Lords Chamber

Tuesday 9th December 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
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. Amendment 292 introduces an essential, essential safeguards around consent, age verification and accountability in the online pornography industry. First, it requires that no pornographic material is published unless every individual featured has given explicit consent and is a verified adult for existing material.

Platforms must conform that confirm that all individuals are adults. This will be highly inconvenient for the industry and may well disrupt the user generated model of porn, but this feels like a very long overdue due requirement. Second, it recognises the right to withdraw consent if a person revokes consent in writing, platforms must move that material within 24 hours. Consent is a vulnerable 18 year old can be very different when you are 30, and there should be a mechanism to withdraw that image.

With hashtagging technology, this is all completely doable. The amendment. This amendment is about preventing exploitation and abuse. Can you imagine a world some some platforms claim that they have made age checks, but we have to take their word for it. Can you imagine a world where a multi-billion billion pound business just said to the auditors, trust us, the accounts are fine? Why should this industry enjoy such light touch, self-regulation and no paper trail, especially when their commodity is real people? Finally, my Lords Amendment 298 addresses the possession and use of software designed to create new digital images.

These deepfake generators fuelling a rapid rise in image based sexual abuse. I pay tribute to Baroness Charlottetown for leading the way on criminalising the making and taking of deepfake images. That work is vital, but we must go further because the tools themselves are the accelerant. This amendment makes it an offence to intentionally possess, obtain or store software whose primary purpose is to create or alter sexually explicit or nude images. I'm open to working with the Ministers on drafting to achieve the right balance, but the principle must be clear the technology itself must be outlawed.

In conclusion, My Lords, these amendments do not police private sexual behaviour. They do not seek to ban porn, but instead they aim to regulate an industry that has evaded scrutiny and is causing dementia harm, normalising violence, sexualising children and enabling abuse. The law must evolve to meet these challenges and put proportionate guardrails back in place. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 82. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reports. I have put my name to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have put my name to amendment two, 9291 and 314, and I also two, 9291 and 314, and I also support amendments 292 and 298 in this group, all in the name of the
16:13
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
this group, all in the name of the noble Baroness. Lady Brinton, and I hold her in high esteem. My Lords, before I set out some remarks in support of these amendments, it is difficult to comprehend why we are back here again in this House. Eight years after debating this issue raised by the amendments in this group, by myself and other noble Lords. It feels like deja vu. There is, however, one crucial difference. We now have the insight and recommendations of the Comprehensive Review of Pornography Regulations, which I was promised by the last government undertaken by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and I want to commend the noble Baroness for her review, which sets out clearly why these amendments are needed.

My Lords, I would first like to speak on amendment 314, which seeks to ensure that pornographic content hosted online is subject to the same regulation that applies to content distributed offline. This is by no means a new concept. Back in 2017, following the debate on the Digital Economy Act 2016, the then government published the Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper, stating that what is unacceptable offline should be unacceptable online. My Lords, during the passage of the Online Safety Act, I pointed out that despite the government's commitment in 2017 to address the disparity of regulation of pornography online and offline material that is extreme and prohibited, offline was still widely available online.

I and others table amendments, which were similar to amendment 314 before the House today. Yet we find ourselves debating this issue once again. My Lords Barnardo's and I declare an interest as Vice President and CSAS have long called for online pornography to be regulated in the same standard as it is offline. Content involving strangulation, incest, and adults dressed as children, as well as that involving trafficking and torture, is rightly illegal offline. Yet these images and videos remain widely accessible online.

This inconsistency is indefensible. It's a stain on our society. My Lords, amendment 314 would make it a criminal offence to publish or facilitate the publishing of prohibited pornographic material online, bringing digital distribution in line with the strict safeguards we already apply offline. This is common sense and should be accepted by the government. Yet depressing fact is, the internet is still full with material that would not get a certificate for sale or distribution in the offline world.

My Lords, any platform that fails to comply with this new law would be subject to financial sanctions and or business disruption measures. My Lords, the Communication Act 2003 gives statutory powers to Ofcom to regulate offline on the basis of the British Board of Film Classification guidelines. As of operating this law, the BBFC has established clear standards and guidance. These guidelines are well established and easily understood. What this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that online platforms are subject to these same standards and guidance for what they publish and host online.

This would ensure that online platforms prevent material that depicts rape, incest or non-consensual sexual activity from being published on their platform and ensure that any material published by a user of that platform that meets this criteria would be prohibited. Material is removed. My Lords, the harm of violent online pornography is not abstract or without consequence. Men who watch violent online pornography are more likely to be violent towards women and girls. My Lords, if the government really, really wants to significantly reduce violence against women and girls, which it claimed as a priority, then a starting point is regulating online material to ensure that all violent material is removed and that laws online and offline are regulated in the same way.

My Lords, the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness are also critical to reducing violence against women and girls. This is why I support amendment 219 and 290, which seeks to ban pornographic content depicting incest and that which objectifies children through adults dressing or behaving as minors. Evidence from the Lucy Faithful Foundation shows that consuming such content can lead users to seek out illegal child sexual abuse material, and potentially offend against children online and offline.

My Lords, this is not just harmful fantasy, it's a dangerous distortion which sends the message that child sexual abuse is acceptable or even desirable, and often acts as a gateway to illegal activity. My Lords, the law must make clear that there is no place for content that sexualised children and normalise abuse. My Lords, I support amendment 292 as it seeks to ensure that platforms undertake age and consent checks for performers. Again, this is a critical amendment in protecting women and girls.

User generated content dominates pornography platforms, yet this content is often uploaded with little or no verification. This amendment would ensure that every individual featured in all content is an adult and has given consent. But crucially, women are given the right to withdraw that consent at any time and have the content removed. I also support amendment 298, which seeks to ban Unification acts. These AI powered tools are being used to create non-consensual sexual images targeting women and girls. The In the Internet Watch Foundation reported 380% increase in AI generated child exploitation imagery between 20 to 2023 and 2024.

If we do not act now, the technology will continue to outpace regulation, leaving victims unprotected. My Lords, the Minister in the other place said, and I quote, the government is actively considering what action is needed to ensure that any intervention in this area is effective and will provide an update in due course. I hope the Minister here today will be able to give us that update in concluding. My Lords, how many more times will we debate these issues? These amendments are not radical.

They are reasonable, evidence based and urgently, urgently, urgently needed. We cannot allow the increase of harmful online content to continue. This must stop. So, my Lords, I urge the government to support these amendments. They are the foundation of a safer digital world. If we fail to act, we risk legitimising a culture where abuse is normalised and young people grow up with a distorted understanding of healthy relationships. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime. So let us act now to ensure that every childhood is free from abuse and victimisation.

And I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
16:22
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
Hey my. >> My Lords, as a privilege to follow the noble Lady, Baroness Benjamin and I share much of her Benjamin and I share much of her frustration that here we are on our feet again, discussing this again and hearing that litany of powerful and hearing that litany of powerful images that I would rather unhear from the noble Lady Burton. And I don't propose to to add to them, except to say that what the noble Lady has said on the record in Hansard is not an exaggeration, is not cherry picking.

It's normal. And I think that the House must consider whether that's the normal we would like to live in. I have been proud to add my name to the noble Ladies amendments, and and I commend her for her work on the pornography review, which I know was an enormous effort and I think quite a catastrophic personal experience, as I understand it. And and I commend her for that. I also want to take the opportunity of commending the government for recognising the issue of strangulation, and I know that we will come to it.

But but I really wanted to mention it in this group because it is this relationship between what happens online and how it then impacts offline that we have to concentrate on. And a few weeks ago, I was in a group of very senior medical professionals and one consultant radiologist said talked about how post-mortem guidance is being changed to check for strangulation as a cause of death among young women. Now that is chilling. The entire room was chilled and I think that it is an indictment of of how prevalent and serious the consequences of violent pornography are.

We must not hide behind thinking that this is happening in another space. This is the space in which people are now living and, and and again, on the same theme, I want to say that, you know, some time ago I was contacted by a lawyer who told me that she dreaded freshers week. Each year, an increasingly long line of young men, barely adult, would come through her door facing charges of acts of sexual violence which mimicked behaviour they had seen online.

A wealth of young women, talented, now traumatised at a crucial point in their life, and a litany of young men probably equally talented now sex offenders. These are lives that are being ruined. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness are sensible. I believe that was the word. The noble Lady, Baroness Benjamin said. I don't know whether they're not radical. I hope they are radical, and I hope they solve the problem. But they are sensible solutions.

They seek to close the gaps, and they've taken learnings from other jurisdictions. And I think that that's crucially important here. The whole world is tackling this. We must learn from what other people understand. We don't need to make it all up for ourselves. Not made here is about the worst thing that we keep on seeing in politics, and particularly in the online sphere. So. So, my Lords, I support all the amendments. I wanted to briefly mention just two of them.

First of all, amendment 28, which, which would prohibit ownership of software, which we often call notification apps, is the way that we often call it in. And I just wanted to mention this because a teacher Tapp survey last week found that 1 in 10 teachers were aware of pupils creating deepfake sexually explicit videos, 1 in 10 and the safeguarding lead, who was quoted, warned that deepfakes are new devices and this is the, quote, feel like the next train coming down the track.

And I know a lot of safeguarding staff and this is what they're saying. So can we, as a parliament, as a house, be ahead of the train coming down the track rather than waiting for it to come and ruin our schools? And the children's Commissioner points out in her briefing that supports these amendments very wholeheartedly. I must say again, she says, the president's the presence of notification technology is harming girls, even if they have not been directly targeted by the tools.

Girls report. Withdrawing from the online world, for example, not posting pictures of their full faces to reduce the chances of their faces being trans planted onto a naked body. And my Lords, could we not, could we not as a house stand up for women in the public square? It is not okay. It is so regressive to look at a technology that silences young girls from being able to be participants in this new world. Rightly, this amendment does not create an offence for under eighteens.

And so I have another request of the government, both that they accept the amendment, but they make a commitment here that they will take a broader strategy to tackle deep fake crisis in schools before it is too late. And last week, we did have a debate in which the noble Lord, the Minister Hanson, said. This issue sits with DSIT, not the Home Office. And I do understand that this particular issue to which I'm addressing could sit with DSIT and DfE, but the government as a whole has a commitment to children, and the government as a whole has made a commitment to stop or halve violence against women and girls.

And I will do a shout out here and say that men do experience violence, but it is primarily women and girls. So unless the government starts to act more swiftly about our concerns of technology facilitated sexual abuse, it will be failing both in its responsibility to children and its commitment to women and girls. Briefly, I wanted to mention another amendment which is 3.14, which creates parity between laws which regulate pornography online and offline, and it is a perennial cause of harm that the tech sector lacks accountability.

And this lack of accountability, the lack of parity seen through the lens of pornography, is the very definition of tech exceptionalism, protected by tens of millions of lobbying dollars, the laws that apply to the rest of our lives and society do not apply in technological sphere, and it is a problem. This is at the heart of the problem that we're discussing. Pornography has been a major engine of the tech sector. It's worth billions of dollars, responsible for millions of downloads, and is a significant driver of online traffic.

There is a reason that OpenAI recently announced that ChatGPT would permit erotic content for verified adults. It's a money spinner, my Lords tech delivered online pornography has changed the sexual appetites of men. I attended one meeting in which a survivor of sexual violence said survivor of sexual violence said what he saw online gave my and tacit We need parity, and parity is what the amendment demands. So, my Lords, finally, I really want to say something to the government, which is the amendments we debated in the previous group in my name about children, the amendments that we will shortly get to in the noble Lady Owen's name about intimate image abuse.

And this set of amendments should be seen as one. This is the commitment the government made to women and girls, and I really do hope that nobody on the government benches who have given us so much support in the past, will at report vote against these amendments en masse, because we will be back unless the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady, the Minister, has something fabulous to say today. Well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done. What. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What. My Lords. I became a practitioner at the bar as a young woman in the late bar as a young woman in the late 70s, and I have to tell you that it was a regular thing, that freedom of expression was used as the excuse for justifying sometimes
16:32
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
pretty horrific porn. And when there were discussions about this amongst lawyers, it almost amongst lawyers, it almost invariably was that it was women being prudish that were basically being prudish that were basically not understanding that erotica. And it was always that erotica was used it was always that erotica was used as the word rather than pornography. That erotica was, was, was something that was really rather something that was really rather benign and that, in fact, had no effect upon behaviour.

It has taken decades for that viewpoint to be challenged and research to be done, to show the links between behaviours and being exposed to extreme pornography. And it doesn't have to be that extreme. Actually, one of the things that young women at the bar tell me now is that it is almost invariable that when the the computers of people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who are. Brought to court for allegations of rape, sexual violations of all of rape, sexual violations of all kinds is almost invariable, that when the computers are examined, when the computers are examined, it's full of pornography. The link between pornography and violation, serious violation of women is now serious violation of women is now well established. And it's not about benign erotica. We're talking about the ways in which we've added to the menu of possibilities, but often giving a guidance to young men as to how to perform sexually, which does not involve any kind of tenderness and intimacy, but actually is about objectifying women's bodies and dealing with them in ways that are abusive, not hearing resistance or nose, and and never finding out whether something is acceptable.

The last time I wrote a book about the law 2018, and it was then republished a few years later about after the Harvey Weinstein scandal, it was very interesting. The book was put out, as nowadays happens, was being put onto audio, and I was doing the reading myself. And while I was doing it, a young woman was the technician in the in the sort of sound lab where this was being done. And, and she there was a piece of the book about pornography and the way in which it was impacting on sexual offending and the the serious influence that it brings to bear on on the behaviour of many of the men who were coming before the courts.

And, and she said to me, you know, I watch pornography every single day. And I said, oh, and I said, why? And she said, because I wanted to know how to do sex. I wanted to know how it was done. And she said, but I've now become addicted to it, and it now has replaced for her the possibility of having real sexual relationships. And it was it was a confiding. It was a sort of confessional box thing of her saying, what can I do to change my life about it? Because I find that it's the only thing that can give me relief.

And it was quite a shock to me, as someone who thinks that I know most of the things that happen under the human conditions, spread of behaviours. But here was this young woman, who was probably only about 18, describing how she herself was now addicted and how she'd come to do it because boys felt that she was no good when it came to sexual behaviour. And I just want to to say why I readily support Baroness Burton's amendments.

I really pay tribute to you because over the years, when I've had to be exposed to pornography, because it's part of the evidence in a case that I would be doing. And now, let me tell you, in war crimes, increasingly, the presence of on phones of young soldiers all across the world, there is a high level of pornography, and it leads increasingly to really vile and terrible abuses of women in conflict. And, and looking at that stuff that you've had to look at.

Baroness Burton, I really I really feel that we owe you. We owe you for the experience that you've had to, to bear, because people don't realise just the, the toll that that can take on somebody. And, and I have to tell you that I was in chambers without you, I'm afraid not sitting here any longer, Lord Thomas. And indeed Lord Carlile and indeed the famous writer Sir John Mortimer, who wrote the Rumpole series, and John Mortimer, a great believer in freedom of expression, had done a number of cases around literature and freedom of expression or other explicit novels, and and he then was pursued by the porn industry and offered great sums of money if he would act in porn cases, which indeed on occasions he did.

He said he used to take his glasses off because it was the only way that he could actually live with looking at the stuff he was having to watch. And and we were all offered the opportunity of inheriting his porn practice when he left the bar. And I have to tell you, none of us were very interested in doing it because of that toll that it takes on the human imagination. And when you want a mind that is not contaminated by this stuff in your expressions of love and intimacy, I have to tell you, it's men who are doing this stuff say that there are times when they can't dismiss it.

And so, you know, we've got to learn from the reality of this. This is poison and it poisons our children, and it's poisoning many of the menfolk who probably sit in this house. And all I'm saying is that we have to really find ways of dealing with it, and it's going to be difficult. I have supported Baroness Burton's, the four of her amendments, the one of the mimicking of children. And I can tell you very clearly that that is a real problem that we have currently.

The business of depicting incest, the poison that that brings into households and and so on. And we heard it discussed only last week and, and disturbed so many people when a Baroness Kidron described bots now doing that and the inability, it would seem, not to be able to prosecute because it's not a human who's at the other end of it, then the business of not verifying age adequately serious problems that we have. And I think that one of the things that is inhibiting the response of jurisdictions, and I think ours might be one of them, is that we are concerned not to lose the confidence of the the tech rose, who are the billionaires who are making so much money out of many of the ways in which new technology exploits this and makes an incredible amount of money out of it.

And so regulation and deregulation is, is is one of the great Trumpian boasts that we shouldn't have our world inhibited by regulation. There are some areas where you need regulation, and this is most definitely one of them. And we need all of us together to become coming together and not feeling that we have to be adjacent to the American way. And so I really do urge the government, and I hope that this is not an example of and it sometimes happens with governments of all complexions, that there is a resistance to taking amendments which have largely been promoted by, if you like, the other side, Baroness Bertin has the support of women around this house and men and men.

And so please, I say to the government, listen to the to these submissions to you, they're being made because of the real detriment to our society and to the quality of life that is being created by virtue of this stuff. And I did a report not very long ago for Scotland around sexual harassment in the street, in the public square. And what was very clear was that disinhibition online is what leads to disinhibition in other places and in the public square.

It's why we're having, you know, young women out for an evening, suddenly being abused by men as they're coming out of pubs and asking to have sex with them and talking about the size of their of their breasts or the size of their behinds, and speaking in the most revolting way to women. And, and what the women were saying was, I go home feeling degraded. I feel that I do not have the equality and dignity that is being promised to me in this new world in which we like to imagine that men and women are going to be treated as well as each other.

And so I really do urge this House to go with the amendment 314 of the parity, online and offline of pornography, because we have to start regulating this stuff. And if we don't do it soon, we'll pay an incredible price.
16:42
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment 314. And the others in this group, it's shocking that this group, it's shocking that there is a disparity between between the way that online pornography is regulated compared pornography is regulated compared to offline pornography. It rather makes a mockery of regulation in the offline sector, since anyone can circumvent it by watching material online, which is banned offline, as we've heard, material that is prohibited offline is prolific online. This includes content that depicts and or promotes child sexual abuse, incest, and harmful sexual acts such as sexual strangulation.

The fact that the existing offline system of regulation has not been applied to the online world is a symptom of legislation not keeping pace with technological advances in the online world. Well, now is a golden opportunity to put that right. Mainstream pornography sites host a vast amount of harmful content. Not only is this an inducement to participate in serious criminal activity, but young people and boys and young men in particular who access it, are growing up with a totally warped view of what constitutes a normal, loving relationship.

This must surely risk seriously damaging their future prospects of forming long and meaningful relationships in the future. We owe it to our younger generation to put this right and to protect them from this horrific material. Why on earth is access to such material not regulated effectively when exactly the same content offline is? It shows a naivety about the content and extent of damaging online material, and the ease with which young and easily influenced minds can access it.

The fact there is no effective regulation of the age at which this material can be accessed is shameful. It needs to be put right urgently, and I urge the government to seize this opportunity and accept amendments 292 and 314 and the others in this group, is there anything we debate in this chamber children?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh my Lord, my Lords, I rise to. Thank you. I, I support all the amendments in this group so well amendments in this group so well put forward by Baroness Burt and Baroness Kidron, Baroness Kennedy and Baroness Benjamin. But I and Baroness Benjamin. But I particularly wanted to say a few words about 298 in the name of Lady words about 298 in the name of Lady Burton. I've been really alarmed by this. I was first alerted by my
16:45
Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-
-
this. I was first alerted by my friend Laura Bates in her book, talking about the new DeFi acts, the new DeFi apps, and how young children can be when they can get targeted as young as 8 or 9, and that this can happen to them in school, completely unaware. And suddenly there's a picture of them naked circulating around. And a lot of girls want to drop out of school because of it. It's not an accident that this is happening. This is driven by money, and this is driven by commerce and by capitalism.

It is not in any way inevitable that this happens, something that is made by man, probably in this case, but maybe by a woman can be certainly put right by a government and certainly by all of us. It is the result of a design choice, a market choice and a policy choice. And we can change it. We can. These apps are designed to strip girls photos and create sexualised images of them, often in seconds. They are incredibly easy to use, quite terrifyingly.

And I challenge anyone in this house who hasn't done it just to type in. Can I have a new defy? You'll get it in a minute. And you can. My my great niece, who I work with, did it to herself. And the absolutely super weird thing about it is that it does not give you the body of Claudia Schiffer or Kate Moss or something, that obviously you are. It gives you the kind of body that you are. So the reality of it is very, very stark and very, very horrible.

And girls are being harassed and threatened and coerced and manipulated before they even really understand what is happening. There is one major app that produces 200,000 fake nude images every day, and we are on track for 8 million of these deepfake images every year. They are an entire industry which is functioning somewhere and taking money and doing this to our children. And the police cannot act until after the harm has occurred and schools can't react. Act pre-emptively. The platforms claim that they're not responsible because this is a tool.

It is not them. It's like passing off the responsibility. They just exist to facilitate sexual abuse, for which very few people have to at the moment, pay a price. I would also like to say something that I think has happened that hasn't been mentioned very much in this debate. I am an ambassador, a patron of a group called The Avengers, which seeks to stop but vaginal mutilation. And one of the things that they have noticed, one of the person who runs it, she is Turkish, and she has noticed now that the primary primary form of cosmetic surgery in Turkiye now is young women, not actually all young, coming to Turkiye to have their vaginas reconstructed, to look like vaginas that you see in pornography, which look like 13 year old girls.

So they are going to Turkiye to have their labia cut off, and someone who herself is the child of a slave and an extraordinary woman says, you can always tell when you're on the return plane from Istanbul, because there's a lot of young women fidgeting because they're in pain. And it seems to me this is an extension of the world that we have arrived in and we have allowed to happen. That is shocking. This is affecting. My granddaughter is three, and I look at her and I think in 4 or 5 years time, she could be the victim of this.

I have been, as you know, in this house. You know, I got into this 55 years ago, and if anyone had told me then that the day would come when I'd have to ask someone not to be able to have an app that would take my granddaughter's clothes off and make her a neurotic, unhappy young woman because she's sexually not like the thing she sees in pornography. And my grandson, who's also three, going through the kind of things that I think young men did, well, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

We have fought all of us in this House as women, long and hard through the years of different ages, but all of us women have fought to get where we are, and we really owe it. And this government owes it back to the next generation of children. And I'm very grateful to all the Baroness Bertin and the younger women of Charlotte Irwin for the work they've done. And I can only say I wish that I was not on this journey with you, that it didn't exist.
16:49
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson Portrait Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. My Lord Saatchi. Burton's amendments. And I particularly like to talk about amendment 314. There is no debate about whether certain pornography is harmful. Parliament settled that question decades ago. There is no debate about whether it's right for Parliament to ban harmful pornography. We already do. We are merely debating whether we have the determination to apply our existing laws to the latest distribution channels. In the early 80s, we saw a dramatic increase of video cassette recorders in the home and the subsequent emergence of video nasties.

And in that era, Parliament was quick to catch up to the latest technological innovation. And as we've heard, the 1984 Video Recording Act was passed with cross-party support. As a result, pornography released on physical formats is and has always been strictly regulated in the UK. In 2003, Parliament extended those protections through the Communications Act to ensure that UK based video on demand services, including those that specialise in pornography, could not distribute content that the British Board of Film Classification would refuse to classify.

Amendment 314 simply takes the definition of harmful content in the 2003 Communications Act, and applies it to online pornography with a proper framework for enforcement. My Lords, 41 years ago, we said that harmful content could not be distributed on video cassettes. 22 years ago, we said it couldn't be distributed through video on demand services. Now it is time to close the gap in the law, which allows it to be legally distributed on the internet. Turning to amendments 291 and 290. As we've heard, these would ensure that incest material and depictions of child sexual abuse in online pornography are made illegal.

My friend, my noble friend Baroness Burton and others have already outlined the immense damage that this content does. My Lords, I welcome the government's commitment to end the depiction of strangulation in online pornography, not least because it demonstrates their conviction that such material can be banned. All it requires is political will. I hope the House will find that same political will to make pornography that mimics child sex abuse or portrays incest illegal. I also support amendment 292, which introduces a statutory duty for platforms to verify the age and consent of individuals who feature in pornography.

It's the bare minimum we need to start tackling the rampant exploitation in porn industry. I'd like to conclude by returning to my starting point. In previous generations, when the technology has advanced from cinema to video, from video to streaming, Parliament has acted. Today is no different. We've acted because, as the sponsor of the Video Recording Act said 40 years ago, an incredibly, producers and suppliers of this base and debasing material have only one aim to supply the worst elements of human nature for profit.

We've acted because we've long known that violent porn the type of pornography that depicts acts which are illegal in real life, is damaging. At no point have we, as a parliament or a society, proactively debated and agreed to accept the type of abusive pornography which is now mainstream and widespread on the internet. No Minister from any government has stood at the despatch box and argued that the public have a right to watch scenes depicting incest or child sex abuse. I doubt any Minister would.

No Minister has made the case that this material is harmless and no Minister could. Given the evidence we've heard today, we allow this material to proliferate not because we think it's harmless, not because we think it's a matter of free speech, but because we think it is hard to stop. It is hard. But I'm hopeful. Today we have a regulator who's beginning to make great strides in tackling illegal material online. We have a regulator with 40 years of experience of video classification, and we have a government who, to echo the words of the noble Lady the Minister previously used, is profoundly, profoundly committed to halving violence against women and girls.

