Lords Chamber

Thursday 16th April 2026

(began 2 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:05
None Portrait None
-

You You know.
11:05
11:05
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:16
None Portrait Oral questions: Data centres: clean power by 2030 and for net zero by 2050
-

Russell. >> I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Well, can I say to the noble, the noble Lord, there's a debate on the noble Lord, there's a debate on Monday about defence resilience in the grand committee, so we can the grand committee, so we can start the conversation there as one part of that. But of course, there's a broader a broader debate that the noble, the broader conversation that noble Lord is referring to. And we're working hard to deliver that as well. On on defence spending. Let me just say there's a debate about spending.

I accept that, but let me just say in 20 2425, the total deal was 60.2 billion. In 2829, it will be 73.5. Under current plans. That's a 13.5 billion increase per year for that in that final in that final year. So that is an increase in terms of the SDR. He will know, notwithstanding the debate that's going on around that, the government isn't waiting for the publication of the SDR. There are significant investments being made already. Leonardo's was announced recently in terms of Yeovil around helicopters just yesterday, again talking about helicopters with Boeing UK, there was nearly £900 million announced for Chinook and Apache maintenance.

This huge investment going into shipbuilding in Scotland, which is immense for Scotland and something of which we can all be pleased. The nuclear deterrent is being renewed. We've ordered 12 type 35, a Type Thai F-35s, so all of those sorts of things are are important. We're not waiting for the SDR. We're investing already. The debate no doubt will continue about the total amount. But it's wrong to say that we're not investing in anything.
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
12:01
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
The the the point I was trying to make on Tuesday, and I'm happy to reiterate, is that the threat that we face needs the country to respond as a whole, and the government's responsibility working with others is to ensure that the population understands that threat and the increasing nature of that threat. And I think that in response to that, we can expect everyone to come together, as our country always does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I simply say, from the Liberal Democrat benches that I've spoken to George Robertson, I can't spoken to George Robertson, I can't think how many times in the last few months we are fully engaged, as the Minister knows well with this the Minister knows well with this debate. We are anxious that the defence review should be implemented. We regret that there has not been the national conversation led by the Prime Minister, which we need, and the idea that we're somehow not engaged idea that we're somehow not engaged at all with this is, to say the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

least, a little over the top. On the on the on the main point that the noble Lord is making around the national conversation, around the national conversation, as I've said to him, and said in this House on a number of occasions that national conversation needs to that national conversation needs to needs to begin as soon as possible and plans are underway. With respect to that, it is essential that it happens, and we need to that it happens, and we need to ensure that the British public understand the very real circumstance, changing circumstances that they face.

Now,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

circumstances that they face. Now, compared to just a few years ago. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, does the Minister agree that as important as the level of expenditure is, the effectiveness of that expenditure? And can he tell the House what the MoD is tell the House what the MoD is doing to improve the efficiency of defence spending? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence spending? Well. We. The the Mod is, as the noble Lord probably know, we all know is that the. There's been a reform of defence reform program which has led to the establishment of a National Armaments Director Directorate and a new National Armaments Director. And certainly at the top of his agenda is the whole business of ensuring more effective procurement and better value for money, all of those sorts of things that you would assume are essential. But it's not only effective procurement.

The other challenge for for us and for all of us as a nation and indeed our friends and allies, is what is the appropriate equipment to buy with the changed nature of warfare at the current time? And the lesson from Ukraine is clearly air defence. Clearly new technology and drones, and it's how we ensure the balance between what you might call traditional capability, which of course is still essential, and the new technologies which are emerging. So that's also a challenge as well as the nature of the procurement itself.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord Sandhurst just a short pause before we move on to ping Consideration Consideration of Consideration of Commons reasons and monuments under Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint.
12:02
12:03
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on its amendment to, and do agree with the Commons in their amendments to a to too-c in lieu, and if I may, in speaking to motion, I'd also like to speak to motions B f p in this group. Amendment two is intended to ensure that accredited or authorised persons or their employers may not profit financially from the issuing of fixed penalty notices issued for breaches of community protection orders, public spaces protection orders.

I've had a discussion with the noble Lord Clement-Jones on a number of occasions, and I fully understand the concerns that 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 indeed public space protection orders, and such a ban would effectively put an end to all outsourcing and could significantly reduce enforcement capacity.

Therefore, I've tabled amendments in lieu 282C which seek to ensure that statutory guidance is issued, which addresses the need for proportionality in the issuing of fixed penalty notices. And I've had an opportunity to discuss that with the noble Lord outside of the chamber. I await his comments in due course, but it would mean on the face of the Bill, there would be a statutory presumption that the guidance addresses the use and proportionality of such fixed penalty notices. If I can turn to amendment six, ten, 11 and 12 in the issue of Fly-tipping, it's really important issue.

I know that noble Lords have been exercised about this. I want to emphasise that I understand and recognise the problem and believe that waste crime is an issue that does indeed confront us. The government is committed to taking firm action over the recess. The government recently published our new Waste Crime Action Plan, which I would argue is the toughest ever crackdown on illegal waste and targeting. The problem at its root, Lord Dear amendment six, I would argue, is unnecessary, as there is already sufficient evidence available.

Local authorities have the power to both prosecute Fly-tippers and on conviction. A cost order can be made by the court so that the landowner's cost can be recovered from the perpetrator. If available. Evidence is not sufficient to secure a successful prosecution, and it is unclear how addressing this issue through statutory guidance would indeed help in recovering those clean up costs. Amendment 11, I would argue again, is also unnecessary, as under section 34 B 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 about to be used to commit a fly tipping offence, and where police stop and search a vehicle under their pace powers on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is used for Commissioner 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've mentioned, amendment 12 places a duty on waste authorities to clean up waste from Fly-tipping, including on private land. I again, I've had, I hope, constructive discussions with the noble Viscount Goschen. But I have to say again, as I've said to him outside of the chamber, that the amendment places a substantial unfunded burden on local councils, represents a significant departure from current practice and as such would infringe also on Commons financial privilege. And I trust on that basis, the noble viscount can consider not pursuing the amendment further.

But having said all of that, I just say to the House that the waste Ram action plan itself sets out what I believe is a zero tolerance approach to prevent waste crime. We'll look at pursuing criminals responsible and accelerating the clean up effort. We are committed to working, particularly with the insurance industry, to explore any barriers to accessible insurance market that would allow farmers, businesses and landowners to be indemnified against illegal waste dumping on their land. And we're also taking further action because in turning to amendment ten, the government does agree with the need for tougher penalties for those convicted of fly tipping.

Amendment ten has drafted is seeking to amend, I would suggest the wrong legislation. Driving licence endorsements are set out in Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998, but our amendment ten A in lieu enables the addition of penalty points to a 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 the commission of the offence. This may ultimately lead again to disqualification from driving. Now I say I'm grateful to the noble Lord Davies of Gower for tabling his amendments earlier on this, and I hope that he will now look at the amendment that we've tabled and see that amendment ten, by allowing a range of 3 to 9 points being added, goes even further than the amendment that he tabled initially.

With regards to Lord amendment 15. I do understand the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House about the four year custodial term on the reflection of the elements of culpability in the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause unlawful violence. Again, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Davies of Gower for tabling his amendment. Initially, we have reflected upon it. We've tabled amendment 15 A in lieu, and that raises, with the cross-government support from my colleagues in the MoJ and the Home Office, 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 and it does reflect the additional intent elements of the new offence. And finally, turning to Lords Amendment 333, this would allow the extend of the duration of closure orders from 48 hours to seven days and closure orders from six months to 12 months. Clause three of the bill already extends the duration closure notices of 48 hours to 72 hours. Now again, I know that Baroness noble Baroness Buscombe is not able to be in their place today, and the noble Viscount Goschen may well be speaking to this set of amendments.

I say to him and to the noble Baroness Buscombe through him, that I acknowledge the sentiments of the amendment. I agree it's vital that we tackle money laundering, organised crime and other criminal activities. I extended a report, my view on how police should be doing that in the street, and I indicated my support for a very strong action on these issues. However, I think it's important that if we support the principle of extending duration of closing orders, we first should consult to avoid any unintended consequences.

Stronger enforcement powers should only be used proportionately and 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. And I can assure the noble Baroness 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 the regulation power. I realise that this grouping has covered ASB Fly-tipping unlawful weapons and closure premises.

It is quite a wide group. They have been grouped under the issue of anti-social behaviour, but I hope again that noble Lords will see that the government has moved where it can. There is significant movement with some of the amendments in lieu, and I hope and commend them to the House and await any contributions from noble Lords on these matters.
12:11
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that motion A, B agreed to motion A1 Lord Clement-Jones. >> To move motion. >> A1 as an amendment to. >> Motion A and insert an. >> Do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do. Propose amendment to D as an amendment to amendment two. B an amendment to amendment two. B an amendment to E as an amendment to two. Amendment two. C my Lords, while I welcome the fact that the government has acknowledged the widespread concern over how these powers are being enforced, I must express my profound disappointment that the government 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 has argued that a statutory ban risks weakening enforcement action, and I quote, and prefers to rely on statutory guidance to ensure proportionality. But, my Lords, we're not talking about legitimate enforcement. We're talking about a cowboy enforcement economy that preys on the public.

Under this 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, this 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 overwhelmingly driven by councils that employ private companies, who issue a staggering 75.7% of all penalties, despite making up only 11.2% of the responding councils.

My Lords, if your local authority employs a private contractor, companies that typically retain 80% to 90% of the fine income, you are 25 times more likely to be fined. Take the London Borough of Redbridge as a cautionary tale. In 2022, they issued just 163 penalties in 2023 after hiring a private company. That number exploded to 3550 when they stopped employing the company, the number of fines dropped to zero. And what are these incentivised wardens finding the public for in these local authority areas? Not serious anti-social behaviour.

They're issuing penalties for feeding the birds, for swimming, for lacking a dog poo bag, and for simply standing in groups or loitering disgracefully. This system is also being used to target the most vulnerable, with multiple councils issuing fines for begging and rough sleeping. By rejecting the original amendment, the government is protecting a corrupt enforcement industry that uses financial incentives to issue unfair penalties. The government's replacement amendment under motion A is simply too weak. It states only that the Secretary of State may include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices by authorised person persons.

May is not a guarantee, and general guidance about issuing notices will not stop the aggressive, profit driven tactics we are seeing on our streets. And my Lords, that's why we've tabled new amendments under motion A1 today. These vital new amendments demand two things. First, they change the permissive May to a mandatory must, ensuring that the Secretary of State is legally obligated to address this issue in guidance. Secondly, they ensure that this guidance cannot merely offer vague platitudes about proportionality, but must explicitly tackle the practice of incentivising the giving out of fixed penalty notices.

If the government insists on regulating this through guidance, rather than a direct statutory ban on profit sharing, then that guidance must be mandatory and its prohibition on financial incentives must be explicit. And so, my Lords, I urge the House to support motion A1 and I beg to move. My Lords, I just want to say a few words and to congratulate the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lord Davies of Gower for their persistence on the question of penalties for the possession offence.

The new possession offence of a weapon with intent to use, lawful violence. My Lords, on these benches, we've 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 very much 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 terms of the first report of Sir Adrian Fulford, who made it absolutely clear that 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.

My Lords, 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 to possession only. My Lords, so again, we congratulate the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lord Davis for bringing those forward on report. My Lords, and we thank the government for their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

movement on this. The original question was that motion a be agreed to. Since then, motion a be agreed to. Since then, motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A at the end to insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion A1 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords. I have. Involvement with two. Motions in this group. The first is motion E, which relates to motion 12, which would transfer the responsibility
12:17
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
for dealing with Fly-tipping from landowners to the local waste landowners to the local waste authority, the Lords. When we considered the amendment at Report stage in your Lordships House, there was strong support for the measure from around the House and it was carried. My Lords at report. The House accepted the strong logic of the argument that dealing with of the argument that dealing with illegal waste is a complex system with a government in all its facets central agency and local, holding the levers for the push factor in the sense the landfill tax for proof, facilities for disposal and for investigation, policing and prosecution.

However, my Lords 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. My Lords, that is fundamentally unfair. Well, Lords, this position was supported in a joint letter sent to the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on the 19th of March from Tim Bonner, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance. Gavin Lane, president of the Country Land and Business Association.

Robin Hunt, vice president of the National Farmers Union, Tim Passmore of the National Rural Crime Network, and John Read, founder of Clean Up Britain. That's a powerful and knowledgeable coalition, united in their support of the approach set out in that amendment. However, my Lords, I do recognise that this is a complex issue and indeed the noble Lords, the Minister, on behalf of the government, has stressed the financial privilege element, which is an unarguable point. Clearly, my amendment would represent a fundamental change and therefore, for at this stage and in the context of this bill, I won't be opposing motion E nonetheless, my Lords, I think that given the support around the country and from important stakeholder organisations about this potential change, that the story doesn't end at this point.

