Lords Chamber

Tuesday 9th December 2025

(began 2 hours, 9 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:39
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Neate
-

>> >> Charles >> Charles III, >> Charles III, by >> Charles III, by the >> Charles III, by the grace

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved Mary Jane.

Fiona neat, commander of our most excellent Order of the British Empire to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Neate of Hammersmith in our London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Neate to have and to hold unto her for her life. Willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster, the 26th day of November, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I poly Baroness Neate do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to
14:44
None Portrait Oral questions: Price increases by mobile phone and broadband companies Lord Sikka (Labour)
-

by Lord Snape beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name of the Order Paper.
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
None Portrait Oral questions: Tropical Forest Forever Facility Baroness Sheehan (Liberal Democrat)
-

Order, order second oral question Baroness Sheehan.
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Support for victims of sexual violence in the armed services
-

Curran. >> I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, we My Lords, we now My Lords, we now we My Lords, we now we now My Lords, we now we now come My Lords, we now we now come to some instruments previously debated some instruments previously debated in Grand Committee Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Whitehead. My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. Question is it the motion that this motion be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. The Baroness Lloyd of Effra. motion. Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. Financial Services and have it. Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regulations 2025. And one other Sedgefield. My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the motion. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. En bloc. The question is that the two motions in the name of Lord Wilson of Sedgefield be agreed to. En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content, but contents have. It has to be again in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Flint. I beg to move that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into a committee on the bill. Question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content.
15:31
15:32
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
>> My Lords. Amendment 289 is a probing amendment through which I'm seeking the government's justification of the substantial justification of the substantial prejudice provision in clause 82. By way of background, clause 82 removes the three year limitation period for personal injury claims in cases relating to child sexual abuse. As such, it implements recommendation 15 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, chaired by professor J. The inquiry found that most personal inquiry claims relating to child sexual abuse are not only modest in value, but in many cases do not result in compensation being paid, and the reason for the high rate of failure is because a significant number of those claims are prevented from ever proceeding as a result of the limitations period.

On bringing forward a claim under the Limitations Act of 1980, that act permits the three year period for claims resulting from sexual abuse as a child to begin from age 18, therefore expiring at 21. But many survivors do not feel comfortable with coming forward and telling people what happened until much later. Never mind gathering the courage to bring forward a lawsuit against their abuser. The result is a lack of justice for those who have been abused as a child. And it is welcome, therefore, that the government have decided to bring this forward.

However, there is a possibility there is possibly an issue with the drafting of inserted section 11ZB in this clause, which establishes the situations in which the court must dismiss an action for injury arising from child sexual abuse. It states that for all future cases brought after the commencements commencement of this clause, the court must dismiss the action. If the defendant can prove that a fair hearing cannot take place. However, for any case which started before this new clause came into force, the test for dismissal is set considerably lower, because in this instance, the court must dismiss the claim if the defendant can prove they would suffer substantial prejudice and thus the proceedings are inequitable.

My Lords, this goes further than was recommended by the J inquiry, the report said. The report said, and I quote, the express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants to show that a fair trial is not possible, unquote. The only test the independent inquiry wanted was that the test of whether a fair trial can take place, applied to all past and future cases. Now, I know that there is concern that the ability of the court to dismiss actions due to substantial prejudice placed on the defendant will create uncertainty for survivors of child sexual abuse and delay access to justice.

This has the potential to undermine the purpose of the independent inquiry, child sexual abuse recommendation, and might not provide the certainty and support which survivors deserve. So I'll reiterate that this is simply a probing amendment, and I would be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could elaborate on why the government have gone further than recommended by the Independent Inquiry for Child Sexual Abuse, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 82,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 82, page 98. Leave out lines three to 11 to 11.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11 to 11. I have an amendment in this group, and may I repeat a declaration of interests. I made declaration of interests. I made Second Reading that I have appeared as a barrister in a number of the leading cases about limitation of
15:35
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
leading cases about limitation of the law of tort. The purpose of limitation periods is to give a claimant a fair chance to decide whether or not to bring a claim, but also to place some sort of time limit on claims. Limitation periods vary according to the cause of action. For example, defamation claims have to be brought within one year. Personal injury claims have always been in a special category. The normal limit is three years. In the case of a young person, three years after attaining the age of majority, but because some personal injuries only manifest themselves some time after they have been caused, particularly disease claims.