And so today we have an opportunity to close this unconscionable gap in the law. And here.
16:53
Viscount Colville of Culross Portrait Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-
-
Here I to support all the amendments in the name of Lady amendments in the name of Lady Burton. But I'd also like to speak particularly on amendment 298. As particularly on amendment 298. As other noble Lords have pointed out, these new duplication apps are horrific and bring untold harm to horrific and bring untold harm to women and men who are victims of them. They are so prevalent in schools they are effectively normalised, shocking and shaming thousands of children on a daily basis.

As my noble friend Baroness Boycott has just pointed out, Ofcom did this week find that the app nudity for failing to implement mandatory age verification measures under the OSR. However, amendment 298, if accepted, will increase the pressure on Ofcom and the government to close down all notification apps, both for children and adults alike. As with the AI companion amendment. In the name of my noble friend Baroness Kidron, which was debated last week, this is yet another new technology which has not foreseen in the Online Safety Act.

Despite your lordships best efforts to future proof protections for users, there will always be new functionalities and technologies created which will need your Lordship's attention. Notification apps are just the latest in what will be a long line of new tech harms. The problem is that at the moment, there is a voluntary agreement for the big app stores not to sell the notification apps, but they are still being downloaded and are freely available on smaller app stores. Unfortunately, I do not believe voluntary protections by the tech companies work your Lordships only have to look at the Bletchley summit agreement, in which tech companies signed up voluntarily to.

Publish the safety testing of new AI models prior to the release. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened in many instances and in some egregious cases of failure to comply with this commitment. Though some AI models which appear to have mundane uses but which can subsequently be adapted for the notification purpose, these models need to be safety tested to ensure that they can't create these harms, and in this case, notification and as Have has just been explained, the present voluntary agreement is not creating adequate protection in this space.

I believe this amendment will go a long way to remedy this lacuna in the law and
16:56
16:57
Baroness Berger Portrait Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
-
film and go on and carry out what the film did. I happen to have dealt with one of the Bulger dealt with one of the Bulger killers cases. They, I was told, were watching a pornographic film, were watching a pornographic film, which was the father of one of the two boys. They went out immediately two boys. They went out immediately and did exactly what the film did, which is why they killed the Bulger which is why they killed the Bulger child.

They followed the pornographic film. It didn't, of course, stop them being convicted of murder. But if that can happen to ten year olds, there are very large number of people who are absolutely vulnerable to be doing exactly what they watch. So it is yet another reason I wish to give for why we should support these amendments. And we do have on the front bench among the Ministers, those who are really caring. And I do hope, therefore, you can not only listen to us but do something.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. It's a privilege to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a privilege to follow Baroness Burt and Baroness Kidron Baroness Benjamin Baroness Caine Kennedy Baroness Boycott, Baroness Kennedy Baroness Boycott, Baroness Sherlock, Viscount Colville and Baroness Butler-Sloss, all of whom I think have made very significant I think have made very significant contributions. I don't wish to reiterate what's been said too much, but I do want to rise today in but I do want to rise today in support of amendments to 90 2912922989823 and four that have been tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, concerning the issues of sexualising children, pornography that mimics abuse and notification.

And I would also like to put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness for her important and vital work in this area, and also recognise the toll that it must have taken, the consumption of violent pornography is really having a devastating effect on adults, but also on the children that are being exposed to it. And we've heard the research from the children's Commissioner that indicates that the average age at which children in the UK are first seeing pornography to be around the age of 13, but a substantial minority are encountering it significantly earlier, including in our primary schools.

And it is at this moment that I should declare an interest. I have two primary age children. I have a daughter who is eight and I have a son who is six, and I am terrified at the prospect of either of them being exposed to this type of material. We know that this material is having an adverse effect on hundreds of thousands of people in our country, on their physical health, on their sexual health, and on their mental health. And I want to just touch on a couple of areas that are particularly concerning, particularly those of pornography that mimics abuse and notification.

We know for too long that companies hosting pornographic content have been allowed to host whatever material they like online, regardless of its harm. I would echo some of the comments that have been made that it's extraordinary that we have a situation where it's not allowed offline, but it's allowed online, and anyone can reach it from the, from the from the comfort of their pocket and their phone that they hold. And amendment 290 makes it an offence to glorify or advocate child sexual abuse.

I don't know how anyone can question the aims of that amendment. It's absolutely critical. And we heard about it on the last day of committee, and it's both repulsive and shameful. But it's worth reiterating that the UK is the third largest consumer of child sexual abuse. Videos that are streamed from the Philippines. We rightly have laws on hate speech in this country. We must equally have laws that deal with this type of heinous advocation of child sexual abuse. This is not something over there.

This is something that is happening every single day in our country, and we have to take responsibility for it. Amendment 291 similarly deals with the sexualisation of children by bringing depictions of incest into the law on extreme pornography, pornography, and it is unfathomable that content depicting incest is so easily and readily available online. I believe that amendment 291 is absolutely vital, and it's a very straightforward amendment that simply expands the definition of extreme pornography to include incest. And I support amendment 292, which would ensure that no actual child is featured in pornography by making it a legal requirement for pornography platforms to ensure that everyone who appears in images and videos are over the age of 18.

That seems like very common sense to me, and we know that research shows us that child sexual abuse materials are easily being found on mainstream pornography sites. Pornography users themselves have said that they have come across child sexual abuse materials easily, easily on some of the biggest and most well known pornography sites in the world. And this amendment seeks to stop this proliferation of CSAM on those sites. It also ensures that anyone who appears in pornographic content has given their consent for the contents to be uploaded online.

It is horrific to learn that it is all too common for videos of sexual violence and sexual assault to be uploaded onto pornography sites and sold as entertainment. There is a there's many stories, but there is one story that really struck me for the urgent need for this amendment, and that's of a woman called Rose Kalumba. Rose was just 14 when she was raped by two men at knifepoint, and she later found videos of that attack on Pornhub.

And those videos had been viewed over 400,000 times with grotesque and horrific titles. She repeatedly asked that website to take those videos down, but they refused. And instead not only that site, but other sites were also making money off the horrific abuse that Rose suffered. There are many other cases, I just point to that one, but I think it just reinforces why these amendments are so important. And I just conclude also to add my support to amendment 298, which makes the possession of notification software illegal.

We know these apps, and we've heard already that the apps and websites are now ubiquitous. They're even being marketed to and accessed by children. They are using generative AI to allow users to create this this material, which is deeply harmful. And whilst the Online Safety Act criminalises the sharing of explicit AI generated images, the acts themselves remain legal and widely available. And I would encourage noble Lords if you haven't had the opportunity, there's a really, really affecting podcast hosted by The Guardian called Black Box, which charts the experience of women in a quiet town in southern Spain.

It was the town of Almendralejo, and it was the case of girls right across this town, some as young as 14, that discovered that their classmates had used this notification app to generate fake nude images of them. It came to light when a local doctor revealed that one of her own daughter had been targeted. These manipulated images were spread among their peers. It was causing harm, humiliation, emotional trauma, absolutely horrific. And we know that this technology can impact on entire schools and colleges and communities, even geographic areas.

And when you hear women and girls speak about the trauma that they experience when they are the subjects of deepfake pornography in education, it should be of serious concern to us all the mental and emotional impact of this abuse on women and girls is so profound. The existence of these tools, and the constant threat of being a victim of notification, is also having a chilling effect on women across this country. We know that in the past, police have really struggled to prosecute users of apps such as Cloth Off, which was one of these notification apps, particularly as the technology spreads faster than regulations keep up.

So I certainly believe that we must be doing everything possible to make this type of technology illegal as a matter of urgency, and I support all the amendments in this group.
17:05
17:06
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
To support these amendments. Can I make two points additional to the powerful. >> Factors that have. >> Been addressed so far? The first is, I'm very concerned to hear from Baroness Bertin that the government Baroness Bertin that the government have not yet responded in full to her review. Can the Minister, when she replies, tell us why that is, given the importance of the subject and when there will be a full response? That's my first point. My second point is that although I support the objective of amendment 314, that is to apply the same principles to material online as to material offline, I'm very doubtful that the way that amendment 314 seeks to achieve this is is sensible, because what amendment 314 seeks to do is to incorporate 314 seeks to do is to incorporate by reference to section 368E3A and section 368E3B of the Communications Act 2003.

That's what it refers to. But those provisions simply refer to the decisions and the criteria of the British Board of Film Classification, without specifying the criteria applied by that body. And in fact, the criteria which that body applies as set out in its guidelines are helpful, but they're not categorical. It says, for example, I quote. Exceptions are most likely in the following areas, unquote. And Baroness Burton helpfully set out the factors that they have regard to.

Now, this is perfectly appropriate in the context of the BBFC, from whose decisions appeals are possible. It's appropriate because the context there is the licensing of an R 18 video, which, of course can only be sold in a licensed sex shop. But we are here concerned with criminal law, which needs to be defined with precision so that people know exactly what it is that cannot be published on line. So I think that we need to set out in a revised amendment 314, which I hope the government will accept in principle.

We need to set out in specific terms what it is that Parliament is prohibiting online, such as material which depicts conduct in breach of the criminal law, or material which depicts non-consensual sexual conduct, or material which appears to suggest non sexual non-consensual sexual conduct. There may well be other categories, but let's set them out so that everybody knows what is prohibited online.
17:09
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support the. >> Amendments in this group. >> It is shameful that we haven't yet legislated for parity between the regulation of online and the regulation of online and offline pornography, and that we are so very late in playing catch up. What people can view online at up. What people can view online at a couple of clicks, including children often diverted to this sort of stuff without asking for it, is horrifying. As Baroness Burton's report stated, over half 11 to 13 year olds have seen pornography, often accidentally, and many have seen appalling images of choking or strangulation or sex where one partner is asleep, which is, of course, a nonconsensual act.

Rape therapists and frontline practitioners often describe a growing number of clients, stating that porn consumption led them to child sexual abuse material. In the late 1980s, the Home Office commissioned a study which showed that there were fewer than 10,000 child sexual abuse images available online today. It is conservatively estimated that worldwide, that number of child sexual abuse images is 70 to 80 million. The internet has become a place where you can search for and find absolutely anything, and if you can't find it, you can create it yourself using AI and Llms that are on the market with no guardrails.

For example, generative AI can and has been used in order to create pictures of someone's older self abusing their younger self, including in one series of images. That self as an eight year old abusing their self as a two year old. This is not a problem of the dark web. This is available easily at a few clicks on popular social media sites. One social media site alone hosts and facilitates by far the greatest number of cases of sextortion, and has in a number of cases.

This has led to young people taking their own lives, and bad actors are also exploiting generative AI to sexually extort. Com groups are driving abuse and exploitation behaviours that are unimaginable, including cutting competitions where the winner is the person who cuts the deepest. Other Com groups are used by adults, bad actors to gather most vulnerable children to to groom most vulnerable children and control them to engage in the most horrifying acts, including suicide. One survivor described watching multiple suicides in one group.

Children are using social media to create their own payment models for live sex shows like The One the recent TV series Wild Cherry showed, but much, much, much worse. More than half of the 107,000 child sexual abuse and exploitation cases recorded in 2022, a figure which is quadrupled in the last ten years, were committed by children. Pornography has to play a large part in this Baroness Burt amendments have the support of the NSPCC, CCE, the Charles, the Children's Commissioner and many other organisations.

We must listen to them. It will be completely morally irresponsible for us as guardians of children, not to enact. Now. Lastly, when we were here at the last committee session, the noble Lord, the Minister, promised me a meeting with the appropriate person officials to talk about my amendment to allow new technology, which is now available to block out child sexual abuse material. He indicated that officials were unsure whether this technology works. Since then, I have met with the providers of this technology again and they had assured me that it does work, certainly for young children, and that they are in active dialogue at a senior level with the head of the technical solutions team at the Home Office with DSIT, the Internet Watch Foundation, the NCA and GCHQ.

I very much look forward to that meeting. I should just say I don't think this is going to happen. I'm fully aware of the rules, but I have committed to a radio interview, so it's just possible I may not be here till the end, but I think I will be and I apologise if I'm not.
17:14
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lady Burton's amendments. In doing so, I pay tribute to her hard work and her review. I fully support all her amendments but will focus my remarks on a couple. I declare my interest as a guest of Google at their future forum, an AI policy conference, and my interest is receiving pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya for my work on intimate image abuse. On amendment 202, it is vital that we always remember consent is a live process, and our law should protect those who have featured in pornographic content and wish to withdraw their consent, no matter how long after publication.

One on one content creator said that A lot of the videos I have no rights under, otherwise I would probably have deleted them all by now, and went on to describe it as the stigma that will follow her around for the rest of her life. Given the huge scale of the porn industry, it is vital that our law protects those who feature and offers them recourse to remove their content should they wish to. Amendment 298 making the possession of software to create or amend digitally produced, sexually explicit photograph or film an offence.

I was delighted that we passed legislation in the Data Act that firmly placed in law a woman's right to choose who owns intimate content of her. However, my noble friend Lady Burton is right to highlight that it does not completely stop the use of nullification apps that have rapidly proliferated with the dawn of AI research by campaign group My Image, My Choice found that one app processed 600,000 images in its first three weeks after launch. It is important to note that this technology facilitates a disproportionately sexist form of abuse.

The training data used is of women's bodies, meaning that the output is also of women's bodies. As I have previously stated in the House, Internet Matters found that teenagers saw sexually explicit deepfakes as worse than real images, for reasons such as lack of autonomy and awareness of the image. The anonymity of the perpetrator, and the ways in which the image may be manipulated to portray the victim. The Girlguiding survey found that 59% of 11 to 21 year olds were concerned that AI may be used to create fake images of them online.

The accessibility of this technology quite simply facilitates the gamification of abuse, and I believe we must take this opportunity to put a stop to it.
17:17
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, we've heard some very >> My Lords, we've heard some very powerful and. Emotional speeches today, and I very much hope that today, and I very much hope that having seen the support, the unanimous support all round the House, that the Minister will be responding positively today and I rise today to add our wholehearted support for the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness Bertin, and to which I would have added my name to all of them if there had been space on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my Lords, this has been, I think, quite a dark debate. But as we've heard from the noble Baroness Bertin there, the direct evidence based conclusions of her independent pornography review, and I very much welcome the questions that the noble Lord Pannick has asked about why there hasn't been a response to that review. Creating a Safer world. It analysed 132,000 videos, as I understand, and clearly established an unambiguous link between the consumption of extreme pornography and violence against women and girls, both online and offline.

And as a noble Baroness Grender said, it is poison and as the noble Baroness Kidron and Baroness Boycott said, it's motivated by money. And I think as the noble Baroness Shawcroft Wilson said, it is the worst end of human nature for profit. My Lords, and we've heard today from all around the House, my Lords, the emotional impact on young women and girls in particular is something that all of us are extremely mindful of. So I want to, however, acknowledge some progress that the government has made my Lords, in anticipating the amendments that they're going to bring forward in terms of the possession and publication of pornographic images portraying strangulation and suffocation in their amendments, 294 and 295 later, my Lords, the noble Baroness Bertin review found that such content is rife on mainstream platforms and has normalised, life threatening violence to the extent that 58% of young people have seen it.

And so I do welcome the government's moves to close that specific gap, my Lords. But while the government has addressed the issue of strangulation, these amendments address the remaining glaring legislative gaps identified by the review. And, my Lords, we cannot shut the door on one form of extreme violence while leaving the windows wide open for others. Amendment 314 seeks to establish a fundamental principle parity between the online and the offline worlds. As the noble Baroness Bertin and other noble Lords have explained.

And since 1984, we prohibited content offline that the British Board of Film Classification would refuse to classify, such as material promoting non-consensual acts or sexual violence. And again, like the noble Lord Pannick, I very much hope that given the, I think, extremely effective way the BBFC has carried out its duties, that we won't find it too difficult to find a way of sharpening that amendment to make sure that there is a very clear definition of the kind of content online that is equivalent to that offline that we're seeking to regulate.

My Lords, in terms of amendments 290 and 291, these address content that mimics child sexual abuse and incest, incest and the noble Baroness review highlighted that teen is one of the most frequently searched terms, often leading to videos featuring performers styled with props like lollipops and school uniforms to look underage. Experts working with sex offenders have made it clear viewing this type of violent or age play pornography is a key risk factor. Men who offend against children are 11 times more likely to watch violent pornography than those who do not, and by allowing this content to proliferate, we are effectively hosting a training ground for abuse.

These amendments would extend the definition of extreme pornography to cover these specific harmful depictions. Amendment 292 introduces a duty for pornography websites to verify not just age, but consent. And we know that the average age of entry into trafficking for pornography in the US is just 12.8 years. Currently, once a video is online, a woman who's been coerced, trafficked, or simply changed her mind often has no legal mechanism to withdraw that consent. And what the noble Baroness Berger had to say in that respect, I thought, was particularly telling.

This amendment provides a necessary right to erasure, ensuring that platforms must remove content if consent is withdrawn. If the banking sector can verify identity to secure our finances, the multi-billion-pound pornography industry can verify identity to secure human dignity. Amendment 298 addresses the rapid rise of AI beautification apps. And as my noble friend Baroness Benjamin said, the Internet Watch Foundation reported a 380% increase in AI generated child exploitation imagery between 2023 and 2024. A staggering figure, my Lords.

These tools are being weaponised to humiliate women and children. This amendment would criminalise the possession of software designed to create non-consensual nude images. Cloning, closing a loophole before it widens further. And I would add to what the noble Lord Viscount Colville had to say in terms of the need for wider guardrails on large language models. My Lords, I hope in future government legislation, my Lords, the government has rightly recognised the harm of strangulation content and I urge them now to accept the logic of their own position and support these additional amendments to deal with incest, child mimicking content and the fundamental issue of consent.

My Lords, as the noble Baroness Boycott said, we should be ashamed of ourselves, and I hope that we now ensure that the legislation catches up with the legislation catches up with the reality of the digital age.
17:24
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I begin by >> My Lords, can I begin by thanking my noble friend, Lady Burton, not just for bringing and speaking to these amendments today, speaking to these amendments today, but for the excellent work that she has done in this area, work that she continues to do, and work that, by all accounts, has taken its toll. She has been campaigning for a long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time on these matters and deserves so much praise from all of us. Yeah. When I first discussed these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When I first discussed these amendments with my noble friend, Lady Burton, I have to say I could hardly believe what she was telling hardly believe what she was telling me. But essentially, the underlying premise of all these amendments is premise of all these amendments is that certain forms of extreme pornography are still allowed, pornography are still allowed, despite the fact they have been proven to have a highly damaging impact on the on development and behaviour of young boys and adolescents, not to mention the exploitation of children, the exploitation of women and the so many potential victims and victims.

Indeed, of this subject matter, we have heard some very compelling speeches this evening from noble Baroness Burt Baroness Kidron Baroness Bennett Baroness Benjamin in particular, in support of these amendments. And there are so many different perspectives at which one can look at them. One perhaps slightly personal perspective from me is that of a father of teenage children. I have teenage sons. Like all teenagers, they are bombarded with technology. They are challenged by social media. They are confronted with the unlimited scope that access to the internet can provide with all its positive possibilities, but also with all its temptations and in particular, the dangers inherent in online pornography of an extreme nature.

My sons, in effect, are the target audience of much of this material, and I do not want this to be the new normal. As one of my noble friends described it, the noble Baroness Lloyd Kennedy spoke of poison and how we have to find ways of dealing with it. And I concur completely. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who said so powerfully that technology is outpacing regulation, and that is the real danger here. Or is my noble friend Baroness Shawcross.

Wolfson said we have to close the loopholes. My noble friend, Lady Burton, has highlighted that at present we criminalise child sexual abuse in all its forms. Thus, we criminalise sexual activity within certain family relationships, and we criminalise the making of indecent images of children. And yet, astonishingly, online content that depicts fantasises about or encourages these same criminal acts is legally and widely. Amendment 290 confronts the deeply troubling reality that material which appears to portray a child even when the performer is an adult, can be used to groom, normalise or encourage sexual interest in children.

And we know that that material is not harmless. Fantasy law enforcement, child protection organisations, international research bodies have all warned that material appearing to depict children fuels harmful attitudes and increases the risk that individuals progress to towards real world offending. But crucially, amendment 290 also creates a new offence of producing or distributing material that glorifies or encourages sexual activity with a child or with a family member. No one in this chamber needs reminding that such conduct itself is criminal and profoundly harmful.

Yet text based audio and visual material explicitly celebrating child abuse and incest remains widely, widely accessible on mainstream pornography sites and user generated content platforms. And the law. I must suggest, should recognise the role of such material in grooming. Desensitisation, desensitisation and normalisation of abuse. Amendment 291 addresses the glaring inconsistency whereby extreme pornographic content is prohibited in many contexts. Yet explicit depictions of unlawful sexual acts between family members, including those involving persons described or portrayed as under 18, are not necessarily captured by existing legislation.

Incest, of course, is a criminal offence, reflecting both the safeguarding imperative and the inherent power balance within some familial relationships and yet again, pornographic content, portraying in a sense incest, often stylised to appear illicit, coercive or involving younger family members remains permissible to host, cell and distribute online. So long it is so long as it is performed by adults. This amendment does not criminalise lawful adult behaviour. It criminalises the possession of extreme pornographic images depicting acts that would themselves be criminal if performed in reality.

Once again, the principle is one of consistency. What is an offence offline should not be freely commodified online under the guise of entertainment. Finally, amendment 292 addresses concerns regarding mandatory age and consent verification for those appearing in pornography hosted online. Despite the measures in the Online Safety Act, there are still platforms that do not have systems in place to verify the age of those involved in such material. Thus, the reality is that huge volumes of pornographic content are uploaded with no verification whatsoever, no verification of consent, no verification of age, and no record keeping to support claims of either.

And we have heard stark evidence that minors have been found in mainstream pornographic content, that adult performance have had videos published without their consent or retained after they sought removal, and that platforms profit from this without meaningful accountability. My Lords, in conclusion, these amendments do not target free expression. They target exploitation. They do not restrict lawful adult behaviour. They restrict the depiction and monetisation of criminal acts. They do not create new moral codes. They simply insist that that our existing laws protecting children and families apply with equal force online as they do offline.

My Lords, for those reasons, I support all the amendments in this group from my noble friend Lady Burton. And having heard the support from across the house this evening, I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will do to.
17:32
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. It would not be right >> My Lords. It would not be right to begin the government's response to this response to this group of amendments without first thanking amendments without first thanking unequivocally the noble Lady Baroness Bertin. I think the whole House will join with me in saying, House will join with me in saying, we have a great deal to thank her for. She's worked tirelessly on the Independent Pornography Review, and has long campaigned to raise awareness of the ways in which pornography shapes sexual behaviour.

This government shares her determination to ensure that the online world is a safer place for everyone, and we're immensely grateful to her for her insights. My Lords, the motivation for these amendments is important, and I want to make it absolutely clear that I take them seriously. I do not think I have disagreed with a single word that's been said in the impassioned and sometimes angry contributions in this House. My Lords, I share that anger and I share that outrage. The noble Lady Baroness Bertin is aware, following our meeting last week, of the reasons the government will be resisting her amendments at this stage.

But I look forward to continuing our discussions in greater detail over the coming weeks, including meetings which will be my department as well as the Home Office and DSIT as well, and I hope we'll all work closely together, together to achieve our shared objectives. I would also like to take this opportunity to announce that the government will accept, in part one of the noble Ladies recommendations from her pornography review, namely, recommendation 24. The government will review the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give us a chance to look at it holistically and to consider whether it's fit for purpose in an ever developing online world.

Importantly, the review that I am announcing today will look into the effectiveness of the existing law in relation to criminalising, amongst other things, harmful depictions of incest and any forms of pornography which encourage child sexual abuse. I know the noble Lady is anxious that any review should not be used as a delaying tactic to avoid making any decisions, and I hope she will take it from me that it is my wish to make sure that this takes place quickly. In addition, as I mentioned to her when we met, the government is not completely opposed to considering swifter action where this is critically important and I know that we will discuss this further at our next meeting.

Given what I've just said in respect of amendments 2290291 and 292, I hope your lordships will forgive me if I address them briefly in the light of the fact that we are proposing a review. I am very grateful for the contributions of, and I hope I am going to mention everybody, the noble Ladies Baroness Benjamin Baroness Kidron, Baroness Sugg, Marinus Owen, my noble friend, Lady Kennedy, and Lady Bird and Baroness Berger, Lord Clement, noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Cameron of Lochiel.

I appreciate the motivation behind these amendments, and I wish to reassure my noble friend, Lady Kennedy, that I and the government are very much in listening mode. Of course, images of actual child incest or actual child sexual abuse are extremely harmful, and the same is also true for intimate photos or videos shared without consent. And I note the concerns about how effectively this law is being enforced and regulated. I would like to reassure the noble Lady Baroness Bertin that I am committed to working with her on the issues raised by these amendments, and I very much look forward to meeting again to discuss them in greater detail, to see where we can go with them.

Turning now to amendment 298, which would criminalise the possession of beautification tools by users. Once again, I accept the intention behind this amendment. I recognise the harm caused. Indeed. It's a horrifying thing. My noble friend Baroness Burgess spoke movingly about the impact of it on young women. Other noble Lords spoke strongly about this as well. Our concern is that this amendment would not target those who provide these unpleasant tools to users in the UK and additionally, as drafted, it would criminalise the possession of legitimate tools which are designed to create intimate images such as those used in a medical context.

But I reiterate, we have significant sympathy for the underlying objective of this amendment, and so we are actively considering what action is needed to ensure that any intervention in this area is effective. Again, I can assure the noble Baroness that we will reflect carefully on what she and other noble Lords, and those include the noble Ladies, Baroness Kidron, Baroness Boycott, Baroness, my noble friend, Baroness Berger, noble Lady, Baroness Owen, the noble Viscount Viscount Colville, amongst others have said in this debate.