My Lords, I certainly support the move the government has made in terms of points on licences for Fly-tipping, and I support my noble friend Lord Davis of Gowers. Amendment D1. With regard to seizure of vehicles. My Lords, the other motion with which I have an involvement is motion P, which which deals with amendment three, three, three, which was originally tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe at Report stage, which was carried by the House. Unfortunately, my Lords, my noble friend, is unable to attend your Lordships House today and I'm addressing the motion in her stead.

My Lords, the amendment as the noble Lord the Minister has mentioned, is designed to provide one further tool to deal with the epidemic of fake cash only businesses which have taken over our high streets, up and down the land masquerading as barber shops, nail bars, vape retailers and many other sorts of businesses. Of course, my Lords are a great many totally legitimate, genuine businesses, providing the government the public with these services and they should be supported. But there are legions which are simply fronts for money laundering, the sale of illicit goods, drug smuggling, immigration, crime, amongst others.

These are not individual operations Lords but are coordinated networks. In other words, organised crime. And they're operating in plain sight. And despite that fact, we collectively have been slow to do anything about that situation. What is required is a coordinated, tough and aggressive multi-agency approach geared towards one objective the destruction of these gangs. And I certainly welcome the initiatives the government has brought forward in terms of Operation Mechanise under the auspices of the National Crime Agency. But a much larger scale and tougher action needs to be taken.

My Lord, my Lords, my noble friend's amendment represents a small but important measure to amend the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to enable the police to close premises. But the amendment itself stresses that the time limits are too short for appropriate action to be taken, and my noble friend's amendment extended those time limits, both in terms of notices and the closure orders, the latter from three months to 12. The Bill does recognise the importance of getting additional time, and I'm very pleased indeed that the noble Lord, the Minister, has recognised the power of my noble friend's argument and those that have supported her and have proposed an amendment in lieu to allow regulations to be made to extend the duration period of closure orders.

My Lords, this is an important move. It's an important concession and we welcome it. And I particularly welcome the noble Lord, the minister's assurance, an undertaking that this consultation that he described will not be about whether it will be about how. And with that in mind, my Lords, we will not be opposing motion here.
12:23
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. My Lords, I wanted to just support the noble Lord Lord just support the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, who's excellent exposition of why amendment A1 is exposition of why amendment A1 is needed. I don't need in any way to repeat, although I would like to stress that his original amendments would were better. But we are where we are. I think it's very important to note that this is not about preventing enforcement at all. I think we can all agree on clamping down on anti-social behaviour as a problem.

But if you can imagine a situation where fixed penalty notices for SPOs are at present at record levels, they've gone up 32.5% in a couple of years. You might be believe, or the public might believe, that councils were really doing their best to stamp down on anti-social behaviour, but actually that would be misleading and misinformation because then we find out that when we have private companies, they're paid a commission of that penalty income that can be up to 80 to 90% of the fines that you're paying, and that gives them a direct incentive to issue as many penalties as possible.

So what I think the amendment A1 is trying to do is to ensure that we protect the public from unscrupulous, incentivised enforcement agencies, which I think are corrupt. But the main thing is, is that if I can appeal to the government, it doesn't actually tackle anti-social behaviour at all. It depends. If you live in an area with a private company, then you might think, oh, everyone's being fined. The council are doing something about anti-social behaviour, but actually that's not true.

And so I wanted to stress those of us who are supporting A1 want to tackle anti-social behaviour, want a fair and just enforcement regime, but do not think that the private companies be employed by some councils or in fact tackling anti-social behaviour or delivering justice or fairness. And I hope, therefore, that the government will reconsider.
12:25
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I respond to the amendments in this group on waste amendments in this group on waste crime and fly tipping. Nearly one fifth of all our waste, as we know, ends up in the hands of criminals and the rising number of of mega tips and the speeds at which they are now appearing show the increasingly sophisticated nature of criminal networks and the fact that they are operating with impunity and making vast profits at little risk, and that causes direct costs to our economy of more than 1 billion annually, with devastating effects on our environment, communities and individuals.

Since our last debate, as the Minister mentioned, the government has published its ten point plan on waste crime. More must be done. But I do want to 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. Lord Remnant six by the noble Lord Davies of Gower rightly seeks to make the polluter, not the landowner or the community liable for cleanup costs.

The Commons rejected this on the grounds that sufficient powers already exist. Yet, with 1.26 million fly tipping incidents recorded in 20 2425 and that being up 9%, any conversation with any landowner or any 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. On a similar vein, Lord's Amendment 12 would require waste authorities to collect five fly-tip waste and recover costs from offenders.

The Commons dismissed this as a public cost. In truth, these amendments only address part of a much larger system. Real solutions require systemic reform, reform, prevention, adequate local authority funding and compensation for local authorities where they do clear sites without turning off the supply tap and properly resourcing councils responsibility is merely passed down the chain. Mentions of local authority compensation in the ten point plan are encouraging, although the details remain missing. Treasury receipts from landfill tax do need to be urgently allocated to the clean up of sites.

Lords amendment ten proposes penalty points on licences for Fly-tipping convictions, though rejected, two government amendments in lieu are welcome. Lords amendment 11 adds Fly-tipping to the list of offences allowing vehicle seizures a proportionate step since vehicles are the primary means of committing these crimes. My support my party supported this measure in the other place and if it is moved to a division, we will support it today. I would, however, prefer roadworthy vehicles to be reused or sold rather than crushed.

In conclusion, the ten point plan makes some real progress, but this bill largely remains a missed opportunity to tackle waste crime decisively. Serious organised waste crime should be treated as serious organised crime. The Environment Agency lacks specialist skills and technology to counter these networks effectively, the government's plans to strengthen its powers is welcome, but questions remain. The plan says, and I quote our info on enforcement. We will commit further funding. We are exploring giving the Environment Agency police style powers.

But my Lords, the truth is that this bill could have given the Environment Agency those police style powers that they so desperately need to improve the enforcement and make it more effective and speedily. And the truth is that those powers have not been given.
12:29
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. My Lords motion. >> C d indeed relate to the several amendments the Conservatives tabled at Report stage on Fly-tipping, and I thank the government for their I thank the government for their amendment and 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 ten A and ten B, even if it has taken us some time to get to this point. I also thank my hon. Friend Viscount Goschen for his amendment 12.

We on these benches wholly agree with the principle that it should be the responsibility and burden of the offenders who fly-tipped to clean up the waste they deposit. My Lords, I was disappointed to see that the government tabled amendment D, which would oppose the amendment that provides police with the powers to seize vehicles in respect of fly-tipping offences. The noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe pointed out a report that this. 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 remains reluctant to take firm and decisive action on Fly-tipping. They were reluctant to impose penalty points for the offence until they were defeated at Report stage. 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, and if the government opposed my motion D1, I would like to obviously 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 4 to 10 years. As I explained to both committee and report the offence of simple possession of a bladed article under the Criminal Justice Act, 1988 is four years. Therefore, 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, and for both offences to carry the same maximum sentence would be entirely inconsistent with how the criminal law is always approached the issue of intent.

That is why we sought successfully to amend the maximum term of imprisonment report. However, of course, since then the government have tabled an amendment in lieu which would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence of possessing an article with the intent to harm another two seven years, and I thank the Minister for recognising the arguments that the Conservatives made, both at committee and report stages of the Bill. My Lords, I thank my noble friend, Lady Buscombe for laying her amendment at Report stage regarding closure notices.

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 was therefore welcome to see that despite opposing my noble friend's amendment and 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.

It also recognises the different provisions that provisions may be required for different purposes, such as if a building is commercial or residential. So I thank the government for the amendments. 333A in lieu. 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 wish to oppose my motion d one concerning seizure of vehicles and fly-tipping, I will of course test the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house and beg to move. Hey, hey. I'm grateful for the contributions that have been made contributions that have been made in response to these groups of amendments, both in lieu by the government and the amendments moved by members here today. I want to stress that the government agrees stress that the government agrees with the sentiment behind the amendments in this group on the noble Lord Clement-Jones amendments, noble Lord Clement-Jones amendments, two D and two E, which the Baroness Fox of Buckley also supported.

I want to just 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 and indeed, I'll be happy to share
12:34
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
a copy of the guidance in draft form with the noble Lord at an appropriate time when it is ready. appropriate time when it is ready. The issue of fly-tipping is permeated through the discussions that we've had in the last half an that we've had in the last half an hour or so, and I do understand the strength of feeling on all sides of your Lordships House. That's why we your Lordships House. That's why we put the amendments in lieu to introduce penalty points for Fly-tippers.

And I do emphasise Fly-tippers. And I do emphasise again to noble Lords that in relation to amendments, 6 to 11 local authorities do already have the power to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping, and courts can already impose cost orders on those convicted of Fly-tipping. And I should also add, if I may, the DEFRA now, with the support of the Home Office, is going to explore how the Environment Agency's powers to address address waste crime can indeed be bolstered. We're going to consider how additional measures within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Proceeds of Crime Act, and indeed other relevant legislation could achieve this.

And this work will ensure that the Environment Agency does have the very strong powers and tools to bring criminals to justice, intervene earlier and disrupt criminal finances, undermining the waste system. The noble Viscount Lord Houchen in relation to amendment 12. Again, I'm sympathetic to the amendments and I understand and welcome the comments from the noble Earl Russell in relation to the Waste Crime Action Plan. We are trying to look at how we improve enforcement of Fly-tipping. However, as I've mentioned, and I think the noble Viscount has acknowledged, the amendment breached Commons financial privilege and I.

I thank the noble Viscount for accepting those arguments and not pursuing the amendments further. The amendment from the noble Lord Davis again on amendment 15 A in lieu. I'm also grateful for him accepting that. And in relation to amendment three, three three, it's right that the government fully consults on any changes to Carlosr powers before making significant changes. And again, our amendments in lieu does that. But again, I thank the noble Viscount and indeed the noble Lady Baroness, for their pressure.

And they're raising these issues because it is important. And I just want to confirm again what I've said to him already, which is this issue is not how. But, you know, when we strengthen those closure powers now, I hope I've been able to offer reassurances to the noble Lord Clement-Jones on his amendments and indeed to the noble Lord Davis on his. I suspect I may not have done to the extent that they would wish, but I can only try. We have moved significantly in some of the areas in this group.

I welcome the support for the changes that we've made, but I do hope that in moving motion a. That noble Lords will listen to my wise counsel and not move their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. During the passage of this bill, I greatly admired the minister's I greatly admired the minister's geniality and stamina. But sadly, this isn't always matched by his this isn't always matched by his delivery. But my Lords and so, my Lords, I'm afraid that the government's current approach really doesn't cut the mustard. And
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:49
12:51
None Portrait Division
-

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion D The question is that motion D one be agreed to. As many of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion say content. The contrary, not content. Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not right by the throne. The not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is Is that. Is that. Amendment Is that. Amendment D Is that. Amendment D one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that. Amendment D one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be agreed to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By By Lord By Lord Jay By Lord Jay have By Lord Jay have voted. By Lord Jay have voted. Contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By Lord Jay have voted. Contents 225 not. Contents 144. So the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment E Amendment E the Lord Hanson. My Lord, have already spoken to motions E and F, and with the leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motions E and F, and with the leave of the house I beg to move them. En bloc the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

En bloc the question is that amendments e and f be agreed to en bloc as many as our veteran will bloc as many as our veteran will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. There seems The contents have it. There seems to be some concern from the clerk's. I put the question, put it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

correctly. I. I'm grateful. I think it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I'm grateful. I think it's motion D one as a as amended motion notion D as amended. And we're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

notion D as amended. And we're going to say content as well. Now, just for the sake of. So the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the question is that amendments E and F, as amended. Is this correct? No. That amendment D as amended. I beg your pardon. Stand part of the Bill. Be agreed to as many as FPN content. We just had. On the contrary, not content. And Lord Suri have just agreed that by with by the vote. But never mind,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

let us press on amendments. E and F Lord Hanson move formally. But, my Lords, again, as I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But, my Lords, again, as I've already spoken to motions A and F with the leave of the house, I beg to move them En bloc and formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move them En bloc and formally. Question is that amendment E and F be agreed to En bloc as many as F be agreed to En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. content. the contents have it. Amendment. Who is G? One moment while I turn over Lord Fuller other pages. The Lord Hanson of Flint link.
13:03
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
It's actually me. >> My Lords, I beg to move motion g that this house do not insist on its amendments two, five, six and 257 and do agree with the Commons 257 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 257 A and 257B in lieu. I will also speak to motions H, j, K, l, m, W and Y. My Lords, I start with the collection of intimate image abuse related amendments in lieu. These all flow from the noble Lady, Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge's amendments to the Bill at Report stage.

I'm going to say once more with feeling that I thank the noble Lady for engaging with us over the past few weeks, which she has done extensively. It's in the best traditions of your Lordships House. We work together to ensure. I hope that the government has taken the right direction with these amendments across the piece. I begin with the take down powers amendments 257A to B in motion G build on the government's existing provisions. They do this by making failure to comply with an Ofcom enforcement decision relating to the new takedown duties, a criminal offence, and what this means is that senior executives of the service could be personally criminally liable for the failure.

