Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, welcome to a debate on a melange of statutory instruments. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn when the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. Usually this is a standard thing to say, but I can advise the Committee that on this occasion we are expecting a vote at the end of Amendment 209, which is being debated now.
Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 14 January 2026. If approved in the House and in the other place, it will implement a proposal submitted by Elmbridge Borough Council, Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council for two unitary councils, east Surrey council and west Surrey council, covering the entirety of the county of Surrey.
This proposal, alongside a three unitary option, was taken to consultation after councils in Surrey responded to the invitation to submit proposals issued on 5 February. On 28 October 2025, Minister McGovern announced the Secretary of State’s decision to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the two unitaries proposal. In reaching this decision, we considered the proposals carefully against the criteria in the invitation letter, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and other relevant information. In our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better met the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performed better against the second criterion, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable.
Putting Surrey’s local authorities on a more sustainable footing is vital to safeguarding the services that its residents rely on, as well as investing in their futures. To deliver new unitary councils, the order requires May 2026 elections for the new councils, which will assume their full powers on 1 April 2027. These elections will replace the scheduled county council and some district council elections. Subsequent elections to the unitary councils will be in 2031 and every four years thereafter. Establishing these new unitary authorities will help with our vision: stronger councils in charge of all local services and controlling local economic powers to improve public services and help grow local economies.
Before I outline the content of the draft order, I would like to bring to the attention of noble Lords two related issues: the level of unsupported debt in Woking and devolution for Surrey. On Woking’s debt, the Government recognise that Woking Borough Council holds significant and exceptional unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. We have committed to unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking council, reflecting historic capital practices at the council and the value-for-money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. This is a first tranche of support and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point, including following greater certainty on the rationalisation of assets in Woking. Any support will need to consider what further action can be taken locally to reduce debt, and value for money for the national and local taxpayer. We are also committed to providing the new unitary authority with interim financial support, for example, capitalisation support, until this process is complete.
On devolution for Surrey, on 12 February we set out our intention to deliver a new wave of foundation strategic authorities across England. In Surrey, the Government are working with partners, which will include the new unitary authorities, to establish a foundation strategic authority. This will ensure that relevant functions held at county level, such as transport and adult skills, can continue to be delivered on that geographic footprint, where possible. The establishment of a strategic authority will be subject to the relevant statutory tests and local consent. The Government will also ensure that fire and rescue functions continue to be governed on the same geography.
I turn to the content of the order. It provides that, on 1 April 2027, the county of Surrey and the districts of Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley and Woking are abolished. The councils of those districts and the county will be wound up and dissolved.
In their place, their functions will be transferred to the two new unitary authorities—east Surrey council and west Surrey council. This order places a duty on the existing councils to co-operate with each other and the shadow authorities. It also places a duty on existing councils to create joint committees for east Surrey and west Surrey, which will be dissolved after the first meeting of their respective shadow authorities. I take this opportunity to thank all the Surrey councils and everyone involved for their continued hard work and collaboration on local government reorganisation in Surrey.
In conclusion, through this order we are seeking to replace the existing local government structures in Surrey with two new unitary councils that will be financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft order for the reorganisation of the 11 districts and one county in Surrey into two unitaries. I do not totally agree with either her solution or the reasoning behind it. The Government are continuing to push through reorganisation that does not have the support of local people or, in this case, even the existing councils.
The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum to this draft SI explains that, of the very small number of responses—around 5,500 from a population of 1.2 million—the vast majority rejected the two-council solution and much preferred a three-council solution, as did several of the local district councils. Businesses also favoured the proposal for three unitary councils: on average, only 25% gave a positive response to the proposal for two unitaries, and 65% for three unitaries. This is being pushed through regardless of local knowledge and wishes, which is never a good backdrop to the creation of new councils. I know; I am in one.
The drive to create large unitary councils is a desire for centralisation, in which all councils are made to fit a predetermined model regardless of geography, demographics and local will. Surrey county—not the county council—has a population of 1.2 million. The creation of just two unitary councils means that each of those will cover a population of about 600,000, which would be bigger than that of the City of Bradford’s council, for example, although not as quite as big as Leeds City Council’s, which is one of the largest in the country. It would be much smaller than all the nearby London boroughs and the north-east metropolitan councils or even Greater Manchester.
What is driving this push for very large unitary councils, when previously created ones do not fit that model? It seems to be driven by a desire by central government to view local government as simply the service delivery arm of central government—local government can deliver adult social care, children’s services, highway functions, licensing functions and so on—but it omits what is really important in local government, which makes it what it is at its very best: to provide ambitions and aspirations for local people, to challenge the status quo and to drive for something better. That is more difficult when you have councils of this population size.
One consequence of creating a unitary council with a population of around 600,000 is that, inevitably, the ward sizes, after a local government boundary review of wards, will be fairly large. I understand that there will be 72 councillors—I think I have got that right—in the new unitary councils. They will represent very large wards. I have experience of being a councillor representing a very large ward; it has 14,000 electors, and it is difficult to keep in touch and make the link that is at the heart of democracy between the elected and the elector. These proposals with large ward sizes will stretch that link to its very limit, which is something to be regretted.
My next point is about the debt, which the Minister referenced. One of the drivers for the abolition of county councils was that they were becoming financially unsustainable, simply because of the services that they were being asked to deliver—the ones with the huge pressures, such as adult social care services, children’s services, SEND, and so on. There were huge and growing financial pressures—I understand that. Meanwhile, in Surrey, Woking council has saddled its district council and residents with, to quote the Minister, huge, unsupported debts. The Minister may like to put a figure on that.
The Government are prepared to provide a sweetener of £500 million pounds to pay off some of that debt. But if I was a councillor in that council, going into the new unitary, I would be wary of entering it while it was saddled with a substantial debt. The Government are prepared to capitalise it, which is great, but that means that more revenue from the revenue budget will be used to fund the mortgage requirements of the debt. It is not a good start for new councils to begin their life, with all the problems that inevitably follow a reorganisation, saddled with a substantial debt. It will make it difficult for those councils to get off to a good start.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument. I wish to make noble Lords aware of my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire Council. I do not think it is an interest, but I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.
There are a number of concerns here, which I hope the Minister will be able to address, some of which overlap with those that have been aired. First, as has just been said, the Government’s consultation demonstrated that there was a clear preference among residents—albeit a fairly small number of them: 5,000 out of 1.2 million—for a three-unitary model, not the two-authority model imposed by this order. However, on 28 October 2025, the Secretary of State confirmed that there would be a two-unitary structure. The Minister argued that two authorities will be cheaper and deliver greater efficiencies, but, if efficiency alone were the overriding criterion, would that not point logically towards a single unitary? Where local preference and ministerial preference diverge so clearly, this Committee is entitled to ask why local voices were overridden and what weight was truly given to the consultation process.
Secondly, on finance, Surrey’s councils face acute financial pressures, not least because of the high debt levels at Woking Borough Council of around £2 billion and more than £1 billion at Spelthorne. Although the Minister mentioned the £500 million of support for Woking, there has been no central debt write-off. The financial risks of reorganisation, including the risk that projected savings fail to materialise, will ultimately fall on local taxpayers. The Minister said that this would be under review, but can she provide more certainty for local residents than a tenuous statement that this will be looked at in the future?
I would like to raise the issue of SEND deficits, which are around £350 million for Surrey. The recent announcement was that SEND deficits will be covered up to 90%, yet in the negotiations as part of this reorganisation a figure of £100 million has been mentioned. Clearly, that is different. Can the Minister clarify whether there will genuinely be 90% funding for SEND deficits, or whether this is also a tenuous statement?
The Government have announced £63 million nationally to support local government reorganisation. While any support is very welcome, that figure has to be shared across all areas undertaking structural change. Can the Minister confirm how much Surrey will receive, when those funds will be released and whether the Government accept that the real implementation costs, which locally have been estimated to be substantially higher, will exceed this funding envelope, particularly given the delays and changes in direction of the process?
Thirdly, on devolution, residents were led to believe that the structural change would be accompanied by meaningful devolution and a mayoral model. The Government have referred to a foundation strategic authority for Surrey, but assurances about its powers, funding and timing remain ambiguous. What is the Government’s firm commitment to establishing that body, when will it be created, what additional funding will accompany it and when will that funding be received? Structural upheaval without genuine devolution would be a poor bargain for the residents of Surrey. Reorganisation on this scale must command confidence. It must be locally supported, financially credible and embedded with a clear devolution settlement. At present, serious questions remain on all three counts.
We seek clarity about transitional governance. Commissioners were appointed to oversee financial sustainability and governance improvements at Woking and Spelthorne Borough Councils. We are now beyond the indicated review period for these appointments. Have they been extended and, if so, until when? Will they continue into the shadow authority period following the upcoming May elections? Where will they be placed in the subsequent authorities? The Committee deserves clarity about who will hold responsibility and accountability during the transition.
More broadly, I reflect on the process. In Surrey, the pathway to reorganisation has been clear for more than a year, with the timetable for elections to the new unitaries and implementation on 1 April 2027 set out. Why has the same clarity not applied to the mayoral timetable? Why have the Government not adhered to a clear and published schedule for the establishment of a mayor of Surrey?
This raises a wider question. Other devolution deals and local government reorganisations have appeared to be far less orderly, with altered timetables and delayed and then not delayed elections but without the equivalent certainty about the final structure. Those of us who have been through previous rounds of local government reorganisation know that while elections were sometimes postponed for a year, that was done on the basis of clarity about the end state. Why could the Government not achieve the same coherence elsewhere?
Finally, I return to the question that the Minister studiously avoided answering in the Chamber last week. While the Government initially decided to postpone the council elections scheduled for May 2026, relying on statutory powers and legal advice, that decision was subsequently reversed on 16 February 2026, following further legal advice. I am not seeking disclosure of that advice; I simply ask what changed. What change of circumstances or what change of information provided meant that the legal advice changed? Legal advice is revised when there is a change of circumstance or in the information provided, so what changed? The Committee is entitled to understand the reasoning behind such significant changes in democratic decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their considered contributions today. I recognise that they have a great deal of experience in this area, so they were very thoughtful contributions indeed. I will try to pick up all the points that have been made. If I miss any, I am sure noble Lords will let me know, but I will try to pick them up from Hansard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked more broadly about the benefits of reorganisation and pointed to the savings that might accrue. Although financial savings are important, this restructuring is also about delivering the kinds of profiles for councils that are able to drive forward the growth and improvement in public services that we all want to see, and having a system that is not as confusing for residents as the two-tier system has been in the past. In their proposal, Surrey County Council, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council estimated ongoing net annual benefits after five years of up to £46 million, with a midpoint of around £23 million and total implementation costs of £85 million. So there are financial savings to accrue from this, after the initial cost of doing the reorganisation.
We hope that there will be savings, but it is important that we focus on sustainability. With the way it was going, we were not looking at a sustainable future for local government. We have partly addressed that through the fair funding formula—I will talk more about that in a moment—and in this reorganisation and devolution process. Reorganisation creates the conditions for stronger local democracy, fewer politicians, and a clear picture with no conflicting mandates and agendas.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness said about the local voice, and I will come on to the wards and things in a moment, but clear local leadership allows councils to take the decisions needed to drive growth, deliver better public services and allow communities to be represented, while clear accountability makes sure that communities can properly hold leaders to account. Strong leadership and clear accountability are harder to achieve, where, for the same place, there are two council leaders, each with a legitimate democratic mandate and sometimes having different and conflicting agendas. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is important. Making sure we have preventive, holistic services, which are far more effective in picking up problems early, instead of them being split between two local authorities, is important.
Residents can access the services that they need with one council in charge. To give noble Lords an example, in 2018, Leicestershire County Council reported that more than 140,000 people called the wrong local council when they were trying to get help. I understand that it is not always the same as that everywhere, but it is an important principle to keep to.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
To continue from where we were before the vote, both noble Lords have understandably asked about the Surrey consultation outcome, and I understand why they would ask that question. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we received 5,617 responses: 26 from named consultees and the rest from residents and local organisations, including businesses and town and parish councils. That consultation ran from 17 July to 5 August.
As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the responses demonstrated a preference for the three unitary proposal. However, as the proposals were assessed against the criteria set out in the statutory guidance, and having regard to all representations received throughout the consultation and to all the other relevant information we have been looking at as a way of determining these proposals, in our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better meets the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performs better against the second criteria, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. The criteria are particularly relevant in the unique context of Surrey, where reorganisation is a critical intervention to improve the financial viability of the area’s councils. That is because of the unprecedented levels of unsupported debt in two of the area’s councils.
The important thing about all this is that the new councils are able to drive the growth needed, providing high-quality public services on a geography that works locally. But to meet the second criteria, around the financial viability, it was really important that we consider the consultation responses alongside that. That has been an important part of our consideration.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt, but this is an important issue. I accept what the Minister is saying about the importance of councils being financially stable but, if I were a resident of Surrey, I would think that I was being punished by the fact that I was having to absorb Woking Borough Council and being saddled with its £2 billion-worth—is that right?—of unsupported debt, and forced to pay that price when the council of which I was a member, in another part of Surrey, was financially stable. That does not seem fair. Residents are picking up the tab for speculative investment that never had any future in providing the council with anything other than a huge debt, which is what has happened. Is that fair?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I certainly do not want to be seen to be condoning or commenting on that speculative debt, but we are where we find ourselves, and the important thing is that residents of Surrey must have sustainable councils going forward. It will not help them if the new structure that we create is equally as unsustainable as that with which they have dealt in the past. The important thing is to make sure that we can deliver effective public services and deal with the levels of debt that we are having to deal with now. I will go into a bit more detail in a moment, if I may, about the support we are providing around Woking, but I think that all those who responded to the consultation would want to make sure that they have a sustainable structure that can take them well into the future. After a lot of reflection and a great deal of work on the proposals, we felt that this two-authorities model would work better from that point of view.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I have a question for clarity, as it potentially impacts some of the comments that she might make subsequently. If I heard her correctly, this whole reorganisation is being driven by the need to have sustainable councils to cover the debts of Woking and Spelthorne—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
That is fine—that is why I am seeking clarification. If we put that to one side, the Minister’s implication was that the Government might not have gone with this structure. I want to be clear that the residents of the other nine borough councils are not being impacted or hamstrung by the need to address the issues with the other two. That would be a very unfortunate scenario. I am just asking for clarity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand why the noble Lord asked that question. I apologise— I hope that I did not mislead in what I said. The criteria that we set out for this process are very clear. We looked at the criteria right across the board, and they are there to make sure that this new structure is less confusing for people, that all the services are in one council and that the structure can drive the economic growth needed and provide high-quality public services. However, as we look at those important wider criteria, it is very important that we take account of the unique circumstances of Surrey—you cannot ignore them. It is in that sense that we took the decision to have two councils.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the size of these new councils. East Surrey will have a population of 556,000, and West Surrey 672,000. Councils of this size are not without precedent. Many of the councils formed in the past 20 years had populations of more than 500,000 when they were established, including North Yorkshire, Somerset, Buckinghamshire and Cornwall. However, it is very important that I stress the point that 500,000 is a guideline. I do not think any inference should be drawn across the wider programme of local government reorganisation from these decisions taken for Surrey. Each application will be considered on its own merits. We have said all the way through this that 500,000 is a guideline, not a template. I hope that is helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the number of councillors and wards. For east Surrey there will be 72 councillors, which is two per ward on 36 strategic council divisions, and for west Surrey it will be 90 councillors, which is two per ward on 45 divisions. I hope that is helpful in terms of the straightforward sizes.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
If the Minister has almost finished, I shall just intervene on a couple of points for clarity. On the unsupported debt that we have talked about, the Minister talked about a 7.5% increase in core funding over three years. I assume that that is based on 5% increases in council tax over three years. Residents of Surrey will see council tax rising twice as fast as core funding and, if inflation stays at its current level, see core funding in real terms being less than inflation. I would call that a cut rather than an increase in funding.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments on SEND funding. In the discussions that are going on as part of the reorganisation, the offer was substantially less than 90%. I think that Surrey would be delighted if the Minister could confirm that it would be 90% of the figure. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer that here and now.
On the point of legal advice, you go and seek legal advice a second time when something has changed, when you have received new information or circumstances have changed. I am not looking for the legal advice itself; I am asking what prompted going to get legal advice a second time. What was the change in circumstance or information that prompted the need to get legal advice a second time? Good legal advice should not change if circumstances and information are the same. I would appreciate some clarity on that but, again, I recognise that the Minister may not be able to answer that here and now.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take the last point first. My understanding is that the usual practice is for legal advice to be reviewed over the course of a legal case going on. That is standard practice and is what happened in this case. I cannot add anything further to that at the moment, but I shall take the noble Lord’s comments back and, if we have anything further to say on it, I shall write to him.
On core funding, I simply add that this was the best settlement that local government has had for a long time. The council tax capping to which the noble Lord referred is something that his own Government introduced and kept in place. We have not changed that, so local authorities will be able to continue with the 5% increase. The funding settlement is far more generous than many that I had when I was the local government leader trying to do battle with a system that was gradually reducing my funding every single year. Many councils have had an increase this year and many have had a substantial increase this year. When I look online at the budget speeches of colleagues around the country—which I do, because I am a bit of a sad geek in that respect—it is absolutely amazing to see councils talking about what they are able to do now because of the increases in funding that they have received. I am very proud of that, and I am certainly not going to apologise for it.
This Government’s ambition is to end the two-tier system and establish single-tier unitary councils. It is a once-in-a-generation reform. Our vision is clear: for stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve public services and empower communities. This order provides for two new unitary councils in Surrey to help to ensure that local government is financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. We will continue to work with the leaders in Surrey to develop their proposal for a foundation authority but, for now, I hope that the Committee will welcome this order.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I apologise: I should have asked this earlier. It is just a point of clarity; I am not making a political barb here. We asked about the role of the commissioners. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give us an answer now, but it would be very helpful, certainly for the people in Surrey and the councils involved, if we could have clarity on the role of the commissioners, when they will be extended and how their roles will fit into the shadow authorities. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer now, but that would be helpful to have.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry, I thought I had covered that when I spoke about the detail of the support being provided to Woking. The commissioners are still working there, and we will continue to work with Woking and the other authorities involved in west Surrey, as is necessary.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also be asking the Grand Committee to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The schemes we are debating provide vital support for sufferers of certain dust-related diseases, which are often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. This includes diseases such as pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. We all recognise the deep suffering that can be caused by diseases such as these. Having attended these debates in the past, I am always grateful for the opportunity to debate these schemes and discuss the wider support for people diagnosed with these terrible diseases.
I will begin by providing a brief overview of these two no-fault compensation schemes and what these regulations seek to amend. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—henceforth the 1979 Act scheme—provides a single lump-sum compensation payment to eligible individuals who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. They includes diffuse mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. It was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers that had gone out of business and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump-sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme or would have an award but for their percentage disablement.
The mesothelioma lump-sum payments scheme—or the 2008 Act scheme—was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme because, for example, they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support to people with diffuse mesothelioma quickly at their time of greatest need.
Although both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, they also allow claims by dependants if the person suffering from the disease sadly dies before they are able to make a claim. This is in recognition of the suffering that these diseases can bring to whole families.
These regulations will increase the value of one-off lump-sum payments made under these schemes for those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2026. While there is no statutory requirement to increase the rates of these payments in line with prices each year, we are maintaining the position taken by previous Governments and increasing the value of lump-sum awards by 3.8%, in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index. This also means that the increase will, once again, be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit as part of the main social security uprating provisions for 2026-27.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to make a couple of remarks in relation to these statutory instruments. It is a long time since the pneumoconiosis compensation schemes were brought in—so long that a photo that I was shown on Friday of a very youthful now Minister was remarkably recognisable, but not because of the length of time that has transpired. In my very first case as a Member of Parliament, at 10 in the evening on my very first day, I went to meet someone who was dying that night of mesothelioma. It was, I suppose, rewarding to be able to help push through the changes and improvements that were made a few years later.
I have two points to make. The first is that we call these social security payments, but they are social society—industrial disease—payments. Governments—and, therefore, this Government—are missing a trick. When we talk about the benefits bill, we should extract compensation for industrial disease as a separate element. That is not a benefit; it is something that pays people for the difficulties—with mesothelioma leading to death— caused by exposure that should never have happened. The fact is that there are still cases. Agriculture is a good example of where not all asbestos has been cleared out. Some industries were quicker and better organised than others. There are still schools with asbestos tucked away in all corners.
The people who were working in the collieries, shipbuilding, foundries, the baking industry and others were having to breathe in this stuff. There were sometimes asbestos gloves that they were using routinely as part of their work—then they struggled to breathe in later life. Compensation is not a benefit; it is a right. That should be extracted out and separately categorised in the statistics, so the taxpayer can see the cost of negligence by multiple employers, including—and often particularly—government over many decades.
The second point is more practical. I have been in Parliament since 2001, in one House or other, and we have had Government after Government all repeatedly talking about saving red tape and bureaucracy. I have a proposal on red tape on bureaucracy. Why are we wasting taxpayers’ money every year—on the time, involvement and work—to update something that could be updated by a little change to legislation automatically? There is no controversy in the idea that there is more accountability for diseases that are now recognised across the House as a problem, a danger and a legacy that needs to be addressed. Why are we wasting any money and time, rather than having an automatic annual increase? I put to the Minister that this would be a small but appropriate removal of red tape and bureaucracy. While it is a minor saving to the taxpayer, the principle of it seems nevertheless to be an appropriate one. I see no sufferer from these scourges objecting to an automatic increase every year.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for that personal information. I obviously agree with these statutory instruments; it would be strange if we did not—but it is industrial compensation rather than a benefit, and it ought to be recognised as such. Could the Minister quantify the 3.8%? I am not very happy with us just being quoted figures in terms of percentages. What is the general amount being paid, and how much does 3.8% thereof amount to? Percentages mean 3.8% of zero is zero, to take it to the very level.
