Correspondence

Letter from Minister Johnson to Matt Vickers MP detailing government amendments for report stage: 10 June 2025 (accessible)

Updated 11 June 2025

Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP
Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Matt Vickers MP
House of Commons

10 June 2025

Dear Matt,

Crime and Policing Bill: government amendment for report

I am writing to let you have details of the government amendments (attached) that I have tabled today for Report stage on 17 and 18 June.

The amendments cover the following new measures.

Extending the protection afforded by the Bill to specified war memorials to other significant memorials (amendments to clause 112 and Schedule 12)

Clause 112 of the Bill makes it an offence to climb on specified war memorials. The list of specified war memorials (currently 25) is contained in Schedule 12 to the Bill, and there is a power to add to the list by regulations.

The criteria within the Bill mean that some memorials which are commonly the site of protest activity are not protected by the measure. The government has publicly committed that the Winston Churchill statue in Parliament Square, and the National Holocaust Memorial to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens and the National Muslim War Memorial to be built at the National Memorial Arboretum should also receive the same protections as the memorials listed within the Bill.

These amendments therefore add the Winston Churchill statue to Schedule 12 and provide that the power to add to the list of specified war memorials may also be exercised so as to add other specified memorials where the Secretary of State considers there is a significant public interest in the memorial being specified.

Clause 112 and Schedule 12 apply to England and Wales.

Providing the Secretary of State with a power to direct companies involved in supplying national services to policing (new clause “Power to give directions to critical police undertakings”)

To support delivery of the Government’s Safer Streets Mission, and other manifesto commitments, a Police Efficiency and Collaboration Programme (PECP) has been established by the Home Office to achieve cashable savings within policing.

In November 2025, as part of her programme of police reform, the Home Secretary announced the government’s intention to consult on establishing a new National Centre of Policing (NCoP). Amongst other things, the NCoP would bring together the provision of critical support services that local police forces can draw upon, to raise standards and improve efficiency. Some of these functions are carried out by undertakings that are not part of the Home Office or police forces.

The Home Secretary will set out further details of the NCoP in a police reform white paper to be published later this year, however establishing it is expected to require primary legislation, which the Government intends to bring forward when parliamentary time allows. In the interim, the Government wishes to ensure that appropriate preparatory work is conducted to facilitate a smooth transition of relevant capabilities into the proposed NCoP, whilst maintaining effective service delivery and with minimal disruption to staff throughout the process.

Examples of such functions include the commercial work currently being delivered by BlueLight Commercial Limited, and the IT functions currently delivered by the Police Digital Service. The memberships of both organisations are primarily Police and Crime Commissioners, and both are funded by a mixture of Home Office funding, policing and other revenue sources.

The new clause “Power to give directions to critical police undertakings” makes paving provision to facilitate these objectives. The new clause enables the Home Secretary to give a direction to a critical police undertaking (as defined in the new clause) calculated to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police. To ensure the policing sector has certainty, the Secretary of State will only be able to give a direction to critical police undertaking on whom a prior notice has been served. Any notice or direction will be published and laid before Parliament.

This new clause applies to England and Wales.

Law enforcement access to remotely stored electronic data (new clauses “Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices”, “Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): supplementary”, “Section [“Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices”]: interpretation”, “Section [“Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices”]: confidential information”, “Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): code of practice”, “Extraction of online information: ports and border security”, “Ports and border security: retention and copying of articles”, “Lawful interception of communications” and “Extraction of online information following agreement etc”, new Schedule “Amendments to Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022” and amendments to clauses 167 and 169)

Data stored on electronic devices is vital for the investigation of crime, particularly in serious and organised crime, including immigration crime, sexual abuse cases, and to protect UK national security. Increasingly this data is stored in the cloud, in online accounts with digital service providers, also known as remotely stored electronic data (RSED), rather than on the device itself.

