Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]
Friday 6th September 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text
Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]
Friday 13th December 2024
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I believe in a woman’s right to choose; the right to choose what she does with her own body and who owns her naked image. With the dawn of AI technology, women have lost this ability. A woman can no longer choose who owns an intimate image of her. Technology has made it possible for intimate images to be created by anyone, anywhere, at any time, regardless of whether a woman consents. The Bill will return power to where it belongs, in the hands of each individual woman. Each clause represents the lived experience of a survivor of image-based sexual abuse. Make no mistake, deepfake abuse is the new frontier of violence against women, and the non-consensual creation of a woman’s naked image is an act of abuse.
Since this technology emerged around 2017, we have seen a rapid proliferation in the content created. It is now near impossible to accurately describe the quantity of these images and videos being made every single day. Research by #MyImageMyChoice found that one app, new to the market, processed 600,000 images in its first three weeks. The largest site dedicated to deepfake abuse has 13.4 million hits every single month.
It is a disproportionately sexist form of abuse, with 99% of all sexually explicit deepfakes being of women. Women are sick and tired of their images being used without their consent to misrepresent, degrade and humiliate them. One survivor, Sophie, who I am honoured to say has joined us today, recalled, “After discovering these images, I questioned, ‘Why me?’. Why had he targeted me in such a way? I stopped making an effort, stopped wearing make-up and didn’t wear my hair down, because maybe, just maybe, if I hadn’t done that before, maybe he wouldn’t have looked at me twice, and maybe it would prevent it happening again”. This abuse causes untold trauma, anxiety and distress.
All women are now forced to live under the ever-present threat than anyone can own sexually explicit content of them. The current law is a patchwork of legislation that cannot keep pace, meaning that we are for ever playing catch-up, while the abuse of women races ahead in a technological revolution of degradation. Meanwhile, victims face a challenging legal situation during a time that one survivor described as leaving her “at the brink of survival”.
The Bill has been written with victim/survivor experience at its heart. This legislation is for Sophie, for Jodie and for every single other woman who has been violated by intimate image abuse: may their experience guide us in creating solid law that criminalises those who seek to minimise and hurt others in this way. The Bill aims to be comprehensive and future-proof against the evolution of these harms. I am grateful for the thoughtful and unwavering counsel of Professor Clare McGlynn, KC, and to the charities and organisations backing the Bill: Refuge, the Revenge Porn Helpline, #MyImageMyChoice, #NotYourPorn, the End Violence Against Women coalition and Jodie Campaigns. I declare my interest as a guest of Google at its future forum, a policy conference where we discussed the vital importance of clear legislation to tackle image-based abuse.
The Bill should be seen as a piece of the puzzle of the much wider Sexual Offences Act. It is designed to complement the pre-existing offences within the Act in order to keep consistency and make the current law more comprehensive by closing the gaps that abusers slip through. The taking, creating and solicitation offences in the Bill are, importantly, consent-based, aligning with existing offences and removing the need for victims to prove the motivation of the perpetrator, a hugely unnecessary and re-traumatising burden on victims. Proposed new section 66E, the taking offence, follows the Law Commission recommendation that the current voyeurism and upskirting offences needed updating with a single taking offence. The new section defines “taking” by including the words “otherwise capturing”, in order to future-proof for the ways in which the taking of a photo will evolve over time. In this way, vitally, it brings screenshotting into the scope of the Bill.
Proposed new section 66F makes it an offence to create or solicit the creation of sexually explicit content without a person’s consent. The solicitation offence is inspired by my work with Jodie, who I had the privilege of introducing to many noble Lords at the briefing last week. In the course of five years, Jodie found that her images were being stolen from her private Instagram page and posted on forums, with requests to use her image to create sexually explicit content. The images, which were of her fully clothed and were uploaded by someone she counted as her best friend, were accompanied by degrading captions and incitations, asking others on the forum what they would like to do to “little Jodie” and to deepfake her into pornographic situations on his behalf. One depicted Jodie as a schoolgirl being raped by her teacher.
Jodie’s experience emphasises to us that it is not enough simply to make a creation offence; we must also make it an offence to solicit the creation from others. The borderless nature of the internet means that any creation law can be circumvented by asking others in different jurisdictions to create the content for you. I would like a firm commitment from the Government today that they will make the solicitation of sexually explicit content an offence, for Jodie’s sake.
The Bill would introduce a clause on forced deletion to make the law clearer for survivors to navigate. The brilliant Revenge Porn Helpline, which offers essential support to those who are victims of image-based abuse, shared the case of a woman who, after a long fight for justice, managed to bring charges against her ex-boyfriend for the non-consensual sharing of her intimate images—only to be contacted by the police, telling her that they now had to hand back all the devices to the perpetrator, with the content remaining on them.
That is yet another example of the abuse of women not being treated on a par with other crimes. I am sure we would all struggle to imagine a convicted criminal being handed back contraband. That survivor has to live under the ever-present threat that her ex-partner is still in possession of those photos of her. My Bill would give the court the right to enforce the deletion and destruction of those images, both physical and digital, so that survivors do not have to suffer the trauma of that content being in the hands of their abuser and living in fear that the content may be republished at any given moment. Will the Minister make a commitment today to legislate for forced deletion?
The Bill works with the pre-existing definition of “an intimate state” in the Sexual Offences Act in order to have consistency. I have added to the definition as follows:
“something else depicting the person that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual because of its nature”.
In that way, it brings into scope the victims of semen images, rather sickeningly referred to in the online community as a “cum tribute”. This is where men physically masturbate over a woman’s image and share the image online, or artificially use AI to put semen on to the images.
At present, if the victim depicted in the image is not nude or participating in a sexual act, they are afforded legal recourse only by way of a communication or harassment offence. The new wording would bring semen images into scope for not only the creation offence but the pre-existing sharing offence. Critically, the wording would also future-proof against the evolution of these harms. Does the Minister agree with me that this degradation is clearly sexual in nature and that women should be afforded greater protection from this sickening violation?
Most importantly, the Bill would be implemented as soon as it reached Royal Assent. The victims of intimate image abuse have waited long enough. Given the rapid proliferation of that abuse, every day that we delay is another day when women have to live under this ever-present threat. It would simply be unconscionable to make them wait any longer.
I put on record my gratitude to all noble Lords across the House and to those in the other place for their unwavering support for the Bill. I am grateful to the Government, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the Minister, Alex Davies-Jones, for taking the time to meet me and discuss this legislation. I am disappointed by their response, suggesting that they will not support this vital Bill, and by their apparent willingness to delay on legislating on image-based abuse.
The Government should be in no doubt that image-based abuse is the new frontier of violence against women. If they value legislation with victim survivor experience at its heart, if they want to fulfil their own manifesto commitment as quickly as possible, and if they are serious in their pledge to tackle violence against women and girls, they must change their minds and back the Bill. The Home Secretary committed to using every tool available to take power from abusers and hand it to victims, so I ask the Minister: why not this one? I beg to move.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, not just for the excellent way in which she has introduced her Bill—giving voice to many victims and to the horrors experienced by many women now at an industrial scale, thanks to this technology—but for her bravery. Despite the nasty way she is routinely treated in mainstream and social media, she is choosing to introduce this Bill, and she has done so in an assiduous and inclusive way, briefing Members across both Houses.