Could the Minister also talk about the current occupations that give rise to these two dreadful—let us call them—diseases? They are dust related. Many industries have in many ways stopped the dust coming from their products. To deal with the point rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in terms of it being annual rather than just having a continuation, I speak against that, because I would rather that we increased the amount each year or considered and put forward an increase, rather than just have an automatic, modest increase, which might take no account of real values.
I agree with the 3.8%, but ask what it means in practice and whether the Minister could tell us what industries and occupations are giving rise to these dreadful diseases.
Lord Jones (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her masterly summation of these most welcome regulations, yet again—some of us here are the usual suspects in debate—for having some little insight as to what they mean for our communities and from whence they came as legislative devices.
In a long Westminster stay in both Houses, I have not encountered such mastery, sincerity, persuasiveness and enthusiasm from a ministerial, oppositional or advisory role in any of many committees on which I have served greater than that of the Minister. It has always been expert, committed and long-standing, from a parliamentary servant who has been at the elbow of a Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a wonderful record of duty and expertise. The standing of this Mother of Parliaments has fallen low, but my noble friend Lady Sherlock still reaches the heights.
Primarily, these regulations centre on two great industries—and there are others. I have in mind slate and coal, quarrying and mining, both of which are in steep decline with minimal activity nowadays, but they are important to many individuals and for families. They represent great humanity, suffering and anxiety about what we know of as the dust. We debate it here, of necessity, each year in Grand Committee. Could we not just once debate on the Floor of your Lordships’ House? That would indicate an understanding of the impact of these diseases on our major communities and far-flung settlements. I recollect watching an aged former Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, the Earl of Stockton, in your Lordships’ House making a spirited and critical speech to his own Government’s Benches. He paid moving tribute to the miners and steelmen who he said had made the difference in two World Wars, defeating first the Kaiser and secondly Adolf Hitler.
All industries come with health challenges. In these regulations, the department gives much detail, which is always welcome. Do we know how many individuals are receiving payments for both mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis? I think for certain that the increases in all payments will be welcomed when the cost of living is increasingly an issue.
Finally, I observed in the other place the distant origin of these health and safety matters. There were two great Acts in Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s third Administration. It was in 1975, I think. One was employment law, and the other was health and safety. The Secretary of State for Employment was one Michael Foot, then Member for Ebbw Vale. These legislative activities were all-night sittings, time and again. As he piloted his measures through, I recollect sitting alongside him alone at 3 am on the Front Bench in a near-empty Chamber. It was hard going. He prevailed, and the measures are social history, historic in themselves. Later, in Mr Callaghan’s Administration, the Government were without a majority and with their life ebbing away amid a winter of discontent, but plans were made to cover these terrible diseases of industrial life. I recollect the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the late Lord Ells-Thomas being very active on the subject of quarrying in their homeland as Members of Parliament, along with Cledwyn Hughes, then the Parliamentary Labour Party chair and later Lord Cledwyn of Penhros and Leader of the House of Lords. Another MP, a Minister like me, was Harold Walker, who was soon to be Lord Walker of Doncaster.
My own role included visiting two key players for the quarrymen and their needs. One was Mr Tom Jones, an officer of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, and the other a retired solicitor and former Member of Parliament, whose name was Jones, too. These two were detail men, and they formed the details that led to the legislation that has led to regulations such as these. I recommended solicitor Jones to Lord Cledwyn for an honour, and it happened—a knighthood, indeed.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. This is somewhat of an anniversary for the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and me, albeit a very sad one. I think the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Stedman-Scott, would be quite surprised if we did not turn up for it. I speak as a chair, for many years, of the mesothelioma oversight committee. I could recite the industries affected, but I will leave that to the Minister.
The only thing I want to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, is to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, as well as the Minister. I remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, introduced the legislation, for which thanks are due. It is important to remember these things.
The average age of those diagnosed is 75 and over, for whom the payment sums, which look very healthy at the start of the table, are less than £20,000. If there is any reason for keeping these figures under review, rather than being automatic, it is the fact that they do not look very good any more. It would be much appreciated if something could be done about that.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I think this is about the fifth anniversary of me taking part in these uprating instruments. This year, for me, they are completely different.
When I started my charity, Tomorrow’s People, more than 35 years ago, the first lady I employed was absolutely outstanding. Last year, I received a letter from a lawyer, saying that somebody who had been employed by my charity had contracted mesothelioma and they wanted to talk to me about the buildings that we occupied. I got in touch with them immediately and said, “Yes, of course I will help. Could you tell me who it is?” They went back to the person and then came back to me to say that it was this lady, the very first one I had ever employed, who had got mesothelioma. It suddenly hit home that this was a disease that affected somebody whom I rated highly and had great respect for. She came here to see me for lunch and told me her story, and I have kept in touch with her. I expect—and hope—that she is watching what we are doing today. I want to say that it made the whole thing pretty personal.
I am pleased to say that we on these Benches support these two sets of draft regulations, which provide for a 3.8% uprating of the lump sum payments available under the mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis compensation schemes from April this year. These schemes remain a vital, no-fault safety net for those suffering from some of the most devastating industrial diseases. Mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis are cruel conditions, often emerging decades after exposure and, in many cases, at a point when it is no longer possible to pursue former employers through the courts. The provision allowing dependants to claim when a sufferer dies before making an application reflects the harsh reality and rapid progression of these illnesses.
Maintaining an inflation link is essential if these payments are to retain their real-terms value, particularly given the debilitating nature of these diseases and the financial strain that they place on families. The long latency period associated with asbestos-related illnesses makes statutory compensation schemes not merely desirable but necessary. Although there is no statutory duty to uprate these payments each year, successive Governments have taken the view that that is the proper course. I agree. Uprating in line with inflation is the least that justice requires, ensuring that compensation continues to provide meaningful recognition and practical support.
These instruments may be technical in form, but they are significant in human terms. For those confronting terminal illness as a consequence of historic workplace exposure, this support represents fairness, dignity and the acknowledgement of a debt long owed. We on these Benches therefore fully support the regulations before the Committee.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this debate. I confess that I would miss it if we did not gather once a year to talk about the impact of this, but I will come on to that in a moment. It is always a moment, and I appreciate that, from around the House, we have all come here to demonstrate the strength of cross-party support for these two lump sum schemes.
It was good of my noble friend Lady Donaghy to acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and others, as well as that of my late and much-lamented noble friend Lord McKenzie, who did so much work in this space for many years. My noble friend Lord Jones showed very well that, when it comes to anything in this space, we are standing on the shoulders of giants. He talked about the history of all the great Labour figures who knew that they came to Parliament to speak up for those who did not have a voice and those who had suffered at the hands of people who, in many cases, should have known better but, in some cases, did not know better. We learn as time goes on.
I remember my noble friend Lord Mann from a very long time ago as well. It is incredibly moving to think that his very first piece of casework was somebody who went on to die that day from one of these terrible diseases. As noble Lords will know, I am a priest in the Church of England, so I know what it is to be with people when they are close to death. It is a privilege as well as a challenge. To be able to take that experience and use it to advocate for others is what so many people go into politics for, so I commend my noble friend for being here to tell that story and to speak up for those who are not here and are unable to do the same.
Let me pick up on my noble friend’s point about process. This is a debate that we have regularly. Most years, somebody will suggest that we should put this into the annual uprating and then somebody else will say that we should not and give reasons why. On the reasons given today, the thoughts on the opportunity to debate these regulations and the point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy about wanting to keep the amounts under review are interesting.
One thing I should say to my noble friend Lord Mann is that, if these payments were uprated automatically in the way that, for example, social security benefits are—these are almost always affirmative—they would still require affirmative regulations that have to be debated in Parliament. They could theoretically be rolled into a general social security operating order, but that would do the exact opposite of what my noble friend wants by putting them in with benefits rather than separating them out from benefits. Today is an opportunity for us to be here and to discuss this; either way, it would not make a difference to the claimants.
My noble friend made a wider point about understanding that these are not benefits. Of course, these schemes are quite different. Technically, they come out of what is known as departmental expenditure, rather than, like most benefits, annual expenditure. They are not benefits; they are compensation for something that people suffered but should not have done. My department offers a range of other financial support to people, including the main industrial injuries disablement benefit. Many people who get these diseases may have other costs as a result of their disability and may get things such as personal independence payments, the attendance allowance or other state benefits to cover their income replacement needs. The department wants to provide all the appropriate support for people who really cannot work as a result of injuries, while wanting to make sure that those who are economically inactive or unemployed are supported to get back to work, where they should be. We can help them to do that, and we should be expecting them to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about the amount. One of the reasons it is labelled as a percentage is that the amount any individual gets depends on the scheme and the age of sufferer at the point of death, so the amounts that people are paid are different. I can tell him the average amounts: under the 1979 Act scheme, the average award to sufferers was £14,700 and to dependants it was £11,500. Under the 2008 scheme, the average award to sufferers was £26,600 and £8,500 to dependants. That would have included a range of figures for individuals.
My noble friend Lord Jones asked me for the number of awards. For the record, under the 1979 scheme, there were 2,540, and under the 2008 scheme, there were 610. Those statistics are from the latest financial year for which figures are available.
On the point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy, I recognise that there are many who want those amounts to be larger. All I can say is that the Government keep this under review and will continue to do so.
In terms of the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, there is nothing that brings this home like knowing somebody affected by this, and being asked about the building in which, presumably, she also worked as well as the person she hired.
My noble friend Lord Mann talked about asbestos gloves. Some noble Lords will remember, and I remember, some of the horrific stories that have been told. I remember one of my noble friends talking about what happened onboard ships, where ratings were basically playing with balls of asbestos. There were stories of people trundling trollies down corridors of hospitals, porters and all kinds of things. There were stories about schools and all kinds of public buildings. There are people who are suffering simply for doing their jobs. Most of these jobs were in public service, serving the community and caring. The very least we can do is to make sure that they get appropriate levels of support.
I think that I have addressed most of the specific questions I was asked. I just want to finish on a positive note. I mentioned the work of the HSE in relation to awareness of exposure, but I would like to put some of the work that has been done elsewhere in government on the record. Quite often we discuss research, and we know how important research is in supporting individuals with these diseases. It is still the case that the life expectancy is incredibly low, especially by the time that people are diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. DHSC invests over £1.6 billion each year on research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and cancer is a major area of NIHR spending at £141.6 million in 2024-25.
Respiratory disease is a clinical priority within the NHS long-term plan. The aim is to improve outcomes for people who have these respiratory diseases through early diagnosis and increased access to treatment. NHS England has established 13 respiratory clinical networks across the country. These have been vital in providing clinical leadership for respiratory services and supporting services in primary care. Indeed, that continued investment in cancer research and support for people with respiratory diseases is key to reducing the numbers of families affected in the future and providing better support following a diagnosis.
I think that I have addressed all the questions that were asked. Once again, it is always a privilege to participate in this debate. I acknowledge the position of those who suffer from these terrible diseases and their families. The least we can do is carry on providing support. In light of that, I beg to move.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I beg to move that the Grand Committee considers these regulations, which were laid before both Houses on 15 January. They form a key part of implementing the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, which strengthens independent oversight and support for our service personnel and their families.
Before turning to the detail of these regulations, I acknowledge the considered scrutiny that this House gave to the “family” definition during the passage of the Act. In particular, I thank those noble Lords who engaged so thoughtfully on the definition of “family”. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who is not in her place, for her scrutiny, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their contributions on clarity, bereaved families and the breadth of modern family structures. Their careful examination directly shaped the regulations before us today.
Noble Lords offered valuable insights, particularly on recognising kinship carers and other parental figures. The House rightly highlighted the importance of those who step in, whether grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or family friends, to provide stable, long-term care, who should be fully recognised within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Noble Lords also raised the issue around non-traditional family structures, as well as on legal clarity, financial dependency, household membership and the position of bereaved families. These contributions have been instrumental in shaping the regulations now before the Committee.
The Government listened closely to those debates. The draft regulations reflect the issues raised, providing a clear and inclusive definition of “relevant family member” that fits modern service life. It is the same definition brought to Committee in this House, with only one small legal adjustment. The purpose of these regulations is to give full effect to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act by setting out a clear and inclusive definition of “family member” for the commissioner’s welfare remit. The Act creates an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with strong statutory powers to investigate welfare issues and report directly to Parliament, strengthening transparency and support across defence. By replacing the ombudsman with a more proactive model, it delivers a long-standing commitment to improve the lived experience of service personnel and their families. These regulations enable that.
A clear and inclusive family definition is essential because the commissioner’s ability to act depends on who falls within their remit. We know that service life impacts not only serving personnel but those closest to them. Partners, children, parents, siblings, carers and others often shoulder the pressures that come with military service. It is therefore right that the commissioner’s remit reflects this wider network of support.
During the passage of the Act in this House, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the definition of “relevant family members” should be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to debate the Government’s proposed definition. The Government consider that the family definition meets this higher level of parliamentary approval, which is reflected in the draft regulations before the Committee. Given that the definition is fundamental to the commissioner’s welfare role, it is right that both Houses have the opportunity to scrutinise and approve it directly.
At the same time, secondary legislation provides some flexibility to amend the definition in future without reopening primary legislation, ensuring that it can adapt as family structures evolve. This balanced approach strengthens parliamentary scrutiny while maintaining the ability to respond to social and demographic change.
The policy intention behind the definition is clear: to ensure that those most affected by service life are able to access the commissioner’s support. The definition therefore takes a broad and inclusive approach. It includes partners, including former partners and those in relationships akin to marriage, biological and stepchildren, adult children, siblings and stepsiblings, parents, stepparents, long-term foster carers, guardians and kinship carers. It also includes other relatives who are financially dependent on, live with or are cared for by the serviceperson. Bereaved family members are included where they fall within one of these categories immediately prior to the serviceperson’s death. This reflects the wide range of relationships that form modern service families and responds directly to the issues raised during the Lords’ scrutiny during the passage of the Bill, including the role which was especially raised of kinship carers and the importance of ensuring that bereaved families remain supported.
It is important to be clear that this definition applies solely to the commissioner’s welfare remit. It does not expand the scope of the service complaints system, nor does it alter other Ministry of Defence definitions of family members. It is tailored specifically to the commissioner’s purpose.
These regulations are made under powers provided by the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Employment Relations Act 1999 as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. This legislative framework gives the Secretary of State the authority to define relevant family members for the purpose of the commissioner’s functions, to make consequential amendments to related legislation and to establish transitional and savings provisions.
The Government have acted within that framework to produce a definition that is legally robust, operationally workable and reflects faithfully Parliament’s intent. These regulations are necessary to ensure that the commissioner can operate effectively from the moment the Act comes into force. Without a clear and comprehensive family definition, there would be significant uncertainty about who can raise concerns with the commissioner and who falls within their remit. Peers expressed strong interest in ensuring that the definition is inclusive and legally clear. During the passage of the Bill, issues such as financial dependency, household membership, the treatment of bereaved families and the position of kinship carers featured prominently. The draft regulations address each of these points directly.
These regulations also introduce essential consequential amendments to ensure a smooth transition from the Service Complaints Ombudsman to the Armed Forces Commissioner. This includes transferring functions and updating legislative references so that the system remains coherent and accessible. Transitional and savings provisions ensure that ongoing cases or applications are not disrupted. Families and serving personnel will receive clear guidance as the new system is introduced, helping them to understand their rights and how best to engage with the commissioner’s office.
In summary, these regulations provide the clarity, inclusivity and coherence required for the Armed Forces Commissioner to discharge their welfare functions effectively. They reflect the concerns, expertise and priorities expressed by this House, and they ensure that the commissioner’s remit aligns with the realities of modern service life. The Government believe that these regulations strengthen the support available to our service personnel and their families. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these draft regulations, and I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I support, and for the way in which he did so.
In the interests of transparency, I should declare the interest that some Members of this Committee have already heard during the passage of the Bill through the House, which is that six months ago my daughter married a senior RAF officer. Therefore, I have a personal stake in the subject matter of the Act and the way in which it will be carried out by the Armed Forces Commissioner. I welcome the fact that it has the widest possible definition of family and family members to enable the commissioner to undertake her or his work.
There is just one question I want to ask, which I hope is not wrong, but it might be. Paragraph 4.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The territorial application of this instrument (that is, where the instrument produces a practical effect) is the United Kingdom”.
However, I take it that the provisions of these regulations will apply to service personnel wherever they are around the globe, not solely those based in the United Kingdom. Of course, at this very moment Armed Forces personnel are engaged in conflict in the Middle East, so I hope that is a question that is not out of order and can be answered in the affirmative.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I also take this opportunity to welcome this provision. I just have one question, and I apologise in advance to the Minister that it is detailed, but I am attempting—dare I say—to help the Government. Since this Act became an Act, the Armed Forces Bill has been published, and an element of the Armed Forces Bill is to seek to reinvigorate the reserve.
Schedule 1, paragraph 4 talks about disqualification in the original Act:
“A person is disqualified from being the commissioner if the person is a member of the regular or Reserve Forces”.
Most people reading that would assume that the Reserve Forces refers to the part-time volunteer reserve. I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. But, of course, on leaving regular service, former regular personnel also have a reserve liability, initially as part of the irregular reserve, where they can be called to training at any point for up to 15 days. This depends between service, but potentially for six years. If this also applied to the irregular reserve, as we refer to it in the Army, it would effectively disbar former members of the Armed Forces from applying for this job for six years.
There is then a more interesting question, given what the Armed Forces Bill is seeking to do with the recall reserve. It seeks to align the three services where a recall liability would then be for a further 18 years, part of what we call the strategic reserve—which is confusing. That would effectively disbar a former member of the regular forces who is not in a part-time volunteer reserve for up to 24 years. I have got no problem with the period of how long they would be disbarred but, given that we are seeking to reinvigorate these other two aspects of the Reserve Forces, it is causing some confusion. When we are talking about the reserve, do we mean just the active reserve, or that if you are a member of a strategic reserve—that is, recall reserve— it will not apply?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations, defining “relevant family members” under the Armed Forces Commissioner Act. That clarity is welcome, and these Benches will not oppose the regulations.
Having said that, there are still one or two unaddressed concerns which emerged during the debate on the passing of the Bill in this House. Recent cases have raised serious concerns about the way in which complaints are handled. There continue to be too many service personnel who lack confidence in the system and fear adverse career consequences if they come forward. That culture of hesitation is precisely what the creation of the commissioner was intended to address. As the Minister knows, these Benches supported the establishment of the commissioner; we recognised the need for a stronger, accessible and trusted route through which serious welfare concerns could be raised. That is why we also welcome the extension of the commissioner’s remit to relevant family members. Service life affects not only the individual in uniform, but the families who support them. On the face of it, the definition in these regulations is broad and sensible, and it is reassuring that it has been developed in consultation with the Armed Forces Families Federations.
However, the Minister will recall that during the passage of the legislation, I sought to strengthen the provisions specifically in relation to whistleblowing. My concern was and remains that, given the reputational damage suffered by the Ministry of Defence in recent years, particularly in relation to servicewomen, we should provide a simple, clearly understood and protective route for raising serious concerns. I was not persuaded that existing mechanisms were sufficient. There is already statutory precedent for whistleblowing protections within Armed Forces legislation and, although my amendments were not accepted, the Government committed to a review of whistleblowing in defence, an undertaking which I welcomed and accepted in good faith. I ask the Minister to give us an update on where that review has got to, because I would be personally interested to know if there is an interim or final report scheduled to be published.
Against that general backdrop, I will ask the Minister two questions specific to the regulations. First, what practical safeguards will prevent career or informal detriment, direct or indirect, to the victim, where a family member approaches the commissioner? If families are to be empowered to raise concerns, they have to be confident that doing so will not harm the serviceperson whom they seek to support.
Secondly, although these provisions will be monitored, there is no statutory review clause. Given the novelty and sensitivity of this expanded remit, will the Government commit to publishing a formal review within a defined period?
As I indicated, we on these Benches do not oppose these regulations. They form part of a broader, necessary reform if confidence in the complaints system is to be restored, and that restoration of confidence is vital. Our service personnel and their families deserve a system that is independent in spirit, deserving of their trust and does what it says on the tin. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I say in answer to the specific question from my noble friend Lord Stansgate that, yes, the regulations apply to wherever anyone serves. I thank him for raising that issue and allowing me to clarify that point.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, I wish to read a particular thing. I thank him for his question and for his work with the reserves. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the work he does with respect to them. The specific nature of the noble Lord’s question concerned what the term “Reserve Forces” includes. Schedule 1 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 inserted new Schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. The meaning of “Reserve Forces” in this legislation is the same as in the Reserve Forces Act 1996. It includes the volunteer reserve and the ex-regular reserve, but not individuals in the so-called recall reserve. That is the legislative position. I hope that is helpful to noble Lords.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her general welcome of the regulations before us and the constructive way in which she engaged with them. I made a commitment on the whistleblower review. An interim review has been done; we are looking at that. We will invite the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Kramer, to the Ministry of Defence to have a look through where we have got to with the whistleblower review before we publish something, so that they can see where we are.
The intention of that, with respect to this issue and the noble Baroness’s question regarding the families, is for us to ensure that families who complain or bring forward concerns around service life under this provision or, indeed, in a more general sense are protected from feeling as though they will suffer detriment as a result of bringing something forward either under this instrument or more generally. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s question, which she asked specifically in reference to this point, and her more general point about whistleblowing.