Alongside this enforcement approach, the government is also strengthening safeguards against malicious reporting and we will bring forward regulations which 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 is working with Ofcom to create a clear route for reporting complaints regarding compliance with the NCA duty signposting to specialist organisations.

We will also use existing powers under the Online Safety Act to strengthen transparency, enabling Ofcom to require services to report on and publish their average NCA takedown times. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lady Baroness Stern for her continued advocacy on this important topic. I turn to deletion orders and motion H. The government recognises the serious harm caused by perpetrators retaining copies of intimate images. We have listened to the will of the House at Report stage and that is why we have brought forward a new deletion order which will be available upon conviction for a broader range of offences.

This new order can be made for all intimate image abuse offences including breastfeeding, virus recording and the new sharing of semen defaced images offences which I'm going to refer to throughout my speech as intimate image related offences. It will enable courts to order the deletion and destruction of all copies of a relevant image. The way it does this is by requiring the court to give reasons if it declines to make a deletion order for images related to the offence, and this mirrors the the criminal law in relation to compensation orders, it strikes the right balance between protecting victims whilst preserving judicial discretion in appropriate cases.

Importantly, it enables courts to delete the order, the deletion and destruction of all copies related to a specified offence and the offender's possession or control, as well as well as any other relevant images of the same victim. Breaching such an order will be a separate criminal offence in itself, carrying a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. With regard to hashing and the non-consensual intimate image register imagery register, the government will give a statutory back, will give statutory backing to a register of non-consensual, intimate images.

And then there's 260A to D in motion. J enable the government to designate a trusted flagger, which will most likely be the revenge porn helpline, and following a scoping exercise to make further provisions by regulations about the operation of a statutory register. This includes provisions for the Secretary of State to impose requirements on providers to share hashes, and any other information deemed necessary with the register as Lord Sewell 260A to D recognise proceeding by regulations will enable us properly to evaluate the requirements necessary to ensure a register operates as effectively as possible.

I now turn to the question of pornography. First, I want to thank again the noble Lady Baroness Bertin, for the time she's taken to meet many Ministers over the last few weeks. We really are grateful to her for the time she spent with us, making sure that we get this right. I should stress to your Lordships that the changes to which I now turn are just the start, and the government means it. When we say we look forward to working with the noble Lady even more in future, I will speak briefly to the parity sprint.

This is a key piece of ongoing work which will build on the provisions in this bill, and in fact, the discussions have already started. This work will identify the best way to fix the gap between the regulation of pornography online and offline. It will address content that is not caught by our proposed offences that would otherwise be illegal offline and this, for example, could include pornography where there is a suggestion that a person is under 18, a relationship is portrayed as abusive or there is a clear exploitative power imbalance or breach of trust, including some examples of depictions of incest between adults or teacher and a student.

At the end of this work, the government is fully committed to implementation. If regulators need to be assigned, this will happen. If legislation is needed, this will happen. This government is serious about this. In a similar vein, on the verification of age and consent, we agree with the sentiment which underlies this amendment. Non-Consensual intimate images and child sexual abuse have no place online, and the tech platforms need to do more to prevent this type of illegal content. But having said this, further work is needed to identify the most effective approach.

For this reason, the government's amendments in Leu 26648F in motion L provide for a further statutory sprint to test which mechanisms will be most effective for tackling this kind of content. It also places a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within 12 months of the Bill, receiving Royal Assent on the outcome of this work, and provides a power to make regulations to give effect to its outcome, given the existing criminal and regulatory legal frameworks, we need carefully to consider the gaps and how best they can be addressed.

Upon completion of the review, we have the option of putting in place regulations to impose new duties on providers of internet services relating to verification of age and consent, and the power would allow the appointment of a regulator to oversee these duties with regard to adult role playing as children in pornography, we have listened to the concerns that were raised. We must protect the legislative regime that protects actual children from harm, which is why we cannot support Lords Amendment 265. However, we absolutely agree with the noble Lady Baroness Bertin that content that mimics child sexual abuse must be tackled, and that is why we brought forward amendments in Leu two 65A to H in motion M, which criminalised the possession and publication of pornographic images portraying sexual activity between persons where one person is or is pretending to be under 16.

This will be a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. Our intention with these amendments is clearly to signal that content which mimics and thus risks normalising child sexual abuse, is totally unacceptable and should not be available online. I need to make it clear about what the provision criminalises. It includes pornographic depictions of any sexual activity where one party is pretending to be under 16. It's intentionally wide and it will capture harmful content that we know exists. And my Lords, I apologise for being graphic here, but there is no way of avoiding it.

No Lord Pannick laughing as I said, and I'm here again talking about rather graphic acts. But this provision will capture images such as an actor role playing as an underage girl, where, for example, her underwear has been moved aside or male genitals are in shot. As I've just said, this offence is just the start. Content that is illegal offline but not caught by this offence will be addressed through the government's work on parity. Similarly, in relation to pornography depicting incest, we have listened to the concerns about the extent to which the Government's Lords Amendment 263 should cover other troubling relationships, such as sex, between step relations.

We completely agree with the need to curtail the depiction of step incest pornography in cases where it portrays conduct that is illegal in the real world. To that extent, the government's amendments in lieu two six, three A to G in motion K will restore and extend the new offence of possession and publication of incest pornography. It will list the relevant family relationships and expands this to include step parents and children, step siblings and foster parents and children. Where one of the persons is or is pretending to be under the age of 18, where there are grey areas such as step relationships over 18, that show a clear power imbalance and would be illegal offline.

This will be addressed through the parity sprint about which I have already spoken. Through Lords amendments two, five five and 295. The government is criminalising the making, adapting and supplying of new defaecation tools and is bringing chatbots into scope of the Online Safety Act. This means that the requirements of the Online Safety Act will kick in. Social media services will be required to take down content that supplies notification tools, and search engines will have to reduce the visibility of search results linked to these tools.

When chatbots come into the scope of the Online Safety Act, they will also have to ensure illegal notification tools and images cannot be made, supplied or appear on those services. Taken together, these measures will deliver an effective ban on notification tools. Given this, we do not believe that a separate possession offence as provided for in Lords Amendment 505 would make a meaningful difference, not least as many such tools are not possessed in the technical legal sense, but rather are accessed online.

So for this reason we're seeking its removal via motion Y. But we're very grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Bertin for engaging with us on this, and for supporting the approach that we have discussed at length with her, and finally fixed upon my Lords, finally, the government, I turn to the abortion pardon and deletion motion. W finally, the government remains neutral on the substance of clause 191 and Lords Amendment 361, but we do have a duty to ensure that the law is operationally and legally workable.

Amendments 3618E ensure the duty to remove certain details from the records of women previously convicted of caution for, arrested for or investigating 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 requires 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 practicable, to make the decision. My Lords, I beg to move.
13:16
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
G. B agreed to motion G one the Baroness Elliott of Alderley Edge. Baroness Elliott of Alderley Edge. >> I beg to move motion G as an amendment. Motion G1 as an amendment to motion G at the end. amendment to motion G at the end. Insert and do propose amendments. 2573257D257E and 257F as amendments to amendment 257A, I will also speak to motions H and J. In doing so, I declare an interest as receiving pro bono legal advice on intimate image abuse from Mishcon de Reya.

Amendments 257C and amendment 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 the offer that Ofcom have transparency powers under schedule eight of the Online Safety Act to gather information from internet services, and that these regulations can be developed further. I am keen to ensure. I'm keen that the government addresses any remaining gaps to ensure that all internet services that Ofcom defines as being high or medium risk of sharing intimate image content.

As Ofcom will outline in their hashing measures, are required to publicly report their takedown times. I was disappointed by the government removing the fine per day per account of £39,000 that the Lord so overwhelmingly voted to support. Whilst acknowledged that Ofcom does have the power to issue daily fines, I still believe 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 are issuing daily fines in response to this, I am very grateful for the vast movement the government has made by introducing their amendments under motions G, H and J in response to my amendments at Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill, we have made huge progress on the deletion of content after conviction and on the hashing of intimate content to prevent Re-upload.

I very much look forward to working with the government and the charities, as the centralised hash registry is developed. My Lords, I do not intend to test my motion today. I am grateful to the government in particularly to the noble Baroness, the Minister and to the noble Lords across this House who have worked with me so constructively on these issues. I also wish to quickly thank the survivors who have worked alongside me, Professor Clare McGlynn, KC and Sophie Mortimer from the Revenge Porn Helpline for their steadfast support.

I believe we have made huge strides towards

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protecting victims from this appalling form of abuse. I beg to move. The original.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question was that motion g be agreed to? Since when motion G1 has been moved as an amendment to been moved as an amendment to motion G at the end to insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is List. The question, therefore, is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that motion G1 be agreed to. Very briefly. I'd like to. Rise really to welcome. The government's amendments. 263A to G2648F. And 265A.
13:19
Baroness Bertin Portrait Baroness Bertin (Conservative)
-
-
To C, and I want to put on the record how grateful I am to the government for the constructive conversations that we've had to get to this place. And I also want to put on the record my view that this these amendments do mark the beginning of a new era in the regulation of harmful pornographic content in this country. I welcome the commitments, 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 to that commitment and reaching this point. I also want to echo my noble friend Baroness Owen's point about thanking the cross party and the the team effort that it really has been to get to this point. And in particular, I want to thank my team, Gemma Kelly in particular, and also Clare McGlynn, who have been at the helm of these kind of reforms and pushing this work through for a lot longer than I have.

I do very quickly though, want to turn to amendments two six for a in 264F, which addresses 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. And whilst I'm wary of the word review, allergic to it, even, I think I do 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.

We know this industry is rife with coercion and trafficking, and falling short here would be a grave failure to victims. I now want to turn briefly to two, 65A and 265C, addressing adults role playing children in pornography. The purpose of this offence is clear to ensure that material which stimulates, normalises or encourages an interest in child sexual abuse is illegal to host in online. This is not theoretical harm. This content acts as a gateway to a very real and dangerous interest, and it's right that the law intervenes decisively.

And I'm very, very grateful for this government to move on that. I do want to say very briefly, though, it's equally important to put on the record that this is not sorry. I want to offer reassurance to communities that have raised concerns. This offence is carefully and deliberately drawn, and I thank officials for doing that with clear exclusions for genuinely fanciful depictions involving unambiguously adult participants. This is not about criminalising benign fantasy. It is about drawing a firm line at the point where content begins to replicate the dynamics, power imbalance and harms of child sexual abuse.

I also welcome amendments 263A to 263G, which send offences to include step incest and foster relationship pornography involving children. For far too long, pornography has been allowed to normalise and incite sexual abuse within the household, and these amendments begin to close a deeply troubling gap in the law. But I do appreciate the Minister for saying that this is only the beginning. Very briefly, on new notification tools, criminalising their creation and supply and bringing them within scope of the Online Safety Act is a proportionate and necessary step.

But platforms and search engines, we must emphasise this must not be allowed to direct users or to profit from this software. We saw just today reports from Bloomberg that Apple and Google have profited heavily from new DeFi apps, and this only underlies the urgency of the action and how specific they must be to stop search engines from from, from, from allowing this, this, these kind of apps to, to, you know, remain possible to find very, very quickly. My Lord Geddes work matters far beyond this chamber.

Harmful pornography is a global problem requiring a global response. Regulation and law change is not an end in itself, but used properly, it can raise awareness, disrupt profit, and accelerate change. These amendments are not the final word, but they are a decisive and long overdue step forward. And I welcome them.
13:23
13:24
13:25
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, both noble Baroness Cass, have spoken extremely Cass, have spoken extremely eloquently today and from these benches, it's been a privilege to be part of the cross-party coalition for both their campaigns. My Lords and I pay tribute, as others have, to both of them for their persistence throughout the passage of this bill. My Lords, in particular, on these benches, we have strongly supported the comprehensive framework introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and who has tirelessly campaigned on non-consensual, intimate images.

And we welcome. And this is a tribute to the noble Baroness Levitt. We welcome the government's concessions today under motion G, particularly the move to place the 48 hour takedown requirement firmly into the bill. And 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 have rightly stated this week. Embedding this register in law is a transformative move and a hugely important step forward in protecting victims at scale.

And again, I congratulate the noble Baroness in securing this. However, whilst we celebrate this progress, the government's amendments will continue to require scrutiny in two crucial areas. First, regarding the new statutory NCA register, the devil will be in the detail as s w, g f L has highlighted. Key questions remain around how this register will be operated in practice and most importantly, enforced. And second, the government's amendments on image deletion orders under motion H still fall somewhat short during the debate.

In the other place, on Tuesday, a government backbencher praised these amendments, believing they would ensure courts are properly mandated to destroy those intimate images. And I quote but my Lords, the government's amendment explicitly uses the word May, leaving deletion entirely at the judge's discretion. Nevertheless, I believe that the noble Baroness has achieved a huge amount through this process. My Lords, and on these benches we entirely understand why the noble Baroness may choose not to press motion G1, and she should take the greatest possible pride in what has been achieved so far.