For example, the law has responded by postponing the starting date to reflect something called the date of knowledge. What constituted knowledge was difficult to encapsulate in statute and gave rise to a lot of litigation, particularly in the context of what are generally known as historic claims for child sexual abuse. But these difficulties were largely overcome by section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, which gave the court a complete discretion to disapply the limitation period. Although the section gave various sensible guidelines as to matters to be taken into consideration, the discretion was expressed to be entirely unfettered.

One difficulty in the law remained in claims for deliberate acts of assault. There was a finite six year limitation period, rather than a three year extendable limit for claims in negligence, so some claimants did not have the advantage of section 33. This problem was overcome by the decision of a V Corps in 2008. I was one of the unsuccessful defendants in that case, when the House of Lords decided that whether the claim was in negligence or in assault, there was still a discretion to disapply the limitation period.

The only question that remained was whether it would ever be too late to bring a claim in the light of section 33, Lord Browne of Eaton under Heywood, a member of your Lordships' House, and one much missed made this observation, and I quote, if a complaint has been made and recorded, and more obviously still, if the accused has been convicted of the abuse complained of, that would be one thing. If, however, a complaint comes out of the blue with no apparent support for it, other than perhaps the alleged abuser has been accused or even convicted of similar abuse in the past, that would be quite another thing.

By no means everyone who brings a late claim for damages for sexual abuse, however genuine his complaint may in fact can reasonably expect the court to exercise a section 33 discretion in his favour. On the contrary, a fair trial which must surely include a fair opportunity for the defendant to investigate the allegations, is in many cases likely to be found quite simply impossible. That passage was in fact referred to in the conclusions of IICSA, who decided that there should be a removal of the three year period, but that it should be inverted.

Commas express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants to show a fair trial is not possible. Now. The government responded to IICSA report, and they did not support getting rid of limitation. The government acknowledged the importance of section 33 and made this point, and I quote a limitation period. Also encouraged discourages disputes to be resolved timeously, thus promoting finality and certainty. Both are key cornerstones of the legal system. As such, the government's position ahead of the consultation was that it does not support this option, nor did it support a special limit for claims arising from sexual abuse.

I would also remind the House that in 2017, in the case of Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v Carroll, the Court of Appeal emphasised the unfettered nature of the section 33 discretion. My question to the government at Second Reading was essentially this what cases does it envisage would now be allowed to proceed, which would not have done under the current law? I did not expect an immediate answer, but the government has now had plenty of time to consider its response. There was a consultation following the government's then response I referred to was not particularly large and did not contain very consistent answers.

Changing the law of limitation is best. An exercise following the careful balancing of respective interests, perhaps by the Law Commission. What appears to have happened here is that the government, notwithstanding the initial view that I refer to, has decided to come up with some sort of compromise, and in doing so, I fear of produced in clause 82, a real dog's dinner of a provision. It is headed removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases, but it does not do that.

It also specifically provides that sexual abuse is in a separate category from, for example, physical abuse. Although this was precisely what the government did not want when they responded to the original recommendations. It contains also a rather unclear provision that when a dispute has been settled, it would no longer be subject to these new provisions. It probably does not include discontinued claims or claims settled otherwise than by way of a formal agreement. It contains 11 ZB, some very unclear provisions as to the circumstances in which the court can dismiss an action, while at the same time containing in Subclause two the provision that the court must dismiss the action if the defendant satisfy the court that it is not possible for a fair hearing to take place.

The interrelationship of clause two and three is incoherent and will inevitably result in litigation. The lack of clarity as to what is or is not sexual abuse, and what is or is not settlement will, I fear, also give rise to litigation? I agree with the Frontbenches probing amendment that we should get rid of clause subclause three of 11 ZB, but that would leave in what is really a repetition of what the law is anyway, and would not deal with the points about what constitutes sexual abuse or settlement by agreement.

My conclusion, my Lords, is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the law as it is, and this rather messy compromise is going to give rise to unnecessary litigation. And I am unsure it's going to provide remedies where remedies are not already available. Sexual abuse, particularly of children, is abhorrent, and we now know that there has been far more of it than was originally perceived. It is, however, important to point out that the claims are not usually made against the individual perpetrator.

I can understand why there wouldn't be much sympathy for a claim being brought, however, late against such a perpetrator, the usual defendant is, say, a school or a religious organisation, a local authority or even central government who may or may not have any knowledge of what happened. But because of the expanded doctrine of vicarious liability, will be deemed in law to be responsible for what occurred. They may or may not be covered by insurance. As Lord Browne pointed out, there will come a time where it quite simply is inappropriate, many years later, for claims to be brought before the court.