All the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who I mentioned will, in due course, receive a letter asking them to come to the Ministry of Defence to discuss where we are on this point. I made that parliamentary commitment, and it is important to honour such parliamentary commitments. In general, you may not be able to amend legislation, but—this is an important point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will know—if a Minister makes a commitment to do something in order for something to be withdrawn, it is important that they follow through on that. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s questions with respect to safeguards and the review.
On monitoring, let me reflect on that point about the review. The point about secondary legislation is that, if something is not working, you can look at it again, but the broad definition of what we have and the work of the commissioner are important. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that the commissioner has to publish a report and give it to Parliament. One would expect that if a particular problem had arisen as a result of their work, that would be reported in that annual report so that we could all see whether the regulations were working in the way we had hoped or whether the commissioner was drawing attention to something that Parliament needed to consider again. I would expect that to be the place where any review that was necessary would be pointed out.
With those remarks, I hope that I have answered the various questions asked by noble Lords. I thank everyone for their contributions and their involvement in these regulations.
Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving these regulations, which were laid on 13 January, I will speak also to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
First, let me express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent for successfully steering the Private Member’s Bill through this House to Royal Assent in 2024. I also thank the honourable Member for Bridgend, who was instrumental in guiding the Bill through the other place. I pay particular tribute to Aaron Horsey, who has campaigned with remarkable dedication on behalf of bereaved fathers following the tragic loss of his wife Bernadette shortly after the birth of their son, Tim; Aaron joins us here today.
The Parental Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 established a new statutory entitlement to bereaved partner’s paternity leave of up to 52 weeks for employed fathers and partners if the mother or primary adopter dies in the first year of a child’s life or adoption. The Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 outline the details of this entitlement. The further two sets of regulations ensure that those having a baby through international adoption or surrogacy arrangements are in scope for leave.
Currently, fathers and partners in these tragic circumstances who do not qualify for paternity leave or shared parental leave must rely on the compassion of their employers to take adequate time off work to care for their child. Although the Employment Rights Act removes the continuity of service requirements for paternity leave, fathers and partners remain limited to a maximum of two weeks’ statutory leave. Bereaved partner’s paternity leave will plug this gap to ensure that bereaved partners are guaranteed a longer period off work to care for their child.
Thankfully, the number of people who face this situation is low. Each year, there are around 180 maternal deaths within 12 months of childbirth. We estimate that around half of those eligible will take up this leave, meaning that these regulations are likely to support about 90 bereaved partners each year. Some partners may be eligible for shared parental leave, which accounts for the reduced figure.
Bereaved partner’s paternity leave is a day one right, meaning that there is no continuity of service requirement. Bereaved fathers and partners will be able to start taking leave from the day after the death of the mother or primary adopter. The leave must end on the child’s first birthday or the first anniversary of their adoption, unless it is necessary to go beyond this date to ensure that an employee is always entitled to at least two weeks of leave.
To be eligible, the bereaved partner must be an employee rather than a worker or self-employed. They must be the child’s father or the mother’s or adopter’s spouse, civil partner or partner at the time of the mother’s or adopter’s death. They must also have main responsibility for the child’s upbringing and be taking the leave for the purpose of caring for the child. Together, these regulations will ensure that employees who lose their partner in the time surrounding childbirth or adoption will have access to a guaranteed period of leave to care for a new child.
The notice requirements reflect that an individual will be in a devastating and unforeseeable situation immediately after their partner’s death. Therefore, to start the leave in the first eight weeks after their partner’s death, they can give notice informally, any time before they are due to start work on their first day of absence. This could, for example, be a text message or a phone call to their employer. To take more than eight weeks after their partner has died, an employee must give one week’s notice in writing. This longer and more formal notice period balances the needs of employers with the flexibility needed by employees in these tragic circumstances.
Taking bereaved partner’s paternity leave will not affect a parent’s ability to take any other family leave entitlements they qualify for, such as shared parental leave. However, the entitlement must be taken in one continuous block. If an employee takes bereaved partner’s paternity leave to care for a child, and the child sadly passes away or an adoption placement ends, the bereaved partner will still be entitled to eight weeks of leave. This reflects that the leave is designed to support care responsibilities during an exceptionally difficult time. This approach is consistent with other forms of parental leave, such as adoption leave, helping to maintain a clear and coherent framework across family related entitlements.
Employees on bereaved partner’s paternity leave will be entitled to redundancy protections while on leave, regardless of how much leave they take. They will also be protected for 18 months from the birth or placement for adoption if they take six weeks or more continuous leave. This is equivalent to the protections given to those who take shared parental leave and neonatal care leave.
The Government have assessed the impact of bereaved partner’s paternity leave on businesses and found it to be minimal. We estimate an annual cost of approximately £0.9 million to businesses, mainly from reorganising work during employee absence. As the entitlement is unpaid, the cost is limited, and we considered the measures necessary and proportionate, given the tragic circumstances in which they will apply.
The Government appreciate the challenges businesses face in fulfilling their duties towards their employees. My officials are working with ACAS to ensure that guidance is available. The Government will also publish this guidance on 6 April on GOV.UK.
I take this moment to thank all those who have been involved in the development of the bereaved partner’s paternity leave. I hope they are as proud as I am of the difference this will make to families in one of the darkest periods of their lives.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, these Benches offer our wholehearted support for these regulations, and I know our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, if he were not involved in the Chamber on the Crime and Policing Bill, would join me in supporting them.
The sort of circumstances we are speaking of can be some of the most devastating circumstances and experiences. This is the sort of grief that does not pause, that does not observe working hours and that demands time, space and the presence of everyone in support. At least, then, the grief can be borne. I pay tribute, as has the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, to those who have secured—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal)
My Lords, the Committee stands adjourned and will resume at 5.53 pm.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I pay tribute, as did the Minister, to those who have secured this important step forward. Of course, we on these Benches know this terrain. It was His Majesty’s Official Opposition when in government who laid the foundation upon which these regulations rest. The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 was a measure of which I and my party are proud. It was one of the most humane pieces of legislation of recent decades; a recognition by the state that the law must sometimes speak not in the language of productivity or commerce but in the language of compassion. Fathers must not be left behind, and these regulations are a welcome step forwards to ensure they are not.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his compassion and understanding of the issue and his support for the regulations. They represent an important step forward and will ensure that fathers and partners who experience this unimaginable loss are afforded the protection, stability and support they need in an exceptionally difficult and unforeseeable period in their lives. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
House of Lords
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and with effect from today of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.
Child Poverty Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in relation to the (1) implementation, and (2) outcomes, of the Child Poverty Strategy.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock)
My Lords, the Government are progressing urgent legislation to remove the two-child limit from April, which is expected to lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the final year of this Parliament. Our monitoring and evaluations framework sets out our plans to track progress as part of our 10-year strategy for delivering long-term change. This summer we will publish a baseline report setting out the latest statistics and evidence, with annual reporting thereafter.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend the Minister, who I suspect is one of the finest advocates for the Government in either House. She will know that some critics of the Government crave a greater overarching vision or story; others complain that policies such as removing the two-child benefit cap somehow reward the feckless. Would she like to take this opportunity to explain where this strategy sits amongst government priorities and why it is so important?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and commend her on her great taste in Ministers, if I may say so. It is also a really great question. The Prime Minister made it clear very early on what a high priority it was for him, and for this Government, to tackle the horrors of child poverty. Some 900,000 more children were in poverty as a result of the previous Government. This Government are determined to stop that, so policies such as removing the two-child limit and others that we have already announced will lift around 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. Do we know why it matters? It is not just to those individual children while they are kids; poverty scars their life chances. Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to have mental health difficulties by age 11. When they are adults, they are more likely to be unemployed and likely to earn less. Our country cannot afford to do that to our children, and our country cannot afford our children to underachieve. That is why it matters.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the better futures social outcomes fund was announced in the child poverty strategy, with government payments tied to the achievement of measurable improvements in people’s lives, such as increased family stability. Family breakdown can be a driver, as well as an effect, of poverty. Can the Minister explain how progress in this area will be measured and whether the funding structure will enable ongoing work, after milestones have been reached, to prevent families slipping back into difficulties again?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right about the importance of family stability; it is extremely important for children to grow up in a stable family wherever possible. He is right that poverty is both a driver and a consequence. We know that poverty puts huge pressures on families. Lifting the two-child limit and giving families higher rewards than those that they have now will lift over half a million families out of poverty and help to take the pressure off.
The noble Lord mentioned the better futures fund. That will be a 10-year programme focused on a range of long-term measurable outcomes, including family stability. He asked about how it will be measured. It is currently in the design phase, but the funding will primarily be used for social outcome partnerships, and those bidding will be expected to show the sustainability of their proposed ideas. We absolutely take seriously the importance of family stability. We are going to address the questions of poverty that drive problems, but we also want to do what we can to support families.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her normal diligence on this subject. Alongside new measures
“to increase incomes, reduce essential costs and strengthen local services”—
I take those words from the Government’s own document—between 2025 and 2026 there have been 11 strategy documents. They are very good reading, but they do not help the people with the problems that I have just outlined. Can we speed this up? Let us stop talking about 10 years and instead talk about what is happening this year and next year.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will say two things. Children did not fall into poverty overnight and they will not all come out of it overnight. Poverty has a range of drivers. We are determined not simply to address this problem now but to find a way of tackling it in the long term. However, since the noble Lord wants examples of action, I will give him some. What have we already done? As we have made clear, we are going to put £39 billion into social and affordable housing. We are expanding free school meals to all families on universal credit, putting £600 million into the holiday activities and food programme, extending the warm home discount scheme to an extra 2.7 million people, and removing the two-child limit to lift 450,000 children out of poverty in this Parliament. That is action, and this Government are taking it.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister what the definition of poverty is? If it is “below the average” then there is no hope of getting rid of poverty. Is it an absolute standard? Secondly, has she calculated the amount owed to the Child Maintenance Service by absent fathers? Why should the taxpayer fund maintenance for children that the father owes and is not paying?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are using two metrics. We are using relative low income after housing costs, which is the international standard measure, but we are also using deep material poverty. That is a new measure that has been devised based on material deprivation, which reflects our commitment to addressing deeper child poverty. Material deprivation is traditionally calculated by asking the public what essentials they think families should have and getting a list of them. They are things such as warm homes, appropriate housing, enough food to eat, et cetera. The measure shows that if a family cannot afford at least four of those then they are in deep material deprivation. Having both those metrics helps us to measure what is going on in families.
I completely agree with the noble Baroness about child maintenance. Everybody should pay for their children, whether they are still with the other partner or not. The Government have done a lot to drive up the rate of support for child maintenance. We are taking reform steps to make it even better, and we will keep doing that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the strategy has been widely welcomed for the reasons given by my noble friend and because of its holistic cross-government approach, but there is considerable concern that Home Office policies on asylum, settlement and no recourse to public funds will undermine the strategy with regard to migrant children, who are already at disproportionate risk of poverty, especially deep poverty. Can my noble friend therefore confirm that the strategy includes migrant children and do what she can to encourage Home Office colleagues to do more to protect children in poverty from the impact of their policies?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. I assure her that the strategy, when it was being developed, looked at all children. We want to recognise the impact of poverty on children, whether or not they made any choices—because, as children, they do not make choices—contributing to their circumstances. It is clear that some of the measures we are taking, for example in relation to benefits, will benefit only those families who are eligible for those benefits. For example, the two-child limit affects only those on universal credit. Universal credit is available to families only in circumstances where their immigration status permits it. However, there are safety nets in the system to protect children, and I would be happy to share that view with colleagues across government.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, like many others, I warmly welcome the child poverty strategy; there is much to commend it, such as—to pick one particular aspect—the expansion of free school meals for children. However, I have a question about auto-enrolment of children for free school meals. There is much evidence to show that auto-enrolment not only lifts children out of poverty but increases educational attainment and allows schools to ensure that they get the pupil premium needed. Can the Minister therefore tell us what barriers remain for the introduction of auto-enrolment?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to raise that with colleagues in the DfE, but I reassure the right reverend Prelate that a lot of work has been and is going on in relation to free school meals for children on universal credit, making sure—whether it ends up being auto-enrolment or whether it is about communication or identification—that we get this out to all children. Free school meals are really important and are crucial to children: not only do they get to eat but hungry children struggle to learn, so it is a win-win all round. We think this is an incredibly important measure and we want to make sure that it works.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, no child should grow up in poverty, and we agree that reducing child poverty must be an absolute priority for any Government. The surest answer to helping reduce child poverty is to ensure that more families can access the security and dignity of work, which I do not believe the noble Baroness mentioned. There are many young parents among the current high level of youth unemployment—16.1%—so what steps are the Government taking to engage directly and urgently with this cohort to enable them to secure work and optimise the chances of giving their children a better future?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Viscount, and I have said many times from this Dispatch Box that, for many families, work is the best route out of poverty. Of course there will always be those who cannot work, and they deserve a welfare state that supports them, but this Government have invested considerable sums and will invest considerably more in supporting families to work. We already know that parents are actually more likely than average to be in employment. They want to work—they want to support their kids, they want to be a good role model and they want to show them that that is what adult life looks like—but many of them will need extra help, so we are investing heavily in those who have barriers to work. The noble Viscount mentioned young people. The Government have done so much on young people. He will know that Alan Milburn is doing a report for the Government looking at why so many of our young people—one in eight—are not in employment, education or training. That figure is a disgrace and we have to tackle that.
Forest-Risk Commodities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to implement due diligence requirements for forest-risk commodities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forests and remains steadfast in working with partners to deliver the shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The Government are currently considering their approach to addressing the deforestation impact of the use of forest-risk commodities in our supply chains, and we will update the House at the earliest opportunity.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the national security assessment, which the Government still refuse to publish in full, has been leaked in full to ITV News. It states that nature loss, including deforestation, is already slowing UK growth and productivity and could leave annual GDP 12% lower by 2030 than it would otherwise have been, making a mockery of the Government’s growth agenda. Will the Minister confirm these figures? When will the Government start taking nature loss as the grave economic threat that it is and get on with urgent job of protecting nature?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that the UK remains absolutely committed to providing international climate finance, both now and in the future, and to play our part alongside other developed countries and climate finance providers to deliver on our international commitments. There is a real economic benefit globally, not just here, to do that. We are on track to deliver £11.6 billion in international climate finance by the end of 2025-26 and are supporting the transition to more sustainable food and land use globally to help ensure the future of our global supply chains.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I imagine that the Minister is aware that the Government have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Indonesia, which is a substantial producer of palm oil and palm oil products. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Indonesian palm oil products exported to us are not being grown in plantations planted in place of tropical rainforests?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned, we remain steadfast in working with partners to deliver our shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation. Clearly, examples such as that which the noble Lord has just given are part of that. We need to ensure that any regulatory frameworks we bring in are robust and proportionate but also effective in addressing any deforestation in UK supply chains. Any decision-making will also have to consider the implications of the EU deforestation regulation on UK businesses that trade with the EU, and that is part of the bigger picture in order to address exactly the issues that the noble Lord is talking about.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, some might say that the Government’s proposals for nature loss are very ambitious; some might say they are overambitious. Does the noble Baroness agree that taking 10% of farmland out of food production to go towards clean energy projects is not in the interests of the country? Surely, taking farmland out of production in this way must count against nature loss and biodiversity gain.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the Government are working alongside farmers and environmental organisations on our farming road map, “Farming 2050, Growing England’s Future”, in order to set the course of farming over 25 years. We need a long-term vision for farming and food security, and this road map will be designed to get there, because ultimately, we need to deliver our food security alongside our environmental objectives.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, this is surely part of a much wider problem concerning the line of sight that businesses in this country have over their supply chains and supply lines. That applies to forests and to modern slavery, but it also applies generally in all sorts of ways—I declare my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—to the sources and sustainability of the products on which we rely. This is not just about food security; it is also about ensuring that businesses know what their supply lines are and where they are from. What are we doing as a nation to make it easier for businesses to understand their supply chains?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend asks a really important question. We announced a review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct as part of the UK trade strategy, and that is exploring the UK’s effectiveness in preventing human rights harms, labour rights harms and environmental harms in supply chains. That is how we are looking to support businesses and give them access to the kind of information my noble friend talks about.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, while it is right to take steps to protect forests overseas, I point out that Brazil and Indonesia, for example, have 50% forest cover, versus only 13% here. These countries already protect their forests through the Brazilian forest code and the Indonesian timber legality assurance scheme. Can we not do more to make the world greener in our own country by increasing our paltry 16.5% forest cover target? I declare my interest as an investor in SLC Agricola and Anglo Eastern Plantations, and as a forest developer.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have ambitious tree-planting proposals, including planting three new national forests—one has already begun and two are well on the way—because it is important that we increase tree coverage. We are also looking at how we can better protect the forests we already have, particularly our ancient woodlands. The environmental improvement plan the Government have recently published addresses many of those issues.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, what projections have the Government made of the impact on regional GDP and jobs if UK food and retail businesses lose market share because overseas competitors can show that they are stronger on deforestation-free credentials? Will the Minister commit to publishing any economic modelling behind their current chosen timetable and the scope for these due diligence regulations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Due diligence, particularly around trade and standards, is incredibly important. We want, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, to grow our economy in this country, but at the same time we must support business and ensure that we are doing so in a way that is sustainable—whether it is to do with the environment or human rights and so on. We discussed the issues she talks about with the Department of Trade, and we will continue to have very close discussions with it on how we continue to grow sustainable businesses in this country.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, regulations about forest-risk commodities were starting to be drawn up in 2023. In August 2024, the Labour Government said that they supported the policy and would work on it. It is really concerning to hear the Minister now say that they are still considering this policy. I know there was an issue connected with aspects of Northern Ireland, but can the Minister please say what is going on? Are they now going to change to the EU regulations which were decried around the world, or can we press on so that we can do something to help save the planet?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall take the noble Baroness’s concerns back to Defra because they are fair. But the issue is that we must make sure that we get the best regulatory approach to address deforestation in our supply chains. There are a number of factors we are considering, and I will just mention a couple. First is the compatibility of the forest-risk commodities approach which is enshrined in Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 and the EU’s deforestation regulations. The issue is the differences between them—the EU approach introduces a strict deforestation-free standard and customs controls, whereas the Environment Act addresses illegal deforestation. The Government’s ongoing review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct that I just mentioned, led by the Department for Business and Trade, is also looking at the effectiveness of the UK’s approach to preventing human rights harms and environmental harms in supply chains. We must tie all this together if we are going to get it right and make it effective.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, returning to palm oil, global production affects at least 193 threatened species, with potential impacts on 54% of all threatened mammals and 64% of all threatened birds. It is the leading cause of orangutan decline: eight orangutans are lost every day. Do the Government not need to take urgent action on the deeply problematic product of palm oil?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have already mentioned, we are absolutely committed to delivering this and ensuring that any regulatory framework we bring in that will affect any kind of product, such as palm oil and the UK trade in it, is going to be robust and effective, because there is no point in doing it if it is not going to make a difference.