My Lords, turning to the second part of this group, the regulation of online pornography, I likewise pay tribute to the noble Baroness Brady Burton, who's worked tirelessly to expose the appalling loopholes that currently allow commercial pornography platforms to operate with light touch self-regulation. The government's amendments in lieu, under motions K and L, may be said to fall short of the robust statutory safeguards that this House originally agreed upon on age and consent verification. The House voted to make it a requirement for platforms to verify the age and permission of everyone featured on their site.

My Lords, the government has taken this out, replacing an immediate duty with the duty to review and report to Parliament within 12 months, followed by unspecified regulating powers, and I do very much accept that the noble Baroness is somewhat wary, but I accept her view on the way forward. My Lords. Furthermore, the government's amendments dilute the ban on step incest pornography. They've caveated the offence so that it only applies to depictions of incest, where one of the persons is portrayed to be under the age of 18.

This does miss the point of establishing parity with the Offline Sexual Offences Act, where sexual relations between stepparents and stepchildren are illegal regardless of age due to the inherent power imbalances. My Lords, the government has also failed to match the ambition. Amendment 505 which brings us to motion Y in the other place, yesterday, the. The noble. The Minister claimed that amendment 505 was unnecessary. She argued that the government's new offence of supplying nullification tools, combined with future powers to regulate chatbots via Ofcom, is sufficient.

But my Lords, I promised to eventually introduce secondary legislation to tell search engines to reduce the visibility of these apps does nothing to stop individuals from possessing, downloading and using these tools to abuse women. Right now, my Lords, my Lords, I think a great deal of weight is being placed on the. The sprint, the so-called delivery plan within six months of Royal Assent to achieve greater parity between the regulation of online and offline pornography. So we very much hope that that will bear fruit in due course.

On the mimicking of children. As the noble Baroness Cass indicated, this is clearly been quite a battle with government, and the noble Baroness has settled on the criminalisation of the depiction of children under 16, and I know that she would have preferred that it was 18. But the government have claimed that widening it is operationally difficult and would put too much pressure on law enforcement, my Lords, but they have promised that they will commit on the floor of the House to address this in the charity work via regulation, but not the criminal law.

My Lords, we can't let the best be the enemy of the good. Let's make no mistake, these amendments to the bill are a huge victory for the noble Baroness and all victims and campaigners in this field, and I very much hope that the noble Baroness receives the assurances from government that she is seeking.
13:31
13:32
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> I want to thank all noble Lords for the contributions made to the debate, 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 1 or 2 of the points that are raised. The first one is in relation to the noble Lady, Baroness Owen's motion G1 motion G, of course, strengthens accountability, where platforms fail to comply with their duties to deal with non-consensual, intimate images.

With regard to motion G1, we recognise the noble Ladies concern and we do want transparency beyond just the biggest platforms, and that's why every regulated, user regulated user to user service must be clear with users about how it is meeting the 48 hour takedown duty, while Ofcom Ofcom can require detailed reporting where it will make the biggest difference through schedule eight. The Online Safety Act allows Ofcom to require detailed information about how providers identify, deal with and take down illegal content, and we will amend this through regulations to make clear that these requirements cover compliance with the new NCA takedown duty, including average takedown times.

Turning to the verification of age again, the government does recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lady Baroness Bertin. It is not the government intentionally delaying these important changes for the sake of it. I think that the noble Lady recognises that we all agree that this issue is important, but we cannot shy away from the complex legal and practical issues it presents, and these considerations have got to be made alongside and flowing from the existing six month review into parity, closing the gap between regulation of on and offline pornography.

For this reason, the 12 months is needed to ensure we get it right. We're really grateful to the noble Lady for supporting this approach. My Lords, dealing with just briefly adults role playing as children and the question of incest. The. In relation to the point made by the noble Lord Clement-Jones as to the differential in age, it's to make sure that the offline offences mirror the underlying. Sorry. The online offences mirror the underlying offline criminal offences so that there is parity between the two.

But I should stress that for both of these offences, adults role playing and the extension to incest offences, this is a first step. The provisions in this bill create significant changes already in the criminal law and the parity work to which we've all referred will build on this to address the grey areas where it is illegal offline but difficult to address online via the criminal law. My Lords, it only remains for me to thank once again the two noble Ladies, the Baroness Bertin and Owen.

I do genuinely look forward to continue to work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with them in future. I beg to move. I thank the noble Baroness, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister for her response and I am assured by her response. Thank you
13:35
13:35
13:36
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion, then, that this House do not insist on its amendment 311 to which the on its amendment 311 to which the Commons have disagreed with the leave of the House. I'd also like to speak to motions s, t u and X amendment 311 put forward by the noble Lord Lord Walney seeks to introduce a prescription regime for extreme criminal process groups. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the amendment with the noble Lord both before report, during report, formally and informally since then, and I do understand the concerns that led to the adoption of amendment 311.

It remains the case that the government, however, cannot support this amendment. The amendment aims to minimise the risk of Palestine action style sign holders being arrested to challenge a prescription decision. I particularly 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've shared with the noble Lord Walney privately, which has been identified by the independent reviewer, that the prescription regime is undermined by the proposal and the threshold for prescription will naturally increase if there is an alternative designation available, the government may indeed 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, I would argue, 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 Macdonald of River Glaven Casey, as the House will know, is currently undertaking a review of public order and hate crime legislation, and I fully expect him to report to the House and to Parliament as a whole next month in May. I'd argue to the House that it would be appropriate to wait for the outcome of that review before committing to any further legislation, and I hope with those comments that the noble Lord Walney would not wish to pursue his amendment.

Turning to motion S and amendment 342, can I say I agree with the sentiments in our early debates expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Juicy, multi-agency engagement is essential to the success of Youth diversion orders. In practice, however, I would argue to her which she's at liberty to accept or not. Obviously, that there is already in current drafting of legislation the reflected amendments. Accordingly, 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.

And I want to emphasise particularly that youth offending teams are necessarily already multi-agency in nature and include representations from probation, local councils, social services, health, education and others, which means that the police will already need to ensure there's 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 order when indeed in place. This will include guidance for the police on the consultation process, consideration of alternative interventions before the police could even apply for an order, and the guidance will be laid before Parliament in due course.

And I've explained to the noble Lady that, unusually for statutory guidance, we have provided that in this instance the guidance is subject to scrutiny by both houses through the negative resolution, and that is an abnormal procedure for the type of activity that is 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, given the concerns in committee and Report stage.

However, 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 section 174 of the bill, including Youth Justice Services. Now, to be clear, I know there's been a bit of debate with this both outside of the chamber.

In my discussions with the noble Lady, the guidance in this case will have the word may, but that does reflect usual practice. I hope the amendments in lieu offers sufficient assurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Ducey, 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 as a whole. If I look at motion T and amendment three, five seven on the glorification of terrorism, I'm pleased that the noble Lady Foster is available to examine this issue.

And again, I've had a great opportunity to discuss with her outside of the chamber these matters in informal discussions. I have previously set out. I fully recognise the harm that can be caused by the glorification of terrorism. The offence in section one of the Terrorism Act was designed to prevent terrorist risks by criminalising statements, which could lead to individuals being encouraged to carry out acts of terrorism themselves. Such statements not only increase the risk to public safety, but also potentially legitimise terrorist actors if left unchecked.

However, as I set out in Report stage and as I've also discussed with the noble Lady outside of the chamber, the offence of encouraging terrorism is already very wide and I believe 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 nowadays of those acts being repeated and 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.

Now I do recognise the noble Baroness. Lady foster has attempted to limit her changes to statements which concern the act of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations. However, this does not fully mitigate the reach and risk of overreach, and I've described that this 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 the issue.

So what I'm proposing to the House is 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 reviewers role is to review the operation of terrorism legislation in practice. So this commission by the government would be an opportunity for the reviewer to undertake a detailed review of the use of the encouragement offence in practice and identify any issues which may warrant further consideration by the government.

I will, of course, as again, I've 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, and I hope that assists in what is a genuine attempt by the noble Baroness to clarify this issue, and I hope that I've at least attempted to meet that motion halfway at least.

And finally, motion G1, X and amendment three, five, nine noble Lords will know that it is a long standing position shared across the political spectrum, that the government of the day does not comment on intelligence and security issues, including whether or not certain groups are being considered for prescription. I would argue 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 IR, GC, as well as placing Iran on the enhanced tier for the Foreign Influence Registration scheme.

We will also legislate when parliamentary time allows to introduce a prescription like power to address the threat of hostile activity posed by the state and state linked bodies. Following the review of the independent Reviewer for Terrorism Legislations review. But I can't accept the proposals as originally planned. I hope that they will not be moved today, perhaps again in vain hope rather than in expectation. But I will at least try to put that on the record. But in the meantime, my Lords, I beg to move the motions standing in my name.
13:46
Lord Walney Portrait Lord Walney (Crossbench)
-
-
The question is that motion n be >> The question is that motion n be agreed to motion n one Lord Walney. >> My Lords, I beg. >> To move motion n one as an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move motion n one as an amendment to motion n leak to leave out from house to end, and insist out from house to end, and insist and do insist on its amendment. 311 my Lords, I was disappointed that the government directed its members and the Commons to vote down amendment three 311, which would as created a limited power for the government to designate as an extreme criminal protest group. Organisations which 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, such as holding up signs.

I'm grateful for the time that the noble Lord the Minister has taken to meet with me directly on this matter on a number of occasions. As he says, he has characterised the government's objections in those two areas. One, the observations made by the government's Independent Reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, which were published on the 31st of March, and the second, the fact of Lord McDonald of Ravens review of public order legislation, which he assures us is due to report shortly.

Let me deal with both of those issues briefly. Jonathan Hall makes important points which we should all reflect. Reflect on. He summarises his objections as one that the power potentially overlaps with terrorism proscription, but the relationship is unclear. Two, that the existence of the new power will be used to undermine terrorist prescription. Three that it is doubtful if the new offences are suitable for groups operating below the national security threshold. To take these three in turn. On the first point, if that is a genuine concern to the point that there is genuine potential, the government believes for a proscribed group to be able to to be able to legally contest the proportionality of a full terrorism prescription because of the existence of a lower form of of designation, then it is surely within the government's power to be able to insist that that the one does not preclude the other.

That is a that is a safeguard which could be put into legislation that the government brings forward. Second, that the idea that this will be used to undermine terrorist prescription. Well, it's important to make the point that we are dealing with a very narrow and quite unusual form of prescription here, which uses the the part of the definition of terrorism, which relates to economic damage, because none of the offences that I have none of the offences that I have set out would would enable a group to which is to be designated as terrorists, which used violent methods to to target individuals or groups to kill.

Those are have never been under the scope of this extreme criminal protest group designation. So we are dealing with the relatively narrow issue of a group which uses the methods such as Palestine Action has used, where there is a level of. There has been a level of violence which the. The government has has has asserted as part of its prescription. But it is undoubted that the main part of what they have done has been in intimidation and through and attempts to influence public policy attempts to influence public policy through criminal damage.

Now. There are always. Jonathan Hall suggests that if you move the goalposts, then these groups would find new ways to proportionately break the law. Even if this were not this were not holding up signs. You would find a new way to to to do that. Now that is of course a possibility. There will you could never devise any legislation which could guarantee against people performatively trying to clog up the court system in the way that this is happening at the moment with the Palestine action protesters.

But the key point here is that while there will always be a hard core of people who are determined to contest this, what has made Palestine actions terrorist prescription so controversial is not that people agree with what they are doing necessarily. It is the fact of labelling this as terrorism. Now, I agreed with the proscription of Palestine action, which I know is is not universally held in the House. I hope that the government's appeal against the High High Court judgement is successful.

Nevertheless it is. It cannot be seen as good public policy. It cannot be seen that this framework is working. If the government, as the government, took five years to reach the judgement that the sustained campaign of criminal damage and vandalism, which was carried out by by Palestine action until it reached a terrorism threshold, this measure enables faster action to deal with that, and I, I know that the Minister, the noble Lord, the Minister, will not say that the government would be deterred from carrying out action to designate a group again if it meant another group that eventually reached the.

It reached the terrorism threshold through the. Primarily through the use of criminal damage. They will not admit that, but I. I suggest that that they would be highly wary of that they would be highly wary of repeating this with another. With the next. Palestine, for there is a gap in the legislative framework which is not being filled. And that leads to the third point where Jonathan Hall says it. He contests whether the. The powers are appropriate, given that they are relative.

They are relatively fair. They're less severe, significantly less severe than terrorist prescription, but they're still relatively severe. And I respectfully disagree with him on that point. And I hope that he will reflect, and I hope the government will reflect because of the nature and the severity of this problem of of extreme protest groups using criminal damage in a systematic way, which is causing huge amounts of economic damage and, and damage to the, to the, the public realm. And, and that ties into the, the second of the, the government's objections to this, which is, as he has stated a number of times.

