House of Lords

Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Friday 13 December 2024

10:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leeds.

Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]

3rd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

10:07

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

I would like to say a few words of thanks. First, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of this Bill at Second Reading. It had support from all around the House, and I was grateful for all the backing and encouragement from noble Lords. I hope that the Government will take note of the strength of feeling. I also thank Theo Pembroke in the Public Bill Office for his work in preparing the Bill two years ago and those who gave advice in amendments to this version of the Bill. I thank those outside the House who helped with advice, support and assistance. I very much hope that the Government will find a way to support this Bill, which puts into law their commitments already adopted under UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the subsequent 10 UN Security Council resolutions on the women, peace and security agenda.

We have just had 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Still one in three women worldwide has experienced physical or sexual violence, and the figures are much higher in conflict and in insecure countries. We all recognise that women’s rights are rolling back across the world. As next year is the 25th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the 30th anniversary of the Beijing platform for action, supporting this Bill would demonstrate that the UK is standing firm and continuing to lead the world on this agenda.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I intervene briefly to repeat what I have said before, which is that the Government support the ethos of this Bill and that our support for the WPS agenda is unwavering, as the noble Baroness knows. I am committed to ensuring that the key principles in the Bill are followed through. We have had a good initial meeting, and I have committed to meeting the APPG. The important thing is how we deliver that agenda, and we are determined to do so. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for putting forward this Bill.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

As my noble friend Lord Courtown said at Second Reading, we welcome this Bill. I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger on bringing it forward. His Majesty’s Official Opposition are fully supportive of the principles behind my noble friend’s Bill. It is a testament to the hard work she has relentlessly actioned for in this arena, promoting women’s rights and campaigning for peace and security. This Bill received wide-ranging, cross-party support at Second Reading, notably from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, and my noble friends Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lady Anelay of St Johns. This is an important Bill. We hope that the Government will listen carefully to my noble friend Lady Hodgson as she continues her brilliant work in this focus area.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL]

3rd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

10:10

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to make a few thanks and remarks, but first I must declare my interest as a director of the London Stock Exchange and as a long-term investor in listed investment companies. I thank everyone involved in the drafting and discussions of this Bill, including the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Livermore—who has been supportive on the issue, all noble Lords who have supported the Bill during its progress, the Public Bill Office, Nigel Farr of HSF, the AIC, many industry specialists who have contributed to the drafting, and consumer organisations such as Which? and ShareSoc which support the Bill and the wider cost disclosure campaign. I also thank journalists who have put the issue in the public eye. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who is unable to be in her place today as she is recovering from a shoulder operation, trod a similar path with her Bill in the previous Session and has stood with me on this issue through many a debate and meeting. I also thank in advance the honourable Member for Hazel Grove, Lisa Smart, who is sponsoring this Bill in the other place.

Yesterday was the deadline for submission to the Treasury’s call for evidence on growth and competitiveness in financial services. I cannot help but say that it seems peculiar to be hunting for changes to promote growth when there is low-hanging fruit available to end the market disruption for listed investment companies that has resulted in more than £20 billion and counting of lost investment in the UK economy over the past two years. HMT or the FCA could lean on platforms and the Investment Association to get fully behind the changes for listed investment companies made by the legislative actions and forbearance in September. Instead, it seems they await the slow turning of the handle of consultation on, rule-making for and embedding the entire PRIIP legislation, which will take well into 2027 with tens of billions more pounds of lost investment in UK infrastructure.

By way of help, the chair of the FCA did finally confirm to the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee on 13 November that, for listed investment companies,

“ongoing charges are not deducted from the share price”,

and that,

“as a fact, there is not a deduction from the share price”.

Yet platforms such as Hargreaves Lansdown still insist that a misleading disclosure about cost deductions from the investor must be entered or they will block retail purchase. I am told that they claim that they are urged to do so by the Investment Association, which is the association for the dominant open-ended fund sector, not for listed investment companies. The open sector is a sector that may relish scooping up some of the lost equity investment for itself but, make no mistake, it cannot replace the lost billions in social and environmental infrastructure. While this regrettable situation continues, I believe this Bill still has an important role to play.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I shall say a word in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, before we wave this Bill goodbye. The investment trust movement is a proven success story in this country but has been uniquely caught up in the PRIIP regulations. For three or four years we have been trying to find a way through that thicket.

I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, and the Government have produced some temporary forbearance regulations that are now in effect, but that is only a quarter of a loaf. To rebuild the sector, we need new investment trusts, but no one will launch investment trusts with only temporary relief that might at any moment be withdrawn. Therefore, while of course the industry is grateful to the Government for what they have done, it is only a sticking plaster.

The worrying aspect is that, now that we have forbearance relief, there will be no pressure on the regulators to make their mind up and the hitherto glacial progress will proceed even more slowly. I hope the Minister might take the noble Baroness’s Bill, stick it in his back pocket and say, “It has no commencement date but, if you don’t get on and sort your mind out, we’ll put a commencement date on it and bring it in”.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, who has argued so cogently and cohesively for the Bill.

Finding ourselves in this position appears to be a mistake, and it is essential that we take the right steps to ensure that disclosures relating to closed-end listed investment companies are presented accurately. This is not merely a point of minute detail. As the noble Baroness has argued so diligently, the current situation has led to the loss of tens of billions of pounds of potential investments, resulting in economic damage to our country.

The Government tell us repeatedly that they want growth, and therefore the British people expect them to take the right steps to foster that growth. Indeed, as the Minister highlighted at Second Reading, EU-derived legislation related to retail disclosure is not fit for UK markets. We understand that the Government have committed to making changes to address and resolve these issues, and His Majesty’s Official Opposition greatly hope that the Government will continue to listen to the noble Baroness in a co-ordinated and collaborative effort to foster the growth that is essential if we are to deliver optimal outcomes for everyone across the country.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on her Bill, and I thank her for her engagement on this issue so far. The Bill seeks to address an important concern for the sector, and I am grateful for the work of the noble Baroness and other noble Lords to raise awareness of the issue. As she has rightly identified, the previous legislation relating to retail disclosure was not fit for purpose. That is something on which the Government, the Financial Conduct Authority and many Members of this House agree, and it is an area in which this Government have already taken forward action to address industry concerns.

Only last month, the Government passed legislation to replace the package retail and insurance-based investment regulations with a new framework for consumer composite investments. That has provided the FCA with the appropriate powers to deliver a new disclosure regime that is more proportionate and tailored to UK markets and firms, including for investment trusts.

The Government also heard concerns from industry that the cost disclosure requirements have had an unintended consequence for the investment trust sector and its ability to fundraise. As a result, the Government took exceptional action to temporarily exempt investment trusts from cost disclosure regulation, with legislation passed last month to that effect.

Given that investment trusts offer their products to retail investors, it is right that they must provide tailored disclosure on costs, risks and performance to support consumer understanding. Together, the instruments that the Government have already passed will enable the FCA to holistically reform cost disclosure, addressing issues with current disclosure requirements. Ensuring that retail investors can make informed investment decisions is a key component of healthy UK capital markets.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her continued championing of the investment trust sector and for bringing her concerns to the Government’s attention. I hope she will recognise the genuine difference that her campaign has made. However, given the Government’s legislative interventions to resolve this issue, I am afraid I must express reservations on behalf of the Government on the Bill.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Complications from Abortions (Annual Report) Bill [HL]

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

10:20

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, abortion is a generally safe procedure for women. It is not my purpose in bringing this Bill forward to dispute that. Rather, the question this Bill raises is: how safe is it? To know that, we need statistics that reflect real experience.

I start by drawing attention to the excellent brief that the Library has produced. This is a debate about statistics and statistical methodology, and I do not think the complexities involved could have been set out with greater clarity than they are in this brief.

The Library brief also includes at the end certain objections to the Bill expressed by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—although it has not in fact contacted me. The first is that the Bill exceptionalises abortion. Strangely, I think that objection gives us a way into this debate. Abortion is indeed exceptional in that it is the only common procedure that is made available by the NHS but in the great majority of cases—about 80%—is provided by independent clinics, such as the charities BPAS and Marie Stopes, although there are other smaller providers as well. That is where the statistical issues start.

Independent abortion providers provide information on terminations, including on complications arising, to the Chief Medical Officer. This is known as the abortion notification system, or ANS. It covers not only the independent sector but also the 20% of terminations carried out in an NHS setting. In the case of independent providers, the complications it captures are principally those that arise within the clinic, since many women who experience a complication after discharge from the clinic—this is a key point—will present to their GP, to NHS 111 or to A&E at a hospital. These complications are not captured by the abortion notification system.

I should add that there is a legal obligation on the Department of Health and Social Care to monitor and publish statistics on abortion, and it uses the abortion notification system for this purpose. There is an annual report published. The published rate of complications is low, generally about 1.2 to 1.4 per 1,000 in recent years, for which I have the numbers. But until recently nobody has collated figures on the level of complications not captured by the ANS data, because the complications were not reported to the abortion provider but dealt with through the NHS directly.

Last year, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which is a branch or an arm of the NHS, turned its hand to this task. In November 2023—very recently—it produced its report. I have a copy here and it is a fairly chunky report. The task was more challenging than one might have thought There were, of course, many of the usual statistical conundra of what to count and what not to count, whether the definitions in different datasets were the same and matched, and so forth. In fact, the first half of the report is a careful and thorough essay on the methodology used, which is an indispensable thing to provide since it was doing it for the first time. The report focused entirely on incidents arising in a hospital setting using hospital episode statistics—I am going to use the expression HES from now on—as distinct from ANS; these are the two sets of data that we are dealing with. The report used the hospital episode statistic statistics and, importantly, did not include incomplete abortions that were not accompanied by a further complication.

There is an important argumentative point there, if I may just put some parenthesis around the next section. There is an important argumentative point between gynaecologists who would say that an incomplete abortion that was later completed was a successful abortion and others who would say that an incomplete abortion that was later completed was an unsuccessful abortion that was put right. Whether you count it as a complication or not raises issues of a definitional character between gynaecologists. The figures produced by the report did not include incomplete abortions that involved no further complication, although it did count them.

The report broke the complication rate down by age, showing what I think is generally accepted—that it is somewhat higher for older women—and by type, for example, haemorrhage, which is the most common complication, sepsis, cervical tear and so forth. The report’s headline finding was that the complication rate, when you take all the data together, was between 3.5 and 4.4 per 1,000 in the period 2017 to 2021, depending on the year, somewhat higher than the ANS data alone, and, I understand, statistically significant. However, this rose significantly to about 17, 18 or 19 per 1,000 if incomplete abortions without further complication were included.

The importance and relevance of this information is all the more significant when one considers changes in the way in which terminations are administered. Of course, a surgical abortion is now a relative rarity. Currently, about 85% of abortions are medically induced—that is, by taking a sequence of pills. In 2012, only 48% of abortions were medically induced; as I say, it is now 85%. These terminations frequently take place at home. Since the Covid pandemic, it is possible for a woman to obtain the medication from an abortion provider without an initial in-person interview or examination. What this shows is that the abortion landscape is shifting quite rapidly. Clinicians need to have available the most robust data about complications, indeed as women do for the purpose of informed consent. It is unfortunate, therefore, that it appears that there are no plans for the OHID to continue to collect the valuable data contained in its report of November 2023. My Bill would place an obligation on the Government to do so.

Turning to the Bill briefly, I note that Clause 1 does a number of things. It requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on complications. It states that the purpose is to inform policy and safe practice. It requires the inclusion of data from both the ANS and the hospital episode statistics. It specifies that the report must cover the same areas of information as the 2023 report. It gives the Secretary of State power to add further information that he or she sees fit to include, and it states that the first report must appear within a year.

Clause 2 covers territorial scope and commencement. In effect, the Bill applies to England. There is no other clause.

Before I sit down, perhaps I may deal briefly with some objections. First, I return to the comments of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. I dealt with its claim that the Bill “exceptionalises” abortion. Abortion is exceptional; it is a very unusual way of providing a health service in this country. Its other comments seem to me to be rather weak. I think the key point is that it too agrees that

“further work needs to be done on collection and analysis of large datasets relating to women’s reproductive health”.

Nobody really defends the existing ANS statistical sets on their own as giving a realistic picture. BPAS also claims that there are better ways of deal with the problem than this Bill. That may well be true, but it does not suggest what they are.

I shall mention one further objection, and then I shall sit down. It may be said that an Act of Parliament is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut if all one is looking for is an annual report. I see the force of that objection, while still supporting and sustaining my Bill, and if the Minister were to give a firm undertaking to do this without the bother of a statutory obligation, I should be well content. I beg to move.

10:31

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to take the opportunity to explain the context of the Bill and say what it is really about. In doing so, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for yet again giving me the opportunity to draw your Lordships’ attention to the right-wing, nationalist, countergender campaign which this Bill and his previous foetal sentience Bill are a part of. We have known for some time that there is an international campaign which has an overriding strategic objective of getting rid of human rights legislation and the organisations responsible for upholding it.

On a tactical level, it has a number of objectives: anti-LGBT campaigning—with a particular emphasis in this country on anti-trans work; anti-sex and relationships education, because the state should have no part in teaching people’s children about sex and relationships; anti-surrogacy, and particularly anti-abortion. People may have read or seen, most notably, the campaigns in places such as Hungary and Poland. It is all about a campaign to restore the natural order—a selective reading and interpretation of biblical order.

When I have said that in this Chamber before, Members of your Lordships’ House have thrown the jibe, “Well, that sounds like a conspiracy theory”. Well, it is not actually, and we have some growing evidence to that effect. I encourage all noble Lords to read Project 2025—it is a very easy and clear read. It says what the organisations behind it, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Alliance Defending Freedom and big supporters of the Conservative Party in this country have as their agenda for the Trump Administration. It is all backed up by billions of dollars going to Africa and billions of dollars coming to Europe including to the UK. It is a campaign which has evolved, just as the anti-abortion campaign has evolved from rather crude demonstrations outside abortion clinics; it has now gone into a slightly different phase. It is now setting up independent universities and colleges; it is producing research evidence; it talks using the language of rights, but all the conclusions go back to that same overall objective. It is very clever, very well organised and brilliantly messaged, but it is what it is: it is a very cynical anti-gender campaign about destroying human rights.