UK Streaming and Cinema Sector
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent developments in the UK’s streaming and cinema sector, in particular the impact of the bid by Netflix to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The way we consume entertainment is changing rapidly, driving greater consolidation in the streaming and entertainment markets. Cinemas and independent British content play a vital role in our communities, and DCMS works closely with the BFI and the UK Cinema Association to ensure that they continue to thrive. Given legal and commercial sensitivities, it would not be appropriate to comment on any live or potential merger involving Warner Bros. Discovery; should any transaction by any company progress, it would be up to the CMA to examine its implications for competition and consumers.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that on Friday, Netflix, doubtless terrified of the prospect of this Oral Question and the ferocious scrutiny of your Lordships’ House, withdrew its bid for Warner Bros. Discovery in favour of Paramount Skydance. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the news, which is good for British consumers, who will continue to benefit from choice in the streaming market, good for our world-class content creators and good for the British cinema industry, which is vital to our high streets? Will she also agree that the bid highlighted the importance of intellectual property and the strength of the UK’s copyright regime and confirm that the Government will continue to protect UK rights holders by ruling out any new copyright exemptions that would allow big tech to scrape UK content with impunity?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
While I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord’s analysis of the reason Netflix withdrew its bid, the Government recognise the importance of a competitive and diverse streaming market for consumers, creators and the wider screen sector. We also recognise the vital role of intellectual property in a strong copyright regime. That is why the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DCMS are working closely with the creative and AI sectors to consider all potential options and get to the right solution. We have convened expert working groups and parliamentarians, including a number of noble Lords, to inform our approach and will continue to engage stakeholders to ensure that our copyright framework values and protects human creativity. We will publish a comprehensive report and economic impact assessment by 18 March this year.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will have the Cross Benches next, then we will come to Labour.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a television producer. The Media Act set up prominence for public service broadcasters in the digital space, but it does not cover video-sharing platforms such as YouTube, which is where increasing numbers of young people are watching their content. Now that the BBC has announced a partnership with YouTube, does the Minister agree that the prominence regime should be extended to amplify discoverability of public service broadcasting content on these services?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Public service broadcasters are vital, and it is important for us to recognise how central YouTube is to a number of young people’s access to content. We welcome Ofcom’s recommendation that public service broadcasters and platforms such as YouTube work together urgently to ensure that public service media content is made prominent on fair terms. We are considering Ofcom’s recommendation for legislation to support this. However, we want to see the outcome of these discussions in the first instance and encourage YouTube and PSBs to work together to try to achieve a deeper partnership that could benefit them and audiences. If I have not quite answered the noble Viscount’s question, I am happy to pick that up with him afterwards.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Black, in welcoming the news that he mentioned and highlighting the importance of intellectual property and the UK’s copyright regime. Other jurisdictions are now moving away from weakening copyright. Australia has ruled out new exceptions, creators are prevailing in cases in the US courts and EU policymakers are exploring stronger rights. Does my noble friend the Minister accept that weakening UK copyright law now would be economically and strategically misguided, just as the value of high-quality creative content is becoming clearer to AI developers and legislators worldwide?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government want a copyright regime that values and protects human creativity, can be trusted and unlocks innovation. As I mentioned, expert working groups and a parliamentary working group have been convened and stakeholders will continue to be engaged as Ministers consider all options. I have been told that I can confidently say that we will publish a full report, economic impact assessment and consultation response by 18 March. I look forward to future debates covering the outcome of that process.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Government accept that if we as a nation are to continue to be as successful in this area as we have been, we must look to the training set-up for those who are creating the content? How are the Government encouraging people to take up careers in this, especially at level 4 and 5 qualifications? Will the higher education sector actually take part in providing these services?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Is that related to AI or content generally?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
In relation to the screen workforce and skills, we are investing across the skills pipeline: there is £10 million for the National Film and Television School expansion, and we are scaling up the British Film Institute Film Academy and delivering short stories through the growth and skills levy. We are keen that young people and people throughout their careers can access opportunities to be part of what we consider to be one of the jewels in Britain’s creative crown.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Government are considering a commercial research exception that would deny streamers the right to withhold consent for use of content when it is used in research and development, but all AI pretraining is technically R&D. Does the Minister accept that this would fatally undermine licensing markets, with payment only at a point of market entry after a leverage is lost? The best thing the Government could do is to rule out any such exception.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It would be a bit pre-emptive of me to rule out any exception before the reports I have mentioned are published. I would be very happy to return to your Lordships’ House to discuss this matter further once that has taken place.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, with regard to the original Question, decisions such as this have the potential to significantly affect our creative workforce in this area, particularly the freelance workforce, in terms of size and rates of pay. Will these concerns be a significant part of the new freelance champion’s remit, and when will we hear more about this new role?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Anticipating that this question might come up, I asked whether I was able to give a definitive date for when the freelance champion will be appointed. Unfortunately, my wording is still just “as swiftly as possible”. I can report to your Lordships’ House that the Minister for Creative Industries, my colleague in the other place, Ian Murray, has held a round table with the sector to work through a number of the issues around the remit of this role. I genuinely hope, for a whole host of reasons, to be able to report back to your Lordships’ House on the next occasion I am asked that question. At the moment, unfortunately, my answer is “as swiftly as possible”.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, can I encourage my noble friend the Minister to regard these questions as a sort of canary in the coal mine? The Government’s original opt-out proposals on AI exemptions obviously caused a great deal of consternation in the House, and I think the idea of a commercial research exemption would be similarly difficult if it were the proposal the Government eventually came forward with. Even if the Minister cannot rule something out at this stage, can she at least acknowledge the fact that many of us in the House regard that as little more than a smokescreen for mass copyright theft?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have heard that loud and clear, and I will convey the sentiment of the House back to colleagues in DCMS.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. The Minister said that she cannot at this stage rule out certain aspects of what might be contained in the paper due from the Secretary of State this March, but can she rule in the importance of making sure that AI developers must license UK content for the training and grounding of their models?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Our priority is to ensure that the UK is ready for AI-related risks while supporting responsible innovation and long-term growth. We are considering all potential options to deliver on the UK’s ambition. It would be a very foolish and brave Minister to pre-empt a report that has yet to be published, but I look forward to future debates on this matter.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Even if the Minister cannot rule out specific measures, can she perhaps agree that weakening UK copyright law now would be misguided?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The only thing I am very clear on is that, like noble Lords, we want a copyright regime that values and protects human creativity, can be trusted and unlocks innovation. As I said, I cannot pre-empt the report, but I look forward to future debates on this matter.
NHS: Violence Against NHS Staff
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rafferty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce violence against NHS staff.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the department and NHS England are working with NHS employers and trade unions to prevent and reduce violence in the NHS by improving prevention, security, reporting and investigation, as well as enhancing training and post-incident support. As announced in the 10-year plan, the Government will strengthen existing measures by introducing this spring a new set of staff standards to ensure that NHS organisations are held to account for improvements.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her, as ever, detailed and insightful response, but I am sure she is also aware that certain groups are disproportionately affected by violence in the workplace. Black and Asian nurses make up over 30% of the total number of registered nurses in England yet report higher exposure to both verbal and physical abuse than their white counterparts. How are the Government supporting NHS trusts to protect staff from all forms of violence and racism?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that racism, violence and abuse in the NHS, and indeed anywhere, are quite unacceptable and there is clearly so much more that we have to do. The Government’s progress is about the establishment of the workforce race equality standard, which measures NHS organisations against nine indicators, including bullying and harassment. The report about the standard was published in June of last year. We also have the equality, diversity and inclusion improvement plan, which again identifies six high-impact areas for employers, and this is expected to be strengthened by the introduction of a new staff standard on tackling racism, which is due in April.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the level of violence towards staff in healthcare settings which the Minister has just mentioned is unacceptable. The 2024 NHS staff survey found that violence had increased since 2023, with a quarter of the workplace reporting harassment. Given that staff safety is essential to the functioning of the NHS, what specific funding is being made available to trusts for preventive measures, such as de-escalation training, alongside direct protections such as increased security personnel?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right about the increase as reported in the staff survey, and it is indeed shocking and totally unacceptable. The reporting of incidents of physical violence has also increased and, while I do not want to see more violence, if it is there, we need to know about it. On funding and NHS organisations, it comes within their general budgets. We are guiding and supporting those organisations to ensure they use the money in the most appropriate and effective way.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I have had reason to visit St Thomas’ Hospital on a number of occasions recently to visit the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and I assure the Chamber that she is progressing well and thanks everybody for their messages of support, which have come from all sides. Just across the river, I have witnessed on two occasions levels of violence against the staff which I have never witnessed in some of the toughest parts of London or other cities. Nobody who has not experienced what the staff in NHS hospitals have experienced can appreciate the threat that is regularly meted out, to the extent that, last week, I had to act as a witness on behalf of a member of staff at St Thomas’ because he was having to fight off somebody who was trying to beat him up in the hospital.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is a terrible thing that the noble Lord reports, and I appreciate him drawing your Lordships’ House’s attention to it. I can only reiterate the unacceptability of growing violence, bullying and harassment towards staff. Our work is to retain, recruit and get the best out of staff—I know this is a matter of interest to noble Lords—but we cannot do that in this environment. It is absolutely key that staff do not just feel safer but are safer in the workplace.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, when working as a district nurse in 1981, I worked with an elderly male patient who had a rat in a cage as a pet. I made a rookie mistake that I would not make now: I said I was frightened of it. The next time I visited, when I drew back his bedclothes to give him a bed bath, the rat leapt out at me. I just draw attention to that, but can the Minister explain how and what statistics are kept on the sickness and absence of healthcare workers who work in the community as a result of physical and psychological aggression from patients?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, I am very sorry to hear of the experience that the noble Baroness had and should not have had. Sadly, I am sure that she was not—and is not—alone in having had such experiences. We have zero tolerance towards violence, bullying and intimidation, and I would regard that as being an instance of that. We need to improve our data and our recording. We are developing a common reporting framework for violence prevention and reduction which will support the adoption of more consistent approaches to dealing with it and improve comparability across not just systems but services. The noble Baroness’s point about community-based violence is as valid as points about hospital-based violence: violence is unacceptable wherever it is.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a lay member of the General Medical Council. I was very sorry to hear the example given by the noble Lord; unfortunately, we have all heard too many such examples. If a healthcare professional is the subject of violence in the workplace, the police may be required, sadly, to arrange for a forensic physician to examine the victim. That experience can be stressful and daunting for the member of staff in question. Can my noble friend the Minister outline what steps are being put in place to support those practitioners in such instances?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I think I understand my noble friend’s question; if I have misunderstood, I will gladly write to her. The point here, I think, is about not just practice but culture. We need to see good leadership. We need good organisational culture to improve staff engagement and staff responsibilities when faced with dealing with such incidents. Again, our NHS working cultures need to be more compassionate and more inclusive, and they need better support, including around occupational health and staff well-being. Practitioners are part of the solution, and of course we give them our full support.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in advance of this Question, the Medical Defence Union wrote to a number of noble Lords, for which we are grateful. It outlined that if a healthcare professional is the subject of violence in the workplace, the police may be required to arrange for a forensic physician to examine the victim. This experience of course doubles the terrible experience that the individual has been through and is daunting for them. Can the Minister confirm what steps or guidance the department and NHS England, as long as it continues to exist, are putting in place to support medical staff in such instances?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the point. All NHS staff have access, for example, to a helpline for support and to Practitioner Health for when they need more complex mental health support. Of course, anyone who is experiencing violence or abuse should report it to their line manager so that it can be properly investigated, including reporting it to the police. These are very difficult situations for the person who has suffered abuse and for members of the team who have to support them. I take the point about forensics; forensic investigation can worsen it, but it is also necessary to secure conviction where necessary.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stockwood
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 25 February.
Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 January be approved.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 February.
Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026
Baroness Wheeler
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 12 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 25 February.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 18, Title.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:12 - Division on Amendment 209 - Ayes: 121 / Noes: 145 - Amendment 209 disagreed.
17:43 - Division on Amendment 248B - Ayes: 71 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 248B disagreed.
17:56 - Division on Amendment 262 - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 178 - Amendment 262 disagreed.
20:19 - Division on Amendment 273 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 155 - Amendment 273 agreed.
20:31 - Division on Amendment 274 - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 155 - Amendment 274 agreed.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) to make or adapt a thing for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) to possess, supply or offer to supply a thing (a “CSA image-generator”) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change to clarify the operation of the CSA image-generator offence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are what I will term minor drafting changes designed to clarify the operation of the new offences in Clauses 65 to 67 and 69.
Amendments 199 to 208 and 210 to 229 make minor changes to ensure that the operation of the child sexual abuse image-generator offence at Clauses 65 to 67 is clear and consistent across the United Kingdom. Amendments 230 to 233 make drafting changes to clarify the language used in the “paedophile manual” offence at Clause 69.
These amendments do not modify the policy intention behind these offences; rather, they make necessary clarificatory changes to ensure that they operate effectively. I beg to move and hope that the House will agree.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s technical amendments. We spent some time in Committee debating the definition of a “thing” used to generate horrific CSA images. I am pleased that the Government have tabled Amendment 201 to clarify that a “thing” explicitly includes a service.
Modern AI is not just a program sitting on a hard drive but an ephemeral, cloud-based service. By adopting this broader language, we ensure that those who provide the underlying infrastructure for CSA image generation cannot evade responsibility through technical loopholes. These may appear to be technical drafting changes, but they provide the necessary teeth for the primary offences in Clauses 65 to 67.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are largely consequential and minor drafting changes. They relate to the important topic of child sexual abuse image generators. I have little to say to this group other than that the topic which they address is one of serious and urgent concern.
The rapid emergence of generative AI has presented new and troubling challenges. The recent Grok AI scandal, in which an AI model generated harmful sexual content publicly, some of which involved children, highlighted the potential for mainstream tools to be misused in ways that normalise or distribute abusive material. That episode underlines why robust legal safeguards are essential as technology evolves.
The Government have continued to delay passing legislation regarding AI regulation, which was alluded to as far back as 2024. I thank the Minister for his assurances that the Government will continue to monitor developments in this area and work with industry to protect children from abuse and exploitation.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16.
“(c) “thing” includes a program, information in electronic form and a service.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16. It also clarifies that a service can be a CSA image-generator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Baroness Kidron
“46D Child sexual abuse image-generation risk assessment(1) A provider of an online service, including but not limited to a generative AI large language model, must risk assess the likelihood of their service being used to create or facilitate the creation of a CSA image or images as defined by section 46A. (2) If a risk is identified in a CSA image-generation risk assessment—(a) where the provider is regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023, a provider must report the risk within two working days to OFCOM, and agree to steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks within 14 days;(b) where the provider is not regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023, a provider must notify the National Crime Agency within two working days and agree to steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks of the online service being used to create or facilitate the creation of CSA images within 14 days.(3) Where a provider regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 fails to agree to or implement steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks with OFCOM (see subsection (2)(a)), they can be subjected to OFCOM’s enforcement powers as set out in Part 7, Chapter 6 (enforcement powers) of that Act.(4) Where a provider not regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 fails to agree to or implement steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks with the National Crime Agency (see subsection (2)(b)), they commit an offence.(5) A provider that commits an offence under this section is liable to be issued with a penalty notice by the National Crime Agency.(6) In this section a “penalty notice” means a notice requiring its recipient to pay a penalty of an amount not exceeding whichever is the greater of—(a) £18 million, or(b) 10% of a provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue for the most recent complete accounting period.(7) A penalty notice may be reissued where a provider continues to commit an offence under this section.(8) In carrying out its duties set out in this section, the National Crime Agency may consult with OFCOM.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Bill includes amendments which prohibit the creation of Gen-AI models specifically designed to create CSA images, but it is still possible for general-purpose models to be used to create CSA images. The Government has committed to allow providers of other Gen-AI services to risk assess how their services could be used for this purpose. This amendment makes that a requirement.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Clement-Jones, for adding their names. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for trying to add her name. Such was the enthusiasm that there was no space.
As already discussed, the Government have brought in new Clauses 92 and 93 to allow companies and responsible third parties to risk-assess the creation of CSA by gen AI models. That is an important detail. If the company is red teaming, or the regulator needs to test, it must not be guilty of an offence for doing so. But this new measure is permission, not obligation—and permission is not enough.
Amendment 209 seeks to do three things: to make risk assessment mandatory; to require mitigation within 14 days; and to hold companies not covered by the Online Safety Act to the same standard via the National Crime Agency.
A report from UNICEF last month referenced an Interpol study across 11 countries which found that at least 1.2 million children have disclosed having their images manipulated into sexually explicit images in the past year. In some countries that is equivalent to one child in every classroom being subjected to this new form of child sexual abuse. The report recommended the introduction of guardrails for AI developers at the design stage. In a meeting earlier in your Lordships’ House, we were told repeatedly and reminded graphically that AI CSAM creates appetite in offenders and that what happens online does not stay online.
We have consulted, and Ofcom has consulted—Parliament has debated this for years—and now we are consulting again. I argue that there are three reasons for accepting the amendment right now.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Kidron—I was very happy to put my name to this. The noble Baroness and others in this Chamber were at a meeting that we had at lunchtime today with a variety of really knowledgeable experts in this area. Even for those of us who have been to these sorts of meetings in the last few years fairly regularly, the latest news is really deeply shocking. I cannot even begin to tell your Lordships how shocking it is.
Indeed, there was an expert from Finland there who is about to deliver a very comprehensive analysis of the status quo, which will be delivered to Ofcom and published shortly. She was unable to give any details; however, she did tell us—I must confess that I am not that shockable, but I did find this pretty shocking—that the earliest instance that this research has discovered of a child being abused sexually was a child who was seven hours old, if noble Lords can believe that. What is more, we were told that there are manuals available on the web and the dark web which tell perpetrators, if they wish to sexually abuse newly born infants, how to do so in such a way that it is not able to be medically identified.
It reminds one slightly of the recent, very brave, interview that Gisèle Pelicot gave, which some of your Lordships may have seen—if noble Lords have not, I recommend it—in which it appeared that the reason that Gisèle did not realise what was happening to her was that her husband had availed himself of sufficient medical knowledge to know that, when he drugged her, he also put muscle relaxants into the medication. The normal physical reaction of anyone’s body, particularly a female body, when it is being violated is to resist it and seize up; in the case where you had muscle relaxants administered, of course, that was not the case, so, when Gisèle woke up, she did not feel well, but she did not realise what had happened. There are manuals on the web telling perpetrators how to do that with newly born infants in order that it is not identified. This is the world we are living in.
I am reminded of an analogy that we often used to use when I was a management consultant, when we were trying to indicate to a business that things were getting slightly out of control and not going the way they wanted: the parable of the frog in the water, which is gently increasing in temperature until the point that it realises it is being boiled alive, by which time it is too late. If you look at the scale of the abuse that is happening and the way in which artificial intelligence is accelerating this exponentially, it is never too late, but I can only add to the words of my noble friend Lady Kidron: how much longer do we have to keep on beseeching the Government to listen?
I reminded the meeting of a meeting I had a few months ago with a Minister from another department and her team. The Minister was female and all the advisers were female. We asked them, “How many of you have children, and what age are they?” They told us, and we then described some of the things that are happening to children of that age. You could see a visible change in demeanour and body language. This is not something that is happening to other people, or happening remotely on the BBC news or online; it is happening to us and our children, and it becomes deeply personal. The reason why the noble Baroness and others of us feel so passionately about this is that it is happening all around us—to our children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces—and we appear to be blind to what is going on.
We are blind in the sense of finding solutions that will work and blind to even trying solutions that may not be perfect but at least indicate a level of intent to do something about it. The companies that are the aim of the noble Baroness’s amendment know what they are doing; they are aware of what they are allowing. They are probably doing some risk analysis, which is probably not very good reading, but they know exactly what they are doing. To try to limit the Government’s approach to only those engines that have clearly been designed primarily to produce child sexual abuse material is the tip of the iceberg. It is all the other ones that are doing the damage. Until and unless we face up to that, zero in on them in such a way that they have to pay attention, and make it seriously painful for them, we are not going to change anything.
I appeal to the House, should the noble Baroness decide to take this to a vote, to send a clear signal to the Government about what is going on. Those of us in this House who are involved in this are frequently approached by the Government’s own Back-Benchers from another place—many of whom have young children —who are deeply concerned about what is going on. They are desperate for their Government to show real leadership and, rather than having consultation after consultation, to take action. So I appeal to the Government to look at this very seriously and I appeal to the House, if the noble Baroness decides to divide, to go with her.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was at the meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, so graphically described. I wish all noble Lords had been there too. If they had been, they too would support this amendment. It makes me weep to think of the harm and damage being done to babies—babies—and young children. It is shocking, and if we do not vote for this amendment, we should be ashamed of ourselves. It might not affect you personally, but you have to care about the millions of children out there who are having to face this abuse.
The growth in artificial intelligence tools is exposing children to new and enhanced harms. Perpetrators are using image generators to create hyper-realistic child sexual abuse material that can be used to abuse and extort children, including to financially blackmail young people. Devastatingly, Childline is hearing from more and more children who are experiencing this type of abuse. For example, a 16 year-old boy contacted the charity saying that a girl claiming to be his age made fake sexual images of him and threatened to share them with his friends unless he sent her £200. What is this world coming to, with children being blackmailed like this? Children are speaking about feeling incredibly scared, distressed and isolated in these situations. They are unsure about why it is happening or where to turn for help.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this is a grim subject, like, I am afraid, many of those that we are going to discuss in our proceedings today. An overwhelming case has been made by those who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I very much hope that the Front Benches—Government and Opposition—are listening to the views that have been expressed.
I shall offer one argument additional to those that the noble Baroness has set out. In addition to regulatory sanctions against the providers of these online services, and in addition to any possible criminal remedies that may arise, there is also the possibility of civil sanctions: claims for damages brought by groups of parents who have the misfortune to have had their children dealt with in this appalling way. Any such claim for damages would be immeasurably assisted were the providers of the online services to have a legal duty to risk-assess the likelihood of their services being used in this way.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I was also at the meeting, which has been referred to, that was held this lunchtime and dealt with the troubling question of what seems to be an epidemic of growth in the exploitation of children on the internet. I must say that it revealed figures that I was not aware of, and I regard myself as relatively well briefed on this matter.
Further information came out today—particularly from the work, which has already been alluded to, by Members who were present at that meeting—that much of the of the material that is seen online also moves across into the real world. The use of these elements on the internet to groom children, to set up meetings with them and then to participate with them in illegal acts has been growing to a point where it is quite clearly an epidemic that must be dealt with. We are at the start of something extraordinarily unpleasant that needs to be looked at in the round, in a way that we have not yet done or been able to do.
Having been heavily involved in the Online Safety Act, I am conscious of the fact that we are dealing with legislation which has been overtaken by technology. The developments that have happened since we the Bill became an Act have meant that the tools we thought were being given to Ofcom and being used by the Government are very often no longer appropriate. They are probably not as far-reaching and certainly do not deal with the speed with which this technology is moving forward.
I have not been able to attend any meetings which Ministers may have had with my own side on this, but I gather that there is a Whip on against this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could think hard about how he wants to play this issue out. It seems that one of the problems we have in dealing with legislation in this area is that we are never dealing with the right legislation. We want to amend the Online Safety Act but obviously, by moving an amendment to this Bill, which is from another department, we are not maximising the chances of having an output which will work. In addition, the way Ofcom is interpreting the Act seems to make it very difficult for it to reach out on new technologies, such as those described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her excellent speech introducing the amendment.
In a moment of transition, when we are so keen to try to grasp things so that they do not get out of our control, there may be a case for further work to be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned that she was happy to try to look again at the wording of her amendment if it is not appropriate for the Government. I am conscious that the Government are also trying to move in other areas and that other departments are also issuing measures which may or may not bear directly on the issue. It seems that there is a very strong case—although I do not know how my noble friend will respond—for asking for this issue to be kept alive and brought back, perhaps at Third Reading, where a joint amendment might be brought between the noble Baroness and her supporters and the Government to try to make sure that we do what we can, even if it is not the complete picture, to take this another step down the road.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I will make a very small intervention because people have spoken so eloquently before me. I support the amendment 100% and I am surprised that the Front Benches are not taking a different view. For crying out loud, I am not easily shocked but the briefing that we have all spoken about that we went to this afternoon shocked me. We are so behind the curve on this and we have to get ahead of it, so I support the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I can see what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is saying about Third Reading, but it would be wiser to vote for this amendment now—if noble Lords have any conscience at all, they have to vote for it—and if it is slightly defective it can be amended at Third Reading. If we do not do it now, there is a huge risk of it not coming back.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I strongly support Amendment 209, which was so convincingly spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was very pleased to have signed it, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes.
