PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Crime and Policing Bill - 14 April 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 12, 256, 260, 264, 335, 361, 366, 367 and 369 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 263.

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 263, and Government amendments (b) to (g) to Lords amendment 263.

Lords amendment 361, and Government amendments (a) to (e) to Lords amendment 361.

Lords amendment 2, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 10, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 10.

Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 15, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 15.

Lords amendments 256 and 257, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 256 and 257.

Lords amendment 258, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 258.

Lords amendments 259 and 260, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of Lords amendments 259 and 260.

Lords amendment 264, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu of Lords amendment 264.

Lords amendment 265, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 265.

Lords amendment 311, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 333, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333.

Lords amendment 334, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 339, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 342, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 342.

Lords amendment 357, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 359, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372.

Lords amendment 439, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 505, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 13, 14, 16 to 255, 261, 262 and 266 to 299.

Lords amendment 300, and motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 301, and motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 302 to 310.

Lords amendment 312, and motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 313 to 332, 335 to 338, 340, 341, 343 to 356, 358, 362 to 367, 373 to 438, 440 to 504 and 506 to 532.

I am delighted to see the return of this Bill—the largest criminal justice Bill in a generation—to this House. The Bill will support the Government’s mission to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade, and give our police and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to tackle antisocial behaviour, sexual violence, terrorism and online harms. The amendments made in the House of Lords support these aims.

Given the number of Lords amendments, I will focus my remarks on the Government amendments made in response to commitments given on Report in the Commons last June by my predecessor as Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson)—she was sitting on the Front Bench earlier—before outlining the Government’s response to the 19 non-Government amendments added in the other place.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) rightly raised concerns about the depiction of strangulation and suffocation in pornography, an issue which was also highlighted by Baroness Bertin’s independent pornography review. As set out in our violence against women and girls strategy last December, the Government have announced our intention to criminalise the possession and publication of pornographic images that depict strangulation and suffocation, and Lords amendments 261 and 262 give effect to that commitment.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) rightly pressed the Government on when we would deliver our manifesto commitment to make all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence. I am pleased to commend Lords amendment 301, which extends the existing racially and religiously aggravated offences to cover hostility based on sex, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) pointed to the long-term impact, including on employment opportunities, for those convicted of the offences of loitering and soliciting while under 18. Lords amendments 270 and 271 therefore introduce a new disregards and pardons scheme for anyone convicted or cautioned as a child for those offences.

I will now turn to the 19 non-Government amendments added in the other place. First, Lords amendment 2 seeks to bar the issuing of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors for profit. The Government do understand the concern about enforcement agencies issuing fixed penalty notices where there may be a financial incentive to do so. To be clear, local agencies are expected to issue fixed penalty notices only when it is appropriate and proportionate to do so. However, Lords amendment 2 risks weakening crucial enforcement action to tackle antisocial behaviour. Our amendments in lieu instead provide that statutory guidance will address the need to ensure that the issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons is proportionate.

On Lords amendments 6 and 10 to 12, I fully appreciate and understand the damage that fly-tipping can do to our communities. The Government’s waste crime action plan, published on 20 March, sets out proposals to radically improve enforcement in this area, including by granting courts the power to impose between three and nine penalty points on the driving licence of those convicted of fly-tipping where driving a vehicle was used in or for the purposes of the offence. Our amendment in lieu implements this commitment.

Turning to Lords amendment 15, on its introduction the Bill provided for a maximum four-year prison term for those convicted of a new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause unlawful violence. While this was drafted in line with other possession offences, the Government accept that the intent element of this new offence justifies a higher maximum penalty. Our amendment in lieu therefore provides for a seven-year maximum rather than the 10 years provided for in the Lords amendment, which we believe is disproportionate given that this remains a possession offence.

Lords amendments 255, 256, 258 to 260 and 505, introduced by the Government and by Baroness Owen and Baroness Bertin, all seek to further tackle the proliferation of demeaning and degrading intimate images online. The Government share these aims, and we are clear that intimate image abuse is completely unacceptable.

Lords amendment 255, brought forward by the Government, will criminalise the making, adapting and supplying of nudification tools. These tools use artificial intelligence to create deepfake, non-consensual intimate images, many of women. While creating, sharing and threatening to share non-consensual intimate images is already illegal, this amendment goes further, and criminalises the developers making and supplying these tools. As well as the criminal duties, once this new offence is in force the requirements of the Online Safety Act 2023 will kick in. This means that social media services will be required to take down content that supplies nudification tools, and search engines will have to reduce the visibility of search results linked to these tools.

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I am not sure whether she will come on to this, but the Government have tabled amendments on online safety, and have identified that the next frontline in this war is artificial intelligence. As she knows, we have already seen children taking their own lives after interactions with AI chatbots, and we know that tech companies will always prioritise profits over user safety, so there must be more focus on a safety-by-design approach that prevents AI products that could be harmful to users from coming to market. This approach has been suggested by Baroness Kidron in the other place. Why are the Government not supporting her amendment?

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is, of course, right about the growing concern around chatbots and the need for safety by design. I will come on to Baroness Kidron’s amendment and the Government’s response to it later on in my speech.

Furthermore, the Government have brought forward Lords amendment 367 to take a power to extend the scope of the Online Safety Act 2023 to cover unregulated AI chatbots. It means that general-purpose AI chatbots, such as Grok, which allow the creation and sharing of non-consensual intimate images, will have to proactively remove that illegal content from their services or face enforcement from Ofcom. Taken together, the measures will deliver an effective ban on nudification tools. Given that, 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 accessed online, rather than possessed.

Where a person is convicted of an intimate image offence, we agree that it is vital that those images are deleted from the perpetrator’s devices. Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 258 enables the courts to make an image deletion order following a conviction for an offence related to intimate image abuse. Breach of the order will be a criminal offence. The amendment also enables the courts to require the deletion of other intimate images of the same victim. This approach gives courts the required flexibility to consider the details of each case when applying their powers, while ensuring that the offenders are held accountable for compliance with the order.

I really welcome the Government’s amendment on image deletion orders, which will ensure that after a conviction, courts are properly mandated to destroy those intimate images and film. They will be able to give prison sentences, too; that is incredibly important. Does the Minister agree that this, coupled with the Government’s new requirements for tech firms to delete this horrifying content when it is found, is a crucial step forward in ensuring that non-consensual intimate imagery victims can finally move forward with their life?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I agree with her. This is the culmination of a lot of good work in the Lords and the Commons, from Members of all parties. MPs have pushed as hard as we can on this emerging technology, which is so dangerous and so high risk, and we have a Government who are committed to acting and doing the right thing. Everybody has worked really hard, together, to get us to a much stronger place. The power allowing courts to require the deletion of intimate images will also be available for the offence of breastfeeding voyeurism recording, and the new offence of sharing semen-defaced images.

Online platforms need to do more to ensure that non-consensual intimate images are removed quickly, as my hon. Friend said, and not after the 24-hour timeframe envisioned by Lords amendment 256. To that end, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 256 and 257 strengthens platform and senior executive accountability by making it a criminal offence for a service to breach an enforcement decision by Ofcom on duties to deal with and remove reported non-consensual intimate images. That means that senior executives of the service could be criminally liable for the breach. As well as taking this enforcement approach, the Government are also strengthening safeguards against malicious reporting. We will also bring forward regulations under existing powers in the Online Safety Act to amend schedule 8, so that Ofcom can require providers to be fully transparent about both the speed of intimate image removals, and how clearly and effectively platforms enable users to report such content.

These provisions are so important. The main thing that witnesses who came before the Women and Equalities Committee said, when talking about the impact of non-consensual intimate image abuse, was that the harm grew and grew, the longer the images stayed online. This measure is vital, and I thank the Government for listening to the Committee’s important work.

I thank my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to the Women and Equalities Committee and its work. As I said, this has been a journey, and a lot of Members from both Houses have played a really important role. Ministers in the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Home Office have been listening very carefully to what MPs have been advising. I am very pleased that we were able to respond.

In addition to bringing in the take-down duty, we will give statutory backing to a register of non-consensual intimate images. Amendments (a) and (d) in lieu of Lords amendments 259 and 260 will enable the Government to designate a trusted flagger, most likely the revenge porn helpline. That will give Government backing to a trusted source of NCII content that can be used by platforms and internet service providers to identify those images. The amendments will also enable the Government to make further provisions, by regulations, on the operation of the register, following a scoping exercise. Those provisions include provision for the Secretary of State to impose requirements on providers to share hashes, and other information deemed necessary, with the register. Hashes, for the benefit of the House, are unique codes used to mark non-consensual intimate images. The scoping exercise will allow us to evaluate the technical requirements, so that we can ensure that the register can be used by victims, platforms and internet service providers to remove or block NCII content. As Lords amendment 260 recognised, proceeding by regulations will enable us to properly evaluate the requirements necessary to ensure that the register operates as effectively as possible.

Turning to two more amendments from Baroness Bertin, Lords amendments 263 and 265, I think we in this place all share her determination to stop the spread of dangerous, demeaning and illegal pornographic content online. On Lords amendment 263, I completely agree that there is a need to curtail the depiction of step-incest pornography, in cases where what it portrays is illegal. The Government’s amendment in lieu will extend the new offence of possession and publication of incest porn to include depictions of step-incest where one of the persons is portrayed as being under 18. Additionally, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 265 addresses the concerns raised by Lords amendment 265 by criminalising the possession or publication of pornography that depicts an adult credibly role-playing as a child. That makes it clear that content that mimics and risks normalising child sexual abuse will not be tolerated. But we will not stop there. As well as introducing those offences, the Government have committed to producing a delivery plan for how we can close the gap between the regulation of online and offline pornographic content. What is illegal offline should be illegal online.

Lords amendment 264 rightly raises concerns about how we best strengthen safeguards against the sexual exploitation of persons appearing on pornographic websites, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft on Report. We agree with the principle and the need to address this issue, but further work is required across Government on considering what the most effective approach would be to strengthening arrangements to ensure that persons appearing in pornographic material are aged 18 and over, and consent to the material being shared online. Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu of Lords amendment 264 place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the outcome of this work within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, and introduce a power to make regulations giving effect to that outcome.

There is a powerful group of Ministers working very hard on that. Not least among them is my colleague in the Home Office, the Minister for Safeguarding, who is leading the wider work on violence against women and girls. There is a whole programme of activity, whether by Ministers or officials, across DSIT, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to make sure that we get these things right. They are complex, and they involve Departments working together, stepping up and taking responsibility for this work, which is very much ongoing. We want to get this right; that is why we have set the 12-month timescale. The important thing is not only the outcome of that work, but the power to make regulations, as we will, that give effect to that outcome.

Lords amendment 311, introduced by Lord Walney, seeks to grant a power to the Secretary of State to proscribe organisations deemed to be extreme criminal protest groups. The Government understand the concerns expressed in both Houses about the sustained impact of criminal activity by certain protest groups, and, where such conduct meets the threshold for a proscription order under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Government will act, and have already acted. However, we are not persuaded that the introduction of a proscription-lite regime is necessary or proportionate in instances where that threshold is not met. This view is shared by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who recently expressed concerns about the adverse consequences of this amendment for the established proscription regime in the Terrorism Act 2000. I urge hon. Members to read the four-page note that he published online last week.

My hon. Friend will recognise, though, that many of us are concerned about the integrity of the concepts of terrorism and terrorist organisations, and the importance of people’s ability to protest the concept of proscription. Those are two very different things. Does she recognise that concern, and will she look at how we can better delineate those two things, so that people can express their concerns about the concept of proscription and how it is evolving under this Government without facing arrest for wanting to have that conversation?

My hon. Friend will have debated these issues in this place, and I think there will always be a debate about the right to protest and where we draw a line in this country. I am very happy to have further conversations with her on that wider issue. Jonathan Hall set out in his letter—I can pass it on to my hon. Friend, if she has not seen it—why he does not think that this amendment will work, and that is why we are not persuaded on this occasion. I am, of course, happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend on this.

Turning to Lords amendment 333, tabled by Baroness Buscombe, I fully agree that the Government, local authorities and law enforcement agencies need to do all they can to tackle money laundering and associated criminality on our streets. The high streets illegality taskforce, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in her most recent Budget, will examine the use of enforcement powers in this light, including the closure power. It will have a £10 million budget to support its work. While we support the principle of extending the duration of closure orders, we should first consult to avoid any unintended consequences on legitimate businesses or residential premises. Accordingly, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333 will enable us, following targeted consultation, to extend the maximum duration of closure orders and, if necessary, to make different provision for commercial and residential properties.