This Bill is an insidious part of that campaign. It is about challenging the medical evidence that does not suit its campaign objectives. I, like other people on my side of the argument, am all in favour of collection and improvement of data. What I am not in favour of is the corruption of medical science by the production of data for a purpose. That, I suggest, is the ultimate aim of the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not be taken in by this, will see it for what it is and work with people such as those at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists who want to improve the data and to make sure that our services are safe for women.

10:34

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord’s Bill to the House. It offers a moderate proposal that ought not to be controversial. Whatever one’s view on the issue of abortion, it is clearly in the interests of public health and patient safety to ensure that accurate data is collated and reported concerning the scale and nature of complications from abortions, as with any medical procedure. As the noble Lord has explained, current reporting is deficient and has not caught up with the changes concerning how an increasing number of abortions now occur.

As well as supporting the comments that the noble Lord has made, I wish to make two further points in relation to the Bill in the short time available to me. First, I note that while the 2023 Department of Health publication on which the Bill is based records data more accurately than previous reporting, it acknowledges in its own annexe that it does not include complications under the code O044. That code records “incomplete” abortions, where part of the unborn baby remains inside the mother after an abortion.

That report includes hospital episode statistics relating to incomplete abortions where they have led to additional complications but not to incomplete abortions themselves. However, given that any incomplete abortion routinely requires further treatment to remove the remaining parts of the baby to avoid the risk of infection, it seems to me that those also ought to be included in any accurate recording of statistics.

The second point I want to make is in relation to Northern Ireland, as all noble Lords would expect. While I understand that the Bill relates to England in order to correspond to the November 2023 report, I would like to see an improvement in data collection and reporting in Northern Ireland. Since abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland, reporting on abortions has been woefully inadequate. Indeed, we appear to have even less data concerning complications than the limited data published in England.

The regulations attached to the Northern Ireland abortion law require abortion providers to report

“Particulars of any complications experienced by the woman up to the date of discharge”.

That means we have the same problem as in the rest of the UK, because complications which arise after discharge, and which come to light in a hospital setting only when a woman seeks further treatment, are unlikely to be recorded in official statistics. It would be really good if we had better information and data in Northern Ireland, as here in the rest of the UK.

Data informs health trends; it gives transparency and understanding, but, above all, it ensures patient safety. The purpose of this Bill is to have accurate data, and I am very happy to support it.

10:38

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who spoke, as she always does, powerfully, compellingly and rationally—it is important keep that rational focus on this important Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan, who set out the rationale for it clearly, compellingly and in some detail, and I am delighted to have this opportunity to support it.

Whatever one’s views on the substantive question of abortion, I find it hard to see why we would not want as much information as we could possibly get on this question, especially when, as my noble friend Lord Moylan noted, there is clear evidence for at least a potential anomaly that needs addressing in the statistics. It is surely in the interests of any woman considering an abortion to have the best possible information about the possible risks involved.

In the short time available, I want to make one further point to those that have been made already, on the objection from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has already noted—that this Bill would in some way “exceptionalise” abortion. I find that worthy of a brief comment. As the noble Lord said, abortion is already exceptional in various ways. One might note in passing that it is the only form of healthcare that has required the suspension of free speech rights—and even non-speech rights, those of free thought—to allow it to be transacted. Passing on from that, more substantively, it is exceptional because it is one of those areas of care where there really are starkly clashing worldviews. I am sure that we will hear much more about that later on this morning. That means that it always is going to be subject to debate, unless there is some fundamental change in the ethical basis of our society. Therefore, ways through have to be found, in a free society, to accommodate that.

The need for debate around abortion provision will, and I think should, always make it exceptional. It means that we need that debate to be as well-founded as we can possibly make it—well-founded in the moral judgments that we bring to it and well-founded in having the best possible information and analysis around it at a technical level. That is what this Bill would help to provide, and that is why I support it.

10:41

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I stress how important the Green Party and many other people regard protecting those receiving healthcare from harassment and abuse. That is something that the law has increasingly stepped up to do, and it is terribly important.

I oppose this Bill. I begin by commending the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who gave us an important sense of context here. This is about a very long-term, global, but US-based, exceptionally well-funded campaign against human rights. Back in 2014, I wrote a chapter in a book entitled Women Against Fundamentalism: Stories of Dissent and Solidarity, which told the story of what happened in the 10 years leading up to where we are today.

I will focus a little on context. It is important to note that, last year, YouGov looked at attitudes towards abortion and found that 87% of Britons said that abortion should be allowed, while only 6% said that it should not. It is interesting to note that one in 10 Britons think that the law makes it too difficult to get an abortion in the UK. When you look at those for whom this is most relevant—women under the age of 40—you find that that figure rises to 19%. Those are the people who are most likely to encounter the detail of the law and to have discovered, as many are surprised to, that abortion is covered by criminal law still in the UK. It is important to highlight that.

As we talk about abortion, one issue is the rise we have seen in the investigation and prosecution of what is suggested might be illegal abortions. In the 18 months to February, there was a risk of convicting as many women as have been convicted for that offence in the previous 55 years. Six women were prosecuted over suspected abortion cases, although three of those cases were subsequently dropped—the women having been through very considerable turmoil in the meantime. The president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has noted how outdated abortion law really is creating problems. That is the context.

We have already covered quite a bit of ground here. It is obvious that creating a law about one set of medical statistics is exceptionalising it, as BPAS says. In 2023, three years of work went into a report then that said that the statistics were inadequate and needed to be improved. The work is being done; we do not need to pass a special law on one set of statistics. We are making progress on this, and more progress is certainly needed.

10:44

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of my noble friend’s Bill. I am a great supporter of patient empowerment, and one sure way to give patients power is to arm them with knowledge and the medical options available to them. Recently, I had a hand procedure for Dupuytren’s disease. In the run-up to the procedure I wanted to know all the evidence available about the condition itself, the treatment, the options, the aftercare, and indeed the complications. I did so partly by talking to a GP and other doctors I knew, but partly by looking at websites.

This simple measure, proposed by my noble friend Lord Moylan, for a report that collates both sorts of data—that from the hospital episodes statistics and that from the ANS—will provide a fuller picture for people like myself. More importantly, it will strengthen the channels of information on the complications arising from abortion. While the annual published statistics may not be read by many people, and rely solely on the ANS data, note will be taken of a report issued by the NHS that collates the full information, both from the medical press and GPs. Levels of public information about possible complications and potential risks will be available. Because the role of medical practitioners in advising about any procedure is rightly deemed central, it is important that, as a result of the measures proposed in this Bill, they will be better informed.

My mother was a doctor. My abiding recollection of her is that, every night, at the end of the day when her chores were done, she would pick up her medical journals and updates on all medication available to keep herself up to date with the latest evidence and research, in an otherwise very busy day. That was what she anticipated doing each night, and she was bang up to date on treatments and everything to do with her work.

Not only that, but an annual report could be read by people themselves, especially if they want to follow up on one or other point of the medical advice. Professionals can disagree among themselves about how they interpret the evidence—we heard from my noble friend Lord Moylan one example of how gynaecologists can disagree over even a definition. It would be very helpful for people to see such a report for themselves; this is particularly so in the case of sensitive subjects.

For all those reasons, I support requiring an annual report on the complications such as that proposed in the Bill, which is along the lines of the 2023 report by the NHS. I wholeheartedly support my noble friend’s Bill.

10:48

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, this is not my area of expertise. Like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, my background is in local government and business. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I do not think that we should be passing legislation on which areas of health we should collect data on. Certainly, we should collect the data, and certainly our job in this House is to question inconsistencies, but it is not to legislate for them.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, criticised the British Pregnancy Advisory Service for talking about “exceptionalism”. In fact, at the heart of this Bill there is an illogicality. It tries to collect data just on the abortions and is not looking at the complications—for example, of women having to carry to term babies that, for a multitude of reasons, they would have chosen to abort.

On the face of it, this is a very logical Bill, but I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Barker and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for laying out the context and background. When I looked at the last Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on sentience, I got a clue as to where he is going with this whole thing. That is why I have chosen to speak briefly today.

I deeply believe in a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body. Women’s rights, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said when she was talking about her Bill on peace, are being rolled back across the world and it is our job to make sure that we uphold them. It has taken centuries to get to a place where back-street abortions are a thing of the past in this country, and I do not wish to see us make any move that makes us arrive at a place of less safety. It took so much effort to get women to a place of greater safety and we must stop any attempt to reverse that.

10:50

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, the goal of improving women’s healthcare through better access to information, particularly regarding potential complications of medical procedures, is indeed important. Access to information enables individuals to make informed choices and allows healthcare professionals to provide safer, more effective services. However, while I support the overall goal, I have concerns about legislating for an annual report in this manner.

First, as we have heard, it is important to emphasise that abortion is a safe and effective medical procedure and, in fact, can be safer than continuing a pregnancy to term. While any medical procedure carries some risks, those associated with abortion are well managed and women are fully informed of them by healthcare professionals, ensuring that they are equipped to make the best decision for their own health. I agree that improving this data collection is crucial. As highlighted by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the lack of effective data has hindered innovation and improvement in women’s healthcare and, ultimately, the improvement of patient care. However, as we have heard, BPAS and the royal college have significant concerns about the Bill’s potential to exceptionalise and stigmatise abortion care.

Unlike other medical procedures, abortion would be singled out for mandatory complication reporting. No other procedure is subject to this. Doing so for abortion could create a false impression that it is uniquely dangerous. In reality, complications from abortion are rare—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is already mandatory for complications from abortions to be reported. If that is exceptional, it is not made more so by this Bill. The question is from which data source one draws the reporting of those complications. They are reported and published every year by the department; this would not put a new requirement on abortion reporting.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, as I say, I am very much in favour of ensuring that information is fully available, but I am concerned about having primary legislation singling out one medical procedure. It could promote fear and concern around women and make them feel as though they are not able to make their own choices around healthcare. It should be regulated like any other medical procedure. By treating it differently, we could add stigma. It is important to consider this in the wider context of the current politicisation of the abortion debate around the world.

We have heard about the difficulties of collating and collecting this data. Collating the current available data does not give an accurate picture. These issues were highlighted in the 2023 report. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the department’s experience of collating the report: whether she thinks it is the best use of resources and indeed whether it led to any practical action that has improved healthcare.

The current reporting systems are far from perfect. We also have to be careful about when we link records, because that is not always desirable. Many women, especially those facing domestic violence or reproductive coercion, may not want their procedure recorded. Confidentiality is crucial for safety. A lack of privacy could deter women from seeking care, putting them at greater risk. For that reason, I cannot support the Bill as it stands.

I agree that improving data collection within women’s healthcare is essential, but that can be achieved in ways that respect privacy while improving care. The NHS 10-year plan and the women’s health strategy update offer a good opportunity to address these challenges effectively, without adding unnecessary legal burdens on the healthcare system. As we look to enhance women’s healthcare, we must proceed carefully and sensitively, balancing data collection with privacy and choice for women.

10:54

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for this Bill. He may not realise that he has highlighted an important issue that needs to be addressed—not the limited and, I may say, misguided focus of this Bill, but the wider issue of robustness of health datasets and the reliability of statistics used to plan, improve and deliver safe services as part of our healthcare system. As a former health services manager, I have taken an interest in this for a long time.

The NHS is one of the most data-rich healthcare systems in the world, yet some of its datasets suffer from weaknesses that can impede its ability to deliver high-quality, data-driven care. These weaknesses can broadly be categorised into areas of data quality, interoperability, accessibility and governance. One of the fundamental challenges lies in the inconsistency and incompleteness of data. NHS datasets often include outdated, duplicated or incorrect information due to variations in how data is recorded across trusts and practices. For example, patient demographics, diagnosis or treatment codes and records might be inconsistently documented, making it difficult to draw accurate insights. This runs into thousands of conditions and treatments, not just this one, which I hazard an educated guess has not been randomly plucked for the attention of this Bill. When you add in the private sector, it becomes near impossible to provide a complete patient journey through statistics to help improve patient care.

If the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his supporters want to improve healthcare outcomes for not just women but everyone, and safety and policy built on better data, their Bill should focus on legislating to improve data quality in the NHS. It should be about adopting national standards for data quality, promoting interoperability, enhancing accessibility, strengthening governance and transparency and leveraging advanced analytics. So why pick out just one treatment among thousands with poor and conflicting data in our healthcare system and make the exception of trying to report it to this Parliament? The noble Lord’s reason for exceptionability does not stand up: 55% of ophthalmology cases are provided by the private sector and 30,000 hip replacements are provided by the healthcare sector.

This Bill is a back-door attempt to limit abortion in this country, using statistical jiggery-pokery as a smokescreen. I say sorry to the noble Lord and his supporters, but this just will not wash. The real motives need to be exposed. It is telling that the majority of those actively campaigning for this Bill are the very organisations that are prominent in attempts to restrict or, in some cases, ban abortion in this country.

These Benches will support genuine and effective measures to improve datasets in our healthcare system, to improve safety and outcomes for not just women but all patients, but we will not support the ideas of this Bill, which are not a foundation for effective improvement in healthcare and healthcare safety. We need to be clear: this Bill will not deal with the underlying weaknesses of healthcare datasets. It is the first step in an agenda to restrict women’s choice and, in some cases, restrict abortion altogether.

10:57

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill performs an important service. It highlights the absence of accurate, comprehensive statistics in respect of abortions. My noble friend Lord Moylan is to be congratulated on his clear exposition of the complex issues involved. I am also grateful to the Library and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for their briefings.