This amendment is a vital safeguard against the “innovation first, safety later” culture of big tech. Although the Bill will rightly prohibit the creation of models specifically designed to generate CSA images, it remains silent on general-purpose models that can be easily manipulated or jailbroken to produce the same horrific results. As the unacceptable use of tools such as Grok—referred to by my noble friend Lady Benjamin in her powerful speech—has recently illustrated, we cannot leave the safety of our children to chance. We face a technological and moral emergency. The Internet Watch Foundation, represented at the meeting today which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend mentioned, has warned of a staggering 380% increase in confirmed cases of AI-generated child exploitation imagery. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right that the extent of this abuse is sickening beyond imagination.
The amendment would mandate a safety-by-design intervention, requiring providers to proactively risk-assess their services and report identified risks to Ofcom within 48 hours. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, pushed back against this proposal, arguing that it
“would place unmanageable and unnecessary operational burdens on … the National Crime Agency and Ofcom”.—[Official Report, 27/11/25; col. 1533.]
He further claimed that these measures risk creating “legal uncertainty” by “duplicating” the Online Safety Act. Both assertions need rebutting. First, protecting children from an industrial-scale explosion of AI-generated abuse is not an unnecessary burden; it is the primary duty of our law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Secondly, we cannot rely on the theoretical protections of an Online Safety Act designed for a world before generative AI. Ofcom itself has maintained what might be called a tactical ambiguity about how the Act applies to stand-alone AI chatbots and large language models.
Alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who we will support if she puts the amendment to a vote, we ask for an ex ante duty: providers must check whether their models can be used to generate CSAM before they are released to the public. Voluntary commitments and retrospective enforcement are simply not enough. The Government have already committed to this principle; it is time to put that commitment into statute. I urge the Minister to accept Amendment 209 and ensure that we move away from ex post measures that address harm only after a child has been victimised.
The current definitions of “search” and “user-to-user” services do not neatly or comprehensively capture these new generative technologies. We cannot allow a situation where tech developers release highly capable models to the public without first explicitly checking whether they can be used to generate CSAM. Voluntary commitments and retrospective civil enforcement are simply not enough. We need this explicit statutory duty in the Bill today and I urge the Minister to accept Amendment 209.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require providers of relevant online services to assess and address the risks that their platforms may be used for the creation, sharing or facilitation of child sexual abuse material, placing a strengthened duty on them to take preventive action. More than anyone in this Chamber, I fully recognise the intention behind strengthening preventive mechanisms and ensuring that providers properly assess and mitigate risks to children. Requiring companies to examine how their services may facilitate abuse is, in principle, entirely sensible. The scale and evolving nature of online exploitation means that proactive duties are essential.
However, I have some concerns about the proposed mechanism, on which I hope the Minister may also be able to provide some input. The amendment appears to rely on providers conducting their own risk assessments. That immediately raises several practical questions, such as what objective standard those assessments would be measured against, whether there would be statutory guidance setting out minimum criteria, and how consistency would be ensured across companies of vastly different sizes and capabilities. There also remains the crucial question of what enforcement mechanisms would apply if an assessment was superficial or inadequate. Without clear parameters and oversight, there is a danger that such a system could become uneven in practice.
I would welcome reassurance from the Minister as to how the Government intend to ensure that risk-based duties in this space are transparent and robust for the purposes of child protection. The question is not whether we act, but how. We all share the same objective of reducing the prevalence of child sexual abuse material and protecting children from exploitation. The challenge is ensuring that the mechanisms we legislate for are clear and enforceable in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness Kidron, for tabling Amendment 209 and for her commitment to doing all we can to prevent online harms. I was struck strongly by the contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Bertin, the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Russell of Liverpool, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.
This is a really serious issue. The Government are committed to making sure that we have constructive engagement with the noble Baroness, as I have tried to do, including one formal and one informal meeting this very day, to ensure that we can make this work in the interests of what everybody in this House wants to do: to ensure, particularly given the rapid development of technology, that the public, and especially children, are safeguarded from harm. This Government are committed to tackling sexual exploitation and abuse and ensuring that new technologies are developed and deployed responsibly. I know that that matters; I know that it is important, and I know that this Government want to make sure that we deal with it.
A few weeks ago, the Grok AI chatbot was used to create and share vile, degrading and non-consensual intimate deepfakes. This House should ensure that no one lives in fear of having their image sexually manipulated by technology. From the Prime Minister to the DSIT Secretary, we said at the time that we will do something to stamp out this demeaning and illegal image production.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
If I was in the same meeting as the Minister, officials were unable to say that LLMs and generative models would be covered by that amendment. Indeed, they said that the policy of the Government was chatbots only. Chatbots are the subject of another amendment that I have tabled, which we will come to later. We have to be clear that the amendment in front of us remains only because I was told this afternoon that the new government amendment would not cover the same territory.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The government amendment has been tabled. I am asking the noble Baroness—whether she does this is self-evidently a matter for her—to withdraw her amendment and look at the amendment that we have tabled today on a cross-party basis and on behalf of DSIT and the Home Office, the department that I represent. That amendment will be debated around 18 March, and she can make comments on it at that stage. I am trying to meet the needs of the House and the Government to respond to what are complex and difficult challenges. All I will say is that, by bringing more AI services into the scope of the Online Safety Act, we will ensure that there is a clear and consistent regulatory framework that will allow us to hold companies to account.
In Clause 93, we have introduced the technology testing defence that will enable persons authorised by the Secretary of State to test technology for these harms. The defence will give providers reassurance to test the robustness of their models’ safeguards, identify weaknesses and design out harmful inputs. This, in turn, will reduce the risk of their models being criminally misused, particularly to abuse women and children. This further supports all AI companies in scope of the Online Safety Act with their risk-assessment obligations.
Given those measures—the noble Baroness will have to make a judgment on this—but the Government consider that Amendment 209 is therefore unnecessary as it cuts across the approach that I have outlined to date both in the Bill, in Clause 93 and the clauses I outlined earlier, and the proposed amendment that I shared with her as best I could prior to this debate. The House has a chance to look at that now that it is published. This cuts across that duty and imposes a broad statutory duty on online services, duplicating regulatory mechanisms, and it could create legal uncertainty. The noble Lord, Clement-Jones, challenged me on that, but that is the view of Ministers, officials and our legal departments. We are worried about the similar enforcement routes outside the Online Safety Act framework.
We take this seriously. The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made are extremely important. I was not able to attend the briefing earlier, but I know how much that has impacted Members who have spoken today. The National Crime Agency and police will play a key role in protecting children from UK child abuse. It is warned that the scale and complexity of online child sexual abuse are resulting in tens of millions of annual referrals of suspected online sexual abuse. Policing resources are best spent on protecting children and arresting offenders, so it is appropriate that Ofcom continues to play a critical regulatory role in preventing and tackling the AI generation of child sexual abuse material.
I have tried to persuade the noble Baroness but, if I have not succeeded, there will have to be a Division. I do not want there to be one because I think this House should speak with one voice on tackling this issue. The laudable objectives of the amendment are, we believe, better addressed through both the existing legislative framework and the targeted government amendment we have tabled today to expand the scope of the Online Safety Act to bring illegal content duties in line for chatbots. This will mean that providers need to mitigate potential risks to prevent children facing such abuse.
I hope I have convinced the noble Baroness. Again, I apologise to the House for the lateness of the tabling of the amendment. We are trying to work across government on this, and that amendment will be debated on 18 March. In light of that, I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, as a point of information, I feel it would be useful to say that Clauses 64 and 65, to which the Minister refers, are in fact a narrowing of an original amendment, laid by me and other noble Lords, that the Government deliberately narrowed so that it deals only with electronic files that have been deliberately and exclusively created to create child sexual abuse. I very much welcome those clauses. However, if the Government had not narrowed that amendment, I would not be standing here today with this amendment.
I am grateful for the Minister’s time, and I am happy with the chatbot amendment as far as it goes—and inasmuch as I have seen it an hour before everyone else—but it does not deal with this issue. I rang the Minister this morning and asked for a meeting to say, “If you can tell me that this is covered by the chatbot amendment or that it’s already covered in another way, I will back down”. But I am afraid that nobody could tell me that, because it is not. That is just how it is.
I say to the noble Lord speaking for the Official Opposition, no, no, no. It is not okay to say, “We must work out how to do this”. This is an opportunity to work out how. We always do it this way. We pass an amendment; we get a power; and Ofcom and the Government do the guidance. I say to the whole House, and particularly to my friends on the Labour Benches who may be considering voting against this, have any of you seen child sexual abuse made out of your image? I have. It is not funny; it is serious and it is easily done. I think it is unacceptable to vote against an amendment that says only, “Risk assess”. It is not okay to put a product out in the world if you do not have any responsibility for the harm it causes. So, I do not expect to win, because the Government are whipping against and the Opposition are sitting on their hands, but I think it is important to say to the people who are in a vortex of this kind of abuse that at least some of us in this House have their backs.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
When the noble Baroness says that some of us in this House are concerned about this issue, I want to say to her that all of us in this House are concerned about this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and myself have many differences in this House, but we are at one in trying to improve the position of the regulations to tackle this issue. The amendment that I have tabled is a very important step forward on behalf of the Government, on a DSIT and Home Office basis, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord. I do not want to have a Division in this House. The Government and the Opposition may well win that vote, but I do not want that Division to happen; I want us to go forward in a constructive way, to look at the amendments that are tabled and to make a change that really benefits people.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I say to the noble Lord that there is only one way to prevent a Division on this issue, which is either to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that it is covered, or that we will keep it alive until Third Reading so that we can make sure that it is covered. If I have insulted anyone by suggesting that only some of us are willing to walk through the Lobby to protect children from child sexual abuse, forgive me, but unless the Minister has something to say, then as a matter of principle I shall divide the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) to make or adapt a thing for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) to possess, supply or offer to supply a thing (a “CSA image-generator”) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change to the operation of the CSA image-generator offence in Northern Ireland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66, page 85, line 17.
“(c) “thing” includes a program, information in electronic form and a service.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66, page 85, line 17. It also clarifies that a service can be a CSA image-generator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66, page 85, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66, page 85, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66, page 85, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) to make or adapt a thing for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) to possess, supply or offer to supply a thing (a “CSA image-generator”) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change to clarify the operation of the CSA image-generator offence in Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 67, page 89, line 9.
“(c) “thing” includes a program, information in electronic form and a service.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 67, page 89, line 9. It also clarifies that a service can be a CSA image-generator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 67, page 89, line 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 67, page 89, line 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 67, page 89, line 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Baroness Levitt
“(ia) sections 8A to 8C (rape and other offences against children under 16);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Sexual offences against children under 16), inserted after clause 73.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to government Amendments 234, 235, 237, 249, 250, 448 and 467, which will give effect to recommendation 1 of the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. She recommended that the law should be changed so that an adult who engages in penetrative sexual activity with a child who is under 16 is charged with rape. I thank the noble Baroness for the audit. She worked closely with us as we developed these offences, and it was important to us to ensure that we met her objectives. I thank her for her strong support of the Government’s proposals.
We are taking a two-stage approach, starting with the amendments being debated today. These will create new offences covering rape and other penetrative sexual activity with a child who is under 16 by an adult. The important thing to note is that the prosecution does not have to prove that the child did not consent, so ostensible or purported consent or reasonable belief in consent is completely irrelevant. This eliminates any question of whether an under-16 seemed to have consented. All that matters is the age of the child. If the child is under 13, the defendant’s belief about their age is irrelevant. If the child is aged 13 to 15, an adult who believed that the child was aged 16 or over would not be guilty, but only if that belief was reasonably held. This mirrors the existing approach to sexual offences committed against children.
The maximum penalty for these offences will be life imprisonment, and these offences will sit alongside existing ones in relation to sexual activity with and towards children. The Crown Prosecution Service will therefore retain discretion to charge the full range of child sex offences where appropriate, though we expect that the use of other offences will be very limited. As with existing offences against children under 13, the CPS will prioritise the more serious charges. We are also tabling the necessary consequential amendments, such as ensuring that where the relevant criteria are met, offenders will be eligible for extended determinate sentences.
This brings me to the second stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was clear in her audit that the law in this area needs to be changed to ensure that children are treated as children. Alongside our new offences, we are committed to doing two things. We are going to carry out a public consultation to look at how to treat what are known as “close-in-age relationships” within the cohort of relevant child sexual offences. This responds to the noble Baroness’s recommendation that the Government should consider a close-in-age exemption to prevent the criminalisation of teenagers who are in relationships with each other.
We will also conduct a post-implementation review of the new offences to test the impact they are having. We know that there are some concerns about the element of reasonable belief in age, and this review will look closely at how that works in practice. I assure the House that the Government will continue to progress this work as a matter of priority to ensure that we get the law right in the long term. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we believe that Amendment 235 delivers on the crucial recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her national audit. By creating these strict liability offences where consent is rightly irrelevant and the offence of reasonable belief in age cannot apply, these clauses send an important signal making it unambiguously clear that no adult can claim ignorance or excuse when preying on the young and vulnerable.
The audit explained how grooming gangs repeatedly evaded rape charges for penetrative sex with 13 to 15 year-olds. Cases were downgraded or dropped because victims were misperceived as having consented or been in love with abusers, despite children under 16 being legally incapable of consent. Perpetrators avoided accountability by claiming it was reasonable to believe their victims were older than 16, perhaps due to their demeanour or because they had fake ID. These clauses strip away both loopholes for good, and on these Benches we give them our full support.
The intent of Amendment 236 to elevate penetrative offences against young teens to rape is laudable, but, as we signalled in Committee, we have several concerns. Mandating rape charges for every act of intercourse with a child under 16 may sound resolute, but it introduces unnecessary evidential hurdles and extra elements that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which could result in guilty offenders walking free. Forcing every case into a life sentence framework risks deterring pleas from defendants and unnerving juries, driving up acquittals on technicalities. Amendment 236 also retains the “reasonable belief in age” defence, which—as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, highlighted—offenders have exploited to evade justice. We believe the Government’s approach offers a surer path to protecting vulnerable children, and it has our support.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, we support the Government’s approach and indeed welcome it. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and I tabled an amendment in the same form, in essence, as Amendment 236 in this group. The amendment would create a specific offence of rape of a child under 16 to close the loophole in the current law whereby an adult who has sexual intercourse with a child between 13 and 15 is not automatically charged with rape. That was one of the key recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. In Committee, these Benches were critical of the fact that, although the Government had accepted the noble Baroness’s recommendation to do this, they had not brought forward a legislative proposal to change the law. With Amendment 235, they have done exactly that.
I am also pleased that they have gone slightly further and included within the scope assault by penetration and causing a child to engage in sexual activity. Overall, this is a welcome step and, in light of it, we will not press Amendment 236 to a Division.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the acknowledgement by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, that, in essence, Amendment 236 covers the same ground as the government amendments. I commend the noble Lords for bringing forward their amendment and making sure that it is on everybody’s radar. As the noble Lord said, the Government’s amendments go further than Amendment 236 was intended to, in that it covers all penetrative activity, not just penile penetration, and it is accompanied by all the necessary consequential amendments, such as ensuring, when relevant criteria are met, that offenders are eligible for extended determinate sentences.
We are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her work and bringing about this important change. It makes it absolutely clear that penetrative sexual activity between adults and children under 16 is fundamentally wrong, cannot be excused by any suggestions about consent and will be treated with the utmost seriousness.
Baroness Levitt
“Sexual offences against children under 16(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After section 8 insert—“Rape and other offences against children under 16
8A Rape of a child under 16(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with A’s penis, and(b) either—(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or(ii) B is under 13.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.8B Assault of a child under 16 by penetration(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of A’s body or anything else,(b) the penetration is sexual, and(c) either—(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or(ii) B is under 13. (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.8C Causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity within subsection (2),(b) the activity is sexual, and(c) either—(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or(ii) B is under 13.(2) An activity is within this subsection if it involves—(a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina,(b) penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,(c) penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or(d) penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”(3) In section 73(2) (exceptions to aiding, abetting and counselling) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) an offence under section 8A or 8B (offences against children under 16);”.(4) Schedule (Sexual offences against children under 16: consequential amendments) contains minor and consequential amendments.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause creates new offences of rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a sexual activity involving penetration, in relation to children under 16.
Baroness Levitt
“(ca) an offence under any of sections 8A to 8C of that Act (rape and other offences against children under 16),”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Sexual offences against children under 16), inserted after clause 73.
Lord Katz
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends subsection (6)(d) so that it does not include offences under sections 66E and 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as only adults can be victims of those offences).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are all minor and technical in nature. Amendments 238 and 251 modify provisions in Clause 75 and Schedule 10, which provide for the new grooming aggravating factor and relate to the duty to report child sexual abuse respectively. In each case, the provisions refer to a run of offences at Sections 66 to 67A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. When the Bill was originally drafted, this run of offences all related to offences against children, which are relevant to the provisions in Clause 75 and Schedule 10. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 has since added two adult-related offences into the run of offences at Sections 66 to 67A of the 2003 Act, specifically at Sections 66E and 66F. These two amendments simply remove the new adult-focused offences from the list of relevant offences in Clause 75 and Schedule 10.
Amendment 388 to Schedule 18 adds to the list of amendments that are consequential on the confiscation order provisions in the Bill an amendment of a provision recently inserted by the Sentencing Act 2026 into the Sentencing Code. Finally, Amendments 447, 453 and 454 provide that the provisions on child sexual abuse image generators at Clause 65, costs protections at Clause 162 and anonymity for firearms officers at Clauses 168 to 171 all have UK-wide extent, as was the original drafting intention. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. They seem to be entirely reasonable and we support their implementation.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Official Opposition’s support for these amendments.
Lord Nash
“Action to forestall the sexual exploitation of children by combating CSAM(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must, for the purpose of forestalling the sexual exploitation of children, make and bring into force regulations which require manufacturers, importers and distributors of relevant devices to satisfy the CSAM requirement specified in subsection (2).(2) The ‘CSAM requirement’ is that any relevant device supplied for use in the UK must have installed tamper-proof system software which is highly effective at preventing the recording, transmitting (by any means, including livestreaming) and viewing of CSAM using that device.(3) The duties of manufacturers, importers and distributors to comply with the CSAM requirement specified by regulations under subsection (1) must be subject to enforcement as if the CSAM requirement was a security requirement for the purposes of Part 1 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must—(a) enable the Secretary of State, by further regulations, to expand the definition of ‘relevant devices’ to include other categories of device which may be used to record, transmit or view CSAM, and (b) protect the privacy of the users of relevant devices through making provision to ensure that software of the kind required by subsection (2) does not, and cannot be used to, collect, retain, copy or transmit any data outside of the relevant device on which it is operating, or determine by any means the identity of the user of the relevant device on which it is operating.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(6) For the purposes of this section—“CSAM” means images, video recordings or live videos involving child sexual abuse, including—(a) any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child within the meaning of the Protection of Children Act 1978, and(b) any prohibited image of a child, within the meaning of section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, that is not an excluded image within the meaning of section 63 of that Act;“relevant devices” are smartphones or tablet computers which are either internet-connectable products or network-connectable products for the purposes of section 5 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022;“manufacturer”, “importer”, “distributor” and “supply” is each as defined in the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to forestall the sexual exploitation of children by mandating the installation of software which prevents the creation, viewing and sharing of child sexual abuse material on smartphones, tablets, and subsequently other devices, which are supplied for use in the UK.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly the fact that I am—and have been for many years—an investor in many technology companies, mainly software companies.
I do not think I need to spend too much time telling noble Lords of the appalling worldwide industry of child sexual abuse, as I know many noble Lords are only too aware of it. There have been many powerful speeches about it already today and I went through it in quite a lot of detail in Committee, but I will mention a few facts. It is estimated that in the Philippines alone, one in every 100 children is coerced into this industry, often with their parents’ consent, for the gratification of paedophile customers across the world. It is estimated that around 70 million child sexual abuse images are floating around the internet, many of which are of very young children and some—quite a few, sadly—even of babies, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned earlier. Many depict incest.
Some of the victims in these images have been viewed tens of millions of times. Imagine what it is like as a young girl or an adult walking down the street and seeing a man—it would be a man—look at you and peer at you for a few seconds, and to wonder whether that man has seen you raped online. With the advent of AI, it is, as we now know, possible using just text to speech to generate increasingly appalling images.
Depending on whose statistics you look at, this country is the second or third-largest consumer of this dreadful stuff in the world. The National Crime Agency issued a report last month saying that it arrests 1,000 paedophiles a month in this country. There were tens of thousands of outstanding investigations, and it is estimated that there are well over half a million offenders in the UK alone. For some offenders, this online abuse is a gateway to real-life contact abuse, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, has mentioned already. There is no doubt that some of this is fuelled by addiction to pornography and the desire for even more extreme content.
Under existing legislation, material can be taken down only once it has been seen—often by children. With livestreaming of this abuse, which is a very large industry, the images are watched in the moment and often immediately taken down. The tech companies already have methods of taking down much of this non-livestreamed material, but most of them are not using these methods effectively. Technology is now available to block on device the viewing of child sexual abuse images, or the making or livestreaming of them.
My amendment would mandate that this technology be installed on smartphones and tablets supplied in the UK. Of course, it would be open to manufacturers to develop their own technology to do that if they did not want to purchase a third-party product. Everyone I have spoken to, from regulators to technology experts and the companies themselves, is completely confident that that can be done. The problem is not the technology; it is achieving very high accuracy levels, at 99%, and very low false positives, at under 1%.
