Crime and Policing Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

On Lords amendment 357, the Government are clear that glorifying acts of terrorism can cause serious harm, which is why the offence of encouraging terrorism was introduced 20 years ago. This offence criminalises statements that may encourage another person to commit an act of terrorism and sits alongside broader terrorism legislation, which includes offences such as inviting support for a proscribed organisation. Critical to the encouragement offence is the historical safeguard, which ensures that the right balance is struck between criminalising statements that could generate terrorist risk and not inadvertently criminalising discussion of historical events that carry no similar risk today.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Despite the current legislation, in Northern Ireland, not only individuals but Sinn Féin Government Ministers engage in acts and make speeches on an almost monthly basis that not only glorify but encourage terrorism, praise those who took place in bomb attacks on police stations and individuals, and, indeed, name play parks after those individuals. Does the Minister accept that the current legislation does not rule out the possibility of people engaging in acts of glorifying terrorism, which not only impacts the people of the past but poisons the minds of young people in the present?

[Sarah Jones]

I appreciate the challenge that the right hon. Gentleman is raising, and I know that DUP Members of Parliament in particular have raised these concerns before. The challenge here is that Lords amendment 357 would remove the historical safeguard for statements that glorify acts of terrorism committed by proscribed organisations. Our view is that these statements may not necessarily create terrorist risk and may result in the offence capturing legitimate political and social discourse and debate.

I will say two other things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, strongly advised against the removal of the historical safeguard in his review of terrorism legislation following the 7 October attacks in 2023. Secondly, in the light of the concerns that have been raised in the Lords and by Members in this place, the Government will ask the independent reviewer to conduct a more detailed review of the encouragement offence within six months of Royal Assent.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 359. It is a long-standing principle that has been adopted by successive Administrations that the Government do not comment on which organisations are being considered for proscription. Mandating that the Government review whether to proscribe Iranian Government-related organisations would violate this principle and tie the Government’s hands unnecessarily. The Government are already taking decisive action to deter threats from Iran, and we have committed to introducing a new state threats-based proscription tool.

I turn now to Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372 tabled by Baroness Kidron, which concern chatbots. The Government are clear that we need to act quickly to bring all unregulated AI chatbots within the scope of the Online Safety Act’s requirements on illegal activity. As I mentioned earlier, the Government are seeking to take a regulation-making power to do this, under Lords amendment 367. By taking this power, the Government will be able to remove any ambiguity over whether services like Grok are subject to the Online Safety Act’s provisions to tackle illegal content. This approach also allows us to design regulations that are effective, targeted and informed by necessary consultation with subject matter experts. Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 372 commits the Government to reporting to Parliament by the end of the year on our progress to develop regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank colleagues in the other place for the work that they have done on strengthening this Bill. The changes made there go some way towards what we should all be aiming for: safer communities, stronger laws and real protections for the public. In Committee, we saw the Government repeatedly reject important amendments from Opposition Members, on fly-tipping, pornography and increasing sentences for knife crime. The Bill could also have provided a real opportunity to tackle the scourge of off-road bikes, to support this country’s tradesmen with real action on tool theft, and to remove yet more knives from our streets by increasing stop and search. Although the Government failed to take up some of those opportunities, I am delighted to see that they have U-turned on some of the measures that Labour MPs previously voted against. That might be a familiar pattern, but it is still right to welcome the fact that they have recognised the value of some of those proposals.

On fly-tipping, for example, giving courts the power to issue penalty points to offenders is a straightforward, common-sense step. If someone uses a vehicle to dump waste and blight our communities, it is entirely right that their ability to drive should be affected. Likewise, even though I would have liked the Government to accept the more significant penalty proposed in Lords amendment 15, it is a welcome step that they have recognised the seriousness of the crime when there is an additional element of intent to use unlawful violence, which rightly should have a greater penalty when compared with possession-only offences. It is right that these measures have progressed, even though a great deal of unfortunate wrangling and rejection occurred before they were incorporated into the Bill.