I have little to add to the arguments the noble Baroness has made, but it is notable that she has such support across the House. The remaining area of support appears to be my own Government’s Front Bench. They know how much the technology has moved on since the Law Commission set out its recommendations in July 2022. We know there is a manifesto commitment from the Government to do something about this issue, and that they are looking for the right legislative vehicle for doing so. Indeed, they supported the previous Government’s moves on this in April, and just in September they moved regulations to make the sharing of intimate images a priority offence under the Online Safety Act.
What this is now down to is the creation of and new issues around semen images, to which the noble Baroness referred. All there is for me to do is to ask my noble friend the Minister whether it would be in scope for us to do this in the Data (Use and Access) Bill that we are debating on Monday, or whether there is another legislative vehicle that he has got in mind, with the sense of urgency that the noble Baroness rightly set out? Would he be open to meeting a small group of us and helping to find a way forward in this Bill, or another, as a matter of urgency, as this House wants?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on bringing forward this Bill. It is timely, essential and urgent.
This new Government have committed to delivering this exact change to the law—
“banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes”—
as set out in their manifesto. I urge the Government to grab this opportunity and use this Bill as a vehicle for doing just that, because women cannot suffer a delay on this. A 2023 Security Hero study revealed that 98% of deepfakes are pornographic and that 99% of those deepfakes target women. This underscores the need for swift and urgent action. To fail to use this opportunity means more drivers of violence against women, greater legitimisation of the misogyny so rife today, and the horror of a whole generation growing up to be either victims, or perpetrators, without the full protection or understanding of the law.
I salute the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for making this her first significant piece of work. As a newbie in the Lords in 2014, one of the first changes in the law that I, along with colleagues such as my noble friend Lord Marks, achieved was to make revenge porn an offence in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. At the time, the lawyers and advisers to Ministers urged caution, but we persisted. With many survivors of revenge porn watching from the Gallery, the Minister accepted our amendment. I regret our failure at that time to anticipate the inadequacy of the enforcement and delivery of that change in the law, which required further adjustment—for instance, in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
I ask that, as this Bill progresses, we pay particular attention to ensuring that enforcement plays a significant part in the Bill. This Bill attempts to proof against future changes in technology and abilities to find loopholes by using appropriate wording to capture the scope of issues, such as semen images, and the use of wording such as “otherwise capturing”, to anticipate what in this area is the greatest challenge: the time lag in lawmaking versus the breathtaking advance of technology.
I welcome and wholeheartedly support the new Government’s aims regarding the epidemic proportions of violence against women. With Jess Phillips in her role, as a powerful advocate in this area, I hope we can see this violence reduced. We have to take every opportunity presented to us, and work across Parliaments and across parties. I hope the Minister will examine this gift horse, put his department to work and make backing the passage of the Bill a Christmas gift to this House and to all women.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in this area, particularly as adviser to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford and chair of the 5Rights Foundation.
The argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is wonderfully put and unimpeachable. We have a patchwork of laws in the UK that are intended to prevent intimate image abuse, but new formats for abuse and the failure to tackle each element in the abuse cycle creates gaps. When dealing with digital systems, it is necessary to tackle harm as far upstream as possible and then consider each stage of creation, spread, current and future use, and deletion, which is what this Bill does.
In 2022, the Law Society wrote that,
“making intimate images is a violation of the subject’s sexual autonomy. We were less sure whether the level of harm was serious enough to criminalise simple making.”
That is wrong, wrong, wrong. I know children and women who live with the threat, or knowledge, that such images exist. If they exist, they are more likely to find a shared use, but the mere threat or their presence can be enough to lead someone to take their own life.
Labour has made a commitment on sexually explicit deepfakes, amid a broader promise to halve the violence against women and girls, yet government sources suggest that the Government have issues with the drafting of the Bill in front of us and that another Bill may be a better vehicle. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, would be happy to accept changes to the drafting, so long as the aims of the Bill are fully realised. We hear murmurs of the Government replacing the idea of consent with that of intent, but intent has proven unenforceable and is therefore unacceptable. Similarly, failing to future-proof the offence by taking out definitions carefully honed to fill gaps would rightly concern the noble Baroness, but drafting issues that do not change the purpose of the Bill can surely be quickly agreed.
As for waiting for another Bill—why? The horrors that the noble Baroness set out are not problems of the future; they are here and now. Every week brings more victims and allows AI to learn from the images that it already has. It feeds a system that normalises the consumption of sexual humiliation, violence and the abuse of women and children. Tidy government business is a small virtue compared to the thousands of images that delay would allow. The world has changed immeasurably since 2003, when the Sexual Offences Act was passed, but the likely victims have not. They are women and they are girls.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on bringing forward this Bill, which seems to me to be very clear. It was good to witness her evident surprise at having to explain it to a bishop, but she need not have worried on that front.
I do not really understand why the Government, despite making it a manifesto commitment, are not prepared to support the Bill. I support it for three very simple reasons. It is written as seen through the eyes of victims and survivors, which is an essential orientation in framing it. It removes motivation as a test, because the fact that these images exist is enough, and motivation is always subjective and can be argued over for ever. It also restores power to the subject of the images rather than to the taker, which seems to me to be fairly essential.
I want to introduce another element that underlies all this, which might be picked up as this proceeds. Human beings are not commodities. I know that it sounds terribly Marxist to talk about the reification or commodification of people, but we are not commodities. It seems to me that women suffer commodification, whereby stuff can be traded without their consent, in any way that a producer desires. This is dehumanising.
We often hear that we need to better educate boys and men. As I observed to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, having read the minutes of the Wannsee Conference again recently, 12 out of 15 of the people who devised the final solution in Nazi Germany had earned doctorates. Education does not guarantee virtue. That is why we need legislation.
I wholeheartedly support the noble Baroness in this Bill, unless the Government can come up with a way of achieving the same goals in a different form—but it needs to be done quickly.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to support the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on her excellent Private Member’s Bill. It is also a pleasure to follow all other speakers, with whom I agree. I hope the Minister is beginning to get a small sense of the opinion of this House and I suspect that he will hear more support for this Bill. This House has already shown in successive Bills its willingness and intent to legislate in these areas: in fact, the whole of Parliament has done so. The noble Baroness rightly paid tribute to the Revenge Porn Helpline. I pay tribute also to organisations such as Refuge and its tech abuse work, which has educated all of us in this space. In the short time available, I will say two main things.
First, I support the specifics of this Bill, which is excellently drafted, with the criminalisation not just of the creation of the images but the solicitation of that creation, the future-proofing by use of the words “otherwise capturing” and the ability to forcibly delete the images so that they are not returned to the person who committed the offence.
In the summer of 2023, this House made it very clear to the then Government, in the form of an amendment to the Online Safety Bill, that it wanted to treat small but high-harm platforms as seriously as the largest platforms. In briefings and just now, the noble Baroness talked about the platforms that host this kind of content. Yes, we want to criminalise these activities, but we will not tackle the commodification of women and violence against women and girls, as we have just heard, unless we also prevent platforms carrying this material. I was struck by an article on this Bill in this week’s House magazine and its reference to the platform 4chan:
“It was this community of people that were quite committed and technologically savvy, trying to advance the cause of deepfaking, and who had absolutely no moral qualms about it at all”.