Both the Law Commission and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation have highlighted a need to clarify the existing legal framework for powers for the search and extraction of RSED, in light of evolving technologies such as two-factor authentication and cloud-based storage. It is therefore essential to update the framework to reflect these technological changes and to align the UK with international practice. Without this change crucial evidence and intelligence may be missed, making this a clear priority for law enforcement partners.

RSED includes accounts with end-to-end encrypted communication and social media services such as Telegram, Instagram or Facebook as well as cloud storage such as Microsoft OneDrive or Google Drive.

These new clauses address this issue by:

(a) Creating an explicit power for law enforcement agencies, subject to strong safeguards, to access specified online accounts and extract information where they have seized a device under existing powers. This will require authorisation by a senior officer and include a requirement to use existing international agreements where possible and feasible. The exercise of the powers will also be subject to a statutory code of practice.

(b) Amending Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 to make clear that counter-terrorism police can, subject to authorisation by a relevant senior officer, access, copy, retain and examine RSED in online accounts which have been accessed by way of an electronic device that has been searched, found and examined during a Schedule 7 or a Schedule 3 examination at a port or the border area.

(c) Amending the extraction of information from electronic devices powers in Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to permit authorised persons to extract RSED from specified online accounts accessed on a device from which they are authorised to extract information under that Act.

(d) Amending Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to authorise the interception of communications relating to two-factor authentication to access RSED, where the access itself has already been authorised under the above powers. Two-factor authentication is increasingly used by online service providers as an identity and access management security method requiring users to verify their identity in two or more ways before they can access an online account.

To ensure that counter-terrorism police can make best use of powers to examine cloud accounts during a Schedule 7 or Schedule 3 examination, new clause “Ports and border security: retention and copying of articles” also gives senior officers the ability to authorise the extension of the retention periods under Schedule 7 and Schedule 3 from 7 to 14 days. Such authorisation will act as a safeguard to prevent unnecessary retention.

These measures apply UK-wide.

Preventing officers dismissed from the National Crime Agency (NCA), British Transport Police (BTP), Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) joining other police forces (new clauses “Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons”, “Meaning of “law enforcement employer””, “Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to Secretary of State”, “Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to specified law enforcement employer”, “Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists”, “Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer”, “Interpretation and consequential provision” and “Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists”, new Schedule “Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists” and amendments to clauses 167 and 169)

In 2017, a police barred list for forces in England and Wales was created to hold details of individuals who have been dismissed from policing due to gross misconduct or performance and prevents them re-joining policing in the future. A police advisory list was also created to capture individuals who have either resigned or retired during an investigation or where someone has left the service before a misconduct allegation (that could have led to their dismissal) comes to light and an investigation is launched. Where disciplinary proceedings are yet to be concluded, the police advisory list acts as an interim safeguarding measure available to forces.

The NCA is a UK wide, intelligence led crime fighting agency that leads and coordinates the law enforcement operational response to all serious and organised crime threats. The NCA is not included within the Police Barred and Advisory lists. A recent His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services inspection found that NCA officers dismissed for misconduct or under investigation for misconduct were joining the police. The risk of officers dismissed from the NCA for misconduct moving into wider law enforcement depends on the level of vetting checks carried out by a recruiting organisation. This is often inconsistent between police forces. HMICFRS recommended extending the Policing Barred and Advisory lists to include the NCA. This will ensure all dismissed individuals are captured and in turn, strengthen police vetting and increase public trust in the process. Similar considerations apply to BTP, MDP and CNC.

These new clauses therefore make analogous provision to that in Part 4A of the Police Act 1996 which applies to territorial police forces in England and Wales.

These provisions apply UK-wide.

New criminal offences of coerced internal concealment (new clause “Causing internal concealment of item for criminal purpose” and amendments to clauses 56, 167 and 170)

These two new offences of coerced internal concealment seek to target the practice whereby a child or adult is intentionally caused to conceal drugs or other specific items internally to avoid detection, often as a method of transportation, for the purposes of criminal activity.