So, however sympathetic one is to the victims of sexual abuse, the law currently caters adequately for the balance between the interests of claimants and defendants. If we include section 82 in the bill, I fear we will make Bad Law clause. The clause should stand part here. Thank you.
15:44
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. I have signed >> My Lords. I have signed amendment 289 and I noted that in. And can I just say, this is the And can I just say, this is the first opportunity I've had to speak at committee because of family illness, and it's good to be back. In the previous group of amendments last week, the House had heard concerns of a number of peers worried about the government's proposals might not ensure a clear route and fair repute. Excuse me, a fair route to reporting child sexual abuse.

This amendment is just as important and I thank Lord Davies of Gower for laying it. I also want to thank Lord Faulks for his very helpful exposition of the legal details. I come to this as a champion for victims rather than from the legal perspective. And despite the many concerns about those accused of child sexual abuse being able to escape from the accountability provided by the courts, this bill in clause 82, lines 3 to 11, lays out a specific route for those accused that the courts must a strong word not consider, we note, cease action.

If the defendant in question claims there would be substantial prejudice to the defendant if the proceedings were to proceed. To put it bluntly, this is a gift to any defence lawyer. Much of the evidence heard by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse heard scenario after scenario where senior people, clergy, politicians, police officers, magistrates, etc. were able to cover up what had happened because they were in a position of power over the victim and quite often over potential witnesses to part of this clause, says Retrospectivity, is also a key reason why defendants could claim substantial prejudice, given that the IICSA report demonstrated that the power of those who abused victims kept silence for many years, often decades, it is just not sensible to give defendants in the future, whether for current or for historic abuse, this get out of jail free card literally.

In this case, and I note the point that Lord Foulkes made about schools or bodies are often the ones that are sued. But exactly the same problem is there that we know from experience. And I'll come on to to this in a later amendment that many people don't report their abuse as a child until they are in their 30s. So there is a very, very long gap before justice can be sought. Clause 82, section three provides the perfect escape clause for such a defendant.

It's unworthy of this bill. We support the proposals of the amendment and very mindful to hear Lord Faulks clause 82 stand apart and keen to see something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that will actually work in law. I think we all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we all. Welcome the concept of. Clause 82 in this bill, because it provides a significant step it provides a significant step forward to justice for survivors of child sexual abuse by removing the limitation period. The provision limitation period. The provision acknowledges the unique barriers facing victims in coming forward and after many years of abuse.
15:47
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
and after many years of abuse. Let's be clear. My Lords, we all agree that child sexual abuse is a crime marked by profound trauma. It's a secrecy manipulation. And as a noble Baroness, Lady Brinton has pointed out, survivors often require years, possibly decades, to process their experience and feel able to seek justice. The limitation periods, while serving certain legal purposes have historically denied victims their their day in court. The removal of this barrier is a recognition of the lasting impact of abuse and the difficulty in disclosing it.

So I cannot understand this get out of jail free card to permit a defendant to avoid liability on the grounds of substantial prejudice. First of all, it risks undermining the legislative intent and perpetuating injustice, and would send a message contrary to the spirit of the clause. In my Inexpert non-legal opinion, whilst the possibility of prejudice to defendants such as faded memories, lost evidence or deceased witnesses is real, it must be weighed against the injustice suffered by survivors who have been who have been unable to seek redress due to the limitation period.

And I think all noble Lords here of a legal bent would say our courts are perfectly well equipped to assess evidence, account for gaps, determine credibility. Even in historic cases, the link of prejudice can be mitigated through fair trial procedures, and it should not override the fundamental right of survivors to have their claims heard. We as legislators must ensure that perpetrators of child abuse are held to account regardless of the time elapsed, dismissing claims on the basis of substantial prejudices would not only deny justice to individuals, but I think also undermine public confidence in the legal system's ability to deal with some of the most serious wrongs we have witnessed over the last 30 years.

To our children, it would also risk protecting abusers from scrutiny, contrary to the principles of transparency and accountability. My Lord, I conclude by saying that courts must prioritise the rights of survivors and the public interest and accountability, ensuring that the defence does not become a loophole that perpetuates injustice. Therefore, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friends and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton.
15:49
15:50
15:51
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> Before I speak to amendment 289, I'd like first to thank my noble friend Baroness Royall, who's not in her place today because she's ill, and Mr. Stephen Bernard, both of whom met me recently. We discussed both the impact of the limitation period on victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and their concern over the test of substantial prejudice. Within this bill's clause. I was moved by what Mr. Bernard told me, and I thank him for his courage in telling me about what happened to him.