I found out today that, early next week, the Government will announce that they have accepted Ofcom’s advice that small but high-harm platforms will not be given the most serious categorisation, in direct contravention of the amendment passed in this House.
So I say to the Minister—I appreciate that this is not for his department—that not only should he accept this Bill in its entirety, given his party’s manifesto commitment, but that, if the Government seriously want to tackle violence against women and girls, they need to be consistent across all legislation and treat the platforms carrying this content as seriously as they should be treated, so that, hopefully and eventually, the content will be something that people cannot see and cannot trade.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, who played such a strong part in this issue and others when we discussed the Online Safety Bill last year, as she said. I supported her then and support her on what she has said today. This is a pleasurable reunion of many who have the scars of the Online Safety Bill and join us today in this discussion. In the end, we had a very fulfilling experience, working together harmoniously across the House to get the best we could out of that Bill. I look forward to the contributions of others from that group.
We are today hearing a bit of the futurology that we experienced during the passage of the Online Safety Bill. We recognised that we would probably have to revisit the Bill, now an Act, on a regular basis—perhaps annually—because technology moves so fast and issues are moving into the limelight in a way that we perhaps did not anticipate at the time. Earlier speakers have raised all the points I wanted to make, and I support what they have said, but we need to think very carefully about how we progress on this. It is clear that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has thought through a very clear and concise way of approaching an egregious problem that has bubbled and exploded in our faces in recent months, but this may not be the best way forward, as she hinted. It might be better done within the Government’s purview—but that would be at the risk of time and we have heard enough today to recognise that time is of the essence in moving forward.
Drafting in this area is tricky. As we progress the Bill, it will be sensible to listen carefully to what we are hearing from the Government as they move forward. It may be possible to get the Bill into a form that it would be advantageous for the Government to accept, or it may not—time will tell. Whatever it is, we must not lose the essence of the argument we are hearing today: this is an egregious activity that must be stopped. There are three layers to it, which are picked up by the Bill. The way forward on this is to make sure that we identify clearly what the issues are and the outcomes we want, in a way that—as we have heard—will work for those who have to fulfil and implement the Bill, and that this is done in a timely manner, otherwise too much will be lost.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I, too, emphatically support the Bill. As the father of a seven year-old girl, with her teenage years and young adulthood ahead of her, I found the stories of those subject to deepfake abuse to be truly terrifying, as is the rate of its proliferation. In the last year alone, over 140,000 new deepfake videos appeared online—more than in all previous years put together. The largest website dedicated to this abuse receives over 13 million visits monthly; one app processed 600,000 images in its first three weeks of operation. The law urgently needs to catch up with this new reality and the Bill would make that happen.
I would like to make three points about it. First, I completely reject the suggestion in some quarters—thankfully, not among any speakers today so far—that the Bill would be an unjustified interference with individual freedoms. This completely devalues the concept of civil liberties and individual freedoms, and it is frankly insulting to those who have devoted and given their lives to defending those freedoms to tarnish them by association with the abusive creation of demeaning fake sexual images of people. The only real rights in play here are those of the victims, as my noble friend Lady Owen so compellingly put it.
Secondly, I support the Bill’s approach of making the proposed offence consent-based, as opposed to the perpetrator’s intent having to be proved. As the Law Commission has explained, it would be impractical to require proof in each case that the perpetrator had the specific motive of causing distress or sexual gratification. Such a requirement would deprive the legislation of practical utility. Like dangerous driving, the act is itself sufficiently reprehensible for the law to treat it as criminal without having to delve into the perpetrator’s mind. In any event, let us be realistic here: it is no leap of faith for the law to assume that someone involved in creating or soliciting deepfake images without consent is not doing so innocently, or is oblivious to the obvious impact that such images can have on their victims. So I ask the Minister to confirm whether the Government will commit, whether through this Bill or other legislation, to a consent-based offence.
Thirdly, I part with the Law Commission in relation to its suggestion—albeit two years ago—that there is insufficient evidence of harm to criminalise creation and solicitation without sharing. For the reasons I gave at the outset of my speech, that view no longer reflects the reality. Today’s AI tools can create highly convincing deepfakes in minutes, presenting an immediate threat both to dignity and safety. If the law does not step in at that stage, before the horse has bolted, in practice it will be ineffective.
The Labour Party manifesto specifically committed to
“banning the creation of … explicit deepfakes”.
Despite the urgency I have outlined, no such proposal has featured in the King’s Speech. Mañana is not an answer. I congratulate my noble friend on taking the initiative with this Bill. I urge the Government to support it and not kick the can down the road in favour of future legislation with diluted and less effective regulation.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for proposing this Bill and her powerful introduction.
Taking and creating intimate images without consent is a violation of privacy and dignity and a form of abuse. The Muslim Women’s Network helpline has received calls from Muslim women distressed because boyfriends and husbands have taken intimate images without their consent. Victims often report that, when a relationship ends, former partners reveal that they have made secret recordings, such as of sexual activity or nudity. We have also had cases where women have been tricked into relationships via catfishing so that intimate images can be taken or created, including through online interactions.
Perpetrators of intimate image abuse can instil fear, humiliate and make victims feel unsafe without even sharing, or threatening to share, the images. They can stay within the law and still manipulate and control their victims. Making victims aware of covert recordings or fake images is often sufficient to inflict psychological damage.
On the Muslim Women’s Network helpline, we have had cases where perpetrators have shared intimate images, including digitally created fakes, and shown them to other people to humiliate the victim. However, it is difficult to prove, because they are not circulated and remain in the person’s possession. They use the images to maintain a hold over the victim. In communities where there is a culture of honour-based abuse, victims will be made to feel even more fearful of repercussions. An additional offence should therefore be created which criminalises exposing victims to increased risk of such harm.
I know that this Bill is about recording intimate images without consent; however, another perhaps lesser talked-about problem is recording audio of sexual activities without consent, including sharing or threatening to share them. A person’s voice is recognisable to the people who know them. For example, one woman who called the Muslim Women’s Network Helpline in distress reported that her ex-boyfriend had made a secret audio recording of them having sex, which was then added to a pornographic film and shared online. Whether it is original audio or digitally created fake audio, I would like to see the law amended to prevent this type of abuse. Could this be considered in this or another Bill? Unless it is covered elsewhere, there will be grey areas.
The Labour Party pledged to halve violence against women and girls. Therefore, I hope that the Government are fully supportive of the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and I will be very disappointed and surprised if they are not.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I support this important Bill and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, for bringing it to this House. Deepfakes and image-based abuse are an issue that many young people, particularly young women, are concerned about. Therefore, it is powerful to see a young woman leading the charge for legislative change in this area. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the contribution of young voices in politics is essential for influencing change.
Imagine a world where any woman can end up in a porn film without their consent—a world where only one image is needed for a life to be turned upside down. We are in that world, and we have a duty to act. It is not just women with a public profile being targeted; it is mums, daughters, sisters, work colleagues and friends. This Bill is consent based and victim led, supported by those who are most at risk and are living in fear. I pay tribute to the survivors and campaigners in the Gallery today.
The ease of creation of these images and videos is simply too easy, and we must act to deter this. Not acting will result in its normalisation—and then what world are we creating for future generations? Is the Minister confident that His Majesty’s Government are doing all they can to protect women from online harm? Sexual harassment is not acceptable in our streets, so why is it okay to continue in online forums? It is time that we prioritise the rights and interests of women and girls, and not the interests of perpetrators or platforms.