And I can also assure her that we aim to provide an update on this matter ahead of the Report stage. Finally, I turn to amendment 34, which seeks to bring regulatory parity parity between the offline and online pornography. And I commend the noble Lady Baroness Benjamin for her continued advocacy on this topic over the years. The noble Lady Baroness Kidron, for whom huge respect is due in this House and elsewhere, the noble Lord Lord Carter of Haslemere, noble Lady Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson, noble Lord, Lord Nash, amongst others, all spoke powerfully about this.

And I want to stress once again that I am not disagreeing with the motivation that underlines this amendment. No one could disagree with the general principles of common sense, but extensive further work with the noble Lady Baroness Bertin is needed to consider and define with sufficient certainty what currently legal online pornography should not be permitted, and it is important that we make a thorough exploration of the existing legislation and regulation to ensure that any new offences enforceable. It protects users to the highest standard and it works as intended under the Video Recordings Act.

The distribution of pornography on physical media formats is regulated by the BBFC, as we've heard, and obviously the BBFC is not going to classify any content which breaches criminal law. Amendment 34, as drafted, creates a criminal offence which requires a judgement to be made about whether the BBC FCA would classify content which has not, in fact been subject to the classification process. The noble Lord Lord Pannick has expressed concerns about the drafting of this, while supporting the underlying motivation for it.

As I hope your lordships will agree, creating this style of criminal offence requires a clearer and more and more certain definition. Of this pornographic content, as any individual would need to be able clearly to understand what they need to do in order to regulate their conduct so as not inadvertently to commit a criminal offence. In conclusion, my Lords, I hope the noble Lady Baroness Bertin will appreciate the reasons I have set out for the government not supporting these amendments today.

But that said, I hope that the announcement of the review into the criminal law and the government's commitment to working with the noble Lady over the coming weeks will leave her sufficiently reassured to withdraw her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments at this stage. Therefore, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Therefore, the. noble Lady sits down. I just wanted to ask a little bit about the timing, obviously. Her tone is exceptionally welcome and I'll leave the substance to the Baroness leave the substance to the Baroness Burton. But. But you know, I am Burton. But. But you know, I am watching facial recognition, edtech AI being rolled out by the government with impunity. And even earlier today at questions, the tool was put at a higher order than the safety.

And so my question is what is the time frame of reviews? What is the time frame in which we can expect these very urgent questions? Because here's a bill in front of us. When is the next bill coming?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I say to the noble Lady, can you imagine just how unpopular I'll be if I commit to an absolute time be if I commit to an absolute time frame? What I can say is that I hope she will take it from me that I regard this as important. And certainly the meetings with the noble Lady Baroness Bertin have started. This matters, but we do started. This matters, but we do need to get it right. down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down. Will this review, yet another review, take place before Report stage of this bill? Because this is the bill and once Report stage is passed, it's too late. And this is not something that you can leave to be too late. So can we at least have an assurance that Report stage will be timed in a way which enables the noble bonus, the Minister to come back and say, this review has happened, and this is what we're going to do here.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I entirely understand the sentiments. I can't commit to that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sentiments. I can't commit to that today, but I will take it away. Before the noble Lady of the Minister sets down. Perhaps I could Minister sets down. Perhaps I could just give her a little bit of context, because she hasn't been in this house very long, for which this house very long, for which she's probably very grateful. But many of those who are speaking are many of those who are speaking are those of us who were very involved during the Genesis and ultimate passage of the Online Safety Act, and that took six years to happen, and we thought we were being crystal clear in both houses of Parliament when we passed that act, what we intended to happen and what we intended the regulator to do.

And one of the reasons that her colleague, the noble Minister Lord Hanson, got a pretty hard time from this House on the 27th of November, was we felt that there was a certain unwillingness to recognise the degree of frustration that many of us have at the way in which the Online Safety Act is being enacted, and in particular, on the 27th of November, the noble Lady Baroness Berger told us that the Molly Rose Foundation has effectively given up on hoping that Ofcom will actually do its job, because Ofcom has told it that its attitude and strategy in enacting the Online Safety Act in the way it is dealing with these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

large platforms is what it calls tactical ambiguity. Oh dear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I was a lawyer for one of the large platforms having a regulator that was applying tactical that was applying tactical ambiguity would be absolutely wonderful. It would be exactly what I am hoping for. What we are I am hoping for. What we are looking for is action from Her Majesty's Government. And when it happens, we are not looking for any happens, we are not looking for any kind of ambiguity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've already said that I have heard and indeed share the anger and frustration in the House. Your and frustration in the House. Your Lordships' House and I may not have been in your Lordships' House for that long, but I've not been living that long, but I've not been living underneath a stone. And indeed in my previous existence, I'm acutely my previous existence, I'm acutely aware of these debates and what I what is obvious to all of us is that however well-intentioned that however well-intentioned attempts have been in the past, these things are still happening.

And if we want them to stop happening, we've got to do something about it. I don't think I can go further than I've gone at the moment, but all I can say is that the will is there. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness sits down in the Church of England during Robert Ross's time. One time he was exasperated that when matters became very difficult, General Synod would call difficult, General Synod would call for setting up a committee. So he saw the setting up of committees as saw the setting up of committees as a postponing of a decision which ought to be taken. And these ought to be taken. And these inquiries that keep going on and on with the government machinery, with all the lawyers they've got.

I don't see why this could not be looked at before. Report stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The answer that, I'm afraid, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, I can't give that noble Lord, I can't give that commitment today. But he has heard what I've said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what I've said. My Lords, this has been humbling for me, and it's very hard to know how to respond, really. It's it's how to respond, really. It's it's big shoes to fill. After so many amazing speeches. And I think amazing speeches. And I think that's what we call teamwork and showing this, this, this chamber and house at its very best. I want
17:44
Baroness Bertin Portrait Baroness Bertin (Conservative)
-
-
to reassure noble Lords that I still have plenty of petrol left in still have plenty of petrol left in the tank on this issue, and whilst I'm very grateful, though for for the acknowledgement that it has the acknowledgement that it has been quite a gruelling piece of work, but to be perfectly honest, what would damage me more is if we didn't get this right. And so didn't get this right. And so looking back, I'm not prepared to look back and think we could have done more.

And I think many others done more. And I think many others in this House would agree with that. To respond to the government. But I know the noble Minister can't give more assurances than she's given. But I mean, just to give some context, the reason why we're here now, talking about these amendments is because the last government created a review to park the very difficult conversations that were had in the Online Safety Act around this issue. Oh, we'll put it into a review.

When that review publishes, then we'll have the answers. I've given you the answers. I've given you an oven baked plan. And I also want to thank my team on that review and my team today. I had a team of brilliant civil servants working with me on that review. It was an independent review. I was the boss, sure, but it was a properly done thing, right? We did it knowing well, hoping that the government would literally take it and put it into action.

There is no reason why you can't do that. So review, review the law by all means. But please, please come back by Report stage. Because, you know, I worked in number ten for many years. Reviews are just code for kick it into the long grass. And this the house has spoken. We this is we are reflective of the country as well. I. When I accepted to do the pornography review, I did think for five minutes, my God, should I actually do this? Because am I going to be sort of suddenly Mary Whitehouse sort of pictures of the pearl clutching, you know, prude and I have never had so much support.

We've got the media behind it, mainstream media. I have inbox being filled every single day with people saying, for the sake of our sons, for the sake of our daughters, keep going and I will keep going. And I think if this government wants to have legacy, wants to show leadership, then they should just take all of these amendments in full. However, I do accept what Lord Pannick has said. I would love clarity around 314. I think there needs to be a proper debate about what are the what do we need to outlaw, because the greyness is where the industry gets away with just carrying on as they were.

So absolutely. Let's take this away. Let's put the take the greyness away as much as possible and really bring this back properly at report. And I'm happy to have any kind of conversations, happy to do more work for this government. I will do it voluntarily. I will do anything that it takes. But please, please take on board these recommendations and do not leave it for another 510 years before, you know, society is even more damaged. But with that, I beg to what do I beg to do? I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Thank you so much. So now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's your lordships pleasure to an amendment 290 be withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendments 291 and 292 En bloc Baroness Bertin. Not moved. Not moved. Nope. That's fine. That takes us on to the next substantive amendment, which is amendment 293

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment, which is amendment 293 Baroness Brinton. My name is very straightforward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My name is very straightforward and also very necessary for victims of child sexual abuse, and other
17:48
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
offences often do not come forward themselves. At the time of the offences. Research has shown that on average, it takes around three on average, it takes around three decades for a survivor to get the courage to actually come forward. courage to actually come forward. As a result, almost. And, and of course, sorry, even longer to actually get to court. As a result, actually get to court. As a result, almost all abuse claims are brought outside the statutory time limit. And the problem is that if the And the problem is that if the survivor can't convince the court that a fair trial is possible, then the claim falls and the victim can never get justice.

All the various different strands of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which were referred to earlier, including the Westminster Report, the Anglican Church Report, the Catholic Church Report and the Children in Custodial Sentences Report said that it was usually decades after the offences that victims reported on what had happened frequently. This then gave other victims the confidence to come forward as well, in exactly the way that happened. After BBC presenter Nicky Campbell spoke up in 2022 about the abuse at his school, the Edinburgh Academy, decades before.

The abuse there involved arbitrary violence on boys under 11, including choking, throwing boys down stairs and various other disgusting forms of abuse. In September 2023, an Ex-teacher Russell Tilson, was jailed for sexually abusing boys. Beginning in the 1980s. It continued for 20 years, but allegations were only first made in 2018 years, nearly a further two decades after the teacher had retired. Both cases are absolutely typical of the behaviour of perpetrators, and indeed of victims. Earlier this year, the government said it was minded to consider removing the limitation period, but we believe that it needs to happen now and beyond the face of the bill.

So this amendment seeks to remove any limitation period for historical child sex offences. It just must not be possible for a perpetrator to escape justice because the victims were too traumatised to come forward. Until years later, I beg to move. Amendment 293.
17:50
17:52
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I absolutely accept much of what the noble Lady has said about the the noble Lady has said about the awful nature of historic child abuse and the reasons why there is often a delay before bringing forward complaints. But I think it's important that we don't conflate civil proceedings and criminal proceedings. The earlier group was to do with people claiming damages, where the defendant is not usually the perpetrator, and there may be reasons why we reached a stage where there cannot be a fair trial.

I'll leave that aside for the moment. But this particular amendment, I think, is concerned with criminal offences. There isn't, in fact a limitation period for criminal offences generally subject, of course, to the prosecution deciding so much time has elapsed that it's not appropriate to bring forward a claim. The noble Lady has particular experience of occasionally making those decisions in very old cases, but generally speaking, as I understand the position and the noble Lady is pointing at me and I think is going to give a lot of longer and more authoritative answer than I will attempt to do now.

But I make the point in general terms. Lord Faulks. Whilst I entirely understand the motivation behind the noble Lady lady Brinton's amendment, I'm not entirely sure that it's necessary because as the noble Lord Lord Faulks said, there is no limitation for the bringing of this particular section nine offence. I remember, and I don't wish to get into my anecdotage, but I do remember that as a law officer, one very often
17:53
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
had to deal with historic offences where by a mature person, probably where by a mature person, probably in their 50s or 60s or 70, was in their 50s or 60s or 70, was being indicted or prosecuted for an offence which they committed many years ago against a child, against a minor, and had the sort of a minor, and had the sort of problem existed that the noble Lady, Lady Brinton envisages through her amendment. That would have been a matter we would have had to consider.

But what we had to consider as the noble Lady, the Minister will no doubt tell us from her experience as someone who worked at a senior level in the Department of the Crown Prosecution Service, what you have to consider is, is there an adequacy of evidence, and is it in the public interest to bring that particular person to trial and the age of the offence might be something that is considered by the prosecutor, but there is no bar, there's no time bar, as I understand it.

So whilst I may well be corrected for being out of date and ignorant, I certainly don't think that there is a need. Whilst it is well motivated for this particular amendment, I have a suspicion that I've got this entirely wrong. And the noble? No, the noble Lady. The Minister is going to tell me that it would have been better if I kept to my place. But there we are. I think there are plenty of things that we could do with this bill.

Make it shorter, for example. But I'm not sure that this amendment is one of the ones that we need to add to it.
17:55
17:56
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, my noble friend Lady >> My Lords, my noble friend Lady Brinton has made a powerful case for removing the limitation period. The government has signalled The government has signalled already a willingness to act. So objections are likely about timing rather than policy. Or at least I hope that's the case. The amendment aligns the law with what Parliament has already accepted, which is that child sexual abuse is distinct from other offences. This is a crime defined by secrecy, grooming and a stark power imbalance.

We know that victims often take decades to come forward, so allowing offenders to shelter behind time would reward fear and coercion. Amendment 293 provides clarity for all parties, victims, police, prosecutors and indeed, defendants. It removes the scope for technical argument about whether a particular course of conduct falls outside time, and instead focuses everyone on the core question, which is if the evidence available can support a fair trial. It also brings coherence across the system. We are rightly moving away from arbitrary cut offs that prevent past abuse from ever being heard in court.

This clause is a modest step in the same direction. In accordance with the recommendations of inquiries and the expectations of survivors. My Lords, there must be no time bar on prosecuting sexual activity with a child if we're serious about saying such conduct is never acceptable, we should also surely be serious about saying it's never too late to pursue justice for it. This amendment achieves that and warrants the support of the House and the government.
17:57
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for bringing forward this amendment, and obviously, victims of child and obviously, victims of child sexual offences should always be able to seek justice, no matter how long it takes them to come forward. We absolutely understand and respect the intention behind this proposal. Many survivors of abuse do not feel able to disclose until years, sometimes decades after the offence. And there is a very real sense of injustice when the law appears to stand in the way of accountability.

However, and at this point, I think I'm going to side with my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. There exists no limitation periods for offences that would occur under section of the Sexual Offences Act. I think the Limitation Act 1980 only applies to civil cases, and indictable criminal cases do not have general limitation periods in England and Wales, and as offences under section nine of the Sexual Offences Act are indictable only, we do not think it is strictly necessary, despite the fact that it pursues a very noble aim and whilst sympathetic therefore to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

principle. Sorry. Just briefly, how's the how's the the noble Lord opposite the the noble Lord opposite considered section 127 of the Magistrates Court Act, which has a six month time limit on on prosecutions brought in the Magistrates Court, and as he considered that section, section considered that section, section nine as an either way of, well, my noble friend, the Minister is shaking her head at me, so maybe,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shaking her head at me, so maybe, maybe that it's not necessary for the noble Lord to answer. I thank you, Baroness, for that. I think I'm going to just wait for the noble Baroness, the Minister, to explain to all of us what the position is.
17:59
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. forward this amendment today. And as I've said when responding to the other amendments, I stressed I entirely understand the motivation underlying it. Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse have every right to see justice for the horrendous crimes they endured, and I know perfectly well through my experience in other parts of the the public service, if you like, how long it can take for victims to be able to come forward to that extent. There is nothing between the noble Lady and I and indeed others who have spoken.

The noble Earl Attlee, noble Lady, Baroness Doocey, noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. That said, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint the noble Lady when I say that the government cannot accept her amendment, and I hope she'll appreciate the reason for it, when in a moment I explain why, in order to explain, I have to give a short bit of legislative history. Section nine of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 replaces section six of the 1956 act of the same name.

The old section six made it an offence for. A to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged 13 to 15. This was to do with the statutory age of consent. It has nothing to do whether there was actual consent or not. Prosecutors did not have to prove that the victim did not consent, merely that she was below the age of consent. So it was a completely separate offence from the offence of rape. Unusually for a criminal offence, and in this Lord Garnier and Lord Faulks are entirely correct.

Prosecutions for the old section six offence had to be brought within 12 months of its commission by virtue of the 1956 act. The old section six offence and its time limit were rightly repealed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which introduced a much more comprehensive framework of sexual offences, including offences against children and any acts committed from 1st May 2004 onwards are prosecuted under the 2003 act, so far as the new section nine offence, which even, even if there were consent, no consent, which replaced the old section six offences concerned, there's now no time limit for bringing a prosecution.

The difficulty with the noble Lady's amendment is that it would operate retrospectively, when it is an age old principle of the criminal law, that criminal offences should not have retrospective effect. The general reason for the rules, I'm sure, is appreciated by your lordships, is that offences with retrospective effect, risk criminalising behaviour which was not illegal at the time the person behaved in that way. My Lords, subsequently to criminalise behaviour that was perfectly lawful at the time it took place, is the behaviour of repressive regimes, not mature democracies.

The principle that criminal offences shall not have retroactive effect is enshrined in article seven of the European Convention, so the noble Lady's amendment would be incompatible with article seven, which prohibits the retrospective revival of prosecutions which have become time barred due to the expiration of a limitation period. So, my Lords, whilst I of course, sympathise with the need for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to see justice for the crimes committed against them, retrospective criminalisation is contrary to the rule of law and raises serious concerns about legal certainty and fairness.

We absolutely must support victims, but we must also uphold the principle that individuals are judged by the law, as it was at the time of the alleged conduct in. This is a very small cohort of offences that is covered here, because any offences where there was no consent or where the child was younger than 13 will be caught by all the other offences which have no limitation period. To them. It's just that small cohort aged 13 to 15 where they can't prove lack of consent.

I'm very grateful to the noble Lady for moving this amendment today. As I've said, I do understand the sentiment. I hope she'll appreciate the government's reasons for opposing it, and for those reasons, I invite her to withdraw it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before my friend the Minister sits down. Just because this is so important, and no doubt for our important, and no doubt for our understanding, could I ask two questions? The first is on this issue about there being no time issue about there being no time limit. And is that because there's some exception in the Magistrates Court Act to the normal, to the normal six month time limit on summary conviction, because of course, section nine, three of course, section nine, three of section of the of the Sexual Offences Act does allow summary conviction.

So there must be some. So this this removal of the time bar must be somewhere either in the Sexual Offences Act or in the Magistrates Court Act. And my second question relates to article seven because of course, the the article seven prohibition on, on retroactive criminalisation does not apply when when the crime in question would be thought of as criminal according to the laws of civilised nations. And that, of course, was upheld as a principle when marital rape was finally criminalised in the in the in this jurisdiction, in all of these jurisdictions by the courts rather than by statute.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I deal with the noble Lady. Second point first, if I may, my noble friend. Second point first. noble friend. Second point first. There is there are decisions of the domestic courts here that support domestic courts here that support the fact that you cannot bring prosecutions for what was unlawful sexual intercourse offence under sexual intercourse offence under section six, nor can you even bring a prosecution for sexual assault based on the same facts, because based on the same facts, because that would transgress against the prohibition in article seven.

As far as the time limit is concerned. I think that it's the section nine of the 2003 Act has no time limitations in it at all, in which is the usual principle of criminal offences in this country. But for this tiny cohort of behaviour and it really is very small, you could not prosecute under section nine because of article seven. So section six no longer exists and you can't get round it by using

**** Possible New Speaker ****

section nine. But it really is a very small number of cases. In addition, these offences are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In addition, these offences are so serious they wouldn't be prosecuted in the Magistrates court. offences.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offences. Would noble Lord is quite correct. This is nothing to do with magistrates court time limits. magistrates court time limits. There was a statutory time limit contained within section six of the 1956 act that said that all prosecutions for offences under section six must be brought within 12 months in any court. That's it's nothing to do with the time limits in the Magistrates Court.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm so sorry to Labour the point, but I just think it's so important that we understand and if it can't be dealt with now, perhaps the noble Lady, the Minister could write to Baroness Brinton and and and the committee. I'm looking at and the committee. I'm looking at section nine of the Sexual Offences Act. Sexual activity with a child, Act. Sexual activity with a child, which I understand to be the section that the noble Lady is seeking to amend in her amendment.

And section 93A allows summary conviction for that offence, and the penalty is the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or the the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statutory maximum fine. I'm more. Than happy. Of course, to write to the noble Lady, and I think it to the noble Lady, and I think it must be my fault. I'm not explaining this properly. There is no time limit for prosecutions brought under section nine generally, unless it it refers to generally, unless it it refers to particular behaviour. So that would be an offence committed against a be an offence committed against a girl aged between 13 and 15 that took place before the repeal of the 1956 act and the bringing into force of the 2003 act.

Now you could, now you would you could not prosecute that under section nine, because the time limit has expired for bringing it under section six, in the same way that you can't prosecute for sexual assault, for the same behaviour, because you can't bring a prosecution under section six. I think I'd better write, because I can see from the puzzled look on my noble friend's face that I haven't explained it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very well. Lady would also include in that letter reference to. It's either a letter reference to. It's either a decision of the Appellate Committee or the Supreme Court. I think the former, which does address this and explains precisely why those who explains precisely why those who are alleged to have committed offences before the relevant date offences before the relevant date are protected by the 1956 act and continue to be so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to be so. Explained it rather better than I did. We've spoken. I think I'm probably the only non-lawyer in this debate and as it's my amendment, I feel something of a
18:08
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
duffer. I'm very grateful for for the advice. I mean, where I've come from with this amendment was from with this amendment was reading the recommendations of the IICSA inquiry, and what concerned me particularly was picking up that people who had come forward years people who had come forward years afterwards were being told that things were timed out. Now, that might have been a decision by the might have been a decision by the CPS to say they felt that it wouldn't be effectively going to trial.

But I do very much appreciate the points made by Lady Chakrabarti, because the issue about which court deals with issues, I have experience of seeing through my interests in stalking and other domestic abuse cases, where often that is the place that things happen, and all of the description that's been given for no time limits has not been for the Magistrates Court, excepting for the detail that she's provided, which is way beyond my knowledge. The difficulty that lady J reported is that victims come forward quite often.

You get a number of them, and I know from two cases that I have been heavily involved with the victims, where decisions were made by initially by the CPS, and they were told they were timed out. That may not have been the case, but that is what they were told. And another case where the judge said when there were three pupils from the same school, all giving evidence, none of them knowing each other. The first victim was told, yours is over 20 years ago.

You can't possibly remember what had happened and therefore it's timed out. But that is what is happening in the practice of the courts. And the problem is that Lady J's report spoke to the experience of the victims, and we've got into extraordinary technical detail in which many victims would just be completely oblivious to. So I'd be very grateful for a letter. And if there is an easy solution, it may just be that that needs to be clarified with the police and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

CPS as well. So a lot of unhappy victims out there. With that, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Is it your lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 83 The question is that clause 83 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 84 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it after Levitt.
18:11
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I find myself again starting by saying it wouldn't be starting by saying it wouldn't be right to speak to this group of amendments without first thanking the noble Lady Baroness Bertin, in her independent pornography review, the noble Lady recommended that non-fatal strangulation pornography, commonly known as choking porn, should be illegal to possess, distribute and publish. The noble Lady has identified and many have already spoken in your Lordships' House. As part of the debate on another group of amendments, that the prevalence of strangulation, or so-called choking pornography, is leading to this behaviour becoming more commonplace in real life.

And she's absolutely right. Evidence suggests that it's influencing what people, particularly young people, think is expected of them during sex. It's also right to point out that they're not necessarily aware of the serious harm it can cause. In June of this year, we committed to giving full effect to the noble Baroness recommendation, and today I'm pleased to do just that. We are bringing forward amendments. 294295488494512515526548 and 555, which will criminalise the possession and publication of pornographic images that portray strangulation or suffocation, otherwise known as choking porn.

These changes will extend UK wide. The term strangulation and suffocation are widely understood and carry their ordinary meaning. Strangulation requires the application of pressure to the neck, and suffocation requires a person to be deprived of air, affecting their ability to breathe. For this offence, the strangulation or suffocation portrayed must be explicit and realistic, but it does not have to be real. For example, it can be acted or posed, or the image itself may be AI generated, provided the people in the image look real to a reasonable person.

The maximum penalty for the possession offence is imprisonment for two years. This mirrors penalties under section three of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and the penalty reflects that whilst the content is harmful, much of it will not actually depict an unlawful act actually taking place, depending on the circumstances for publication of such images, the maximum penalty will be imprisonment for five years, again commensurate with penalties for publication under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. This reflects the underlying aims of this amendment, namely to restrict the availability of this type of pornography.

In addition, we are amending the Online Safety Act 2023 to ensure that the offences are listed as priority offences, which will oblige platforms to take the necessary steps to stop this harmful material appearing online. This change is a vital step towards our mission to halve violence against women and girls, and it's right as I move these amendments today that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, is credited for this change, I beg to move.
18:14
Baroness Bertin Portrait Baroness Bertin (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 84 insert. The new clause is set 84 insert. The new clause is set out on the marshalled list. >> My Lords, I want to rise and to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I want to rise and to rightly praise the government and the Prime Minister for making this change. I think it shows real leadership, and I think that I speak for so many in saying thank you for taking that recommendation on board this amendment to ban depictions of strangulation, pornography has raised awareness also more widely, of how out of control online pornography has become and how it is affecting real life behaviour. I'm not easily shocked these days, but I was very shocked by my noble friend Baroness Kidron's example of how post-mortem post-mortems are now, you know, having to be trained properly to, to, to look for signs of strangulation.

And I just, you know, that says it all really. But for years campaigners have fought to expose the dangers of strangulation and suffocation in pornography, acts that have been dressed up as erotic and liberating when in truth, they're life threatening. This is disproportionately affecting young women, and I want to recognise those voices, especially Professor Clare McGlynn, whose persistence has brought us to this moment. I also want again to thank my my own team and without their determination, this change would not be happening.

And I also want to pay tribute to my dear friend, the late Baroness Newlove, who began this journey when she pushed through law and raised awareness of non-fatal strangulation as the hideous controlling crime it is. They are undoubtedly linked. I've spoken a lot to many senior police officers as well, and they are also delighted with this change, giving them yet more ability to charge people. And they are those officers that I've spoken to, admittedly very involved in violence against women and girls.