I also want to thank the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower for moving amendment 289. I hope both my noble friend, Lady Royle and the noble Lord will be reassured that I fully understand the sentiment behind the amendment. I thank the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, the noble Lords Lord Pannick and Lord Blencathra for the welcome that they've given to the general spirit of the clause and the constructive comments they've made. May I make it clear we absolutely do not want to add additional or unnecessary barriers to victims of child sexual abuse from proceeding with their civil claims.

So I've asked my officials to look closely at the issues this amendment raises for further consideration, and I aim to provide a further update to your Lordships at report. Turning now to the noble Lord Lord Faulks his opposition to clause 82 standing part of the Bill Lord Faulks is is well known for being very expert in this area, and I pay tribute to that. But clause 82 implements important recommendations made by the Independent inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The noble Lord raised concerns during Second Reading and now again during this debate, that the reform is unnecessary and would lead to greater uncertainty in litigation.

But with respect, I disagree. The inquiry looked at this in great detail. It found that the limitation period for civil claims itself acted as a deterrent to victims and survivors, just the very fact that it existed. The inquiry also found that it acted as a deterrent, irrespective of the existence of the discretion in section 33, and the inquiry therefore found that section 33 did not provide sufficient protection for victims and survivors. The inquiry also found that the regime acted as a barrier to claimants at three stages.

First of all, solicitors willingness to take on claims because it can make it really hard for them to find a lawyer to represent them. Second, the settlement and valuation of claims because it can lead to victims accepting lower settlements because of uncertainty about the limitation issue. Thirdly, the hearings themselves in relation to the to the limitation period, the effect of which on claimants was described as intrusive and traumatic. I think that the noble Lord may find that it wasn't this government that said it was not in favour of these recommendations.

Actually, the previous government, this government accepted in February of this year the recommendation. And this government is satisfied that clause 82 is necessary and proportionate. The courts are perfectly capable, as the noble Lord Lord Blencathra has said, of deciding when a claim is inappropriate or unfair and should not succeed. This government and my department puts victims at the heart of everything that we do. This is why we believe this reform is necessary and an important one for victims and survivors.

And on that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Davis, to withdraw his amendment, and I hope the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will join me in supporting clause 82. I beg to move. The noble is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble is. Quite right. The the. Response to IICSA was by the previous government. It was written by the government. It was written by the Ministry of Justice and it was signed by Lord Bellamy. Whilst not in any way undermining his contribution to whatever was produced, I suspect it was the work of the government lawyers, no doubt of the government lawyers, no doubt approved by what he approved of by him. It was a careful study of the law by reference to, for example, the operation of section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.

IICSA was not a Law Commission law reform body. It was covering a huge area of inquisition. It had to cover so many areas that many people doubted it had any utility. I'm not suggesting that, but it was not primarily concerned with civil claims as such. And what I would like to ask the noble Lady is this. Section 33 has been in operation since 1980, I can tell her, and I'm sure she'd accept from me that it is usually used a great deal by many claimants, represented by firms of solicitors.

Very often limitation isn't even taken a point because she quite rightly says, very often somebody will delay a considerable time before bringing claims, and quite rightly so. But why, I ask her, is she satisfied, given the wideness of the discretion, that section 33 does not work as it is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords? It's no answer to say that another government considered that another government considered it carefully. Different governments have different priorities. I'm not sure that's going to come as a great surprise to the noble Lord and Lord. And as far as section 33 is concerned, this government is satisfied that it does not provide sufficient protection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sufficient protection. My Lords, I shall be very brief in my response. As I say, this was a probing amendment, and I'm grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for her clarification. I'm content with the government's assurances and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
15:57
15:57
Baroness Bertin Portrait Baroness Bertin (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> To. >> Speak to amendments two, 92

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to amendments two, 92 91292298 and 314 tabled in my name and supported by my noble friends and supported by my noble friends Baroness Kennedy, Baroness Kidron, Baroness Benjamin and Lord Clement-Jones. These amendments have the support from many charities including Barnardo's, Internet Watch Foundation and End Violence Against Women and Girls and the Lucy Faithful Foundation, and very importantly, the Children's Commissioner. My Lords, the central mission of this group of amendments is to close the gap between the law governing offline and online pornography and to bring long overdue scrutiny to an industry that has operated with impunity for far too long.