Creation offences in other jurisdictions are all comprehensive, and it is time that we caught up. The creation offences in Texas, the Netherlands and the Australian state of Victoria apply to all types of sexually explicit deepfakes, whatever the motives of the perpetrators. If a motive-based approach is adopted, England and Wales will fall behind best practice. I ask the Minister: who are we protecting by not supporting the Bill? I look forward to his response to all our questions. Doing nothing sends a stark message to women. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I will concentrate on why this issue is a matter of such urgency. The description of the contents of the Bill was exemplary, as was the preparation of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her Private Member’s Bill.
It is urgent because something which did not exist five years ago is now an epidemic, ruining lives and reputations and ultimately threatening women’s safety. If a deepfake picture is also offering sexual services, it is a definite threat to that woman’s safety and takes away her choice.
It is urgent because the consequences for the perpetrator are trivial: “It was only a joke. I just passed it on. Everyone’s doing it”. As the noble Baroness has said, one individual found guilty even had all their technology equipment handed back to them by the police.
It is urgent because of the review of legislation taking place referred to in the Statement on stalking last week. What the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, referred to as the “deep dive” into reviewing such legislation will require cross-departmental co-operation as never before—I must admit that my heart sinks at the thought of it; I am sure that we have all experienced cross-departmental co-operation, with its institutional inertia and jealousies. However, being subjected to deepfake pornography must be terrifying and the consequences for perpetrators must be proportionate to the action.
My noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lady Gale and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick were unable to be present today for this debate, but they asked me to indicate their strong support for this Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues in government that this Private Member’s Bill is ready and well prepared to take the action that we have asked for today.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I also applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for the way she presented the Bill, and for the enormous amount of hard work and help she has received. I want also to repeat what I said last week, which is to apologise on behalf of the male gender; I think we have a lot to answer for. We are the problem. We are not the victims, and we need to recognise that.
My aim is very simple, like that of everybody speaking today: I cannot overstress how urgent the need is to act. This problem is growing exponentially, and every day we wait, potentially thousands more women, and then tens of thousands, will be affected. Waiting is simply not an option.
An organisation called the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights has done some specific research into the far-reaching impacts of what we are talking about and the list is not nice: trauma; mental health, self-esteem and body image issues; social isolation; social and academic impact; impact on academic performance; online harassment; permanent digital record; strain on family relationships; cultural and community stigma; repetition of abuse; and lifelong vulnerability.
I have a daughter-in-law who is a South Korean citizen—in fact, she will be there with my son and new granddaughter for Christmas. South Korea is the country which has the worst epidemic of online AI-produced porn in the world. Between January and August this year, 781 victims asked for help from an organisation there called the Advocacy Center for Online Sexual Abuse Victims, of whom 288 were minors. South Korea has a unicameral assembly, and not a bicameral one, so maybe it can get things done slightly more quickly—without perhaps needing to resort to martial law. However, on 14 November, in a plenary session of the South Korean Parliament, all 281 MPs present approved the application of the law to criminalise what we are talking about and to bring in a series of measures to back that up and to aid enforcement. We really should do the same.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, with that powerful speech. It is also a privilege to support my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge as she powerfully introduces her much-needed Private Member’s Bill, which seeks to make it a criminal offence to create or solicit non-consensual sexually explicit images, including sexually explicit deepfakes. I hope I have got the terminology right; I say that because it is a world which is alien to the great majority of us, and yet it is a world that is flourishing, deeply corrosive and, much to my disbelief, easily accessible.
During the consideration of the Online Safety Bill, I spent many hours on the Woolsack, or at the Chair in Committee, listening to some of the most horrendous stories of online sexual manipulation, almost exclusively of women and children. My horror was compounded when I attended a briefing session on this Bill, organised by my noble friend, to listen to the amazing team of women who are helping her and advising on the Bill. I heard the brave and harrowing stories of the victims of deepfake sexual abuse, and I too pay tribute to them.
My noble friend Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, who is very sorry she is unable to speak today but supports the Bill, published a report on online harms in 2022 and asked me to say that “the impact of deepfake on the victim is stark. As this abuse is online, they have no way of knowing how many people have seen these images.” Victims told her that they experienced problems with severe loss of confidence, which impacted on their ability to engage with the world around them. Some 68% of victims told her that they became worried about leaving the house because they often felt that people would have seen those images, and the abuse had made them distrustful of people.
That is sobering. I do not know what the Government’s reaction is going to be to my noble friend Lady Owen’s Bill, and there are conflicting opinions flying around. I fear, however, that the response, while sympathetic, will be that these issues will be covered by a Government Bill at some time in the future.
However, as we have heard so passionately articulated today, the one thing we do not have is the luxury of time. As each day passes, this vile industry grows, as does the toll on the well-being of the victims, along with the personal and societal harm of those watching these images, many of them impressionable young men. When speaking to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, who is heading up the Government’s review of pornography legislation, she made it clear, and was happy for me to make it clear to the House on her behalf, that she supports my noble friend’s Bill and urges the Government to back it and push it through as quickly as possible. She said that speed of action is essential, and her review will make many similar recommendations when it reports in January.
I entreat the Government to support my noble friend Lady Owen’s Bill, because one day delayed putting these provisions on the statute book is one day too many.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is pleasure to rise to support this Bill and to commend the diligence and clear-sighted determination that has led the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, to bring it to your Lordships’ House today. I add my congratulations and thanks to those from all parts of the House for her doing so.
We have already heard the eloquent and persuasive testimony as to why this survivor-led Bill is needed, how its provisions close gaps in legislation and why the time is now to engage with these challenges. In the context of the cross-government mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has repeatedly signalled her determination—she is not alone in doing this, by the way, among Ministers—to arrest the rise in extreme misogyny.
At this point in my speech, I want to make the point that I most came here to make, and which draws on the speech made by my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth and the reference the noble Baroness made in her opening speech to a quote from the Home Secretary. On 3 December, in a statement about stalking, the Home Secretary said:
“Let us be clear—we will use every tool available to us to give more power to victims and take it away from the hands of their abusers”.
That is what this Bill does. This tool is available, and it is available now.
My noble friend the Minister is an invidious position in this debate. I suspect that he agrees with the provisions of this Bill, but that he has to say that this is not the right vehicle for them. I challenge him to act according to all the exemptions in this elegantly drafted piece of potential legislation, which says, “You can do that if you have a reasonable excuse”. That just means an excuse with a reason. What is the reason why the Government will not live up to those strongly supported words of the Home Secretary, who said that the Government will use “every tool available” to take power from abusers and give it to victims? There is an obligation, given the nature of this debate thus far, on the Government in this case not to say, “We agree with the principle but this is not the right vehicle”. Why is that the case? If my noble friend can convince me, I will wait until the right vehicle comes along. But in short, the right vehicle is here, and it will be ridiculous if we do not take it.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and I agree with every single thing he had to say. I also congratulate the noble Baroness on her excellent Bill and the way in which she introduced it this afternoon. I regret that, as Back-Benchers, we have so little time to speak today; however, that is less important than the import and content of the Bill. I thank her also for the manner in which she has engaged with all of us across the House, and for the discussion we had before today’s debate.