I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), have been campaigning on high street illegality, and will no doubt speak about it later. I want to assure them and others in this place that we know that we need to go further, as we will, not just on this measure, but on the wider challenge of high street illegality. We will be very keen to work with Members in this place on that work.

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?

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.

I don’t mean to bang on about this, but the fact is that the Government’s approach is too narrow. It is focused on taking down illegal content when it should be the responsibility of the company to prevent harms in the first place, rather than to deal with them after the event. We do not design any other sector’s regulation in this way. When designing aircraft, we do not wait until after the plane has crashed to worry about any of the safety features. This should be the same.

During Report stage in the Lords, peers voted overwhelmingly in support of the safety-by-design approach. They also understood that when it comes to the design of something, harm includes building in aspects that are addictive and manipulative, which have been key to some of the very tragic suicides of children who have interacted with AI chatbots. What do the Government have against building safety by design into the very purpose of AI chatbots?

The hon. Lady makes her case very clearly, and we can agree that we need to design out those kinds of issues. The challenges are in what we do and how we do it—those are the challenges we had with this particular group of amendments. Obviously there is wider work being done on violence against women and girls and how the Online Safety Act is to be rolled forward, and that work is really important, but we are talking about this particular group of Lords amendments on chatbots and the challenges with them. That is why, through amendment (a) in lieu, we commit to reporting by the end of the year on our progress to develop regulations.

We are clear that regulation is a more effective and proportionate tool than the criminal law for addressing risks from AI chatbots and setting industry best practice. Incorporating currently unregulated chatbots into the scope of the Online Safety Act will ensure that such regulation applies extraterritorially, which is crucial when dealing with international companies.

The Government’s approach is also broader in scope than the content of amendments 360 and 368 to 372. Those amendments would not capture image generators creating non-consensual graphic images of women or online AI chatbot toys such as Gabbo. The Government’s amendment in lieu does capture such services and allows them to be clearly brought under online safety regulations.

The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has heard extensive and at times horrific evidence of the harms that AI chatbots can do, such as encouragement to suicide. I welcome Lords amendment 367, which gives the Government the power to amend the Online Safety Act, and I accept that the Government are seeking to reject amendment 368, tabled by the noble Baroness Kidron, to ban chatbots based on their content, but does the Minister accept that the harms of AI chatbots are evident, significant and hugely concerning, and that their regulation is unclear and consistent? Where chatbots are covered by the Online Safety Act, if those chatbots incorporate, for example, search functionality, enforcement is slow and ponderous or non-existent. Will the Minister commit to working with DSIT to take action on AI chatbots before the end of the year?

I welcome the work that my hon. Friend’s Committee has done and will continue to do in this space. It is very important that we have good analysis of what the problems are that we need to solve. She is absolutely right that the problems with AI chatbots are evident, significant and concerning, and that more work needs to be done in this space. If there is work that we can do sooner rather than later, I am sure that my colleagues in DSIT will do that, and I commit to working with them to do what we can as quickly as we can.

Finally, hon. Members will recall that on Report, the House decided to disapply the criminal law relating to abortion in respect of women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Their Lordships agreed amendment 361, which would provide for automatic pardons for women previously convicted or cautioned for an abortion offence in relation to their own pregnancies and for the deletion of certain details from court and police records.

I stress that the Government remain neutral on the substance of clause 191 and Lords amendment 361, but we have a duty to ensure that the law is operationally and legally workable. Accordingly, we have tabled amendments (a) and (e) to Lords amendment 361 to ensure that the deletion of details from relevant official records can operate as intended.

I support Lords amendment 361 because some women, even after being found not guilty, have investigations that show up on their Disclosure and Barring Service checks, which impacts their life and future careers. That is the reality for a young woman named Becca, whose case I raised in the House a year ago. She was investigated at age 19 after giving birth to her son at 28 weeks, and she says that removing the investigation from her records would help her to be able to move on and live a proper family life. Does the Minister agree that this change will help to bring justice for women like Becca?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the challenge that Becca has faced, and I congratulate her on the work that she has done in bringing that to the House. The Government are neutral on this part of the Bill, as is right and proper. What we seek to do with our amendments is ensure that it is legally workable. That is our role in this space.

I hope that I have demonstrated that we have sought to engage constructively with the non-Government amendments carried in the Lords.

I want to raise the systemic issue of honour-based abuse. The perpetrator is usually not just one person; they are a family, a group or a network of people who believe that an individual has or may bring dishonour or shame to the family or community. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has tabled a simple amendment to Lords amendment 300 to insert the word “persons”, which would address the issue. I stand here on behalf of my constituent Fawziyah Javid, who was an incredible woman and member of our community; she was also a victim of domestic homicide and honour-based abuse. My hon. Friend’s amendment shows that honour-based abuse runs deep within communities. I have worked with Karma Nirvana in my constituency on that. Does the Minister agree that honour-based abuse is an issue not just for one person, but for many people, and that that should be acknowledged?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, who I suspect will speak to it later. I agree that in many cases honour-based abuse is perpetrated not by a single individual but by an extended family or other group of persons. The challenge we have with the amendment is that the definition in the Bill adopts the usual legislative conventions whereby references to the singular include the plural unless otherwise indicated. Therefore, the statutory definition already applies where abuse is perpetrated by more than one person. However, we do want to develop the statutory guidance so that that is completely clear for everybody.

My hon. Friend will remember our discussion, and I hope that she can help me. Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC was appointed to lead an independent review of laws on public order and hate crime. The review was also to consider the laws around protest, and we were hopeful that we would have that. I am not aware that the review has concluded, so perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us. If it has not concluded, why are we legislating before that?

I thank my hon. Friend, who I know feels strongly about this issue, as do many others—I very much respect that position. I met him a few months ago, when the review had just started. The review has yet to conclude, but it will do so in the coming months. The work that Lord Macdonald is undertaking is quite substantial, and I know, having received updates on what he is doing and who he is talking to, that it is wide and is taking a bit longer than expected, but that is in order to get it right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will know that the cumulative disruption amendment was announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack. Perhaps we will come to this more in closing the debate, but I think there is a lack of understanding in some quarters—I do not mean my hon. Friend—about the nature of that amendment. To be clear, sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 empower senior police officers to impose conditions on processions and on public assemblies respectively. They can impose conditions only under certain criteria to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption. We are not changing sections 12 or 14. At the moment, the police can consider cumulative disruption when looking at whether a protest should have conditions imposed on it.

I thank my hon. Friend for her response to my letter on cumulative disruption, signed by 50 MPs, which would give the police powers to limit strikes and industrial action. Your letter states:

“I have no desire to infringe on—

Order. I am on my feet, so please be seated. “Your letter states”? I do not think I have corresponded with the hon. Member. Continue.

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that a future Government might be less benevolent towards workers’ struggles and could exploit those powers? Will she please explain to the House why we have not been given the right to debate, discuss and vote on amendment 312?

Let me just finish explaining what we are doing and then I will come on to picketing.

If there is a risk of serious public disorder, senior police officers can impose conditions. At the moment, they can consider cumulative disruption as one of the aspects they take into account when deciding whether to impose conditions. To be clear, imposing conditions means things like moving where a march is going, limiting the hours that it can work under or limiting the number of people. They can already take into account cumulative disruption, but we are changing that so that they must take that into account—they must think about it. That does not change the guardrails of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act; it just says that at the moment they can consider cumulative disruption, but in future they will consider it. That is the amendment.

On this Government’s belief in the right to strike and to protest, of course that is sacrosanct and nothing has changed in our view on that. We do not believe that this legislation will stop the right to picket. I know that lots of Members will have views on that and will not be satisfied, but we will always defend the right to strike, and we have absolutely no desire to infringe lawful picketing at all.

Is the Minister aware of the deep alarm, both on the Back Benches and outside Parliament, at what amounts to a further draconian attack by the Government on the right to peaceful protest, which is a civil liberty, and about the fact that the Government are trying to push the measure through without a proper vote for MPs, as they did when they made the huge error of proscribing Palestine Action?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. This was announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack, when lots of protests took place immediately after the attack. The cumulative disruption and the impact that had was there for all to see. We have no desire to reduce people’s right to protest, and nor would we ever. There is a lot of misinformation about this change in the law, implying that we are in some way increasing the bans on protest. To be clear, the rules on banning protests are very strong, and bans can be introduced only in very significant circumstances. Indeed, we have no rules to ban assembly, so the idea that we are banning protest is just wrong.

We are responding to communities who have recently been feeling the pain of repeated protests, sometimes outside faith organisations—synagogues, in particular. In those cases, we believe that the police should look at the impact of cumulative disruption when they, and not the Government, are deciding whether to impose conditions on those marches.

Many of us recognise the picture of pain that the Minister is painting, especially following the terrorist attack, but good legislation requires debate, scrutiny and specification. One of the concerns that many of us have is the lack of definition of “cumulative”. Will she set out now, on the record, what the Government intend by the concept of “cumulative”, so that people can understand how this proposed test would be met?

I am pleased that we are debating this issue today, which is what we should be doing here, and I am sure that hon. Members will be talking about it more in the several hours that we have to debate these issues. This already exists in law, in that the police are able to look at cumulative disruption when considering whether to impose conditions. We are not redefining “cumulative” at all, or changing the parameters of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act; we are simply saying that when the police are looking at whether to impose conditions, they must look—rather than they can look—at cumulative disruption. That is a small change that will make a big difference to people who are currently scared and intimidated by persistent protests, outside mosques and Jewish places of worship in particular.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I should conclude. I hope that I have demonstrated that we have sought to engage constructively. As I have said, I urge the House to support all the changes that we are suggesting together today with the Government amendments brought from the Lords.

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.

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.

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.

Fly-tipping is very important, but can I refer my hon. Friend to a matter of life and death? As a result of Lords amendment 361 and the amendments to it, somebody who illegally procures a late-term abortion will receive a free pardon. I refer my hon. Friend to Mr Justice Cooke, who said in the Sarah Catt case that Catt had robbed the baby of the life it was about to have and that the seriousness of the crime lay between manslaughter and murder. At sentencing, the judge told Catt that she clearly thought the man with whom she was having an affair was the father and she had shown no remorse. Is it not a terrible indictment of our society that a human life can be taken when it is about to be born, at 39 weeks, and that there should be a free pardon in such a serious case?

I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns—I think many people across the country share them—not only about the issue, however strongly people might feel about it, but about the way that it was added to this Bill after Committee stage, meaning that some of the scrutiny that might otherwise have happened did not, and no evidence on it was given at the evidence sessions. It was slipped into the Bill, and I do not think that there was adequate scrutiny of it. Lots of people across the country share that concern. Such a seismic change in the relationship between the state and individuals should have had more scrutiny in this place.

On fly-tipping, I believe that removing the instrument of this crime is an effective tool, and it could extend beyond the legislative framework set out by the Government in the waste crime action plan.

However, the measures brought forward in the other place are not limited merely to the issue of fly-tipping. There are important proposals relating to non-crime hate incidents. In Lords amendment 334, colleagues in the other place wisely took the step of ending the investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents and ensuring that any future incident recording guidance has

“due regard to the right to freedom of expression.”

That is a sensible, necessary measure, as the Government’s proposal appears to be a rebranding of the existing scheme with a more restrictive triage system. Reports would still be logged, personal data would still be recorded and disclosure rules would remain unchanged. Officers and staff would still be tied up monitoring incidents that do not meet the criminal threshold at a cost of time and resources. As Lord Hogan-Howe told the Lords,

“we need to move on from the recording of non-crime hate incidents by removing them altogether from police systems.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2026; Vol. 852, c. 173.]

I am afraid that unless we agree to the amendment, we risk returning to this issue in the future. It is estimated that 660 hours of police time have been spent on non-crime hate incidents. We can change that and see that time invested back into policing our communities.

On antisocial behaviour and illicit retailers, we hear repeatedly from businesses and local communities about rogue premises causing persistent problems on our high streets. If we are serious about supporting the police to do their job, we must ensure that they have the powers they need to tackle not just crime but the wider public nuisance and disorder that too often accompany it.

A range of organisations, including the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, have been clear that stronger powers are needed to deal with rogue retailers. While the current legal framework does provide tools, in practice they are too often insufficient. The time limits attached to closure notices and orders simply do not go far enough. Instead, we see a revolving door: offenders wait out short closure periods, reopen under a different name and continue their activities, sometimes shifting location before enforcement agencies have the chance to complete proper investigations. That is the crux of the problem: the system does not enable action that sticks.