Where the victim is an adult, the concealment must be as a result of compulsion, coercion, deception or controlling or manipulative behaviour by the perpetrator. Coerced internal concealment, also known as ‘plugging’, is a harmful and highly exploitative practice and is often associated with county lines drug dealing. Items, such as drugs or SIM cards, are usually inserted into a bodily orifice or swallowed. This can result in physical, emotional and psychological trauma and places children and vulnerable adults at risk of significant harm.

These new offences will target the significant harm caused by this form of criminal exploitation and help to ensure coerced internal concealment is prosecuted and offenders face appropriate sentences. They will also help raise awareness and identification of victims and the harms that they have been subjected to. The maximum penalty for these offences on conviction on indictment is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

The amendments to clauses 56, 167 and 170 are consequential amendments, including to add the new offence to the list of criminal lifestyle offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and to Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Section 45 of that Act provides for a defence for slavery or trafficking victims in criminal proceedings; that defence does not apply in the case of certain serious offences as listed in Schedule 4 to the 2015 Act.

The offence applies to England and Wales.

Amendment to the Extradition Act 2003 to specify that in extradition proceedings, a right to a retrial may be subject to a domestic finding of deliberate absence (new clause “Extradition: cases where a person has been convicted” and amendment to clause 169)

Under the Extradition Act 2003 (the 2003 Act), the UK can accept extradition requests where the requested person is either wanted for the purposes of facing a trial (accusation warrants), or to serve their sentence after a trial has taken place (conviction warrants).

When considering conviction warrants, if the requested person was convicted in absentia (in their absence) and a UK judge determines they did not deliberately absent themselves from their trial, a UK judge is bound by the 2003 Act to determine whether the individual is entitled to a retrial in the requesting state.

This new clause updates sections 20 and 85 of the 2003 Act (case where person has been convicted) to the approach taken in all relevant extradition cases is compatible with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement which governs the right to a retrial in the context of UK – EU extradition cooperation.

Additionally, in March 2024, the UK Supreme Court adjudicated in the case of Merticariu v. Romania that the current drafting of the 2003 Act should be read as requiring a guaranteed retrial in the requesting state subject only to procedural requirements following someone’s extradition if they had been tried ‘in absentia’. The 2003 Act had previously been interpreted as a right to apply for a retrial subject to the domestic laws of the requesting state.

Following the judgment, Merticariu was discharged from his extradition proceedings on the basis that Romanian law only offered retrial subject to a Romanian finding that he had not deliberately absented himself from trial.

There are a number of states which cannot offer assurances to meet the conditions imposed by the Merticariu judgment and there is, therefore, a public safety risk of individuals being discharged. To address this, this new clause reinstates the previous interpretation on right to retrial in absentia cases with corrective drafting in section 20 for EU requests and section 85 for non-EU requests.

The provisions of the 2003 Act operate UK-wide.

New offences to protect emergency workers from racially or religiously aggravated behaviour (new clauses “Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency worker”, “Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency worker” and “Interpretation of sections (Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency worker) and (Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency worker)”)

Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provide for racially or religiously aggravated public order offences. These aggravated offences apply where a person commits an offence under sections 4, 4A or 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 which provide for offences relating to causing fear or provocation of violence, and the causing of harassment, alarm or distress. The racially or religiously aggravated offences attract a higher maximum penalty than the base offences in the 1986 Act. The maximum penalty for the aggravated versions of the section 4 and 4A offences is two years’ imprisonment, a fine or both (as opposed to six months’ imprisonment for the base offences) and for the section 5 offence is a level 4 fine (as opposed to a level 3 fine for the base offence).

The above offences under the 1986 Act have an exception where the offence (including any racially or religiously aggravated version of the offence) cannot occur in a private dwelling. The current legislation therefore fails to protect emergency workers who are subjected to racist or religious abuse, who are within homes not by choice, but for the purpose of performing their professional duty. There is no justification on the grounds of freedom of speech for racial or religious abuse of an emergency worker in this context.

