Correspondence

Letter from Lord Hanson and Baroness Levitt to Lord Davies detailing government amendments for Lords Report stage: 23 February 2026

Updated 25 March 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint
Minister of State for the Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

The Lord Davies of Gower
House of Lords

23 February 2026

Dear Byron,

Crime and Policing Bill: Further government amendments for Lords Report stage

We are writing to let you have details of a second tranche of government amendments which we have today tabled for Lords Report stage. These amendments, alongside the existing provisions in Part 5 of the bill, further support our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

Intimate image abuse: screenshotting (amendments to Schedule 11)

We are grateful to Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge for raising the issue of creating a copy of an existing intimate image (screenshotting). At the moment, the intimate image provisions in the bill only cover the creation of an image that did not previously exist. We share the concerns raised at Committee that victims whose intimate images are copied without consent experience similar harm to those whose intimate images are taken without consent.

We want to protect victims who have given another person limited consent to view an intimate image of them (for example, by a disappearing image, or on a video call) from having those images copied by the recipient without their consent or reasonable belief in their consent. Accordingly, these amendments, which build on the existing intimate image provisions in the bill, will criminalise those who take screenshots or make copies of an intimate image of the victim, under these circumstances.

Intimate image abuse: semen images (amendments to clause 89 and Schedule 11)

We also share Baroness Owen’s concern that semen images are degrading and often misogynistic. We committed, as part of our Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, to launch a call for evidence to better understand online misogynistic image-based abuse and the extent to which there are new harms and behaviour which may not be fully captured by existing criminal offences. However, we also do not want victims to suffer while we progress that work. We want to send a clear message to perpetrators of these acts. That is why, through these amendments we are taking immediate action to make it a criminal offence to share a semen image of another person without their consent or reasonable belief in consent.

Intimate image abuse: designation of offences relating to the creation of NCII as ‘priority offences’ under the Online Safety Act 2023 (amendment to Schedule 11 and clause 217)

The Online Safety Act contains a list of priority offences, in relation to which service providers have proactive illegal content duties. These priority offences ensure that companies tackle the most serious illegal content where risk of harm is greatest. Platforms will need to take measures to prevent users encountering content that amounts to one of these offences. These steps go further than those required in relation to other illegal content.

On the 12 January, the Secretary of State for the Department of Science Innovation and Technology announced the government’s intention to assign the ‘creation and requesting of non-consensual intimate images (NCII)’ offences as priority offences under the Online Safety Act. The offences in question are those at section 66E (creating purported intimate image of adult) and section 66F (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Regulation of online pornography: ban on nudification tools (new clause “Purported intimate image generators”)

As announced in our Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy and in response to an amendment tabled by Baroness Bertin in Committee, this new clause bans nudification tools. It provides for a new offence which criminalises making, adapting, supplying, or offering to supply a thing (in practice a technological tool or service) where a reasonable person would consider that it is made or supplied for use in generating or facilitating the generation of purported intimate images of a person. This offence will capture all intimate image generators (apps, websites, AI models, bots and more), irrespective of whether they are used to generate consensual or non-consensual intimate images. Rather than focussing on the individuals using such tools, the nudification tool ban will target the individuals and companies who design and supply them and profit from the profound distress and victimisation of others, particularly women and girls. The offence will be triable either way with a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Regulation of online pornography: incest porn (new clause “Pornographic images of sex between relatives” and amendments to clause 217)

We are grateful to Baroness Bertin for raising the issue of incest pornography in her review into online pornography, and for tabling an amendment at Committee to criminalise the possession of pornography which depicts sexual activity between a person and child family member.

We are clear that the portrayal of illegal sexual activity between family members in pornography is unacceptable and agree that its depiction may perpetuate abusive relationships and child sexual abuse. Accordingly, we have tabled these amendments to criminalise the possession and publication of pornography that depicts penetrative sex between persons (both adults and children) who a reasonable person would think are related or who are pretending to be related. The government amendment goes further than Baroness Bertin’s Committee stage amendment and covers the possession and publication of pornography depicting certain sexual activity between both adult and child family members.

Domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs) (new clause “Domestic abuse protection orders”)

In the Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, we committed to strengthening frontline tools and interventions to disrupt abuse and protect victims within the community and across the criminal justice system, including through improvements and consistent enforcement of protection orders. As part of this, we committed to roll out DAPOs to all police forces and courts across England and Wales.