And again today, Lord MacDonald's upcoming review. And and we are all looking forward to that. And I, I hope that I am able to persuade my my noble friend, Lord MacDonald of the the merits of this. But the fact is that the government has acted ahead of this review. In other areas. It could do so. Now there is a need to do so now, rather than to wait for when the next legislative legislative opportunity comes along, which may be years down the track.

And to conclude, my Lords, there is a growing academic epidemic of these tactics being used to frighten the public, to try to deter businesses from carrying out legitimate, lawful activity. I had a meeting with a major insurance supplier yesterday who does not want at this point to be public because of the fear of further reprisals, but they they spelt spelt out that that because of tangential at one or 2 or 3 removes from a defence company which may have in some ways relationship with in Israel conflict in Gaza highly, highly debateable.

They are repeatedly attacked with their windows being smashed with red paint, with paint being being daubed over their offices, with their employees frightened to go to to work. They are spending literally millions of pounds per year on the on preventative measures and the clean up operations. They are one single insurer. This is spreading. It's completely unacceptable that the defence industry is being subjected to this, but this is spreading far beyond the defence industry into the insurance and financial sectors and others and other sectors.

The the framework we have is not adequate to deal with it, and it would not be disproportionate to put in place these limited this limited measure to be able to restrict the activities of such organisations and and send that greater deterrence message to be able to protect businesses and workers and the public from this sustained in intimidation. So I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Rise to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rise to. Thank you. The original question was the motion n b agreed to. Since when motion N one has been moved as when motion N one has been moved as an amendment to motion N leave out from house to end and insert to from house to end and insert to insist on amendment 311. The question, therefore, is that motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question, therefore, is that motion N one be agreed to. My Lords, I. Rise to move. Motion s one in my name.
13:57
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
At Report stage. Your Lordship 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 full report into the Southport tragedy was published. I had hoped it might lead to a change of heart by the government, but regrettably it is 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 act 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. My Lords, these failures cost lives, and Fulford makes 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 coordinated leadership.

The danger wasn't 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 tells us this should be left to guidance. They say a statutory duty for multi-agency consultation would make the law too rigid and prevent judges from exercising discretion. But surely that gets things the wrong way round. Judges can only use their discretion properly if they have had all the relevant information before them.

Now, the Minister said a few minutes ago that the police have a duty to consult, and they do, but that duty is narrow. It's limited to the youth offending team. It leaves out the schools, health professionals and social services who often know the child best. Amendment S1 would not reduce discretion. It would support informed decision making and, as a result, better public protection use. Diversion orders are designed to deal with young people who pose a risk to others.

They aim to provide a structured and preventative 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 their mental health, their school situation and any contact services. Without that picture, the court cannot make an order that truly fits the child's needs or the level of risk they pose. That is why a statutory duty to consult all relevant agencies is absolutely essential. Last year, the number of under 17 seconds 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 those at the heart of our national security. The professionals in MI5 acknowledge that only the complete, joined up view of a young person's world can reveal both the risk and the remedy. My Lords, we must never forget the human cost. 16 year old Rhiannon Rudd 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 an 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 we saw in Southport. I urge the House to insist on this amendment, which retains the statutory protections we previously agreed to disregard the lessons of Southport.

Now that the full report is before us, would be a profound dereliction of duty, we are legislating to prevent future tragedies. We must not pass

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here. The Lords. May I say a few words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lords. May I say a few words in relation to Lord Walney motion n one on extreme criminal process groups. The House should be thanking Lord Walney for all his thanking Lord Walney for all his enormous efforts and dedication in relation to this important subject
14:03
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
relation to this important subject over many years. There's no doubt about the gravity of the mischief that the United Kingdom is facing here. There are these extreme criminal protest groups. There are, sadly, people who believe that the way in which to advance their political views and they're perfectly entitled to their political views about Gaza, about Israel, about other subjects, is impermissibly to use violence against people and to smash up property. And it is simply disgraceful. And the law needs to deal with these people powerfully and effectively.

That is symptomatic of a malaise in our society, which we have seen the other night in relation to Finchley Reform Synagogue and in relation to the attempt to set fire, the setting fire to ambulances in north west London. It's all disgraceful and every effort must be made by the law to ensure that this type of action can be addressed and remedied. However, although I supported Lord Walney at Report stage in relation to his amendment, which has now been considered by the Commons, I do hope, and as I understand it, this is the case.

He will not be moving his amendments today to divide the House. I'm sure that's right and it's right for the reasons the Minister gave us that Jonathan Hall the reviewer had of terrorism legislation has made some powerful points which need very carefully to be considered in relation to how we deal with extreme criminal protest groups. Lord Macdonald of River Glaven is reporting. We heard he'll be reporting at next month. There's also the appeal in relation to the proscription of Palestine action.

That appeal is going to be heard in the Court of Appeal the week after next, and I very much hope it's a matter for them, of course, but I very much hope that the Court of Appeal will be giving judgement before Lord McDonald issues his report, and he will obviously wish to take account of that judgement and the. The Home Office will wish to take account of that judgement. I think it's important to stress that there are two important issues which are raised by the motion that Lord Walney is putting forward.

The first is whether the law is at its most effective. If it requires that before proscription can occur, a particular body has to be labelled as terrorist. Now, I entirely understand that the actions of Palestine action have been recognised by the government to fall within the statutory definition of being a terrorist group, and the Divisional Court judgement, which has been much criticised. But the Division of Court judgement accepts that Palestine action is indeed a terrorist group.

But I think there is a real issue here. Does it undermine the efficacy of proscription for a body such as Palestine action to be labelled as terrorist, given that for all of us, most people. Certainly terrorism has a connotation that many people wouldn't regard as satisfied by a protest group objectionable and damaging though it is. I think that's something the Home Office really need to give further thought to. And the other point, which Lord Walney has has emphasised in his motion again, I think it's a real point that the current law doesn't just proscribe organisations such as Palestine Action, but it makes it unlawful for people to stand in a public place and say, I support Palestine action.

And that has led to hundreds of individuals, otherwise law abiding individuals being arrested. And that poses real problems for the administration of justice in this country. And it may be better to have a proscription law that does not criminalise the mere expression of support for a body such as Palestine action, however objectionable and unlawful the conduct of that organisation is. Perhaps we should confine the illegality to those who organise such a group and those who finance it, and those who do more by way of support than simply sitting in a public place and saying, I sympathise with that organisation now those are difficult questions.

Jonathan Hall has made some powerful points in relation to them. I'm simply saying that I hope the Home Office, I'm sure they will will give further thought to these matters. Can I thank the Minister because he has laboured hard on this bill, which covers so many areas. He has responded with sensitivity, with tact and courtesy to a wide range of subjects in which he Lord Hanson has all of our thanks. He no doubt will be pleased to know that it is absolutely inevitable that the subjects will be returning to the House, and we very much look forward to hearing his further comments under future legislation.
14:09
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. apologise to the Minister for not being in for the beginning of his speech. He'll be glad to know my athleticism allowed. As I was athleticism allowed. As I was running down the corridor to be in in time for his reference to motion a T which I want to speak to briefly this afternoon, which deals with the issue of glorification of terrorism. And I want to thank all those who supported the amendment at Report stage. I believe in doing so collectively, that we have underlined the importance of dealing with this issue, which is becoming a gateway to extremism and and worst terrorism as well.

And I do want to particularly thank the Minister for his engagement and that of his officials for the constructive way in which they have engaged around the whole issue. And as a result, I won't be pushing motion A1 to a vote today, but rather look forward to engaging in the review, which will be put in place after this bill becomes law. Particularly welcome the opportunity to engage around the terms of reference for the review, because I hope that review is going to take the approach of engaging widely to ascertain how the narrative that it is somehow acceptable to glorify terrorism, to effect change, and the fact that it's taking hold in our society here in the UK.

And of course, the real damage that it can cause to society. I also hope the review will take note of the fact that there has not been one single prosecution taken in Northern Ireland, despite the very obvious ongoing glorification of terrorism there. And I know that the noble Lord, the Minister and many in this House recognise that this is a growing issue and if there was any doubt of the fact that it is very much a real and live issue, a brief glimpse at my social media feeds after reports stage in this House would confirm this to be the case.

One particularly brazen poster said that he wished the provost had killed when they attacked him up the RA. Of course, that's a reference to the attempted murder of my father by the IRA in 1979. And that, of course, is something I've become quite resilient to. But it is entirely unacceptable that people can glorify terrorism as a way to to make change happen. And then, of course, over Easter, when many of us were relaxing with our friends and family, some of those who are content to glorify the actions of the IRA broke into a Church of Ireland Sunday school in a village near to where I live.

They ransacked it, and we know that they were supporters of the IRA because they wrote up the RA over the Ten Commandments. I was very pleased to see the local Roman Catholic community condemn that vandalism. But there was silence, complete silence from the political wing of the IRA. In other words, Sinn Fein, nothing from their local representatives and nothing from the self-appointed First Minister for all. And as we have said through this debate, this is not just a Northern Ireland issue.

Here in London. Just yesterday, Finchley Reform Synagogue endured what police are calling an anti-Semitic hate crime when the shul was attacked in an attempt to break in and firebombing incident. This is a shul which is not only a place of worship for the Jewish community, but also hosts a nursery, a homeless shelter and a safe place for refugees to gather. So there's two attacks which have happened very recently in two different parts of the United Kingdom, in two different faith buildings, both motivated by hate and as Sarah Sackman, the MP for Finchley and Golders Green, said yesterday, we cannot allow this to become the new norm.

So, my Lords, there is a definite need to deal with the issue of glorification of terrorism. It has real consequences for young people being led into extremism and thinking that terrorism is somehow cool and edgy, rather than learning about the fact that it leads to division, pain and hurt, mostly to to their neighbours, I have to say. And the radicalisation of children should be something that we're all concerned about in this House. So I want to thank again all the noble Lords who have supported the amendment of Report stage and for highlighting the issue.

I want to thank the government for responding in a positive way with the announcement of the review led by Jonathan Hall. I look forward to engaging with him and therefore I won't be moving. Motion A1 this evening.
14:14
Lord Polak Portrait Lord Polak (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I supported Baroness Foster throughout and continue to Foster throughout and continue to do. And I also want to thank the Minister for the time he's taken to engage on on the issue and recognising that this is a serious and pertinent problem. My Lords, the glorification of terrorism has real consequences, as we've 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 does seem to be rather busy and have a lot on his plate, and I hope this is a quick look at something, which I really do hope it's quick. It's important that the review looks at all forms of glorification, including the very significant rise we have seen since October the 7th, 2023. We saw, for instance, young people in the days after October the 7th wearing images of parachutes on the backs. Following October the 7th. Imagery clearly associated with those terrorists who.

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. My Lords were also reminded, as has been said by the Lord Pannick and Baroness Prosser, very starkly, of that real world consequence of this climate. The the, the the Finchley Reform Synagogue. It's not just that there is a a nursery there and it's a community centre.

It's also in the centre of a massive Jewish population. I have five grandchildren that live within yards of that synagogue and that suspected arson attack. I mean, you know, these incidents underline the seriousness of this moment when the lines around terrorism are blurred and when violence is framed in ways that risk justification or glorification, it fosters an environment which hatred is emboldened. And communities are feeling increasingly unsafe. As the Jewish community has so acutely experiences and sadly continues to endure.

So 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.
14:16
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
May I. apologising to your Lordships. commencement. >> Of the. >> Mr Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry, but I did have a great majority of what he said, and great majority of what he said, and I was also present during the speech of the noble Lord Walney and Lord Paddick, and what I wanted simply to do is to emphasise my very considerable support for subsection four of amendment 311, which deals directly with the concerns that I expressed at Committee and report, because 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.

And I do not think that those people should be charged or arrested for terrorism. Now, subsection four of 311 deals directly with that. And I think it's a very, very useful way forward. And I very much hope that on the review, or if there is any amendment to the Terrorism Act brought forward the provisions of subsection four of 311 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 simply

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for demonstrating. Before we have. Any other contributions, could I just remind your Lordships that just 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. And apologising and then proceeding is not the way that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then proceeding is not the way that we do it. If I may, just before we. Progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Progress. Whilst the noble Lord sat on the Woolsack is absolutely right in what he has just argued. I would just say I've just witnessed three members of this House not comply with the companion because whilst my noble friend was absolutely wrong to do what he did, it is not for the noble Lord Dannatt on the wall sack to point out failures of procedure. It is for the government Chief Whip or Deputy Chief Whip who is present to do so.

And if we start all not meeting our own individual responsibilities and discharging them properly, than we are not going to be any of us complying with the companion.
14:19
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, I feel as though I've entered into a slightly surreal moment there, but thank you for moment there, but thank you for that clarification. I. I wanted to speak very briefly in support of speak very briefly in support of what the noble Lord Walney is trying to do, having opposed it at an earlier stage, but I. Which is why I thought it was important I. I thought that the comments by the noble Lord Walney, and indeed the noble Lord Pannick were very helpful at outlining where we what what, what we're confronting, what we're facing at the present time.