In response to representations from the police, these new clauses create two new offences to protect emergency workers from this behaviour. They are similar to the racially and religiously aggravated offences in section 31 of the 1998 Act (read with sections 4, 4A and 5 of the 1986 Act), but unlike those offences can be committed anywhere, thus covering emergency workers inside a dwelling. The new offences attract the same maximum penalties as provided for in section 31 of the 1998 Act.

The new offences apply to England and Wales.

Begging (new clauses “Arranging or facilitating begging for gain” and “Offence of trespassing with intent to commit criminal offence”).

The government intends to commence the repeal of the outmoded Vagrancy Act 1824. In doing so, we are satisfied that generally where nuisance begging meets the threshold of anti-social behaviour, it is open to the police and others to use the existing powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and we intend to update the statutory guidance issued under that Act to make this clear. However, we have identified two gaps in police powers that would result from the repeal of the 1824 Act. These new clauses would address these gaps by creating two new offences (previously contained in last session’s abortive Criminal Justice Bill), namely:

• An offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain. This would make it unlawful, for example, for persons to operate organised begging gangs or to drive individuals to places for them to beg. The maximum penalty for this summary only offence would be six months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

• An offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence. This would re-enact an offence in the 1824 Act. The maximum penalty for the offence would be three months’ imprisonment, a level 3 fine (£1000), or both.

These offences will apply to England and Wales.

Removal of the three-year time limit for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to bring personal injury claims through the civil courts against those responsible (new clause “Removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases” and amendment to clause 135).

This new clause removes the limitation period for child sexual abuse claims in the civil courts and reverses the burden of proof in these claims, while protecting the right of defendants to a fair trial. This measure will make it easier for victims and survivors to achieve the redress which they deserve and gives effect to a recommendation made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in their final report.

The new clause applies to England and Wales.

The attached annex details further amendments to the existing provisions in the Bill.

I attach supplementary delegated powers and ECHR memorandums.

I am copying this letter to Chris Philp, Harriet Cross, Robert Jenrick, Lisa Smart, Luke Taylor, Dame Karen Bradley (Chair, Home Affairs Committee), Andy Slaughter (Chair, Justice Committee) and Lord Alton of Liverpool (Chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights). A copy of this letter and its enclosures will also be placed in the House Library.

Yours sincerely,

[Signed]

Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP

Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention

Annex

Amendments to existing provisions in the Bill

Age verification checks on the online sale and delivery of knives and crossbows (amendments to clauses 30 and 32)

The Bill was amended in Committee to strengthen age verification checks at the point of sale and delivery for knives and crossbows. These amendments extend the enhanced age verification checks to collection points; as such a person collecting the item will need to show photographic identification to confirm they are aged 18 or over.

These amendments apply to England and Wales only.

Child criminal exploitation (new clauses “Proving an offence under section 38” and “Special measures for witnesses” and amendments to clauses 38, 39, 40, 45 to 50, 56, 91, 169 and 170 and Schedule 5)

Chapter 1 of Part 4 provides for an offence of child criminal exploitation and makes provision for child criminal exploitation prevention orders (CCEPOs). A number of fine tuning amendments are required to these provisions, in particular to clarify how it is to be proved a defendant intended to cause a child to engage in conduct amounting to a criminal offence (to align with the approach taken for inchoate offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007) and, in relation to CCEPOs, amendment to the test for making an order consequent on that “proving” clarification, as well as amendments relating to the offence of breaching an order (where it is a continuing act of failure to notify information), application of special measures provisions in the Youth, Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to civil CCEPO hearings and consequential amendments to the Sentencing Code.

At the request of the Scottish Government and Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, these amendments also apply the child criminal exploitation offence to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Controlling another’s home for criminal purposes (amendment to clause 56)

Clause 53 creates an offence of controlling another person’s home for criminal purposes (known as “cuckooing”); the offense applies UK-wide. Clause 56 then adds the cuckooing offences to the list of “lifestyle offences” under Schedule 4 to the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002 (which applies to Scotland – parallel changes are made to Schedules 2 and 5 of POCA which apply to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland respectively). At the request of the Scottish Government, the amendment to clause 56 removes the amendment to Schedule 4 to POCA.

