Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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)”

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).””

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

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 and recognise the problem and believe that waste crime is an issue that confronts us. The Government are committed to taking firm action. We recently published our new waste crime action plan, which is the toughest-ever crackdown on illegal waste and targets the problem at its root. Lords Amendment 6 is unnecessary as, where sufficient evidence is available, local authorities already have the power to prosecute fly-tippers and, on conviction, a cost order can be made by the court so that the landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. If available evidence is not sufficient to secure a successful prosecution, it is unclear how addressing this issue through statutory guidance would help in recovering those clean-up costs.

Amendment 11 is also unnecessary as, under Section 34B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local councils have the power to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe that the vehicle is being used or is about to be used to commit a fly-tipping offence. Where the police stop and search a vehicle under their PACE powers, on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is used for the committing of fly-tipping offences, they can also call on local authority officers who can then impound the vehicle under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as I have mentioned.

Amendment 12 would place a duty on waste authorities to clean up waste from fly-tipping, including on private land. I have had what I hope were constructive discussions with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, but, as I have said to him outside the Chamber, the amendment would place a substantial unfunded burden on local councils and represents a significant departure from current practice. As such, it would infringe also on Commons financial privilege. I trust that, on that basis, the noble Viscount will consider not pursuing the amendment further.

Having said all that, I say to the House that the waste crime action plan sets out a zero-tolerance approach to prevent waste crime. We will look at pursuing criminals responsible and accelerating the clean-up effort. We are committed to working with the insurance industry in particular to explore any barriers to an accessible insurance market that will allow farmers, businesses and landowners to be indemnified against illegal waste dumping on their land.

We are also taking further action. The Government agree with the need for tougher penalties for those convicted of fly-tipping. As drafted, Amendment 10 seeks to amend the wrong legislation. Driving licence endorsements are set out in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Our Amendment 10A in lieu enables the addition of penalty points to the driving licence of an offender following conviction for fly-tipping offences where that offender was driving a motor vehicle used in or for the purposes of committing the offence. This may ultimately lead to disqualification from driving. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling his earlier amendments on this. I hope that he will now look at the amendment that we have tabled and see that, by allowing a range of three to nine points to be added, Amendment 10A would go even further than the amendment that he tabled initially.

Regarding Lords Amendment 15, I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House about the four-year custodial term’s reflection of the elements of culpability in the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause unlawful violence. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling his initial amendment. We have reflected on it and tabled Amendment 15A in lieu, which, with cross-government support from my colleagues in the MoJ and the Home Office, raises the maximum term to seven years’ imprisonment from the current four-year custodial term. I hope that noble Lords will accept this as a sensible compromise. It is a movement by the Government which reflects the additional intent element of the new offence.

Finally, I turn to Lords Amendment 333, which would extend the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days and of closure orders from six months to 12 months. Clause 3 already extends the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to 72 hours. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is not able to be in her place today and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, may be speaking to this set of amendments. I say to him, and to the noble Baroness through him, that I acknowledge the sentiment of the amendment. I agree that it is vital that we tackle money laundering, organised crime and other criminal activities. On Report I extended my view on how police should be doing that in the street, and indicated my support for very strong action on these issues.

However, it is important that, if we support the principle of extending the duration of closure orders, we first should consult to avoid any unintended consequences. Stronger enforcement powers should be used only proportionately; therefore, the government amendment in lieu will enable us, following targeted consultation, to extend the maximum duration of closure orders and make different provision for commercial and/or residential properties. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that the consultation will focus not on whether to exercise the regulation power but on how to exercise it.

I realise that this grouping has covered ASB, fly-tipping, unlawful weapons and the closure of premises—it is quite a wide group. Those things have been grouped under the issue of anti-social behaviour, but I hope that noble Lords will see that the Government have moved where we can. There is significant movement with some of the amendments in lieu, and I commend them to the House and await contributions from noble Lords on these matters. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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 term of imprisonment for the new offence of possession of a bladed article with intent to use unlawful violence from four to 10 years. As I explained in Committee and on Report, the offence of simple possession of a bladed article under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 carries four years, so it did not make sense to create a new, more serious offence of possessing an article with the intent to do harm to another that carried the same maximum sentence. For both offences to carry the same maximum sentence would be entirely inconsistent with how the criminal law has always approached the issue of intent. That is why we sought, successfully, to amend the maximum term of imprisonment on Report. However, since then the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence of possessing an article with the intent to harm another to seven years. I thank the Minister for recognising the arguments that the Conservatives made both in Committee and on Report.