So I, I, I just wanted to raise some queries maybe for the noble Lord, the Minister to help me understand. Because one of the points that seems to have been made is that if Lord Walney proposal was accepted, that it would mean raising the threshold of what prescribing an organisation was. And I thought that that didn't make any sense to me, because I would hope that as legislators, we can make the finer distinctions between thresholds and otherwise, if we. And we do need some nuance here, because otherwise I do fear that we will use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, which is what I fear has happened in relation to Palestine action, potentially.

I think that the notion of an extreme criminal protest group is a new phenomenon, and it's one, therefore that requires new thinking and the kind of intimidation and criminal damage is not spontaneous. It's organised by organisations who proclaim that they are organisations. And it does seem to me that that needs to be tackled. And yet they are not terrorist organisations. The point about the Palestine action and supporting Palestine action, which I thought the noble and learned Lord Pannick explained very well in terms of holding a sign up, is is that we do not want to be soft on who you prescribe, but we do have to be careful that we don't undermine what you mean by terrorism, by turning those people who are holding the sign up and calling them and treating them as though they were terrorists, because that actually doesn't help anybody.

And what I've found when I've spoken to a lot of young people is that they are now cynical about the label terrorist precisely because of those people who are being arrested under an anti-terrorist prescription for holding up a sign. So I can't see that that helps. And, you know, in the meantime, what doesn't make any sense is that that's the case. And yet, you know, the ID is still not prescribed. I mean, you know, it seems to me to be completely contradictory.

And then finally, I wanted to just note that the, the, the, the damage that this has done or the damage that goes on is immense. The insurance example was given, but by the noble Lord Walney. But I know that people from the Gail Gail's coffee shops have been specifically targeted and was told by, again, some young people that if you go to Gail's, you are in. You know, they've got it in for you and they're going to draw a map of Gail's coffee shops.

I think what happened here is quite serious, but this is very different than going out on a protest in support of Palestine or whatever else you want. And I and I think that we've just got to acknowledge that new world, new problems, new legislation needed. And then just finally, I wanted to just commend the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, for raising her amendment. I'm not sure what entirely I think about it, but I thought that she very importantly, drew our attention to the lessons of Southport and the fact that whatever happens and the noble Lords Minister yesterday rightly said, I need.

We need to be given time as a government to read this inquiry's report now and decide what to do, but I do hope that some of the points that the noble Lady Baroness Doocey raised, particularly in relation to how youth diversion orders are going to be used and and and the need for that across for different agencies to talk to each other were very powerful and very important. And that her comments can, at the very least, feed into the government's discussions in relation to not just learning lessons of Southport, but stopping Southport happening again.
14:24
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And. saying that I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord on the woolsack, on the inadequacy of an apology for late arrival in the chamber, and I'm about to say it's not something I've ever had to make before, but I do. I was late in the chamber today and I do apologise to the House after others that I was late for the start of this group. My Lord, I will speak, my Lords, I will, if I may, and the House permits.

Speak briefly. Lord Walney is motion to permit designation of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extreme. That the Chair The Deputy Speaker made it clear that people. Who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who. Arrive late for the debate weren't allowed to speak. I think it's it's difficult for you having it's it's difficult for you having heard the explanation, heard the discussion to stand up and speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry. We are still. Jumping house. If it is. If it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jumping house. If it is. If it is the will of the house that Lord Marks speak from the front bench hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, carry on. Lord Dear I hope I'll be permitted to speak briefly. I've followed the arguments on all these matters throughout these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proceedings, and. Oh, come on. My Lord. My understanding of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding of the companion. Is on the basis of what Lord Pannick has said about. If the House wishes to hear from a noble House wishes to hear from a noble Lord at that. That is correct, and the House can hear from a noble Lord, if it wishes to, and set aside the companion. But in that case my understanding is that emotion has to be put and voted upon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is helpful in any way at all? Probably not. But as a proposal of the motion, I really proposal of the motion, I really would appreciate hearing what the noble Lord the gentleman has to has to say on it. But yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Go on. On that basis, unless I'm stopped from doing so, I will speak briefly on the first motion. I was going to address Lord Warner's. We going to address Lord Warner's. We have a great deal of sympathy for his proposal. Indeed, we go so far as to say that it seems like a good idea. Its principal appeal is that it would permit of a step falling short of prescription of an organisation which would not involve anyone peacefully expressing support for an organisation at a demonstration of protest in being arrested, charged and possibly convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act.

And in that, I fully agree with the points made by the noble Lord Viscount Hailsham and the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley. I understand that Lord Walney doesn't intend to press his motion to a vote, and we on these benches think he's right in that, because our reservations remain. We abstained at report, and our principal reason for doing so was that the amendment leaves in place the present law on prescription, and does not oblige the government to make a designation of a group as an extreme criminal protest group, where the existing threshold for prescription is met.

So we'd be left with the position that the government would have two alternative designations as options. One with consequences that we consider can be undesirable and far too severe and damaging, and the other with far less serious consequences. And we think that that risk introduces an element of muddle and a lack of clarity into this very difficult but important area of the law. It's important for civil liberties and the rights of the citizen, important for the control of terrorism and of public criminal behaviour more generally.

And as the noble Lord Lord Pannick mentioned, we await the decision of the Court of Appeal and any possible appeal to the Supreme Court on the prescription of Palestine Action Group. And we also await the review of Public Law, Order of Public Law, Order Law by the noble Lord Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. We're not persuaded that it would be sensible now to introduce what is a compromise which would address a very real difficulty with the Terrorism Act as it stands, but would leave the law uncertain? Better by far.

We suggest to wait and trust that a more comprehensive and credible solution to the difficulty presented by the present law can be found that doesn't involve leaving the law unamended and available on prescription, alongside an alternative system introduced as a partial answer only to the weaknesses of the law as it stands. So we applaud Lord Walney for the work he's done on this. We think he's got a sensible way forward, but it does need further work, and we agree that that shouldn't be pressed at this stage.

On motion S1. I have nothing to add to what was said by my noble friend Baroness Doocey, except that on these benches we're fully behind everything she said. And in approving of her motion. Turning to the motion T1 move by the noble Lady, Baroness Foster, we see no reason to change our position of supporting the amendment. We understand why she's not voting. It's right to await the further review, but nevertheless the arguments she puts are well put and persuasive.

For my part, I'm not sure that the government is right to say that the Commons reason was correct, that public discourse around historical acts of terrorism would be criminalised by the amendment suggested by the noble Lady. Baroness Foster limited her motion on report largely in response to something I said on committee to organisations that were presently proscribed and that glorifies the commission of terrorist offences by such presently proscribed organisations. I'm 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 Lady, Baroness Foster in her speech, and the noble Lord Lord Polak in his.

Were united in making the point that glorification of terrorism affects communities across the United Kingdom, and that's the danger that her motion seeks to address. Well, finally, I come to the motion relating to the IRGC to be moved by the conservative frontbench. We support motion you one, and we 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 on these benches we 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 of this year. But in view of the character and actions of the IRGC generally and of its associated organisations, it really is of no help to the government to resist this amendment on the basis that the government keeps the issue of of prescription, of prescription 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 they be rightly regarded as a terrorist organisation justifying their prescription? To that, I suggest the answer must be yes. If that is so, why should the organisation escape prescription 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 in relation to Iran. I don't see why in this Parliament we should refuse to take a step showing our position on the IRGC and its associated organisations, and by doing so, we would further antagonise the US needlessly for no good reason, when we have plenty of other reasons for disagreeing with the president of the United States and his administration.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, can I thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ducey, for returning with her amendment? I understand that the government is offering to that the government is offering to include alternative interventions in youth diversion order guidance, but I agree with the noble Baroness but I agree with the noble Baroness that these considerations should be consistently applied to ensure proportionality. We therefore
14:34
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
support the original measure. My Lords, the motion you won standing in my name returns once again to the issue of prescription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC Lord Stone once again sure that the noble Lord. The Minister will attempt to use the fact that the last government did not prescribe the IRGC, but as a justification for this government's position, and I recognise that fact. But the. The international situation is radically different now to what it was when we left government and before this war even started, my Lords, it was clear that the Iranian regime was ramping up its aggressive activities at home.

It wilfully oversaw the murder of over 40,000 protesters 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. My Lords, this threat has only been exacerbated following the outbreak of war. Just last month, an Iranian man suspected to be 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 and so called Al Quds Day, leading to 12 arrests and countless lost police hours.

While Lords prescribing 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. Excuse me, authoritarian regimes the Lords I once again anticipate that the response for 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 they have the apparatus of an OPEC state behind them.

And now with the current war, we must strengthen our resolve further. The Iranian regime is blocking the Straits 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 to 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 prescribe the IRGC.

And if the noble Lords Minister does still not agree with this conclusion, then I will seek to test the opinion of the House.
14:37
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful for the discussion that we've had to date on these that we've had to date on these matters, and as I made clear in my opening remarks, for those who heard them, at least the government cannot accept both amendment 311 as drafted, and I fully appreciate the work of the noble Lord Walney on these issues. But as I've set out to the House already, the independent reviewer has made clear his view that this would undermine the existing prescription regime.

And I say that both to the noble Viscount Hailsham and I think it was recognised by the noble Lord Pannick that that was the case. And I say it also to the noble Lord Marks that that was the position, and that with Lord MacDonald's review coming forward, I. I believe that it is right that we do not move that amendment today, and I welcome particularly the recognition from the noble Lord Walney of that position. And that's not to undermine the arguments he's made, but we are where we are at the moment.

Now, on the question of amendment three, five, nine, I just stress the position again, that both this and previous governments do not comment on organisations that are being assessed for prescription. We have put in place, as I mentioned in my again in my opening remarks, for those who heard them, that we've sanctioned 550 Iranian individuals, including members of the IRGC, we are holding the Iranian regime to account. We have put them in the foreign Influence registration scheme, and I do take objection, if I may say so, to the suggestion from Lord Marks that somehow us not prescribing the IRGC supports the Iranian regime.

It does not. It does not. But I will not accept that we should be giving a running commentary on prescription. With due respect to the noble Lord, the Lord Davies of Gower and the noble Lord. Marks of Henley on Thames. They have not had intelligence in front of them from the intelligence services on these issues. We're making judgements as a government, and we're not going to comment on a running commentary of where we prescribe and when we prescribe, because that is a very dangerous position to take.

And I just remind the House that any prescription order that was eventually forthcoming on anybody without commenting on the IRGC particular is voted on by both Houses of Parliament, where it can be tested at that time. But I'm not in a position today to give a running commentary on prescription of the IRGC. Nor am I going to, you know, accept in principle the fact that both opposition front benches think it's right to do so. That may be their view. The government has to take a view in due course on these matters.

And it's not for us to give a running commentary on those matters. And I just say to the House as a whole, and now, with regard to the noble Baroness Lady Duty's concerns, I again, I stress that I do understand and I do accept the concerns that she's 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.

Noble Baroness Fox of Buckley stressed that that was important to do so as well. I just stressed to them both that the police are under a duty to consult multi-agency, Youth Offending Teams and multi-agency youth offending teams do comprise health, education, probation and others and police. I'm happy to share a draft of the guidance with the noble Lady in due course, but at the moment I can't accept that amendment. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for both her work on the amendment that she's put forward on glorifying terrorism.

And again, I'm I'm grateful for her. Not I wouldn't say having the courage, but bringing forward her own personal experiences to this. It is very difficult to to do that and to understand the circumstances that she and others find themselves in. I understand again and support the comments of the noble Lord Polak in relation to the glorification generally, and I should just report to the House that the incident in Finchley that has been mentioned during the course of this discussion.

There are individuals under arrest for the alleged offence. There are individuals who are in custody because of the alleged offence currently, and obviously, we should allow the police to do its job and determine whether or not charges should be put forward to the CPS for consideration. But that type of incident, whether these individuals under arrest, are responsible or not, it's simply not acceptable and the government and others should stand with those individuals in the community as a whole.

So I hope again and pleased and welcome the contributions of the noble Lord Walney and the noble Lady, Baroness Foster. But I can't accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord Davis or the noble Lady Ducey, and I would hope that they will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content not to move their motions again in Anticipation and hope rather

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anticipation and hope rather than aspiration and agreement, but I beg to move in the meantime. My motion again, and I hope the House motion again, and I hope the House will agree that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will agree that. My Lords, thank you everyone, for their their insight and their for their their insight and their support on the. The principle behind this matter, which is that urgent need. Urgent action is
14:43
Lord Walney Portrait Lord Walney (Crossbench)
-
-
needed in this area. I am in the light of what has been said light of what has been said reluctantly content to withdraw this this motion. I would just like to leave. In doing so, the noble Lord, the Minister with. With two thoughts. One is that this is not going to go away, and I hope that going to go away, and I hope that he will take away the urgency to deal with this matter, to bring forward a solution which I think has, in the course of this, been shown, that it can be there to deal with the concerns that have been set out in this chamber and without.