Part 4: statutory guidance (new clauses “Secretary of State guidance” and “Department of Justice guidance” and amendments to clauses 52, 169 and 170)

New clause “Secretary of State guidance”, which replaces clause 52, enables the Secretary of State (in practice, the Home Secretary) to issue statutory guidance to the police and others in respect of the exercise of their functions relating to the new coerced internal concealment and cuckooing offences as well as the child criminal exploitation (CCE) offence and prevention orders.

New clause “Department of Justice guidance” confers a similar power on the Department of Justice to issue statutory guidance to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in relation to the exercise of their functions relating to the CCE and cuckooing offences.

Child sexual abuse material (amendments to clauses 57, 59 and 167 and Schedule 7)

Clause 57 creates a new offence which criminalises the making, possession, adaptation or supply of digital files or models designed to create child sexual abuse material (the offence applies to England and Wales). Amendments to clause 57:

• better provide for protection from liability for the offence for the provider of an internet service who acts as a mere conduit for, or who caches or unknowingly hosts, a CSA image-generator provided by a user (see new section 46B(2)-(2D) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003);
• extend liability to a natural person who is responsible for a body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association committing the offence (new section 46C of the Sexual Offences Act 2003);
• remove the definition of a CSA image-generator that is a service (on reflection, we have concluded that a CSA image-generator cannot be used as a service as an offender would require possession of the generator to use it); and
• amend the scope of the power to make regulations governing the testing of technology that might amount to a CSA image-generator to ensure it is correctly targeted.

Clauses 59 provides for an offence of administering or moderating of electronic services with the intention of facilitating child sexual exploitation and abuse. The term “child sexual exploitation and abuse” is, in part, defined by reference to a list of offences in Schedule 7 to the Bill. New subsections (6) to (8) of clause 59 add a regulation-making power (subject to the draft affirmative procedure) to ensure that the list of offences can be kept up to date, in particular when new offences are created by Acts of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly. In addition, amendments to Schedule 7 add further Scottish offences to the list of child sexual exploitation and abuse offences specified for the purposes of clause 59. These amendments apply UK-wide.

Guidance about disclosure of information by police for purposes of preventing sex offending (amendments to clause 76)

Clause 76 confers power on the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance about the disclosure of information by the police for the purpose of preventing sex offences. to police forces. Chief officers of police are required to have regard to the guidance. This provision applies to police forces in England and Wales, the British Transport Police (which operates GB-wide) and the Ministry of Defence Police (which operates UK-wide). At the request of the Scottish Government, these amendments limit the application to BTP to England and Wales only.

Offences relating to intimate images (amendments to Schedule 9)

Alongside the new offences in this Bill to tackle intimate image abuse, the Data (Use and Access) Bill includes an offence of requesting the creation of a purported intimate image without consent or reasonable belief in consent, including provisions relating to the powers of the civilian courts to deprive offenders of images and other property. To ensure consistency in the service justice system, an amendment is required to the Armed Forces Act 2006 to give the same deprivation order powers to service courts. Amendments to the AFA 2006 require consent from British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies (to whom the Act applies), which it was not possible to gain in time during the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, so we propose to make this amendment in this Bill instead.

In addition, a minor amendment is required to avoid duplication in applicable definitions of penalties for the intimate image offences inserted into the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by the Data (Use and Access) Bill.

Dangerous cycling (amendments to clauses 99 and 166)

The Bill was amended in Committee to provide for offences relating to dangerous and careless cycling. These amendments make various consequential amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and other enactments.

Public order (amendments to clauses 113, 169 and 170)

These technical amendments are consequential on clauses 114 to 116 added to the Bill in Committee. In particular, they provide for clauses 114 (places of worship: restriction on protests) and 116 (amendments relating to British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police) to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Access to driver licensing information (amendment to clause 120)

Clause 120 clarifies the existing power of the Secretary of State to provide access to driver licensing information held by the DVLA to various policing and law enforcement bodies for policing and law enforcement purposes. This amendment makes employees of the Economic Crime and Confiscation Unit in Jersey authorised persons for the purpose of these provisions.