Of course, the Government will also need to be satisfied that the technology works effectively. Several discussions about this have already taken place between the Home Office, DSIT, the Internet Watch Foundation and the technology company I introduced to them. The Government may also initially, at least because of the difficulty sometimes of telling a 16 or 17 year-old from an 18 year-old, want to bring it in effective for a lower age. Since at least half of children being abused are under 13, that would be a very good start. My amendment would require the regulations to be brought into force within 12 months, but the regulations could mandate a further period for implementation.
Noble Lords will have noted that in place of my original Amendment 239, I now have down Amendment 239A. The difference is the addition of proposed new Clause 4(b) to ensure user privacy, which is perfectly possible under the technology because it is on the device; the data is not stored and does not go into the cloud.
We have the opportunity under the Bill to effectively hamper this appalling activity—indeed, industry—thereby saving and protecting many children from harm. I believe we have a moral obligation to pass this into law.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 239A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, as I believe we need to protect our children, however and wherever we can, from child sexual abuse material being created and shared. Shockingly, over 70 million images—yes, 70 million—are being circulated around the world, far beyond these shores, via the scourge of the online world. There is sexual imagery involving children as young as seven to 11, being exploited and watched by an ever-growing audience. This is not only immoral but cruel, despicable and illegal. It makes me weep to think that children’s childhood is being snatched away from them as we speak.
Organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation have helped to secure arrests of those for CSAM offences but, despite those arrests, the number of offenders continues to grow. Demand is not being diminished; it is being fed by sick-minded, perverted individuals. Heartbreakingly, where demand for new imagery grows, so does the abuse of real children to produce it.
Social media is central to how offenders operate. Some 40% of CSAM offenders attempted to contact a child after viewing material, with 70% doing so online, mostly through social media, gaming and messaging platforms, while 77% of offenders found CSAM on the open web, with 29% citing social media.
I have met young people who have remained victims of this vile practice years after they became adults. They describe the ongoing harm they suffer because the images of their abuse remain in circulation. They have had their abuse material viewed millions and millions of times. Research has confirmed that survivors with an online element to their abuse found significantly higher levels of long-lasting harm, including depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, self-harm, substance abuse, social isolation and sexual dysfunction, compared with survivors whose abuse was never recorded or shared online.
The cruelty that these survivors must endure extends even further. Some are actively hunted in adult life by offenders seeking to see how they look today. Can your Lordships believe this? With AI, offenders are now generating new abuse imagery featuring adult survivors—in some cases producing material in which the survivor appears to be abusing their younger self. Does that not make you want to cry?
Imagine if it was your child or grandchild, and what it means to live that reality. Imagine a survivor, as the noble Lord, Lord Nash, described, walking down the street, catching the eye of a stranger and immediately, involuntarily, thinking, “Have you seen the image of me being abused?” Does that not make your heart bleed? This is the daily experience of people whose abuse is permanently accessible online.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for tabling this amendment. We are all familiar with regular updates on our smartphones that eat more and more of the memory and use up more and more of the battery. They happen systematically, usually for security reasons, very regularly and seamlessly. However, I was not aware, until the noble Lord tabled his amendment and we had some discussions and meetings around it, that the technology that we are talking about to intercede and stop our devices being able to access or use this sort of material already exists to some degree on our telephones. Who among us who has an iPhone, like me, knew that the software to prevent and screen child sexual abuse material already exists but can be activated only if you go into the parental controls and turn it on—at which point it then starts working? I had no idea that that was embedded in my phone.
The technology exists. The large manufacturers of these gadgets already have access to that technology. In some instances, they have already developed it to a very sophisticated level but, for all sorts of reasons, have chosen not to roll it out. One of the major arguments used against this sort of thing being rolled out is from the free speech brigade—one of whose protagonists I am glad to see is not in the Chamber today. They will always say that free speech trumps everything else. It is an unfortunate choice of verb, but that is the argument put forward.
But the reality is that the technology we are talking about works in such a way that in no way, shape or form does it prevent free speech. It does not in any way, shape or form intervene with those platforms which are encrypted. It operates separately to those platforms but works in such a way that, without revealing what is going on in those encrypted messages, it stops the sort of material that we are talking about actually getting involved in the first place. In my view, that is not exactly an interdiction of free speech.
For all these reasons, I ask the Government to look at this very carefully and closely. We are not dealing with some wonderful space age technology that has yet to be developed; we are talking about technology which already exists. There are individuals who have a huge amount of knowledge and experience in this area. It is probably a brilliant example of His Majesty’s Government pursuing one of their avowed aims, which is to work more closely with foreign jurisdictions together in this sort of area.
For all these reasons, I hope that the Government will give a positive response, and that we will not have, “Oh, it is very difficult”, or, even worse, that we will have a consultation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking on issues related to online safety, I seem to spend most of my time apologising for the fact that the Act is not as up-to-date, efficient or effective as it should be, but here is another example of where technology has overtaken the good work that we did all those years ago to try to bring forward that legislation.
I learned about this at the same meeting that has been referred to already. At first sight, it looks as though it is an answer to a lot of problems that we have with the way in which younger people in particular interact with the internet. Those of us who were involved in pursuing what is now the Online Safety Act will be aware that we were largely looking at the user end of the material and cycle, looking at the apps and their interactions, that were being generated by those who were involved in servicing the internet. We did not look at technology in the hardware side at all and had no real thought about anything that we were dealing with in the then Bill affecting it. Yet this seems a very interesting and easy-to-adopt technology that would solve a lot of problems in relation to issues about the spread of material, which we would think should not be available where there are things like age bars or other means of providing gaps in the access to it.
There are always going to be problems with how we manage the changeover between childhood and adulthood, and we are aware that the technology is moving fast on that as well. It may well be that what is current today may be out of date by the time this Bill becomes law. But the Government should look very closely at the way in which this technology operates to prevent, at the equipment level, access to material which should not be seen by children particularly.
There will, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has said, be issues about free speech, and I do not think we should underestimate those. There are obviously ways in which this could be used against societal values; but for the particularity of how children are to be protected, making it impossible for them to access material, which they should by law not see, on the equipment they buy seems a very useful way forward, and I commend it to Ministers.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Let me say from the outset that, in principle, on these Benches we conditionally support Amendment 239A, which has been spoken to so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
The noble Lord very clearly set out the urgent issues involved, as did my noble friend Lady Benjamin and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and all of us who were there in the same meeting which we have referred to before. We are at a technological and moral crisis point, as we have debated in a previous group regarding child sexual abuse material online. We face a children’s mental health catastrophe, and the ubiquity of child sexual abuse material is a central driver of that catastrophe.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has explained that his amendment would mandate that manufacturers and importers of smartphones and tablets ensure their devices satisfy a CSAM requirement to prevent the creation, viewing, and sharing of such material.
The question, however, clearly arises as to whether this would undermine encryption or privacy. We recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in his revised Amendment 239A, does indeed include a duty of privacy in his regulations. In my view, the thing to avoid is the chance that a technological fix of this kind could involve some degree of surveillance. I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that, at first sight, the technology looks extremely promising, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned, but, before taking this further, we need to be absolutely sure about the robustness of this technology and its impact on privacy.
By requiring software to be preloaded at the system level, we would move away from the model of parental controls and platform responsibility, and we would place the duty on the manufacturers who profit from these devices. Quite apart from that, we do, of course, also need to ensure that the platforms take action.
The Minister may promise further consultation, but we do not need much more consultation to know that the status quo is failing; we need to find a solution now rather than playing an endless game of digital catch-up. As other others have urged, I hope that the Government will take a look at this proposal urgently, closely and seriously.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses one of the gravest and most distressing areas of criminality: the sexual exploitation of children and the creation and circulation of child sexual abuse material. There will be no disagreement among noble Lords about the objective behind these amendments. The scale of this crime is deeply alarming and becoming increasingly technologically sophisticated. The question before us is not whether we act but how.
I turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Nash. Once again, I entirely understand and support the underlying aim. The goal of ensuring that devices supplied in the UK have highly effective, tamper-proof system software capable of preventing the transmission or viewing of CSAM is a commendable one. Preventing abuse at source is always preferable to prosecuting it after the harm has occurred.
I recognise that Amendment 239A includes express provisions intended to safeguard user privacy, requiring that any such software must operate in a way that does not collect, retain, copy or transmit data outside the device, nor determine the identity of the user. It also provides for affirmative parliamentary approval of the regulations.
However, it is still hard to overlook the practical challenges that may arise from this amendment. Determined offenders frequently exploit encrypted platforms and modify operating systems, often using overseas-hosted services. A requirement limited to devices supplied for use in the UK could be circumvented by overseas purchases or software alterations. Even with privacy safeguards written into the regulation-making power, this amendment may still raise complex issues relating to encryption, cyber security, technical feasibility and enforcement. Mandating tamper-proof software across all relevant devices would represent a significant expansion of the regulatory framework established under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.
While I strongly support the objective of forestalling child sexual exploitation and disrupting the circulation of abuse material, I am not yet persuaded that this amendment provides a workable legislative solution. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are strengthening preventative technology and ensuring that industry plays a meaningful role in protecting children, while maintaining a framework that is technically feasible and legally robust.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for setting out his amendments. I know that he met last week with the Minister, my noble friend Lady Lloyd, and I hope that was a productive discussion. I was pleased to meet with him as well—I have lost track of the date, but it was some time in the last few months—when he graciously brought along representatives of companies that are developing the technology he talked about today. I found that meeting useful.
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s intention to protect children through this amendment, and I want to be clear, as I was on the previous amendment, that the Government share the ambition to protect children from nude imagery and prevent the spread of CSAM online. I hope that my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, showed that this is a matter the Government are taking seriously. That is why, in the violence against women and girls strategy, we have made it clear that we want to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view nude images. We strongly agree that nudity detection on a device is an effective way in which this could be achieved.
Lord Nash (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and to the other Members who have spoken today. I am satisfied that the Government are seized of this issue. I do not think it will be difficult to satisfy them and Members of this House and the other place that the technology works, the privacy issues can be sorted and we can deal with all their concerns. On the basis of the commitment the Minister has made today, I will not be testing the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group: Amendments 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248B, 263 and 265. I have also added my name to Amendments 257 and 264, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, which I strongly support. Unfortunately, the noble Lord is not able to be in his place today, but I share his concerns about protecting children from harm. These two amendments seek to fill the gap caused by Clause 84, which was raised in Committee, and I believe they are proportionate. The current clause does not cover a multitude of ways in which reports of abuse can be concealed, and it allows many who intentionally conceal to slip through the net.
Clause 84 is triggered only when the person acting to conceal abuse does so by blocking or deterring someone under the new duty from making a report, so the two amendments seek to strengthen what is currently there. It is broader than the current clause, which we believe currently means that it would be a two-tier system. I am not sure how we can justify an offence that would criminalise a teacher but not a religious leader.
Many of the amendments in my name were taken from my Private Member’s Bill on this, but I took some time to consider what should be a priority, and those are Amendments 246 and 248B. For clarity, I will not be seeking to divide on any others in my name in the group, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on Amendments 246 and 248B.
Like others, I have been working on this issue for a number of years. In 2015 the then Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch, asked me to author a report on duty of care in sport. Mandatory reporting was high on the list of issues that needed to be resolved, the other being positions of trust, where the loophole has now partially been closed.
Coaches and volunteers have very positive relationships with young people. These amendments are not to overburden them but to offer protection. Individuals may be worried about reporting so they need more guidance, and a framework of law will do that. No one wants to get it wrong, and we have to be mindful that there may be some malicious reporting.
As a young athlete in my early 20s, I witnessed inappropriate behaviour by a coach—nothing that I could quite put my finger on. You could argue that it was another time when less was known, but we are now seeing a number of historic cases. When I was a young athlete, there was no framework, policy or procedure to be able to raise it. I did not quite have the words to express what I saw, I did not have evidence, I did not witness abuse and there was no direct disclosure, but what I was trying to explain might have triggered greater awareness of this behaviour. I did not know what I now know. Years later, that coach was charged with historic offences in the 1970s and sentenced to seven and a half years in jail.
When the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was announced, I expected much movement. In March 2020 the Office for National Statistics estimated that 3.1 million adults in England and Wales experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16. IICSA concluded that child sexual abuse was endemic and permeated all sections of society, and it estimated that more than one in six girls and one in 20 boys have been sexually abused in the UK every year. On average, it takes victims 26 years to disclose abuse.
The IICSA report is quoted in the equality impact assessment saying that current arrangements are confusing, unfocused and ineffective. The Local Government Association estimates that only one in three children who are sexually abused by an adult tell someone. According to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, it is estimated that 85% of child sexual abuse goes undetected and unreported. Our system is failing the victims of child sexual abuse, and changes need to be made.
I do not believe that His Majesty’s Government’s proposals go far enough and may make the public think that the IICSA mandatory reporting recommendations are being acted on. I do not believe it will make enough of a difference. The key item in the equality impact assessment is table 1 in paragraph 31, on page 9. Given that the Children’s Commissioner for England estimated in 2015 that only one in eight cases of abuse comes to the attention of the authorities, an increase in reports of 0.3% would bring the proportion of unreported cases from 87.5% all the way down to 87.46%. An increase of 0.3% in the numbers of reports would bring the proportion of reported abuse up from 12.5% to 12.54%.
I will not attempt to pre-guess what the Minister might say, but I am imagining a response that it might stop adults wanting to work with children. That is why I looked at Amendment 246, which would make non-reporting a criminal offence. This was recommended by IICSA to provide for defences in situations where there is reasonable doubt concerning the grounds for suspicion. There are criminal sanctions in many countries—Australia, Croatia, Canada, France and most US states.
It has been a pleasure to work on this issue with the honourable Member for North West Cambridgeshire, Sam Carling MP, who wrote the brilliant Amendment 248B. He also has an adjournment debate tonight on this very topic, and I look forward to that. I thank him for venturing down to our end of the building to sit and listen to this debate. I think both of us would prefer a criminal offence, but I am trying to be pragmatic. The proposed new clause in Amendment 248B seeks to ensure that civil sanctions can be imposed for failure to comply with the duty to report suspected child sex offences. Sam Carling has met the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, which all want to see His Majesty’s Government criminalise the intentional concealment of abuse. He has also met a number of other organisations.
The NSPCC is deeply concerned that the professional sanctions proposed by the Government as the only consequence of non-compliance are not enough. While not wanting sanctions that would lead to a criminal record, it very much wants stronger civil sanctions, including potential fines. Based on these conversations, Sam’s amendment, which I have tabled, describes how civil sanctions would work based on Home Office fine-issuing powers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act.
The NSPCC said:
“The use of civil sanctions for failing to make a report under the mandatory duty is supported by the NSPCC. It is their belief that civil and professional sanctions strike the right balance between giving this duty the teeth it needs to ensure compliance, and also framing it as a tool meant to uplift and empower our child protection workforce and volunteers”.
The NSPCC feels strongly that the mandatory reporting duty should include reasonable suspicion as a trigger.
Further, two of the IICSA panel members, Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank, wrote to the Home Secretary on Friday urging her to change course on these issues. They are concerned that the only sanction proposed for the failure to report child sexual abuse under the duty in this Bill is a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service. They said:
“This falls far below what was recommended. Many of the organisations which our report criticised for failing to safeguard children from abuse rely extensively on volunteers who are often not DBS checked or regulated … DBS referral is already a requirement for regulated activity providers when it comes to those believed to pose a risk to children, and it is a criminal offence to fail to do so. We are therefore calling on the Government to, at the very least, implement stronger civil sanctions for failure to comply with the duty”.
They reported no evidence of the “chilling effect” that would discourage people from wanting to work with children. It simply is not there. They go on to urge His Majesty’s Government to strengthen the duty in the Bill to better deliver on the promises they have repeatedly made to implement IICSA.
My final point is about Amendment 262, which is not in my name but in those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton. If they seek to divide the House, I would very strongly support their amendments as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for missing the beginning of her speech on Amendment 240. However, I have checked with the clerk and I believe it is in order that I speak to my amendments in this group.
Since this is Report, I will not repeat the arguments I made on these and similar amendments in Committee. I will describe what each of my four amendments does and pray in aid not only the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse but a letter, which I will quote from, that members of the board of IICSA wrote to the Home Secretary on Friday last. Having spent seven years hearing evidence about CSA and the reasons why it has been hidden, and having reported in 2022, they were very disappointed when this Bill was published, and even more disappointed when they heard the Minister’s rejection of the measures in these amendments in Committee.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have signed my noble friend Lady Walmsley’s Amendments 246A, 248, 248A and 262 in this group. I will not repeat the points that she made in her important contribution, other than to say that it is very disappointing that this Government, and indeed the last Government, refused to implement the mandatory reporting recommendations from IICSA.
It is an unusual step for the board of an inquiry to write to the Home Secretary, as it did last Friday, to urge her to implement specific recommendations, but it did. My noble friend Lady Walmsley explained why this was important and why the Government’s worries are unfounded, given that the amendments from her and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, echo the mandatory reporting rules in other countries, including Australia, where it works. I hope that the Minister will have a change of heart.
I heard some ministerial tutting when my noble friend Lady Walmsley was speaking, but she, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the IICSA board all understand that these amendments cover proposals that are essential pillars to finding and stopping child sexual abuse. Without them, there is a real risk that what the Government are proposing will not work in practice.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing back her amendments, and I thank other noble Lords who have spoken to their amendments in this group. I recall that this topic prompted one of the more robust debates that we had in Committee, and I am grateful for the chance to touch on the key points again.
This group touches on the issue of child sexual exploitation. While the previous groups focused on creating specific offences for crimes against children, these amendments consider the failure to report sexual offences when they occur. As was our position in Committee, we are broadly supportive of the principles behind the noble Baroness’s amendments. I entirely understand her concern that criminal sanctions work as both an impetus for, and as a punishment for not, reporting child sexual abuse, and that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not underpin the duty with an offence.
Similarly, I see the logic in removing Clause 77(6), which removes the duty if the individual in question believes that another person will make a notification, and of Amendment 263, which would remove the “best interests” defence. I accept that this may be used as an excuse to turn a blind eye, which would render the new provision rather meaningless, but I also accept that there needs to be some leeway in reporting duties. Perhaps the Minister can touch on this when he speaks to Amendment 266.
Regrettably, I cannot accept the argument behind Amendments 240 and 242. While I accept that the duty of care lies with the local authority, it is the police forces that are tasked with intervening and arresting those committing child sexual offences. There are undoubtedly cases where it would be necessary to contact police forces first, and I do not think that restricting reporting to simply the local authority is wise.
I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Polak’s amendments, particularly those to Clause 84. Amendment 257 underscores the importance of clear and delineated settings in which these new provisions would be applicable. However, although this is important, I do not think it should be exhaustive. CSA takes place in all walks of life, unfortunately, and confining reporting it to categories risks removing the duty in other places.
My noble friend Lord Polak’s Amendment 264 goes past the current drafting of the Bill, which introduces an offence of preventing or deterring the reporting of child sexual abuse, and would create a new offence of intentionally concealing a child sexual offence. I support the intent behind my noble friend’s amendments and hope the Minister will be sympathetic.
I also support the intention of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We should be guided by evidence, which the IICSA report provided, and that is why the last Conservative Government accepted its findings—a policy we still champion.
On the Minister’s Amendment 266, guidance is the correct and obvious next step. There are many nuances involved in this new provision, as we have heard throughout this debate, and accompanying it with thorough guidance would allow for requirements to be more clearly outlined. That being said, I hope the Minister will now confirm that the guidance will address the concerns raised today, particularly around exceptions to reporting requirements—that would benefit from further guidance from the Secretary of State.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to those who tabled amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was absolutely right: there was ministerial tutting on this Front Bench when the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that the Government are looking at “How little can we do?” I refer the noble Baroness, for her interest, to the document we produced on 9 April 2025, which I have just looked up online. It has 87 paragraphs of cross-government action, in response to the Alexis Jay report, that the Government will take on this. I refer her to Clauses 77 to 86 of the Bill, which bring forward amendments. I do not wish to make a party-political point about the previous Government, but there is a point to register here: the Alexis Jay report was produced in October 2022, and this Government have not just brought these clauses before the House but, on 9 April 2025, produced an 87-point response to the legislation. So it is not about how little can we do but about how much we can do from a standing start on 4 July 2024.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am very sorry that the Minister has taken offence at my comments. I accept that this Government have brought forward legislation and taken a number of actions, but I am very much influenced by the disappointment of the IICSA board members. As my noble friend Lady Brinton said, it is very unusual that such people should write in the terms that they have to the Home Secretary. It is in those particular sections of their report they are very disappointed, and so am I. But I am sorry if the Minister was upset and offended by my comments; I never intend that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments. I am not upset or offended; I just want to put the record straight. We are trying to deal with this issue, having been in office for just under 20 months. This Bill was produced some time ago, and we put in it a response that meets most of the IICSA recommendations to date. We produced a report on 9 April last year setting out the direction of travel. I am not upset personally; I just want to put this on the record. The noble Baroness cannot say that it is about how little we can do when we are trying to do as much as we possibly can.
On the letter which was mentioned, it was sent on Friday and has gone to the Home Office. I have not seen it myself yet. The noble Baroness may have a copy, and I am sure she will pass it to me in due course. I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is itching to give me the letter, but I say to both noble Baronesses that we will respond to it in due course—the Home Secretary will assess its contents.