They are keen to try and start charging. Perpetrators more with these kinds of this kind of illegal pornography, and I think it will help also build up that data around that connection between crimes of a sexual nature and pornography of this nature, as well as we spoke about in the previous debates. This is not just another amendment. It is a light bulb moment, a recognition that what has been normalised for too long is neither safe nor acceptable. Again, I refer back to to my noble friend Baroness Kidron.

This must not be the new normal. So I thank the government for recognising that. And for too many women and girls this has meant fear, injury and trauma. There is no safe way to strangle someone. Let's be clear, reports coming into the review would say that teachers were having boys talking about sex education lessons. How do I safely strangle my girlfriend? Indeed, one school actually did some extraordinary session on how do you safely strangle your partner. I mean, what the absolute.

You know what? So I hopefully that will, will, will put an end to this kind of crazy place that we've managed to get ourselves to. But enforcement will be key. And right now it is unacceptable that there is no central place. I won't reiterate what I've said before, but to report problematic content to Ofcom, whether it's strangulation, rape, porn or other banned material, the industry cannot be left to self-regulate. My my noble Lord Viscount Colville mentioned that in in a previous debate, there must be clearer and much faster mechanisms to take down this kind of material in.

In my review, I recommended that a separate body should be appointed to conduct audits, audits, and proactive spot checks on platforms that host pornographic content. I think they should work with Ofcom to expediate reports of lack of compliance, and I think this body could also be a key driver and a convenor for safety tech, which we absolutely know needs leadership and direction from government, which, you know, Baroness Kidron could know more about really. I also believe an accreditation scheme should be set up so that it is clear to the users, public, government, banks and payment providers which companies are compliant from recent polling, we know that a great many regular porn users do not want to encounter abusive and prohibited content, and an infrastructure like this might actually be good for business.

Not that I particularly want that, but that does. That ultimately is is where change happens. My Lords, I will finally finish by saying this that the government's key manifesto pledge to halve violence against women and girls within the decade is a very, very noble aim and I'm determined to help them succeed in that. And we will soon have their strategy on how they plan to do this. And I just want to reiterate that no plan serious about prevention can ignore online pornography.

And where we've got to. And of course, we need better policing of rape and domestic violence, but also of the material that legitimises it, and banning depictions of choking and strangulation. Porn is a start, a very good start, but it's by no means the end. I finished by by just saying that, my Lords, this is more than about law. It's about culture. It's about saying with one voice that violence is not intimacy and harm is not entertainment. This is a moment to protect women and girls, particularly because it disproportionately affects them.

But as someone said in an earlier debate, a big shout out. Men are also affected by this violence and obviously by this violent porn. But we need to build an online world that reflects our values, not our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

worst instincts. I too, would like to thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I too, would like to thank the government for these amendments, because helplines have seen a rise because helplines have seen a rise in non-fatal strangulation offences and not everything gets reported to the police. So we've seen a rise at the police. So we've seen a rise at the charity that I run. We've got a muslim women's network helpline. We've seen a rise there and We've seen a rise there and research shows that if a victim is subject to a non-fatal strangulation, they are seven times more likely to be a victim of domestic homicide.

And if you
18:21
18:21
18:22
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
across the House and discussed today, particularly on this side by my noble friend, Lady Burton, but by many others as well. The prevalence of strangulation, pornography and the harm that it causes are very clear. Distributing such material is already illegal offline. And so the fact that it's online equivalent is not. It is a gap in the law. And these amendments correct that they close that gap and prohibit the distribution of a practice that is both dangerous and extreme.

And I know that there are reports from some of an exponential rise in non-fatal strangulation and suffocation amongst younger generations, something that they largely attribute to pornography. The least we can do is provide restrictions on dangerous content that should not be normalised and, as has been said, distributing non-fatal strangulation is unlawful offline. It makes little sense that it's not replicated in our online legislation. This group aims to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

correct that, and I willingly offer the support of these benches. And I thank all noble Lords for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank all noble Lords for their support of these amendments. Noble Ladies, Baroness Bertin and Baroness Gohir and Baroness Doocey, Baroness Gohir and Baroness Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I also note the concerns raised by the noble Lady Baroness Bertin in relation to enforcement and regulation. As I have already said earlier in relation to the group earlier in relation to the group for the debate for Group two, I'm very keen to continue working with the noble Lady on other matters related to online pornography.

There's much more to be done, but I hope in the meantime your lordships will join me in supporting the important step this government is making in relation to strangulation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pornography. I beg to move. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 294 be agreed to? As many as of that opinion will say content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it. And amendment 295 moved formally. The question is that amendment 295 be agreed to. As many amendment 295 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content on the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 295A has already been debated moved formally, the question is that amendment 295A be agreed to.

As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Similarly, amendment 295B has already been debated moved formally, the question is that amendment 295B be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it after clause 84, amendment 295B.
18:25
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 295 BA and the other amendments in this group in my name amendments in this group in my name and the names of the noble Lord Pannick, the noble Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Baroness, Lady Kofi and the noble Baroness, Lady Goa. I am grateful for the wise legal counsel of Professor Clare McGlynn KC and the support of the Revenge Porn Helpline. My image, my choice, Not your porn and Jodie campaigns.

Amendment 295 BA is based on the precedent set in the Take It Down Act in the USA. It compels the Secretary of State to implement a 48 hour time limit for online platforms to remove Non-consensually shared, intimate content. It is important to note that there is also a clause that allows for sanctions for malicious actors. In this way, we seek to protect those who may consensually share content from being targeted by people who may wish to silence them. Sophie Mortimer, from the Revenge Porn Helpline, said that whilst we have an excellent track record on removal, the reality in most cases is that it will take hours, days or months.

There are a number of clients who have been reporting content for over five years. Sophie has emphasised that the handful of responsible and responsive platforms should not be the yardstick for all, when the majority are painfully slow to respond or entirely non-compliant. My Lords, one Cornell University study found that violations of copyright are acted upon quicker than reporting NCI content. The amendment vitally ensures that online services remove duplicates of the content. It is designed to complement the Online Safety Act, where tech companies have to proactively ensure that this priority illegal content is removed from their sites.

At present, however, there is not a system in place for individuals to report directly to Ofcom. This ensures a reporting and removal mechanism for victims or another person who believes a breach of section 66 B of the Sexual Offences Act has been committed, and a maximum time frame. Amendment 295 B strengthens the law around deletion orders. Whilst I am pleased to see the government's clarification in this bill that intimate images used to commit an offence and anything containing them should be seen as being used to commit an offence under section 153 of the 2020 Sentencing Act.

I believe we must go further research by journalist Shanti Das, published in February this year, found that of the 98 cases of intimate image abuse prosecuted in Magistrates Court in England and Wales in the preceding six months, only three resulted in deprivation orders. No one should have to live in the knowledge that their convicted abuser is allowed to retain content used to commit the crime. This amendment directs the prosecutor to lodge a deletion verification report within 28 days, verifying the destruction of the content, as well as ordering the defendant to hand over passwords and authenticators needed to access the material.

There is still too much ambiguity in the law around this, and the victims of intimate image abuse are paying the price. Amendments 295 BC and 295 BD compel the Secretary of State to implement a hash registry for non-consensual intimate content, which providers must use to prevent the reupload or distribution of NCA material. The amendment implements a hash sharing system that offers survivors peace of mind that their non-consensual content will remain offline. A hash is a unique value assigned to an image Preserves the victim's privacy as only the hash, and not the content itself, would be stored in the register.

This system means that victims can use two options for ensuring their content stays offline. Prosecuting and going through a criminal court, or privately hashing the content without prosecuting. Some survivors may use both options, but hashing is an important option for those who feel unable to face criminal proceedings. We already have a precedent for how this would work, as csam content is hashed in the same way. These amendments are a vital step to assure victims that content will no longer trend online.

content will no longer trend online. Amendments 295295295295 BJ 2988299A and 300 B seek to tackle the growing concern of sexually explicit audio being used to circumnavigate the image based abuse offences. This amendment mirrors the image based abuse offences, making it an offence to record install equipment to record, request the creation of, create or share audio which a reasonable person would consider to be sexual in nature without their consent. The 2022 Law Commission report stated that if in the future, it was deemed necessary and appropriate to criminalise taking, sharing or threatening to share sexual audio recordings without consent, it is possible that any such offences could be based on recorded image based abuse offences.

This is exactly what these amendments seek to do. It is now nearly a year since this issue was first raised by the noble Lady, Baroness Goa, and the government response was that they would continue to keep it under under review. Since then, the Revenge porn helpline has seen an increase in the number of cases reported to them. In New Zealand, there was a case where a man was accused of secretly recording audio of sex workers. Other victims have come forward in the UK with cases of audio of them having sex or conversations about sexual activity being shared online.

My Lords, we frequently discuss in this House the importance of continually horizon scanning and ensuring that we are agile in our response as harms arise. I implore the government to act now and not wait for this scale of abuse to escalate before we decide to take action. Amendment 295 provide the definition for what it is to take an intimate image. It uses the definition of taking from the Parliament of Victoria in Australia, which uses the word capturing in order to bring into scope screenshotting, which the Law Commission recommended should be in scope of the taking offence.

For cases where a person has consented to being in an intimate state on a video call, but not consented to the image being captured. However, I believe we should go further than the Law Commission advice and include the nonconsensual screenshotting of intimate images sent by disappearing messages or Snapchats. It is common practice for intimate images to be shared in this way, but it is important that in these scenarios we remember that consent has been given for a limited time, and capturing the image to permanently keep is a violation of that consent.

The wording also allows for the legislation to be future proofed, for the way in which capturing an image may evolve over time. Amendments 296, 297 and 299 seek to extend the time limits imposed by a summary offence, and build on the precedent established for the creation and requesting offences in clause 66 and 66 of the Data Act. They will give the pre-existing sharing offence clause 66 B of the Sexual Offences Act and the new taking and installation Offences. The proposed clauses 66 AA and 66 AC parity in the law with other image based abuse offences.

I am very pleased to see the government has tabled its own amendment 300 now in response to this, which is very welcome to ensure victims are not inadvertently timed out of seeking justice because of the six month time limit on summary offences. Amendments 298 B and 300 A seek to address the frequent practice of perpetrators providing personal information about the victims, alongside the nonconsensual requests for intimate content or the non-consensual sharing of intimate content, by making it an aggravating factor for the offences.

Victims have described the trauma invoked when they see perpetrators have referenced details, such as where they went to college or the town where they live. This amendment is based on the experience of a survivor, Jane, who stated, intimate images of me and 18 other women in my area were posted without our knowledge on a location based non-consensual image sharing platform. Many of these images were stolen by hacking our social media accounts and grouped by our names and location. We became easily identifiable and in some cases, women's LinkedIn profiles were posted alongside their intimate photos.

Since my personal information was published, I no longer feel safe in my own hometown. Places that once felt familiar and comfortable now feel threatening, and public spaces are used to enjoy are overshadowed by the constant fear that my safety is at risk. This amendment seeks to acknowledge in law the additional distress that the sharing of this type of information causes victims, and ensures that it is taken into account when prosecuting amendment two. 99 B adds to the definition of intimate state in section 66 three of the Sexual Offences Act by adding something else depicting the person that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual because of its nature.

Noble Lords may remember I tried to address the problem of semen images in my private member's bill, sometimes sickeningly referred to as tributes. This is where men degrade women's images with semen, whether real or AI generated. As our law stands currently, the definition of intimate state means that if a woman is not nude or participating in a sexual act, then her only legal recourse if this image is shared is by way of a communications or harassment offence. It is vital that this rapidly growing form of abuse is brought into scope of the pre-existing requesting and sharing offences, as well as the new taking offence.

I was deeply concerned by the dossier that campaigner Jess Davies put together, demonstrating the scale of this issue. It detailed countless examples of women's pictures being uploaded with sick and degrading requests for them to be photoshopped with semen, or for men to physically defile them. This abuse is not just in the dark corners of the internet. It is happening on platforms such as TikTok. Just as bravely shared her experience of being targeted by this form of abuse. She said it feels extremely degrading to see yourself in those images and knowing I have no control over this image existing online made me feel powerless.

A decade on from discovering my own images had been exploited in this way. During my research into this harm, I discovered several accounts on TikTok dedicated to this content. Some of these videos had tens of thousands of views and saw users asking men to create semen, videos and images of their family members. Some users were doing so for a fee, others just to take part in these women's humiliation. My Lords, this can be remedied with a simple adjustment to the law.

We must not wait to act. I turn now to my amendment three, three three and 334 on spiking, which adds recklessness to the offence. It is important that this law reflects the reality of what can happen when a person is spiked. The perpetrator may not intend to injure, aggrieve or annoy the victim, or intend any particular outcome at all. However, they may be reckless as to the outcome of their behaviour. It is vital that we have clarity and law. The very point of this new offence is to bring clarity to the law.

I would ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her assurance that in scenarios such as a university friend claiming they were helping cheer up a friend by administering a substance without consent, whether this scenario would be in scope of the offence as written. I would like reassurance on whether recklessness is covered within the law and for what reason. It's not explicitly written in. I turn now to my amendment 356 b seeking to extend section 35 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to make domestic abuse protection orders suitable for a digital age.

Whilst the law is clear that a court may buy a domestic Abuse Protection order, impose any requirement that the court considers necessary to protect the person and the law makes a list of suggestions under subsections 4 to 6, with examples of the type of provision that may be made. These suggestions tend to relate to physical locality. Whilst it is possible already under the law for someone to make an order that includes tech facilitated abuse, my concern and that of refuge is that it may be dependent on the knowledge of the person imposing the order has of this form of abuse.

My amendment is based on the experience of a survivor, Iman, and supported by the refuge charity, the Charity refuge. The amendment adds to the list of protections that may be imposed, such as preventing abusers using tech to indirectly contact their victims, publish material relating to the survivor, or purporting to originate originate from them, or contact third parties to damage the survivors reputation, harass or intimidate them. It is important that these orders reflect the reality of a digital age, and that those imposing the orders are prompted to think of the way that technology may be used to circumnavigate pre-existing protections.

Refuge gave the example of a perpetrator continuing to abuse their victim by leaving negative reviews on the victim's business, Inman said. I continue to live in fear that while my perpetrator to undertake these actions, the order that I have in place does not prohibit such conduct. Future survivors should never have to face such fears. My Lords, we have made much progress on intimate image abuse and tech facilitated abuse, but it is vital that we always remain one step ahead of those who seek to harm others in this appalling way and put in place clear, comprehensive legislation.

I beg to move.
18:40
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 84. Insert the new clause as set 84. Insert the new clause as set out on the marshalled list. >> I rise in support of all the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise in support of all the amendments in the name of Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge. I signed two of the offences in relation to the time limit extension, and therefore I share the noble Lady's pleasure that the government has, has, has, has effectively accepted that principle and brought forward its own amendments, as I understand it, that her her her other amendments, it seemed to me, are worthy of a an equivalent response. I needn't repeat. The reasons for this because because her speech was so comprehensive and and clear, I would just say that in a still relatively short period of time, not just in this committee, but in but in this House.

Baroness Owen has has raised herself to one of the leading human rights campaigners in this country. And it and let that silence all of those who think that relative youth is a disqualification for for being in your noble Lords house. With that in mind and and just as a brief reminder of the the two new sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that are really down to the campaigning of the the noble Lady, Baroness Owen. I wonder if my noble friend, the Minister, in her reply to the group, could could give the committee some insight into the timetable for implementing what will be, I believe, section 66 and 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

These are the new offences of creating and of requesting the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images without consent. And these were these were passed in the Data Use and and Access Act of earlier this year. After a great deal of sweat and toil and solidarity from around the House. For Baroness Owen, I'm sure that my noble friend the Minister will be keen to to get these implemented as soon as possible, and in the light of frustrations expressed in, in in earlier groups about the about the speed of the speed of implementing these policies, I wonder if we could hear on that.

I apologise.
18:43
18:44
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
One was at the during the passage of the Online Safety Act, we had a lot of discussion about an ombudsman. It was very much resisted. And at the same time, in the same time frame as that bill took place, I was an advisor to the Irish government who did put in an ombudsman. I think we are missing something. It was a very big part of the previous discussion about chat bots and and so on. In an earlier group, I, I very firmly agree with what the noble Lady said as she laid out her amendments that actually we really need a way of alerting the regulator to what's going on, and it is not adequate for the for for the regulator to only have a emerging harms unit that is waiting for us to fill in a form which is the current state of play.

So I do leave that with the Minister as as a problem that needs solving. I also just really want to reiterate this idea about things that happen online and how they land in real life. And some noble Lords will be aware of a of a quite a horrific explosion of online abuse in Korea about a year ago. And, and one of the things that struck me at the time was the knowing where the woman lived. Plus having something to shame them with, then coerce them into further acts, some of which were not illegal, like licking a toilet floor.

But the coercion was built into a scenario by by having more than one piece of information. So again, I really want to underline what the noble Lady said about that and say something that seems incremental, perhaps a little bit less important in conjunction with other things, becomes actually a hugely powerful becomes actually a hugely powerful tool of coercion. I, I slightly hesitate to do this, but, you know, on the basis that no good deed goes unpunished.

And the government did manage to put a new priority. And I do add my I do add my congratulations, as I did when I last spoke about the strangulation offence. But I think that that the detail with which the noble Lady has laid out her amendments speaks to the need of the government to really transfer this into existing legislation, to make sure that we have caught up to use the Secretary of State powers and so on. We can't keep on waiting.

So my biggest, you know, my biggest urging throughout the whole of this Committee stage will be for action. And to say that better can be the enemy of best. And the noble Lady has done her homework. I'm sure she's open on the drafting itself, but the point that she is making is there are these holes. We need them fixed in order to protect women. And so I'm really just going to finish by saying, you know, I often stand up and say, what's wrong with innovation? But I would certain sorts of innovation.

But I would also like to just say on the record, innovation is not a zero sum game. And if these things were a Hoover were a fridge, they would be record by now if this is the harm they did. Right. So I really just want to say I would love the house. You know, I'm delighted that the tech team around the house ever growing, I might say, is very practical in its nature. None of us are looking for 100% perfect world, but we do want 80%.

The noble Lady put push it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward and I really hope that the government does listen. My noble friend, Baroness Owens.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend, Baroness Owens. I'll be mercifully brief, because I've spoken a lot this evening. But I've spoken a lot this evening. But I just want to. Well, to reiterate the me too. You know, you have done an amazing job. You are so an amazing job. You are so determined. And you just get down into the detail and are so thorough and you get it over the line, you
18:48
18:50
Viscount Colville of Culross Portrait Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm pleased to rise to support the noble Lady, Baroness Irwin, in the noble Lady, Baroness Irwin, in her latest stage of her campaign to stop online image abuse, I to applause her success against deep applause her success against deep fakes in the In the Data Uses and Access Act. The government has done Access Act. The government has done much to much good work to progress this campaign in this bill. But the distribution of these images, which causes so much harm, must be stopped.

And as many other noble Lords have said, we need to ensure this Bill creates the powers to stop the sharing of these images across the internet. Those noble Lords who are involved in the debates in the Online Safety Act understand it. Ensuring that the tech companies stop the prioritisation and dissemination of harms is central to stopping harm being spread on the internet. These amendments two, 99 and others in this group will do that. But I would like to focus on amendments 295 BC on hashing and 295 on the on the NCIC register, which will be crucial in ensuring that any sharing of intimate images will be will be radically reduced and hopefully stopped.

There's been good work created by the Internet Watch Foundation and hash matching, and setting up a register of illegal, intimate children's images. They're funded by the the industry and have been effective in massively reducing the traffic in Csam. If these if these amendments are adopted, it will be a great thing to bring these protections to the adult online world. Verification of Ncia is already expanding. It happens at a platform moderation level, where there are measures to increase the numbers of images verified by training NGOs on the submission to the stop NCI i.org portal.

This will ensure that they will submit hashes globally via a global clearing centre, and there is work underway with the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls to improve police response to NCIC abuse so they can proactively report content removal and hashing. But it needs to be mandated to ensure that this system becomes more extensive. I would urge that if these amendments are accepted, that hash matching technology remains nimble. I understand that Emds video hash matching technology might not respond to slight tweaks of a video.

As a result, it can't be checked against the register, rendering hash matching ineffective. The other technologies, like PDQ for stills, looks at the perceptual nature of the image and can still create a match, even if it's cropped or edited. I would urge the creators of hash matching technology to continue the arms race against AI, and ensure that that subtle AI tweaks to hash matched image can be matched on the Ncia register. The stop NCI software is already doing an amazing job in generating 1.8 million hashes and preventing thousands of intimate images from being shared across the internet.

My Lords, imagine how effective it will be if this if this technology is mandated for adult ncia for all platforms and enforced by Ofcom, I urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to accept these amendments and save thousands of users from harm and misery.
18:53
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
I want to add my support to the >> I want to add my support to the amendments in the name of Baroness Owen, since she has arrived in your Lordships' House, she has made in this issue of online abuse her passion, but also her life's work. passion, but also her life's work. And for that I congratulate her because these amendments are dealing with intimate image abuse, spiking on domestic abuse and the online abuse really, of women by and large.

And whilst there are many attributes with the internet and with online technology and digital technology, there is also the downside and how it is used as a weapon of abuse. So therefore, I've asked my noble friend, the Minister on the front bench to see what she can do with her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, in the Home Department to try to accept some of these amendments by way of future government amendments at Report stage, because I think they're very worthy of inclusion in this bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was unable to speak at the Second Reading about the amendments to which I've added my name, but to which I've added my name, but I'm extremely grateful to noble Baroness Owen for her persistence Baroness Owen for her persistence in pursuing the issues that she raised last year. About a year ago at the time, I highlighted the problem of sexually explicit audio recordings during the debate on her nonconsensual, sexually explicit images and videos, Bill, and therefore thankful that she has brought forward amendments in this bill to address audio abuse.

So me too. I admire her tenacity. I fully support all that she has said today, and I will speak specifically to the issue of audio abuse and those amendments. While I commend the government for strengthening the law in relation to nonconsensual recording of intimate images and film, I cannot understand why audio has been excluded. It appears as if the government wishes to wait for significant number of cases before
18:55
Baroness Gohir Portrait Baroness Gohir (Crossbench)
-
-
taking action. But why wait? How many cases do we need? It should many cases do we need? It should surely be enough to recognise that this abuse is already occurring, and that it can easily escalate and that it can easily escalate further. Intimate audio can easily be captured on mobile phones. We can clearly see foresee the can clearly see foresee the consequences of sharing such recordings, how they can be used to recordings, how they can be used to humiliate and intimidate and cause alarm and distress.

Because voices are recognisable. As I previously indicated last year, the Muslim Women's Network, the helpline that my my charity runs, we have had cases on that helpline and today noble Lady Baroness, also Baroness Owen, also gave examples of cases. So how many more do we need? We are perpetually playing catch up when it comes to responding to new forms of abuse. Perhaps for once we can get ahead of the problem before audio abuse becomes widespread. I just want to borrow a phrase from a noble Baroness Kidron when she said, lay the tracks ahead of the train or something like that.

And today, time and time again, we've been hearing that the government needs to be one step ahead. So the question is, why doesn't the government want to be one step ahead on so many of these amendments that we are talking about today as legislation around image abuse tightens, perpetrators will inevitably be looking for other avenues through which they can control, threaten and shame victims. I therefore urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to address intimate audio recordings in this bill to.
18:57
Baroness Sugg Portrait Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-
-
In support of these amendments in the name of my noble friend Owen, in the name of my noble friend Owen, and signed by noble Lords across the House, and I welcome the Government's Amendment 300 to extend the time limit for the extend the time limit for the sharing offence which my noble friend's amendments also seek out to do my Noble friends amendments to do my Noble friends amendments on deletion and audio abuse, doxing, semen images and the definition of taking already aim to act to deal with activity that sadly on the rise and recognise the the real trauma that the these activities cause the victims and trauma that sadly continues long after the initial offence.

And of course all these technological non-consent taking of non-consensual images is of course very complicated. But we do have some precedents where solutions have been found elsewhere. So I'm particularly interested to hear from the noble Lady, the Minister on two issues, the 48 hour takedown. As we've heard, we've seen that happen in the US and on the hash registry and hash sharing, which my noble friend was grateful to her setting out so clearly what they do. It strikes me as a bit chicken and egg here.

We need to demand progress. The tech is there, but we need to demand progress in order to to see progress. Also briefly, on the extending of the pre-existing Domestic Abuse Protection Orders. Again, that recognises another development that we're sadly witnessing with perpetrators using the online world to further their abuse. So taking this opportunity to extend the scope of domestic protection orders, we really help stop this form of abuse and reflect the reality of the digital age that we're living in. My Lords, technology is rapidly evolving, as we've heard in the example of audio abuse.

And it's, of course, a challenge to ensure that our legislation continues to be fit for purpose. But that is what these amendments seek to do, and in some cases, look to future proof as well. And non-consensual intimate images are an escalating harm. These amendments address critical operational gaps and work towards the systemic protection that we should have in this area.
18:59
19:00
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> I have signed amendment 34. >> Specifically regarding spiking. >> But I. >> Want. >> To congratulate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend, Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, as she yet again leads the way on this important leads the way on this important issues of the other amendments in which she has tabled. My Lords, clause 101 is certainly welcome. It was a measure that was particularly around spiking. It was a measure in the previous version of this bill tabled in the last Parliament. And I give credit to Richard Graham, the former MP for Gloucester, who brought this to the attention of Parliament more broadly, I would little question for the Minister.