I thank my noble friend Lady Buscombe for tabling her amendment regarding closure notices on Report. Recent investigations have exposed businesses that plague our high streets, selling counterfeit and illegal goods as well as unregulated products. In doing so, she has raised important issues which have clearly resonated with your Lordships. It is therefore welcome to see that, despite opposing my noble friend’s amendment on Report, the Government now recognise the importance of this issue, and their amendment in lieu would give the Secretary of State powers to change the maximum duration of closure orders, as well as the maximum period for which such an order may be extended. They also recognise that different provisions may be required for different circumstances, such as whether a building is commercial or residential, so I thank the Government for their Amendment 333A in lieu and I look forward to when the Secretary of State uses the powers conferred by this amendment to lay regulations on closure notices.

As previously stated, if the Government oppose my Motion D1 concerning seizure of vehicles involved in fly-tipping, I will test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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 Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act and other relevant legislation could achieve this. This work will ensure that the Environment Agency has much stronger powers and tools to bring criminals to justice, intervene earlier and disrupt criminal finances undermining the waste system.

Again, I am sympathetic to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and I understand and welcome the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the Waste Crime Action Plan. We are looking at how we improve enforcement around fly-tipping. However, as I have mentioned and as I think the noble Viscount acknowledged, the amendment breached Commons financial privilege, and I thank him for accepting those arguments and not pursuing the amendments further.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for accepting Amendment 15A in lieu.

On Amendment 333, it is right that the Government fully consult on any changes to closure powers before making significant changes, and our amendment in lieu does that. Again, I thank the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for their pressure in raising these issues, because it is important. I confirm what I have said to the noble Viscount already, which is that the issue is not how but when we strengthen those closure powers.

I hope I have been able to offer reassurances to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on his. I suspect that I may not have done to the extent that they would wish, but I can only try. We have moved significantly on some of the areas in this group. I welcome the support for the changes that we have made, but I do hope that, in moving Motion A, noble Lords will listen to my wise counsel and not press their amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion B

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion C

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.”

--- Later in debate ---

Motion D

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motions E and F. With the leave of the House, I beg to move.

Motion E agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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, particularly the concept of serious harm to the rights of others, which sadly, I fear, will create uncertainty for the police, for prosecutors and for the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, KC, as the House will know, is currently undertaking a review of public order and hate crime legislation. I fully expect him to report to the House and to Parliament as a whole in May. It would be appropriate to wait for the outcome of that review before committing to any further legislation. I hope that, with those comments, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, will not wish to pursue his amendment.

Turning to Motion S and Amendment 342, I agree with the sentiments in our earlier debates expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. Multi-agency engagement is essential to the success of youth diversion orders in practice. However, I would argue to her—and she is at liberty to accept it or not—that this has already been reflected in current drafting of the legislation. There is a duty on the police under Clause 174 of the Bill to consult youth offending teams in England and Wales, or their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the respondent is under the age of 18.

I want to emphasise that youth offending teams are necessarily multi-agency in nature and include representation from probation, local council social services, health, education and others. This means that the police will already need to ensure there is a wide range of expertise considered at the start of any process.

The department is also currently drafting statutory guidance, which will support the police in applying for youth diversion orders and management of the orders when in place. This will include guidance for police on the consultation process, and consideration of alternative interventions before the police can even apply for an order. The guidance will be laid before Parliament in due course. I have explained to the noble Baroness that, unusually for statutory guidance, in this instance we have provided that the guidance is subject to scrutiny by both Houses through the negative resolution procedure. That is an abnormal procedure for the type of activity before the House today. Further, the legislation dictates that the police must consider the necessity and proportionality of the order and the measures within it on a case-by-case basis, and this would need to include consideration of alternative options.

However, given the concerns in Committee and on Report, the Commons has agreed Amendment 342A in lieu. This amendment will clarify that the statutory guidance may include guidance about matters to be taken into account by the police prior to making an application for a youth diversion order, including, crucially, consideration of alternative interventions and guidance on their duty to consult partners under Clause 174, including youth justice services. I know there has been a bit of debate on this outside the Chamber and in my discussions with the noble Baroness. To be clear, the guidance in this case will use “may”, but that reflects usual practice. I hope that the amendment in lieu offers sufficient assurance and that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, knows that the spirit of the original amendment has been met. It is our intention to address these matters in the guidance, and I hope that will assist her.

I turn to Motion T and Amendment 357 on the glorification of terrorism. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is available to examine this issue. I have had a great opportunity to discuss these matters with her in informal discussions outside the Chamber. I have previously set out that I fully recognise the harm that can be caused by the glorification of terrorism. The offence in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act was designed to prevent terrorist risk by criminalising statements that could lead to individuals being encouraged to carry out acts of terrorism themselves. Such statements not only increase the risks to public safety but potentially legitimise terrorist actors if left unchecked.