And secondly, I, I hope he might agree to meet with me and others to look at the array of protection for businesses that are afflicted in these areas. In the meantime, in advance of any legislative change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I beg with that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordship's. Pleasure this motion n1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure this motion n1 be withdrawn. The motion is by leave withdrawn. The question is that motion n be agreed to. As many of motion n be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Motion P Lord Hanson of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Motion P Lord Hanson of Flint moved. My Lords, I have already spoken to motion P that this House do not to motion P that this House do not insist on its amendment three, three three and do agree with the Commons or their amendment 333A in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lieu. And I'd like to move. The question. Is that motion P be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, As many of that opinion will say, content the contrary, not content. The contents. Habit motion Q Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hanson of Flint. My Lords, I beg to move motion Q that the House do not insist on its that the House do not insist on its amendment 334 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason.
14:45
14:45
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
The Minister will tell you that this amendment is unnecessary because the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council have recommended the abolition of non-crime of the Non-crime hate incident regime, and the government has amended the Bill to repeal the statutory NCA Code of Practice. But, my Lords, we knew all this when we voted for this amendment at Report stage. The noble Lord, the Minister, stood where he's about said all of this. A few weeks ago, the amendment rectus had already sailed through unopposed.

He told us what was going to be in the joint report. And lo, that's what's in the joint report. This was all priced in when this House decided to vote for this amendment. Nothing has changed. So there's no reason why any noble Lord should change their minds about supporting it. I've already set out the case for this amendment, which I would remind noble Lords, was co-sponsored by Lord Strasburger, a liberal Democrat, and Lord Hogan-Howe, a former Metropolitan Police commissioner.

So I won't waste your Lordship's time by repeating those arguments, but I would just like to make a couple of points, if I may. 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'll be disclosed in enhanced criminal records checks? If a person applies for a job as a teacher or a carer, as there was under the old regime? I would remind your noble Lords that one person had an NCA recorded against his name for whistling the theme tune to Bob the builder every time he saw his neighbour, another for claiming a newly elected independent councillor cared more about the people of Gaza than the people in his ward.

That was recorded that comment as a non-crime hate incident. The joint report had nothing to say about what would become of these historic NCA CHIS, and there are still tens of thousands, if not more, sitting on police databases. Our amendment made some very modest demands to deal with this outstanding problem. The first version, which we tabled at committee, asked for all all historic NCA CHIS to be deleted. But at a meeting between the co-sponsors of the amendment and sir Randy Marsh, the CEO of the College of Policing, and I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for arranging that meeting.

We were told that for the police to go through all their databases, deleting historic NCA CHIS would be a huge administrative undertaking. It would be a waste of the police's time. So we accepted that. We revised our amendment. The version before you and the version at report only asks that any NCA CHIS the police come across in the course of their work be deleted, and not all of them, just those that don't meet the new higher recording threshold of the successor regime.

It also ensures that if a member of the public discovers that an nchi has been recorded against them via a subject access request, then I would remind my noble Lords that members of the public, when they have NCA CHIS recorded against their names, aren't always informed of that fact by the police, that when they come across this, when they discover this and request that their NCA CHIS be deleted, the police act on the on that request provided the ncrs in question don't meet the new higher recording threshold of the successor regime.

These are modest demands. My Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe Lord Strasburger and I listened to Sir Andymarshall and we came up with what we believe is a reasonable compromise. The same is true when it comes to disclosure. Originally our amendment asked the police to stop disclosing non crimes in enhanced DBS checks. Altogether. No one we thought should be prevented from getting a job because they've committed a non-crime. But sir persuaded us that there are some very limited circumstances in which chief constables should disclose information about non crimes in enhanced DBS checks things employees should know a point also made by several noble Lords during the debate at Committee stage.

We accepted that too. So our amendment, the one we voted for at report and is before this House today, only seeks to limit disclosure to those historic NCA CHIS that don't meet the new higher recording threshold. It is, we think, another reasonable compromise. My Lords, we listened to the College of Policing. We listen to those noble Lords who expressed reservations about our original amendment. We listened to the noble Lord, the Minister, when he made valid points during the debate at committee.

We listened, my Lords, and we revised our amendment accordingly. I think the fact that what we were asking for is so modest, so reasonable, is why our amendment won a division in this House. It won, my Lords, not because it attracted any support from Labour or Lib Dems, but because it commanded such wide support amongst the crossbenchers and the non-affiliated, who I believe recognised the reasonableness of what we were asking for. But the government has not listened. My Lords, it has not tabled an amendment in lieu or offered any concessions in the run up to this debate.

It has just cast our amendment aside. It has dismissed the concerns of this House as beneath consideration. It has, in a word, acted unreasonably. I think I now have no choice but to move this amendment again, so the government will be forced to engage with our concerns, force my Lords to come back with its own reasonable compromise. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The original question was that motion be agreed to? Since when motion be agreed to? Since when motion Q one has been moved as an amendment to motion Q leave out from house to end and insert. Do insist on its amendment 334 the question, therefore, is that motion question, therefore, is that motion Q one be agreed to before the debate begins? Could I just alert the House that at the end of backbench contributions, before we move to frontbench, the noble Lady Baroness Brinton will take part remotely.

No, not now, I said at the end. Sorry. She will. After the backbench speakers have spoken and just before the frontbench speakers take over, Baroness Brinton will speak then. There aren't any. There aren't any? No. OK, in which case I. In which case the noble Baroness Brinton is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
14:52
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, Lord Young of Ashton has set out his reasons for insisting on his motion. Q1 that would delete records that the police hold on recording non-crime hate incidents on their files in certain circumstances, which he outlined. Even when the police have 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 amendment, sorry motion as laid, doesn't only talks about this very narrow area of what should actually be held and reviewed.

The concerns that we have from these benches is the repetition of subsections one and two which say, non-crime hate incidents must not be recognised as a category of incident by any police authority in the UK, and no police authority or police officer may record, retain or otherwise process any personal data relating to an N, c, h I. My Lords, you will remember that we had. Were lucky enough to have 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, and that other noble Lords spoke movingly about this balance too, including Lady Lawrence from her and her family's own experience.

So from these benches, we were pleased when the government laid its amendments at Report stage, which sets out that balance between freedom of speech which must be protected, but also threats to vulnerable people and their proposal to use anti-social behaviour mechanisms to record in the future is understandable and we hope appropriate, and we hope that it will work out well. We will wait and see if it really does work. We believe from these benches that the combination of the government's amendment that's now in the bill and the new guidance in the College of Policing report, provide that balance that is needed to ensure there is freedom of speech, but the police will have the capability, under the anti-social behaviour legislation to protect the most vulnerable in our community, especially if they are being targeted by someone whose behaviour is escalating and the course of that pattern of behaviour could in itself become a crime such as harassment or even worse, just progress more severely into an actual crime.

If there was nothing on any records up to the moment that a crime was committed, the police would not have been involved. And for many vulnerable people who have harassment and other things going on, waiting that long actually deters and delays police action, there is a difference between that and passing the information on about the files, and I believe the government's amendments have dealt with that on these grounds. We will not support motion Q1.
14:55
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for returning to the important issue of returning to the important issue of NCA CHIS. Our position as a party has not changed 60,000 annual police hours, a quarter of a million cases recorded 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 have now published their review into the instrument, complete with recommendations.

And of course, I welcome this review and the fact that the government has accepted its conclusions, but it bears no requirements for action. Similarly, whilst the statutory Code of Practice addressing the recording of NCA CHIS has been revoked, there is little reassurance that this will be replaced by a more satisfactory system. This amendment commits the government to necessary action. Now, this measure needs to be on the statute book and should my noble friend wish to test the opinion of the House, we will wholly support him.

My Lords, my amendment 339B in lieu is Redraughted version of the amendment that I will of Report stage concerning the investigation of police officers for misconduct. I thank the IOPC for their engagement with me concerning this amendment. The version of the chip is now more comprehensive, is a more comprehensive drafting. But. But the underlying point remains the same that where police officers are acquitted of criminal charges, then all misconduct proceedings concerning that specific offence should be dropped. Well, I want to be clear about how this amendment would operate in practice.

It would not mean that acquitted acquittal would shield an officer from any potential misconduct proceedings. For example, the police officer were 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 at Report stage, 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 once again. And if it is the Minister's intention to oppose this amendment, then I will seek to test the opinion of the House.
14:58
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion Q I, I did move motion Q at the beginning of this series of debates, beginning of this series of debates, but was, I confess, slow out of the blocks. I should have spoken to it before. Q1 was moved, but I was concentrating on the Order Paper, the Marshalled List and miss my opportunity at the beginning. But the principles are the same. The government cannot support the motion Q1, but will obviously support motion Q because there's been careful consideration on the issue of recording Non-crime hate incidents during the period since Report stage has occurred.

I've appreciated the opportunity to engage, both formally and informally with the noble Lord. But he will know that since the Lord's noble Lords last considered this matter on the 31st of March, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council published their joint review of Non-crime Hate Incidents, a review. I remind the House that was commissioned by the UK government as well, and the review recommended ending the current system altogether 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 standalone category. Instead, hate related behaviour short of the criminal threshold would only be recorded where there is clear policing purposes within the established anti-social behaviour framework and the threshold for recording would be higher, more tightly defined and supported by trained police assessment and triage practices. Now I just accept and I hope the House will accept. That is what the House has been calling for for a considerable period of time, and the government has accepted those recommendations in full, is already acting by removing the statutory code of practice on Non-crime hate incidents.

Through this bill and implementation, work with policing partners is now underway with national guidance, consultation and training to follow. And I welcome. Although she's off screen at the moment, the support of the noble Baroness Brinton from the Liberal Democrat front benches for the government's broad position. So against that backdrop, it remains the case the government cannot support Lords Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Young of Acton. It's important to note the college's review did not recommend the deletion of historic records of Non-crime hate incidents on discovery and such an approach, and if noble Lords wish to vote for this, that's a matter for them.

But such an approach risks removing information that may still be relevant in certain circumstances for safeguarding or risk management. Now, I'd just say 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? I am very relaxed about that because I well, in a moment, in a moment, I'm 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've changed the regime, but we've also keeping information that will help safeguard and protect.

If the noble Lord wishes to vote against that today and remove it, then it'll be on his head. If any consequences are come from that. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lords Minister for getting away. I think the argument you just I think the argument he's just made was a bit of a non-sequitur. The only thing asked non-sequitur. The only thing asked for in this amendment is that any NCA is the police come across in the course of their work, which the course of their work, which wouldn't meet the new higher recording threshold, be deleted if they would meet the new high recording threshold. If there is a legitimate policing purpose for retaining those that information, then that would not be stopped by this amendment.

So given that the College of Policing and the Joint Council have agreed that the old regime is not fit for purpose, 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 ten years. Given that the recording threshold was too low, why not allow for those NCA CHIS which don't meet the new higher recording threshold? Not all NCA. It's just those be deleted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm not willing to take that risk, my Lords, that's a matter for noble Lords opposite. I'm not willing to take that risk. We are making a change recommended We are making a change recommended in every exception. We've accepted every recommendation from the College of Policing. But such an College of Policing. But such an approach from the noble Lord risks removing information that may still be relevant. I'm not willing to take that risk. The noble Lords take that risk.

The noble Lords amendment also, if I may say, 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 only be disclosed 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.

Now, I just also pray in aid that the House of Commons has disagreed with the Lords amendment for clear reasons. Its objective is being met through the accepted review undertaken by police experts, and the blanket deletion requirement would be potentially harmful. Removing information that, and I just say this again, I'll say it slowly may be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities. So everybody in this house, every noble Lord that walks through a lobby today to support the noble Lord Young of Acton is going to be potentially potentially removing information that may still be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities.

While I'm not willing to do that, my Lords, I urge noble Lords to recognise the government's approach that has effected real change, that is affecting change, that has accepted the recommendations of the College of Policing, chaired by the noble Lord Herbert, a member of the Conservative Party, and a peer in that knowledge. Turning to motion and motion three, three, nine, I also want to say the government takes the issue of police accountability very seriously. We believe it's right to strike a balance between allowing appropriate scrutiny of police and, again, ensuring they can carry out their powers.

And I know the Lords opposite have agreed with that. Also, we've 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 very shortly. We will publish the terms of reference of that review very shortly, and I ensure the noble Lord Davis of Gao will have input into that review. But we cannot support this amendment. Three, three, nine as it stands, because it introduces a blanket presumption that any case involving a police officer, which has resulted in an acquittal in the criminal courts and has subsequently been closed, should not be reopened to go forward to misconduct proceedings.

And again, such blanket presumption would not be appropriate in all cases. For example, allegations of serious wrongdoing such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers. Now again, anybody in this House today who votes for the noble Lords motion 339 is leaving open the opportunity that allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers, will be potentially still not able to be taken. Now, I just say to the House today we'll have honest disagreements, but I urge noble Lords particularly opposite, because I'm grateful to the support from the Liberal Democrats.