This new clause addresses operational issues identified during the DAPO pilot, which currently prevent magistrates’ courts from imposing positive requirements at the first hearing due to the need to identify a responsible person and obtain suitability evidence, something not feasible within the 48-hour timeframe between a domestic abuse protection notice being issued and a DAPO hearing taking place for police-led applications. This leads to adjournments, unenforceable assessment attendance and a very low uptake of positive requirements, whereas family and civil courts can already compel attendance at assessments and vary orders post assessment. To address this disparity, the new clause enables the courts to require attendance at a suitability assessment and apply a conditional positive requirement for the perpetrator to attend an intervention programme (which activates only where the perpetrator is assessed as suitable). The new clause also gives the magistrates’ courts, and the Crown Court the power to vary a DAPO on their own motion. These changes will reduce delays, strengthen enforceability, alleviate pressure on the courts and future- proof the framework by ensuring a more flexible legislative approach.

‘Honour’- based abuse (new clauses “Guidance about honour - based abuse” and “Meaning of ‘honour - based abuse’”)

In August 2025, the then Home Secretary announced a raft of new measures to tackle ‘honour’ - based abuse, including a commitment to introduce new statutory guidance and a statutory definition of ‘honour’- based abuse to help the police, social workers and others better support victims and make clear that frontline staff must take these crimes seriously ‘Honour’- based abuse crackdown in raft of new measures. In fulfilment of this commitment, and in response to an amendment tabled at Committee stage by Baroness Sugg, these new clauses confer a power on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to public authorities about ‘honour’-based abuse (as defined in the second new clause).

Animal sexual abuse (new clause “Sexual activity with an animal” and amendment to clause 217)

During Committee stage, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Blencathra tabled amendments to the offence of “intercourse with an animal” at section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to criminalise animal sexual abuse. Upon receipt of the evidence provided by both peers, and the RSPCA, the government is convinced that amendments to this offence are needed to ensure that the law can effectively tackle this abuse. This new clause therefore expands the scope of the section 69 offence to cover a broader range of sexual activity with animals, including sexual activity with dead animals.

Child sexual abuse image generators (amendments to clauses 65 to 67)

These technical amendments clarify the operation of the CSA image-generator offence for England and Wales, with equivalent amendments to the Scottish and Northern Ireland provisions. The amendments ensure that the scope of the offence is clear, as it relates to the respective conduct element. Other minor drafting amendments include changing references to “actual knowledge” to “knowing”, for instance.

Youth diversion orders (amendments to clauses 186, 193 and 194)

Part 14 of the bill provides for youth diversion orders (YDO). These are a new counter-terrorism risk management tool for individuals aged 21 and under. An application for a YDO will be made by the police to a magistrates’ court, or a sheriff court in Scotland, and the police or YDO respondent may also make an application to vary or discharge an order. Clause 194 provides for the appeal route for both the respondent and the applicant. The current drafting provides for a route for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales. An amendment to clause 194 ensures that the appeal routes for YDOs is consistent with established precedent in respect of other civil orders. In particular, the amendment removes the route of appeal to the Court of Appeal so that established appeal routes apply, which allow the defendant or applicant to appeal a YDO decision made in a magistrates’ court to the High Court by way of case stated or to the Crown Court, with an onward appeal by way of case stated to the High Court. The other amendments are clarificatory, including in respect of the court to which an application for variation of a YDO is to be made.

Minor and technical amendments (amendments to clauses 75 and 217 and Schedule 10)

These minor and technical amendments address the following matters:

• Clause 75(6)(d) refers to “any of sections 66 to 67A of [the Sexual Offences Act 2003] (exposure and voyeurism)” as does paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 10; the relevant offences in the Sexual Offences Act are offences against children and are therefore relevant in the context of clause 75 and Schedule 10. Since these provisions were first drafted, section 138 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 has inserted, as new sections 66E and 66F of the 2003 Act, offences relating to purported intimate images of adults. These amendments amend clause 75(6)(d) and paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 10 to exclude the two new offences for the purposes of these provisions.

• Clarify the territorial application of various amendments made by the bill to Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (which lists sexual offences for the purposes of Part 2 of that Act (notification and orders)).

All these amendments apply to England and Wales only save for those in respect of child sexual abuse image generators and YDOs which apply UK-wide.

We also attach supplementary delegated powers and ECHR memorandums.

We are copying this letter to Lord Cameron of Lochiel, Lord Sandhurst, Baroness Doocey, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Lord Clement-Jones, Baroness Brinton, Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Chair, Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee), Lord Alton of Liverpool (Chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights), Baroness Bertin, Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, Baroness Sugg, Baroness Kidron, Lord Black of Brentwood, Lord Blencathra, Chris Philp, Matt Vickers, Max Wilkinson and Luke Taylor. We are also placing a copy of the letter and enclosures in the library of the House.

Yours ever,

Lord Hanson of Flint

Baroness Levitt KC