MPs Endorse Major Criminal Justice Overhaul Amid Civil Liberties Concerns
Members of Parliament have given their backing to a sweeping set of reforms to criminal law that introduce significant changes regarding pornography, protest regulations, and anti-social behaviour. The extensive Crime and Policing Bill, which spans more than 550 pages, has been characterised by Home Office minister Sarah Jones as "the largest criminal justice Bill in a generation."
Controversial Protest Powers Spark Backbench Rebellion
The government encountered substantial criticism from its own Labour backbenchers concerning provisions that would require senior police officers to consider the cumulative disruption caused by protest movements when imposing conditions. Labour MP Andy McDonald argued that this change represents "the dangerous erosion of civil liberties," while his colleague Apsana Begum warned that "the assault on the right to protest could lead us down an extremely worrying path."
However, Ms Jones told the Commons that the new duty constituted a "small change," emphasising that "We have no desire nor would we ever reduce people's rights to protest." Despite these assurances, Mr McDonald led rebellious Labour MPs through the "no" lobby during a wider "wrap up" vote on outstanding business at the debate's conclusion. The protest vote was ultimately lost by 247 to 21, resulting in a majority of 226.
New Regulations on Pornography and Intimate Images
Under the draft legislation, technology executives will face personal liability if their platforms fail to remove intimate images shared without consent. Senior executives without a reasonable excuse could potentially face imprisonment, fines, or both if their companies do not comply with Ofcom's enforcement decisions regarding non-consensual intimate images.
Additionally, possessing or publishing images depicting sex between real or pretend relatives is set to become a criminal offence. Following a government climbdown, step-relative pornography will also be banned if at least one performer was or was pretending to be under the age of 18. Ministers had previously resisted Conservative peer Baroness Bertin's push for such a ban, cautioning that not all relationships between adult step-relatives are illegal in reality.
Speaking on Tuesday, Ms Jones stated: "I completely agree with the need to curtail the depiction of step-incest pornography in cases where it portrays content that is illegal to that extent."
Abortion Law Amendments and Fly-Tipping Penalties
MPs also supported a Lords amendment that would pardon women convicted of having an illegal abortion, as well as those who received cautions. The amendment would further expunge records of investigations, arrests, and charges under abortion law, regardless of whether guilt was established. This development follows MPs voting in favour of decriminalising women terminating their own pregnancies as part of the same Bill in June last year.
Regarding environmental offences, MPs aligned with the Lords' position that repeat fly-tippers should face losing their driving licences, with three to nine penalty points imposed on repeat offenders. Ms Jones told MPs: "I fully appreciate and understand the damage that fly-tipping can do to our communities." However, the minister argued that a Lords proposal to strip fly-tippers of their vehicles was unnecessary, noting that "there are already powers for the seizure of vehicles." MPs subsequently voted down the proposal to change the law on vehicle seizures by 291 to 174, a majority of 117.
Debate Over Legislative Process and Future Implications
During the debate, several Labour MPs voiced support for blocking the change to protest rules. Liverpool Riverside MP Kim Johnson contended that the amendment had "sneakily come through the back door," as it was incorporated into the Bill during its House of Lords stages, preventing MPs from scrutinising it in the chamber until Tuesday.
Mr McDonald threatened to lead a backbench rebellion over the issue, asserting in the Commons: "If the Government was confident in its amendment, it would put it to a vote." He cited the Suffragettes and the anti-apartheid movement as examples of "cumulative and persistent protest." Ms Johnson argued that "protest is part of the lifeblood of the Labour movement," urging MPs to "reject the vast expansion of anti-protest powers."
In response, Ms Jones clarified that "imposing conditions means things like moving where a march is going, limiting the hours that it can be working under, or limiting the number of people." She added that police forces already have the authority to consider the cumulative disruption of repeat protests.
John McDonnell, Labour's former shadow chancellor, expressed concern that MPs were being "bounced" into a decision without a proper vote, warning that rushed legislation could lead to "significant mistakes." Labour's Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) remarked that it would be "naive not to ask how a future hard-right government might use a power like this," while her party colleague Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) stated it "dangerously infringes on civil liberties."
A proposal by crossbench peer Lord Walney to criminalise membership or promotion of groups believed to cause violence or disruption below the terrorism threshold was rejected by 300 votes to 101, a majority of 199.
The Bill will now return to the House of Lords, where peers will consider the Commons' amendments. A final draft must be agreed upon by both Houses before it can become law.