On that note, I will turn to the proposals that the Government have chosen not to accept from our colleagues across the way. I ask Members of this House to give serious consideration to measures that enhance the powers of the police forces and improve their ability to keep our communities safe. For instance, as I have mentioned, Members do not need to be reminded of the scourge of fly-tipping, as we all recognise the adverse impact it can have on our neighbourhoods. On Sunday I saw an appalling incident in my constituency. A huge volume of waste had been dumped near Sadberge, with appalling consequences for our environment, for wildlife and for anybody who wants to enjoy the countryside.

Amendment 6 would ensure that the guidance issued on the enforcement of offences under section 33 makes it clear that, when a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they will be liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from that offence. As the Government are already setting out guidance in the legislation, why would they not ensure that this guidance was unequivocal that when a person is convicted of fly-tipping, they—not the victims—are responsible for the costs incurred as a result of their offence? Furthermore, amendment 11 would further enable the police to seize vehicles.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member makes an important point. Given the role of criminal organisations in fly-tipping, the costs can be in the hundreds of thousands of pounds to landowners, who are the innocent victims of this crime. If the Government are serious about dealing with fly-tipping, they have to ensure that the sanctions are a deterrent.

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. We see a selfish and mindless small minority of people who incur huge costs that fall on taxpayers across the country and do huge damage to our communities. It is right that the sanctions should match that. On an issue where there is universal acceptance of the need to do more, we should ensure that there are no unnecessary restrictions on our authorities in cracking down on these offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. So often when I travel around the constituency, I see gateways where people have fly-tipped, and I have seen piles of fridges and mattresses. It is industrial fly-tipping, and it is disgraceful and disgusting.

Fly-tipping costs around £1 billion to deal with each year. That is £1 billion that could be going to other things, rather than being wasted on clearing up people’s mess. I see that in my constituency, but I want to acknowledge the brilliant work done by so many local volunteer groups to tackle the blight on our doorsteps. I also acknowledge the work of Conservative-run Walsall council, which has taken a zero-tolerance approach, investing in enforcement, expanding CCTV, issuing fines and working with the police to seize vehicles linked to fly-tipping.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that in many instances, action is not taken because of the fear of violence? Much of this tipping is done by criminal gangs, who will stop at nothing because it is a very profitable industry. Organisations such as the Environment Agency, and even sometimes local councils and the police, do not take the action that is required, leading to the accumulation of huge amounts of waste.

[Wendy Morton]

The right hon. Gentleman is so right. People might ask why I, as a Member of Parliament, am talking about something as simple as litter and fly-tipping, but this criminal activity is costing the taxpayer, costing wildlife and costing our communities. We need strong action—on enforcement and deterrence—to stop this scourge. Walsall, as I have explained, is treating fly-tipping as the crime that it is. The council is gathering evidence and prosecuting offenders, and then the fines can be reinvested in enforcement. All of that together sends a clear message that if people treat our streets as a litter bin, there will be consequences.

That is why I recommend, push, promote and welcome the amendments that would give penalty points to those convicted of fly-tipping offences. We must be clear that if someone uses a vehicle to commit this crime, there will be real consequences. Amendments that would allow vehicles to be seized are a welcome further measure. If we remove the means by which this crime is committed, we strike at the heart of the problem. It is no longer enough to tinker around the edges; we need strong action. Enforcement is key, but so is deterrence. That is why I have long argued for stronger action on littering from vehicles, including putting penalty points on people’s driving licences. If people know that there are real consequences, behaviour will change, because ultimately this is about respect—respect for our communities, for our environment, and for the people who take pride in the place where they live. They are the people who make this country a great place to live, and for their sakes, I urge the Minister to listen, to engage, to take action, and to strengthen the Bill, so that actions once again have real consequences.

Let me end with a slogan from Keep Britain Tidy, which some Members may remember: “Don’t be a Tosser”. I say to the Government: don’t toss this matter to one side. Take some firm action, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson]

Although I support many elements of this Bill, I cannot support Lords amendment 312. The Bill has come back to the Commons without the proper scrutiny it requires and, despite repeated requests, Ministers have failed to provide that. The Bill returns to this House with a troubling number of late changes made in the Lords that severely limit our ability to examine major amendments, especially those that impact the fundamental right to protest—a right that has already been significantly eroded in recent years due to a number of pieces of draconian legislation.