Since I arrived in this place just two short years ago last month, I have highlighted the impact of social media on women and girls and, in particular, the negative role that social media plays in women entering public life. I very much believe that the Bill, if passed, will assist in dealing with some of the worst imagery posted online, both non-consensual and deepfake. The deliberate targeting of women with non-consensual images to cause upset and distress, particularly in election campaigns, is something all democrats should be concerned about.
Last year, there was a 400% rise in new deepfake imagery online, and of course, 99% of that was of women and girls. Encouraging young women into public life is so important, and there is no doubt that social media misuse is a growing barrier to more women being involved in public life. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who said that, of course, you do not have to be in the public eye to be a victim, and I pay tribute to the victims who are with us today. This is even harder to deal with if you are a private individual and then all of a sudden, you are propelled into the public sphere.
The Bill will close the gaps that have transpired in the 2003 legislation, as Clause 1 removes the requirement to prove motivation. That means that those who are charged will no longer be able to argue that, “It wasn’t meant to harm” or, “It wasn’t for sexual gratification”. There is strict liability, which is really important, and I hope the Government recognise that. Under the Bill, it is just the taking of or soliciting the taking of the non-consensual sexually explicit photo or film which becomes the offence.
Lastly, the Bill also future-proofs this area, as in Clause 1, which talks of “otherwise capturing” the photo or film. That covers screenshotting, of course, but is also widely enough drafted to deal with capturing the image or film in ways that we have not thought of. That is really important as well. We all know how difficult it is to future-proof legislation, but this is a really good attempt to do so, if I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I know that she has had a lot of help in doing that, and that needs to be recognised as well, because violence against women and girls continues to grow.
Unfortunately, we have had some awful deaths recently—particularly in Northern Ireland over the last six months—and, in my view, a lot of the dehumanisation of women that happens online then spills out into reality and into some terrible consequences. I support the Bill. I know that the mind of the House is to support the Bill, and I hope the Government will too.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. Like her, I am optimistic about AI in the round, but deepfakes are a nasty little side hustle that a small group of perverts and criminals are using to make money out of the misery of others. We need to shut down this business as soon as possible.
The reason for that is that it is not a victimless crime, as a number of noble Peers have pointed out very clearly—I am grateful to those in the Gallery who are here to bear their testimony. The victims are suffering badly already. They are the people whose images are shown in the films and who are subsequently abused when people who are escalated to violence and abuse take out their imaginings in the physical world. We have only scratched the surface of the potential for this deepfake industry to cause harm in our society. I predict that, if we do not act now, it will become a significantly bigger and more troublesome problem for the direct victims and those who are in the images.
As a number of Peers have pointed out, we should have shut this down with the Online Safety Act. It came up in those debates; I regret enormously that a Bill that was meant to have been future-proof and technology-agnostic somehow let this slip through its fingers. I am enormously grateful to my noble friend Lady Owen for bringing this Bill to the House. As everyone in the Chamber seems to agree, it is an extremely effective device for shutting down this loophole and protecting our women and children from this nasty business.
My appeal is for urgency. I am extremely grateful for the patience of the Minister in this respect. I hope very much that he can answer the questions. The Government have promised action and I would like to think of this as something of a test case, because we have an arthritic legislative process, which is really straining and struggling to keep up with technological change. Let us make this the moment when we react to changes in the technological sphere promptly, with agility and with an emphatic legislative response.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, put forward some ideas for how that could be done, even if this Bill itself is not the right one to go through. Let us please embrace those sorts of creative ideas to get these measures on to the statute book as soon as possible. I very much encourage the Minister: he will get full support from all corners of the Chamber if he takes that approach.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, on this important Bill. It is such a well-thought-through Bill, and it fills all the gaps— hugely important gaps—left by other legislation. I hesitate to mention that this was a gap left by her own Government and pointed out by myself and many others when the Online Safety Bill was going through. We begged then for consent to be the legal bar on intimate image sharing, only to be told that intent was more than adequate. I am sure that, by now, her Conservative colleagues have learned the error of their ways.
I am also concerned that the Government will pray in aid their manifesto and say that a Bill is coming—next year, some time, never—but women cannot wait. As a party of change, it would be so welcome if the Government just accepted this opportunity and put women before party.
The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, brilliantly introduced the Bill in its detail and content. I particularly welcome that the new threat and abhorrent practice of deepfakes is tackled in law for the first time. Deepfakes circulate the world in moments. Although there is education and training to understand how we make sure we can critically challenge all that we see, particularly on social media, we are still easy prey to the truest of sayings: seeing is believing.
Sadly, we are never going to be able to prevent this practice, so we must criminalise it as soon as possible and, of course, try to prevent it. There is an exponential rise in the prevalence of sexually explicit deepfakes and the vast majority of deepfakes are, as we have heard, gendered. The harm that these deepfakes do is shattering to women and girls used in this way, and I thank those in the Gallery for coming today. This is an absolute violation. It is an assault; it is invasive and a threat. The individual cannot get justice or redress, and the harm—emotional, psychological, reputational, professional and economic—is real and hideous.
Deepfakes can be created in around eight seconds. The shock and upset of seeing your image manipulated into pornography and shared with your friends, relatives and the whole world is devastating. While you will explain that it is not you, many will not believe you. We are already in so much trouble with social media giving a distorted view of real life. For young people trying to understand and navigate to their maturity, this is a nightmare, particularly where anxiety and mental health issues are already heightened.
We know already that 51% of 13 to 17 year-olds have seen people circulating non-consensual intimate images and that more than 23% have witnessed people taking sexual pictures of someone and sharing them. Undoubtedly, deepfakes are already being used to hurt and damage, and the technology is already being misused. The reality of all of this will be that some young people will take their own lives as a result. There is no time to lose. The Government must act.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge deserves the gratitude of the whole House, and of women and girls everywhere, for bringing this well considered and important Bill before your Lordships for our consideration. The large number of noble Lords here on a Friday afternoon, from all corners of the House, is testament to the support that it has and to the work that my noble friend has done behind the scenes in drawing this growing problem to your Lordships’ attention. It also draws attention to the importance of a multigenerational House, where we are able to draw on the experience of wisdom and the insights of those who are in touch with new and disturbing trends in our society.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, is right to pay tribute to my noble friend’s bravery. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, said, it is often women in the public eye who find themselves victimised by this terrible crime. That is putting women off from going into politics or other areas of public life. The Italian Prime Minister, Signora Meloni, is one high-profile example. As the noble Baroness also said, unlike women in the public eye, this affects many women and girls who suffer this day in, day out—sadly, it is a growing number.
I see this as unfinished business. As noble Lords will recall, I was the Minister who had the pleasure of taking the Online Safety Bill through your Lordships’ House. We looked at this and at the work done by the Law Commission in this area. In April this year the previous Government, of whom I was proud to be part, announced that they would amend the Criminal Justice Bill to prohibit the creation of deepfake intimate images. Sadly, the following month, Parliament was dissolved and the election intervened. During that election, however, all parties agreed that this is something that has to be done. This measure was in the Labour Party’s manifesto, so there is cross-party support as well as support from across the House today about the need to do this, recognising the urgency of closing this gap in the law.
As well as continuing the debate that we began in the previous Parliament, my noble friend’s Bill considers other important elements of this troubling behaviour, such as the need to enforce the deletion of such images. What other offences allow perpetrators of the offence to keep the contraband material that lies at its heart? I congratulate her on the thought that has gone into the Bill.