In the meantime, the impact is clear. Our high streets suffer as legitimate businesses lose trade, confidence declines, and responsible retailers who follow the rules and invest in their communities are left competing against those who operate with impunity. There is also a wider impact on our communities, particularly on young people. Premises linked to that kind of activity can become focal points for antisocial behaviour, drawing in vulnerable individuals and exposing them to harm. If we want safer streets and stronger communities, we cannot allow that cycle to continue. Lords amendment 333 offers a practical solution: it would extend the timeframe for enforcement, giving agencies the ability to take action that is thorough, proportionate and, crucially, effective. It is about ensuring that when action is taken, it delivers real results, not just temporary disruption.

To uphold public safety, we must update the law to reflect the current nature of the crimes our society faces. Lords amendment 311 reflects the worrying growth in the number of protest groups that engage in serious criminal activity to further their aims. However, being organisations, they are often shielded from the full force of the law, as was set out in the other House. The designation in the amendment is not terrorist proscription. It aims to restrict membership, promotion, fundraising, organising and material support, with proportionate penalties that are less significant than those that proscribed terrorist groups attract. Although I understand that the Government believe the proposal to be premature given their ongoing review, they have acted for understandable reasons on cumulative disruption. Why should that not be extended to this provision to ensure that there are restrictions on organisations whose purpose is to break the law?

On extreme ideologies, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have been clear that the Conservative party would work with the Government to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is apparent to many Members across the House, and to our counterparts in the EU, that the threat posed by the IRGC is real. However, despite their comments in opposition, the Government have not introduced such measures.

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the proscription of the IRGC. Will he explain to the House why the Tory party did not do that in their 14 years in government?

The then Opposition told us that they had really strong views about it. They are now in government but are not doing anything about it. The hon. Gentleman need not worry about another day or another week; he has the opportunity today to set the process in motion by voting for Lords amendment 359. It is not enough that Iran is covered by the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—we must go further. The IRGC is not a theoretical concern. As my colleagues have repeatedly stressed to the Government, it has threatened those in our country and supported armed groups that have killed British and allied troops.

We welcome the Government’s adoption of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) to address the depiction of strangulation in pornography. I understand that, through discussions with Baroness Bertin on related subjects, the Government have undertaken to separately progress further measures to tackle pornography featuring 18-plus step-incest—in which one party is the family member of another—and the mimicking of children aged 16-plus, as well as on age verification in pornography. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified those matters further.

I put on record my party’s opposition to Lords amendment 301, which unnecessarily expands the definition of “aggravated offences” to include certain characteristics, even though existing law already covers most of those factors at sentencing, and provides extensive hate crime protections. The change has been introduced late in the legislative process, with minimal scrutiny, raising concerns about transparency. The Law Commission has warned in expert advice that including sex as a protected characteristic in that setting could be ineffective and even counterproductive, as it may complicate prosecutions and create hierarchies of victims. Overall, the amendment appears more symbolic than practical, adding complexity without clear benefit to crime reduction.

The Government have before them amendments that would strengthen our legal system and better protect the public and the police, but we cannot ignore the reality on the ground. Officer numbers have fallen while demand continues to rise, and the Bill will add to that pressure. That is why it matters that, when the police act, they can use the full weight of the law. Without the right powers, higher expectations mean little. Where disorder takes hold, it damages communities and undermines confidence, as we have seen in places like Clapham common.

While parts of the Bill are welcome, there are still gaps. The Lords amendments to which I have spoken would strengthen enforcement and support officers. If we are serious about safer streets, removing them risks falling short of what the public expect.

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 361 and Government amendments to it. I was horrified to learn of the increasing number of cases in recent years of women facing criminal investigations and prosecutions on suspicion of illegal abortion offences. The abject cruelty that more than 100 desperate women have been forced to endure under a 165-year-old law is barbaric and completely unnecessary. That is why I tabled an amendment to the Bill last year to stop this, which was emphatically supported in this Chamber in June. The House of Lords recently supported that change as well. As a Parliament, we took that decision because we listened to the advice of professionals and the evidence gathered over a long period of time from a number of places and we chose to stand up for women.

Alongside the women affected, I am very pleased that once the Bill becomes law, no more women in England and Wales will be subject to the threat of criminal prosecution on suspicion of ending their own pregnancy, but I would welcome clarification from the Minister regarding current investigations. Parliament has been resoundingly clear in its support for removing women from the criminal law related to abortion. Can the Minister confirm that once the Bill becomes law, the expectation is that all current investigations and prosecutions under these offences should be dropped? I would welcome a commitment that she will write to write to police forces in England and Wales, because they clearly have not been listening to the will of Parliament—we are aware of at least three further women having been investigated for ending their own pregnancies since the Commons vote in June.

As well as firmly supporting the decriminalisation of women in cases of abortion, the House of Lords passed an amendment to protect the women already harmed by these outdated laws. I pay tribute to Baroness Thornton, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Baroness Watkins of Tavistock and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer for tabling this cross-party amendment. Lords amendment 361 and the Government amendments to it would pardon women found guilty of ending their own pregnancy and expunge the records of investigations, arrests and charges of women under abortion law, whether or not they were found guilty.

That is important. Current law means that abortion offences are classed as serious and violent crimes, so even without a conviction, the fact that a woman has been arrested and interviewed under these offences remains on her Disclosure and Barring Service check for life. That actively harms her job prospects and ability to travel to certain jurisdictions, and it leaves her with a permanent record on police computer systems or, in the case of conviction, a permanent criminal record that she ended her own pregnancy outside the law. Colleagues will remember that the women forced to endure criminal investigations under these offences are overwhelmingly already vulnerable, and are often victims of acute abuse and exploitation. The retention of these convictions and records causes them ongoing harm under a law that Parliament has been clear has no place in modern society.

This includes women whose experiences I spoke of in my speech in this place last year—women like Nicola Packer, who, after experiencing complications in her abortion treatment, was arrested and held for 36 hours in custody, and endured nearly five years of investigation and prosecution. She was found not guilty at trial, but the investigation, arrest and charge remain on her record. It includes women like Laura, a young mother and university student who was criminalised for an abortion using illicit medication forced on her by an abusive partner. She was in a physically, sexually and emotionally abusive relationship, and her partner told her not to go to a doctor. When she was arrested, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone he was involved. She was jailed for two years, and this conviction remains on her criminal record.

Women who have faced investigation or conviction should not have to continue living with the consequences of this outdated legislation—laws that Parliament has finally and rightly decided should no longer apply to women. That is why clause 361 is so needed. While remaining neutral on the issue, the Government have made changes to clause 361 to ensure workability, and I emphatically support them. They take a similar approach to the changes introduced by the Bill for pardons for convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

As the Liberal Democrats made clear at earlier stages, there are parts of the Bill that we can support and parts that we strongly oppose. We welcome a number of the new measures brought forward today. None the less, it is a pity that the Government have overlooked opportunities to take action in some crucial areas, from cracking down on rural crime to supporting a real return to proper neighbourhood policing.

In addition, we are deeply disturbed by the use of the Bill to further erode the protest rights of British people. These are hard-won freedoms that were won by the suffragettes, trade unionists and others over many years, but the previous Government and this one are recklessly taking them away for short-term political expedience, so we strongly oppose those measures. That is happening not just because of the measures in the Bill before us today; it is happening regularly under this Government. We must all consider that at some length in this House.

However, I am pleased that the House will today consider two amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats in the other place. Amendment 2 will ensure that private companies are not incentivised to issue as many fixed penalty notices as possible, so more serious antisocial behaviour is prioritised instead. The Government’s amendment in lieu does not go far enough. It substitutes the clear ban on fining for profit with non- statutory guidance. We must remove this perverse incentive with a ban, not guidance that will inevitably be open to challenge.

Amendment 342, another Liberal Democrat amendment tabled in the other place, will change how youth diversion orders are issued, ensuring courts are given a full account of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, why those interventions failed and what consultation took place with the child, as well as relevant agencies. Multi-agency input will help courts better understand why other interventions have failed, leading to higher success rates and time efficiency. Crucially, this amendment will mean better outcomes for young people who would otherwise become embroiled in terrorist activity. We call on Members from across the House to support these measures.

The Liberal Democrats are also supporting several other amendments. We support Government amendments 1 and 4 regarding respect orders, which were concessions secured by our Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Clement-Jones. Respect orders will grant police extended powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, with police chiefs given the power to issue orders without oversight. Lords amendments 1 and 4 require the Secretary of State to make appropriate consultations before issuing or revising those orders.

We are backing several further measures that take action on violence against women and girls. We support Lords amendment 294, a concession thanks to the work of our Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Brinton, which would replace the power to issue stalking guidance by the Secretary of State with a duty to do so. That follows similar provisions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance.

There was a discussion earlier about the register of non-consensual intimate images, which is set out in Lords amendment 259. I want to share with the House the experience of one of my constituents, who was subject to the creation of a non-consensual abuse image by her husband while unconscious, having been the victim of spiking. Zoe Watts has chosen very bravely to speak with the media to help to secure legal change and public education, and she points out that there is a disturbing rise in pornography that depicts sex with somebody who is sleeping. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the depiction of non-consensual intimacy in sleep can encourage spiking and sexual abuse and should be banned?

Zoe’s case goes to show that we need to go so much further to protect women, and the depiction of that kind of activity clearly might provoke unintended consequences that none of us in this House want to see. Spiking remains a big problem on high streets and in pubs and bars up and down this country.

With a view to strengthening online protections, we will support Lords amendments 258 and 259, relating to the non-consensual generation and sharing of intimate images. It is crucial that the law catches up to the reality of abuse being faced by women like Zoe every day. We will support Lords amendment 301 to extend the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to include protections against hostility motivated by a range of characteristics, including sex and disability. The Liberal Democrats will support Conservative Lords amendment 15, which would increase the maximum penalty for possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence against another person to 10 years, in line with the recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC.

To effectively tackle criminal gangs, we must ensure that the legal system can effectively cut off their revenue sources. The current closure notice periods for shops selling counterfeit goods are too short, and criminal gangs are too often able to survive the economic hit, impacting the prosperity of our high streets. That is why we support Lords amendment 333, which would extent the period in which the police and the magistrates courts may make closure notices to seven days and closure orders to 12 months.

We are supportive of the suggestion in Lords amendment 311, proposed by Cross-Bench peers, that an alternative is needed to proscription. That has been made particularly clear by what has happened with Palestine Action. However, we are cautious about voting for such a change while the outcomes of the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation are not yet known.

Finally, Liberal Democrats are vehemently opposed to the Government’s Lords amendment to give the police unprecedented powers to further restrict the right to protest. That follows a pattern started by the previous Conservative Government, who hacked away again and again at the historical right to protest enjoyed by British people. It is an absolute travesty that that has carried on under Labour. The right to protest is a vital component of our democracy, and Liberal Democrats will fight to defend it.

I urge Members on all sides of the House to put aside their personal feelings about certain ongoing protests and seriously consider what the consequences of this change would mean for our right to challenge those who exercise power over us. Members on the Government Benches might be content with that approach while they are in charge, but Labour MPs must ask what might happen under a future Government who might not adhere to liberal democratic principles.

The right to protest is a basic democratic freedom that was won over centuries of British history. It is not a right that was granted, but one that was hard-won by suffragettes, trade unionists, anti-fascists and many others. Today we are focusing only on the Lords amendments, but I place on record that this Bill is a serious and substantial assault on our democratic freedoms. Indeed, before the Bill was introduced to this House, the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the Public Order Act 2023, and many other anti-protest Bills passed under the last Government had already expanded police powers. Those Bills were widely criticised by legal experts and civil society organisations and faced widespread opposition from Members from across the House. This makes the shambolic process by which these proposals have been brought before the House even more disturbing.

The Bill proposes giving the police even more powers, including to decide where, when, and even whether a protest takes place. At this very late stage, the other place has now proposed amendment 312, which could lead to protests being not just restricted, but banned outright. That should alarm anyone who cares about democracy, because it should not need pointing out that the whole point of protests is that they are supposed to have a cumulative impact. Should the suffragettes or the Chartists have given up after just one attempt? The UN’s special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has recently outlined how far out of step this extraordinary expansion of state power is with international norms.

