already spoken to Motion W. I beg to move.
Motion W agreed.
Motion X
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 439, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 439A.
439A: Because it relates to Lords Amendment 359 to which the Commons disagree.
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion X. I beg to move. Motion X1 (as an amendment to Motion X)
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 439.”
Motion X1 is consequential.
Motion X1 (as an amendment to Motion X) agreed.
Motion Y
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 505, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 505A.
505A: Because the amendment is unnecessary as the combination of Lords amendment 255 and the illegal content duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 deliver an effective ban on nudification tools
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion Y. I beg to move.
Motion Y agreed.