I hope that, when he rises, the Minister will announce that the Government will support my noble friend’s Bill. On 28 October, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch—his noble friend—told the Grand Committee debating Online Safety Act regulations that this is a priority for the Government and that the Government were looking,
“to identify the most appropriate legislative vehicle for ensuring that those who create these images without consent face the appropriate punishment”.—[Official Report, 28/10/24; col. GC 166.]
Well, here is the vehicle—and if this is not the right one, I hope that the Minister will answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, about why it is not and address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, in reminding us that the Data (Use and Access) Bill is also before your Lordships’ House and gives the Government the opportunity to come forward with their own proposals.
During our debate on the Online Safety Bill, we had to advise those in the Public Gallery that some of the topics we were about to discuss might not be suitable for young ears, as we were joined that day by a group of schoolchildren. I am very glad that today we have been joined by victims and survivors of this terrible abuse—they are a reminder of the urgency of acting here. As my noble friend says, it would be unconscionable to wait any longer and I do hope the Minister will look favourably on her Bill.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on introducing this much-needed Bill updating the voyeurism laws as well as the patchwork of laws in line with the huge advances in this digital and social media age. I have had a long-standing interest in the deepfake threat and crisis from the days when I was a member of the Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the UK, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, way back in 2017. In chapter 8 of our report, we addressed the necessary measures to mitigate the risks of AI, but few of us contemplated the dramatic impact that Al would have on our daily lives—but also the huge threats of the violation of privacy and the psychological impact on individuals, particularly women, who have been subjected to deepfake sexual abuse, causing horrendous anxiety and trauma.
What I feel is imperative is the need to raise far more public awareness of deepfakes and improve prevention. Legislation is not enough; we also need to promote the development and use of advanced technologies to detect and prevent deepfakes and encourage much more co-operation between tech companies as well as policymakers to proactively address misuse. A purely technical solution to identify and label deepfake content is insufficient.
Certainly, social media platforms, not just adult content sites, have been financially incentivised to allow high-traffic content, including harmful deepfakes, because it drives advertising revenue. In this regard, the Bill goes a long way to impose severe penalties for failing to adopt robust technology solutions. Just as banks provide support for victims of scams, so too should similar assistance be extended to individuals harmed by deepfake abuse.
Finally, the proliferation of deepfake sexual abuse highlights the failure of digital identity verification. Generative Al can easily bypass facial recognition and centralised government ID systems. A more robust approach is needed, focusing on device fingerprinting and behavioural fingerprinting to blacklist users creating harmful content. These techniques will ensure that, even if such individuals attempt to reappear under new accounts or identities, they will remain blocked from platforms.
I wholeheartedly support this Bill and entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, that the legislation needs to be future-proof.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to and admiration of my noble friend Lady Owen on bringing forward her Private Member’s Bill today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson have said, she has also demonstrated that diversity in this House, in all its forms, including of age, is of great benefit—and perhaps we should all have declared an interest in congratulating her in that respect.
Given the number of excellent speeches we have had, of which the Government should take note, I will limit myself to three brief points. The first is that the Government really need to change their attitude towards Private Members’ Bills—not just this Government, but the previous Government and many Governments before them. I know, from being a Minister briefed to respond to Private Members’ Bills, that sometimes it goes along the lines of, “We really think it’s an excellent Bill and agree with the points in it, but here are the following reasons you can give as to why it can’t happen”. When I asked, “Well, if we agree with it, could we not solve some of those points and see if we can make it happen?” I was told that that was really not the way things were done. But there is no reason for that.
As my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, said, the Government committed to using every tool at their disposal to tackle violence against women and girls. Why not this one? It is entirely possible for Members of Parliament, from both Houses, to identify pressing policy issues and come up with sensible solutions to them. The Government should use Private Members’ Bills as an opportunity to deliver in areas where they would not otherwise get round to legislating—or not fast enough.
That brings me to my second point. I understand that the Government have plans to legislate for the offence—it was in their manifesto—but, if that is the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, why not act now? Why not support the Bill? There are tens of thousands of pieces of content being created each week, so time is of the essence. The production of this content is growing exponentially. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, tried to help the Minister by saying that drafting issues may need to be addressed—but, as he will know, drafting issues can be addressed in Private Members’ Bills if the Government want to do that.
If the Government do not propose to support the Bill, I ask the Minister not just in which Bill they will legislate but, specifically, when that Bill will be introduced to Parliament and, consequently, when an offence will be brought into force. If he cannot be specific on these points, it makes the decision to oppose the Bill even more troubling.
Finally, my noble friend did an excellent job of ensuring that the measures in the Bill were informed by victims and survivors of this kind of abuse—it is an honour to have some of them here today—and to ensure that it has been future-proofed. I hope that the Minister’s response will address all the specific points raised in the Bill about being consent-based, about the solicitation of images, about forced deletion and about the Bill being future-proofed through the definition of “taking” images and the definition of an “intimate state”.
The most straightforward thing for the Government to do to take action on this important issue would be to support my noble friend’s Bill. Perhaps the Minister will surprise us today by doing so.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the gap for a few moments. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for championing this cause and bringing this Bill before the House. One of its features, which many Members have mentioned, is the future-proofing that it aims to achieve. Incidentally, in view of what we heard earlier, I think audio is an important aspect of the same debate. I know for myself—we had a demonstration in the last Parliament—how very easy it is to create deepfakes. With the march of technology, this is an area where the law needs to keep up. No one listening to today’s debate will fail to understand the urgency of the need: it is a point of which my noble friend the Minister is only too well aware.
The only point I want to add, in addition to those that have been made, is that this Bill is very good for democracy—including for our democracy. Democracy is under attack and deepfakes undermine trust in democracy, wherever it occurs. You want to know whether what you see is real or not. This Bill addresses a particular area but, in general, we should pass it on its merits and pass it for the good of our democracy.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on bringing this important Bill forward and on her totally persuasive introduction. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, she made an “unimpeachable” case. We have heard some very powerful speeches today and not a dissenting voice. I hope that the Minister takes note of that.
It was particularly interesting to hear from my noble friend Lady Grender that it can be done. She campaigned to make revenge porn a criminal offence and she emphasised the importance not only of getting it through but of the enforcement process afterwards. I also totally agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that, when you pass legislation, you have to make sure that it absolutely fulfils its intent. Many of us are very unhappy about the way that the categorisation process is being carried out at the moment with the Online Safety Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, reminded us that we have some form in campaigning on these issues in this House. There is now a formidable supporters’ club for this Bill, honed through quite a few years’ experience. Again, I hope that the Minister takes note of that.
An extraordinary one in 14 adults have experienced threats to share intimate images in England and Wales, rising to one in seven among young women. We need to ensure effective prevention of image-based abuse, while supporting the victims. It would take too long to read out the names of all the noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have described in some detail the impact on the victims.
As technology develops, so does the risk, not only to high-profile figures in public life—I pay tribute to the resilience of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, in that respect, as did the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster—but to people going about their daily lives as well.