This Bill and Lords amendment 312 exist in the context of one of the largest and most sustained protest movements in modern British political history. The Home Secretary has not obscured the fact that these proposals are a direct response to the demonstrations for Palestine. Indeed, I have been proud to protest alongside hundreds and thousands of constituents in over 30 major national demonstrations demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza—collective actions to stand up for humanity in the face of the gravest acts of inhumanity. In this context, it is absurd that under these proposals, holding repeated protests could justify far-reaching restrictions and even outright bans.

Where does this lead? Trade unions are asking whether picketing during an industrial dispute would make them vulnerable to heavy-handed interventions. I understand that the Government are supporting Lords amendment 312; I oppose it entirely, and will instead be supporting a motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) to disagree with amendment 312. This assault on the right to protest could lead us down an extremely worrying path, where Governments can become totalitarian and are able to silence whomever they choose.

British democracy has been defined by dissent, and social progression has been achieved by diverse groups mobilising for women’s rights, for LGBTQ+ equality, for workers’ rights, and for solidarity across those causes. I reiterate my opposition to clauses 156 and 158, which deal with wearing or using items to conceal identity at protests. There has not been a fundamental assessment or full clarity about how making

“wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals”

a person’s

“identity or another person’s identity”

an offence, as the Bill states, will work in practice. For example, how will it work for Muslim women who observe hijab or niqab? I understand that a defence has been worked in for those concealing their identity at protests for religious purposes, but it is a defence in law, to be proven only after an arrest and during onerous court proceedings. These clauses will only extend the ways in which black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals are over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice system.

If we believe in democratic values, we must defend the space for protest—loudly and with determination—against attempts to shrink it further. At a time when public trust in political institutions is already incredibly fragile, the Government’s decision to weaken one of the few tools people have to hold power to account is, in my view, irresponsible. This Bill draws another line in the sand between those who benefit from the political establishment and those who wish to challenge it. I am with the protesters, who have my solidarity, because I know which side of history I want to be on.

I rise today to speak to the Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. I have spoken previously on this piece of legislation, but today I want to focus specifically on Lords amendments 6, 10 and 11, and urge Ministers to accept them. They are on topics on which we Opposition Members have been pushing for action: fly-tipping and littering. Those issues come up in not just my inbox, but the inboxes of Members from all parts of this House, and they affect our residents day in, day out. For those of us in the west midlands, on the edge of Birmingham, where there are bin strikes, thanks to the Labour-run council, fly-tipping is an even greater scourge these days. As I say, this is not the first time I have spoken on these topics; I spoke about them on Second Reading, too.

In rural areas, farmers are often blighted, and end up landed with the costs of significant, often industrial and criminal fly-tipping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is deeply unfair, and that the Government should accept the amendments, which would help take the burden away from the victims of these crimes?

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.

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.

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.

Let us make sure that language is always parliamentary. I call Andy McDonald.

Follow that, indeed!

Let me begin by making it clear that I welcome the Bill and the many measures that the Government have introduced. There is much here that will strengthen policing, protect communities, and respond to genuine public concern about crime and safety. However, Lords amendment 312 causes me real concern, because protest is not some peripheral irritation in our democracy. It is not an inconvenience to be managed. It is, in truth, part of the lifeblood of the labour movement, and of every movement that has ever expanded rights, protections or dignity in this country. From the earliest trade unionists to the Chartists to those who organised in the streets when they had no voice in this Chamber, progress in this country has never been handed down; it has been demanded, organised, and often disrupted into being—yes, disrupted. Protest exists precisely because Governments of the day, of all political colours, have too often sought to restrict the expression of public opinion when it has become uncomfortable. We should be honest about that.

Public organising—protest—is how people express their view, but expressing a view is not the same as being heard, and it is certainly not the same as achieving change. Change comes when that expression is repeated, sustained, and cumulative—when it builds pressure over time until it cannot be ignored. That was as true for the suffragettes as it was for those in the anti-apartheid movement. Neither succeeded because they protested once, politely, and then went home. They succeeded because disruption accumulated, because pressure mounted, and because their cause could not be quietly set aside. That is the democratic tradition we inherit, and it is one that we should be extremely cautious about constraining—which brings me to Lords amendment 312.

Whatever its intentions, the amendment represents a continuation of, not a departure from, a trajectory set by the last Government. We have in recent years seen a steady expansion of public order powers, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023. At each stage, concerns were raised—by Members on both sides of the House, by those in the other place and by civil liberties organisations—that the balance between public order and the right to protest was being tilted too far, and we are now being asked to accept a further step in that same direction.

It was not so many weeks ago that Gina Romero, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, was in this Parliament, expressing horror about the fact that the United Kingdom Government were at the leading edge of these provisions. The rest of the world is looking. Other countries are waiting to see how this plays out in our country, because they intend to copy and paste and do the self-same thing in their jurisdictions. It is perhaps fortunate that Viktor Orbán has gone, because I am pretty convinced that he would be looking to these measures, among others.

Lords amendment 312 does something very specific: it revives, in substance, provisions that were previously rejected. Hon. Members will recall that during the passage of the Public Order Act 2023, the then Government sought, through Lords amendments 48 and 49, to require the police to take account of cumulative disruption when imposing conditions on protests under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Those provisions were defeated in the House of Lords, with opposition from Labour, Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, yet even before the ink was dry on those proceedings and the 2023 Act had received Royal Assent, the then Government sought to achieve the same outcome through secondary legislation: the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023. Those regulations did three things of note: they lowered the threshold of disruption to “more than minor”, introduced the concept of “cumulative disruption”, and expanded police discretion to consider multiple events collectively.

And what happened? The regulations were quashed by the courts in the National Council for Civil Liberties v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2023. They were quashed because the process by which they were brought forward was found to be unlawful. To be fair, the Government have learned from that episode, and Lords amendment 312 is more cautious. It embeds the concept of cumulative disruption in primary legislation, and avoids reopening the broader and highly contentious definition of “serious disruption”, reflecting an incremental approach shaped by judicial intervention and parliamentary resistance. I recognise that, but recognising that the drafting is more careful does not answer the central question: should we be doing this at all? We are being asked to take a concept that was rejected in this House and the other place, and which was unsuccessfully imposed through regulations that were struck down by the courts, and to reintroduce it. It is more carefully packaged but substantively similar.

There is a second concern, which is about the process, because this measure has not come to us in the ordinary way. It has not been introduced as a Government clause in this House, which would make it subject to full debate, amendment and Division; it has been inserted by the Lords. I say gently but firmly that that mirrors the approach that many of us criticised when it was adopted by the previous Government. If we believe that something is important enough to legislate on—particularly something that touches on fundamental rights—it is important enough to be properly scrutinised in this Chamber.

In considering the proposals, we should reflect on very recent events. It has been reported that in the case involving Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham, which I understand is now subject to appeal, the defence argued that at the protest in question, the police relied on powers relating to cumulative disruption that were derived from the 2023 regulations, which were later quashed by the Court of Appeal in the National Council for Civil Liberties v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If that account is borne out, it raises serious questions. It means that even without a clear statutory footing, such expansive interpretations are already influencing operational decisions, which underlines the risk that legislating for cumulative disruption may not clarify the law, but instead entrench uncertainty and overreach at the expense of the right to protest. 

I say to Ministers that much in this Bill commands support, and there is no need to jeopardise that support by attaching to it a measure that raises serious civil liberties concerns and has not been properly tested in this House. The Government should withdraw Lords amendment 312. If they do not, Members should be clear that this is not a minor or technical issue to be nodded through. It may require the House to divide—if necessary, on a roll-up motion at the end of the proceedings—to ensure that our view is properly recorded and we defend the civil liberties that generations have so proudly fought for.

I rise to speak mainly about Lords amendment 333 on illegal trading, but I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about the illiberal nature of the crackdown on protests. I never thought I would be entering into a world in which old ladies sitting down in protest would in effect be proscribed as terrorists. We are moving into some kind of Kafkaesque world, and the provisions of this Bill worry me in the same way. However, as I wish to focus on illegal trading, that is what I will do.

I and the Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment 333, which would extend the length of closure notices. We campaigned during the general election for a return to proper community policing and to safer high streets and town centres, and ending the scourge of illegal trading must be part of that. Extending the period over which closure notices may be served by police inspectors or local authority chief executives under section 77 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to seven days, as set out in Lords amendment 333, would be a move in the right direction. I therefore oppose the Government’s motion to strike out that amendment.

Thanks to local publicans in my Taunton constituency who came forward with vital information, I raised illegal trading in Taunton with Somerset council and the local police about a year ago. I would like to pay tribute to police officers like Andy, the trading standards officers and my Lib Dem Somerset councillor colleagues, such as Mike Rigby, overseeing the work that has led to a number of really high-profile closures. Taunton Market, Mr Taunton and Top Market have rightly been closed down, following just the kind of crackdown that was needed. I have a message for anyone else considering that kind of activity in Taunton and Wellington: “Illegal trading isn’t welcome, you will be closed down and you will be prosecuted.”

We need to go further, though. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has pointed out that we need properly resourced trading standards services, which means tackling the local government funding crisis, particularly the social care funding crisis that is the main burden under which councils are struggling.

Somerset councillors to whom I have spoken about this also want civil penalties against landlords who knowingly let their premises be used for illegal trading, and that has also raised by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. Those fines should be given to the council both to support trading standards work and to clean up the town centre environment. I believe that repeat offenders among landlords should forfeit their retail property to the council to allow its reuse or regeneration. Behind too many illegal shops are complicit landlords cashing in on the rent from illegal activity, and right now they face no consequences at all.

As well as supporting Lords amendment 333, the main change I am pressing for, following my visit with police officers around Taunton, is to address their frustration with the reality of tackling illegal sales at one end of the counter while trading continues at the other end of the counter in the shops they are tackling. I understand why the law requires that any closure notice must be followed up, under section 80 of the 2014 Act, with an application to the courts for a closure order. Frankly, however, that requirement is a hugely onerous demand on the time of hard-pressed officers, which too often discourages closure notices being served when they are needed.

I am therefore pressing for section 80 to be amended so that closure notices could be served on the authority of a superintendent or local authority chief executive and be effective for up to 14 days, but, crucially, without the requirement to apply to the courts. To ensure a just approach to retailers, exercising such a power would have to be dependent on evidence of unlawful or illegal trading, such as the sale of stolen goods. The Association of Convenience Stores found that 25% of retailers identified stolen goods being sold locally in their areas, including the under-age sale of alcohol, tobacco, vapes or counterfeit goods, such as cigarettes. Enabling a rapid response of this kind would also help to tackle phoenixing, whereby new ventures open a new company just a few doors down from their closed premises.

I am delighted at the action taken locally in Taunton. I support Lords amendment 333 and I do not really understand why the Government oppose it. Action could be taken and they should take it. Councils and police are too often operating with one hand tied behind their backs. There should be immediate closure where that is needed. Town centre businesses in Taunton and Wellington should not be forced to compete with criminal activity, and I will continue to push the case for stronger powers to stamp that out.

I would like to recognise the work the Government have already undertaken to improve our high streets, including measures announced in the Budget last year: the taskforce to tackle organised crime groups; additional funding made available to trading standards, customs and excise, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and support for community policing, ensuring that there is a community police officer in every neighbourhood across the country. Those are all welcome and important, and it is right that we acknowledge that context in which this debate sits. I would also like to congratulate the Minister for Policing and Crime. She works incredibly hard. Today, she is working a double shift and we appreciate it.

I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333, which sought to extend closure orders to 12 months. That has been the subject of some discussion today. I appreciate that the Government understand and recognise the importance and necessity of closure orders, to the point that they have tabled this amendment in lieu. I have to say to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) that I do not see that as the Government opposing, but rather nudging gently towards the right direction. They are acknowledging the need for closure orders, while recognising the sensitivity that comes with them: the impact they can have in residential areas—this is not just about commercial premises—and on our high streets. In particular, I think about the potential addition of boarded-up, empty homes for 12-month periods and the same for commercial properties on our high streets. That will be a concern and I therefore recognise the need for the Government to consult, but the Minister will know that this draws concern from me and other colleagues who are keen to tackle the scourge of dodgy shops in their communities—and to do so quickly.

My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion on the issue of dodgy shops. I would go as far to call her a guru on dodgy shops, if she will accept that accolade. Carlisle, like her constituency, is blighted by minimarts, vape shops and so on. I am attracted to Lords amendment 333, but superficially so. I think it is right that we get this correct. Does she agree with me that passing Lords amendment 333 would mark a significant shift in the law? It is important we get this right and consult, and what the Government are doing is extending the power, but with a guarantee to consult.