The Department of Health has highlighted that the statistics on complications from abortion should be treated with caution, particularly following changes to the way that medical abortions are permitted to be carried out. It has explained that it is not possible fully to verify complications recorded on the relevant HSA4 forms. Complications that occur after discharge may not always be recorded.

My noble friends Lord Frost and Lady Lawlor have highlighted the importance of good data. In April 2021, the Government acknowledged limitations with the data provided on the HSA4 forms. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities then undertook a project to review the system of recording abortion data to address the limitations of the data on complications recorded on the HSA4 forms.

OHID acknowledged limitations with data collected through the HSA4 form on the abortion notification system, otherwise known as ANS. Abortion complications are recorded differently in hospital episode statistics—HES—compared to the ANS. Each data source has different strengths and limitations, according to the experts. Neither data set would, however, include complications diagnosed by a GP, the 111 service or an A&E department. The OHID publication did not make any recommendation as to whether HES data should be used to supplement ANS data in the future, and they are the experts.

The royal college argues that lack of effective data collection has held women’s reproductive healthcare back in its ability to innovate and improve, and that that is to the detriment of patient care and experience. The royal college submits that data collection must be improved within women’s healthcare and that abortion should be treated and regulated like any other medical procedure. None the less, as it points out—and as I understand—in no other area of healthcare, outside of abortion, does primary legislation impose a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an annual report of complications data.

We on this side of the House fully recognise the power and benefits of transparency of data to the public and within the Government, and my noble friend has highlighted these powerfully. However, we are not fully convinced that primary legislation is the best practical, or most appropriate and proportionate way forward, to achieve the transparency he seeks. My noble friend Lady Sugg also made the same point and pointed to the sensitivity of patient confidentiality in this field. I have highlighted the challenges of collecting data consistently and robustly in this field. Some of those appear to have emerged from the 2017-21 data that was published. While we appreciate what my noble friend seeks to achieve, I hope the Minister will be able to set out how the Government propose to deliver the greater transparency of data that my noble friend seeks through the Bill.

In summary, our view is that improved data collection and reporting does not need to be delivered through legislation, but we urge the Government to do more to rationalise data recording and collection so that proper evidence-based medicine can be implemented. The Government must take steps to ensure data are gathered on a more reliable and consistent basis; the same should apply in this field as across all health aspects in this country. Those responsible for the health of women must do much better; the department must get a grip and give a lead.

11:02

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling this Private Members’ Bill, and all noble Lords for their contributions. For my part, I am looking at the main purpose of the Bill, which is to impose a legal duty on the Secretary of State to

“publish and lay before Parliament an annual report on complications from the termination of pregnancy in England under the Abortion Act 1967”.

I note that the purpose of the annual report is

“to inform policy and safe practice regarding the termination of pregnancy”.

Of course, this Government are entirely committed to safety being a top priority. However, the Government have also expressed reservations about the Bill on the basis that, as many noble Lords have said, legislation is not needed. My feeling, in listening to the debate, is that the Bill is something of a solution in search of a problem. The aims of the Bill can be achieved through existing routes—as the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Miller, among other noble Lords, indicated—and further legislation is unnecessary. I know that noble Lords completely understand the need to uphold a duty of care not to legislate when there are other reasonable processes in place.

As we have been reminded, the context in which we are having this debate is that abortion in Great Britain is governed by the Abortion Act 1967. I appreciate it is not in the Bill but, having listened to the debate—and the context given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Barker—any change to the circumstances under which abortion can be legally undertaken is a matter of conscience for individual parliamentarians, rather than for the Government. The Government follow the will of Parliament.

On the matters highlighted in the Private Members’ Bill, I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Bennett, and other noble Lords, that abortion continues to be a very safe procedure in which major complications are rare at all gestations. This has been supported by existing data and clinical guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NICE, and—as has been referred to a number of times already—the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

It is a legal requirement that all terminations performed under the Abortion Act must be notified to the Chief Medical Officer within 14 days of the procedure. These notifications are submitted via HSA4 abortion notification forms and the abortion notification system. Complication rates by procedure and gestation, as routinely recorded by that system, are published as part of the abortion statistics report for each calendar year. According to the HSA4 notifications submitted in 2022, complications were reported in 1.2 per 1,000 abortions in England and Wales.

The abortion notifications submitted to the Chief Medical Officer record known complications, as raised a number of times in the debate, up until the time of the patient’s discharge from the abortion service. Complications that occur after discharge are not required to be recorded on HSA4 notifications and I suggest that it would present a complete impracticality to do so. Complications are also recorded in other patient record systems such as hospital episode statistics, where the woman has been admitted as an inpatient. Of course, serious incidents have to be notified to the CQC.

On the specific point about the annual report, the comparison publication was never intended to be a part of the then-Government’s routine publications and, in keeping with this, we have no plans to issue a similar publication annually. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, it is not believed—and clearly the previous Government did not believe, beyond producing one report—that this is a good use of resources, nor that it adds anything to patient safety. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, rightly reminded us, is exactly what we are here for.

I have heard the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Moylan, along with other noble Lords, and while they have not used this word, I feel that they have taken exception to it being said, “this Bill would exceptionalise abortion”. I emphasise—as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and others did—that no other complications from NHS procedures are separately required to be published through legislation. I am afraid I cannot call that anything other than exceptionalism towards abortion in this instance. However, I can give the assurance to your Lordships that we continue to work with providers and commissioners to ensure that abortions are delivered safely, in accordance with the Abortion Act, and that complications are recorded accurately as required.

We are inviting views on abortion statistics for England and Wales, including the future publication of abortion complications data, via an online user engagement survey and via email. In other words, we are not complacent; we are always seeking to improve.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, asked about data on abortion in Northern Ireland. It is collected by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland because, as I know the noble Baroness is aware, it is a devolved matter. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked why there is not a recording of what were referred to as incomplete abortions. For the abortion notification system, the HSA4 form explicitly states that

“an evacuation of retained products of conception is not a complication”,

and therefore they are not included in the ANS complication rates.

I absolutely share the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for improving NHS data provision across the board, and I am glad to assure him that this will be an integral part of the 10-year health plan. To the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, I say that the existing ANS is used to ensure that patients are receiving safe and appropriate care, as abortion tends to be provided by private providers. That data can be helpful to ensure that it is delivered safely and effectively, but it is our view that we do not need any further statistical reporting—and certainly not in the way described in the Bill—because, as I emphasise, I believe this would exceptionalise abortion without adding to patient safety. I am glad to welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who is as committed to that as all noble Lords in this House.

The Government have expressed reservations about this Private Member’s Bill. This is an unnecessary process: mechanisms already exist, it will not add to patient safety, and it is therefore not appropriate to legislate further.

11:11

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. My noble friends Lord Frost and Lady Lawlor made important points about patient empowerment, but also about the improvement in medical care that can only follow from a better understanding of what is actually going wrong.

I am also partly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, because she supported the principle that the data should be collated—she thought perhaps not by means of an Act of Parliament. I conceded that point in my opening remarks—there are other means of doing it—but she said that she thought the data should be collated.

I find myself less able to express gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who lives in a world that I simply do not recognise. I have not read the American book she referred to. She came dangerously close to suggesting that I was either in receipt of or being influenced by money for this purpose. That would be a contemptible thing to say, and I will happily give way if she indicates that she wishes to distance herself from any such implication.

My noble friend Lady Sugg said that the Bill required abortion complications to be reported for the first time, and that this would be different. It does not. Abortion complications, as the Minister said, are already reported. The question is whether the data is robust and the sources from which it is drawn. My noble friend also said that collecting data could compromise the privacy of patients. Well, of course it could, but it does not, because you collect it without compromising the privacy of patients. Nobody has suggested that the report produced in November 2023 remotely compromised the privacy of patients. All that the Bill does is require that this report continue to be produced on an annual basis.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was massively keen to improve the quality of NHS data, but the moment he sees a report from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which clearly improves the quality of data, he retreats into a sort of conspiracy theory.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

If you are going to have end-to-end patient data, it needs to include A&E, GP, private, in-patient and out-patient. The statistical analysis that the Bill puts in place is a complete gap and does not give end-to-end patient data. Therefore, it becomes a totally ineffective use of statistics.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

With respect, it is true that the report, which the noble Lord has obviously read carefully, does not include data from GPs or from 111. That would have been an onerous task and, as the Government have said, this was a first and experimental effort. This is an argument for going further and improving the collection of that data, not for giving up the attempt altogether and seeing it as a conspiracy, which is what the noble Lord appeared to do.

We are really all on one page about this—or at least he and I seem to be. What is so strange about the advocates of choice in this debate is that they are so defensive; they speak as if they are surrounded by conspiracy. I do not actually think they are. If I thought I was surrounded by conspiracy, I would want to live in a world of facts and not hide myself from them, which is what they seem to be doing. The proposal is that data produced by an arm of the NHS should continue to be produced, whether by statutory or administrative means. That is all it is.

I know that there are other things happening today, so I turn finally to the remarks of the Minister. I am grateful to her for being one of the few people to treat the Bill seriously and to look at what the words in it say. She wandered slightly from that into the worlds of strange contexts, but in fact a great deal of her speech was an echo of my speech. On the history and the factual and contextual issues here, we are largely agreed. I agree that the Bill exceptionalises abortion to some extent because, as I said, abortion is exceptional, in that its statistics are generated from different data sources, which is very different from the majority of NHS procedures that take place inside a hospital. I grant that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has a point that there are other exceptional cases. I did not say that abortion was unique; I said it was exceptional. There are differences between the two words, and he is right about some hip operations and so forth taking place in the private sector, where similar issues might arise as well.

The Minister says that there are different and other ways of collecting these statistics: non-statutory means. I conceded that point, too, in my opening remarks. What she did not say is that she would use a different, non-statutory means of collecting these statistics. I remind her that when she signs her letters, underneath her name it says: “Minister for Patient Safety and Women’s Health”.

We need better statistics on complications arising from abortions. I am disappointed that the Minister has not committed herself to that and agreed that, even if a Bill is not necessary for this purpose, she will set herself to do so. Sadly, she has not.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

11:20

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to make as smooth as possible the move from asylum support to mainstream accommodation and financial support for newly recognised refugees, an aim on which I am sure we can all agree.

To this end, the Bill would do simply two things. First, it would increase, from 28 to 56 days, this move-on period to give newly recognised refugees the time they need to make this transition. Having 56 days would synchronise with the period local authorities are given to work with households at risk of homelessness under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. It would also provide sufficient time for a universal credit claim to be processed, which 28 days does not.

Secondly, the Bill would require the Home Office to inform an asylum seeker when their asylum support will end at the same time as they are told the outcome of their asylum claim, and it would ensure that the eviction notice is at least as long as the overall move-on period. In other words, it would mean that all the documentation had to arrive at the same time, which it rarely does at present, and it would provide a more reasonable eviction notice period in line with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Renters’ Rights Bill. It is thus very welcome that, just over a week ago, the Home Office told local authorities that, from this week, the first clause of the Bill was in effect being implemented, but—there is always a “but”—only as an interim measure during the period of increased decision-making and the transition to e-visas, expected to last until June next year.

In view of this, and in introducing my Bill, I will do two things. First, I will explain why, as positive as this move is, the problem it addresses is long-term and systemic, and not simply a product of current policy developments, even if they have aggravated it. Secondly, I will raise some practical concerns and questions about the interim measure, many of which emerged at a meeting of the APPG on Refugees last week.

Before going any further, I thank Jon Featonby and Hayden Banks of the Refugee Council and Heather Staff of RAMP for all their help. Here I declare my interest as a RAMP associate. I also thank the myriad organisations and individuals who have been in touch, generally unsolicited, to voice their support and to offer their help. Many took part in a very helpful Zoom call last month. I have been bowled over by the strength and extent of the support I have received from around the country and by the number of organisations—refugee, homelessness, such as Crisis, and local authority—that have been calling for this change.

I first attempted to do something about this during the passage of the then Immigration Bill 2016. To be fair, since then there have been a number of attempts to make the whole process work better, and I am grateful to various members of the previous Government for their role in that. However, a promise made during the passage of that Bill to bring forward a proposal to amend the regulations, if an evaluation pilot through which assistance was provided with the transition did not solve the problems, came to nothing. Even though it has become patently clear that such assistance might be helpful, including now asylum move-on liaison officers, it does not address the issue that 28 days simply is not enough time.

I would have difficulty navigating the complexities of trying to secure a stable home, apply for UC, open a bank account and look for work all in 28 days. How on earth do we expect someone who is relatively new to the country, may have language difficulties and may have undergone trauma, to manage it? It is not long enough, even if all the processes were done properly. As was clear from our Zoom call, all too often they are not done properly, so all kinds of practical problems arise. I will detail the hurdles that a refugee can face claiming UC—identified by the UNHCR and British Red Cross—but, even if all goes smoothly, UC is not paid for five weeks. An advance payment spells hardship down the line, when it is deducted from the weekly benefit, especially given that newly recognised refugees are very unlikely to have savings to fall back on.

I note here the problem of digital exclusion—identified by the British Red Cross in particular and strongly reaffirmed at last week’s APPG meeting—as I fear that this might loom even larger with the advent of e-visas in place of biometric residence permits. Indeed, there is a general concern among refugee organisations, such as the Refugee Council, that e-visas could aggravate the difficulties of the move-on period. Can my noble friend the Minister throw some light on how they will work and what their impact will be on the move-on period? In particular, can he explain how the digitally excluded will access their UKVI account, and can he assure me that the move-on period will not commence until a UKVI account and e-visa have been accessed? My understanding is that this will not be the case, which could mean a move-on period of less than 56 days in practice. If so, would refugees at least be able to apply for UC and access housing services without the e-visa? This all underlines the importance of the Bill’s requirement that all documentation is sent together.

