The criminal law changes backed by MPs including pornography, protests and anti-social behaviour

MPs have approved a sweeping set of reforms to criminal law, including new provisions on pornography and fly-swatting.

The wide-ranging Crime and Policing Bill also introduces new respect orders designed to tackle antisocial behavior and eliminates the £200 threshold for thefts currently classed as “low-level” burglaries.

Home Secretary Sarah Jones described the draft bill, which runs to more than 550 pages, as “the biggest criminal justice bill in a generation”.

But the Government has faced serious criticism from its own Labor supporters over plans to require senior police officers to take into account the cumulative disruption of a protest movement when setting conditions.

Labor MP Andy McDonald argued that the change represented a “dangerous erosion of civil liberties”, while his party colleague Apsana Begum warned that “the attack on the right to protest could lead us down a deeply worrying path”.

But Ms Jones told the Commons the new duty was a “minor change” and added: “We have no intention of restricting people’s rights to protest and would never do so.”

Mr McDonald led rebel Labor MPs into the “no” lobby as part of a wider “make-up” vote on the issues raised at the end of the debate.

The protest vote was 247 to 21, a majority of 226.

According to the draft law, tech bosses will be held personally liable if their platforms fail to remove intimate images of people shared without their consent.

Senior managers could face imprisonment, a fine, or both, without reasonable excuse, if their companies fail to comply with Ofcom enforcement orders to remove non-consensual intimate images.

It will become a crime to possess or publish images of sexual intercourse between real or fake relatives.

Following the government’s initiative, step-sister pornography will also be banned if at least one of the performers is or acts to be under 18.

Ministers had previously resisted Conservative Baroness Bertin’s bid for a ban, warning that not all relationships between adult step-relatives are illegal in real life.

Speaking on Tuesday, Ms Jones said: “I fully agree with the need to reduce the depiction of step-incest pornography where illegal content is depicted to this extent.”

MPs also backed a Lords Bill amendment that would pardon women found guilty of carrying out illegal abortions, as well as women who receive warnings.

The amendment would also expunge records of investigations, arrests and charges against women under the abortion law, whether or not they are found guilty.

This comes after MPs voted to decriminalize women terminating their own pregnancies as part of the same bill in June last year.

MPs also agreed with the Lords’ view that repeat fly-tippers would face losing their licence, and repeat offenders would be given three to nine penalty points.

Ms Jones told MPs: “I fully appreciate and understand the damage fly tipping can do to our communities.”

But the minister said the Lords’ proposal to remove dump trucks from their vehicles was unnecessary because “the power to seize vehicles already exists”.

MPs rejected the proposal to change the vehicle seizure law by a vote of 174 to 291, with a majority of 117.

During the debate, many Labor MPs spoke out in favor of blocking the change to protest rules, including Liverpool Riverside MP Kim Johnson, who said the change was “sneaking in through the back door”.

The change was written into the bill by the Government at the House of Lords stage, meaning MPs could not scrutinize it in parliament until Tuesday.

Mr McDonald threatened to launch a back row over the issue, telling the Commons: “If the Government were confident about the amendment they would put it to a vote.”

The Middlesbrough and Thornaby East MP cited the Suffragettes and the anti-apartheid movement as examples of “cumulative and sustained protest”.

Ms Johnson argued that “protest is part of the lifeblood of the Labor movement” as she urged MPs to “reject a broad expansion of anti-protest powers”.

Ms Jones responded that “imposing conditions means things like going where the march goes, limiting the hours it can work or limiting the number of people”.

The minister said police forces could already account for the cumulative disruption of repeated protests.

Labour’s former shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said MPs had been “forced” into a decision without a proper vote and that rushed legislation could lead to “significant errors”.

Labour’s Mary Kelly Foy (Durham City) also said it would be “naive not to ask how a future far-right government might wield such power”, while her party colleague Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) said it was a “dangerous breach of civil liberties”.

Cross-precedent Lord Walney’s proposal to allow criminalization of membership in or encouragement of groups thought to cause violence or disorder but fall below the threshold of terrorism was rejected by 300 votes (101), a majority of 199.

The bill will now return to the House of Lords, where colleagues in the Commons will consider the amendments.

The final draft must be accepted by both Houses to become law.