My hon. Friend is right. It is an acknowledgement that action needs to be taken. That is reflected in other areas of action that the Government are already committed to and those we are likely to see further down the track, which I will come to later.

I think we are right to raise the length of the consultation and say that, while we may appreciate the necessity of the Government wanting to consult when the shift up to 12 months is so significant, the consultation period should not be unduly or unnecessarily lengthy.

Does the hon. Lady agree that any such consultation should include closure notices, as well as closure orders?

The extension to closure notices relates to much shorter time periods, and the periods for notices provided do not therefore necessarily need to fall into the scope of having a consultation—in fact, I would rather avoid having things in consultation unnecessarily over including things in consultation.

We want to drive the changes that communities expect to see, but this consultation has the potential to undermine the seriousness with which the Government take this issue. I wonder whether there is therefore an opportunity for the Government to say that they are aiming for the consultation and the response to coincide with the high streets strategy that we are expecting later this year, hopefully in the summer—whenever summer, in a parliamentary term, actually comes to fruition.

The campaign to stop dodgy shops is not just about not liking the appearance or the proliferation of these businesses, but covers much wider consequences, from money laundering to the sale of illegal goods; there were even suggestions in a recent BBC investigation of these shops harbouring child sexual exploitation activities. Indeed, a gentleman in my constituency called Shaun Tinmurth was sold an illegal vape that exploded in his home, causing thousands of pounds-worth of damage and putting his life and the lives of his family in significant peril. Just last month, we saw national rail infrastructure damaged as a result of a vape shop fire in Glasgow, with a beautiful grade II building seriously damaged. These businesses endanger lives, bring criminal activity to the heart of our towns and fracture community cohesion.

This is happening now. We are seeing damage, threats to life and costs to the public purse because the measures that currently exist are too slow to intervene, because of a lack of the right resources or because these matters are not considered to be a priority by some local authorities or police authorities. We have to ensure that police and local authorities have sufficient resources within their arsenal to provide a deterrent in the very strongest terms to these fake businesses and to make it absolutely clear to any OCG that is behind these commercial outfits that their model will not be tolerated, that they are not wanted and that the strongest available action will be used in such cases.

That is why the Government should not use the consultation as an opportunity not to continue to press ahead. I know that the Secretary of State is being given powers to easily implement this, should the consultation outcome take us in that direction—I really do not want the Government to miss the opportunity to give serious weight to the consequences. I want to ensure the success of the high streets strategy when it comes in the summer, and I really do not think there is any point in investing in our town centres if legitimate businesses are undercut by those operating outside the law or if residents feel unsafe in the very spaces that we are trying to regenerate.

I urge the Government to publish the consultation as soon as possible and to aim to conclude it in support of and around the timeframe of the high streets strategy, in addition to publishing the terms of reference and membership of the OCG high streets cross-departmental group for the purposes of transparency and contribution, and to ensure that every intervention—whether on policing, regeneration or business support—is aligned with the goal of allowing our high streets to breathe again.

I rise in support of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) to disagree with Lords amendment 312.

Today we are being asked to wave through one of the most draconian assaults on democratic freedoms in modern times, and let us be clear who is doing it: not the Tories—they are not even here—but the Labour party. This Labour Government are attacking the right to protest, attacking trial by jury, proscribing a non-violent direct action group, and handing NHS patient data to Palantir—a company that has helps US Immigration and Customs Enforcement tear migrant families apart and that generates kill lists for the Israeli military—and now they are doing this. This is a Government who are increasingly authoritarian day by day. When people take to the streets to fight back and expose this Government’s complicity in genocide, their answer is to ban them.

When people talk about feeling safe where they live, they are talking not about spreadsheets or crime statistics, but about whether they feel okay walking home at night, whether their local shops can open their doors without worrying about theft or abuse, and whether, when something does go wrong, the law actually backs them up. That is why the Crime and Policing Bill really matters.

I am pleased to welcome the Bill, because it tackles the issues that my constituents raise time and again: antisocial behaviour, abuse of retail workers, the need for visible neighbourhood policing and stronger action on serious harm, including violence against women and girls. They make up one of the most significant packages on crime and policing in decades. This Bill is about restoring public confidence and making our streets safer.

I will speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333, relating to antisocial behaviour and closure powers. In Leigh and Atherton, as in many towns, so-called dodgy shops have become an all too familiar feature of struggling high streets. Illicit premises selling illegal goods, undercutting lawful businesses and operating in plain sight undermine confidence and damage communities, as we have already heard, but what is striking is not the lack of effort from enforcement bodies—far from it—but the limits of the current system. Again and again, action is taken, evidence is gathered and closure orders are secured, only for the same premises to reopen shortly afterwards under a new name. That revolving door problem makes lasting change incredibly difficult.

As we have heard, local authorities, trading standards and police forces often spend months building cases and navigating court processes, yet the maximum closure period remains just three months. For those determined to break the law, that is simply not a sufficient deterrent. Legitimate businesses are left trying to compete fairly while criminals carry on. Communities see it happening and are rightly frustrated, while confidence in enforcement and in the fairness of the system starts to slip.

This issue cannot be solved in isolation. If we are serious about restoring our high streets, we need a joined-up approach that stops illicit operators from taking root in the first place. The Government are moving in the right direction, with Pride in Place funding, strengthened trading standards, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and the forthcoming high streets strategy all forming important pieces of the puzzle. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333 is another: it gives the Secretary of State the power through regulations to amend the maximum duration of closure orders, with the flexibility to treat different types of premises differently. That pragmatic step will allow consultation and evidence-led change. However, that flexibility must not become hesitation.

I would welcome clarity from the Government on the timeline for consultation, because enforcement that does not stick is not enforcement at all. Our high streets cannot afford that delay. Will the Minister confirm that the amendment sits within a wider ongoing programme of work bringing together enforcement, regulation and stronger powers where needed so that this is not the end of the conversation but the start of a robust approach? Our high streets deserve nothing less. With that reassurance, the amendment will be a necessary step in restoring credibility to enforcement and signalling that the Government are serious about bringing confidence, fairness and pride back to our high streets.

I will speak to Lords amendment 312 on cumulative disruption. I am deeply alarmed by the amendment, which would require senior police officers to take into account any so-called cumulative impacts of frequent protests on local areas when considering whether to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies. In short, the Government are giving the police unprecedented powers to restrict or prohibit protests that they expect to be too disruptive. That is an unacceptable attack on our democracy. These powers represent a significant expansion of state authority and risk undermining long-standing democratic freedoms. They also set a dangerous precedent for the suppression of dissent and inhibit people’s legitimate right to peaceful protest.

With the rise of the right in this country, that expansion of power leaves the potential for future Governments to misuse them to suppress and stamp out all forms of protest, strikes and demonstrations. Our fundamental right to peaceful protest, which has existed for many years, must be safeguarded against any attempt to constrict it.

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.

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?

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.

Does the hon. Member agree that the vague wording could lead a police force to ban, for example, a Pride protest three months after a farmers’ protest? There is no clarity as to whether a protest is damaging; it is just that the protest is cumulative.

The hon. Member makes a valid point, and those are some of the issues that have been raised by civil liberties organisations and disputed by the Minister in the House this afternoon. The situation means that many colleagues who are here today will rely on the Government’s reassurances that the proposals strike a fair balance between permitting protests and preventing disruption, without being given the time to consider what that really means. I therefore ask them to heed my words closely.

The suffragettes protested for decades for women to win the right to vote. It took years of disruption and fighting a patriarchal system for them to win the historic gains from which we all benefit today. Who would condemn their action, or argue that their protests should have been made less impactful, and their struggle for women’s liberation harder and longer? Looking back on the suffragettes’ fight, it is inconceivable that we would support a restriction on their struggle on the basis of “cumulative disruption”. It was exactly that process of sustained pressure that won women the vote.

The same applies to the fight to bring down the evil apartheid regime, during which I was proud to cut my political teeth as a young activist in Liverpool. There, we occupied council buildings and universities, raised money and organised boycotts of goods, sports and culture. We marched and held street stalls and mass demonstrations until that evil regime fell—another victory of the powerless over the powerful, made possible by sustained action and protest. Without sustained protest, we would not have the hard-won employment rights that so many of us benefit from today.

I shall speak to Lords amendments 6 and 333, regarding fly-tipping and vape shop closures respectively. On the face of it, those are very different issues, but they share a common thread, which is that communities are being undermined by people who think that rules do not apply to them, and the victims are being left to shoulder the burden. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, and as the MP for Horsham, which is a largely rural area, I hear constantly about rural crime, including theft, livestock worrying and machinery break-ins, but one topic keeps coming up, and that is fly-tipping.

The Country Land and Business Association reports that a single incident can routinely cost a farmer over £10,000 to clear. How bizarre is that? Let us imagine ourselves in the position of the farmer. A criminal dumps a lorryload of waste on our field. We call the authorities and we have to foot the bill. That is offensive to anyone’s sense of natural justice. In my own area, I give credit to Horsham district council for working constructively with farmers to deal with dumping incidents, but even the best councils have to operate within a law that is highly dysfunctional as it stands.

The National Farmers Union, the Countryside Alliance, the Environmental Services Association and Suez Recycling and Recovery all say the same thing: waste crime is spiralling. An astonishing one fifth of England’s waste—that is 38 million tonnes—is thought to be being disposed of illegally. This is a big issue, and successive Governments have failed to rise to the challenge. The cost to the economy is estimated to be between £1 billion and £2 billion a year. The cost to individual landowners is even higher, from their point of view.

Lords amendment 6 would go some way to mitigating this situation. It would make clearing fly-tipped waste a duty of the local authority, not the landowner. It would ensure that the criminal—the tipper—paid, rather than the victim. It would strengthen collaboration between police, councils and the Environment Agency so that offenders could not slip between jurisdictions. In turn, councils would need to be funded by Government for their increased role in enforcement and to protect them against unrecoverable costs. Clearly, this would be an extra spending pressure on the Government, but perhaps that would serve to focus their mind on a problem that has been scandalously overlooked for many years.

Rural crime more broadly needs more focus. In my farmer surveys and surgeries, I hear that farmers are struggling with crimes such as sheep worrying, which has resulted in dead lambs, injured ewes and even the loss of an alpaca. Too often operators on the 101 line simply do not understand why this matters. We need better training, better data collection and a better grasp of rural realities.

The same logic applies to Lords amendment 333 on vape shops and closure notices: enforcement must be effective and swift. Under the current rules, a closure notice can shut an illegal shop for only 48 hours. Many police and crime commissioners have said that that is simply not long enough to prepare their case. Some shops open up again almost immediately, continuing to sell illegal vapes or trading as fronts for criminal gangs.

As it stands, illegal traders are undermining the health of the entire high street. Lords amendment 333 offers a practical fix. It increases closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, giving police and councils the crucial time to build a proper case. It allows courts to impose closure orders for up to 12 months instead of the current three months, and makes them renewable. It gives local authorities more realistic powers to act against shops that they already know are selling illicit vapes or targeting children.

Public faith in the justice system is being undermined because people feel that justice is either too slow or that the authorities lack sufficient powers to deal with modern crime. Sadly, the criminals are innovating much more swiftly than the justice system. The two amendments have a common principle at their heart: victims should not pay for crimes committed against them, and the authorities must be equipped to act decisively when they know that wrongdoing is taking place. The amendments would go some way to help with that, so I urge the Government to support them.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I welcome the Bill before us today. It contains a multitude of crucial measures to tackle issues from non-consensual intimate images to retail worker assault, child criminal exploitation and knife crime. I thank the Ministers for Policing and Crime, for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls and for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, their teams and the whole Government for their work on the Bill. I particularly express my gratitude to the Government for accepting the principle of amendments to the Bill that I first tabled last year, which have been ably taken up more recently by Baroness Bertin in the other place.

Government amendments to Lords amendments 263, 264 and 265 rightly accept that online pornography is a key driver of violence against women and girls, child sexual abuse and commercial sexual exploitation. We know that online pornography is driven by a profit-maximising algorithm that encourages addiction. Like any other addiction, it can spiral. Addicts find themselves having to move towards increasingly extreme content, including illegal content, to get the same fix, or they find that offline, in real-world actions, and we know the impact that that has.

Pornography is not just entertainment; it has become a form of education. It trains brains to link endorphin and dopamine production to violent, degrading and, in some cases, paedophilic-adjacent content. It promotes the idea that pain for women is pleasure for men. It instils the notion that to be close to a woman is to dominate or degrade her. From Wayne Couzens to Dominique Pelicot, we know how the consumption of online sexualised violence can turn into offline violence.