The review I led for the government showed me corners of this world that you simply can't unsee. Online pornography is now so extreme and pervasive that it doesn't just reflect sexual tastes, it shapes them. It normalises violence, distorts intimacy, grooms men and boys to perpetrate sexual violence, and has driven child sexual abuse, as well as child on child sexual abuse. Content. Titles regularly use words like brutal attack, kidnap and torture. Incest is fast becoming the most frequent form of this violence, with 40% of young women reported being strangled during sex.

The link between online and offline harm is undeniable, according to the Children's commissioner, a 13 year old boy is likely to have viewed incest, rape and strangulation porn before his first kiss, according adding to this, sexual dysfunction is rising among young men who find real intimacy less stimulating than online extremes. Many now speak of addiction that has ruined their lives and affects in forming real and lasting relationships. Last week, Dame Angiolini was unequivocal in part two of her inquiry into Sarah Everard's death that there is a need for a united response to online, public and private violence against women.

She has also made clear the government must read her recommendations in tandem with the online pornography review, and that she is deeply concerned that harmful content that will be illegal offline remains unrestrained online. Wayne Cousins openly paraded violent, degrading porn to police colleagues. Free to view content was found across all his devices when he was arrested. A casual acceptance of violence and unchecked, dangerous predatory behaviour led to Sarah Everard's murder. There is no doubt in my mind that porn played its part, and when I met with Giselle Jellicoe's daughter Caroline, she was certain that extreme online pornography had emboldened her father and his accomplices to carry out their hideous crimes.

The review I wrote for the government is an oven ready plan to address many of these issues. They have still not formally responded to it, and have only committed to one of the 32 recommendations. It is suboptimal, my Lords, that we have to use amendments to this bill to push through some of those proposals. Far better will be to have some central leadership and a coordinated strategy that works across government, bringing departments like DSIT and Home Office together on these issues.

It strikes me they are still completely siloed on this, but I'm determined not to look back in ten years and wish we had done more. And I hope this government will now be driven by that same determination. And I thank the Minister for her meeting last week. I know that she feels strongly about this issue. Amendment 290 addresses a fundamental legal loophole. The law currently allows. It is to allow an adult to mimic a child in pornographic content, and for that content to remain lawful online.

This amendment strengthens the Protection of Children Act 1978, extending the offence of making indecent photographs of a child to include pornographic material depicting a child where where the role is played by an adult performer. When my review met with the Board of British Film Classification, we were shown videos legally available on major sites, content that no reasonable person could argue did not depict child sexual abuse scenarios. I am not my Lord, talking about a 40 year old woman dressing in a school in a school uniform.

I am talking about a tiny little girl in a child's bedroom, surrounded by dolls, assaulted by someone explicitly described as her father on mainstream porn sites. This, the title made the storyline unmistakeable. Daddy breaks into his daughter's bedroom. The actor, however, was over 18 because she mimicked a child. The content remained legal online. The current law does apply to pseudo images, which include AI generated images. We are therefore in the strange situation of, quite rightly, prohibiting an AI generated video depicting sexual activity with young looking girls on the basis that it normalises and promotes sexual abuse.

But a very similar video of real actors who look like who look like young girls would be allowed. This loophole should be closed. To be clear, this is not niche content on the dark web. We went away as a team and look for further evidence of this kind of content, and it was everywhere on the home pages of mainstream sites, searchable in seconds, with titles like Daddy Makes His Daughter Happy Before School. Vast amounts are marketed as teen porn or incest porn, using performers who look prepubescent or styled to look underage.

Lollipops dolls. This material sexualises children, normalises them as objects of gratification and fosters a sexual interest in children. Often, these videos show they have had millions of views and clicks, thus drip feeding the idea that is acceptable and normal. Evidence from law enforcement shows that repeated exposure to such content can escalate to viewing illegal child sexual abuse material, and in some cases, to offending online or offline. The BBFC again is categoric. This material will be refused classification online, offline yet online it persists.

The fact that 2024 was the worst year ever for record on record for cases of child sexual abuse images, makes this change even more urgent. Other jurisdictions new South Wales, Ireland, Canada already criminalise this harm and we should align with those international standards. Amendment 290 also creates a new offence of producing or sharing material that advocates or glorifies child sexual abuse, including text on forums and pornography pornography sites. This draws again on Canadian law and parallels our domestic prohibition on glorifying terrorism.