However, as I set out at on Report and have discussed with the noble Baroness outside the Chamber, the offence of encouraging terrorism is already very wide, and I believe it strikes the right balance between freedom of speech and criminalising statements, which may even increase terrorist risk. Amendment 357 would remove an important safeguard requiring that the glorification be understood to mean that the conduct should be emulated in current circumstances. Put simply, that safeguard aims to prevent the inadvertent criminalisation of statements about historic acts of terrorism, where those statements do not carry the same risk of those acts being repeated nowadays. I pray in aid statements around such high-profile figures as the former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, who may well have had arguments around terrorism activities in the past.

I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has attempted to limit her changes to statements that concern acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations. However, this does not fully mitigate the risk of overreach I have described, and it does not recognise the existence of a separate terrorist offence—the offence of inviting support for a proscribed organisation—which the amendment would arguably overlap with.

Nevertheless, I understand and appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue, so I am proposing to the House that the Government will ask the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to carry out a targeted review of the encouragement offence. As Members of your Lordships’ House will know, the independent reviewer’s role is to review the operation of terrorism legislation in practice, so this commission by the Government will be an opportunity for the reviewer to undertake a detailed review of the use of the encouragement offence in practice and to identify any issues that may warrant further consideration by the Government. As I explained to the noble Baroness in our private discussions, I will of course discuss the terms of reference for that review with the independent reviewer, and I understand that Jonathan Hall KC is ready to meet with the noble Baroness as part of the review, including a prior discussion on the terms of reference for any review. I hope that assists in what is a genuine attempt by the noble Baroness to clarify this issue, and I hope that I have at least attempted to meet that Motion half way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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 lost police hours. Proscribing the IRGC would not only give the police more powers to counteract these actions but would send a signal that we do not bow to pressure from oppressive and authoritarian regimes.

I once again anticipate that the response from the Minister will be that this is constantly kept under review—but that is now not good enough. We know what this group is capable of, especially when it has the apparatus of an OPEC state behind it, and now with the current war, we must strengthen our resolve further. The Iranian regime is blocking the Strait of Hormuz, erratically attacking neighbours and, most importantly, influencing—if not sanctioning—potential attacks on British soil.

Quite independently of our national approach to the United States, this Iranian regime is one for which we should have no regard and no tolerance. The Government must now be pragmatic. Their policy must now reflect the international situation—they must undertake this review and proscribe the IRGC. If the Minister still does not agree with this conclusion, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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 that we should give a running commentary on proscription. With due respect to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, they have not had intelligence in front of them on these issues from the intelligence services. We are making judgments as a Government, and we are not going to give a running commentary on what and when we proscribe, because that is a very dangerous position to take.

I remind the House—without commenting on the IRGC in particular—that any eventual proscription order on anybody is voted on by both Houses of Parliament, where it can be tested at that time. I am not in a position today to give a running commentary on the possible proscription of the IRGC, nor will I accept in principle the fact that both Opposition Front Benches think it right to do so. That may be their view, but the Government have to take a view on these matters in due course. It is not for us to give a running commentary on those matters. I say that to the House as a whole.

I stress again that I understand and accept the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, put before the House today. We will make it clear in statutory guidance that authorities must consider a range of options and interventions before deciding whether to apply for a youth diversion order. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, also stressed that it was important to do so. I stress to both noble Baronesses that the police are under a duty to consult multi-agency youth offending teams, which comprise health, education, probation and police services. I am happy to share a draft of the guidance with the noble Baroness in due course, but at the moment I cannot accept the amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work on her amendment on glorifying terrorism, and for giving her own personal experiences. It is very difficult to do that, and I understand the circumstances that she and others find themselves in. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on glorification in general. On the incident in Finchley that has been mentioned today, individuals are under arrest and in custody for the alleged offence. We should obviously allow the police to do their job and determine whether charges should be put forward to the CPS for consideration. None the less, that type of incident—whether or not the individuals under arrest are responsible—is simply not acceptable. The Government and others should stand with the community as a whole.

I was pleased to hear and welcomed the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, but I cannot accept the Motions in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I ask—in anticipation and hope rather than aspiration and agreement—that they be content not to press their Motions. In the meantime, I beg to move my Motion N, and I hope the House will agree to it.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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,”.”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion P. I beg to move.

Motion P agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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 dropped.