I therefore welcome clauses 105 and 106. They build on my proposed new clause 102, tabled on Report, and will criminalise the possession or publication of strangulation or suffocation in pornography. This is vital given that 36% of women under the age of 34 have been strangled during sex, and strangulation is now the second most common cause of stroke in young women.

I also welcome the Government amendments in lieu before us that build on mine and Baroness Bertin’s amendments to ban pornographic content that features step-incest or performers role-playing as children. Content such as that, which sexualises children, with very young-looking performers dressed in school uniforms, holding lollipops and stuffed toys, very clearly promotes a sexual interest in children. Two pieces of research from 2024 found that between 43% and 63% of those who have committed offences relating to child sexual abuse material began by habitually watching so-called “barely legal” content.

It is right that through the Government’s amendment in lieu to Lords amendment 265, this gateway to paedophilia is swung firmly shut. We know that CSAM consumption and the further child sexual abuse that it can so often encourage largely originate from exposure to online content that is happened across incidentally, rather than with purpose. Offences for online child sexual abuse increased by 26% in 2024.

Content that depicts step-incest—for example, with a stepfather and stepdaughter—likewise eroticises and encourages the sexual abuse of children and those for whom we have or should have a caring responsibility. Sadly, half of all sexual abuse cases against children are perpetrated by a step-parent or family member. Given that we are increasingly living in an age of blended families, permitting the depiction of this abuse is particularly pernicious.

Pornography also has an impact on those who appear in it, and we know that women are all too often coerced or trafficked into the industry. I therefore welcome the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 264, which builds on my amendment and that of Baroness Gabby Bertin to grant the Government the power to require pornography sites to proactively verify the age and consent of those featured on it, rather than just waiting for content to be reported.

The amendment will crucially grant powers to allow performers to withdraw their consent retroactively so that they are not forever trapped into a life in the pornography industry by pictures and videos from perhaps even decades prior. It is of the utmost importance that the Government stick to their timetable to deliver that and work at pace across Departments and with experts from the sector to deliver on it. I am incredibly grateful to UK Feminista, Barnardo’s, CEASE and the APPG on commercial sexual exploitation for their tireless work on these issues and to Ministers who have worked constructively with me and many Members across this House to ensure that we get these vital changes in the Bill.

I am also grateful to the Government for engaging similarly constructively with me on my amendment to Lords amendment 300, which relates to the proposed statutory definition of so-called honour-based abuse. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), I was honoured last year to host a screening of the powerful Channel 4 documentary “The Push”, alongside the mother of Fawziyah Javed, who was failed through a series of missed opportunities by statutory bodies to identify her as a victim of honour-based abuse. She was pushed off Arthur’s Seat by her husband, killing her and her unborn child. That is why it is very welcome that this Bill introduces a definition of honour-based abuse. It represents an important step forward and a great win for all the victims and organisations who have campaigned for this for many years.

Nevertheless, I and organisations that work in this space, such as Karma Nirvana, are concerned that the definition as it stands falls short of fully capturing honour-based abuse. The Lords amendment references only a “person”, whereas we know that honour- based abuse is often perpetrated by multiple people as part of a family or community—a feature that distinguishes it from other forms of domestic abuse. I have therefore proposed the addition of “or persons” to Lords amendment 300 in order to reflect that. It is a tiny change, and an amendment sought by Baroness Sugg in the other place. I recognise some may argue that it is already covered by the Interpretation Act, but having spent many years in the domestic abuse sector I know that overstretched and under-resourced multi-agency professionals, particularly the police, may interpret legislation literally and act only within the explicit wording to be set out in Lords amendment 300.

Some have also argued that the use of “persons” would be contrary to the usage and interpretations in other criminal law contexts, yet there are many examples of offences that relate to things such as organised crime, gangs and riot that reference “persons”, including in the Serious Crime Act 2015 and the legislation before us.

A definition of honour-based abuse is the culmination of years of campaigning. I remember working with many people who are still in this House on getting it included in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which sadly it was not. I invite the Minister to clarify, in her speech, that the Government intend the amendment to cover multiple perpetrators as well as a sole perpetrator. I would appreciate her and her colleagues’ continued commitment to working with organisations such as Karma Nirvana to ensure that the statutory guidance accurately reflects the true nature of honour-based abuse. Also, there must be funding for training for multi-agency professionals, which will undoubtedly be required if the definition stays as it is.

I wholeheartedly support the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has tabled to Lords amendment 300. Those of us who have dealt with honour cases recognise the overall family involvement, and there needs to be recognition that we are talking about persons, not a person.

I have listened to a large number of speeches that have done a tremendous job of setting out the principles behind the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 312, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), which I support. I do not want to talk about the principles; I want to talk about the practicalities, because I am worried that it is when the Government rush to legislate around a particular incident, and do not provide adequate time for debate and individual votes, that Parliament makes significant mistakes. That has been demonstrated in the past.

The Minister referenced the Manchester events, which were absolutely tragic, and the demonstrations that took place then. However, she also mentioned that the powers to deal with such events—to prevent and restrict demonstrations that are causing such distress—already exist. She also mentioned that the cumulative impact is a factor that police officers need to take into account; the change made by the Bill is simply that it will say that police will be required to take the cumulative impact into account. That seems like a simple, small step forward, but I think it will cause immense problems. In particular, it will place a burden on the police, but it will also introduce an element of subjective judgment by a number of senior police officers.

I will give examples from our history. In the 1980s, I was involved in the City of London branch of the anti-apartheid movement, and for two years, we held a permanent demonstration outside South Africa House. I remember being there, singing Christmas carols, on Christmas day. It was disruptive, and people were arrested for individual offences, but that was the whole point. We were there because we said that we would not leave until Nelson Mandela was released. At that time, we were condemned in this House for supporting a terrorist, and for supporting a terrorist organisation called the African National Congress. These days, if we held up the banners that we held up then, we would probably be arrested. The other example I give is from 1985, I think. I was involved in the organisation of the people’s march for jobs. A group of unemployed workers marched from the north all the way to London, and my job was to prepare for their arrival in London, but in every town and city, they were met with a demonstration. On many occasions, those demonstrations were disruptive—that is cumulative.

For me, the other issue is that unfortunately, I think this change is largely targeted at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstrations in London. I have been involved in some of the processes of negotiation with the police on each of those demonstrations—I have been on virtually every one, over two years. I have been advising the organisations involved when they are going into the negotiations, as well as during those negotiations. So that Members understand, what happens is that a date is identified months in advance. As that date gets nearer, discussions take place with the police, and severe restrictions are placed on the route and the timing of the march. The issue of synagogues has come up; I do not think there has ever been a synagogue within half a mile of one of those marches, but the demonstrators themselves have said, “We’ll adjust the times, so that it does not in any way interfere with any service.” Those are the negotiations that go on. It is a thorough process.

However—I do not say this lightly—as a result of my experience of the whole process, I have lost confidence in the judgment of the senior Metropolitan police officers. I say that because I was involved in some of the discussions on the demonstrations in which Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham were arrested. I found then that the use of the restrictions was deliberately provocative. What has been said in court since then has been disingenuous, because I was there on the spot, and I saw what happened. In fact, the next day, I was pulled into the police station and interviewed as a result of the events that day. I have lost that confidence, because we were assured that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his senior team would consult with the wider communities in advance of planning for these demonstrations, so that views could be taken on board, particularly the views of the Jewish community. “Consultation with the Jewish community” has largely been interpreted as consultation with the Board of Deputies. The Board of Deputies represents a certain section of the Jewish community. In fact, it has split. Last year, 37 members expressed their concern about how the Board of Deputies was expressing its position on Gaza.

During the demonstrations, I start the march with the Jewish bloc. I have marching beside me Stephen Kapos, the Holocaust survivor who became quite a famous architect. The organisations in the Jewish bloc have never been consulted about the march. The Haredi community, which is the largest Jewish community, particularly in London—the orthodox Jewish community —has never been consulted about these demonstrations. I am sorry, but I have lost confidence in the assurances that we have been given that there are wider consultations with the community.

In the past few weeks, I have lost so much confidence in the judgment of Metropolitan police senior officers. Every year for decades, we have had a march in London for the Palestinians on the anniversary of Nakba, to commemorate the Palestinians being forcibly removed from their own land. Nakba means catastrophe. There is a march in London every year around 16 March. This year, it was going to go ahead as normal. Planning and discussions were taking place, and then the police said, “No, you can’t go on your normal route.” Why is that? Because the police had allocated it to Tommy Robinson. We saw what happened last year in London on Tommy Robinson’s march. There was violence, and there were attacks on police and individuals, yet the Palestinian demonstration was displaced for this far-right group—thugs, in many instances. That demonstrated to me the bias among Metropolitan police senior officers. In many ways, it demonstrates how they could start interpreting the concept of cumulative impact in this legislation, which will go through today.

With every move towards restricting peaceful protest in any way, there is a risk. We have seen in the past, on a number of occasions, that if we deny people the right to peaceful protest, they will riot. There is a risk that, through this legislation, we undermine our historic, real commitment to democratic, peaceful protest. That right has achieved so much in our country; we have achieved so much through the reforms that have been demanded. This legislation puts in peril those rights, and in addition, through it, we could be acting provocatively, undermining the peaceful protest that we want to see. That could result in the potential for riot. That is why we needed more time to debate and discuss the issue, and why we needed a right to vote on the motion to disagree. That is not going to happen tonight, and I think we will regret it in the long term.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that although Lord Macdonald of River Glaven has been commissioned to carry out a review of the complex public order architecture, we are taking a measure in this arena without the benefit of that review’s findings? Is that not putting the cart before the horse?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He made the point earlier, and I think it is completely rational and understandable.

What adds to my anxiety is that in the normal run of things, a serious matter such as this would be introduced in the House of Commons, and there would be a proper Commons debate, after which the matter would go off to the Lords, and then come back to us. I feel that we are being bounced into this today, and I did not expect that of my Government on an issue of this sort, because it is so important, and because it will have major consequences for us in the future—and particularly for our movement, which was based on protest from the very beginning. We seem to be undermining our historic tradition, and our commitment to a role that we have played historically and will almost inevitably need to play in the future.

There is much in the Bill that is serious and worthy of support. The measures to tackle shop theft, protect retail workers, strengthen the response to exploitation and abuse and deal with knife crime are all important. However, Lords amendment 312 raises a very different prospect. It is not really about violent disorder or intimidation. It is about making it easier to restrict repeated protest. It would require the police, when deciding whether to impose conditions on a protest, to take into account what the Bill calls “cumulative disruption”. That means not just the disruption caused by the protest, but disruption said to arise from other protests in the same area that were held, are being held, or are intended to be held. The organiser does not have to be the same; the cause does not even have to be the same.

That should concern every Member of this House, because effective protest is very often cumulative, and democratic campaigning is nearly always repetitive. The campaigners come back again and again. That is true of the trade union movement, true of the suffragettes, and true of the civil rights tradition more broadly. The cumulative nature of protest is not a flaw in our democracy. It is often the means by which democracy speaks, and that is why amendment 312 is so dangerous in principle. It takes something that has always been central to democratic struggle—persistence—and starts to treat it as a problem to be managed down. It turns the repeated exercise of democratic freedom into a reason for state restriction. Once the House accepts that logic, we move on to very difficult ground indeed.

Laws like this are never drafted only for the Government of the day. They remain on the statute book. They pass into other hands. We would be naive not to ask how a future hard-right Government might use a power like this. As the TUC has warned, broad “cumulative disruption” tests could all too easily be used against trade union demonstrations, against long-running industrial disputes, against repeated pickets, rallies and marches, and against the kind of organised working-class protest that has been central to the Labour movement and to the winning of rights in this country. That is not alarmism. It is exactly why Parliament should be careful about creating broad powers that can later be wielded by Ministers and authorities with far less respect for civil liberties.

Peaceful protest is not an inconvenience to be tolerated only once. It is a democratic right, and one of the clearest tests of whether we truly believe in that right is whether we still defend it when it is persistent, visible and effective. That was true of the Chartists demanding political reform, the match girls and dockers fighting for dignity at work, the anti-apartheid movement that refused to give up, and the suffragettes who were crucial in securing the vote for women.

The hon. Lady is making an important speech on the right to protest, but does she accept that many members of the Jewish community feel intimidated by regular marches by the pro-Palestinian brigade, who demonstrate loudly and not always peacefully in the same area, week after week? How does she believe that that community can be protected from such intimidation?