The impact of the inadequate move-on period on newly recognised refugees is both material and psychological. Barnardo’s has detailed the damaging effects it can have on children, and, as the BRC points out, this can include age-disputed children awaiting a local authority age assessment or challenging an assessment, while having to navigate the complexities of adult support. Two words jump out when considering the evidence of the material impact: homelessness and destitution. These are not new problems, even if they have got worse over the past year. Not only is homelessness all too frequent but destitution means that, once asylum support is withdrawn, refugees are left with no money to buy the most basic necessities, such as food, shoes or toiletries, and, as the BRC warns, they are at heightened risk of exploitation.

It does not take much imagination to grasp the psychological impact of the stress, anxiety and mental distress caused by all this, especially when taking into account that many of those affected have already suffered trauma and torture. They believe that they have reached the promised land of refugee status, but instead they are left without any support at a particularly vulnerable time. It is more like a state of purgatory. It was evidence of the despair that this caused that first alerted me to the issue a decade ago. It was highlighted recently by an email from one of the many volunteers supporting the Bill. She wrote from Derbyshire:

“Just this last week I have had to try and comfort a man who was in despair having received his good news on his leave to remain, news that had immediately left him overwhelmed by the task in front of him. To see a man in tears at what should be such good news, after knowing that he had already survived so much suffering, left me feeling sick and helpless and also ashamed at how many obstacles this country presents to those whom we offer shelter and safety”.


As well as the immediate impact on refugees, the inadequate move-on period undermines this Government’s own aspiration to ensure their integration, a point made forcefully by the Commission on the Integration of Refugees and by London Councils, as well as by individual local authorities such as Islington Council, which is unable to undertake resettlement work as a consequence. Here it is worth noting the need for more funding for local authorities if they are to provide newly recognised refugees with adequate support.

Many of the points I have made are illustrated by a case study I received from Young Roots, which it says is typical of the homeless young refugees it is supporting. Sayed is a 21 year-old who fled the war in Sudan and suffered torture en route to the UK. After two years, he was granted refugee status in August. His relief at finally realising his dreams of rebuilding his life were short-lived. Despite him immediately taking all the practical steps necessary with the help of the Young Roots youth club, his appointment with the local authority housing team to assess his needs was not until four days before he was due to be evicted. Although Sayed tried to use the time to find something himself, he was hindered by the fact that he had no income and would not receive his first UC payment for five weeks. The local authority was unable to help him within the 28-day timeframe and he ended up homeless, sleeping in the car park of his asylum hotel. He was approached by drug dealers who offered him money and accommodation if he would work for them. Eventually, after 24 days of rough sleeping, he was offered a room by the local authority, in an area where he knew no one. The experience of those at Young Roots tells them that the practical and psychological effects of all this are likely to be long-lasting on someone so young and vulnerable.

At this point, I had planned to try to pre-empt the arguments that I thought my noble friend might make in defence of 28 days. Happily, I no longer need to do so. However, I will raise a number of concerns and questions about the interim measure, which I have shared in advance with him.

Although it is good that the change will take effect as the weather gets colder, it does seem rather rushed. What steps have been taken to ensure that individual local authorities and front-line staff are aware of the change and of their responsibility to provide homelessness assistance as soon as the decision letter has been received? How will the policy be communicated to voluntary sector organisations, especially those that the Home Office is not in direct contact with? Will the details be published on GOV.UK, so that they can be easily referred to?

I have to say that the process seems unnecessarily complicated—I needed a wet towel round my head to make sense of it. I suspect that newly recognised refugees could have real difficulties in knowing what it all means for them. Is there a reason why the documentation process has not been simplified so that it can all be received at the same time, as proposed in the Bill?

I have already warned that receiving e-visas later than the decision letter could, in practice, reduce the 56 days. Could my noble friend clarify whether the 56 days starts from the date of decision or does it, as now, allow for two days for the letter to be received? If the decision letter is sent to the wrong address—which happens all too frequently—will the move-on period be extended to allow for lost time?

I welcome that the evaluation will be carried out independently, but can my noble friend assure me that the Home Office will take account of the potentially negative impact of the switch to e-visas when determining the interim measure’s success? Could he explain the criteria that the interim scheme will be evaluated against—beyond the impact on homelessness—and the data on which it will be based? One point made strongly at the APPG meeting was that the evaluation should involve newly recognised refugees themselves, so that it captures the lived experience of those most affected. Will this be the case? Finally, will the findings, including the interim findings, be published, and will Parliament be able to debate them?

I still believe that there is a need for this Bill, to address what is a long-term problem, although we all realise that it is not a silver bullet. Tellingly, a survey of Local Government Association members found that extending the move-on period to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen as

“the single most effective change”

to the move-on process—a position supported by London Councils also.

Moreover, this is a policy change that does not require extra spending. According to research conducted by the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the LSE, it could save money.

As my noble friend Lord Coaker said from the Front Bench in 2022, echoing the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2017, chaired by the current Home Secretary:

“The 28-day move-on period is simply not long enough to put basic arrangements in place … we should be able to do better”.—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1068.]


In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who regrets that he is unable to speak today because of a funeral, the case “seems unanswerable”.

At our last—I trust friendly—encounter, my noble friend was warned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I and others pressing these issues have gained the reputation of being terriers, not all of whom could be here today. He generously extolled the virtues of parliamentary terriers and, in effect, gave me carte blanche to continue chewing his legs, as he put it. After nearly a decade chewing at ministerial legs on this issue, only for it to get worse despite administrative tweaks, I fervently hope that the Government will respond positively to the widespread, strong support for the Bill and that we can put an end to the misery caused by the 28-day move-on period, not just on an interim basis but permanently and enshrined in law. I beg to move.

11:35

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the leader of the pack for introducing the Bill with her usual combination of passion and rigour. I support it. I know that my views on migration and asylum-seeking are not in complete alignment with that of every other Member of the House, but the Bill is about people who have been accepted as refugees, and I hope we all believe in efficiency and humanity. I hope none of us believes in punishing people for being refugees.

I welcome the 56-day pilot as part of progress towards a permanent change, not just in the time period, I hope, but in the overall process. I too hope that the Minister will use the opportunity to tell the House, and importantly the sector and the people affected, the details: who and where; how information will be captured; how the pilot will be evaluated; how the Home Office, and all relevant departments, will work with local authorities, NGOs, landlords, banks, employers and everyone with direct experience, which includes refugees themselves; and how evaluation of the ALMO project will be incorporated, so that it is a single exercise, into the development of wraparound support for people granted status.

Local authority funding is of course an issue. The integration tariff for people on the Homes for Ukraine and Afghan schemes does not apply to refugees who have arrived via an asylum route.

I saw the Home Office reported as referring to a “time-limited” exercise

“as we clear the asylum backlog and transition to eVisas”,

and being

“committed to ending the use of hotels as we ramp up returns of failed asylum seekers”.

I found part of that objective and the messaging—the words used—less than wholly encouraging.

It strikes me as an irony that so many of those who seek asylum are professionally qualified, skilled, energetic and, I am sure, well organised. What must they think—this is a rhetorical question—about information about moving on coming in a series of separate letters, with confusion around effective dates and processes? There are so many aspects, as the noble Baroness said: homelessness, priority need and rough sleeping; children’s education being disrupted by moving; the need for contractors to provide support, not only physical accommodation; access to universal credit; e-visas. I could go on, but this is a short debate. The pilot is a chance to iron out problems and bureaucratic confusions and inconsistencies. I have heard it described as “fudge-adjacent”; I hope it is much more than that.

Yesterday, I met someone from an organisation in an allied field who said that the most encouraging words they could hear from a Minister are, “I’d like you to talk to my officials”. I would like the Minister and his colleagues in government to express a willingness to listen to and work with not my officials—I have not got any—but those who can contribute their direct experience to make the pilot a success.

11:38

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Come on, my Lords, it is the season of good will, and here we have Wenceslas, down from the snowy wastes of Croydon—I think he deserves a welcome. He has already given us the key point in the Bill: that it is on a temporary basis. “Rien ne dure comme le provisoire”, as the French say—nothing lasts longer than the temporary. I sincerely hope so, because 28 days was absurd, particularly when it took at least seven days for the biometric passport document to turn up and five weeks for access to universal credit to be possible. Of course 56 days rather than 28 days is required, and I strongly support the Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

But we should acknowledge that the reason why there has been such a surge in homelessness, recourse to food banks and rough sleeping—a reason for it—is that the Government have made a determined attempt to cut down the asylum backlog queue, and that to me deserves a very warm welcome from this House. I am not sure we have said it often enough already. So that is two cheers from me: one for 56 days and one for the attack on the queue—only two cheers, though.

My third cheer will come when the Minister can tell us that he has looked at and had changed the absurd rule that those waiting for an asylum decision may not take a job and may not work. It is degrading to the individual; it is economically absurd for the country. It is costly in financial terms; it is costly in economic terms. We really need people who are willing to work. It also leaves the individual exposed to the temptations of the black market and the black economy. It seems to me that what we really need—I very much hope the Minister will look at this sympathetically—is a relaxation of that rule.

Of course, when people like me made that point, under the last Government we heard that the dreaded “pull factor” would come in. Anybody who has been watching the slaughterhouses of Syria open knows that the asylum process has been absolutely correct when it awards asylum status to 99.9% of those coming from Syria and applying. It was not a pull factor: they did not want to work here; they were running away from slaughter in their homeland. The same is true of Sudanese, Eritreans and Iranians, as it is of Syrians. I do hope this Government will drop the “pull factor” as an argument against allowing those here to earn their way. It was always a myth.

In any case, the asylum process itself will test whether there is a well-justified fear of persecution that drove the person to come here. You cannot say these people are economic migrants; that will be tested in the simultaneous asylum process, and if some are found to be economic migrants, they will not be allowed to stay. It seems to me that there is no argument, intellectually or economically, for maintaining the rule that prevents them working, so socially disruptive as it is. I hope the Minister will be able to look at that, and then I will give him my third cheer.

11:42

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I am glad to add my voice on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for bringing it forward.

As the Bishop of London, I see many churches which have stepped in to provide support to newly recognised refugees when the process of support just does not work as it should. Last year, I led a letter signed by 44 other faith and belief leaders in London to raise awareness of the high rates of homelessness for the newly recognised refugees. Many other faith groups and churches found themselves supporting newly recognised refugees who were street homeless. As part of the letter, we called for the Government to extend the support to 56 days. Following the letter, I had a very productive meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, when he was in his ministerial post, along with officials, and I pay tribute to him for his willingness to listen and, in fact, his willingness to respond.

We identified a few issues that have already been highlighted that people were facing. First, as we have already heard, 20 days is simply not enough, even if they do everything right. Secondly, the letters are complicated and there are a number of them: the letter for biometric residence permit and notice to quit as well as the decision letter. When we looked, with permission, at these letters, they were often very long, reaching to seven or eight pages and were often unclear. Critically, they did not clearly state the date at which support would end, apart from the notice to quit period, which is only seven days in advance. Of course, if that letter comes late or is delayed in the post, some people were facing only one or two days’ notice. Thirdly, we found that several people had errors with their biometric residence permit which meant that they could not access the support they needed and were still evicted at the end of their support period. These mistakes are incredibly difficult to correct, particularly if it is a spelling mistake.

For these reasons, I support this Bill. After having met the previous Minister and Home Office officials, we continued to work with them. One of the successes is that the letters have become clearer, particularly the letter making it clear when accommodation would end. That date is now much clearer in that letter. I also welcome the workaround simplification of the letters that refugees receive. As regards the pilot that has been announced by the Government, I ask the Minister how it will be evaluated and whether the Government continue to work with newly recognised refugees, so that the communication improvement continues. Finally, I wonder what action the Government are taking to ensure that the administrative systems are appropriately resourced so that they are efficient.

11:46

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, it is with a readiness to admit that the substantive points that I might have wanted to make have been made that I begin to share my thoughts today. I began the week in the company of the noble Lord, Lord German, in Paris at the migration committee of the Council of Europe. We rather missed the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who has just stepped down from that committee, but we have noticed over the years that there tends not to be much representation from the Conservative side of this House present at the migration committee—though there is membership, not much attendance has tended to be part of the discussion of migration either in Paris or in Strasbourg. It is sad that the noble Lord, with whom we have enjoyed jousts in the past, is the sole voice for the Conservative Party in this debate.

I echo the readiness of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to give a third cheer, as and when; all I can say is that, as and when it came to pass, it would get a rather rousing cheer from me. We have here people unable to be the human beings they were made to be by doing something productive and having a role. That seems to me to be a denial of something rather beyond the right to work, and so on: the right to be human, in a very different sense. The other thing is that I wonder whether the Minister might persuade us that the decision-making that led to the extension of the period from 28 to 56 days is not the last word on the matter. Since it is common sense for it to happen at all, it does not seem reasonable to me that the common sense should run out in June next year, and we should go on having a lengthier period during which the formalities could be completed.

With that—and, I hope, Hansard noting that the reverend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port did not use his three minutes—that is my contribution to today’s debate.

11:48

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord unexpectedly early.

First, I offer the strongest possible Green support for this Bill, which has not been pre-empted by the praiseworthy government action because, as pretty well every speaker has highlighted, at the moment we have a trial, a very commendable trial, extending the period of accommodation to 56 days. As pretty well everyone has asked, why not make this obvious step permanent, which this Bill does, as well as provide the simplification and clarity in paperwork that is so urgently needed?

I join the general commendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. She is living proof that my hashtag, “#CampaigningWorks”, is indeed true, and a decade of campaigning has got us to this point. She deserves the highest possible commendation for that. I also thank her for her powerful and incisive speech.