There is a clear link between gender-based violence and image-based abuse. The Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls, explore how future legislation can safeguard victims, improve prosecutions and deter potential perpetrators from committing image-based abuse crimes. I would have thought that that very much covers what we are talking about today. Sharing intimate images without consent has, I grant you, been designated a “priority offence” under the Online Safety Act, but the Government need to go further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and every other speaker in this debate, has urged.
As we have heard, current UK law clearly does not effectively address non-consensual intimate image creation. Although it is currently illegal to share or threaten to share non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes, creating them is not yet illegal. This means that someone could create a deepfake image of another person without their consent and not face legal consequences, so long as they do not share or threaten to share it.
The Online Safety Act added new offences to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, making it illegal to share or threaten to share intimate images. However, the Law Commission, which advises the UK Government on legal reform, believed that there was not enough evidence of harm to criminalise creating deepfakes if they were not shared, which many of us think was too timid. We have heard quite the contrary today. The very welcome Bill brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, fills that gap in the law by criminalising the creation of non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes.
It is welcome that the Bill does not require intention. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, requiring intention would make it virtually unenforceable. The use of the term “strict liability” by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was absolutely correct.
The Bill specifically, and rightly, targets deepfakes due to their rising prevalence, as we have heard, and their potential for harm, particularly towards women. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John, that none of us anticipated the power of AI when we looked at it back in 2017 and 2018. We have heard some of the figures. An Internet Matters study in 2023 revealed that 13% of teenage children in the UK aged 13 to 17 have encountered a nude deepfake image, equating to over 500,000 young people. Security Hero research showed that 98% of deepfake videos online were pornographic, with 99% of those featuring women and girls, making it a problem that is, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, “inherently sexist” and
“the new frontier of violence against women”.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that this is a problem created by men.
The ease with which these videos can be created using readily available apps and online platforms further exacerbates the issue. In a welcome way, the Bill expands the definition of taking an image to encompass digital creation. This explicitly includes the creation of deepfakes under the umbrella of illegal activities relating to intimate images. It also rightly criminalises, as we have heard, soliciting the creation of non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes.
I hope the Government, in considering their position, acknowledge the severe impact that intimate image deepfakes can have on victims, even if the images are not shared, and that the psychological distress, violation of privacy and potential for reputational damage caused by deepfakes will be taken into consideration. I very much hope that, despite signs to the contrary so far, they will adopt the Bill and redeem their manifesto pledge to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.
There have been a number of takeaways from almost every speaker. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, urged speed. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked who we would be protecting in not passing this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that if South Korea can do it, so can we. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, noted that this tool is available now and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said that the Government should use Private Members’ Bills and the tool provided by this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that this will become a bigger issue if we do not act now and my noble friend Lady Featherstone that women cannot wait. I very much hope the Minister is mindful of that.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow so many impressive speeches and a great responsibility to speak in support of my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge’s Bill to outlaw non-consensual sexually explicit images and videos. The Bill is not only timely but essential in addressing a profound harm that has emerged with the proliferation of new technology—a harm that disproportionately affects women, vulnerable individuals and the very fabric of our society’s values of dignity, respect and privacy. I speak as someone who has had to deal with female victims of sexual crime in many years of policing. I have seen it at its worst.
The Labour Party manifesto committed to banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. However, as has been pointed out, no proposal featured in the King’s Speech. This Bill is supported by the Revenge Porn Helpline, Refuge, Not Your Porn, My Image My Choice, End Violence Against Women, Professor Clare McGlynn KC and Jodie Campaigns. It is clearly a well-thought-out Bill that will be effective in tackling this appalling practice. It is vital that, in making legislation such as this, we listen to victims and survivors.
The creation of sexually explicit images and videos without consent and with malicious intent has become a pervasive practice. This is unacceptable. For victims, the impact is shattering. This is a form of sexual violence. It is an act that exploits trust, invades privacy and causes real harm to its victims.
This Bill rightly proposes a robust response to this abhorrent behaviour by creating specific offences for the non-consensual creation of sexually explicit material. It also seeks to ensure that the law reflects the realities of how technology is weaponised in this context. It seeks to enshrine in law a woman’s right to consent as to who has the right to own sexually explicit content of her. This legislation is a declaration that the law is not blind to the realities of the digital age. It is a clear message to perpetrators that such actions will not be tolerated. It is a lifeline to victims and survivors, offering the promise of a clear path to justice and the reassurance that their suffering will not be ignored any longer.
The Bill has a wider social resonance. It is about the type of society we aspire to be: one where everyone, regardless of age, gender or background, can live with dignity and without fear of exploitation. By passing this legislation, we will send a very powerful signal that the values of respect, consent and justice are not just ideals but what we expect of people in this country.
Back in July 2023, Alex Davies-Jones MP, the then Shadow Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said that big players in the tech industry should not be dictating to government how artificial intelligence policy should look, and that urgent regulation is needed. That was in response to a damning new report by the Ada Lovelace Institute. Alex Davies-Jones MP is now the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for victims. I would expect not only that her views would remain the same but that she will be keen to put her words into practice through legislation such as we are discussing today.
This is as important a Private Member’s Bill as has ever come before your Lordships’ House. It sends a consistent message from noble Lords of the urgent need to address the sickening issues that victims and survivors must face in connection with the creation of this material. This is an oven-ready Bill. There should be no hesitation or prevarication on the part of government in helping to introduce it imminently, by whatever vehicle. I have only one question for the Minister, which I hope he will answer today: why not, and why not now?
I commend my noble friend Lady Owen for her work in championing this vital cause. I urge all Members of the House to support the Bill. It was an impassioned speech. Let us seize this opportunity to stand with victims, modernise our legal framework, and affirm our commitment to a society in which dignity and respect are safeguarded for all. With support across the political spectrum in the House, I sincerely hope the Minister listens to these arguments, and I urge the Government to support this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that there is obviously formidable support for the Bill, as we have heard in today’s debate. It is an important Bill, and one which is bringing this issue to the very top of the political agenda.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I too have experienced in my role as a magistrate many cases of domestic abuse and domestic violence. I know the noble Lord had that experience during his time as a police officer. Sadly, it is not unusual; it is just that the perpetrators are finding different ways to extend such misogynistic abuse towards women. That is what underlies the noble Baroness’s Bill today.
I would be happy to meet my noble friend Lord Knight and other noble Lords to discuss the Bill and, if I may say so, the wider context of how within government we are going to try to meet the objectives of the Bill through other legislation. I will write to noble Lords on any specific questions that I fail to answer.
I thank the guests of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen: the victims and survivors who are here today. Their physical presence here adds an additional seriousness to the debate. I reiterate the point of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that this is a very well-attended debate for a Friday afternoon, which again is a testament to the importance of the issue.
The Government and I share your Lordships’ concern that more needs to be done to protect women from this form of abuse and to punish those responsible for it. Advances in technology have meant that intimate images can now easily be taken, created or shared without consent, and all at the click of a button. The technology to create realistic deepfake sexual images is readily available to turn harmless everyday images from a person’s social media profile into pornographic material which can then be shared with millions in milliseconds. This cannot continue unchecked.