If noble Lords opposite, vote for either of those motions today. The changes that we're making are important and are effective, but there is still a risk in both those motions that there will be potential issues of safeguarding and potential issues of compromise for the future, and potential issues about not being able to look at cases of sexual abuse and others from the police. I'm very happy to have a debate about that, but I would suggest to my noble friends, with the support of anybody else who wishes to join us, that we vote those motions down and that we support the motion in my name.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion to. I'd like to comment, if I may,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to comment, if I may, on R1 and in respect of R1, I agree with the Minister and not with my noble friend Lord Davis. I think noble friend Lord Davis. I think it's important to remember. I'm so sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sorry. We've had the debate up. The debate has been wound up. And you weren't here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And you weren't here. Yeah. No, no, no, the debate has been wound up. And apparently the noble wasn't wasn't present at the start. My Lords, my Lords, I understand that the debate has been wound up and the Lord wasn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

present at the start of the debate. I've already yeah, I. Heard the Noble's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Heard the Noble's. I, I think we have I mean, we've had the minor for the Minister. I think we now need to proceed to divide the house or not divide the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house. I the risk that's been drawn

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I the risk that's been drawn attention to is the risk that information recorded against people's names, which the police would not today record under the new regime because they regard it as posing no risk. That risk, I think, is a risk that I and my noble friends are prepared to take. So I would like to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That motion Q one be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Strangers. My Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is that motion Q one be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. Not content. Contents will go to the right by the throne. The not contents to the the throne. The not contents to the
15:12
15:19
15:19
15:31
15:31
None Portrait Division
-

Question is that motion s be agreed to motion s one Baroness agreed to motion s one Baroness Doocey. My Lords, I would like to formally move and test the opinion of the House. The original question of the House. The original question was that motion be agreed to since when motion S1 has been moved as an when motion S1 has been moved as an amendment to motion s leave out from house to end and insert do insist on its amendment 342. The question, therefore, is that motion S1 be agreed to.

As many as have that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. Question will be decided by a division. I will alert the House when voting is will alert the House when voting is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exercise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is that motion S1 be agreed to. As many as motion S1 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content to To the contrary, not content. content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. Go to the right by the throne, the not content to the left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. My Lords, the question is that My My Lords, there have voted contents 192 not My My Lords. My Lords. Motion My Lords. Motion t My Lords. Motion t Lord My Lords. Motion t Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've already spoken to motion t that this House do not insist on its amendment. 357 to which the Commons have disagreed which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 357A and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Question is that motion be agreed to motion t one Baroness agreed to motion t one Baroness Prosser. Motion t one is not moved. The question, therefore, is that The question, therefore, is that motion t be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it motion. U Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are my Lords. I've already spoken to motion. You. There's a pattern here that this House do not insist on its amendment three, five insist on its amendment three, five nine to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 359A and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I beg to move. Question is that motion U b agreed to motion U one Lord Davies of Gower.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister had to say on. Particularly in terms of the Particularly in terms of the intelligence that the government has. But I think the evidence has been very clear on our news channels of the terror that the IRGC has caused in its own country, and it is evident to all. But it seems the government of the threat to the UK from IRGC. So I beg to move and test the opinion of the House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion u b agreed to. Since when motion U one has been moved as an amendment motion, do you leave out amendment motion, do you leave out from house to at end and insert. Do from house to at end and insert. Do insist on its amendment 359 the question, therefore, is that motion u1 be agreed to as many as u of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

u1 be agreed to as many as u of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question will be decided by division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now My Lords. My Lords. My Lords, the question is that motion u one be agreed to. As many as are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of that opinion will say content. content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not U1B Have Have voted. Have voted. Contents Have voted. Contents 186 not contents 144. So the contents have it. My Lords motion v Lord Hanson of Flint.
15:54
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that motion V in this House do not motion V in this House do not insist on its amendments. 363 683693 73 71372 and do agree with the Commons in their amendment. 372A in lieu. My Lords, we return to the subject of the regulation of chat bots, which I know is an extremely important subject, and I'm grateful to all those who have engaged constructively on this issue throughout the bill's passage. I think 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 Baroness Lady Kidron, to whom I pay tribute, has spoken powerfully about the risks arising from AI chatbot services, particularly for children, and about the pace in which these technologies are being deployed. The noble Baroness has raised on many occasions her concern that there are gaps in the Online Safety Act regarding unregulated AI chat bots, and the government agrees with this assessment and that is why, my Lords, we have tabled that report and the House has agreed.

Amendment 367, granting the government power to address this gap. The Online Safety Act provides a strong, workable foundation for tackling illegal content online and updating. It brings unregulated chat bots in scope, covered in the most effective way of ensuring that these risks are addressed quickly and effectively. Now, building on the act rather than creating an overlapping and duplicative criminal regime, will be the most effective route to enforce clear rules. Our power will ensure that all relevant services, including those operating from overseas, have to comply with the legal content duties and will place them in scope of Ofcom's considerable enforcement toolkit, where they fail to act.

My Lords, I also recognise the strength of feeling expressed in the House about the need for urgency and appropriate scrutiny. Our amendment 372A today now includes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament at a date no later than the 31st of December 2026. A report on the progress made towards making regulations in this power. This report will set out what work the government has undertaken to develop and deploy the regulations. I believe that to be a clear and concrete demonstration of the government's intention, as we act to close this gap and act quickly to do so in recognition of the valuable scrutiny which Parliament will provide to these powers, I can also confirm that the government intends to share draft regulations with the relevant select committees in both houses, opposition spokespeople and the noble Lady Baroness Kidron in advance of them being laid for any comment constructive or, I hope, at least positive.

These powers will create a much clearer and much more effective approach than I would suggest. The criminal offences proposed in the proposals from the noble Lady Baroness Kidron. Creating a new criminal regime would create legal uncertainty, inconsistent enforcement and. It would also not. And this is a really crucial point. Apply overseas. The government's concern then and now 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 content. Most importantly, criminal offences of this kind would, in practice, be far less effective against overseas services. Precisely where I would argue. My Lords, 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.

Cross border. My Lords, the government is 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 the scope of the Online Safety Act. We have strong enforcement mechanisms through Ofcom and I believe we have now a commitment not just to action, but also to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and exercise of these powers. Strengthening our existing approach will be far preferable, I think, to the potential confusion and delay of creating a new parallel regime.

I hope that my noble friends and Lords will support amendment 327A in the House and I beg to move motion V.
15:58
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
That motion be agreed to motion V one Baroness Kidron. V one Baroness Kidron. >> Lord John I beg to move motion B one is an amendment to motion V leave out from house to the end and leave out from house to the end and insert. Do insist on its amendments. 363 683693 70 371 and 372. My Lords, the supporters of motion B one have decided in the interests of time not to speak, but they were very keen to indicate that there is passionate support for what I'm about to say across the house.

I have also cut my speech very short so that we can get to the vote, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister and Minister Narayan from the Other place for their time last night, but I am disappointed that they only agreed to meet after they had already laid their amendment. And at every time during this bill, I have tried to get the government to address the substance of the issue, 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. And, my Lords, the government 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 has been sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his mother after getting advice from deep sea. New research from Stanford University found chatbots reinforcing delusional and harmful ideas across all users, and an inquest in Winchester heard 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.

My Lords, that is the human cost of inaction we have in this House put multiple ways of protecting online, but so far it has been rebuffed. And I quote the Prime Minister from this morning, his words, words on child online safety. It cannot go on like this. And my Lords, it cannot go on like this. It is nearly two years since this government came to power with a promise that they would act for children. But, my Lords, 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, the vast Henry the Eighth powers they're taking in the children and Well-Being schools Bill describe a long, drawn out process which at best will give Ofcom new duties in 2027 with no resolution on individual redress, no effective enforcement. So Ofcom will have more duties. But for parents and children nothing changes at all. I have relayed the amendments I laid at Report stage. The House supported them at that time. They would. They would make it an offence to create or supply a chatbot that has not been risk assessed, or which misleads children into thinking it's human, is dangerously sycophantic, produces illegal content, produces content harmful to children, undermines children privacy and security, and produces language which aids terror attacks or threats to public safety.

And critically, they cover enforcement in the case of immediate danger. My Lords, this is a moral issue. 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 be here again having to say another child has died because we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

did not act in time. I beg to move. The original question was that motion be agreed to? Since when motion be agreed to? Since when motion B1 has been moved as an amendment to motion V leave out amendment to motion V leave out from house to end and insert, do insist on its amendments through 63 insist on its amendments through 63 68369372371 and 372. The question therefore, is motion B1 be agreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to. Regarding AI chatbots in this House, we've heard harrowing
16:03
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
evidence, including the tragic case of Sewel Setser, a high achieving child who was captured, coerced and encouraged to commit suicide by a companion chatbot. And today, the companion chatbot. And today, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has given another example. She has brought forward essential amendments to tackle this head on, creating stricter offences for supplying chat bots that produce harmful material, outlawing coercive design and holding senior tech executives personally liable. And my Lords, 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, the eighth power for the Secretary of State to amend the Online Safety Act via secondary legislation at a at a later date and the statutory duty to write a progress report by December 2026. My Lords Progress report protects absolutely no one today. Crucially, the government's approach focuses exclusively on illegal AI generated content. It completely omits the harmful but technically not illegal, coercive designs that mimic human relationships and foster emotional dependency in children.

And it also abandons the principle of senior management liability. My Lords, we need immediate ex-ante risk assessments and clear statutory duties, not delayed reports and the convenience of executive powers. My Lords, I urge the House to reject the Government's Motion B and insist on the robust protections drafted by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, by supporting motion B1.
16:05
16:05
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Trumpet. The chatbot. >> Well I'm grateful. Can I, can I, can I first of all pay tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Kidron. She has been an indefatigable campaigner on this issue. I actually share the objective of trying to ensure that we protect children from chat box. And I want to be clear. The government shares the House's objective as a whole. We're aligned on the need to address the harms that arise from AI generated illegal content. The question is, I would say, a disagreement about what is the most effective and enforceable way in practice.

The amendment in lieu reflects the balance the government wishes to bring. Our regulatory approach maintains a coherent approach under the Online Safety Act, and it does reinforce Parliament's ability to scrutinise delivery. For those reasons, I the House to support the amendment in lieu. I know we're going to have a division, but I hope that whatever the outcome of that division, we can agree at the end of that division that this House is committed to ensuring we protect children through regulation. On chat box.

I hope the noble Lady will not press her motion v one, but if she does, I urge my noble friends to vote against it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My. My Lords, there will indeed be a division. I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for suggesting that he will bring to suggesting that he will bring to the House, to the committees and to. And to me personally his And to me personally his regulations. But those regulations do not extend to enforcement. They do not extend to redress, and they do not give parents and children anywhere to go. And I am absolutely anywhere to go. And I am absolutely willing to work with the government, but I am going to give them one more opportunity to work with me on this by.

And the only way I have is to send these amendments to the other place so that they can bring forward plans for real change. And for that reason, I ask the House to agree with amendment B one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment that motion B one be agreed to, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that motion B one be agreed to, as many as will say content Of the contrary, not content. Content. A little bit weak, sir, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A little bit weak, sir, but still right. The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House when voting is open.
16:08
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're We're going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're going to. We're going to. Have We're going to. Have a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're going to. Have a. We're going to. Have a. Don't About. About. That. About. That. Don't About. That. Don't expect About. That. Don't expect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, Oh, I'm Oh, I'm so Oh, I'm so sorry. Oh, I'm so sorry. The Oh, I'm so sorry. The question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, I'm so sorry. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as that opinion will say content. Not content. Well done. Yes, the contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done. Yes, the contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to the left by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Counter-Terrorism Counter-Terrorism Act. Counter-Terrorism Act. OK. OK. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 115 not contents. 121 so contents 115 not contents. 121 so contents 115 not contents. 121 so the not contents have it. My Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion w Baroness Levitt Lord Hanson. Oh my Lords, the noble Lady Baroness Levitt has already spoken to motion w that this House do agree with the Commons and their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree with the Commons and their amendments. 361A and 361E. I beg to move. That motion. W be agreed to as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That motion. W be agreed to as many as you will say, content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it motion x, Lord Hanson and fleet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hanson and fleet. Have already spoken to motion X at this House. Do not insist on its amendment 439, to which the Commons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have disagreed for their reason. 439A and I beg to move. The question is that motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion be agreed to motion x one Lord Davies of Gower. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Gower. Sorry. Answer questions consequential. OK, right. I haven't got that in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK, right. I haven't got that in my brief. So the question is that motion X one be agreed to. As many motion X one be agreed to. As many as are that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. I think the contents have it, but very quietly again. Right. So we now come to motion y I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Hanson of Flint. Oh my Lords, I've already spoken to motion y that this House do not to motion y that this House do not insist on its amendment. 505 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 505AI beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for their reason. 505AI beg to move. The question is that motion y be agreed to as many as that opinion will say content of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will say content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. My Lords, I beg leave the house. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page