The current circumstances have led me, like others, to have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, I understand that the 56 days will come in only for newly recognised refugees, from the date of that announcement. Clearly, there will be a gap for people in the intervening period. Surely we can do something to make sure that people in that situation are not homeless just because they are in that intervening period.

I have a particularly critical question on the situation for Syrians making asylum claims. We are aware that there has been a pause in processing; this potentially affects some 6,500 people, including a significant number of children. Two days ago, Sky News reported on the 36 year-old Hussam Kassas, an activist against the Assad regime who has a wife and two children and now acutely fears homelessness. Can the Minister explain what will happen to Syrians affected by the pause in terms of housing? That really needs to be put on record.

Many noble Lords will have received a briefing from the Trussell Trust on this debate. It is important to note that an organisation that provides food banks feels the need to give us a briefing on a Bill about asylum and the situation of asylum seekers leaving. It is worth stressing, because there is not enough public awareness of this fact, that, while people are seeking asylum, the asylum support rates are £49.18 a week for those in Home Office-funded accommodation and £8.86 for those in accommodation where food is provided. It is worth thinking about what it would be like if you had been living, as many people have for many months—and, in many cases, many years—on that tiny sum of money, and how difficult it would be for you suddenly to be able to set yourself up for life in a home.

11:51

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and to contribute to this Second Reading on such a vital Bill from my noble friend Lady Lister.

I am grateful to the organisations that have sent in briefings, both to extend my own knowledge and to inform my contribution today. I begin with the stark assertion from Barnardo’s that “There is currently a homelessness epidemic amongst newly recognised refugee families in the UK who experience homelessness and destitution as a direct result of the 28 day move on policy for those obliged to move out of asylum hotels, to find new accommodation less than a month after being granted refugee status”. The granting of refugee status should be very good news, but the timeframe puts a great deal of stress on families and individuals. As the Refugee Council says, a successful asylum claim should be “a moment of celebration” but, due to the short move-on time, far too many people end up facing homelessness.

Of course, this is not just damaging for the refugees themselves; it also puts local authority and voluntary sector services under pressure. This is not just about homelessness: in the moving-on period, a refugee has to find work or successfully apply for welfare support. It is not surprising, then, that local authorities support this extension to the moving-on period. A key reason why the 28 days are simply too short is that, having been unable to work pending a decision on their asylum application—let us all hope that we can hear the third cheer from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, very soon—newly recognised refugees may need to claim universal credit, which has an in-built delay of 35 days between application and first payment. As my noble friend said, it is possible to be awarded an advance payment, but only if the refugee is aware of the possibility of applying; then, of course, money is deducted from further future payments. This could be avoided if the timescales on processes were aligned.

The Government have announced a temporary increase in the move-on period from 28 to 56 days, as we have heard, but questions—some of them put by noble Lords in earlier speeches—remain. What is required is the full statutory extension to 56 days on a permanent basis, as outlined in my noble friend’s Bill. I wish the Bill well and hope that the Government will be able to support it.

11:54

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, like many others, it is a pleasure for me to speak in support of this Bill. I too pay tribute to the Private Member’s Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, as well as to other campaigners who have continued to call for a longer move-on period for those newly granted refugee status.

I sincerely welcome the Government’s decision to introduce this pilot, extending the move on-period to 56 days. It is among the recommendations of the recent Commission on the Integration of Refugees, of which I was pleased to be a commissioner; I should also state my interest as a principal of RAMP. It seems only a short while ago that we were responding to the reduction of the period to seven days, soon after which refugee homelessness figures reached an unprecedented peak, accounting for 51% of rough sleepers—a near 1,000% increase between the July of that year and last autumn.

As we have heard, even 28 days simply is not enough to find new accommodation, seek employment and navigate the welfare system, especially if someone is supporting a family. Without a longer period, we are setting people up to fail, which is no strategy at all for integration. Stability is key for families, particularly for children and young people. These 56 days will help ensure minimal disruption as council services will have more time to find suitable accommodation closer to support networks and, especially, to allow children the possibility to stay on at existing schools.

The Bill before us makes sensible provision regarding documentation. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will look at simplifying the scheme and improving the processes further. For example, why can an e-visa not be issued at the same time as the documentation relevant to the asylum decision? Can we have an assurance that local authorities can start to support refugees with housing support right from day one? It is clear that there is more we can do to support refugee integration. I hope that this positive move from the Government is the start of a developing strategy; I would be delighted to meet the Minister and offer whatever support I can going forward.

Finally, the Home Office often refers to the move-on period as a “grace period”. I hope that the Minister will allow me to speak from a faith perspective for a moment, as noble Lords might expect from these Benches. Grace in the theological sense—and, I argue, the true sense—is never for a limited pilot period, nor for when it is easy or convenient. I therefore encourage the Government to go further and make this extension to 56 days a permanent fixture—a true period of grace in the asylum system.

11:57

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as two founder members of the Lister terriers pack, I pay tribute to the leader of our pack; I am privileged to stand up and support her Bill. I thank the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, as the former chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, because one of the few strengths of the House of Commons is the Select Committee. It looked at this matter in great detail and came out with a recommendation to do precisely what the Home Office has just done, so I pay tribute to her and to the committee’s effectiveness.

I wish to speak specifically about the issue of age-disputed children; I also have some questions on it. Between April and June this year, 2,088 age disputes were raised. There are several specific challenges that age-disputed young people face in navigating this process. Clearly, there are vulnerability and safety issues. Although the Home Office works with organisations that provide some support, it is not always done terribly effectively. Those organisations are often not specialists in supporting age-disputed young people and often direct them back to the British Red Cross. Migrant Help, which is contracted to provide move-on advice, told us that it does

“not provide this service to age-disputed young people”.

However, it added that it would be willing to provide this service outreach in some cases; perhaps the department could get in touch with Migrant Help and see whether there would be some sense in trying to make that systematic and part of the process.

The move-on process is often the starting point for engaging with family reunion, which is a highly emotional and sometimes mildly traumatic process. For age-disputed young people who are sponsoring family members—some of them are—that makes it particularly complex. Can the Minister look at those specific issues? I do not expect an answer from the Dispatch Box; perhaps he could write to us so that we can follow up on that. I would be most grateful.

So I entirely agree with the purpose of the Bill. I also entirely echo the third cheer of my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, not least because many of us have a vivid memory of this being discussed at great length in this House, with a significant amount of support in particular from the then Government’s ranks, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. I seem to recall her saying that allowing migrants to help is entirely in line with what she regards as a core Conservative value.

12:00

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. At this stage there is little more to say other than to support the brilliant, excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I find that I agree with everything that has been said so far in this discussion. It is not necessary to repeat it.

I would like to make a couple of additional points. First, there is a London dimension to this. I understand that it affects the whole country, but it is notable that the input from local authorities has come from London Councils. Its figures, and just living in London, make it clear that this is a problem that does need to be addressed.

Secondly, I have not heard any discussion, least of all from my Government—so I hope that my noble friend the Minister can help us—on whether there has been any research on what period is needed? It is obvious that 28 days was totally arbitrary. It was not chosen on the basis of deep research about what time is necessary to do all the tasks that are required. All the written evidence we had, as well as the evidence from speakers today, shows that 28 days is not enough. I do not think there is any debate about that. So what time is required? The same thing could be said about the 56 days, to be honest. What time is required? Will the Government undertake research on which a rational decision can be taken to assess how long it is reasonable to expect people in the circumstances that refugees find themselves to introduce themselves to our society and undertake all the tasks that other speakers have identified?

I strongly support the Bill. I welcome the temporary extension of the period. One finds it difficult that, at the end of the period, the Government would be so brutal as to go back to 28 days. This is not really a fudge but a partial acceptance of the point. One does not have to be that paranoid to see the fingerprints of the Treasury on this decision. All those who know the subject and all those who have spoken today are absolutely clear that 28 days is not enough.

12:03

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest: I am supported by the RAMP Project.

There have been two metaphors used in this debate so very far, very helpfully. One was about terriers and the other was about Good King Wenceslas. I must say that the terrier ordeal that the people in the pack have put up with for this length of time has now come to some fruition, so I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the rest of the pack for all their work over the last decade in bringing this forward.

On Good King Wenceslas—which I have sung many times in this last week—one thing he had to do, apart from coming from the near mountains of Flintshire rather than Croydon, was send his page out to get fuel to keep warm. That in itself is a metaphor for what we are discussing today about people being able to find appropriate homes. So, if we are going to wish upon the Minister the Good King Wenceslas theme, perhaps he can pay attention to all that has been said in this Chamber so far.

I must add to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, about our meeting last Monday. What he did not say was that he moved a resolution of the Migration Committee of the Council of Europe to support the permanent extension from 28 days to 56 days, and it received unanimous support. So now the whole weight of all the countries in the Council of Europe is now sitting on Good King Wenceslas’s shoulders to make sure that people can, metaphorically, keep warm.

Obviously, we are grateful that the Minister has introduced this temporary measure and has listened to all the voices. However, lying behind that, essentially, as many in this Chamber have discussed today, is getting all the ducks in a row—another metaphor—for all the things that need to take place during that 56-day period. I pray in aid what the Government sent out to local authorities on 2 December about this new 56-day process. There are three things I would like to ask the Minister about. First, in the box marked “Decision”, there are two boxes. One says that the outcome letter is sent out, basically, to end in 56 days. The second one says, “Notification received of e-visa account”. I presume that this means that on that very day, the e-visa account information is sent to the person who has had a successful status change. Because it is not actually in the same box, does that mean it could be sent out at some stage later?

That e-visa, or whatever the document is, is the key to triggering the issues of financial support, housing, UC and so on. In the context of the UC support, having dispensed with the previous Government’s employment scheme for refugees, can the Minister explain what is replacing it, particularly in respect of UC? UC is not just the money. There is also the employment support that it can provide. Will there be a separate form of support for people during that period?

All in all, we ought to be in a semi-celebratory Christmas mood. We look forward to the Government having their national integration strategy laid out before us in time, which will of course go well beyond June: as the right reverend Prelate said, the grace period will extend forever.

12:07

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the move-on period was fixed at 28 days under the previous Labour Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted, she has been raising questions about this valiantly since at least 2016. I can certainly confirm that my ankles too bear the scars of the Lister terrier pack.

The last Government were aware of the issues raised in this Bill and the issues that arise in the question of the move-on period from asylum accommodation. As long ago as 2022, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, then the Home Office Minister, observed from the Dispatch Box that the then Government’s focus was on implementing practical changes with the aim of securing better outcomes. In October 2023, I answered a Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in relation to the move-on period. I noted that the Home Office was reliant on people who are no longer eligible for asylum support leaving the asylum accommodation estate as quickly as possible and that this number was increasing due to the significant efforts that were under way to clear the asylum backlog—which of course has been reducing both under the previous Government and this Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, noted.

I also said in that Answer that individuals should make plans to move on from asylum support as quickly as possible and that the Home Office offers support through Migrant Help or its partner organisation in doing this. This includes providing advice on accessing the labour market and applying for universal credit, signposting to local authorities for assistance with housing, and signposting that newly recognised refugees are entitled to housing assistance from the local authority and will be treated as a priority need if they have children or are considered vulnerable.

I further noted that individuals do not need to wait for their BRP to make a claim for benefits and that they are encouraged to do so as early as possible. That was followed, in December last year, by my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s answer to an Oral Question on this topic. He said that the prescribed 28-day period

“is long-standing in our legislation”,—[Official Report, 18/12/23; col. 2036.]

and that increasing it would “exacerbate” the “huge strain” on the asylum accommodation estate.

This problem has not gone away. It has since worsened, not least—I hesitate to be political here—because of the increased small boat crossings, of 20,000, since the general election. The Government’s decision to increase to a 56-day period as a pilot measure is viewed with some concern, as is this Private Member’s Bill. I am particularly concerned that this move is being funded by a transfer of funds from the refugee employability programme which, as the Sunday Times of last Sunday informs us, was scrapped by a decision of the Prime Minister. The refugee employability programme, which I have already raised in this House, was designed to help integrate refugees into our society and to provide English language training. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is the case.

We must not forget that one consequence of this change is that there are fewer resources to provide accommodation for those who need it and are already living in our country. It is an exercise in the allocation of scarce resources. Contrary to the Labour Government’s manifesto pledge to end the use of hotels, taxpayers are now spending about £8 million a day on hotel costs. This policy and this Bill will surely drive up that figure.

In all the speeches I have heard today, there has been a striking absence of the discussion of the cost of these measures to the Home Office budget. Can the Minister please set out the cost to the Home Office of, first, the extension of this trial period and, secondly, making the proposed change permanent? Thirdly, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the legal basis for the extension to 56 days during the trial period, given that the figure remains unamended in the 2000 regulations.

12:12

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The noble Lord caught me unawares there. I thought I had a little longer, but there we go: it is all part of the fun.

I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this debate on the Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill. We have had some discussion today, and I say straightaway that I am pleased to have my ankles chewed by the terriers. Despite voting on every occasion against hunting with dogs, I am pleased to give this opportunity to check; it is perfectly legitimate and I welcome it. I did not expect to be compared to Good King Wenceslas today, but I will take that from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as the second cheer of the day and will refer to the third cheer in due course.

I am particularly pleased to tell my noble friend Lady Lister that I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations that she has prayed in aid, the large number of voluntary organisations that have made submissions to the debate today and those that pick up some of the strain of the 28-day period that currently exists—as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London mentioned. The Government want to make sure that the transition between asylum accommodation and other accommodation for those asylum seekers who are recognised as refugees and granted leave to remain is smooth and supportive.

I acknowledge the huge pressures on the asylum system. I find it very strange that the only discordant voice in today’s debate was from the Opposition Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Murray. He seems to forget that this Government have been in office since 4 July; the pressures that we are facing on hotel and asylum accommodation were generated through the actions of his Government. The hotels that were nil in 2019 are now 200. Yes, they have gone up by seven since July, but I remind the noble Lord that there is a real commitment by this Government to reduce and end that hotel accommodation. In many ways, the discussions that we are having today are part of that direction of travel.