I want to be clear about how this amendment would operate in practice. It would not mean that acquittal would shield an officer from any potential misconduct proceedings. For example, if the police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, he could still be liable for misconduct proceedings if due process was not followed on a related procedural matter such as filling in correct paperwork concerning the incident. However, the amendment would mean that the police officer, where he is acquitted of criminal charges concerning the use of force, could not then be subject to misconduct proceedings on that same question. As I said on Report, it is wrong that in the absence of my amendment, police officers can be investigated by the IOPC, referred to the CPS, dragged through the courts, acquitted only then to be reinvestigated. If it is the Minister’s intention to oppose this amendment, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

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?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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 potentially—I emphasise “potentially”—removing information that may still be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities.

I am not willing to do that. I urge noble Lords to recognise the Government’s approach, which has effected and is effecting real change. We have accepted the recommendations of the College of Policing, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who is a member of the Conservative Party and a Peer with that knowledge.

Turning to Motion R and Amendment 339, the Government take police accountability very seriously. We believe it is right to strike a balance between allowing appropriate scrutiny of the police and ensuring that they can carry out their powers. I know that noble Lords opposite agree with that. We made a commitment in the police reform White Paper to commission an independent end-to-end review of the police accountability system. We will confirm who will lead this review and publish the terms of reference very shortly. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that he will have input into that review.

We cannot support Amendment 339 as it stands because it would introduce a blanket presumption that any case involving a police officer that has resulted in an acquittal in the criminal court and subsequently been closed should not be reopened to go forward to misconduct proceedings. Such a blanket presumption would not be appropriate in all cases—for example, in allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers. Anybody in this House today who votes for Motion R1 and the noble Lord’s Amendment 399B will be leaving open the opportunity that allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers, will be potentially not able to be taken.

We will have honest disagreements in this House, but I say to noble Lords, particularly those opposite—and I am grateful for the support from the Liberal Democrats—that the changes we are making are important and effective. There is a risk in both amending Motions of potential safeguarding issues and compromise for the future, around not being able to look at cases of sexual abuse and others by the police. I am very happy to have a debate about that, but I suggest to my noble friends, and to anybody who wishes to join us, that we vote those Motions down and support Motion Q, in my name.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

On Motion R1, I agree with the Minister, not with my noble friend Lord Davies. It is important to remember—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion R. I beg to move.

Motion R1 (as an amendment to Motion R)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion S, and I beg to move.

Motion S1 (as an amendment to Motion S)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion T and I beg to move.

Motion T1 (as an amendment to Motion T) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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 toolkit where they fail to act.

I also recognise the strength of feeling expressed in the House about the need for urgency and appropriate scrutiny. Our Amendment 372A now includes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, no later than 31 December 2026, a report on the progress made towards making regulations with this power. This report will set out what work the Government have undertaken to develop and deploy the regulations. That is a clear and concrete demonstration of the Government’s intention to close this gap—and we will act quickly to do that.

In recognition of the valuable scrutiny that Parliament would provide of these powers, I also confirm that the Government intend to share draft regulations with the relevant Select Committees in both Houses, opposition spokespeople and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in advance of them being laid, for any constructive—and, I hope, positive—comments. These powers will create a much clearer and more effective approach than the criminal offences proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Creating a new criminal regime would create new legal uncertainty and inconsistent enforcement, and, crucially, it would not apply overseas.

The Government’s concern is that the proposed criminal framework risks being disproportionate, legally uncertain and, in practice, less effective than a clear regulatory approach under the Online Safety Act. It would create uncertainty about what compliance looks like and risk capturing those acting in good faith, while failing to focus enforcement on the most culpable for high risk conduct. Most importantly, criminal offences of this kind would, in practice, be far less effective against overseas services, which is precisely where we see some of the greatest risks. One of the strengths of the Online Safety Act framework is its reach and the regulator’s ability to take action in ways that are designed to be effective across borders.

The Government are putting forward a coherent package to address these risks. We have a clear route to close regulatory gaps and to ensure that unregulated AI services can be brought within scope of the Online Safety Act. We have strong enforcement mechanisms through Ofcom. We have a commitment not only to action but to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny in the exercise of these powers. Strengthening our existing approach will be far preferable to the confusion and delay of creating a new parallel regime. I hope that noble Lords will support Amendment 372A. I beg to move Motion V.

Motion V1 (as an amendment to Motion V)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 361A to 361E.

361A: Line 5, leave out “165 (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: England and Wales)” and insert “165A”

--- Later in debate ---

361E: Line 7, leave out “165A” and insert “165B”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Levitt has already spoken to Motion W. I beg to move.

Motion W agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion X. I beg to move.

Motion X1 (as an amendment to Motion X)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion Y. I beg to move.

Motion Y agreed.