I agree that some protests can feel intimidating. On the Palestine protests, people have never protested outside synagogues, and they do not protest outside mosques. Given the proper police protections that already exist, there is no reason for the Jewish community to feel intimidated. But the fact is that this goes far beyond the Jewish community, for all the reasons that I have outlined.

It was said in the past that we should not protest again and again for women’s right to vote, or for trade unions to win their rights against unscrupulous employers. In their name, and in the name of the whole Labour movement, Lords amendment 312 ought to be rejected.

There are many important proposals before us today, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing them forward. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour, offensive weapons, fly-tipping, the exploitation of children, and appalling sexual offences. However, Lords amendment 312, which was introduced in the other place, dangerously infringes on civil liberties.

It is incumbent on all Members to jealously guard the rights of our constituents, and any restriction of their civil liberties should only be accepted by this House on the basis of overwhelming evidence that such proposals would strengthen, rather than undermine, the health of our democracy. On this occasion, however, we have had next to no evidence whatsoever, because these significant changes were only introduced after the original passage of the Bill through this House, which is ultimately a pretty sorry way to treat representative parliamentary democracy.

Lords amendment 312 is out of step with the best traditions of this country and of the Labour party, which has always existed to redress the balance of power in favour of ordinary people. The Chartists, the suffragettes, the organisers of the Kinder Scout trespass, those who stood against fascism at Cable Street, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Jarrow crusade—these were protest movements and campaigns of direct action that were supported and led by giants of our party, and which we should celebrate, not disown. They were advancing Labour’s historic mission to wrest power from the established status quo, so that ordinary people have a real say over their lives. Lords amendment 312 contradicts that impulse, and risks shifting the balance of power in our society towards the vested interests that we ought to take on.

The corrosive influence of the rich and powerful runs through every corner of our politics. It muddies policymaking and leaves our constituents asking whether decisions are made in their interests, or in those of the last donor who paid £2,000 a head at a lobbyist curry night. If tweaks are to be made to defend our democracy and prevent disruption to the life of our communities, that would be a far more apt target than the civil liberties of our constituents. Today, Lords amendment 312 is opposed across the Labour movement and civil society by many organisations that share the progressive instincts that should be guiding this Labour Government. That is hardly surprising, given the way this legislation is drafted. It is vague, with no definition of what is meant by

“serious disruption to the life of the community”.

It is widely drawn, with no necessary link between the events considered to be cumulatively disruptive. It does not define the area in question or the timeframe, and it has the blindingly obvious potential to be abused.

The proposals could easily be used to restrict protests simply because they are considered inconvenient due to their persistence, and not because of their content or messages. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, this may place substantial political pressure on the decision making of senior police officers. I want to address the concerns raised by several hon. Members in this debate about the intimidation of specific minority groups. I do understand those concerns and they are legitimate, but the legislation is not drafted tightly enough to address that problem. It is far too vague and far too broad to coherently address that point, and it is not what we will achieve by passing this amendment.

Finally, since we are discussing notions of cumulative impact, whatever the stated intentions today, when these plans are considered alongside the recent restrictions on the right to protest against animal testing, a legally contested proscription and other legislation that I assume means that any of my constituents disobeying these plans would not have the right to a trial by their peers, assertions by the Government that they hold the right to protest sacrosanct are wearing so thin as to be clearly transparent. The case for Lords amendment 312 has not been made, we should not be asked to vote for it en bloc alongside other important but entirely separate changes, and I urge Ministers to drop these plans for good.

Members who have participated in the debate should be making their way back to the Chamber, because the Minister will be on her feet shortly. I expect those on the Front Benches will be communicating that message to their Back Benchers.

I shall keep my remarks brief. I welcome the vast majority of this Bill, but given the serious implications for our fundamental rights, Lords amendment 312 on cumulative disruption should be given adequate time to be properly scrutinised and debated. This amendment could be used by future far-right Governments to in effect stamp out protests and even trade union pickets altogether. As we all know, Reform UK would repeal the Employment Rights Act 2025, but I doubt it would repeal what Lords amendment 312 will allow. I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) in his motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. Sustained peaceful protest is central to the achievement of democratic change.

That was very brief indeed, when the hon. Member had such a huge amount of time. I call the Minister.

I welcome the broad agreement across the House with, I think, the great majority of the Lords amendments, particularly those brought forward by the Government. Those amendments further strengthen the powers of the police, prosecutors and partner agencies to tackle violence against women and girls, online harms and hate crimes. We have sought to engage constructively with the non-Government amendments carried in the Lords. As I set out in my opening speech, in many instances we support the intent behind these amendments and our concerns are about their workability, not the underlying objectives. In that spirit, let me turn directly to some of the points raised in the debate.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), seeks to disagree with Lords amendment 301. Let me be clear: this is not a move by the Government to police lawful speech, and these provisions do not criminalise the expression of lawful opinions. Extending the aggravated offences does not create any new offence. This amendment extends an existing aggravated offences framework, which operates in relation to race and religion, to cover additional characteristics—namely, sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability and sex.

This framework applies only where specific criminal offences—offences of violence, public order, criminal damage, harassment or stalking—have already been committed and where hostility is proven to the criminal standard. This is not about creating new “speech crimes”; it is about ensuring that where criminal conduct has taken place, and that conduct is driven by hostility towards a protected characteristic, the law can properly recognise the additional harm caused.

That is an important distinction. Freedom of expression, legitimate debate and strongly held views remain protected, but where someone commits an existing criminal offence and does so because of hostility towards a person’s identity, it is right that the criminal law should be able to reflect that seriousness through higher maximum penalties. The hon. Member for Stockton West is simply wrong if he thinks that the same end can be achieved through sentencing guidelines. It is about equality of protection, not the policing of lawful speech.

I will now come to measures debated on the epidemic of everyday crime. Lords amendment 333, on closure powers, was raised by a number of hon. Members. I want to pay tribute to the dodgy shops campaign being run by my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt). I agree wholeheartedly with their aims. If we do not tackle dodgy shops, it is very hard to do the wider work of bringing back our high streets. I completely share the concerns raised about the rise of illegality affecting so many of our high streets. It is for exactly that reason that the Home Office has established the cross-Government high streets illegality taskforce, which will be backed by £10 million a year for the next three years—£30 million in total. The taskforce is already working at pace to develop a strategic long-term policy response to money laundering and associated illegality on our high streets, including other forms of economic crime, tax evasion and illegal working, and to tackle the systemic vulnerabilities that criminals exploit. The initiative was announced in the 2025 Budget and, as I said, is supported by significant funding.

Strengthening the closure powers available to local partners in tackling criminal behaviour on the high street is part of that mix. Our amendment in lieu accepts that and will enable us to go ahead and do it. The push from my hon. Friends is to do that at pace. We will of course work as fast as we can on the consultation on closure orders that we have agreed to do. I hear the message loud and clear that we need to go fast, but the purpose of the consultation is to ensure that we get this right—that we make the distinction between private and public property, and the complications that might come from that.

The Chartered Trading Standards Institute and many of the agencies responsible for dealing with this issue talk about the need to extend—or potentially extend, depending on how tonight goes—not only orders, but notices. That is the 48-hour window, or seven days if we go with this amendment, so that papers can be put in place and the dodgy shops, as the Minister put it, do not have the ability to reopen before the order can be put in place. This does not seem to appear in the amendment in lieu. Will she be looking at notices, as well as orders?

We are already, on the face of the Bill, extending the time to up to 72 hours. The point of the notice is to enable the time to get to court and apply for a closure. We are providing the extra time to do just that. We are also extending the powers to registered social landlords, so that they can also be part of that. We are already taking action. Of course, we will always keep these things under review. We will always consider what is said to us—even from the Opposition Front Benches—but the amendment today deals just with closure orders, and we have committed to consult on that.

The alternative Lords amendment—the pushback from the Lords—relates to notices and orders. The reason there is a problem with the 72 hours for notices is that, because of court sittings and how that all falls, we end up not getting the order in place, and these shops, which the agencies have jumped through the hoops to close down, get to reopen. I do not think the Chartered Trading Standards Institute or many of the agencies dealing with that would agree with the 72 hours. I ask the Minister to go further still and to perhaps look at the seven days being put forward by the Lords.

Through our taskforce, which is funded with £30 million, we will look at a whole range of opportunities on what we can do. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the reason we have a situation where people are money laundering and using illegal shops in many different ways on our high streets is because the previous Government failed to do anything about this growing problem, but we have introduced money and action to tackle it. We will also be tackling the huge challenge we have with our high streets more widely, which was left to us by the previous Government, by introducing a high streets strategy, which we will bring out in the summer.

We are also dealing with the fact that neighbourhood policing collapsed under the previous Government, which has meant that the epidemic of everyday crime is not being tackled as it should be—

Will the Minister give way?

I will not give way again on this point. We have already delivered 3,000 additional officers and police community support officers on to our streets and into our neighbourhoods—an 18% increase in neighbourhood policing since we came to power.

Does the Minister not accept, however, that when the Conservatives left government, we left 3,000 more police officers in post than when we came into government?

I do not know how many times we have to rehearse this: the previous Government cut police numbers by 20,000 and decimated neighbourhood policing. They then had a sudden change of heart and said that they would replace those 20,000 police officers, who were recruited with such haste that several forces, including the Met, have sadly—

Will the Minister give way?

I am just in the middle of a sentence. Several forces have sadly recruited people without the proper vetting processes that should have happened. By the time the previous Government left office, they had recruited the 20,000, but how many of them are sitting behind desks? Twelve-thousand of them are. If the right hon. Lady thinks that is where those officers should be, that is fine, but we believe that our officers should be in our neighbourhoods, which is what we are ensuring.

We are also getting rid of the burden of bureaucracy, built up under the previous Government, that wastes so much police time. In the next couple of years we will free up the equivalent of 3,000 full-time police officers just through use of new technology, AI and new processes will bring this ancient system, which lots of police officers are still working under, into the modern age.

The hon. Lady seems to have missed my point completely, even though it was quite simple. Does she not accept that when the Conservatives left office, there were 3,000 more police officers than when we took office? Does she not also accept that her Government and her police and crime commissioners, such as Simon Foster, are actually cutting police stations as well as officer numbers?

I accept that there were more officers—not by population, but in terms of actual numbers—when the Conservatives left office than when they took office. [Interruption.] But let me ask the House about something else that happened: by how much did shoplifting rise in the last two years of the Conservative Government? It rose by 60%—

It’s higher now!

The rise is much slower and the charge rate has gone up by 21%. Clearly, action is more important than numbers, and this Government are taking action. That is why, for example, the shoplifting charge rate has increased by 21%.

Many Members have spoken about fly-tipping. I absolutely accept the strength of feeling on fly-tipping. I think it is repulsive, and most of our communities are affected by it. Whether it is the large fly-tipping in our rural communities that is driven by serious organised crime or the everyday fly-tipping that we see in our cities, we need to do more to tackle it. The Government have published the waste crime action plan, which will make a substantial difference to how we approach waste crime, including the Government paying for the removal of the most egregious sites. In parts of the country we have seen reports in the press of huge waste sites.

We are also committed to forcing fly-tippers to clean up their mess. Under this Bill, people who use their vehicle to fly-tip will potentially get nine points on their licence. That goes further than what the Opposition had previously suggested. So we are acting, as we should. We did not agree with the Lords amendment that proposed that local authorities should have to clear all sites, including private sites, because of the very significant costs that would be required to undertake that. We do not think that can be put on to local authorities just like that. But I assure hon. Members across the House that we are taking significant action on fly-tipping and we will continue to do so.

Can the Minister tell me why the Government are opposing the Lords amendment that would allow police officers to seize the vehicles of the vile criminals who fly-tip in communities across the country?

There are already powers for the seizure of vehicles, and that is already happening, including in my area. Vehicles can be seized and crushed, and I think we should be doing more of that, not less, when it comes to antisocial behaviour.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who spoke about Lords amendment 361 and our amendment to make it legally sound. As I said, the Government do not have a view on this, because it is an issue to do with abortion, and it would not be correct to take a view on that. She asked when it would come into effect, and I can tell her that it will apply as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Obviously, decisions on particular cases up until that point are for local police, but I heard what my hon. Friend said.

I want to touch on the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) about aggravated offences. Building on what I said to the Opposition spokesperson—

He is a shadow Minister.

Yes, he is a shadow Minister—I am very happy to give him his correct title.