I do not want to politicise this debate, and it has not been politicised, but I have to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, from the Front Bench: look at the noble Lord’s record. Look at what we are inheriting and having to deal with. Speeding up asylum claims, ending hotels, establishing a Border Force security team, signing documents this week with Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and the work with Iraq—all those things are designed to start to pick up the mess that we inherited only five months ago. I will end the party-political knockabout at that point and return to the consensus that there was from all sides of the Chamber in the rest of the debate.

The focus of this debate was the 56-day period that my noble friend mentioned. Clause 1(2) of the Bill determines that the 28 days shall be 56. The current process is that, following the service of an asylum decision, an individual continues to be an asylum seeker for the purpose of asylum support until the end of the regular prescribed period set out by regulations.

Let me just answer a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth: the period is 28 days from when the individual is notified, but we think we have legal support for a pilot extending that to 56 days. If the pilot is extended in due course, we do not think we would be open to challenge but, at some point, we would have to bring an order to both Houses to regularise that. That is part of the process, and I hope he accepts that it would be done in due course.

A number of contributors mentioned the Home Office. The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Chelmsford and the Bishop of London, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Blower, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, welcomed the fact that the pilot in place has moved to 56 days from the point at which individuals are notified of their grant to leave. We expect that measure to be in place until June 2025. The Government have put that pilot in place to support local authorities during a period when we expect an increased volume of asylum decisions to be made.

As a number of colleagues in the House have mentioned, it also coincides with the transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees. It is important that we do that, and there has been general recognition that the Government moving from 28 to 56 days for the pilot is positive, but we have to evaluate its impact and look at the interim measures to make sure there are clear benefits to the proposal. Again, that has been relatively welcomed from all sides of the House, with the exception of the Opposition Front Bench, as an area to look at.

Some important points were rightly made in the discussion about implementation, evaluation, e-visas et cetera. I will try to cover those now to give some clarity on where we are. Let me take evaluation first, because it was a key point that the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Chelmsford, and others, mentioned, as did my noble friend Lady Lister in her initial contribution. There are certainly criteria that we will look at in the evaluation procedure. We want to look at the provision of asylum move-on liaison officers to support granting asylum and successfully moving on from asylum accommodation and support. We have put in place £2.8 million additional outcome-based funding for select local authorities to support move-on according to prioritised need. We are looking at changes to internal processes with the move-on period and at the downstream legality of changing those issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, mentioned London as an area of particular interest. Again, we will look at that geographical impact in our evaluation. It is important that we take time to evaluate the impact of the interim measure: there will potentially be a look at the net costs to taxpayers, which have been mentioned, before a decision is made on whether to make the measure permanent. It is also important that we look at how we work with local authorities and voluntary agencies, mentioned by a number of noble Peers today, on the transition to e-visas. What does all this mean in practice?

As I have mentioned, the pilot will be in place until June 2025. The evaluation will be undertaken within that period, and we would hope to be able to inform future decisions post June 2025. While I recognise that that does not meet the objectives of Clause 1(2) in the Bill that my noble friend has brought forward, I hope she will recognise that there is recognition of it being an issue which has to be addressed, and that the Government are aware of that issue and are trying to at least examine those pressures in the current circumstances.

In relation to the decision letter, my noble friend and other Peers mentioned access to UKVI accounts and the e-visa move-on period. It is important to note that newly granted refugees will have digital status at the point that a positive decision is made. They will be served after the decision. Newly granted refugees will have a UKVI account created for them. Following this, the case will be sent for discontinuation, and individuals will be sent a discontinuation letter stating an end support date. That date will be either 56 days from when the individual was notified of the decision, which includes the two days for postage that colleagues have mentioned, or 28 days from the date of the discontinuation letter, whichever is the longer. The 56 days in this pilot period will be an issue that we potentially look at.

There have been issues raised about wrong addresses. If a form goes to a wrong address or if there are errors in the e-visa, that will be reflected upon and taken into account. To those who raised digitally excluded individuals, there will be support for them. I recognise that not everybody is digitally proficient, particularly in a language which is not their first. Again, there will be support in accessing e-visas through our assisted digital support service.

Going back to a point that my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned, the interim scheme has been shared with local authorities as well as the NGO voluntary organisation partners. We have been engaging with partners across central and local government, and the evaluation will take place. There are no current plans to publish the details of the pilot on GOV.UK, but we are looking at how we can update that guidance in due course. We want to ensure that a range of partners are involved in that discussion and evaluation so, as a Government, we will return to that in due course.

My noble friend’s Bill also requires the end of support date to be included in the asylum decision letter. While individuals are notified in their grant letter that support will end in 56 days, operational and safeguarding checks currently prevent us outlining the exact date at this point. The only way to implement that approach would be to delay the service of the asylum decision; we do not really want to do that. To prevent late notification of an exact support date, a safeguard is in place whereby individuals can remain on support for at least 28 days from the point when they are issued with their discontinuation letter, which includes the exact date that support will end, regardless of when the asylum decision was served. This is issued only once an individual has been given the ability to access their e-visa. I hope that that will be of interest to noble Lords who raised this.

The move-on support issue, mentioned particularly by my noble friend Lady Blower, is extremely important. Move-on support is available to all individuals through Migrant Help. This includes providing advice on accessing the labour market, applying for universal credit, signposting to local authorities and communications to individuals. Home Office move-on liaison officers will now also support individuals who have been granted refugee status to: understand the steps they need to take once the asylum decision is issued; support them in accessing e-visas via our assisted digital service; and give as much help as possible in relation to, potentially, integration loans that help refugees to secure critical items. Along with the devolved Administrations and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Home Office is looking closely at how we can engage local authorities to ensure that colleagues are supported.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned the issue of age dispute. I understand the point he is making. If he will allow me, I will seek further clarification with officials at the Home Office. I will discuss it with my colleague Ministers who have direct responsibility for this area and contact him in due course.

While I hope that one or two cheers will be given for what I have said to date about the Government’s approach, I must recognise that I was asked about a third cheer by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, supported by my noble friend Lord Griffiths. May I say that we will probably not get that cheer today? The noble Lord probably expected that when he asked the question. Asylum seekers can do jobs on the UK’s immigration salary list if their claims have been outstanding for at least 12 months, through no fault of their own, but we will have to reflect further as a Government on his question, so I cannot give him cause for a third cheer today. I hope he understands that we have to work our way through the myriad problems and challenges that we are inheriting—I go back to the unhelpful comments from the Opposition Front Bench, which defended a record that does not really bear defence.

We are doing work on the asylum backlog, ending hotels, the change to this pilot, the accommodation investment that we are making to improve Border Force, the closing of Scampton, the “Bibby Stockholm” and other centres, and the revision of contracts and agreements with our European partners and other countries outside Europe, such as Iraq. That is a big agenda, and my colleague Ministers are working through it to the best of their ability.

I hope that today’s progress with the Bill from my noble friend highlighting an issue that the Government have tried to respond to in a positive way, gives this House the ability to reflect on the fact that the direction of travel for the Government is one that I hope most Members will support.

12:27

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the Bill, as all but one person did. Although the Minister did not give me the Christmas present that I might have liked—I did not really expect that—he did, in a sense, accept the principles behind the Bill.

I will be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us that we are talking about accepted refugees. She also emphasised the importance of listening to those with lived experience of the move-on period. I am not sure that my noble friend the Minister said anything about that in terms of evaluation. I will read Hansard, but I may have to come back to him on that and a few other details. It is important that the evaluation is not just of a top-down, statistical type but that we listen to what people are going through.

I am not going to get into metaphors about Good King Wenceslas, but I very much agree with the question of the right to work, because it is crucial to integration. If this group had had the right to paid work, the move-on period would be less problematic than it is.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and my noble friend Lord Davies for emphasising the extent to which this is particularly experienced in London. But it is experienced not only in London. I live in the east Midlands, where I am a patron of the Nottingham Refugee Forum; I spoke very briefly about this at its recent AGM. The result was like a wildfire telegraph around the east Midlands by people working on this issue, some of whom have written to quite a few noble Lords. This is a real issue in the east Midlands as well, and more widely. It might be experienced more acutely in London but it is not just a London issue; it is much wider than that.

I cannot cover everything that was said, but the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, asked an important question, which I am not sure was answered, about whether or not somebody already in the 28 day-period is covered by this. It seems a bit unfair if one person finds that they have a much shorter period than, say, the person they have been sharing a room with. Perhaps the Minister can look at that. I must admit I had not thought of it, so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will look at that point. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not answering her. I can give her limited reassurance, and I will write to both her and my noble friend Lady Lister on that point. I will also cover the Syria point, which I did not mention in my response because of the lack of time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend; I realise that it was not possible for him to cover everything in his response. A follow-up letter to everyone who spoke would be very helpful.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blower who, like many noble Lords, supported the right to work and talked about the impact on children. I am pleased that my fellow terrier the noble Lord, Lord Russell, raised the question of age assessment. I should warn noble Lords that another group of terriers will in the new year be chewing away on the question of age assessment, so they have that joy awaiting them.

I loved the point by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that a grace period is never for a limited pilot period and that a true period of grace would be permanent. I hope that will be taken back to the Home Office; even for those such as myself who do not have faith, it was a very telling point.

My noble friend Lord Davies asked about research. Will the evaluation try to find out the time that it takes to move on? I have noticed that a point that has not been made by Ministers recently, but that used to be made, is that somehow it is all the fault of the refugee because they do not move fast enough and do not get on with it. That is partly why I chose the particular case study that I did. Here was a young man who did everything he was supposed to do at once and ended up homeless, sleeping in the car park of the asylum hotel he had been in.

Moving on to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I have been reliably told that, during the period that he was Home Office Minister, there was a 302% increase in the number of refugee households in England owed either a relief or prevention duty after leaving Home Office accommodation. The noble Lord might have wanted to reflect on whether the 28-day period was working satisfactorily. I do not care who introduced it. I am very critical of a whole lot of things that my party introduced—I think it took away the right to work, but that does not make it the correct thing to have done. I am sorry that he did not reflect on that.

The noble Lord talked about costs. As I said, the research suggests that this would save money and achieve net savings. The amount is not huge, at probably £4 million to £7 million a year. The question is who bears the cost. Is it the Home Office? Is it individual vulnerable refugees? Is it local authorities? Is it the voluntary sector? It is a question of where the costs are borne; it is not an extra cost at all.

I will continue to argue, and I think noble Lords agreed, that, welcome as this interim scheme is, the assumption should be that it will be permanent. If it all goes pear-shaped then it may be that we will want to look at it again, but we need to think about how we make it legally permanent. I intend to continue to press the Bill. If the Minister wants three cheers from me, it is a question not just of the right to work but of accepting the Bill. Although he very kindly said that he would be pleased for the terriers to continue to chew at his ankles, I would much prefer not to have to chew at ministerial ankles. I want an outcome—I do not want to carry on chewing, despite the change of Government. I will leave it at that. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

12:38

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[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.

12:48

[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?

12:51

[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.

12:54

[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.

12:57

[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.

12:59

[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.

13:03

[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.

13:06

[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.

13:09

[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.

13:11

[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.

13:14

[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.

13:17

[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.

13:20

[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.

13:23

[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.

13:27

[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.

13:30

[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.

13:33

[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.

13:36

[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.

13:40

[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.

13:43

[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.

13:47

[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.

13:48

[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.

13:57

[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.

14:02

[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.

14:17

[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.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Public Authority Algorithmic and Automated Decision-Making Systems Bill [HL]

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

14:20

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my AI interests as set out in the register. I thank Big Brother Watch, the Public Law Project and the Ada Lovelace Institute, which, each in their own way, have provided the evidence and underpinned my resolve to ensure that we regulate the adoption of algorithmic and AI tools in the public sector, which are increasingly being used across it to make and support many of the highest-impact decisions affecting individuals, families and communities across healthcare, welfare, education, policing, immigration and many other sensitive areas of an individual’s life. I also thank the Public Bill Office, the Library and other members of staff for all their assistance in bringing this Bill forward and communicating its intent and contents, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken the trouble to come to take part in this debate this afternoon.

The speed and volume of decision-making that new technologies will deliver is unprecedented. They have the potential to offer significant benefits, including improved efficiency and cost effectiveness in government operations, enhanced service delivery and resource allocation, better prediction and support for vulnerable people and increased transparency in public engagement. However, the rapid adoption of AI in the public sector also presents significant risks and challenges, with the potential for unfairness, discrimination and misuse through algorithmic bias and the need for human oversight, a lack of transparency and accountability in automated decision-making processes and privacy and data protection concerns.

Incidents such as the 2020 A-level and GCSE grading fiasco, where an algorithmic approach saw students, particularly those from lower-income areas, unfairly miss out on university places when an algorithm was used to estimate grades from exams that were cancelled because of Covid-19, have starkly illustrated the dangers of unchecked algorithmic systems in public administration disproportionately affecting those from lower-income backgrounds. That led to widespread public outcry and a loss of trust in government use of technology.

Big Brother Watch’s investigations have revealed that councils across the UK are conducting mass profiling and citizen scoring of welfare and social care recipients. Its report, entitled Poverty Panopticon [The Hidden Algorithms Shaping Britain’s Welfare State], uncovered alarming statistics. Some 540,000 benefits applicants are secretly assigned fraud risk scores by councils’ algorithms before accessing housing benefit or council tax support. Personal data from 1.6 million people living in social housing is processed by commercial algorithms to predict rent non-payers. Over 250,000 people’s data is processed by secretive automated tools to predict the likelihood of abuse, homelessness or unemployment.

