Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

317: After Clause 116, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation on guidance for serious self-harm offences(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance regarding the application of sections 115 and 116 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm). (2) Before issuing or revising any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult extensively with the following persons and organisations—(a) representatives of self-harm support charities and organisations;(b) mental health professionals, including those providing trauma-informed care and support;(c) legal experts, including prosecutors and defence practitioners, regarding the application of the specific intent requirement;(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) The guidance issued under this section must—(a) clearly differentiate between conduct falling within the criminal offence under section 102 (which requires specific intention to encourage or assist serious self-harm) and legitimate, supportive, or therapeutic activity;(b) include instruction for law enforcement and relevant agencies on identifying and engaging with vulnerable individuals in a trauma-informed manner.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of any guidance issued or revised under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the serious self-harm sections of this Bill.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I join the Bill, at this late stage, very much as the understudy. I am afraid my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones could not be with us any longer, but the hour is late and I do not think anybody can accuse him of not putting in a shift. He gave me brief notes, and I will try to précis them further.

This is inspired by charities feeling that the advice they give out may be caught by the Bill. Of course, this will not be the intention of government, but the cock-up theory of history is one I have always found very appealing. If it can go wrong, it probably will, unless you put something in place.

I believe my noble friend was waiting for a letter from the noble Baroness the Minister; I am not policing his inbox so I do not know what has happened there, but if we can get some clarity from the Dispatch Box that steps will be made so that there is no confusion and this very important work can take place, then the noble Baroness, if she is replying to this, will be doing us all a favour in making sure that help can be given to people who desperately need it. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I had written “I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones”, which I crossed out, and then “the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey”, which I also crossed out. I will now say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing forward this amendment and for the careful way in which he outlined the basis for it.

We support the intention behind Clauses 115 and 116. These are serious offences, designed to capture those who deliberately encourage or assist serious self-harm. Precisely because the subject matter is so grave and so bound up with vulnerability, it is essential that the law is applied with clarity and care.

The amendment’s focus on consultation and guidance is pragmatic and proportionate, because policy in this area must be rooted in the lived experience of mental health professionals and legal practitioners, so guidance that distinguishes criminal intent from legitimate activity will be vital to avoid unintended consequences. For those reasons, we lend our support to the principle behind this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I too had a speech that started off thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I too crossed that out and wrote in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I also now thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for moving this amendment.

I am, however, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who is not in his place now, for meeting me to discuss his amendment. I think I was able to persuade him and to reassure him that guidance on the application of Clauses 115 and 116 is not necessary. I also wrote to him—I know I cleared the letter, and it may even have been the day before yesterday; I think I have just received a message saying that it may not have been sent until this afternoon, but it has definitely gone. We have placed a copy in the House Library. The letter was written with the intention that it could be sent to the various charities so that they could see exactly what I was saying.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I discussed, the existing offence that these amendments seek to broaden, which is under Section 184 of the Online Safety Act, is already in active use by the CPS and law enforcement. We are not aware of any cases involving therapeutic support where prosecutors have struggled to determine whether a prosecution was appropriate. The CPS guidance is clear about the requirement of intention, which must be present to meet the threshold of the offence, and the CPS legal guidance will be updated to reflect the widened scope of the offence, which now covers conduct both online and in person.

The offence also contains two important safeguards. First, the defendant must intend to encourage or assist the serious self-harm. Secondly, their act must be capable of doing so. These safeguards ensure that vulnerable individuals and those providing mental health support are not also inadvertently captured.

I should make it clear that it is absolutely not the Government’s intention to target either vulnerable people or the therapeutic services that support them. The Government believe the offence as it operates now and as it will be expanded in the Bill is proportionate and targets only the most serious and culpable offending. I hope that the noble Lord is content with these reassurances and will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving that assurance. Having it repeated again at the Dispatch Box makes it easier for people to feel secure about this. That, along with the letter, which I am sure is a work of great wisdom, will add to the fact that we will have a defence in place, just in case there are misunderstandings. With that, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 317 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, of the efforts being made by the Policing Minister, Sarah Jones MP. She is very much on the case. She met Lord Attlee earlier this year and, as the noble Lord said, wrote to the West Midlands Police acting chief constable, taking a firm line on consistency in charging. I gather Mr Green has replied, but I do not know what he said. I ask my noble friend the Minister for his view on whether he feels that police forces generally have now come into line and are promising consistency and fairness in charging for abnormal loads.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I am an unworthy substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I am afraid it is one of those occasions when real life catches up with your Lordships’ House; it has stopped her being here today. She supports the amendment. When you start to think about it, it comes under the heading of a no-brainer: there should be a consistent approach. If you are taking on an economic activity to transport something across the country, you should have a rough idea about a consistent approach to transporting it. If you have not, there should be a very good reason. There does not seem to be one, other than it having been decided that they will be charged at this rate.

Heritage railways are a nice cause, but there are more widespread and universal economic impacts from this if you transport goods on our main transport system without incurring extra, sometimes prohibitive costs. It would be comparatively easy for the Government to at least bring them into line and give them some steer as to a realistic level of charge to be placed on them. At the very least, admin considerations around this can be cut down. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that it is all in hand and that the Government have a timetable for making sure anybody involved in this knows what is happening, so that everybody can say “thank you very much” and move on to the next issue.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the amendment. I suggest that if, as I hope, the Minister agrees that regulations are needed, they should not just deal with consistency but impose a substantive limit on the fees to be charged. It seems that in this context, as in many others, the maximum that should be charged is the cost incurred to police forces.