I'm always very nervous when civil servants recommend that we remove things from existing legislation. And I notice at the beginning, particularly section 22 and section 23 are and there's a more broader 24. And I wonder what has driven that in particular, because too often, sometimes things perhaps disappear and end up with some kind of defect or loophole, which is exactly what concerned my noble friend Joe Robertson MP, who tabled the amendment in the name of my noble friend.

334 in the Commons at Report stage, having tabled something similar in Committee stage, his concern is that there is a loophole and that spiking by a reckless act should also be an offence. Now, I don't need to persuade that your lordships that spiking is a hideous, heinous activity. It can destroy people's physical and mental health. And indeed, the evidence given by Colin McKee from Spike Aware UK at the Committee stage in the Commons was very compelling, especially driven by his personal experience of his own 18 year old son Greg, who has died through suspected spiking of the kind now known as spiking.

In particular, it is this spiking the moment clause 101 simply refers, or has to have intent to injure a grievance. Similar, and it is this recklessness that I know that Ministers and the other place feel that this bill covers. But I think the legislation on the face of the bill is pretty clear. It doesn't particularly seem to cover prank spiking. Indeed, recklessness is a well-trodden principle in criminal law, dating back a couple of hundred years. It is definitively an alternative to intent.

So the prosecution fails to establish that someone meant to do something. It can also establish that their actions were so reckless that they should be convicted. Indeed, this is what manslaughter is. The whole point is somebody gets convicted of murder, but without the intent of having committed murder. The other example, perhaps not quite so dramatic, is about causing actual bodily harm. Prosecution must establish both the the harm, but it can also do it on the basis of whether or not that was done in a reckless way to harm was bound to follow, rather than simply that someone intended for harm to happen.

Now, my Lords, I think, I hope that the government will consider again so far their conclusions that what we have proposed before us in clause 101 is sufficient. I do understand that it may be one MP only took Richard Graham to get focused on the whole issue spoken at all for it to make any progress into legislation in the other place. And indeed, I am grateful to this administration for picking that up. So, my Lords, I look forward to hearing from the Minister and hope again that there may be room for some consensus, not just compromise consensus on how we can make sure there aren't any loopholes in this law.

Lords.
19:05
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson Portrait Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Conservative)
-
-
Please. >> Please. >> My Lords, I would also like to support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Baroness Owen, and I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. As we've heard here today, technology continues to here today, technology continues to provide new avenues for abuse, and in particular, for the abuse of women. Abusers use technology in ever more inventive ways to harm, harass and try to humiliate their victims. Thanks to the work of my noble friend Baroness Owen and others in this House, the law has made huge strides in recent years.

However, more needs to be done. Broadly, these amendments fall into two categories the amendments that seek to update the law to ensure that it addresses new and growing forms of tech enabled abuse, and the amendments which seek to provide more effective support to the victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse. We need action on both fronts. I won't go into detail here as it's already been covered, but just to reiterate, some of the gaps that need to be closed are updating our definition of what constitutes taking an image, including audio recordings in the framework for tackling non-consensual intimate images, ensuring that images which may have been innocuous when they were taken but are then transformed into something sexual or degrading, are also captured by the law.

And finally, recognising the practice of doxing as an aggravating factor. Unfortunately, we know that, however the law changes, abuse will not be eliminated anytime soon, so we must also ensure that the law supports victims in the aftermath of their abuse. As it stands, there is no proper framework to ensure that intimate images, images that the courts have found to be taken or shared illegally are then removed and destroyed. Instead, survivors see their images being repeatedly uploaded, posted onto pornography sites, shared in anonymous chat forums, and even allowed to remain untouched on their abusers devices or cloud accounts.

My Lords, it cannot be right. The law must change between them. Amendments 295295 BB, 295 BC and 295 BD create a proper mechanism for victims to ensure that images are promptly removed from online platforms, deleted and then hashed to prevent them from resurfacing elsewhere. My Lords, making progress on this issue is crucial. We know the trauma caused to victims who have to live with their images remaining online, or live with the knowledge that they could be re-uploaded at any point. As one survivor told the Women and Equalities Committee, I'm terrified for applying for jobs for fear that the prospective employer will Google my name and see.

I'm terrified when meeting new people that they will Google my name and see. I'm terrified that every person I meet has seen. We cannot allow this situation to continue. Baroness Owen's amendments would make the law more effective, more enforceable and more protective to victims, and I hope that we'll be able to make progress on them in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House. May I add my voice also to the support that's been expressed to my noble friend Baroness Owen from across the house, and she has done a great service to victims of these crimes all across the country, most crimes all across the country, most of whom we know are women and girls. But of course, men and boys can be affected too, if I may just focus affected too, if I may just focus and touch on in particular the amendment 33, for which, as my noble friend Lady Coffey has mentioned, it talks about the addition of the word reckless to the spiking offence.

This is very
19:08
19:09
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It's been a privilege to take >> It's been a privilege to take part in today's committee session. I think anyone reading Hansard subsequently is going to get a much better insight than they ever had better insight than they ever had before of the risks and experience of young women and girls in today's world, sadly. But it's been a privilege listening to all the speeches that have been made, particularly in this set of amendments. And like others, I want to started by the noble Baroness Chakrabarti.

I want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, for the forensic way she's identified the digital loopholes that currently allow abusers to evade justice. As we've been reminded, she's been a doughty campaigner on the Data Use and Access Bill and with a winning streak I hope will continue. My Lords, at the same time, I also want to welcome the government's amendments in this group. My Lords, which at least signals a positive direction of travel.

For far too long, victims of intimate image abuse have been timed out of justice by the six month limit. On summary offences, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, identified this injustice and I'm delighted that the government has listened with their amendment 300, my Lords. And then, of course, we have a number of other amendments. My Lords, the noble Baroness amendments go further than time limits. My Lords, they address harms that the current bill completely misses. And in particular I want to highlight amendment 29 298 B My Lords, which addresses the malicious practice known as doxing.

It's a terrifying reality for survivors that perpetrators often do not just share an intimate image, they weaponize it by publishing the victim's address, employer or educational details alongside it. And this is calculated to maximise distress, vulnerability and real world danger. And this amendment rightly establishes that providing such information is a statutory aggravating factor, and it ensures that the court must treat this calculated destruction of a victim's privacy with the severity it deserves. My Lords, while we welcome the government's amendments regarding deprivation orders, I do urge the Minister to look closely at amendment 295.

BB. Also in the name of a noble Baroness. Current police powers often focus on seizing the physical device, the phone or laptop. But my Lords, we live in an age of cloud storage. Seizing a phone is meaningless if the image remains accessible in the cloud, ready to be downloaded the moment the offender buys a new device. Amendment 295 BB creates a duty for verified deletion, including from cloud services. And we must ensure that when we say an image is destroyed, it is truly gone.

My Lords, I also strongly support the suite of amendments extending the law to cover audio recordings. As technology evolves, we're seeing the rise of AI generated audio deepfakes a new frontier of abuse, which was highlighted by the noble Baroness Gauthier and the revenge porn helpline. My Lords, as we've heard today, and I pay tribute to her for raising this issue by explicitly including audio recordings in the definition of intimate image offences. These amendments could future proof the legislation against these emerging AI threats.

Finally, my Lords, in this area, amendment 295 offers a systematic solution a non-consensual intimate image register using hashing technology, which was so clearly described by the noble Baroness Irwin. We cannot rely on a game of whac, a mole, where victims must report the same image to platform after platform, a hash registry which identifies the unique digital fingerprint of an image to block its upload across providers, is the only scalable technical solution to this problem. My Lords, we also welcome the new offence of administering harmful substances in clause 101.

Like the noble Baroness Coffey, my Lords. But the current drafting requires specific intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy my Lords. Perpetrators of spiking often hide behind the defence that it was just a prank or done to liven up a friend. This leaves prosecutors struggling to prove specific intent. Amendment 334 closes this gap by introducing recklessness into the offence. My Lords, if you spike a drink, you are an inherently being reckless as to the danger you pose to that person.

The law should reflect that reality, and I urge the government to accept this strengthening of the clause. Finally, my Lords, we support amendment 356 B, which modernises domestic abuse protection orders. Abusers are innovative. They use third parties and digital platforms to bypass physical restrictions. This amendment explicitly prohibits indirect contact and digital harassment, ensuring that a protection order actually provides protection. In the 21st century. My Lords, this group of amendments, as we all I believe there hasn't been a dissenting voice agree represents a modernisation of our personal safety laws that is long overdue.

I hope the Minister will accept the logic of these proposals, particularly regarding doxing and recklessness, and I hope that the government recognises that they meet the government's own objectives. My Lords, my Lords, in closing, I should say that I very much share the noble Baroness Kidron's impatience. That we we have a widening group of those interested in online safety who have really taken a strong interest ever since the Joint Committee on the Online Safety Bill. My Lords, we will keep pressure up on the government, my Lords, but I very much hope that the government will not need too much pressuring and will respond with alacrity to these amendments, my Lords.
19:16
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. friend, Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge for bringing these important matters to your Lordships' House matters to your Lordships' House and thank her for speaking so passionately and clearly about the subject matter of her amendments. There is very little that I can add. My noble friend has an impressive track record in this area, a private member's bill being a striking example of that, and these amendments being very much in the same vein. But as she made clear, we must all remember what is truly important here, and that is the victims of these events.

They must be at the centre of all our debates. And today they have been just simply specifically on amendments three, three, four and three, 34333 and 334. I'm very pleased that she has retabled this amendment, which was bought and brought in the other place by my hon. Friend Jo Robertson MP. The omission of recklessness as part of the offence of spiking is, as many of my noble Lords have said, a severe oversight by this government, and we believe that it should be rectified.

And my noble friend Baroness Owen has our full support for this amendment and our broad support for the rest of her amendments. Finally, could I draw the noble Baroness, the Minister's attention to my amendment 295C, which is a probing amendment by way of background, schedule nine inserts new section 66 AA and 66 AB into the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and section. The new section 66 AB contains exceptions to the new offences of taking or recording intimate photographs or films.

Subsection three contains an exemption for healthcare professionals who are taking intimate photos of a person who is under 16 and lacks the capacity to consent. My probing amendment removes the provision that the person has to be under 16 for the exemption to apply. It seeks to probe the government about the situation where, for example, the doctor has a 30 year old patient with severe learning disabilities or an 80 year old patient with with dementia, for example, neither have the capacity to consent, but the doctor has to take a photo of the patient in an intimate state to show, for example, the patient's position to or condition to their consultant, and that doctor would not be included in the exemption and therefore would be liable to prosecution.

So it's simply to try and understand the reasoning of the government there, because if the exemption is to apply and it should, then there should be no distinction based on age. The doctor still performing the same professional duty to a person who is, say, 15 and cannot consent, and a person to who say is 18 and cannot consent. So I would be grateful if the noble Baroness can clarify that that particular point. Thank you.
19:19
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> I join with all the other members of your Lordships' House in expressing gratitude to the noble Lady, Baroness Irwin, for bringing Lady, Baroness Irwin, for bringing forward this large group of amendments today, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for bringing forward amendment 295. C I'm also pleased to be moving government amendments 300 to 307 today in my name, which make two changes to the existing intimate image abuse provisions of clause 84 and schedule nine in the Bill.

My Lords, this is an eclectic, disparate and rather large group of amendments. I hope your lordships will forgive me as I endeavour to address them in as concise a manner as I can, but it is going to take a little bit of time. I start by stressing that the government is committed to tackling the complete violation that is non-consensual intimate image abuse. But my Lords, before I turn to the noble Ladies amendments, I want to make a few general comments which apply to many of the amendments in this group and some of the others that are being considered by your lordships in committee today.

I start with a comment with which I'm sure we can all agree that it's essential that the law is clear and easy to interpret. And in that context, I make the following observation not so much as a Minister, but drawing on my past experience as a senior prosecutor and as a judge. Forgive me, my Lords. It is very tempting to add new offences to the statute book. Some of these are intended to spell out the conduct of which society disapproves, even when it is already caught by more general offences.

Or, some would say, to make something that's already criminal. More criminal. It's tempting to say that if such an additional offence makes no substantial change, then why not? The government should simply accept it. But, my Lords, such changes are not always without consequence. In my experience, it can sometimes actually make it harder to prosecute and thus secure convictions when there are a number of different offences on the statute book, all of which cover the same behaviour, but often with slightly different elements or slightly penalties.

Now I know that that is absolutely not the intent of many amendments, but I would gently suggest to your lordships that it is worth bearing in mind that legislating for large numbers of offences may not be without adverse consequences. That said, I have the utmost respect for the noble Lady, Baroness Irwin, and she and I share the determination to deal with some pretty repellent behaviour which has the ability to ruin the lives of victims. The question is how best to achieve it.

I want to make it absolutely clear, as I said before, that I and the government are very much in listening mode. I was very pleased to meet the noble Lady recently and I thank her for that. I wanted to understand better the intentions underlying some of her amendments, and I do look forward to working with her closely over the coming months. May I thank also the the contributions of my noble friend Lord hacking, Baroness Curran and Baroness Chakrabarti. I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint her in relation to the implementation date for the deepfakes.

She's probably not surprised to hear that it depends on a number of factors, and I can't give her a date today. The noble Lady's Baroness Bertin, Baroness McLean, Baroness Sugg, Baroness Shawcross Wolfson and the noble Lady Baroness Kidron, who was kind enough to leave the question of the Ombudsman with me. I thank her for that. Also the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-jones, Lord banner, the Noble Viscount, Viscount Colville, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I turn now to this group of amendments.

Amendment 295295 BA seeks to recreate a reporting mechanism for non-consensual intimate images to be removed within 48 hours. The government recognises the calls to go further than the existing protections afforded by the Online Safety Act. We share the concerns that some non-consensual intimate images remain online, even after requests for removal have been made by the Revenge porn helpline and worse still, still, some are still online. Following a successful conviction for non-consensual intimate image offences. So we absolutely acknowledge the problem.

I would like to reassure the noble Lady that we are considering how best to tackle this issue, and I hope to be able to provide more detail on the work in this area at report. Turning now to amendment 295 BB. As I've just said, the government recognises the harm caused by the continued circulation of intimate images and thus shares the intention underlying this amendment. There are, of course, existing mechanisms which allow the courts to deprive offenders of images once they have been convicted of intimate image abuse offences, and we're already amending deprivation orders so that they can be applied to seizing intimate images and any devices containing those images, regardless of whether the device was used in the offence itself.

So an example would be an external hard drive if it's got even if it wasn't used to perpetrate the offence, it can be seized. If it's got the images on it. This is going to significantly limit a defendant's ability to retain or to access intimate image abuse material. That said, we recognise that these existing powers were not originally designed with intimate images in mind and as as a result, at the moment they don't extend to covering devices which contain images but were not not directly used to commit the offence.

I can reassure the noble Lady that we're taking steps to strengthen the framework amendments 295 BK and 295 BD, also spoken to by the noble Viscount, Viscount Colville, I must say, slightly lost me with some of the more technical details of what he was describing, but I'm very grateful. I'm always delighted to meet the noble Viscount. The noble Lady wishes to create a statutory register of non-consensual intimate images and hashes. Once again, I commend the intention behind the amendments, but I believe they will lead to duplication of work that I can confirm is already taking place.

Organizations such as the Revenge Porn Helpline play a vital role in detecting and removing non-consensual intimate image abuse. They have in place a database of existing hashes of non-consensual images that are shared with participating companies, in order to detect and remove the images from circulation online. Also, Ofcom published its first codes of practice for the Online Safety Act regulatory regime in March this year, which sets out a range of measures that platforms should implement to tackle to tackle non-consensual intimate image abuse.

Ofcom are currently reviewing consultation responses on new measures for the codes, which include measures for platforms to use scanning technology to detect intimate images by matching them against appropriate data bases of digital fingerprints or hashes of such images. So I can reassure the noble Lady that finalised measures will be published in due course. My Lords Amendments 295295BF295295 BJ 298299A and three 300 B all share the purpose of expanding all intimate image offences to include real and purported audio recording of those in an intimate state, and this was spoken to.

The need for this was spoken to powerfully by the noble Lady Baroness Greer. But, my Lords, the government cannot accept these amendments for two reasons. One is the difficulties in proving such offences, and the second is because we consider that the harm in question is covered in the main by existing offences. As far as the first, as far as proof is concerned, it is a general truth that being able to identify voices is a great deal more problematic than identifying images.

Awkward and possibly embarrassing though this is to be considering this in your Lordships' House in the middle of the working day, a few moments thought about the kinds of sounds recorded given the context will illustrate some of the difficulties. First, it would be difficult for tribunals of fact, whether that's magistrates, judges or juries, to determine whether the recorded audio is or purports to be that of a particular person. Secondly, the proposed definition of an intimate audio recording is one which a reasonable person considers sexual in nature might be hard to determine from the audio alone.

So in short, there concerns with how this could be proved to the criminal standard. In this context, I refer back to the point I made earlier that the law must be clear and only enact offences which are capable of enforcement. The government has looked at this closely and seriously, and tried to identify cases where intimate audio abuse is alleged, and it is our view that there do not appear to be a large number of cases where this happens in isolation. What does happen usually is that the reason for the audio abuse is to blackmail or harass someone.

Well, both of these are criminal offences already with blackmail carrying a significant maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. If we are wrong about this, I know the noble Lady has said she will share further evidence with me, and I'm sure that that will also apply to the noble Lady. Baroness, go here and I'm happy to discuss this issue further with both of them. Turning now to amendment 25, which seeks to define the word taking for the purposes of the new intimate image taking offences.

In our recent meeting following the question the noble Lady raised at Second Reading, I confirmed to her that the proposed taking offences as currently defined would not include screenshots. But I do understand the harm that the noble Lady seeks to prevent. And I've asked officials to look at this issue closely and hope to provide a further update at report Amendment 295. See table by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower seeks to amend the base offence set out in schedule nine.

This applies where an image of a person under 16, an intimate state, is taken or recorded for the purposes of medical care or treatment. The noble Lords Amendment recognises the need for the medical exemption, but it would remove the age restriction to prevent the criminalisation of those taking or recording intimate images of a person of any age, my Lords. Section five of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 already provides for specific medical exemptions. In cases where an intimate image is taken of someone over 16, and I hope the noble Lord will agree with me, it's therefore unnecessary to extend the provision in this bill.

Related amendments 296297 and 299 will tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Irwin and Government Amendment 300, which I formally beg to move first. Once again, I thank the noble Lady for bringing forward these amendments. As she set out, they seek to extend the time limit for bringing a prosecution for the remaining summary only intimate image offences. As your lordships will be aware, the usual time limit for the prosecution of summary only offences is six months. But we agree that the very nature of intimate image abuse is such that victims may be unaware that these images of them have been taken, recorded or shared until that period has already passed.

It simply is not right that victims of these nasty offences are denied justice in this way. Therefore, my Lords, I am very pleased to introduce Government Amendment three 300, which extends the time limit for all summary only intimate image offences to a period that is both within three years of the offence being committed and six months of the prosecutor having sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. We consider that this strikes the right balance between the rights of victims and those of defendants.

And in the light of this government amendment, I hope the noble Lady will be content to withdraw her amendments which cover this issue. Turning to amendments two nine, eight B and 300 A, as I've mentioned before, this government wishes to ensure that the courts have adequate sentencing powers to deal with those who are convicted of intimate image offences, but this must be balanced against the principle. I set out at the beginning of this short speech. That is to say, ensuring that the law and available mechanisms to courts are clear and do not simply replicate existing offences or existing powers in another form.

So, in this spirit, I hope to reassure the House that this kind of behaviour can be, and in my experience, is already taken into account at sentencing. Because whilst sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent courts, sentencing guidelines already make clear that when an offender did something in order to maximise the victim's distress or humiliation, this can be considered as aggravating that particular offence, and my personal experience of sentencing defendants is that judges would not hesitate to do so.

In addition, this conduct, commonly known as doxing, is already covered by a range of criminal offences, including several different harassment and communication offences, and the Crown Prosecution Service has also issued specific guidance for prosecutors in dealing with social media. Facilitated crimes such as these. We have seen no evidence that the police, CPS and courts are failing to consider the existing offences and the statutory aggravating factors available. But of course, as I've already said, I'd be happy to consider any evidence and information which the noble Lady wishes to provide on this matter.

Amendment 299 b the government will also be opposing this amendment. This amendment stipulates that a photograph or video depicting the victim alongside something sexual should be considered intimate. The difficulty is that, as drafted, this is extremely broad, and the reality is that such an amendment is likely to incorporate some images that are not sufficiently harmful to warrant criminalisation. For example, images of fully clothed people posing with sex toys in a sex shop would be caught by this. This proposed offence, or even a fully clothed person posing with a topless male stripper at a hen night would be caught.

To conclude this cluster of intimate image abuse amendments, I will now turn to the remaining government amendments 301 to 307, which formally I beg to move my Lords Government amendment 301 to 307 makes small but important changes to ensure that a court can deprive an offender of an image produced as part of a breastfeeding voyeurism recording offence, as set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Whilst this offence is not one of our new intimate image offences, it is an important offence and it's part of a wider package aimed at protecting women.

I now turn to amendments three, three three and 334 on spiking, also tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Irwin and supported by the noble Ladies, Baroness Coffey and Baroness McLean, Baroness Coffey may be interested to know that the that in fact it was the Law Commission which recommended the repeal of the 1861 offences. So that's the reason for doing so. The government does not support these amendments. We are content that extending the definition to recklessness is not necessary for prosecuting, nor for securing convictions.

The new offence, as drafted, deliberately covers a wide range of spiking and nonspiking behaviours, as well as the substances that can be administered. Importantly, there is no requirement, as there was under the previous law, to prove that harm was caused by the administration of substances. So in short, this offence is very wide and it carries a ten year maximum penalty, although every case will turn on its own facts where someone spikes another person as a joke or part of a prank, we consider it is covered by the new offence, as that person will have the intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy.

In criminal law, there is a difference between the legal concept of intention and the different non-legal concept of motive. So the motive of the defendant might be to play a joke. But we anticipate with confidence that the courts will readily find that the intention was to injure, aggrieve or annoy. And we are fortified in this by the fact that there is case law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wonderful noble Lady. The Minister. I was spiked at the age Minister. I was spiked at the age of 16 at a dance, and it was a cousin of the host's where I was cousin of the host's where I was staying. And he said afterwards, I, I don't know why I did it. I didn't I don't know why I did it. I didn't intend to hurt anyone. So I think there are situations which just listening to what the noble Lady of the Minister said, no one could prove that he had anything other than being rather silly.

I mean, he was in his 20s. He was, I think, probably drunk, but he filled orange juice jug with gin. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spent two days in, in bed. Extremely sorry to hear about that experience. And as ever, I'm that experience. And as ever, I'm very grateful to the noble Lady learned lady for whom the entire house has a great deal of respect. But I, as I was about to say, the government is fortified in our government is fortified in our belief that the that the concept of intention would be proved by the fact that there is case law that establishes that where ecstasy was administered to another in order to, and I quote, loosen them up, that amounted to an intent to injure intention being separate from the motive.

And the fact is, defendants say all sorts of things about what they meant or what they didn't mean. It will be for the tribunal of fact looking at what happened, see whether they can be sure that the intention was as specified in the statute. We're confident that the types of behaviour that should be criminalised are already captured. And once again, I go back to the important point I set out at the beginning of this group. This new spiking offence aims to simplify the legal framework and to make enforcement straightforward.

We don't want to do anything that risks undermining that by overcomplicating the offence. Turning finally to amendment 365 be also tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Irwin. This amendment proposes to to expand the scope of prohibited conduct under domestic Abuse Protection orders. Whilst I appreciate the motive underpinning this amendment, these orders already allow courts to impose any conditions which they consider both necessary and proportionate in order to protect victims from domestic abuse. Put simply, setting out a prescriptive list risks narrowing the flexibility and discouraging conditions that are tailored to the conditions of the offender.

The police statutory guidance already includes examples such as prohibiting direct or indirect contact and restricting online harassment, but we're happy to update this guidance to include the additional behaviours mentioned. This has been a long speech. I hope your lordships will forgive me. My intention has been to explain to the noble Lady Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron and all other noble Lords, who have great regard. Why the government cannot support these amendments today, for the reasons I have set out, I would invite them to withdraw their amendments, but I hope they will join me in supporting government amendments 300 307, which I beg to move on.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness, the Minister sits down. Can I just check on 299B the noble Can I just check on 299B the noble Lady knows my intention is not to create something that's too broad, but actually to tackle the very but actually to tackle the very real and rapidly proliferating problem of semen images. And I think it would be really helpful to think it would be really helpful to get that clarification that the government does understand this to be an issue, and whether it is something the government is willing something the government is willing to work with me on to tackle, so we can bring back an amendment at Report stage.

Further, I'd be very keen to know we on amendment 295 BB. The noble Lady the Minister spoke about physical devices, but how is the government seeking to tackle images shared on the cloud? Because this is the the real problem. And then finally 295B the noble Baroness, the Minister, spoke about how more detail was going to be given. And I just want to know, is that at Report stage or in between now and Report stage, so we can bring back something about the 48 hour take down at Report stage, because America's already won the battle on this.

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As far as the the revolting practice of semen images is practice of semen images is concerned, I think anybody around in your Lordships' House would think it was anything other than think it was anything other than that. If if an offence can be drafted that is sufficiently specific, then we of course will consider it. Our concern at the consider it. Our concern at the moment is that the drafting of the proposed amended offence is so wide that it would capture a lot of behaviour that shouldn't be criminalised.