Lord Mann (Lab)
The Minister gave a commitment earlier, I believe, to read the letter from IICSA. I have not seen the letter, although, unlike anyone from the Home Office, I was one of the two MPs who attended the inquiry. In fact, I represented people for 30 days at the inquiry, so if there are recommendations from those who spent many hundreds of days with the experts on the detail of the inquiry, can I take it that the Minister and his team will read and give consideration to the implications in relation to these or any similar amendments to the legislation that might come from the logic, the conclusions and even the specificity of what IICSA is proposing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I said to noble Lords who raised the issue, we will look at and respond to the letter from the IICSA members, but I have not seen it, I have not got it in front of me and I am not going to respond to it today, even if it is passed to me, because I have to have some collective discussion with colleagues about the points that are raised. I just say to my noble friend that what the Government have tried to do since 4 July 2025—again, I pray in aid the statement, if he has not looked at it, of 9 April 2025 —is to meet the objectives of IICSA as far as we can. We have met an awful lot of the objectives that have been set, and they are before the House in the legislation today.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
I apologise that the Minister has not seen the letter. If I had realised that he had not seen it, I would have made sure he did. I recognise that it is difficult for him to respond to a letter that he has not seen. Will the Minister make a commitment at the Dispatch Box that, if I do not move Amendment 248B, we will be able to have a discussion and I will be able to bring the amendment back at Third Reading, if we are not able to find a suitable route through?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I always try to be helpful, if I can. I do not want to have amendments at Third Reading, and therefore I cannot help the noble Baroness with that request. As I say, I have not seen the letter. It is in the ether of the Home Office system. It has arrived, so it will be acknowledged and responded to. But it was issued only on Friday, as the noble Baroness mentioned; to be fair to the Home Office, that is an issue that we will have to look at. Obviously, we will respond to that letter. I will make sure that both the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Grey-Thompson, have the response, if appropriate, because they have raised it today. I will check with IICSA that it is happy for me to do so—that is important.
The further amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and Amendment 248A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also seek to supplement or remove the criminal offence of preventing a reporter carrying out their duty. Amendments 264 and 248A would provide for proposed thresholds that, again, I cannot accept. The proposed thresholds—when a person “suspects” abuse has taken place, even if that suspicion is poorly founded, the alleged offence never occurred or the relevant concealment actions had no actual effect—are far broader, and harder to justify or prosecute, than interference with a well-known statutory duty. The Government’s preferred model for this type of offence is narrowly targeted, purpose driven and clearly aligned.
On Amendment 265 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on protection for reporters, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 already provides a legal framework for protecting child abuse whistleblowers from dismissal, victimisation or other workplace detriments. Attempting to legislate against, for example, social shunning, reputational harm or informal exclusion would pose significant legal and practical problems.
This Government have progressed the recommendations on IICSA in a significant way since 4 July 2024 when we took office—the House may disagree; that is a matter for the House to take a view on. Beforehand, there was a significant gap of inactivity for a range of reasons that I will not talk about today. We have put potential measures in the Bill, and we have made, through a range of other measures to which I referred earlier, a significant amount of progress on these issues.
I accept that there may be issues that are still being pressed, but the progress that has been made is significant. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to withdraw her amendment and I invite the House to support the government amendments I introduced earlier.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short debate. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was able to speak. She has worked extensively in this area for decades, and I have leant heavily on her expertise. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, makes the strongest point on the unusual nature of a board writing to the Home Secretary. As I previously said, I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to see that. On page 1 of the letter, paragraph 2 says:
“we are deeply concerned that the mandatory reporting duty, as currently drafted in the Crime and Policing Bill, does not fully reflect our recommendation. In particular, there is: a lack of appropriate sanction for failure to report; an insufficient definition of who should be a mandated reporter; and a narrow trigger for the duty that does not include reasonable suspicion and recognised indicators of abuse”.
I go with the opinion of Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank and, as much as this Government have moved things on, they have not moved things on far enough. While I am happy not to press my Amendments 240 to 246, when it is called I will seek to divide the House on Amendment 248B.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“Penalty for failure to uphold duty to report suspected child sex offences(1) The Secretary of State may give a person who acts contrary to section 77 (duty to report suspected child sex offences) a notice requiring them to pay a penalty of a specified amount not exceeding the prescribed maximum.(2) The Secretary of State must issue, and from time to time revise and re-issue, a code of practice specifying factors to be considered by them in determining the amount of a penalty imposed under this section, as well as factors which they will use to assess if the issuance of a penalty would be in the public interest.(3) A penalty notice must—(a) state why the Secretary of State thinks the person is liable to the penalty,(b) state the amount of the penalty,(c) specify a date, at least 28 days after the date specified in the notice as the date on which it is given, before which the penalty must be paid,(d) specify how the penalty must be paid,(e) explain how the person may make an appeal against the penalty, and(f) explain how the Secretary of State may enforce the penalty.(4) Any person in receipt of a penalty notice under this section may appeal to the county court on the ground that they are not liable to the imposition of a penalty because—(a) they are not required to comply with the duty to report child sex offences under section 77,(b) a relevant exemption from that section applies,(c) a report under the duty was made and therefore the penalty was issued in error, or(d) the amount of the penalty is too high.(5) The court may—(a) allow the appeal and cancel the penalty,(b) allow the appeal and reduce the penalty, or(c) dismiss the appeal.(6) An appeal shall be a re-hearing of the Secretary of State's decision to impose a penalty, and shall be determined having regard to— (a) the code of practice under this section that has effect at the time of the appeal, and(b) any other matters which the court thinks relevant (which may include matters of which the Secretary of State was unaware).(7) An appeal must be brought within 28 days of the date the notice was received by the person upon whom it was issued.(8) A penalty under this section is recoverable as if it were payable under an order of the county court. Where action is taken to recovery a penalty under this section, the penalty is to be treated for the purposes of section 98 of the Courts Act 2003 (register of judgments and orders etc) as if it were a judgment entered in the county court.(9) Money paid to the Secretary of State by way of penalty must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that civil sanctions can be imposed for failure to comply with the duty to report suspected child sex offences.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Levitt
“ScheduleSexual offences against children under 16: consequential amendmentsFirearms Act 1968 (c.27)
1 (1) Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Firearms Act 1968 (offences to which section 17(2) applies) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (f), for “(3)(a) to (d)” substitute “(2)(a) to (d)”.(3) After paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) section 8A (rape of a child under 16);(fb) section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration);(fc) section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration), where the activity was caused;”.Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (c.17)
2 (1) Section 1(1A) of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (offences for purposes of section 1) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (e), for “(3)(a) to (d)” substitute “(2)(a) to (d)”.(3) After paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) an offence under section 8A or 8B of that Act;(eb) an offence under section 8C of that Act, where the activity involving penetration was caused;”.Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c.26)
3 (1) Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (d), for “(3)(a) to (d)” substitute “(2)(a) to (d)”.(3) After paragraph (d) insert—“(da) section 8A or 8B (rape of a child under 16; assault of a child under 16 by penetration);(db) section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration), where the activity was caused;”.Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48)
4 (1) Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (early release of prisoners: excluded offences) is amended as follows.(2) In the entry for section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, for “(3)(a) to (d)” substitute “(2)(a) to (d)”.(3) After the entry for section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 insert— “Section 8A (rape of a child under 16).Section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration).Section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration), where the activity was caused.”Children Act 1989 (c. 41)
5 In Schedule ZA1 to the Children Act 1989 (serious sexual offences for the purposes of section 10C), in paragraph 3 after paragraph (h) insert—“(ha) section 8A (rape of a child under 16);(hb) section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration);(hc) section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration);”.Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33)
6 (1) Section 25(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (offences to which bail restrictions apply) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (k), for “(3)(a) to (d)” substitute “(2)(a) to (d)”.(3) After paragraph (k) insert—“(ka) an offence under section 8A of that Act (rape of a child under 16);(kb) an offence under section 8B of that Act (assault of a child under 16 by penetration);(kc) an offence under section 8C of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration), where the activity was caused;”.Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (c. 53)
7 In section 11(9) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (definition of “rape”), for “or 5” substitute “, 5 or 8A”.Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43)
8 In section 32ZAB(1) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (specified offences for purposes of section 32ZAA), after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) an offence under section 8A of that Act (rape of a child under 16);”.Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)
9 (1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) In section 256AZBB(1) (specified offences for purposes of section 256AZBA), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) an offence under section 8A of that Act (rape of a child under 16);”.(3) In Schedule 4 (qualifying offences for purposes of section 62), after paragraph 16 insert—“Rape of a child under 16
16A An offence under section 8A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Attempted rape of a child under 16
16B An offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit an offence under section 8A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Assault of a child under 16 by penetration
16C An offence under section 8B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration
16D An offence under section 8C of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where it is alleged that the activity was caused.” (4) In Schedule 5 (qualifying offences for purposes of Part 10) after paragraph 15 insert—“Rape of a child under 16
15A An offence under section 8A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Attempted rape of a child under 16
15B An offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit an offence under section 8A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Assault of a child under 16 by penetration
15C An offence under section 8B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration
15D An offence under section 8C of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where it is alleged that the activity was caused.”(5) In Part 2 of Schedule 15 (specified sexual offences for purposes of sections 244ZA and 325) after paragraph 109 insert—“109A An offence under section 8A of that Act (rape of a child under 16).109B An offence under section 8B of that Act (assault of a child under 16 by penetration).109C An offence under section 8C of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration).”(6) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 34A (child sex offences for purposes of section 327A), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) sections 8A to 8C of that Act (rape and other offences against children under 16);”.Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c.12)
10 In section 116(8)(a) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (offences constituting child sexual exploitation), after the entry for sections 5 to 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 insert—“sections 8A to 8C (rape and other offences against children under 16);”.Modern Slavery Act 2015 (c.30)
11 In paragraph 33 of Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (sexual offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), after the entry for section 8 insert—“section 8A (rape of child under 16)section 8B (assault of child under 16 by penetration)section 8C (causing or inciting child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration)”.Sentencing Act 2020 (c. 17)
12 (1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 14 (extended sentences: the earlier offence condition: offences), in the table in paragraph 9, after the entry for section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 insert—
“(ga) Section 8A (rape of a child under 16) |
(gb) Section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration) |
(gc) Section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration)”. |
“(ga) section 8A (rape of a child under 16) | The date on which section 8A comes into force |
(gb) section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration) | The date on which section 8B comes into force |
(gc) section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration) | The date on which section 8C comes into force” |
“(fa) Section 8A (rape of a child under 16) |
(fb) Section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration) |
(fc) Section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration)”.” |
This new Schedule makes minor and consequential amendments in relation to my new clause (Sexual offences against children under 16) inserted after clause 73.
Baroness Levitt
“(ia) sections 8A to 8C (rape and other offences against children under 16);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Sexual offences against children under 16), inserted after clause 73.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends paragraph 2(d) so that it does not include offences under sections 66E and 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as only adults can be victims of those offences).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends paragraph 7 of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends paragraph 8 of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends paragraph 14 of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends paragraph 17 of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends the definition of looking after a child on an individual basis, in paragraph 18 of Schedule 10, to cover supervised contact.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments extending paragraphs of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments extending paragraphs of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines “regular contact” for the purposes of Part 2 of Schedule 10.
Baroness Walmsley
“(6A) The sixth case is where P witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse, such as pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease, to an extent that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed. (6B) The seventh case is where P witnesses a person (A) behaving in the presence of a child in a way that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that A may have committed a child sex offence.(6C) A failure to comply with the duty under section 72(1) is not an offence where the reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed arises from subsection (6A) or subsection (6B).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that there should be a duty to report where a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse. Failure to report in these instances would not attract a criminal sanction.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, in light of the unusual nature of the letter from two members of the board of IICSA to the Home Secretary, I intend to test the opinion of the House. I acknowledge that, when this Government came in, they said that they would agree to and try to implement all the recommendations of IICSA, and they have done a great deal, but I am afraid they have not done so on mandatory reporting. To show support for the amazing work done by the whole of the IICSA board, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Guidance(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the duty under section 77 to persons who engage in relevant activities.(2) Those persons must have regard to the guidance.(3) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under this section.(5) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.(6) Subsections (2) to (4) apply to revised guidance, except that subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that the revisions are not substantial.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the duty to report child sex abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations changing the persons to whom a notification under clause 77 is to be given.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations adding further exceptions to the duty under clause 77.
“(c) Part 1 of Schedule 10 (child sex offences);(d) Part 2 of Schedule 10 (further relevant activities) so as to add or change an activity.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations amending Part 2 of Schedule 10 so that it may only be used to add or change an activity (not remove one).
Baroness Levitt
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a provision which requires the courts to dismiss certain actions in respect of personal injuries attributable to child sex abuse if there would be substantial prejudice to the defendant and it would not be equitable for the action to proceed.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendment 270 makes a change to Clause 87. In making this change, the Government are responding to the concerns raised by some of your Lordships in Committee.
Clause 87 itself is vital; it removes the current three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in respect of the abuse committed against them and gives effect to a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. This is needed because many victims and survivors are not able to talk—or even think—about the abuse they suffered until many years afterwards, which is a direct consequence of the abuse itself.
Clause 87 inserts new Section 11ZB into the Limitation Act 1980 because it is that Act that makes provision for the dismissal of actions which are outside the time limit for personal injury claims. Under new Section 11ZB(2), if an action is brought outside the usual three-year limitation period, for it to be dismissed the defendant must satisfy the court that a fair hearing cannot take place. Under the current drafting of new Section 11ZB(3), the action may also be dismissed if the defendant demonstrates that allowing the action to proceed would cause them substantial prejudice.
We have listened carefully to the testimony of victims and survivors, and reflected on the amendments debated in Committee, all of which raised concerns about the substantial prejudice test. We decided that they were right. The retention of Section 11ZB(2) alone both implements the relevant IICSA recommendation and ensures that those accused of child sexual abuse maintain their right to a fair hearing. I am therefore pleased to say that Amendment 270 removes new Section 11ZB(3) from Clause 87.
Many have spoken about this, and I pay tribute to them all, but I make special mention of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and Mr Stephen Bernard, who brought this to our attention swiftly. Mr Bernard spoke to me most movingly about his own experiences, and I thank him for this; he has played a big part in ensuring that the Government reached this decision. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, as I mentioned at Second Reading, I am very proud that with Clause 87 this Government abolished the time limitations in historical Church child sexual abuse cases. Survivors such as my friend Stephen Bernard, whom my noble friend the Minister referenced, were concerned that the clause, as originally drafted, added a new substantial prejudice, especially for historical cases. This created uncertainty, delays and an extra hurdle for survivors.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for listening to the concerns of survivors such as Stephen, and for tabling Amendment 270. With the removal of lines 31 to 39, the IICSA recommendation has now been adopted in full, thus ensuring better access to justice for the survivors of historical sexual abuse. I am very grateful to my noble friend.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I supported the amendment in Committee, and I echo the thanks given by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to the Minister for listening. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who tabled the original amendment. This is a really important clarification, which will help victims and prevent injustices happening in the future.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise for being a little late into the Chamber; things moved much more rapidly than I think any of us anticipated. I spoke about this issue at some length, I fear, at Second Reading, in setting out what I thought were the difficulties legally in this area. In Committee, I invited the Government to give their response to my various submissions, which were effectively that the law, as it existed, provided sufficient safeguards so that claimants could bring their claims much later than the three-year limitation period that applies to a personal injuries claim, provided that they satisfied the various criteria set out in Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.
I agree with the Minister that the clause as originally drafted ran the risk of generating further litigation—and I declare my interest in having been involved in a great deal of this kind of litigation over the years. I thought that would be a mistake. I am glad the substantial prejudice provision has been removed from the clause, because it gives some welcome clarity and should minimise the risk of there being further unnecessary litigation in which the precise meaning of the provisions is probed inevitably by one side or another.
This is not quite where I would have liked the law to be, because I think the law is satisfactory as it is. However, I think that I, or anybody else concerned in this area, would differ with the general aim, which is to make sure that those who, for very good reasons, have delayed bringing claims are sufficiently protected by the law and can invite the courts to take into account their delay. The risk that I was concerned about, which was adverted to in the well-known case of A v Hoare, was the real risk that it would be impossible for there to a be a fair trial in certain circumstances because of the lapse of time. Perhaps witnesses have disappeared, documents have gone missing, and then there are all the other factors that can make it impossible for a fair trial to take place.
Although this is not quite the result I would have preferred, I think I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance that the Government’s position will preserve those twin aims: to preserve a claimant’s right to bring claims, albeit late, if there is a good reason, but also to protect a defendant if, because of the lapse of time, it is impossible for there to be fair trial. I hope that she can reassure me that she thinks that this definition will preserve the observations made by the House of Lords in A v Hoare that there comes a time when it is simply too late to have a fair trial. A fair trial, of course, will concern a defendant who probably was not in any way responsible for the perpetration of any sexual abuse and, because of the operation of the doctrine of vicarious liability, was deemed to be responsible—such as a school or other institution—because I do not think anybody has any sympathy for the actual perpetrators, however late a claim may be brought.
It is my observation that it is not a wholly satisfactory situation, but I am grateful to the Government for at least removing some of the ambiguity that was in the original way that the clause was framed.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this is a significant amendment which my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, with the support of noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House, originally tabled as a probing amendment in Committee. The removal of new Section 11ZB(3) from the Bill is important. If it had remained in the Bill, it would have weakened the removal of limitation periods for civil claims arising from child sexual abuse, correctly introduced by the proceeding provision new Section 11ZA. By removing subsection (3), it is fair to say we send a clear message that the law recognises the particular trauma and complexity that so often characterises historic cases of child sexual abuse.
In Committee, we moved the amendment on the grounds that new Section 11ZB added uncertainty for survivors. Noble Lords from across the House raised concerns then, and have mentioned them today as well, that an additional hurdle could undermine the purpose of the reform and create ambiguity for claimants. I am therefore very pleased that the Minister has had a change of heart. I am tempted to explore further the reasons behind that, but for the time being, I thank her for the change of heart.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House who welcomed this government amendment. On the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, sadly the courts are very used to dealing with non-recent cases of child sexual abuse and the issues of loss of evidence and loss of opportunity to present matters, and I am confident that the courts will be able to deal with that in a fair way. I am pleased to hear that there is overall support for the amendment. I thank again those who raised this with us in Committee, and I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment creating a new offence of sharing semen-defaced images (see my amendment to Schedule 11, page 321, line 19).
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to be opening today’s debate on intimate image abuse. It gives me great pleasure to be able to say that, over the course of the passage of this Bill in your Lordships’ House, I have had a number of extremely helpful conversations on the subjects of pornography, child sexual abuse images, misogyny and a lot of other subjects which, while often distasteful, are important in the fight against violence against women and girls. We will cover some of those issues in this group and others in subsequent groups. I want to say, in relation to all of them, how grateful I am to those Members of your Lordships’ House who have taken the time to speak to me and work with me.
In the context of this group, I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Owen, Lady Kidron, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Clement-Jones. A substantial part of my career as a lawyer has been spent in the fight against violence against women and children—not only girls—and I thought that I was pretty knowledgeable about it in the context of the criminal law, but I am more than happy to acknowledge that I have learned a great deal from those to whom I have spoken in the context of this Bill, and I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. On a number of occasions, I have changed my mind after speaking to them and I have no doubt that this is a better Bill as a result, and so I thank them.
As a result of what has been said in the debates and other conversations, the Government have tabled a collection of amendments that, taken together, create a package of further changes that strengthen the overall intimate image abuse regime already contained in the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will agree that they show that the Government are listening and acting.
I have already mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, but I also thank Professor Clare McGlynn; they have both worked hard to keep these issues at the top of the agenda. These amendments are also a tribute to the vital work of organisations such the Revenge Porn Helpline and Refuge and, of course, the victims and survivors themselves, who have taken the courageous and important step of reporting online abuse and raising awareness.
I have already said that I am proud of these amendments, but I am aware that, for some, they do not go far enough. I ask those who will speak to their amendments today to accept two things: that we are all on the same side about the harm that we are trying to prevent and that I am truly committed to trying to get this right. When I say that I cannot accede to something, there is a good reason for it, and I am not refusing to accept amendments for partisan reasons or simply out of stubbornness.
This landscape changes fast and usually not for the better, but there is a reason that we sometimes urge caution before creating new criminal offences and penalties. There can be real dangers in making piecemeal changes as soon as we are confronted by some new horrifying behaviour causing harm to so many victims. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that we do not legislate in haste and then come to regret it. If, in relation to some of these proposals, I ask that the Government are given time to gather more evidence and then consider the best way of going about preventing such behaviour, I ask your Lordships to accept that this comes from a good place—namely, wanting to make sure that any laws we pass capture the crimes we have in mind but do not have unanticipated consequences.
I turn to semen-defaced images. This is not a pleasant thing to discuss in polite society, but I need to make it clear what is meant by this, what the harm is and what we are doing in relation to it. What is meant by semen-defaced images are images of semen deposited on to another image, often a photograph and usually a photograph of a woman. It is disgraceful behaviour. It is designed to degrade and humiliate the woman in the picture, and we cannot tolerate this misogynistic behaviour in a civilised society. The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, persuaded me that we should make this a criminal offence and so we have done so. That is why the Government are bringing forward Amendments 271, 278, 279, 290 and 292 today. Together, they introduce a new offence of sharing a semen-defaced image of another person without consent.
This is the first step in stamping out this type of behaviour for good, but it is not the end. We are determined to tackle violence against women and girls in all its forms, and we want to ensure that the criminal law gets ahead of emerging harms. That is why we have announced in the VAWG strategy that we are launching a call for evidence better to understand online misogynistic, image-based abuse and the extent to which there are new harms and behaviour that may not be fully captured by existing criminal offences.