First, I will talk about the criminal law. Our police must have a comprehensive suite of offences, so that they can effectively target these behaviours. There is a range of existing offences to tackle intimate image abuse, both online and offline, but it is clear that some gaps in protection remain. That is why the Government made a clear commitment in the manifesto to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images of adults. I appreciate that noble Lords and campaigners want us to act without delay, and may be concerned that we are not seizing the opportunity to support this Bill. Let me reassure the noble Baroness and the whole House that we will deliver our manifesto commitment in this Session of Parliament. However, we must act carefully, so that any new measures work with existing law and, most importantly, effectively protect victims and bring offenders to justice. That is what our legislation later in this Session will do. Our manifesto commitment is just the beginning. We are considering whether further legislation is needed to strengthen the law around taking intimate images without consent. I will update the House in due course on this issue.
Ahead of that, I want to mention briefly a couple of areas that have been discussed today. The first is the question of solicitation, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Owen. As I am sure the noble Baronesses know, for every offence, except those that are specifically excluded, it is automatically also an offence to encourage or assist that offence. Therefore, as soon as we have made it an offence to create a sexually explicit deepfake, it will also be an offence to encourage or assist someone else to commit that offence.
I want to be clear on this: you cannot get round the law by asking someone else in this country to break the law for you. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is also concerned about the solicitation of deepfake sexually explicit images from other jurisdictions. The question of the application of the laws of England and Wales to other countries is very complex, particularly in relation to offences where elements are committed in different jurisdictions. I reassure her that we are looking very carefully at that issue.
I next move on to the deletion of images, again raised by various noble Lords. I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that perpetrators who are convicted of an intimate image abuse offence are not given their device back by the police with images of the victim still on it. There is already provision under Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for the court to deprive a convicted offender of their rights in any property, including images, which has been used for the purpose of either committing or facilitating any criminal offence, or which the offender intends to use for that purpose, by making a deprivation order. The courts already have the power to deprive offenders of devices used to commit a sharing offence and of the images which are shared without consent. While judges’ use of these powers is a matter of judicial independence, we will closely examine what changes may be necessary to make sure that such incidents do not occur.
To talk a little more widely about the work that we are doing, while the criminal law is important, it is just one lever we can use to tackle intimate image abuse. Let me outline for noble Lords some of the other work that the Government are doing in this area. I noted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, about how advertising drives so much of revenue, which may well be encouraging the further development of these forms of abuse.
Intimate image abuse rightly has serious criminal consequences, but we are also taking steps to tackle the prevalence of this harmful online content. In November we legislated to make sharing intimate images without consent a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, which we have heard quite a lot about in today’s debate. These images will therefore become “priority illegal content” under the Act, forcing social media firms and search service companies to take action to remove them. I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, about how all these platforms, not just the big ones, should be subject to these new provisions in the Online Safety Act. We know there are concerns about the process of getting images removed online. The Government’s priority is getting Ofcom’s codes of practice in place. Then we will assess, based on evidence, how effective those protections are and whether we need to go further.
As I have already mentioned, the internet has opened up new outlets for misogyny, and I know noble Lords share my concern at the rise of certain influencers who make a living by peddling their vile ideologies to our young men and boys. This toxic online culture can all too easily lead on to violence against women in the real world. That was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, and the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Clement-Jones, and I agree.
It is also critical that we support the victims. There are, of course, many victims of this form of abuse. I remind noble Lords that my department provides funding for a number of services to help victims cope and recover from the impact of crime, including intimate image abuse.
I am not going to have time to address all the points, but I want to pick up one particular point, which I had not heard before, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, about audio abuse. I take that point seriously and will make sure it gets fed into the system when we are considering legislation.
I find it difficult to disagree with any of the points made by noble Lords, but I know there will be frustration across the House about the Government pursuing their own legislation within this Session. I hope that noble Lords will understand that we want to make it sustainable and that we want the legislation to be solid, to use the noble Baroness’s word, and future-proof as far as is possible. I know very well that this is a difficult thing to do. We have a lot of work to do, and I am sure that all noble Lords will support the Government’s efforts in this field.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I get his assurance that any pledge on a creation offence will be consent-based and that intent will not have to be proved? He has pledged to legislate in this Session of Parliament, creating the offence, but I would really like to know what kind of vehicle that is going to be and what the implementation period is. As all noble Lords have said, we cannot afford to wait. Any legislative vehicle that is going to take a year to pass, with a long implementation period, is simply not good enough.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Regarding the noble Baroness’s question about consent, I would like to reassure the House that in a criminal case the onus is never on the victim to marshal evidence or to prove intent of the perpetrator; it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service when investigating the alleged offence or prosecuting the case in court. That is why we work with the CPS when considering changes to the criminal law, to ensure the offence can be prosecuted effectively.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the whole purpose of the discussion today has been, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that there should be strict liability and not intent. Surely we are not talking about mens rea in this at all.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I absolutely heard what the noble Baroness said about strict liability offences. The Government’s position is as I just said. However, I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
For those of us who have been dealing with sexual offences for some time, the one thing we know is that if you have to prove intent, it is worse than useless. I urge the Minister to take that away and to say to the House as a whole that intent will not be a satisfactory solution to the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am afraid I will have to repeat the point I made previously: we understand very well the strength of feeling on this argument, and we are actively considering it.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I think the Minister said earlier that an offence of soliciting would add nothing because of the current established offences in relation to aiding and abetting, et cetera. Can he elaborate on his rationale for that, particularly in circumstances where the primary offence is committed overseas, perhaps in a jurisdiction where it is not actually an offence?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am afraid I cannot elaborate further, because of the complexity of the situation that the noble Lord highlighted. We realise that it is difficult, and we need to get the law right. I do not want to say that we are taking our time, because this is an absolute government priority. We are in the process of identifying a suitable vehicle to address these issues in this Session of Parliament. The noble Lord makes a good point.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am still slightly confused about timing. I am sure the Minister understands the difficulty the House is in here. I think he said—and I would like him to repeat it, if this is the case—that the Government’s intention is to complete their considerations of the issues raised by this, and other matters related to it, within this current Session, rather than within this Parliament. The Session we are currently in is due to come to a close in a reasonably short time. Can he confirm that?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am very happy to confirm the point that my noble friend has raised. In fact, in my briefing, the words “in this Session” are underlined—so, yes, that is indeed the case.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
Can I ask my noble friend a very simple question? Do the Government anticipate that any woman or girl will ever consent to the creation of what this legislation is aimed at—deepfake pornography to be used for revenge or for misogynistic reasons?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My noble friend raised that point with me the other day, and I checked it with advisers in the department. I think it would be unwise to assume that a woman would never, under any circumstances, consent to images being made.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate, as well as those who could not be here but offered their support and advice. I thank again the wonderful charities that have fought so hard for so long on this issue. I pay tribute to the women who found out, in the worst possible way, where the gaps in the law are failing victims.
I am devastated by the Government’s refusal to back this Bill, and I know that survivors will feel let down. I will continue to fight using every legislative vehicle available to me, because we cannot afford any more delays in getting these protections enshrined in law. This was about offering a clear pathway to justice for victims.
When speaking to Jodie about the possible government response, she said that deepfake abuse made her feel like her autonomy had been ripped away, leaving her terrified, isolated and questioning everyone around her. She added that
“every day this abuse goes unaddressed is another day women are left to suffer in silence, abandoned by the very systems that are meant to protect them. Time is of the essence. The longer we wait, the more women will find themselves isolated, afraid, and desperate, just as I was. This bill will save lives, and delaying action is a betrayal of those who need our protection the most”.
I urge the Minister and the Government: please do not let women like Jodie down.