As far as the other two matters raised by the noble Lady is concerned, please may we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discuss them later? The Minister. Sits down. I'm sorry. I realise people want to get to dinner break. people want to get to dinner break. Will the noble Lady commit to a meeting with me and the revenge porn helpline on amendments 295 BC, porn helpline on amendments 295 BC, 295 BD and the noble Viscount. 295 BD and the noble Viscount. Because the noble Baroness spoke about duplication and these are about duplication and these are amendments suggested by the Revenge Porn Helpline.

Therefore, I do not believe they believe it duplicates their work. So I think it would be very helpful for us to meet and clarify that.
19:42
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
Answer to that one. A short one, of course. >> I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her responses. I'm grateful for the engagement so far with her and Minister Davies-jones, with her and Minister Davies-jones, and I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I'm going to take these points away for further considerations, and I look forward to the meetings that we're going to have. But for now, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw. Your lordships pleasure that amendment 295B be withdrawn. amendment 295B be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments two nine, five BB, BC and BD Baroness Irwin not moved. Amendment 295 BC. That could be Amendment 295 BC. That could be that one in schedule nine, amendment 295BE and through to 295 bj Baroness Irwin not moved. Not bj Baroness Irwin not moved. Not moved. Amendment 295C not moved.

Amendment 296 Baroness Irwin not moved. Amendment 297 not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 298 Baroness Bertin. Baroness Kidron. Just became.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just became. Prime Minister, not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prime Minister, not moved. Amendment 298A Baroness Irwin not Amendment 298A Baroness Irwin not Amendment 298A Baroness Irwin not moved 298B not moved 299 not moved. Amendment 299A Baroness Irwin not moved 299. B not moved. Amendment 300 Baroness Leavitt moved. Formally. The question is that amendment 300 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say. Content, content, content, content. The contents have it. Amendment 300 a Baroness Irwin what moved and 300 b not moved.

Amendments 301 to 307. Baroness Lovett moved formally. The question is these amendments be agreed to en bloc? As many as our opinion will say content content content content for contents. Habit. The question is schedule nine, as amended B the ninth schedule of the bill. As many as our opinion will say. Content, content, content, content for contents have it. The question is that clause clauses 85

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and 86 part of the bill. Many of that opinion will say content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. Content, content. The contents. Habit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move to the house, be resumed, and we will then move to dinner break business. We will therefore not return to the will therefore not return to the bill before 2024.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be resumed, as many as are that opinion will say content the Habit.
19:45
None Portrait Measure: Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure; Abuse Redress Measure (dinner break business)
-

We have an hour. >> No, no. It's fine. 20 minutes. Yeah. >> Armed forces chaplains licensing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Armed forces chaplains licensing measure to be debated. One other motion. The Lord Bishop of Winchester.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a tough. Tough evening.
19:46
Lord Bishop of Winchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Winchester (Bishops)
-
-
>> No, no, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no, no. My Lords, I beg to move the two motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Armed Forces chaplains licensing measure is, in one sense, just a tidying up of a small area of ecclesiastical law, but in a wider and more important way. It is enabling and supportive of the essential work carried out by Church of England chaplains to His Majesty's forces, to whom I'm sure we would all want to pay tribute. For over a century, forces chaplains have been issued with licences by the Archbishop of Canterbury, giving them ecclesiastical authority to exercise ministry in that role.

However, recent work by the provincial registrars has identified a gap in the relevant statutory and canonical provision in this area. Without this measure, each armed forces chaplain would also need to obtain a licence or permission to officiate from the bishop of each diocese in which the chaplain is to exercise ministry. Not only would that give rise to a significant burden on bishops and their offices, more significantly, it would also cause problems for the armed forces themselves, not least because chaplains need to be able to move with and Minister to military personnel wherever they are currently serving, and sometimes to do so at some speed.

It is impractical for them to seek a further authority to exercise ministry. Each time the servicemen and women they Minister to move to a different part of the country. So this measure, in a straightforward way, addresses that by inserting a new section headed armed forces Chaplains in the Extra Parochial Ministry Measure 1967. That measure already covers ministry exercised outside the parish context, for example in hospitals, prisons, universities and schools. The measure will provide a new statutory power, enabling the Archbishop of Canterbury to licence forces chaplains to exercise ministry in that capacity, that is, in the exercise of the role of chaplain to which they've been commissioned or appointed under the King's regulations for the relevant service.

When exercising ministry under the Archbishop's licence, a forces chaplain will not need any further authority, either from the Bishop of the diocese or from the Minister of the parish where the Chaplains Ministry is exercised. That would apply only where he or she is acting in the capacity of a forces chaplain. Any other ministry an individual chaplain might exercise, for example, preaching at a parish church would remain subject to the usual rules about authority and permission to exercise ministry in the diocese and parish.

And I hope your lordships will look favourably on this simple but necessary provision. Turning now to the abuse redress measure, it does seem very appropriate that we're discussing this now after such a powerful Committee stage debate that we have just experienced, my Lords, the abuse redress measure and associated draft rules lay the groundwork for the Church of England to deliver a redress scheme and confer the necessary legislative power on the Archbishops Council to delegate decision making to a third party.

In introducing it, I would first like to repeat the church's tribute to those victims and survivors who've continued to give their time and energy to the process of developing this measure, despite the harm which the church has caused them. And I add, my own warm personal thanks to them for that assistance. The church recognizes its lamentable failings, which have made it possible for some people to abuse others, while others in the Church of England have been reluctant to face up to unpalatable truths and have avoided confronting difficult and painful situations openly and candidly.

My Lords, I believe that the measure and draft rules before your lordships comprise important elements of trying to right those wrongs. In saying that, the church, of course, must recognise that for many survivors, the wait for redress has been too long in coming. Since the commencement of the scheme's development in 2021, the church has sought to work through some complex and novel questions, wishing to give careful consideration to the views of victims and survivors, the church's intentionally adopted a person centred approach which enshrines indeed, in the first clause of the measure, enshrines dignity, respect and compassion at its heart, and which, considered as a whole, allows for more generosity than the alternative of litigation.

Perhaps most crucially, it has been designed to look and feel different from litigation. The scheme is not designed to mirror a court of law, or require a decision maker to resolve triable issues, for which reason the scheme's arrangements don't incorporate. All of these features, such as disclosure and cross-examination, which noble Lords would expect in an adversarial process which this is not. The church has reflected carefully on the eligibility conditions and has sought to find the right balance, which provides that the scheme responds where a failure within the church has been the effective course of abuse, but not, of course, otherwise.

Church has also sought to be clear about the nature of abuse, which is in scope while allowing for appropriate flexibility to respond appropriately. In particular cases, taking into account the personal experience of each victim and survivor, the scheme provides that applicants should have available independent legal and financial advice if they wish to receive it, but not, of course, at a level which allows legal fees to consume a disproportionate amount of the redress fund to the detriment of victims and survivors. The church has provided for a review of the operation of the measure, giving the church's General Synod the ability to hold the Archbishops Council accountable for the scheme's operation, and which allows Synod to extend the lifetime of the scheme if it appears necessary to do so.

My Lords, in closing, of course, I recognise that this measure does not and could not meet every person's hopes, but it is notable for being commended for having commanded overwhelming support at General Synod. And I would ask your Lordships' House to recognise that there are many victims and survivors who want the church earnestly and finally to meet its commitment to provide redress. Indeed, I know that there are survivors watching now who look forward very much according to your Lord's lips, your lordships pleasure to this measure, receiving Royal Assent.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Ecclesiastical Committee has considered both these measures and found them to be expedient, and I am very grateful to them for their careful consideration. I beg to move.
19:53
Baroness Harris of Richmond Portrait Baroness Harris of Richmond (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is this motion be agreed to, my Lords? Baroness agreed to, my Lords? Baroness Harris of Richmond is taking part remotely. I invite Lady Harris to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remotely. I invite Lady Harris to speak now. My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Winchester, for bringing these two measures to your Lordships' House. And if I may, I will address the abuse redress measure first. Lords, this is yet another measure we have recently discussed in the Ecclesiastical Committee, one of a number of crucial pieces of legislation which the church is putting in place to address the unacceptable and disgraceful past experiences of survivors of abuse perpetrated by church personnel, both priests and lay members of the church, under the exceptional guidance of our chair, the noble and learned Baroness Butler-sloss, we are slowly making our way towards some resolution of painful incidents, some of which happened many years ago.

One of these measures, the abuse redress measure, is, is the one I'm speaking of now. This seeks to bring in a redress scheme, as we've heard from the right reverend Prelate, which enables the Archbishop Council to delegate decision making on cases to a third party. This scheme, long in the production, has the approval of almost all parts which make up the General Synod. However, when we looked closely at the scheme, members asked many searching questions of the church representatives, not least around transparency and the need to have independent observance of the scheme to ensure equity and speed of redress.

The Church of England's dire handling of abuse issues has prompted urgent calls for it to quickly put into place a scheme which recognised its failings and which offered compensation to the victims affected by the appalling behaviour of some clergy. Their pain and suffering needed to be addressed urgently. The scheme is not, as we've heard, intended to mirror a court of law, but does respond whenever there is a failure within the church if it has been the cause of abuse, applicants will be offered independent legal and financial advice in order to bring their case forward, and a review process whereby the General Synod will hold the Archbishops Council accountable for the operation of the scheme, is proposed.

Many victims and survivors have waited years for some such legislation, and although not perfect, it does begin to address some of their concerns. And as we have heard, we deem it expedient. The second measure before us, and I will be brief, my Lords, is the Armed Forces Chaplains licensing measure, which simply seeks to address a rather odd problem which has been occurring for years, and which this measure had had to be brought forward in order to correct. Chaplains play a very important, important role in the armed services.

This tidying up and simplifying legislation avoids the need for chaplain to have to get the permission of another bishop, in whose diocese he he might be present to officiate in his role as, or her role as Army chaplain. The measure provides a statutory basis for the current custom and practice, whereby the Archbishop of Canterbury's licences, the Archbishop of Canterbury, licenses chaplains to His Majesty's Forces, giving them ecclesiastical authority to exercise the church's ministry in that role, without them having to also seek permission from the diocesan bishop to exercise their ministry.

Excuse me, as an armed forces chaplain in the area in which they find themselves, this is a wholly holy, sensible and necessary measure to which all members of the General Synod agreed. We certainly deemed it expedient when we addressed it in committee, and I commend it to the House.
19:57
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
The Baroness Harris, because she said almost everything that I was going to say, which is always a going to say, which is always a great help. I am the chair of the Ecclesiastical Committee. It's a joint committee of both houses with joint committee of both houses with 30 members, and we found it extremely easy. We were appointed we were created under the 1919 Assembly Act. And it is our job, as Baroness Harris has said, to find a measure from General Synod, either expedient or not expedient.

That is our sole duty. The chaplains measure was extremely easy, very, very sensible, clearing up of an anomaly which had gone on for many, many years. So we spent very little time in the committee. We spent a great deal of time over the redress measure. We had extremely helpful information from the church group, considerable group led by the right reverend Prelate, and we found the information provided us extremely useful. As the Baroness Harris said, we asked a lot of very searching questions and we were we had received quite a lot of information from 2 or 3 people who disapproved of it, but rather more information, I have to say, from those who approved of it.

And we had a number of victim survivors actually attending our open meeting and a considerable number more. I understand listening online. We had no trouble at all, having heard the extremely helpful information from the church that eventually this was a very good, sensible step forward as the noble Lady Baroness Harris says, of course it's not perfect. Nothing goes through. Parliament, I have to say, is perfect all through the General Senate. But it's an extremely good start and we were delighted to support it, and I commend it to the House.

I commend, of course, both measures to the House.
19:59
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we welcome. >> My Lords, we welcome. >> This measure to further enable the important work of Anglican chaplains to His Majesty's Armed chaplains to His Majesty's Armed Forces. Chaplains provide unique pastoral care and the 195 Anglican Armed Forces chaplains are there for the benefit of servicemen and servicewomen of all faiths, and none. His Majesty's Loyal Opposition is extremely grateful for their service, and we recognise the need for forces chaplains, to be able to move with and Minister to military personnel with greater ease.

This measure, as moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, proposes that Anglican chaplains are no longer required to obtain a licence or permission to officiate from the bishop of each diocese within which they are called to serve. Instead, the measure allows chaplains to exercise their ministry outside of the parish context, under the licence provided by the Most Reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, we fully support reducing the administrative burden for both dioceses and the Ministry of Defence, which will better enable frontline ministry.

Please allow me to extend our thanks for the thorough work that has gone into this sensible measure. The moral, pastoral and spiritual leadership shown by chaplains to His Majesty's Armed Forces can form a bedrock of stability when it is most needed. Please let me now turn to the abuse redress measure. We welcome this measure to bring forward the Church of England's National Redress Scheme for victims and survivors of church related abuse, which we understand has the overwhelming support of the General Synod, his Majesty's Loyal Opposition recognises the extensive work, deliberation and careful reflection that has been undertaken to finalize this abuse redress measure.

But my Lords of crucial importance, we must never forget and we must pay tribute to all victims and survivors of abuse, particularly those who supported the development of this measure throughout the lengthy and no doubt at times incredibly painful, process to reach this stage, as was so well put by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Winchester, this measure will provide victims and survivors with a consistent single point of access to apply for different forms of redress, ranging from acknowledgement and apology to therapeutic and financial support.

And again, incredibly crucially, my Lords, guided by the principle that every applicant and every person entitled to apply should be treated with dignity, with respect and with compassion. It is reassuring that financial support as a form of redress will will be provided upfront by the Archbishops Council to successful applicants, and that being cognizant of the sensitivities involved, request for voluntary financial contributions from a church body are made by an accountable third party, rather than in-house, from one church body to another.

In addition, the process outlined for the review of the measure after the end of the third year of the five year period appears both sensible and workable. This will ensure sufficient data is available to properly assess its implementation and operations. Before a report is produced by the Archbishops Council to inform the General Synod decision over the measures extension by a further five years, we consider this to be a reasonable timeline, and it is our hope that other bodies and organisations can learn from the lessons from this scheme as a model of best practice.

My Lords, it will be a great relief to many that this measure is coming before your Lordships' House to ensure that victims and survivors of abuse can begin to apply for and receive redress. In this way, we are in debt to all of those individuals who supported the development of this measure thus far, and will no doubt continue to contribute to its successful implementation.
20:05
Lord Bishop of Winchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Winchester (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, I'm very grateful for the various points and well, I was the various points and well, I was going to say questions, but I'm not sure there were any which noble Lords have raised. Very, very Lords have raised. Very, very grateful indeed. I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Harris for her very helpful summary, and to both her and the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-sloss, for their support of of the of both of these measures, I entirely take the point that redress cannot come soon enough for for many survivors, but I do want to assure the House that we have taken what I, I do genuinely believe to be great care in the development of this scheme.

Indeed, the board that I had the privilege of chairing for a number of years took over 160 separate decisions in the design and development of the of the scheme to the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Effingham. I echo entirely his positive affirmation of the work of of Armed Forces chaplains, and thank him for his support for the armed Forces measure, and as well, of course, the redress measure. And I again, I entirely echo his thanks to the the remarkable victims and survivors who have given themselves selflessly and generously to the development of this scheme.

And indeed, from the word go. Survivors have been have been absolutely integral to the design and development of the scheme. And I'm also grateful to him for highlighting the wisdom of the review of of the scheme. So with my with my thanks to the House for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these very helpful contributions, I beg to move. Question is this motion be. Agreed to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agreed to? As many. As are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it abuse to Winchester. My Lord, I beg to move formally. The question is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is. That this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, as we were not due to return to the bill until 2024, I beg to move that the House do point.
20:07
20:24
20:25
20:26
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
I'm opposed after clause 86, insert the following new clause as printed on the partial list. printed on the partial list. >> My Lords, I rise to address

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to address amendments in my own name 3168 and 316B relating to prostitution, and also those in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie. Three one and ten, 311, 312 and 313, and also to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend, the Minister Lord Hanson. I, like Baroness Goudie, wish to address the exploitation of women and girls. And as Lady Gaga has outlined in amendments which have also been signed by the noble Lord Morrow, women and girls are trafficked, exploited and routinely abused, and prostitution for the profit of others.

I fully support all of her amendments, which would finally bring laws in England and Wales into alignment with Northern Ireland. Following the work of the noble Lord Morrow, whenever he was a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The other amendments on this group, in the name of Baroness Goudie, are clearly needed, as they shift the burden of criminality from vulnerable women onto the men who buy sex. The traffickers, pimps and platforms that facilitate and profit from prostitution. Quite simply, Lady Goudie has my full support.

If I can move on to address those amendments in my name. 316 and 316 be my Lords. Commercial sexual exploitation is a continuum. Women move from one form of prostitution to another. For example, a woman may be involved in pornography production, but move to selling sex in person or vice versa, and women often go from in person stripping to online calming sites. And, I add, I don't have any particular knowledge of this issue, but I'm aware of it.

I thought I would add that piece of information. While the location or act may change, what rarely changes is the exploitation of women involved, and I would like to focus on just one particular aspect of this, my Lord, which is online sexual exploitation via calming sites. These are websites where someone is requested to perform sexual activities in front of a webcam for paying subscribers. These content creators, as they're known, though I am reluctant to use the phrase as it diminishes the exploitation, are usually women, and the subscribers are usually men.

In other words, women sell sex and men buy it. These sites come with their own specific dangers and types of exploitation. Women involved in calming face harassment, blackmail and image based sexual abuse, as well as the psychological and emotional labour of chatting. Again, a word, my Lords, that hides the true horror of what these men face to men for hours and days on end with no break. Women involved in calming speak about how young girls are targeted by calming sites who recruit them via their social media accounts on platforms like Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook, preying on their youth and vulnerabilities.

And the best known calming site is Only Fans, which is a UK based online streaming platform and app created in 2016, where users can pay for private content with a monthly subscription, and in 2024, the company generated $7.2 billion in revenue. And despite being a British based company, the owner is a Ukrainian American who pays himself $1.3 million a day. And, like all platforms designed to profit from the selling of sexual material, it facilitates and profits from sexual exploitation and abuse.

Only fans is nothing more than an online pimp facilitating and profiting from prostitution. And, as in other forms of prostitution, one of the main reasons women cite for joining calming sites like OnlyFans is due to economic distress. That is why OnlyFans grew exponentially during the Covid 19 pandemic. Women, unfortunately and sadly, have lost their jobs or were struggling financially, turned to OnlyFans to make money. The platform now has 4.6 million content creators worldwide, and while some of these may be uploading content about sport or music, the majority are women and some men selling sexualised content for a fee.

All this content is beyond and behind a paywall, so you cannot access it unless you pay. Content. Creators charge their fans a euphemism for sex buyers to watch videos. They can also add extra fees for bespoke content, merchandise and personalised chats. And OnlyFans makes us money by taking a 20% cut of creators earnings. It also offers a referral program whereby content creators who bring other creators to the platform get a 5% cut of the referred creators earnings for 12 months.

Only fans and other calming sites, without question, facilitates and profits from commercial insects. Yet only fans in particular has positioned itself as a safe platform for uploading sexualised content a platform that is empowering and lucrative for women. And let me remind you, my Lords, the owner of OnlyFans pays himself 1.3 million a day. That's dollars a day. Yet we have women in this country who are selling sexual images and videos that violate their own boundaries, videos that they consider degrading for just £50.

So therefore, my Lords I move on to my amendments. Three my amendment 316A would make it an offence for a person to own, operate, manage or otherwise facilitate an online platform that enables the purchase, distribution or access to personalised sexual content with the expectation of gain for themselves or a third party. My amendment 316B would make it an offence for a person to intentionally cause or incite another person to provide online, personalised sexual content content with the expectation of gain for themselves or the third party.

And as we have already heard before during debates on these amendments, prostitution is organised. It is run by pimps and traffickers. This is no different and calming sites. An investigation by the Social Research Lab at the University of Northern Colorado found that only fans provides new avenues for sex trafficking to occur, and one trafficker generated over $270,000 in the US alone over 30 months. And my Lords, and because much of this content is behind a paywall on OnlyFans, it is easier for traffickers to hide while making it harder for law enforcement to track any potential trafficking on the site.

My Lords, we cannot in good conscience allow this to continue calming sites like OnlyFans are profiting from trafficking, exploitation and violence against women and girls. Women are not commodities to be bought and sold. They're living, breathing human beings. I beg to move my two amendments, 316316B and also support those in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Gaudie.
20:35
20:35
20:35
Baroness Featherstone Portrait Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
this amendment creates the offence of assisting or facilitating another person to engage in sexual activity with another person in activity with another person in exchange for payment or other benefit. Where the assistant benefit. Where the assistant facilitator knows or ought to know that payment for sexual activity is taking place, whether or not the taking place, whether or not the person assisting or facilitating facilitating games in any way, and it would also criminalise the publishing or display of any digital advertisement for sexual activity.

Firstly, the amendment conflates consensual sex work with sexual exploitation and trafficking, and adopting it would cause significant harm to sex workers in seeking to criminalise those who facilitate the exploitation of victims of forced prostitution, which is already a crime. It would instead make sex workers lives more difficult and dangerous by removing their ability to advertise their services online and seek assistance or support from others, carrying and carrying out their services. So if I take those two separate elements in turn, firstly criminalising those who assist or facilitate another person engaging in sexual activity for payment, where the assistant facilitator knows or ought to know that such activity is taking place, the impact of this would be absolutely disastrous for sex workers and the organizations that support them.

It would mean that anybody, including safety service operators like NUM. That's the National Ugly Mugs scheme acting to help sex workers work safely would be guilty of an offence. I'm sure the intention of this, of the amendment 310 was not to catch that, but it does. The Ugly Mugs scheme is a scheme I launched when a Home Office Minister to reduce the violence that sex workers experience, and the principle behind the scheme was not controversial. When the sex worker experiences violence or a threat, they can report it anonymously, online and therefore other sex workers are warned basically about a dodgy punter and that information, often the only line of defence has saved lives, has prevented repeated attacks and has encouraged people who would never otherwise go to the police to start trusting them again.

And the ability to post online about a dangerous client is invaluable, but would be caught by amendment three. Ten the National Ugly Mugs Scheme NUM has disseminated over 1.17 million alerts to sex workers, warning of risks since its launch or since I launched it in 2012. Whatever one's view of prostitution,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no one should be assaulted, raped or murdered for the work they do. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Ugly Mugs was never about endorsing prostitution. It was endorsing prostitution. It was about reducing harm and preventing homicide. And the evidence is clear where harm reduction schemes exist, where harm reduction schemes exist, sex workers are better able to report violence, share intelligence report violence, share intelligence and access judges justice where they are removed. People go underground and the violence gets worse, not better. And the argument put forward often is that about the Nordic scheme or the criminalisation model? And that would make the scheme unnecessary.

But if you look honestly, honestly at the evidence from Sweden and Norway and France, violence did not disappear. It went into the shadows, it went underground. And sex workers there report being more isolated, less able to screen clients and more fearful of the police. And we really should not repeat those mistakes here. It is a dangerous illusion to think that by abolishing the tools that keep people safe, we abolish the reality of prostitution. We do not. We simply make it more dangerous.

But this amendment would also criminalise family members and the extended support networks that many sex workers rely on in order to carry out their sex work, and it will criminalise the many sex workers who support other sex workers in carrying out their services. And this amendment would mean that any business that knew or ought to know, that it was providing services to sex workers such as banks, mobile phone providers, taxi services or web hosting providers, and was thereby assisting them in carrying out their activities that would be criminalised by amendment three.

Ten sex workers are already amongst the most discriminated against groups in the UK, suffering appalling stigma. To take just one of the examples set out above, the Financial Conduct Authority recently warned financial institutions not to close the bank accounts of those they suspect or know are carrying out sex work because of the significant harm caused by doing so. Providing a sex worker with a bank account enables them to receive payment for sexual services, and it would clearly, obviously be caught by this act because it's facilitating or assisting the sex worker in carrying out their work.

And so this amendment would compel banks to close sex workers accounts and would perpetuate such harm. And the net result of this amendment would be to shut sex workers out of the economy and prevent them accessing the services and support they need to work safely, pushing them into more dangerous and more difficult working environments, and the displacement of sex workers away from the support services they rely on would make it more difficult for sex workers to survive, and will make it more challenging for those who care about and serve those communities to locate and to help them.

Now, the second issue I have, which is the move to criminalise the publishing or display of any advertisement for sexual activity. This section of the amendment seeks to criminalise the operations of the adult service website as, and make it impossible for sex workers to advertise online. But in the modern world, most sex workers do use adult service websites to advertise their services, and working in that way means that sex workers remain in control of the services they offer and the environment in which they work, and can take steps to screen the clients they are planning to meet in advance of doing so, for example, by taking ID information and or pre-payment, and by using online checking tools such as the National Ugly Mugs scheme, which I launched to see if the phone number and the email address contacting them has previously been linked to violent or abusive behaviour.

Supporters of this amendment will argue that because traffickers also attempt to use these platforms to advertise those they are criminally exploiting, they should be outlawed. However, outlawing the means for sex workers to advertise would not remove the sex workers themselves. They would instead be forced to adopt new approaching approaches to sourcing clients, and that would have four main effects. Firstly, as evidenced by outcomes in other countries, online advertising for sex work would still exist, but in a different form.

And rather than sex workers advertising themselves openly as providing sexual services, they would advertise instead non-sexual companionship or massage services in such a way as to give the website proprietor grounds to demonstrate that they do not know that sexual activities are being advertised, and this would make it harder to to identify and to provide outreach and support to those who are, in reality, carrying out sex work, as well as for law enforcement to screen adverts and assess risk.