It rightly outlaws the glorification of terrorism. We must also outlaw the glorification of child sexual abuse. The law, as it stands, is not clear. And let me add a human context. I spoke recently with a brave young woman whose world was turned upside down when police uncovered her father's post on a well-known chat site, describing and inviting others to describe what he claimed he had done to his daughter since she was six, the police intervened and arrested him, protecting the family, but on further investigation they found no physical abuse and they didn't charge him for fantasising and glamorising imagined abuse.

My Lords, this is unquestionably abusive behaviour. The law in this area is unclear, and we need unambiguous law that makes it easier for the police and the CPS to charge and ultimately for prosecutions to happen. I believe by closing this loophole, we could give police more preventative powers and place, importantly, obligations on platforms and chat sites to stop this content and dialogue at source. Again, this was a very, very easy to access chat site that was encouraging. This amendment 29 one extends the definition of extreme illegal pornography in pornographic images to include depictions of incest as as prescribed in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Incest pornography is now particularly prevalent online, often stylised as violent scenes between father and daughter, and that would be refused classification offline. We have a clear precedent. The government has already acted to capture depictions of strangulation, which I'm delighted about. We will come to that shortly in pornography, recognising that the original drafting allowed this material to proliferate, proliferate unchecked. The logic applies here. Research shows incest themed content is among the most recommended to new users on popular platforms.

Another stark example of an algorithm encouraging harmful content. This amendment also captures titles and dialogue, recognising that words themselves can advertise, normalise and accelerate harm. Pornography titles accompanying content matter a great deal. They are the main route by which this material is found, and they can be as violent as the content itself. Amended law must capture titles and searchable text, obliging search engines to bar such content. At present, too many are falling short. How can it be right that my team can easily find titles in Google like stoned Girl, sexually abused good little girl allows abusive father to pee on her.

Coming up on the first search page, I now speak to amend amendment 314, which seeks to bring wider parity to how online and offline pornography is is regulated. Since 1984, legislation has existed to regulate offline content and media. This legislation specifically prohibits offline content that the British Board of Film Classification would find unsuitable for classification. Even the 18 category on videos, DVDs and Blu ray, the prohibited material as set out in section 3680 of the Communications Act, includes material that is in breach of the criminal law or created through a criminal offence.

Non-conceptual consensual sexual activity, including rape or sexual violence, particularly presented as appealing or inviting viewer complicity. Real or simulated acts in a sexual context likely to cause serious physical harm, including penetration by foreign objects or dangerous sadomasochistic activities outside a clearly consensual role play material likely to encourage interest in sexually abusive activity. These prohibitions reflect a long standing principles of harm reduction and public protection. Indeed, they were strengthened and upgraded following the horrific murder of Jamie Bulger. Yet these safeguards apply only to physical media online platforms which now dominate the pornography market operate outside this framework.

As a result, content that would be refused classification online depictions of torture, incest, pornography, highly abusive misogynistic content and materialise material. Sexualising children, as described before, is freely available online. This disparity is indefensible. Amendment 314 therefore does four things. Firstly, imports the Bbfc's prohibited content standards into online law creates a criminal offence for publishing such material online. Empowers enforcement through fines of up to 18 million or 10% of global revenue, ensuring compliance even without prosecution, and mandates regulatory oversight requiring the Secretary of State to appoint enforcement bodies within six months, with powers to impose service and access restriction orders.

The last point, my Lords, is crucial. We need a provision in this bill for a body separate to Ofcom, I would argue, but who works closely with them to proactively conduct spot checks and audits on pornography platforms and social media. Search engines must also be held accountable. Furthermore, there needs to be some kind of additional public reporting mechanism that can accelerate actions against these sites. My noble friend Baroness Kidron spoke brilliantly on this last week. I recently found a porn site with no age verification barriers at all dedicated to rape porn.

Who do I report this to? I can't. It may be inconvenient for the government and Ofcom to acknowledge this, but without a deeper infrastructure in place to ensure enforcement and implementation, real change will be hard to achieve. Mastercard and visa stopped payments overnight when Pornhub was found to have millions of child sexual abuse images freely available. Within 24 hours, those images were gone. They will be obliged to do the same with other types of harmful pornography. If the government makes these changes better, law and regulation will give the ancillary services payment providers, advertisers, investors propping up this industry a proper roadmap to follow once the money starts getting affected, change often miraculously occurs.

My Lords, this amendment is about closing a glaring loophole. It is about ensuring that the same protections we have enforced for decades offline apply in the digital age. It is about saying that material which is too harmful to sell in a shop should not be freely available on a smartphone.
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page