Big Brother Watch criticises the nature of these algorithms, stating that most are secretive, unevidenced, incredibly invasive and likely discriminatory. It argues that these tools are being used without residents’ knowledge, effectively creating tools of automated suspicion. The organisation rightly expressed deep concern that these risk-scoring algorithms could be disadvantaging and discriminating against Britain’s poor. It warns of potential violations of privacy and equality rights, drawing parallels to controversial systems like the Metropolitan Police’s gangs matrix database, which was found to be operating unlawfully. From a series of freedom of information requests last June, Big Brother Watch found that a flawed DWP algorithm wrongly flagged 200,000 housing benefit claimants for possible fraud and error, which meant that thousands of UK households every month had their housing benefit claims unnecessarily investigated.

In August 2020, the Home Office agreed to stop using an algorithm to help sort visa applications after it was discovered that the algorithm contained entrenched racism and bias, and following a challenge from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the digital rights group Foxglove. The algorithm essentially created a three-tier system for immigration, with a speedy boarding lane for white people from the countries most favoured by the system. Privacy International has raised concerns about the Home Office's use of a current tool called Identify and Prioritise Immigration Cases—IPIC—which uses personal data, including biometric and criminal records to prioritise deportation cases, arguing that it lacks transparency and may encourage officials to accept recommended decisions without proper scrutiny.

Automated decision-making has been proven to lead to harms in privacy and equality contexts, such as in the Harm Assessment Risk Tool, which was used by Durham Police until 2021, and which predicted reoffending risks partly based on an individual’s postcode in order to inform charging decisions. All these cases illustrate how ADM can perpetuate discrimination. The Horizon saga illustrates how difficult it is to secure proper redress once the computer says no.

There is no doubt that our new Government are enthusiastic about the adoption of AI in the public sector. Both the DSIT Secretary of State and Feryal Clark, the AI Minister, are on the record about the adoption of AI in public services. They have ambitious plans to use AI and other technologies to transform public service delivery. Peter Kyle has said:

“We’re putting AI at the heart of the government’s agenda to boost growth and improve our public services”,


and

“bringing together digital, data and technology experts from across Government under one roof, my Department will drive forward the transformation of the state”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/24; col. 89.]

Feryal Clarke has emphasised the Administration’s desire to “completely transform digital Government” with DSIT. As the Government continue to adopt AI technologies, it is crucial to balance the potential benefits with the need for responsible and ethical implementation to ensure fairness, transparency and public trust.

The Ada Lovelace Institute warns of the unintended consequences of AI in the public sector, including the risk of entrenching existing practices, instead of fostering innovation and systemic solutions. As it says, the safeguards around automated decision-making, which exist only in data protection law, are therefore more critical than ever in ensuring people understand when a significant decision about them is being automated, why that decision is made, and have routes to challenge it, or ask for it to be decided by a human.

Our citizens need greater, not less, protection, but rather than accepting the need for these, we see the Government following in the footsteps of their predecessor by watering down such rights as there are under GDPR Article 22 not to be subject to automated decision-making. We will, of course, be discussing these aspects of the Data (Use and Access) Bill in Committee next week.

ADM safeguards are critical to public trust in AI, but progress has been glacial. Take the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard, which was created in 2022 and is intended to offer a consistent framework for public bodies to publish details of the algorithms used in making these decisions. Six records were published at launch, and only three more seem to have been published since then. The previous Government announced earlier this year that the implementation of the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard will be mandatory for departments. Minister Clark in the new Government has said,

“multiple records are expected to be published soon”,

but when will this be consistent across government departments? What teeth do the Central Digital and Data Office and the Responsible Technology Adoption Unit, now both within DSIT, have to ensure the adoption of the standard, especially in view of the planned watering down of the Article 22 GDPR safeguards? Where is the promised repository for ATRS records? What about the other public services in local government too?

The Public Law Project, which maintains a register called Tracking Automated Government, believes that in October last year there were more than 55 examples of public ADM systems use. Where is the transparency on those? The fact is that the Government’s Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard, while a step in the right direction, remains voluntary and lacks comprehensive adoption or indeed a compliance mechanism or opportunity for redress. The current regulatory landscape is clearly inadequate to address these challenges. Despite the existing guidance and framework, there is no legally enforceable obligation on public authorities to be transparent about their use of ADM and algorithmic systems, or to rigorously assess their impact.

To address these challenges, several measures are needed. We need to see the creation of and adherence to ethical guidelines and accountability mechanisms for AI implementation; a clear regulatory framework and standards for use in the public sector; increased transparency and explainability of the adoption and use of AI systems; investment in AI education; and workforce development for public sector employees. We also need to see the right of redress, with a strengthened right for the individuals to challenge automated decisions.

My Bill aims to establish a clear mandatory framework for the responsible use of algorithmic and automated decision-making systems in the public sector. It will help to prevent the embedding of bias and discrimination in administrative decision-making, protect individual rights and foster public trust in government use of new technologies.

I will not adumbrate all the elements of the Bill. In an era when AI and algorithmic systems are becoming increasingly central to government ambitions for greater productivity and public service delivery, this Bill, I hope noble Lords agree, is crucial to ensuring that the benefits of these technologies are realised while safeguarding democratic values and individual rights. By ensuring that ADM systems are used responsibly and ethically, the Bill facilitates their role in improving public service delivery, making government operations more efficient and responsive.

The Bill is not merely a response to past failures but a proactive measure to guide the future use of technology within government and empower our citizens in the face of these powerful new technologies. I hope that the House and the Government will agree that this is the way forward. I beg to move.

14:32

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill. It is a bit like the previous Bill, in that it addresses an important set of issues, and I encourage my Front-Bench friends to find a way, if not through this Bill, to address them.

In many ways, this is a bit of a warm-up for the debate we will have on Monday on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled a number of amendments on the same sort of issues. Indeed, this Bill could even be using some of the same text as his amendments. So, it is a pleasure to be able to rehearse what I might want to say on Monday.

Automated decision-making by AI is an area where we are balancing efficiency and equity. There are some significant savings to be made in public efficiency and public money with the use of automated decision-making tools. However, we have to be conscious of the risks associated with algorithmic bias and the extensive use of ADMs, which DWP officials have noted in evidence sessions. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, reminded us of the A-level marking scandal in 2020—it was clearly unreasonable for individuals’ A-levels results to be changed because of the results of previous similar candidates but not the candidates actually taking the tests.

Two weeks ago, I read in my newspaper—online, obviously—that departments are not registering their use of AI systems, as they are mandatorily required to. Only three Cabinet Office ADMs have been registered since 2022. So, not only do we need to legislate in this area; we also need public authorities to stick to it.

The equity risk is higher in some areas than others. We have to pay particular attention where, for example, ADMs are applied to benefits—to the money people receive—to sentencing, which happens in some parts of the world, to immigration decisions and to employment. In addition, as the noble Lord said, they are likely to disproportionately affect the poorest.

Why has the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, confined his Bill to public authorities? I am sympathetic to extending this to work settings generally, including in the private sector. We see people being hired, managed and fired by ADM. Not every Christmas present is delivered by Santa Claus, and logistics workers are working flat out at the moment, under zero-hours contracts, being managed by ADMs. We should give them some protection.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and to discussing this more on Monday, and I hope we can see some progress on this.

14:35

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register, most particularly as chair of the Government’s digital centre design panel.

It is appropriate that we are discussing this on Friday the 13th because, on looking into the engine of the Government’s AI plans, it is truly a horror show. The civil servants will not thank me for saying this but—surprise, surprise—they are not keen on regulation when they feel that mandating is quite sufficient. I have some sympathy, but I have more for the noble Lord’s Bill. It is vital that we look at these issues now. I hope that, whether through this Private Member’s Bill, the data Bill being considered on Monday—which, unfortunately, I am unable to contribute to—or other mechanisms, we take seriously this incredible push to a world of AI-powered public services, while trying to stand on the shoulders of what is still a very complex and broken public technology infrastructure.

I would like to make three points that I hope will be helpful in any context, the first of which is on procurement. When we started the Government Digital Service in 2010, we had procurement as priority number 5. As noble Lords will appreciate, getting beyond priority number 1 was a bit of a battle so we did not reach priority number 5. I wish that we had. I hope that the Minister, whether through this Bill or through other opportunities, will not underestimate the power of the grip of procurement on this issue. It is not transparent. The skills on the digital procurement side of the Civil Service are under-egged, and the deals done with suppliers are far from ideal as we move to a world in which we want to encourage innovation but must also encourage safety. I very much hope that procurement will be positioned very closely at the heart of any future plans.

Secondly, I take some guidance from what happened in Canada, which I am sure my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—I will call him that—is aware of. Canada has also been trying to move to greater regulation of algorithmic transparency, and, as I understand it, the implementation has been very heavy and difficult. It has been resource-intensive, and extreme upskilling was needed to get this done without too much bureaucracy, while doing the job it was intended to do. I urge my noble friend and the Government to think very carefully about implementation. It is very important that we do not add to bureaucracy, at a time when we should be trying to pin it down.

Finally, although noble Lords will be bored of hearing me say this in this Chamber, it is impossible to describe the level of upskilling we need in the Civil Service over the next decade. This Bill highlights one aspect of the problem, but it is fundamental that we put at the heart of any plans for Civil Service reform an enormous increase in understanding of this new world in which we live.

14:38

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. I agree with her points about implementation and upskilling the Civil Service. There is much that I want to say about automated decision-making, but I will focus on only one issue in the time available.

The draft Bill anticipates the spread of AI systems into ADM, with foundation models mentioned as components within the overall system. Large language models such as ChatGPT, which is probably the best-known example of a foundation model, typically operate non-deterministically. When generating the next word in a sequence, they sample from a probability distribution rather than always selecting the word with the highest probability. Therefore, ChatGPT will not always give the same response to the same query, as I am sure many noble Lords have discovered empirically.

Open AI introduced a setting in the API to its ChatGPT models last year to enable deterministic behaviour. However, there are other sources of non-determinism in the LLMs available from big-tech companies. Very slight changes in a query—for example, just in the punctuation or through the simple addition of the word “please” at the start—can have a major impact on the answer generated by the models.

The models are also regularly updated, and older versions are no longer supported. If any ADM system used by a public authority relies on a deprecated version of a closed-source proprietary AI system from a company such as Google or OpenAI, it will no longer be able to operate reproducibly. For example, when using ChatGPT, OpenAI’s newer GPT4 model will generate quite different outputs from GPT3.5 for the same input data.

I have given these brief examples of non-deterministic and non-reproducible behaviour to underline a very important point: the UK public sector will not be able to control the implementation or evolution of the hyperscale foundation models trained at great cost by US big tech companies. The training and updating of these models will be determined solely by the commercial interests of those companies, not by the requirements of the UK public sector.

To have complete control over training data, learning algorithms, system behaviour and software updates, the UK Government need to fund the development of a sovereign AI capability for public sector applications. This could be a set of tailor-made, medium-scale AI models, each developed by the relevant government department, possibly in partnership with universities or UK-based companies willing to disclose full details of algorithms and computer code. Only then will the behaviour of AI algorithms for ADM be transparent, deterministic and reproducible—requirements that should be built into legislation.

I welcome this Bill, but the implications of introducing AI models into ADM within the public sector need to be fully thought through. If we do not, we risk losing the trust of our fellow citizens in a technology that has the potential to deliver considerable benefits by speeding up and improving decision-making processes.

14:42

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

I would like to pick up on three important aspects of this Bill that perhaps set it aside from what we might discuss in Committee on Monday. One is the fact that it covers decision support tools, not just fully automated decision-making; one is the fact that it covers tools being considered for procurement, not just once they are in use; and the most important aspect to my mind is that it at least hints at the need for some evaluation of the efficacy and usefulness of such tools.

Until recently, I was in charge of the governance and communication around the algorithmic online decision support tools to predict prostate and breast cancer, which are used extensively around the world to help patients and doctors make shared decisions about treatment options. Because of that, they come under the Medical Devices Regulations, which meant that we needed to provide evidence of efficacy and that they were the right tools to be used in these decisions.

Decisions about financial and judicial aspects of people’s lives are equally important and I do not think we currently have the legislation to help govern these sorts of decision-support tools in these circumstances. These tools are incredibly useful, because they help ensure that the right questions are being asked, so that the decision-maker and the tool can have as much of the salient information for that decision as they can. They can then give a range of outcomes that happened to people with those characteristics in the past, often under different circumstances, allowing them to play out “what if?” scenarios. This can be helpful in making a decision, but only if the decision-maker knows certain things about that tool. The Bill is quite right that these things need to be known by the procurer before the system is unleashed in a particular scenario.

I mentioned that these tools can help ensure that the right questions are being asked. If someone feels that a tool does not have all the salient information about them, they will naturally and correctly downgrade their trust in the precision of the output. An experienced doctor who knows that the tool has not asked about the frailty of a patient, for instance, will naturally know that there is uncertainty and that they will need to look at the patient in front of them and adjust the tool’s output, using their clinical judgment. However, a decision-maker who is not aware that the tool is lacking in some important piece of information, perhaps because that information cannot easily be quantified or because there was not enough data to include it in the algorithm, needs to be alerted to this major cause of uncertainty. Because the algorithms are built using data from what has happened to people in the past, users need to know how relevant that data is to their situation. Does it include enough people with characteristics similar to them? Because for some longer-term outcomes that data might necessarily be quite old, does that add more uncertainty to the outputs? Without knowing the basis for the algorithm, people cannot assess how much weight to put on the tool’s results.

These are questions that can be asked of any algorithmic tool supplier, but any procurer or user should be able to ask about the effectiveness of the tool as used in a real-world scenario as well. How accurate is it in every dimension in your scenario, which might be very different from the situation in which it was developed? How do decision-makers respond to outputs? Do they understand its limitations? Do they overtrust it or undertrust it? These are vital questions to ask, and the answers need to be supplied for any form of decision support tool.