Secondly, it would mean that advertising would be pushed to less visible areas of the internet, such as private messaging groups, social media and the dark web, where it will be out of sight of the law enforcement and those seeking to provide support services to sex workers. UK national policing agencies have made clear that for this reason, national policing agencies have made clear they do not support the outlawing of adult sex websites. Some would instead move offshore, carry on business out of reach of UK policing.

They would also stop providing evidential materials to UK law enforcement, making it harder for police to investigate and prosecute genuine cases. And fourthly, it would increase the levels of danger facing sex workers
20:46
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
by forcing them off the internet and onto the streets and on street workers universally acknowledged as being far, far more dangerous than online. In this scenario, sex online. In this scenario, sex buyers would hold all the power in negotiations, and those who seek to harm sex workers will have greater harm sex workers will have greater opportunities to do so. When forced offline, sex workers lose the offline, sex workers lose the ability to clearly communicate their services and boundaries in advance before engaging in in-person sexual exchange for money.

Well, there have been well documented instances in the past of traffickers and exploiters seeking to use Ace for sexual exploitation. The recently enacted Online Safety Act includes new legal duties for Ace to prevent such content appearing on their services, and that legislation has only recently come into effect. And we should give it time to bed in and have an impact. So whilst we all might very well wish that prostitution didn't exist, it does, and we need to provide the best protections we can, whilst perhaps supporting more useful programmes that help women

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave prostitution altogether. Yes my Lord. I'm grateful to all noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to all noble Lords for the explanation of their amendments. I support the government amendments 308 and 309, government amendments 308 and 309, for reasons that will be explained by the Minister. However, I would go further and support the amendments 312 and 313 in the name amendments 312 and 313 in the name of Baroness Goody Goody. It must be so difficult for social workers and charities to steer sex workers away to a better life, if they have to admit to these offences when seeking legitimate or conventional employment, when they have not even been found to be dishonest.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in her amendment 316P for the reasons that she explained. And it is yet another online problem. My Lords, I'm afraid that I cannot support amendment 310 and 311, which seek to make buying or organising the provision of sexual services illegal. And I'm coming from a similar position from to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. In the recent past and for centuries before, we erroneously thought that we needed to stamp out gay sex because we didn't like it.

But thanks to the effort of great campaigners, people like me now recognise that the policy was absolutely bonkers. We made otherwise law abiding citizens out to be criminals. We turn patriots into security risks and made sure that around 5% of the population could never reach their full potential. And we hurt them. We made sure that gay people could not have stable relationships, which then caused a variety of health issues, both for the gay and the straight communities. My Lords, we do much the same with prostitution.

We have an especially nasty name for sex workers. We call them prostitutes or worse. However, quite a lot of people, mainly men, are happy to use them for a variety of reasons, some understandable and some not so good. But we do everything we can to make it a dirty, horrible, seedy, disgusting business in the vain hope that doing so will reduce the problem. It does anything but we ensure that only criminals can engage in managing the paid for sex business, just like the drug trade.

Worse still, and just like homophobia, we create a health problem with sexually transmitted diseases when we could minimise the problem if we desired to. The noble Baroness explained the logic behind her amendments. But if the policy is successful, there is no doubt that it would be a great moral success. However, to be successful, the police would have to devote huge resources to absolutely stamp out prostitution in the UK. And I'm not confident that they can. My Lords, I do see considerable problems with these amendments.

The first one is the safety of sex workers, and the noble Baroness touched on this. I would imagine that very often appointments are made via an ordinary mobile phone. So if something went horribly wrong with the encounter, no doubt the police could access the mobile phone records and use relevant detection techniques, and sex workers can currently identify regular and therefore safe clients. But if these amendments became law, clients would not use their main mobile. They would surely use burner phones regularly, change them and only turn them on at railway stations and the like.

And of course, this activity would no longer be a red flag. It would be quite understandable. And if the booking is online, clients would use a website that might be far away from the UK, in authorities like Russia or the Far East, and the noble Baroness, lady Featherstone talked with great knowledge about this issue, but it would lead to significant cyber and espionage risks compared to sex workers using certain well-known UK sites. My Lords, one would hope that someone who acquires a sexually transmitted disease would be honest to health professionals seeking to identify the source of the infection, particularly if it is hard to treat.

If the amendment is agreed to accepted, very few clients will agree to reveal that they have paid for sex. Where and with whom? My Lords, I can understand why the Baroness sought extra extraterritorial jurisdiction. If she did not, we would be exporting our problems. If they are problems to another country, which might be as close as Germany, for instance, who have done what I'm about to propose for many years. And if the police are given concrete evidence that this offence has been committed somewhere on the continent, are they going to go in hot pursuit? Because I'm not sure that the police in Berlin, for instance, would be very helpful given that it's not an offence there.

My Lords, when certain state employees are security vetted, it is necessary to understand the applicant's sexuality, because obviously it's a main could be a major vulnerability, but there's never a problem if the applicant is honest and candid. Candid and the vetting team are not easily shot. However, it would be a problem if the candidate admit the applicant admits to serious criminal offences and if they successfully lied to the vetting team, then they make themselves a security risk.

My Lords, unlike the online problems that we have been discussing, we are talking about the world's oldest profession. And if we think that we have stamped it out, we may only have driven it deep underground. As explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. Those seeking to pay for those seeking paid sex will have to use dangerous IT solutions that will leave them, and possibly their employer, much more vulnerable to cyber attacks and blackmail. The sex workers involved will be involved in a very serious criminal undertaking, not just at the moment, as perhaps three girls setting up a flat together.

My Lords, what is to be done to address the ills that the noble Baroness has so skilfully articulated? And I do not disagree with her analysis of the problem and the evils. Hitherto in the UK we've taken a priggish and prudish attitude to these matters, and made things far worse, just as we did with gay people. The answer, my Lords, is that we should regulate license and taxes activity just as we do with alcohol. We should license establishments, whether large or small.

The larger establishments could be discreetly located so that they do not interfere with the local community. We should ensure that sex workers never again have to give the majority of their earning to an immoral criminal, who will abuse them if they do not. The economics of the profession are favourable for sex workers. If there were no immoral parasites involved, we should ensure that criminals are not able to be involved in the business at all. We should licence sex workers to ensure that they have not been trafficked or are being coerced into the business.

This policy would make it far more difficult to force people into the business, and it would drastically reduce the risk for sex workers. If we went down this route, there would be significant benefits apart from the tax take, which would be significant. We could require very regular health checks and make sure that any drug dependencies were properly managed. And we could make this a condition of the personal licence. It is reasonable to argue that sex workers would not have to entertain so many clients in a day.

In any case, as I suggested, it would be a far less sordid activity for all if the Minister or the Minister is cautious in his in his response to these amendments, I will gladly support him.
20:55
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a who have spoken in what has been a thoughtful and, at points, sobering debate on this group of amendments. Each has each amendments been brought forward with a genuine desire to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society, a shared goal amongst all of us. Turning to amendments 308 and 309. In the name of the noble Lord, the Minister. I of course, understand and respect the intention that lies behind them, which is to ensure that individuals who were exploited as children, often in circumstances of profound vulnerability, are not burdened in adulthood by convictions or cautions that arose from their own victimization.

And we share the desire of the noble Lord Minister to protect children from such exploitation, and absolutely recognise that those under 18 involved in prostitution can very often be victims. The amendment, as drafted, would create an automatic disregard or pardon for every offence of loitering or soliciting committed under the age of 18, and I was simply asked the noble Lord, the Minister for. For more of an explanation as to whether a blanket approach of this kind is the right mechanism, young people under 18 can be convicted of a wide range of offences, many of which the law rightly considers on a case by case basis, with great care and nuance.

And it's not immediately clear why this particular category of offence should be given automatic treatment when others are subject to a case by case consideration. I totally accept that. That's a difficult question, and whilst we are very sympathetic to the concerns that underpin the amendments, we do hope to hear from the noble Lord Minister a more detailed rationale for them. My Lords, Amendment 310 and 311, tabled by the noble Baroness, Baroness Goudie, and spoken to tonight by Baroness Ritchie, a raised significant issues about the role of those who enable, promote or profit from prostitution, including through online platforms, and about the criminal liability of those who pay for sexual services.

And again, we absolutely support the underlying principle that exploitation, whether offline or online, must be robustly tackled and that those who profit from the abuse or commodification of vulnerable people should face meaningful consequences. The growth of online facilitation has created a new and disturbing avenues for exploitation, and we support efforts to ensure our legislative framework keeps pace with these developments. I do, however, think that the approach that the noble Baroness, Baroness Gadhia, suggested through these amendments, which is effectively to repeal the current offences in the Street Offences Act and replace them with the new offences in her amendments, is a very, very wide ranging change to the law.

Such a sweeping and significant alteration to our legal framework should not be undertaken, in our view, without a very serious consideration of the impact and should be the subject of a serious examination, consultation with the police and other groups and publication of proposals by the Home Office. It is not a change that we can simply make on a whim. Finally, amendments 316A and 316B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Baroness Downpatrick, concern the rapidly evolving landscape of online sexual exploitation and we share the noble Baroness concern about the ways in which digital platforms can facilitate harmful or coercive practices, and about the need to ensure that those who profit from exploitation of vulnerable individuals are held to account.

We recognise the seriousness of the issues that she has raised this evening, and the need for continued work to ensure that offenders cannot simply exploit technological advances to evade scrutiny or sanction. And I hope the government considers these amendments very carefully. To conclude, my Lords, there is clear recognition of the need to strengthen protections for vulnerable people and to ensure that those who exploit them, whether in person or online, are met with the full force of the law. And I look forward to continuing discussions with the government as the bill progresses, and to hearing from the noble Lord Minister tonight so we can ensure that the legislation is both robust and proportionate and delivers the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deserve. My Lords, the problem of prostitution has been around since biblical times. I can understand why the noble Lord might not be why the noble Lord might not be very supportive of 310310 and 311, very supportive of 310310 and 311, but does my noble friend on the frontbench have not offered any solution to the problem of prostitution?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble for that. For that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For that. Question, I I've been the position of of the frontbench clear and I think it's now for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I think it's now for the Minister to answer such a testing question. Things like that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Things like that. Well, I'm grateful to my noble friend Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, for commencing this discussion and debate, because obviously there's a number of views
21:01
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
being expressed in the committee today, and some of the views do go wider than the amendments that are wider than the amendments that are before us today. And the noble lately has raised a number of issues which go beyond what is issues which go beyond what is before us. But I think it's also important to say that my noble friend Baroness Ritchie, also friend Baroness Ritchie, also touched on the amendments. In the name of my noble friend, Baroness Goudie, and it's clear that there Goudie, and it's clear that there are differing views in the committee from the noble Baroness Featherstone, Earl Attlee, and indeed Lord Cameron of Lochiel from the front bench, which tells me that this is a truly complex area where there are very different legislative options open and where the government needs to consider very carefully what needs to be done.

But I'd like to start, if I may, by just saying to the committee that the government is absolutely committed to tackling the harms associated with prostitution and sexual exploitation, including where it takes place online. This is an important part of our work on tackling violence against women and girls, which is, as colleagues in the committee will know, is a top government priority and about which we will be saying more shortly. But I think we need to look at what the evidence is, and we have limited evidence as to what will most effectively reduce demand for prostitution and disrupt exploitation without.

And this is the key point, I think that came out of some of the contributions unintentionally causing harm to victims and survivors, and making life more difficult for those who choose that course of lifestyle. So therefore, I say to my noble friend that the government is not in a position to accept the amendments today, but I want to make it absolutely clear that we are in the business of taking steps to tackle sexual exploitation and to gather evidence to inform further interventions in the future.

Now, amendment 310 in the name of Baroness Goudie, would make it an offence to assist, facilitate or control the prostitution of another person, regardless of whether the individual secures any personal gain from this facilitation. Now, the broad working wording of this offence could, and again this echoes what the noble Baroness Featherstone has said have an adverse consequence for people who choose to be engaged in prostitution. For example, criminalising professionals such as healthcare support workers, such as charities who provide sexually transmitted infections, testing such as those providing contraception or safety planning, and the noble Baroness.

Lady Featherstone, I think, made a very compelling case around some of the issues that the government reflected on in relation to that amendment. Baroness Goudie's amendment would also make it a criminal offence to operate a website hosting adverts for prostitution, and I'll come back to that again in a moment, if I may. My noble friend Baroness Ritchie in 316A and 316B would introduce new criminal offences to tackle the sale of personalised sexual content online, including audio, visual and visual content.

Specifically, amendment 316 would make it an offence to own, manage or facilitate one of these online platforms, while amendment 316B would create an offence of causing or inciting an individual to sell personalised on these platforms, it would also introduce a on the online platform to remove personalised sexual content within 24 hours. If an individual is convicted of the offence, and if an individual who was incited to sell the content had requested its removal. Now I want to just say, on behalf of the government that we recognise very strongly that we need to take action to tackle these websites, the so-called pimping websites are, in my view, something that needs to be addressed and tackled.

However, I would argue, and this is again for our debate that's been initiated today, the criminalising those websites may have safety implications for people who sell sex, and may result in the displacement to on street prostitution, which in my view is more dangerous for individuals. It may also disrupt policing operations, where the police can scan adult service websites for signs of vulnerability, for signs of exploitation, and also to gain data to support criminal investigations. Now, I would accept that members of the committee might want the government Ministers to say that.

But Changing Lives, which is an organization supporting people who've been sexually exploited, advocates also against criminalising adult service websites and instead is calling for stronger regulation, more referral mechanisms and more funding to support people affected by exploitation. Now, amendment 311 in the name, again of my noble friend Baroness Goudie, would make it an offence for an individual to pay for or attempt to pay for sex, either for themselves or on behalf of others. Now, again, the government has looked in detail at this approach in other countries who've taken this approach and has seen indications that the law can be misused to both harass and victimise people engaged in prostitution.

Now, again, that's a matter for debate and discussion, but that is the view that we have taken as a government currently. Amendment 312, in the name of my noble friend Baroness Goudie, would repeal the section offence in section one of the Street Offences Act of 1959, which criminalizes a person aged 18 or over for persistently loitering or soliciting in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution, and the amendment 313 would disregard prior convictions and cautions.

Now, again, there may be some common ground here, because I absolutely recognise that the concerns this offence may criminalise vulnerable individuals and restrict their opportunities for employment. However, I'm also mindful that on street prostitution have can have an impact on local communities and it's important that we consider their views. My noble friend Baroness Goudie, was she able to be here? Would know. I'm sure that the criminal law rightly evolved in 215 to make it clear that children cannot be prostitutes, and that any child who is paid in exchange for sex is very clearly a victim of child sexual exploitation.

Therefore, I would argue that it's long overdue that individuals issued cautions or convictions for the offence at section one of the Street Offences Act before 215. Have their criminal records expunged. Now again, I know the noble Lord Cameron and his contribution asked for details. I would simply say that, as I've said there, that children cannot be prostitutes, children who are paid in exchange for sex are clearly victims of sexual exploitation, and those records currently in place provide significant barriers to then now adults in their employment, in their psychological rehabilitation.

And I think it's important that we look at the long term consequences of those incidences and help them to support rebuilding their lives. That's why we have put in place the amendment 308 on behalf of the government, which will disregard convictions for cautions for section one offences issued to under 18 seconds. Now, I think, you know, with amendment 309 that will provide pardons for such convictions and cautions. And in each case, what we've tried to do, which, again, I hope the noble Lord from the front bench opposite will reflect on we've done this to ensure that the disregard and pardon is automatic, so that we don't want to retraumatize victims of childhood and survivors by requiring them to go through an application process.

Now, I asked even today, just internally in our discussions in the Home Office, how many individuals this would potentially impact upon. And we've looked at the figures for the last 30 years, and we're assessing around 350, 352 individuals would fall under the auspices of that just for the last 30 years. Someone 30 years ago now under 18 could be approaching their 50s. And I would just say to the noble Lord Cameron that for that person, an offence as a child would still on their record, be there, would still impact upon their employment, would still impact upon their life chances for something they maybe did not have a responsibility for at the time.

And therefore I would welcome his support for that repeal. But I share with him, if I may.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support what the noble Lord is putting forward. Could I ask him, putting forward. Could I ask him, is it the intention of the Home Office to track down these 350 or Office to track down these 350 or so individuals and notify them of the consequences of this legislation? When it's enacted?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation? When it's enacted? We will reflect on that. But as I've said, I hope the noble Lord heard that the disregard and pardon heard that the disregard and pardon will be automatic. So essentially it will happen if this is receives Royal Assent and the support of both houses. I will reflect on what he said, because there may be but an opportunity to consider that. But I don't want to commit to that today because we don't necessarily know where someone in 1995 is now and the address etcetera and the contacts may all be different, but I'll reflect on that.

But the key point is it's an automatic disregard for those individuals. So if there is publicity given to this and it is received Royal Assent, then potentially that is a burden lifted for those who are under 18 at the time. But I have to say that I can't share the support for the section one offence to be repealed for those who are over 18, and again, I can give reasons for that, but we will consider in future if the section one offence is repealed in its entirety, whether the disregard and pardon should be extended to adults, because that's a separate issue.

But I wanted to focus today on those under 18. I think it's also important because I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, consider separating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the disregard and the pardon. I'm trying to think and I apologize to the noble Earl. I'm apologize to the noble Earl. I'm trying to think how that would how that would impact upon the issue that we're talking about today. But that we're talking about today. But let me if you if you let me, I will I will look at what he said, I will look at what he said, discuss it with colleagues in the Home Office. But essentially there is a disregard.

It's not happening for people under the age of 18. There isn't a pardon. It's automatic. But I'll look at what he said and try to discuss it in that context, if I may. I think it's just important. Also, as I have rejected the amendments, essentially in the name of my noble friend, that I just do indicate to her that there is a range of ongoing work to tackle sexual exploitation, and our intention is to continue working with police, charities and those affected to ensure that we do take action.

And it's really important that we just draw attention, as the noble Baroness Featherstone did, to the online platforms legal duties, which have come into play from the 17th of March through the Online Safety Act of 2023, which sets out priority offences on which platforms must take additional steps to tackle, and the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, which again I hope helps my noble friend Baroness Ritchie makes it an offence to cause or incite prostitution for gain, or to control prostitution for gain, and those offences, together with human trafficking offences, are priority offences under the 2023 act.

So platforms, I think as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone indicated, should already now be completing risk assessments, be implementing measures to mitigate against the risk of those services being used for what is illegal activity and having illegal content content present. And Ofcom is providing recommended measures for compliance through the illegal content codes and platforms must be able to demonstrate the measures they've taken to comply with their duties, and there's very significant fines in place of 10% of global revenue or, in extreme cases, business disruption measures.

And I should also again point out to my noble friend, just to show that we're not ignoring the issues that she has raised. We've also introduced provisions in schedule 13 to this bill, which will enable law enforcement agencies to apply to the courts, to suspend temporarily IP and domain names used for serious crimes like sexual exploitation for up to 12 months. And we're also working closely with police and other law enforcement partners to ensure that the laws we do have are effectively enforced, and we are ensuring that we have, through the law enforcement partners, running a pilot where adverts are referred to the Home Office funded Tackling Organised Exploitation programme to consider if offences have been considered and committed on adult service websites.

And in addition, law enforcement partners are working closely with Ofcom on the issue of adult service websites, which my noble friend has mentioned to ensure that the right measures are put in place to identify and remove illegal content and safeguard people from sexual exploitation. And it may help my noble friend to know that we're providing £450,000 to the National Police Chiefs Council this year to pilot a national law enforcement, intelligence and investigation hub for sexual exploitation, collating information on victims and perpetrators.

And we're also providing £475,000 to changing lives to provide support to those affected by sexual exploitation. So I hope that the committee can reflect on this difficult and challenging topic. I beg to move amendments 308 and 309, but I hope that noble Lords will not move their amendments at the moment. But I'm grateful to them and for those who've contributed, for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sensible and strong strong. Very grateful to the noble Lord. I was just picking up from what the I was just picking up from what the noble Lord Earl aptly said about licensing sex workers. I wondered licensing sex workers. I wondered whether the noble Lord, the Minister, knows what goes on in Holland, where each individual Holland, where each individual woman is actually licensed as an individual business. I walked down individual business. I walked down a small town, the red light district, and saw women in all the windows and was being told by a local Dutch councillor that all of them had pimps.

They were either on the phone to their pimp, or the curtains were pulled because they had a. So the idea of licensing, if I might suggest to the Lord, the Minister doesn't stop pimping.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. And as I said in my earlier remarks, the Home Office my earlier remarks, the Home Office has examined and looked at a range of alternative methods of of alternative methods of regulation and legislation from other countries. And again today, if I may say, the issue of licensing is is outside of the amendments that are before the committee. It's outside of the legislative proposals we've got in the bill. So I don't wish to, if I may, go down that route today.

But obviously we examine at all times and look at all experiences, and our main objective is to ensure that we support and protect the safety of individuals who choose to involve themselves in this work, and also at the same time, to ensure that we ensure that no harm's come to wider society as a result of those actions. But I'm grateful to the noble Lord for raising this today. But it's not an issue that I can go down at this particular moment for the reasons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've outlined. So I beg to move. 308 and 309. Amendment 308 be agreed to. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 308 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say. The contrary. Not content. The say. The contrary. Not content. The contents have it 309 move formally. Lord Hanson, the question is amendment 309 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendments 310 to 313. Baroness Goldie not 310 to 313. Baroness Goldie not moved. Amendment 314.

Baroness Burton not moved. Amendment 315 Baroness Brinton. 315 seeks.
21:18
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
To do something very simple but long overdue, that is, to automatically commence the automatically commence the protection from sex based Harassment in Public Act 2023, when the Crime and Policing Bill the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent. The act requires the government to pass a Statutory Instrument to commence its provisions. We've been waiting two years now for this. See? So the act is not in force. Well, of the four clauses in the act, the only clause in force is number four.

That is the extent, commencement and short title of the act. As with other groups this evening, this amendment comes with a cross-party background, and it's worth noting and giving credit to Greg Clark, the former MP for Tunbridge Wells, because this was his private member's bill sponsored by him and given time by the then conservative government. Greg said he had heard some harrowing experience of school students in his constituency. It's really shocking that 1 in 3 girls report being sexually harassed while wearing school uniform in our society in 2025.

That is unacceptable. So the 2023 act creates a new, specific offence of harassment on account of an individual's sex. So the amendment to this bill was laid in the Commons by my hon. Friend Mike Martin MP, who is now the MP for Tunbridge Wells. And like Greg Clark, Mike Martin believes that the government needs to create the Statutory Instrument to bring it into effect, but nothing other than warm words from Ministers. But no action has happened. The act criminalises harassing, following, shouting, degrading words or making obscene gestures at women and girls in public places with the deliberate intention of causing them harm or distress.

This offence will carry a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment and, under the government's new proposal, would clearly still come under the Magistrates courts, where in the past it would have not been able to, it would have had to go up to a Crown Court. As Mike Martin MP said in the Commons debate, sexual harassment is a blot on our society. The statistics are damning. 71% of women in the UK have experienced sexual harassment in public, and this raises rises to 86% among women aged 18 to 24.

The lack of action from this government on ending the sexual harassment of women, especially young women, is not good. Mike Martin MP tabled a written question on this back in the spring, and the government said then that it would publish its next steps. But more recently the government has said it will be done in due course. To be honest, my Lords, this sounds as if it's further away than the next steps offer. Earlier this year, the amendment says now is the time.

Greg Clark's private member's bill had cross-party support, and this amendment also had cross-party support. When the bill was debated in the Commons. I worry that this government cannot deliver on its manifesto commitment to halve violence on women and girls when they won't take these straightforward first steps to challenge and prevent the appalling sex based harassment that continues to be so evident everywhere in the UK. I look forward to the Minister's reply, but above all, urge that now is the time for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

action on this matter. I beg to move. Proposed after.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 86. Insert the new clause. The words as. Printed in the Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment for the reasons she gives, and for a further reason, which is that I deprecate the which is that I deprecate the practice of Ministers of all governments, of not bringing into force legislation which has been enacted by Parliament. Parliament intends legislation to come into effect. Otherwise we are wasting our time debating it and approving
21:22
21:22
21:23
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
And I'm very grateful to the >> And I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, Baroness Brinton, for bringing forward this amendment, which, as she said, seeks to accelerate the commencement of the 2023 act. The intention behind the amendment is clear. It's wholly understandable, and that is to ensure that victims of sex based harassment benefit from protections that Parliament has already approved, and to do so without further delay. And without doubt, there is a shared desire across this House to see individuals, particularly women and girls, better protected from harassment in public spaces.

And while I entirely understand that commencement provisions often involve important practical and operational considerations, including the readiness of policing and guidance frameworks, and that there has to be an explanation of the implications of altering the timetable set out in the original act. But on these benches we very much recognise the motivation behind the amendment and the concerns that it seeks to address. And if the government doesn't agree with the amendment, then we look forward to hearing from noble, the Minister, what progress there has been towards commencement and whether the approach proposed here would assist the effective implementation of the Act's provisions.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising this important issue of public this important issue of public sexual harassment and, as has been discussed, amendment 315 seeks to automatically commence the protection from sex based harassment that was passed in the harassment that was passed in the Public Act of 2023, when the Crime and Policing Bill received its Royal Assent. At that time, I just remind the House that this
21:25
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
remind the House that this government has been responsible for periods of activity since July 24th, not for the two year period, but as members of the committee will know, tackling public sexual harassment is an important part of the government's mission to halve the levels of violence against women and girls in a decade. Now, as the committee knows, and as I've said on numerous occasions, including today and other periods, the new Violence against Women and Girls strategy is to be produced as soon as possible, and will include a range of action to tackle sexual harassment.