Confiscation (amendments to clauses 127, 166, 169 and 170 and Schedule 15 and new Schedule “Confiscation orders: Scotland”)

Schedule 15 to the Bill introduces reforms to the confiscation regime in England and Wales in respect of the proceeds of crime. Amongst other things, the reforms make provision for the provisional discharge of confiscation orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, allowing outstanding confiscation orders to be placed in abeyance where there is no realistic prospect of recovery in the immediate term, and all enforcement steps have been exhausted. These amendments extend the provisional discharge measures to confiscation orders made under legislation pre-dating the 2002 Act.

A number of high value orders made under previous legislation are still outstanding, albeit that there is no current prospect of recovering the value of those orders. This amendment would mean that those confiscation orders could, like orders made under the 2002 Act, be placed provisionally in abeyance.

At the request of the Scottish Government, new Schedule “Confiscation orders: Scotland” applies two of the reforms to the confiscation regime to Scotland, namely the changes to the meaning of “criminal lifestyle” and provision for compensation directions.

Costs protections for civil recovery (amendments to clause 128)

Clause 103 introduces costs and expenses protections for law enforcement agencies in civil recovery proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session. As currently drafted, it is not clear how the cost protections measure applies to pre-existing cases, particularly where cases have started before the provision comes into force, but costs are incurred after the provision comes into force. As a result, it may be difficult and costly to determine which costs are covered. These amendments provide that costs protections apply to any case where proceedings start after the measure comes into force.

Youth diversion orders (amendments to clauses 139, 141, 142, 150 and 151)

Chapter 1 of Part 14 provides for Youth Diversion Orders (YDOs) – a new counter-terrorism risk management tool for young people who, on the balance of probabilities, the court assesses to have committed a terrorism offence, an offence with a terrorist connection or engaged in conduct likely to facilitate a terrorism offence, and the court considers it necessary to make the order for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorism or serious harm.

The amendments to clause 139 make a change to the scope of YDOs to ensure that applications can be made for individuals up to and including 21-year-olds. Currently, a court may make a YDO in respect of a person aged 10 to 21 but exclusive of 21-year-olds. Following further engagement with operational partners on the types of cases that could benefit from a YDO, we have concluded that this change would increase the operational utility of the YDO and ensure that it can be considered as an intervention in a wider variety of cases involving young people.

Clause 141(2) enables a YDO to include prohibitions or requirements relating to the respondent’s possession or use of electronic devices. The amendments to this clause set out a non-exhaustive list of some of the most common or most intrusive requirements that might be imposed to support the police’s ability to monitor compliance with restrictions on electronic devices, providing a clearer statutory footing for imposing such requirements. For example, this would allow the court to impose a requirement on someone subject to a YDO to enable the police to access their device for the purposes of checking compliance with restrictions such as accessing specific websites or applications. This would allow the police to identify harmful online activity at an earlier stage and intervene before this escalates. As with other YDO measures, the court would need to assess that any monitoring requirements were necessary and proportionate for the purposes of protecting the public from a risk of terrorism or serious harm.

Technical amendments are also required to clauses 142 and 150 relating respectively to the definition of “police detention” for Scotland and Northern Ireland and to the appeals process in Northern Ireland. The amendments will adapt the relevant provisions for the purposes of the law in Scotland and/or Northern Ireland.

The amendments to clause 151 provide that where a person ceases to have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with notification requirements but continues to fail to comply, then they commit an offence.

Conditional discharges (amendments to clauses 91, 151 and Schedule 1)

The Bill provides that where a person is convicted of an offence of breaching a respect order or youth diversion order, it is not open to the court to make an order for conditional discharge. In each case, consequential amendments are needed to the Sentencing Code to add the respect order and YDO offences to the list of cases where a conditional discharge is not open to the court.