I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) in his motion to reject amendment 312, which is supported by 30 MPs. We have pushed hard for a vote today on the proposals, which will have a far-reaching, draconian impact on our civil liberties. I am disappointed that the motion will not be reached, demonstrating a fundamental failure of the democratic process.

Lords amendment 312 would give police new powers to restrict protests on the basis of so-called cumulative disruption, but what does that actually mean? It is about giving them the discretion to limit or fully ban a demonstration based on the combined impact of multiple protests over time. The move is the latest in a series of anti-protest measures introduced by successive Governments in recent years, and I have to say that, as a Labour MP, I am very disappointed with the draconian anti-protest proposals being pushed by this Government.

[Sammy Wilson]

What does the hon. Lady say to the people who become the target of those continual protests? The protesters recognise that there is a vulnerable area, a vulnerable community, part of a city or a piece of the country’s infrastructure, such that, when they protest there on a regular basis, they cause maximum disruption to the lives of the people who live there. What does she say to those people? Should they not have protection?

[Kim Johnson]

I have to say that I disagree with the right hon. Member.

Although today’s proposals have not come in under the radar through secondary legislation, as the Tory Government tried before they were ultimately defeated in court, amendment 312 has sneakily come in through the back door from the Lords, leaving MPs with no opportunity for scrutiny, debate or vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I know that feeling safe is very important to my constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, and that is why the Bill is so important for so many people. Today I am immensely proud to welcome the Government’s amendment to equalise hate crime law—Lords amendment 301. I proposed a similar amendment in the House of Commons, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for their support, along with that of over 100 colleagues across the House.

I welcome the Government’s introduction of a new offence of misogynistic hate. I got into politics to fight section 28 and the hate it created. Section 28 attacked the right for people like me to live openly. It stigmatised lesbian, gay and bisexual people. It pushed us out of public life and made us fair game for attack. I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented. Today I am proud to continue that fight for all LGBT people, for disabled people and for victims of misogyny.

Our politics is becoming increasingly hateful and divisive, and the impacts are heartbreaking. Less than half of LGBT people feel safe holding their partner’s hand in public. As many as 70% of disability hate crimes go unreported. Girlguiding UK revealed that one in 10 girls have missed school to avoid sexual harassment. Hatred towards women and girls, disabled people and LGBT people threatens our entire society. It creates fear—fear to go outside, fear to speak up, fear to be seen. It silences people. It makes all of us afraid.

Lords amendment 301 now shows that whether it is due to someone’s race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, or indeed their sex or disability, Britain is a country that will not tolerate hate, that all hatred is equal and that all those who commit vile acts of hatred will face the same grave consequences. Because of this amendment, victims of hate will have more time to report crimes. For victims who may not feel safe reporting hate crime instantly, that is a lifeline. Perpetrators will get tougher sentence and higher maximum penalties. Aggravated offences are often pursued in the Crown court, where better victim support is available, including the ability to keep them apart from defendants.

I know that some people thrive on the politics of hate. Today, I am proud that the Labour Government have stood firmly against hate in all its forms. We will halve violence against women and girls in a decade, we will fight homophobia and transphobia, and we will confront ableism and hate against disabled people. I welcome, in addition to the tougher action on hate crime, the measures on antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping, knife crime, illegal trading, intimate image abuse, violent pornography and the exploitation of children. This Government are clearly standing with victims, creating safer communities and safer streets. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Sammy Wilson]

I support the amendments on fly-tipping, although some of them do not go far enough. The extent of that crime varies, from the small scale, with people throwing waste on to others’ land, to the scale seen at Hoads wood, about which the APPG for woods and trees heard evidence. The fly-tipping there was so extensive that parts of the wood were cut down. Dumping was undertaken over a six-month period, and the clear-up bill is estimated to be about £15 million. Fly-tipping is so extensive, and, as has been pointed out, the victims are forced to pay for it. The Lords amendments will at least help to impose some penalties on those who engage in that activity.

I support Lords amendment 35 on the sale of knives in Northern Ireland. Given the discussion that we had about the Southport inquiry yesterday, we know that there needs to be greater control of the sale of knives to people who would use them for evil purposes.