This Bill is the only time I have seen the suggestion that those sorts of questions about efficacy and applicability, and user experience such as training, are talked about as stages that should be completed before procurement, as well as during use, and made transparent. I urge that these aspects are considered.

14:46

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend, who throws himself into these issues to the benefit of all of us. He was very supportive of the work three or so years ago of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I was lucky enough to chair, on advanced technology in the justice system. We recognised the value of ADM, but also the risks to transparency and of inbuilt bias. Then there is the risk of surrendering one’s critical faculties—predictive policing, for instance.

One witness said to the committee:

“We are not building criminal risk assessment tools to identify insider trading or who is going to commit the next kind of corporate fraud … We are looking at high-volume data that is mostly about poor people”.


I wondered then how it would feel to be arrested, charged and maybe more on the basis of technology which could not be explained. I wonder now about how bias can affect immigration and border security. My noble friend gave some examples.

The Bill is important. It is about our relationship with the state, which I believe is more important than our relationship with commercial organisations—even Amazon, although some might disagree. It takes confidence to counter the notion: “The computer says”. Two Home Secretaries in the last Government assured the committee that the human would always be in the loop of decision-making. We worried that this could mean simply a click at the end of the process. For myself, I would prefer that machines were in the loop of human decision-making. Of course, today’s stellar cast of speakers would not fall foul of the culture of deference.

I am troubled that suppliers are in a very strong position. Even without the dubious sales practices that we heard about, mainly from the US, it is very difficult for a purchaser to challenge a seller’s untested claims, and commercial confidentiality is often prayed in aid against transparency. I very much support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about procurement. In any event, we need the assurance that the principles that apply—or should apply—to all public authority decisions, such as rationality, proportionality and so on, apply to ADM systems.

I do not want to be negative about AI, just cautious, so I welcome the reference in the Bill to innovation. In the previous debate, my noble friend Lady Grender referred to the time lag in legislation in the face of the development of AI, and that is relevant here as well. I do not think that my noble friend needs the support of a distinctly analogue dinosaur, but he has it.

14:49

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, of course I must start by joining others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing forward this timely and important Bill, with whose aims we on these Benches strongly agree. As public bodies take ever more advantage of new technological possibilities, surely nothing is more critical than ensuring that they do so in a way that adheres to principles of fairness, transparency and accountability.

It was also particularly helpful to hear from the noble Lord the wide range of very specific examples of the problems caused by what I will call AADM for brevity. I felt that they really brought it to life. I also take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about hiring and firing by AADM. The way this is done is incredibly damaging and, frankly, if I may say so, too often simply boneheaded.

The point by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about procurement is absolutely well founded: I could not agree more strongly that this is a crucial area for improvement. That point was well supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, as well. I thought that the argument, powerful as ever, from noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for sovereign AI capabilities was also particularly useful, and I hope that the Government will consider how to take that forward. Finally, I really welcomed the point made so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in reminding us that just the existence of a human in the loop is a completely insufficient condition for making these things effective.

We strongly support the goal of this Bill: to ensure trustworthy AI that deserves public confidence, fosters innovation and contributes to economic growth. However, the approach proposed, raises—for me, anyway—several concerns that I worry could hinder its effectiveness.

First, definition is a problem. Clause 2(1) refers to “any algorithmic … systems” but, of course, “algorithmic” can have a very broad definition: it can encompass any process, even processes that are unrelated to digital or computational systems. While the exemptions in subsections (2) and (4) are noted, did the noble Lord give consideration to adopting or incorporating the AI White Paper’s definition around autonomy and adaptiveness, or perhaps just the definition around AADM used in the DUA Bill, which we will no doubt be discussing much more on Monday? We feel that improving the definition would provide some clarity and better align the scope with the Bill’s purpose.

I also worry that the Bill fails to address the rapid pace of AI development. For instance, I worry that requiring ongoing assessments for every update under Clause 3(3) is impractical, given that systems often change daily. This obligation should be restricted to significant changes, thereby ensuring that resources are spent where they matter most.

I worry, too, about the administrative burden that the Bill may create. For example, Clause 2(1) demands a detailed assessment even before a system is purchased. I feel that that is unrealistic, particularly with pilot projects that may operate in a controlled way but in a production environment, not in a test environment as described in Clause 2(2)(b). Would that potentially risk stifling exploration and innovation, and, indeed, slowing procurement within the public sector?

Another area of concern is communication. It is so important that AI gains public trust and that people come to understand the systems and the safeguards in place around them. I feel that the Bill should place greater emphasis on explaining decisions to the general public in ways that they can understand rapidly, so that we can ensure that transparency is not only achieved but perceived.

Finally, the Bill is very prescriptive in nature, and I worry that such prescriptiveness ends up being ineffective. Would it be a more effective approach, I wonder, to require public bodies to have due regard for the five principles of AI outlined in the White Paper, allowing them the flexibility to determine how best to meet those standards, but in ways that take account of the wildly differing needs, approaches and staffing of the public bodies themselves? Tools such as the ATRS could obviously be made available to assist, but I feel that public bodies should have the agency to find the most effective solutions for their own circumstances.

Let me finish with three questions for the Minister. First, given the rapid pace of tech change, what consideration will be given to ensure that public authorities can remain agile and responsive, while continuing to meet its requirements? Secondly, the five principles of AI set out in the White Paper by the previous Government offer a strong foundation for guiding public bodies. Will the Minister consider whether allowing flexibility in how these principles are observed might achieve the Bill’s goals, while reducing the administrative burdens and encouraging innovation? Thirdly, what measures will be considered to build public trust in AI systems, ensuring that the public understand both the decisions made and the safeguards in place around them?

14:55

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to a very insightful debate. I particularly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, to her new role chairing the board of the new digital centre of government. I am sure she will have a great contribution to make in debates of this kind. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing forward the Bill.

The Government understand the intent of the Bill, in particular on the safe, responsible and transparent use of algorithmic and automated decision-making systems in the public sector. However, for reasons I will now outline, the Government would like to express reservations about the noble Lord’s Bill.

The Government of course believe that such systems have a positive role to play in the public sector. As many noble Lords have said, they can improve services, unlock new insights, deliver efficiencies and give citizens back their time. However, they must be used in ways that maintain public trust. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, highlighted some shocking examples of where threats of bias and racism, for example, have undermined public trust, and these issues need to be addressed.

We know that transparency is a particularly important driver of rebuilding that trust and delivering fairness. That is what the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard, or ATRS, aims to address. The noble Lord asked about its status in government. The ATRS is now mandatory for all government departments. This mandate was agreed in cross-government policy. The ATRS is also recommended by the Data Standards Authority for use across the broader public sector, and the standards will become publicly available on GOV.UK.

The initial groundwork to comply with this mandate is complex, particularly for large organisations. They must identify and assess algorithmic tools from across multiple functions, engaging many individuals and multidisciplinary teams. However, I am pleased to reassure my noble friend Lord Knight and other noble Lords that a number of these records have now been completed under the mandatory rollout, and the Government will publish them in the coming weeks.

The ATRS complements the UK’s data protection framework, which provides protections for individuals when their personal data is processed. The technology-neutral approach of the data protection framework means that its principles, including accuracy, security, transparency and fairness, apply to the processing of personal data regardless of the technology used.

The framework provides additional protections for solely automated decision-making which has a legal or significant effect on individuals. It places a requirement on organisations to provide stringent safeguards for individuals where this type of processing takes place, so that they are available when they matter most. These rules apply to all organisations, including the public sector.

I agree, though, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there are specific responsibilities for clarifying and building our trust relationship with the state. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Knight that we have to be particularly sensitive about how we handle protections at work, given their significance to the individuals involved. To ensure that these rules are effective in the light of emerging technologies and changing societal expectations, the Government have introduced reforms to these rules in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is currently in Committee in the Lords. I have been engaging with noble Lords on this topic and look forward to further debates on these issues next week.

The Government are confident that these reforms strike the right balance between ensuring that organisations can make the best use of automated decision-making technology to support economic growth, productivity and service delivery, while maintaining high data protection standards and public trust. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for their specific insights, which will help us finesse our policies on these issues as we go forward.

We recognise that our approach to technology can sometimes be too fragmented across the public sector. To help address this, the Government are establishing a revitalised digital centre of government, with further details to be announced shortly. This transformation is being overseen by a digital inter-ministerial group which will be a powerful advocate for digital change across government, setting a clear expectation on when standards such as the ATRS must be adopted. This combination of the ATRS policy mandate and the establishment of the digital centre are moving us towards a “business as usual” process for public sector bodies to share information about how and why they use algorithmic tools.

I turn to the key proposals in the noble Lord’s Bill. The Bill would require public authorities to complete a prescribed algorithmic impact assessment, and an algorithmic transparency record, prior to deployment of an algorithmic or automated decision-making system. Public authorities would be required to give notice on a public register when decisions are made wholly or partly by such systems, and to give affected individuals meaningful information about these decisions. Further provisions include monitoring and validating performance, outcomes and data; mandatory training; prohibition of the procurement of certain systems and redress. The technical scope of the Bill is broadly similar to that of the ATRS.

The ATRS was deliberately made mandatory via cross-government policy rather than legislation in the first instance. This was to enable better testing and iteration of the ATRS; that ethos still applies. Since the introduction of the policy mandate for the ATRS, we have seen significant progress towards adoption. We are confident that the foundations are in place for a smooth ongoing approach to government algorithmic transparency, delivered from the new digital centre.

Completing and publishing ATRS records also has benefits beyond transparency. A field on risks and mitigations enables references to other resources, such as data protection impact assessment. A field on alternative solutions asks how the tool owners know this tool was the right one to deploy, and indeed, whether an algorithmic tool was necessary. As such, the ATRS encourages a holistic view of how the impact of the tool has been considered, and potential negative outcomes avoided, overlapping considerably with the requirements of an algorithmic impact assessment, as the noble Lord has proposed. As such, we do not believe that legislation for either mandatory transparency records or AIAs for public authorities is necessary at this time.

As I set out earlier, under the data protection framework, individuals already have the right to specific safeguards where they have been subject to solely automated decisions with legal or significant effects on them. These safeguards include the right to be told about a decision, the right to obtain human intervention and the right to challenge the decision. Our reforms under the Data (Use and Access) Bill specifically provide that human involvement must be meaningful. This is to prevent cursory human involvement being used to rubber-stamp decisions as having had meaningful involvement.

Where an individual believes that there has been a failure in compliance with data protection legislation, they can bring a complaint to the independent data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office. The ICO has the authority to investigate and impose significant penalties for non-compliance, providing robust safeguards against misuse of personal data. Therefore, proposals by the noble Lord are also broadly covered under the data protection framework.

The data protection framework also requires organisations to carry out data protection impact assessments prior to any processing likely to result in a high risk to data protection and to the rights and freedoms of individuals to mitigate against such risks.

To summarise, the Government believe that transparency in public sector algorithmic and automated decision-making is crucial both to building public trust and to accelerating innovation. Meaningful transparency should not merely identify the existence of such systems but also discuss their purpose and effectiveness. The ATRS provides an established and effective mechanism to deliver this transparency.

The Government are also committed to maintaining the UK’s strong data protection framework while delivering on the DSIT Secretary of State’s priorities of accelerating innovation, technology for good, and modern digital government through the Data (Use and Access) Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is quite right to identify the need to upskill civil servants. That has certainly been identified within my department and it is part of the need to upskill everyone for the future. Everyone in the existing generation and the next will need those skills to fulfil the exciting technological opportunities that we will have in the future, so we all have a responsibility to upskill our skills.

We look forward to continuing to engage with noble Lords on these important issues as we develop our approach, and to the many other chances we will have, starting with our debates on Monday. I look forward to those debates. If I have missed anything out—I know the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked some specific questions at the end—I will follow-up in writing.

15:07

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I thought was perfectly formed and very expert. I was interested in the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has a role in the digital centre for government and in what she had to say about what might be desirable going forward, particularly in the areas of skills and procurement. The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said much the same, which indicates something to me.

By the way, I think the Minister has given new meaning to the word “reservations”. That was the most tactful speech I have heard for a long time. It is a dangerous confidence if the Government really think that the ATRS, combined with the watered-down ADM provisions in the GDPR, are going to be enough. They are going to reap the whirlwind if they are not careful, with public trust being eroded. We have seen what has happened in the NHS: unless you are absolutely on the case on this, you will see 3.3 million people opt out of sharing their data, as in the NHS. This is something live; it erupts without due warning.

The examples I gave show a pretty dangerous use of ADM systems. Big Brother Watch has gone into some detail on the particular models that I illustrated. If the Government think that the ATRS is adequate, alongside their watered-down GDPR provisions, then, as I said, they are heading for considerable problems.

As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, can see, if the Government have reservations about my limited Bill, they will have even more reservations about anything more broad.

I do not want to tread on the toes of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who I am sure will come back with another Bill at some stage, but I am very sympathetic to the need for algorithmic impact assessment, particularly in the workplace, as advocated by the Institute for the Future of Work. We may be inflicting more amendments on the Minister when the time comes in the ADM Bill.

This Bill is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, mentioned, based on the Canadian experience. It is based on a Canadian directive that is now well under way and is perfectly practical.

The warning of the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, about the use of large language models, with their unpredictability and inability to produce the same result, was an object lesson in the need for proper understanding and training within the Civil Service in the future, and for the development of open source-type LLMs on the back of the existing large language models that are out there, to make sure that they are properly trained and tested as a sovereign capacity.

It is clear that I am not going to get a great deal further. I am worried that we are going to see a continuation, in the phrase used by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, of the culture of deference: the machine is going to continue saying no and our citizens will continue to be unable to challenge decisions in an effective way. That will lead to further trouble.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for his in-principle support. If the Bill is to have a Committee stage, I look forward to debating some of the definitions. In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 3.12 pm.