Britain is a country that will not tolerate hate, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth said. She spoke about aggravated offences relating to disability, trans and sex, and bringing those into line with the existing aggravated offences. That will support victims, and not just in terms of potential sentencing and justice; it will mean that victims can access more support, which I very much welcome, and I am glad that she does too.

Turning to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the issue of the glorification of terrorism—oh, I see he is not in his place; I will come back to that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has been doing so much work on a number of different areas, not least all of the Lords amendments that relate to porn. She gave a really powerful speech about how pain for women is increasingly perceived as equalling pleasure for men, and she spoke of the need to tackle that in many different ways, because sexualised violence online can become violence in real life. I am glad that she welcomed the step-incest amendments, which are absolutely right, as well as those on people trying to look like children, which she called “barely legal content”. I heard her message about proactively verifying age and consent and about bringing in the timetable to deliver that as soon as we can.

My hon. Friend also talked about honour-based abuse. We understand and agree with her, as well as other hon. Members who raised the importance of realising that often it is not a single crime but involves a whole group of people. We need to ensure that is clear in all the training done on identifying and responding to this form of abuse. Therefore, alongside the statutory guidance, we are developing additional free learning modules for professionals who work with victims and perpetrators of honour-based abuse. That includes a general module as well as dedicated modules on multi-agency responses. Together, those modules will strengthen statutory professionals’ ability to recognise the signs and to manage cases appropriately and safely in practice. I hope that is reassuring to my hon. Friend.

I turn to Lords amendment 312, which many hon. Members spoke to. There are a number of things to say on our cumulative disruption amendment. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who talked powerfully about his position, which I respect. I agree that protest and the right to protest is part of the lifeblood of the Labour movement, and that progress is rarely—if ever—handed down without first having been campaigned for. I understand his concern, and the concern of everyone in the House, that we balance the right to protest with the impact of protest. We have had many debates on that in this place over the past few years.

The Home Secretary asked Lord Macdonald to review public order legislation and hate crime legislation, because we have had lots of different pieces of legislation and there is a need to take a holistic look at that to see whether it is right. Lord Macdonald has not reported yet; he will do so within a few months, and we very much look forward to what he has to say. I hope that when he does report we can consider his recommendations in this place and discuss all his findings together.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given what she has just said, would it not have been wiser to await the outcome of the review, so that we could have seen Lord Macdonald’s view of the entire scene before taking yet further legislative measures that will move the dial even further? Would that not have been the right course of action?

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point, which we have discussed before. As he knows, the announcement that the amendment would be made was given by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack and the protest that followed. It has not come from nowhere; it has been debated and suggested by policing colleagues for some time. The Government’s view was that this Bill is a vehicle we could use to introduce this legislation, and that we should take the opportunity to do so. I know that he disagrees with that decision, but we made it because we feel this is a necessary step, given the situation in which we find ourselves.

I want to be really clear again about what the amendment does and does not do. Marches can only be banned in very, very specific circumstances, as happened with the al-Quds march recently—the first time a march had been banned since 2012. The amendment will make no difference to that whatsoever. It will make no difference to what march can and cannot be banned. An assembly cannot be banned at all, as there is no legislative basis for that, so again, the amendment will make no difference at all.

It already is the case, and it has been since 1986 when the Public Order Act was introduced, that the police can consider cumulative disruption when they look at imposing conditions on a protest. A condition could be the time that the protest is allowed to take place, the route that the protest can go down or the number of people allowed on that protest. Since 1986, the police have had the ability to consider cumulative disruption when they look at whether they should impose conditions. The amendment means that they have to look at and consider the impact of cumulative disruption when they look at imposing conditions.

I note what the Minister has just said—she said the same to our hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—that she derives the assessment of cumulative disruption from the Public Order Act 1986, in that the police must, rather than can, consider cumulative disruption. However, the definition of “cumulative” does not exist in the law as it stands; indeed, the bulk of the text of amendment 312 creates a definition of “cumulative disruption”. Will the Minister clarify where else in the law does that definition already exist, because it is not in the Public Order Act?

My point was that the basis of cumulative disruption has been in the law from the Public Order Act 1986. In terms of the definition, the police use their discretion on the definition—that is absolutely the case—and they have done so since 1986, when they were able to consider that.

I will say a couple of things on that basis. The police have to balance the rights of freedom of assembly and speech that are enshrined in the European convention on human rights—they have to do that. When they are considering what they do with protests, they have to balance and consider those rights, and if they are going to impose conditions, that has to be done under specific areas, which might be serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. When and if this Bill is passed and we move forward, I will commit to working with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make sure that the guidance is as clear as it can be. However, the definition of cumulative disruption is just its natural meaning, and the police have had that power since 1986.

May I trouble the Minister one more time?

Yes.

Just on that, if she is going to consult with the College of Policing and others, where is the role for this House to have its voice in that discussion? There are many people here who would like to positively input into that discussion.

The role of this House is to debate, which is exactly what we are doing now. I listened, for example, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who talked about his experience with the Metropolitan police in recent times and his sense that he had lost confidence with the way that they were making decisions on protests. I hear all those things and am happy to have more conversations. I am sure that the police would be happy to as well.

I will just say—this does not have an impact on anything that I think about what the law should be on protests—that there has been a 600% increase in the number of protests over the last couple of years. There has been a huge increase in the number of people protesting and the physical ability of the police to just deal with that in terms of resources is not insubstantial. They spend a huge amount of time on this, as we all know, and our neighbourhood officers are often abstracted. That is right and proper—I am not suggesting otherwise—but it is a challenge for the police, particularly in the big urban parts of our country, to have to manage the impact of these protests.

To repeat, the cumulative disruption amendment does not change the guardrails of the powers to impose conditions. It does not change anything about the need to balance the right to protest in the European convention on human rights with the Public Order Act. None of those things will change. What is changing is that we are saying that the police will consider cumulative disruption, rather than that they can consider cumulative disruption.

I think it would be really helpful if the Minister brought the guidance before the House at some stage, once it is completed, so that we could have some clarity about it. There will be protests in the future. A third runway at Heathrow has been threatened again, and there will be a cumulative impact of protests in my constituency. I want to know if I will have to hand myself in at some point in time as a result of that.

I cannot tell whether my right hon. Friend will have to hand himself in at some point in time. I think probably not, but I can remember debating that particular issue when the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said that he was going to lie down in front of bulldozers. We have debated these issues on protests many, many times. Guidance does not normally come to this House for approval. That would not be appropriate. I need to stress that the police take the definition as it is, in terms of its natural meaning, but I take the point. The point is that we need to ensure that we get these things right, and I will work with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council on getting this right. I would also ask the House that, when Lord Macdonald has looked at this plethora of emerging legislation, we should consider that and look at what he recommends. Of course, if he recommends that we accept changes to the law, we will debate those things in the proper way in this House if we introduce that legislation.

Can I just seek clarity from the Minister? If Lord Macdonald comes forward with recommendations to go back in the opposite direction, will the Government then consider those and remove the restrictions they are currently proposing?

We do not know what Lord Macdonald is going to recommend. He has terms of reference that we have agreed, which are to look at public order legislation and hate crime legislation and to consider whether it is fit for purpose or whether it needs amending. Of course, we will consider carefully whatever he brings forward and we will act according to what we think is right. He is a man of great note who has done a lot of things in his past—he is a former Director of Public Prosecutions—and we will of course listen to whatever he says.

The Minister seems to be arguing that there is not very much to see here, and that the difference is between “can” and “must”. Is there evidence that when police are having problems policing protests at the moment, they are not assessing the cumulative impact and the problems that that causes?

Yes, and that is why we are introducing this amendment; we want to provide clarity that it should be considered. We have a community—in particular, the Jewish community—who are suffering and afraid, and they have spoken to us and to many people many times about the impact of cumulative protests outside places of worship and other places. We are responding to that. This is one change in the grand scheme of public order legislation, but it is a very important one for that community.

I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. Earlier, she said that the right to protest was sacrosanct in this country. My understanding of the definition of “sacrosanct” is that it describes something that is too important to be trifled with. In making this argument, the Government are suggesting that the right to protest should be trifled with, and that the police must do more to restrict the right to protest, aren’t they?

This Government believe in the fundamental right to protest. We will never change our view on that. It does have to be balanced with the responsibility to look after our communities. This Government are seeking to get that balance right. We are making a change to the cumulative disruption legislation through this Bill, which we brought forward in the Lords, and several Members asked about that. Of course, normally legislation is introduced here, but amendments are introduced in the Lords by Government and have been by this Government—it is not uncommon. We have had an opportunity to debate the issue today, and I have listened carefully to all the speeches that hon. Members have made.

I thank the Minister for giving way once again. Because it is Lords amendments, I want to get full clarity on the definition of cumulative. She mentioned the natural definition of cumulative. If I may borrow the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who actually was interviewed under caution for laying flowers for dead children just over a year ago, would it be seen as unnatural or natural if he were to lay down in front of Heathrow runway? What would happen? Is it the expectation that the police would determine what is cumulative, as the Minister said it would be the natural definition?

As I have said, the police have had the power to consider cumulative disruption since 1986. If right-wing protesters were protesting every day outside a mosque, that would be my definition of cumulative disruption. The police balance every day the powers they are given from the laws we pass. We are increasing the training that our public order police officers get. We are ensuring that they have access to the right training and resources because that was a problem identified under the previous Government. We are trying to clarify through this piece of legislation that cumulative disruption is an important factor and should be considered when the police consider whether to impose restrictions on protesters. To repeat, we are not banning protests; it is about the imposition of restrictions, and that is all.

The other place has properly asked this elected House to think again about a number of issues. Let us send a clear message back to their lordships: we have listened and agreed a number of further changes to the Bill, but after some 14 months of debate, it is now time for this Bill to complete its passage, so we can get on with the task of implementing the Bill and making all our communities safer.

Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 263.

Amendments (b) to (g) made to Lords amendment 263.

Lords amendment 263, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments (a) to (e) made to Lords amendment 361.

Lords amendment 361, as amended, agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Clause 4

Fixed penalty notices

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Sarah Jones.)

Before we continue, I advise the House that there is a technical fault with the pass reader system for voting. It is still working, but it is slow to start at the beginning of each Division. The Clerks are looking into it, but I ask Members to wait for the readers to activate before trying to vote.

Order. I must inform Members that unfortunately the pass readers in the Lobbies are not working. Clerks will shortly take their place at the Division desks in the Lobby to record Members’ names on paper. Members who have already voted will have had their names recorded.

We are ready to resume the Division. Members who have not yet voted should pass through the Lobby to give their names to the Clerks. If a Member has already been through the Lobby in this Division, their vote has been counted and they should not pass through the Lobby again. If Members are in any doubt about whether their name has been recorded, they should email the Public Bill Office.

The House having divided: Ayes 301, Noes 157.

[Division No. 471, 7.31 pm]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 333 disagreed to.

After Clause 144

Duration of closure notices and orders: extension

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 333.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 334.—(Sarah Jones.)

The House divided: Ayes 356, Noes 90.

[Division No. 472, 7.53 pm]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments 334 and 339 disagreed to.

Clause 167

Power to make youth diversion orders

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 342.—(Sarah Jones.)

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 70.

[Division No. 473, 8.13 pm]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 342 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 342.

After Clause 185

Glorification of terrorism: removal of emulation requirement

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 357.—(Sarah Jones.)

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 73.

[Division No. 474, 8.28 pm]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 357 disagreed to.

After Clause 190

Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 359.—(Sarah Jones.)

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 158.

[Division No. 475, 8.43 pm]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 359 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372.

Lords amendments 439 and 505 disagreed to.

Clause 1

Respect orders

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 13 and 14, 16 to 255, 261 and 262, 266 to 310, 312 to 332, 335 to 338, 340 and 341, 343 to 356, 358, 362 to 367, 373 to 438, 440 to 504 and 506 to 532.

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 21.

[Division No. 476, 9 pm]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 13 and 14, 16 to 255, 261 and 262, 266 to 310, 312 to 332, 335 to 338, 340 and 341, 343 to 356, 358, 362 to 367, 373 to 438, 440 to 504 and 506 to 532 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 335, 366 and 367.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 6, 11, 12, 311, 334, 339, 357, 359, 439 and 505;

That Sarah Jones, Stephen Morgan, Adam Thompson, Matt Bishop, Alex McIntyre, Matt Vickers and Clive Jones be members of the Committee;

That Sarah Jones be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Lilian Greenwood.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.