Lords amendment 357 was moved in the other place by the former leader of my party, Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee, who of course has a great deal of experience of the Northern Ireland context. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland see on a monthly basis how terrorism is glorified—not by dark individuals lurking in the background, but even by Government Ministers and indeed the First Minister in Northern Ireland. The whole point of glorifying terrorism is to ensure that, even when terrorists are under pressure militarily, their evil message—the poison that they wish to inject into society—can still be perpetuated and spread, whether through physical violence or by using people and getting people to support them.

I say to the House that that is not just an issue for Northern Ireland, which experienced years of terrorism and still has the legacy of that terrorism. This issue increasingly affects Great Britain. We see it on the streets, almost on a monthly basis. We see marches glorifying terrorism and intimidating certain sections of the population. Many people in GB, especially in the Jewish community, now feel that they cannot even walk the streets.

This should worry everyone in the House: surveys have shown that one in five people in GB believe that political violence is justified in certain circumstances. How has that situation arisen? It has arisen because we allow the glorification of terrorism. “The cause is just. The people who do it are heroes. They make great sacrifices. They have no alternative”—those are the kinds of arguments I hear in Northern Ireland all the time, but I also hear them now from some of those who promote terrorism in GB.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. Does he agree that defeating terrorism is about not just the physical defeat of terrorism but ensuring that, through its glorification, the narrative of terrorism is not allowed to radicalise other people? Does that not point to the inadequacy of the Terrorism Act 2006? Section 1 of that Act has contained a provision against the glorification of terrorism for the last 20 years. We have not had one prosecution under it in Northern Ireland, yet we have had endless glorification of terrorism. Does that not put the focus on why Lords amendment 357 is necessary—to make it easier to secure prosecution when faced with self-evident glorification of terrorism?

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. The whole point of the amendment is to ensure that there is not the ability to keep on promoting the terrorist message. We do not just need a physical defeat of terrorism but an ideological one. They make their arguments to ensure that if they have to pause their campaign or do not achieve all their objectives, the poison is injected into the next generation, who will have justification for carrying on what they want them to do, to achieve their goal.

Increasingly, the narrative of politics in GB is being infiltrated by sectarian arguments and sectarian division. All of us should be worried that the law is inadequate to deal with those who have evil intent. I know that some will argue, “But people have to be allowed to say what they want. We live in a democracy. We’ve got to have freedom of speech.” That is fine, but when that freedom of speech is abused and the law prevents us from stopping that, we should be concerned. I met with Jewish students recently. Some 49% of Jewish students have heard either directly or in their presence the glorification of Hamas terrorism and what was done on 11 October. We have to bear in mind that this is prevalent in our society. It is prevalent in Northern Ireland.

This is not just about promoting the terrorist message. It is also about the impact it has on the victims of terrorism and the anger it causes when people in public positions are allowed to stand up and praise the actions of those who killed their loved ones and maimed members of their family, arguing, “I’m proud of the people who did it. I honour the people who did it. The people who did it had no alternative.” Apart from the impact on the victims, it also sends a message to those who are listening that maybe this was not a bad thing anyway. If the situation arises in the future, will those young people be easily recruited to commit the same acts?

In the Minister’s response to me, she argued—I hope that I have got this right—that the amendment will prevent legitimate debate on historical events, but reading the amendment shows that nothing can be further from the truth. The amendment says that the offence would occur if the comments relate

“to one or more organisations which are at the time of the statement proscribed”.

Therefore it does not prevent people from saying that something happened in the past or that an event is historical and a debate can be around it. Instead, it says that the offence would occur only if a statement is made in respect of organisations that are currently deemed to be dangerous organisations and are proscribed.

Secondly, the amendment says that the offence would occur if the comment

“glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences”.

So the Minister’s argument against the amendment is not correct. The amendment does not open the floodgates to preventing discussion about issues that might be controversial and that people may take objection to. It is very specific.

I urge the House to support the amendment, not just because of the continual hurt experienced by people in Northern Ireland on an almost monthly basis, where commemorations of murderers are held and public figures go and give support to them, but in the interests of society right across the United Kingdom, where we can see that terrorists and terrorist-supporting organisations are using public platforms to glorify terrorism. That has an impact on the victims, but it also has an impact on young people who are vulnerable, easily manipulated and can be persuaded that somehow or other terrorism is something that is normal.