And I want to hopefully reassure the noble Lady and also in doing so, her noble friend Baroness Doocey from the Liberal Democrat front bench, that the measures we are developing to address sex based harassment within this include options for commencement of the 2023 act. I echo the sentiments of the noble Lady and of the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and agree the timely implementation of legislation is important principle to follow, and I share the noble Lord Panic's view that if you pass legislation, you have to look at introducing it.

The government has heard what noble Lords have said, that we need to set a timeline for the commencement of the 2023 act, and I think it is important just to say that we have to fully consider the issues of implementation of the new offence, including engagement with the police and operational partners, and we want to ensure that when the offence comes into force, it is used often and well. But I can assure, I think all noble Lords and ladies who have spoken today that the government intends to commence this offence as soon as is reasonably practical, and by bringing the provisions of the 23 act into force through the usual commencement regulations, we can ensure that this can be timed so that the police and others are ready accordingly.

The amendment I would suggest is unnecessary, but I would ask the noble Baroness to be patient, just for the waiting of our violence against women and girls strategy, which is going to appear in very short order. And in the meantime, I would hope that she is content to withdraw the amendment. The reason I say that is because we are looking at options to commence the protection for sex based harassment in the Public Act of 2023. We do believe it will tackle this issue and ensure women feel both safe and safer on our streets.

As with all primary legislation going back to the noble Lord Panic's point, we do need that preparatory period. But my officials in the Home Office, with my colleague Ministers, are working through the next steps and we are taking the time to get this right. But I can assure the noble Lord and ladies that we will provide an update in due course, and they will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not have too long to wait. To get what I've just heard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To get what I've just heard right. Earlier this evening, we've discussed a number of amendments where we haven't been supported in where we haven't been supported in our amendments because we expected to see the the strategy on, on, on to see the the strategy on, on, on violence against women and girls. But this is completely different. But this is completely different. There is legislation that has is on the books, just not been commenced. Can the Minister explain why it cannot be commenced now? It is completely different issue to what's going to be in the strategy where there may be surprises.

I mean, the noble Lord, the Minister has told us that it's going to be commenced. So what's the delay?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I say to the noble Lady that we are looking at with police and other partners at the stage that we wish to commence the legislation. Now again, we have been in office Now again, we have been in office since July last year. There's a considerable amount of work being undertaken by my right hon. Friend undertaken by my right hon. Friend Jess Phillips, the Minister for safeguarding, to pull together the strategy which we're expecting to strategy which we're expecting to be able to announce in very short order.

And as part of that strategy, we're looking at a range of measures, including harassment, which I accept is on the legislative statute book now. But I think it's important that we produce a package of measures, which is a whole package of measures and which includes a range of things that I'm not at liberty to talk about today, but which are in Genesis for the Violence Against women and Girls strategy, which we're going to publish very shortly. And I simply ask the noble Lady if she has.

I suggest to her that, again, we're in Committee stage. Now. The Report stage of this bill will be at a later stage in this parliamentary session. And I would very much expect that by that stage, we'll have published our Violence Against Women and Girls strategy. And I hope at that stage she will not need to look at pressing this amendment further. But for the time being, I'm saying to her, please, if she can give us time to consult further to make sure we implement this correctly and to allow the Violence against Women and Girls strategy to be published, I would be grateful if she didn't push the amendments at this stage, but reflected on what I've said, and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will return to this, if not in due course. The noble Lord, the Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord, the Minister, for his response, even if I'm still somewhat bemused about the hierarchy of decisions going on in hierarchy of decisions going on in relation to this bill, when there's actually something on on the books. actually something on on the books. However, I will hold the Minister to his word, and if we don't have clear indications of a vawg clear indications of a vawg strategy and by when things will happen, I will be bringing back an amendment at Report stage.

But in withdraw.
21:31
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-
I think. amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 316. Lord Black of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brentwood. My Lords, amendment 316 stands in my name and those of the noble in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord trees, and the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey. They are all passionate supporters of animal welfare, and I have had the pleasure of working with them on a number of important issues in the past. I'm delighted to be able to do so again and thank them for their support. I'm very grateful to to the Animal related Crime Working Group of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, for all the work that they have done on this subject, along with other animal welfare charities including Cats Protection and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, My Lords animal sexual abuse, which, with apologies to my good friends at the Advertising Standards Authority, I'm going to refer to for ease throughout these remarks as a as a is not an easy subject to address.

It takes us to some dark places, to evil crimes, and to some of the most depraved aspects of humanity, but it is vital that we discuss it in the context of this important bill, and take the opportunity to clarify and toughen the law. We should do so in part, of course, because of the animal welfare issues, animals subject to ASA often suffer terrible injuries or die. Of those that survive, their lives are damaged, scared, and alone with the perpetrators of these wicked crimes, often those who should be caring for them to harm a defenseless animal is, in my view, one of the most terrible acts of cruelty imaginable and deserves to be dealt with by deploying the full force of the law.

But it would be quite wrong to think of this as just a niche animal welfare matter. Crucial though that is the unpalatable and often unspoken truth this is that this is, in fact, a far more widespread issue about safeguarding sitting four square at the intersection of sexual offending, child protection, coercive control and domestic abuse. Before I come on to the position of the law and why and how it needs to change, it is crucial to set out this background because the because the evidence of the links between ASA and other serious offending, often involving children, is deeply disturbing.

While evidence from the UK is sparse because the difficulty of collecting data under current legislation, international studies underline the seriousness of the issues involved. A major study over four decades in the United States of ASA arrests found that nearly one third of animal sex offenders had also sexually offended against children and adults. Over half had had prior or subsequent criminal records for human sexual abuse, ASA interpersonal violence, or related offences. A scoping review in 2024 found similarly consistent evidence that animal cruelty frequently co-occurs with intimate partner violence and child maltreatment, reinforcing the point that ASA is often part of a wider pattern of family violence.

Here in the UK, the charity Nature Watch Foundation has analysed prosecutions section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which covers the possession of extreme pornographic images and founded in the two years of 2019 and 2020 on 73% of occasions where child sex abuse had occurred. Asa was also present in the same case. Their written evidence to an inquiry by the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee also summarises research showing that animal abuse. Animal abuse occurs in around half of households that are affected by domestic abuse, where there is also an animal on the premises.

In one study, 71% of domestic abuse victims reported the perpetrator also abused pets. That, my Lords, is sickening. There are also significant concerns regarding the use of extreme pornography, which has already been widely debated in committee in which I have discussed with my noble friend Baroness Burton, who is supportive of this amendment. Here, a study reviewing FOI data provided by police forces across England and Wales and by the CPS, found that nearly three quarters of extreme pornography cases involved a.

So this issue is very clearly not just one about animal welfare, vital as it is as a predictor offence. A red flag for broader sexual and domestic offending. It is about serious harm to often very vulnerable groups of people, and the law is currently not dealing with it effectively or comprehensively or with the gravity which it deserves. That has to change, which is why I brought this amendment forward to be legislating as we are on sexual offending and public protection.

Without addressing these known gaps on ASA would be a serious missed opportunity and in my view, negligent on our behalf. It also fits in, my Lords, naturally with the structure of the bill as part five deals with sexual offending, digital harms, sentencing and offender management all covered by this amendment. My Lords, let me say a word about the law. As it stands currently, there is no clearly defined crime in law of animal sexual abuse, including under the Welfare Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Offences are covered by two separate pieces of legislation. Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 relates to intercourse with an animal, but is very limited in scope, covering only penile penetration. The maximum sentence is two years imprisonment on indictment in the last full year, according to figures which the noble Lady, the Minister very kindly let me have in reply to a written question, there were no cases proceeded against, and only one the year before. Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 covers the possession of extreme pornographic images.

These cover acts of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, whether dead or alive, and non-consensual penetration of a person's vagina or by an animal. In short, my Lords, existing legislation is fragmented, imprecise, ineffective, and incomplete. It is far too narrowly focused, failing adequately to reflect the range of behaviours encountered in modern police investigations, with many sexual acts falling outside of scope and image based offences are prosecuted under legislation designed for a very different digital age to the one we live in.

All that causes real problems for the police, for the CPS and for the courts who do not have the certainty and powers to investigate, prosecute and sentence. As a result, far too many heinous crimes are inevitably going unpunished and even more importantly, far too many vulnerable people are being left at risk of sexual offences or domestic abuse because red flags and predictor offences were not registered and managed properly. To deal with all this, my Lords, my amendment would create two linked offences.

First, a comprehensive offence of animal sexual abuse which covers penetrative and non-penetrative sexual acts include acts committed for sexual gratification, whether or not there is physical penetration, and also includes situations where children or others are involved or made to witness the abuse. The maximum penalty would be five years imprisonment, which is proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and aligned with comparable sexual offences. Second, a separate offence relating to images of ASA in line with the structure and sentencing framework of section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, carrying a maximum of three years imprisonment.

This closes the gap where images of ASA sit at the margins of extreme pornography. Despite clear overlap in practice with child sexual abuse material. This amendment also equips the courts with safeguarding tools already familiar in other sexual offending contexts. Disqualification orders under section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, preventing future ownership or control of animals where appropriate. Deprivation and disposal powers in respect of animals used in the commission of the offence and application of the notification requirements in part two of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, so that the most serious offences can be monitored in the same way as other sexual offenders.

All of these would be discretionary, rightly preserving judicial flexibility. But crucially, they ensure that when the courts do identify a pattern of offending, they have the tools they need to manage risk to children, partners and animals. My Lords, the heart of this amendment, which is based on peer reviewed research and evidence to Parliament, is about improving protection for both animals and vulnerable people in line with existing sentencing and notification frameworks. It will ensure that those who commit these heinous offences can be properly prosecuted, monitored and managed.

It will, I believe, prevent so much suffering. I hope the committee will support this amendment and if the government has any concerns about the wording, perhaps the noble Lady, the Minister will be able to work with me and colleagues across the House to ensure that we do achieve robust, modern animal sexual abuse provisions and that they are included in this bill, madam. Finally, let me say a few very quick words about amendments three, one, six, Z, A, B, C, D, and E in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra Lord Blencathra, from whom we will hear in just a moment.

I know that he's a great champion of animal welfare, and it's been a pleasure to work with him in the past on important legislation. He's a great campaigner and champion. I know that he agrees with me on the principles involved here and the substance of the amendment. The issue is simply the terminology and the use of the word. It's an important point, he raises, and I'm glad we will have the opportunity briefly to discuss it in a moment or two. From my own discussions, I understand the veterinary, forensic and safeguarding communities have very deliberately moved away from the term in favour of animal sexual abuse for a number of reasons.

First, and most importantly, because of the evidence firmly establishing the links between ASA and the abuse of children using the language of sexual abuse ensures that those shared risks are recognised consistently across disciplines, and that we're talking about these behaviours in a way that supports safeguarding. And secondly, the term is sadly frequently misunderstood as something that pertains only to farmed animals. In reality, we see such offending across a range of species, including companion animals, fish and even reptiles and cephalopods.

The ASA terminology reflects that wider reality on those. On those points, my Lords, I seek leave now to seek to beg, to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Amendment 316. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 86, insert the new clause. The words as printed on the Marshall List, amendment 316ZA as an amendment to amendment 316. Lord Blencathra.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Blencathra. My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend, the Lord Black of Brentwood, for introducing this new Brentwood, for introducing this new clause and for running through the sordid details which we didn't want
21:43
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
to hear, don't want to think about, but had to hear if we're to actually have better legislation, which I think this new clause is. So first of all, I must say to my noble friend that I think his new clause is far superior to section 69. In the Sexual Offences Act 2003, since it describes the abuse of the animal and not just the perversion of the offender, and it links into all the other online offences we all the other online offences we have in this bill where people are pushed, publishing dangerous and pornographic pictures of abuse and strangulation, etc.

and animal sexual abuse needs to be in there as well. Therefore, I strongly support his new clause and signed by the other noble Lords and my noble friend Baroness Coffey, who have also signed it. Now. When I first saw his new clause, I was motivated to use the term, since I was brought up in Scots law, which had very robust words to describe illegal sexual activity, at least illegal a few years ago. And is still the term used in Scotland now.

I thought initially that the term abuse was milder than, and the word conveyed a more condemnatory stance of the filthy perverts who were doing this. However, after discussion with my noble friend, the Lord Black of Brentwood, I now agree that is a more restrictive legal term focusing on the perverted behaviour of a man rather than the abuse of the animal. And abuse is the key word here, my Lords, and I accept that the terminology animal sexual abuse is a more contemporary term, emphasizing the act as cruel and exploitative rather than just a taboo behaviour.

And of course, as my noble friend has pointed out, often people begin by torturing animals and then move on to stronger things, whereas rape and killers and killing, in fact, the Jamie Bulger killers, I recall, had a track record of pulling the heads of baby pigeons and tying rabbits to railway lines to let the trains run over them. And they displayed a general animal abuse motif that was not unique to those killers, because it happens in thousands and thousands of cases.

People start off with animal abuse, animal sexual abuse and move on to carrying out the same abuse against humans. Now, my Lords, my amendments to delete summary trial. Well, as the House knows, I'm always an advocate for much harsher, harsher penalties and feel that the vile abuse of animals should be a Crown Court matter. However, I will not persist with that either, and I trust the judgment of the noble Lords who have tabled this excellent new clause. For all these reasons, my Lords, I will not seek to move any of my amendments.
21:46
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
And Lord Blencathra have said this is not an easy subject. I this is not an easy subject. I remind the committee of what happened when section 69 of the happened when section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 on sex with animals was debated in this House at Committee stage on the 1st of April 2003. Hansard column, 1886. And I draw attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said on that occasion, I quote, I hope this matter is not something that most noble Lords come across, as we rarely have the opportunity to talk about such subjects, it seems right to ensure that any possible imperfections in the wording are covered, however difficult it may be to talk about them, unquote.

And that wise advice applies today. The prohibition of sex with animals has a long history. It was prescribed proscribed in Leviticus chapter 18, verse 23, and Cook's 17th Century Institutes, volume three, page 59, refer to the criminal offence by, I quote, a great lady who committed buggery with a baboon and conceived by it, unquote. As Lord black has explained the limits of section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, like its predecessors are, that it only covers some sexual activity, that is, penile penetration of the vagina or, of the animal, or of a human being by an animal, and it does not apply to sexual activity with a dead animal.

The exclusion of sex with the dead animal is particularly odd, as the next section of the 2003 act, section 70, does make it a criminal offence to engage in penetrative sex with a human corpse. The amendment would extend the scope of the offence to cover all, quote, sexual activity, unquote, with an animal or using an animal for sexual gratification. And Lord black has sought to define sexual activity in this context with a degree of precision in subclause two, but has also left room for debate by stating that sexual activity includes what is specified.

Now. Of course, sexual activity is as broad as the human imagination, and I do suggest to Lord black that it would be preferable for an amendment to the law not to attempt a legislative Kama Sutra of possibilities, but rather to adopt the approach seen in other sections of the 2003 act. The 2003 act already uses the concept of sexual activity, unquote. For example, in section four and section 78 provides a general definition of sexual activity.

Sexual activity says section 78 means what a reasonable person would regard as sexual in nature, irrespective of the defendant's purpose in relation to it. There's a slightly different definition in section 71 relating to sexual activity in a lavatory, and I do confess I've not fully understood why Parliament in 2003 used a slightly different definition in that context. But I do suggest to Lord black that it would be better to have a portmanteau phrase sexual activity so defined, which is already the approach that the 2003 act itself takes in section four and section 78.

I am pleased that Lord Blencathra is not going to pursue his original wish to substitute the term. My understanding is that as a matter of law, is confined to penile penetration of the vagina or, which is contrary to Lord Black's admirable intention to broaden the scope of the legislation. It may also be helpful, may also be helpful to include a definition of an animal in the new clause by cross-reference to other statutory definitions. As the committee will know, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides by section one that it applies to vertebrates other than man, but there is a power by regulations to extend the protection to cover classes of invertebrates.

The Animal Sentience Act 2022 covers. In addition to non-human vertebrates, molluscs and crustaceans. I doubt that the noble Lord Lord black may have broader knowledge than me, whether sexual activity with a mollusc or a crustacean is a mischief, which this bill needs to address. One final point as has been mentioned, this amendment would increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment for the section 69 offence from two years to five years. I'm doubtful about this. I would expect that defendants who are found guilty of the sexual abuse of animals nowadays are, as they always were, sad, pathetic individuals who need help rather than a lengthy prison sentence of more than two years.

And I'd be very interested to hear from the Minister whether in any of the cases under the current section 69, in the last few years, any defendant has received a sentence of two years, or whether any judge has complained that the current sentencing powers of a maximum of two years are inadequate.
21:53
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
To support 316. >> Lord panic. >> Has just taken. >> My entire speech away from me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My entire speech away from me. So I will not quote coots. And and I thank him for what he's said. He I thank him for what he's said. He he is a lawyer and he has tried a helpful with this and and the point of this amendment and I declare an interest to the EPP vice chair for cats is that Lord Brentwood has support and of animal welfare, and indeed it has been driving this for a number of years via a number of appgs.

So the essence of, I think is right of what he's trying to do. And and it's helpful. The comments about panic has made that perhaps when we get to another place, we have a better wording amendment that carries more support, because for me, the reason I'm supporting this is because of the animal side. But the evidence between the abuse of animals that leads to abuse of children and that link is clear, and it's got evidence from everywhere that that's where it starts and that's where it ends.

And it ends with children and young people. And that's why this amendment difficulty is to speak about is absolutely vital, because when the evidence is there of of a cause leading to a more, a different cause, which is worse, that should get support from this house and should get support from this government. So although people talk about this and he is right, he's trying to right a wrong there. And I think he understands the the points of law, what he's principle is right.

This this needs resolving. This is something that is important to animal lovers. And and lots of people are animal lovers in this country who didn't have any idea that this is going on around them. And it may be right that these people are poor people. Slightly. Not part of society. And this. But there are other people where it isn't where these are done for videos, for live feeds, for killing animals on TV, for money to watch is going on and it's going on all around the world.

It's not an English problem. So there's a bigger picture than this as well, because this isn't just about an unfortunate person abusing an animal. This like everything else, like the debate we've had today, this is about wider society problem. I do hope that people give it sufficient gravitas that it occurs because it's the the animal and the abuse is one. But for me it's the transfer that to children and younger people, which is equally important. And that's why I support the amendment.

Thank you. Okay.
21:56
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, this group of amendments reflects the realities amendments reflects the realities that the police, the NCA and child protection agencies now face with protection agencies now face with children being coerced online into self-abuse. Excuse me? Into harming self-abuse. Excuse me? Into harming siblings or even abusing their family pets under pressure to provide images or live streams as proof, the overlap between child sexual abuse, as Lord blacker said, clearly demonstrated offline offending and animal cruelty is now recognised in safeguarding and law enforcement practice, and it comes alongside a wider surge in online animal abuse content in which abuse is staged, filmed and shared for attention or gratification.

Strengthening the law on animal sexual abuse so that it reflects how this behaviour is actually perpetrated and disseminated online, is therefore both necessary and overdue. Two points are critical. First, terminology matters animal sexual abuse is now used in policing and safeguarding precisely because it captures a wide range of exploitative conduct that is filmed, traded and used to control and terrorise victims, including children, and narrowing the language risks opening loopholes that offenders will exploit. Second, these reforms need to go hand in hand with better investigation, data sharing and sentencing so that the growing volume of image based defending against children and animals result in real accountability, rather than just statistics.

My Lords, the sexual abuse of animals and the use of such material within wider abuse of networks, which is reprehensible, must now be treated with a demands.
21:58
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I begin by >> My Lords, can I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord black for his contribution this evening and for his amendments? And I and for his amendments? And I welcome the moving of amendment 316. As others have said, animal sexual abuse is one of the cruelest acts imaginable. It sees the taking advantage of defenceless creatures, often by those who are expected to be caring for them, and shows fragmented and often parochial, and at present too many offences fall outside the scope of prosecution, and the legislative framework is not reflective of the current reality.

I won't repeat all of the statistics presented in my noble friend's excellent opening speech, but I do think it's worth emphasizing a couple of his points. Firstly, the connection of ASA with child sexual abuse offences and general sexual offences, domestic abuse and coercive and exploitative behaviour. As was demonstrated, there exists empirical evidence that proves this correlation in the United States of America, for example, nearly one third of offenders have also sexually offended against children and adults.

In the UK, 71% of domestic abuse victims have reported that the abuser also targeted pets. There is clear evidence that certain offenders commit similarly related crimes. Secondly, the coexistence of extreme online content and ASA. There are dozens of peer reviewed study studies demonstrating the prevalence of ASA online and its correlation with other forms of extreme and illegal content, and there has been, as an analysis of FOI data that showed that three quarters of extreme pornography cases have involved ASA.

This, in and of itself, should merit legislating for online ASA offences. Animal abuse reports are increasing. People are seeing more of this content online. It is very extreme. It is very graphic. Bringing say in line with the current law and closing existing gaps should be measured. We hope the government supports. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his contribution, and I note that he is not moving his amendments to conclude. My Lords, we are all in agreement.

The need for more measures to reduce the suffering of animals, and I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will reflect on all the speeches given in this debate. It's an argument that holds up both morally and practically, and is driven by an extensive amount of research and data, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
22:01
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. disagree that this is a deeply troubling and uncomfortable issue. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord black, for moving his amendment today, and I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Cameron for their contributions and that of the noble Lady, Baroness Doocey. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord black, for sharing a copy of his speech with me yesterday was helpful and informative. The government has committed both to protecting animals and holding to account those who abuse animals.

I have listened with care to the concerns raised by the noble Lord during his speech. These are horrible offences. That said, we believe that the criminal law as a whole already provides sufficient powers to tackle the sexual abuse of animals, as well as the robust offences to tackle child sexual abuse and domestic abuse. I pause here to say that whilst this is not a laughing matter in any way at all, but I shall long remember the noble Lord, Lord panic striking description of the Kama Sutra of sexual offences against animals.

I will have to write to him about the sentences imposed for animal abuse, although I am rather minded to agree with many of those noble Lords who spoke about the fact that there are pathetic individuals. But there are also some really wicked ones out there as well. My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord black has said, sexual abuse of animals causes them suffering. It is therefore possible to prosecute sexual acts involving animals under broader animal cruelty offences, which bring with them additional powers for the courts to impose orders on offenders.

As the noble Lord already said, this is in addition to section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In section 6063 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The latter two offences are listed in schedule three of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, meaning that if convicted, individuals are automatically subject to the notification requirements, which is colloquially known as being on the sex offenders register. We acknowledge that the law in this area is set out across a number of different offences.

However, we believe that taken together, these offences do ensure that there is sufficient coverage of the sexual abuse of animals in criminal law. We're not persuaded at present that these amendments would in themselves substantially increase protection for animals or for people who are victims of sexual abuse. There's plainly co-existence of the two groups of offences. Less sure, there's evidence for a causative link between the two. But having said that, I welcome the evidence that the noble Lord shared during his speech earlier this evening.

And to that end, I'd welcome a discussion with him in the coming weeks to look at the issues he's raised. First of all, in relation to the need for specific further offences and secondly, the evidence in relation to the possible causative links between the two groups of offending. At this stage, my note says I now turn to the amendments 3168 E table VI. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. Of course, I shall not be turning to those, as the noble Lord has not pressed those.

But I am grateful to him for his temperate and constructive comments on this issue. I was going to say that I'd be happy to meet with either or both of the noble Lords to discuss any evidence suggesting there are gaps in the law. That offer still, of course, holds good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the meantime, I invite the noble Lord, Lord black, to. The Minister. Would she not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister. Would she not agree, though, that it is arbitrary in the extreme to have section 69 in the extreme to have section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which does address sex with animals, which does address sex with animals, but for that only to cover specific, very limited forms of sexual activity? If you're going to have a specific offence, surely it should cover a wider range of sexual activity with animals and not just the limited categories that we've discussed.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government is satisfied that when looked at as a whole, all the possible offences that can be covered here, that these cover the conduct complained of. But I am conscious of the fact that there are ways of committing sexual are ways of committing sexual offences that have not necessarily occurred to the draftsmen of earlier legislation, but I'm afraid the best I can offer, the noble Lord, is that I will reflect on the matter. And invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
22:06
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-
Oh. Lords who have taken part in this debate. It's always good to be moving an amendment where there is unanimity of view across the House. It doesn't happen to me terribly often, particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord, both reminding us of those wise words of Lord Lucas that we don't get to talk about this horrible issue very often. When we do, we do need to make sure we take the opportunity to ensure that we're tightening the law where necessary.

And also for his suggestions on the wording of the clause, which I will look at his point about a a portmanteau definition I think is a very is a very good one. I'm grateful to the noble Lady for the offer of a meeting on this, which I'd like to take her up on, perhaps with colleagues from across the house. I don't think it's very satisfactory where the law is a patchwork, and one has to take a sort of overall view of it to ensure that these terrible offences are actually properly covered.

And I think the point that the noble Lord, Lord panic made is the right one, that the scope of the existing law is far too limited to capture the whole range of offences that are now taking place, particularly online, because much of this law was written at a time before that was that was happening. So I would like, if I may, to come and see that noble Lady, perhaps with some of the charities involved in there to talk further about this and what might be done.

But in the meantime amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I start with amendment 316ZA to three not moved through to 316ZB to 316ZE not moved en bloc. Then we 316ZE not moved en bloc. Then we move to amendment 316 not moved. move to amendment 316 not moved. Withdrawn. So is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 316A not moved amendment 316B not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the House. Now resume. The question is that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be resumed. As many as that opinion will say. Content the contrary not will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move to the House. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page