The issue of screenshotting was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, at Second Reading and in Committee. Intimate images are personal and private. Consenting adults are of course free to share them and may do so in ways that are permanent or temporary. A person’s right to share their image temporarily in private must be respected, and if there is a violation of that right, it must be addressed. Government Amendments 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, 291, 293, 294 and 295, taken together, make it a criminal offence non-consensually to take a screenshot of, or copy in any way, an intimate image that the victim has shared only temporarily. This offence sits alongside, and mirrors wherever relevant, the other intimate image offences, and it sends a clear message to those who engage in this non-consensual behaviour that it is unacceptable and will be punished.
I briefly turn to the subject of takedown. I know that Amendment 275, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, will be debated later today in a separate group, but I will take a moment to mention the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 19 February. We will bring forward government Amendments at Third Reading in response to Amendment 275 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to ensure that tech companies are legally required to have measures to take down reported non-consensual intimate image abuse within 48 hours to ensure that victims get rapid protection. It is important to refer to this now to demonstrate the Government’s action in this space as a whole. Where we have been able to, we have moved. I hope that your Lordships will bear that in mind as we progress through this debate.
I am also pleased to say that Amendments 296 and 456 designate new offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to criminalise creating and requesting purported deepfake, non-consensual intimate images as priority offences under the Online Safety Act. As many of your Lordships will know, this means that platforms will face the stronger duties that apply to the most serious illegal content. They will be required to assess specifically the risks of the service being used to facilitate this offence; to mitigate and manage the risk of the service being used to commit the offence; to take proactive steps to prevent users encountering such content; and to minimise the time that such content is present on their platform. There has been understandable public concern over the creation and dissemination of non-consensual sexual deepfakes on X, and the Government have been clear that no woman or child should live in fear of having their image sexually manipulated. These amendments help put that principle into practice.
Finally, Amendment 455 makes a small minor and technical change in respect of the taking and installing offences in the Bill, and I can provide further details if any of your Lordships would like them. I beg to move.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 273, 274, 275, 276, 284 and 296A in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Pannick, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. In doing so, I declare an interest as I have received pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya on image-based sexual abuse. I will also speak to government Amendments 278, 281 and 296. I want to place on record my support for Amendment 277 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
I thank the Minister for her determination to make progress on this issue. We have made huge strides since Committee, and I am very grateful. I also thank the survivors and campaigners who have fought for so long for these changes.
Amendment 273 seeks to ensure that in relation to abusers who are convicted of an intimate image abuse offence the court must,
“order the destruction of any content used to commit the offence on any device or data store containing”
it, and that prosecutors,
“lodge a deletion verification report within 28 days”.
While I acknowledge that the Government have updated the law to clarify that this content should be seen as being used to commit the offence under Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020, this does not offer victims any guarantee of the total destruction of the content used to commit the crime.
One survivor, Daria, whose convicted abuser was allowed to keep the content of her, said, “The weapons with which he caused life-shattering harm remain in his arsenal. Despite the severity of the crimes, as reflected in the sentences handed down by the Crown Court, I remain at his mercy with regard to whether he chooses to violate me again in the same way”. Daria is not alone in her experience. Shanti Das, a journalist who undertook research on this and published in February 2025, found that of the 98 image-based abuse offences prosecuted in magistrates’ courts in England and Wales in the preceding six months, only three resulted in deprivation orders. It is quite simply appalling. Survivors of this abuse deserve better. On this amendment, I will test the opinion of the House.
Amendments 274 and 276 mandate the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to create a centralised statutory hash registry and mandate hash sharing. The Revenge Porn Helpline currently runs the voluntary register called StopNCII.org and has confirmed that it would be willing to run the centralised registry. The Revenge Porn Helpline does incredible work supporting victims of intimate image abuse and has a 90% success rate on the removal of content. However, 10% of the content is on non-compliant sites.
The amendment seeks to tackle non-compliance by allowing the Revenge Porn Helpline to co-ordinate with internet service providers to mandate the blocking of verified NCII content in cases of non-compliance, thus avoiding the long and bureaucratic process of obtaining business disruption measures under Ofcom that are of little comfort to victims whose image remains online. One victim, Jane, stated that,
“the platform’s slow and inconsistent enforcement left me feeling trapped in a relentless cycle, where the harm snowballed with every hour the abusive content stayed up. Constantly monitoring the internet, reporting the same material, and watching it reappear has taken a huge mental toll”.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 277, which would create a specific criminal offence of secretly filming someone without their consent for sexual gratification or in order to humiliate or distress them. In addition, it would make profiting from such footage a serious aggravating factor for sentencing, bringing clarity to a legal grey area and aligning the law with the reality of abuse in the digital age.
This amendment follows a BBC investigation which exposed the widespread practice of men covertly filming women on nights out and then monetising the footage on online platforms. The BBC identified over 65 channels across YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram posting this content. The material is being filmed in major cities worldwide, including London, and Manchester is a hotspot, with creators travelling from abroad specifically to capture surreptitious low-angle shots of fully closed women in dresses and skirts as they walk along the street. These are then uploaded as so-called “walking tours” or “nightlife content”. These posts have racked up more than 3 billion views in the last three years, with a single video generating up to £5,000 in revenue from ads and sponsorship.
Women and girls deserve to move freely in public without fearing that their bodies will be splashed across the internet without their consent. The problem is that existing voyeurism offences turn on narrow definitions of nudity and privacy. We welcome the Bill’s focus on non-consensual intimate image abuse and support the Government’s amendments and those tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Owen and Lady Bertin. However, these are confined to images of subjects in an intimate state. Fully clothed people generally fall outside this definition, even when filmed for sexual kicks.
Amendment 277 instead focuses on the degrading and predatory intent, which is where much of the harm lies. It centres on the victim’s humiliation and objectification, rather than on narrow definitions of body parts, clothing or location. It follows Law Commission advice to expand voyeurism legislation to non-private settings, based on intent. This amendment is carefully targeted at those with malign motivations.
In 2024, Greater Manchester Police made an arrest for this practice. However, no further action could be taken due to what the force described as “limitations in current legislation”. Harassment and stalking laws fail because they require a proven course of conduct. Abusers know that this behaviour is not currently captured by law and are exploiting this loophole. Without action, predators will continue to see this as a risk-free way of making easy money.
My honourable friend Wera Hobhouse MP has tabled a Private Member’s Bill on this issue. I echo her calls to compel platforms to remove such content. The Angiolini Inquiry recently warned that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are still not sufficiently prioritised. That is why I urge the Minister to give my amendment the serious consideration that it deserves. We need concrete action, not more rhetoric.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this group covers a range of human conduct, from the objectionable to the disgusting. I thank the Minister for tabling a series of amendments which will benefit women and society at large. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for all the work that she has done, which has led us to this position, and for the amendments that she has tabled. I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to her.
I will speak specifically to Amendment 273, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to which I have added my name. I understand that the noble Baroness may, if the Minister does not accept the amendment, wish to test the opinion of the House. This amendment simply seeks to impose a duty on a court to make a deprivation and deletion order where a person is convicted of an offence involving sharing or threatening to share intimate images without the consent of the victim.
The argument in favour of this amendment is very simple. It is necessary to give comfort to the victim who knows that the perpetrator has created or distributed the intimate images without consent. Unless there is a duty to destroy this content, the victim is inevitably going to remain extremely concerned that the content will remain in circulation and in existence.
That is the first argument. The second argument is that I can think of no justification whatever why the culprit should retain such intimate images when they have been convicted of being a wrongdoer in this respect. Those two points make this amendment unanswerable, and I strongly support it.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group—the government amendments, those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and the other amendment that was tabled. It was such an excellent speech, with such detail, that I do not want to go over the specifics, except to say that the noble Baroness is our leader and we will follow her through the Lobby.
I want to make one point, regarding the fantastic list of what is in the gap between what Ofcom can do and what Parliament can do. We should hesitate on that thought. Having looked a little this afternoon at the Government’s consultation, I see that there is almost nothing about what Ofcom cannot do, almost nothing about enforcement and, as I explained earlier, almost nothing about risk assessment. What happens beforehand, to prevent all this? What happens after it has all happened and we start to get enforcement? We cannot keep playing around in the middle. We have to go upstream, to the beginning, and we have to come to the end and get these things categorically dealt with in a way that interferes with business and makes it unacceptable to do it. With that, I will be supporting the noble Baroness.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge for the tenacity and expertise that she has brought to this issue. I acknowledge how far the Government have moved in response to her work and thank the Minister for her work and that of her department on this issue and willingness to listen. We now have a large number of government amendments to address concerns across take-down, screenshotting and semen issues. There has been huge progress. However, I support all my noble friend’s amendments and will speak very briefly to two of them.
Amendment 273 is, as we have heard, needed to ensure that those who perpetrate intimate image abuse are not allowed to keep the images. As it stands, it is extraordinary that perpetrators can leave court with intimate images of their victims still in their possession in some form. That cannot be allowed to continue. I hope that noble Lords from across the whole House will support my noble friend if we need a Division on this.
On the take-down service, I gently press the Government, as my noble friend has set out, on how their approach will deliver the protection for victims that her Amendments 274 and 276 would. The Prime Minister promised the public “one and done”, as we have heard: once an abusive image is identified, it should come down from all platforms permanently. That is the right promise. However, as my noble friend has set out, it is not clear that the Government’s proposal will deliver on that promise. Without a centralised comprehensive register, I do not see how it can be delivered. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this point.
The Government’s amendments reflect genuine and welcome progress on these issues. I very much hope that the Minister can take the final steps that are needed today.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her tenacity and the way in which she has consistently spoken up for the victims.
I will speak briefly to Amendments 273 and 274. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his usual reassuringly expensive way, managed to pinpoint what this amendment is about. In effect, it would give courts an undertaking that they have a duty to see that the images that somebody has been convicted for taking and disseminating are destroyed. That seems unarguable. I hope that the Minister, with all her experience, can demonstrate why that should not be the case, because for almost everybody in the Chamber it seems to be a no-brainer.
In Amendment 274, we are revisiting some of the discussions that we had in Committee and on Report during the passage of the Online Safety Bill on the difficulty that victims have in being left to their own devices to deal with this, platform by platform, because each platform deals—or does not deal—with complaints in a different way. To have the indignity of having had something unmentionable done to you, which could happen on more than one platform, and then to have to individually pursue each platform and find that each platform has a different way of dealing with it and different hoops to go through, is piling injury upon insult.
We argued as well as we could during the passage of what became the Act that there should be much more thought given to the experience of victims as they try to confront what has happened to them and bring the organisations that have inflicted it on them, or enabled it, to book.
The way in which it has currently emerged from the Act and the way in which victims are still experiencing this huge variability and inconsistency is clearly an injustice, and I hope the Government will recognise that. Even if they are not ready and able to do something about it this evening, we would be most grateful for an undertaking that they will look at this very carefully and come back with something that the noble Baroness and the rest of us might find acceptable.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I find it hard to comprehend any reason why anybody on the Labour Benches could possibly contemplate not voting for these amendments. On Amendment 273, if the argument is, “Oh, leave it with us”, that is not convincing. The Labour Party has some problems with young women voters and problems with women voters; it has problems with all voters actually at the moment. There has to be more than “Leave it with us” as a response.
I say to male Labour Party members—I am speaking to the Labour Party, but I want to emphasise the point —that I have no intention of going back to my daughters and granddaughters without this, or something equivalent or better, going through. If the Labour Party thinks that it can stop that, it is a moment of some crisis.
That is not necessarily what I am hearing from the Minister’s opening remarks, but I have no intention of doing anything that would stop this, in this form or a better one, becoming law. I think I once met the Minister in her former life, but I have not had the pleasure of meeting her since she has been a Minister here. I found it refreshing that she had already made a number of—“concessions” is the wrong word—discussed and thought-through changes, having been prepared to listen. I thought that was refreshing; we are not hearing or seeing enough of Ministers who are prepared to do that. It is a weakness in all Governments in recent times, so it is very refreshing.
I hope to hear how we are going to accept these changes, because there is not a case to answer, in relation to Amendment 273, that this should be stopped. I am looking forward to a continuity of the very welcome approach, which will make my remarks totally redundant by showing that there is a new spirit emerging in how we work to get the best possible legislation that we can all be proud of.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I will add just one small point, and in doing so congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, who I regard as a friend. It is a great thing that these amendments are not gender specific, by which I mean that men have also been targeted in this way. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that what she intends would cover people of both sexes if they are the victims of this horrible exposure.
We all know how difficult it is to change something that has been said, or an image. Therefore, anything in the law that helps us to take down things that are offensive or, as the noble Lord said, disgusting, is welcome. These things very often just lodge in the mind; that is why it is so psychologically damaging to think, “Somebody has seen this and now it is so difficult to take it down”. So I completely support these amendments.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I also completely support these amendments, noble Lords will be unsurprised to hear. I have just a couple of points, because so many have been made very well already. I can feel the exhaustion of victims, still, in all this. The idea that you have to chase around all the different websites and service providers, and take it on trust, is just not acceptable: no way.
The Government have to be really careful when they make big announcements that get a lot of coverage like “One and done” or “A nudification tech ban is done”, which we will come on to later, because that leaves victims with a false sense of hope because, if we discover that that is not the case, that is just not good.
But obviously I want to thank the Minister for listening; that was a powerful point that was made before. I certainly will be backing these amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly—I hope as briefly as other noble Lords—to, first, thank the Government for the movement that they have made in tabling their amendments. Secondly, I support my noble friend Lady Doocey with her Amendment 277, which would extend the aspect of voyeurism. Thirdly, and in particular, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, nearly all of which I have co-signed, which address the devastating viral nature of non-consensual intimate image abuse, on which she has so effectively campaigned. Her amendments seek, I believe very effectively, to close the gaps that leave victims traumatised by the repeated uploading of their abuse.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, resisted the call from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for a statutory NCII hash register, arguing that it would lead to duplication of work already being done voluntarily by organisations such as the Revenge Porn Helpline and tech platforms. But voluntary compliance is not a systemic solution. CSAM is tackled systematically because it is mandated. NCII victims deserve the exact same proactive statutory infrastructure to prevent cross-posting and reuploads.
The Minister also resisted the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, which sought strict deletion orders, claiming that existing deprivation orders were sufficient. Yet research shows that only a tiny fraction of intimate image prosecutions result in deprivation orders, leaving abusers with copies of the images in their cloud accounts. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained exactly why we need the new orders very clearly.
In Committee, the Minister dismissed the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, which sought to tackle the degrading practice of semen images, claiming that the drafting was too broad and might inadvertently criminalise a woman fully clothed at a hen night posing with a novelty item. I very much welcome the change of heart by the Minister, the Home Office and the MoJ in that respect.
We are talking about the targeted sick degradation of women’s images online and the law must adapt to protect women from this rapidly growing form of abuse. I believe that when a conviction is secured, the court must have the power to order the destruction of images and the disclosure of passwords. Without this, the victim lives in perpetual fear of reupload.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has made a very strong case for her amendments, which make substantial improvements to the government proposals. I welcome the government proposals, but I believe they could go further.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been an important and, at times, deeply sobering debate. I place on record my sincere thanks to my noble friend Lady Owen, who has been tireless in campaigning on these issues inside and outside this House. In Committee, noble Lords from across the House recognised not only the seriousness of the harm caused by non-consensual intimate images but the persistence and expertise she has brought to improving the law in this area. That work has already borne fruit in previous legislation, and it continues to shape the debate constructively here.
It is also pleasing to hear the Government agreeing with much of what my noble friend Lady Owen has said. The Prime Minister made absolutely no mention of her work when he announced the 48-hour takedown policy, and we all know that that success lies with her, so I am pleased the Minister has rectified that today. My noble friend has also highlighted an inconsistency in the Government’s position. If they are to enact the 48-hour takedown policy, they will need to establish a central hash register, given the gap between what Ofcom is able to do and what would be required to enact the Prime Minister’s announcement.
These proposals relating to hashing and the establishment of a statutory non-consensual intimate image register build on existing voluntary initiatives, including work undertaken by the Revenge Porn Helpline. In Committee, there was recognition across the House that hashing technology has already proven effective in tackling child sexual abuse material and that extending similar mechanisms to adult victims of intimate image abuse merits serious consideration. But, more than that, they are essential to enacting the Government’s own recently announced policy.
The proposal to require deprivation and deletion orders following conviction is, surely, the logical conclusion of the existence of the offence. If it is an offence for these images to be made and shared, then a court should require their deletion.
The amendments concerning screenshotting, copying of temporarily shared images, and the creation or distribution of degrading material are also rooted in the lived experience of many individuals, particularly young women and girls. Technology has outpaced the assumptions underpinning older offences. As my noble friend has argued, consent given for a time-limited viewing is not consent to permanent capture, nor should the law allow perpetrators to evade liability through technical loopholes.
Finally, on Amendment 277, we are supportive of the proposed expansion of the voyeurism offence to include where a person records non-consensual images of a person with the intent of obtaining sexual gratification. It is appalling that people can film others without their knowledge and consent and use those images for their own nefarious purposes.
I also thank the Government for their welcome engagement with my noble friend on these matters. It has been clear, both in Committee and since the Ministers met with my noble friend and other stakeholders, that there has been constructive cross-party dialogue. This is reflected in the numerous amendments they have tabled in this group to similar effect. That spirit of collaboration is to be commended. These issues, which concern dignity, privacy, exploitation, and protection from abuse, should never be partisan. I am therefore grateful for what has been achieved up to this point.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the people-pleaser in me would love to be able to say, “Oh, go on then— I will accept them all and make everybody happy”, but I am afraid there are some good reasons why I cannot accept some of these amendments. I am going to try to respond to them all as briefly as possible, in the hope of explaining why the Government do not consider these amendments necessary in some cases, and do not consider it desirable for them to be done through the unwieldy mechanism of primary legislation in others.
I start with Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on deletion orders. I say at the outset that the Government of course recognise the harm caused by those who retain copies of intimate images, and we want to ensure that the legal framework protects victims. We agree that it is a no-brainer about the principle, but, for reasons I will come to in a moment, it is not as simple to enact as it might seem.
The noble Baroness has correctly identified that there is a difference between depriving offenders of devices that have been used, and actually getting rid of—deleting—the images themselves. If there is an issue about insufficient judges making deprivation orders for devices, then we must tackle that. This amendment is not the solution to that. Indeed, if she is right that judges are proving to be reluctant, there is a risk that, even if this deletion order provision came into force, they might be reluctant to do that as well. That is not the way to tackle judges not making the orders.
We must make sure that what we do is workable. Verified deletion is highly complex in practice. There are a number of challenges concerning, for example, images stored in the cloud. The noble Baroness’s amendment is very short on the practical measures that would be needed to make it effective, such as how the verification is to be carried out, what the penalty would be for an offender who refuses to comply with an order to provide the password, or what happens during the appeal period. For example, in the Crown Court, defendants have 28 days following conviction to lodge grounds for appeal. These are all significant drafting issues that present problems with the amendment as tabled by the noble Baroness, so we need to give this further thought.
As I said to the noble Baroness in Committee and during our recent meetings, we are already amending deprivation orders so that they can be applied to seize intimate images and any devices containing those images, regardless of whether the device was used in the offence itself.
One of the issues which concerns us is that only a fraction of the victims of intimate images go through the criminal justice system. Many victims do not want to go anywhere near a criminal court, so we want to look at the available remedies in the civil courts in order to ensure that these, too, will offer meaningful redress for victims.
But anything we do needs to be comprehensive and in a package that works well together, ensuring removal of these images as quickly as possible. That is why I am pleased to announce today that we intend to review the available court order protection for victims of intimate image abuse across civil and criminal courts. The review is going to include routes for deletion to ensure that it is fit for purpose, that it identifies necessary improvements and that it has attached to it all the consequential provisions that are needed to make sure that it is actually effective.
This is not an attempt by the Government to kick the can down the road. We want to get it right, and we want it to have material value. We do not want to create something that does not work so judges do not use it. But we do not think a court order available in the criminal court addresses this problem as a whole, and that is why we need to take time to think more comprehensively about a tailored solution, working for victims and for criminal justice partners. The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, Professor McGlynn and I have discussed this, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment today in the light of that announcement.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The amendment, as she understands, imposes a duty on judges. Therefore, there is no question of a judge deciding not to use it. More substantially, I am very concerned about the delay that will result if the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, does not move her amendment. Surely, the proper way to deal with this is for the Government to accept the amendment, and, if they will not, for the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to move it. If the Government wish, as they are perfectly entitled to, to add or to subtract, they can do so at Third Reading or, perhaps more realistically, in the other place. They will have plenty of time to do that; let us get on today and put this into law.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I will say two things in response to the noble Lord. The first is that the criminal courts tend not to be very keen on provisions that they regard as complex when they come at the end of a sentencing hearing. They tend to react by saying, “We’re going to leave this to be dealt with through some other mechanism because it’s too complicated. We can’t work out how to verify it”—the sorts of objections that occasionally are made in relation to, for example, very complicated compensation orders or confiscation orders. The second point is that there is, as I have already said, a real risk in piecemeal legislation that you bring in provisions for one court that then do not work in the read-across from the civil courts. On the civil courts, we cannot do that today.
We need to do this quickly, and we absolutely recognise this. After all, there is no point in saying that we take this stuff seriously and then saying that we are not going to do anything about getting rid of the images. It is illogical, apart from anything else, as well as perhaps not being very moral either. I ask the noble Baroness to accept the sincerity of what we say. That is as far as I can go today.
I turn now to Amendment 274, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I understand and agree with what she is trying to achieve. The only issue between us is whether this is the right way to do it. Ofcom has already consulted on additional safety measures for its illegal content codes of practice. These proposed measures explicitly include the use of perceptual hash-matching technology to detect and remove non-consensual intimate imagery, including deepfakes.
To be deemed compliant with their Online Safety Act duties by following the codes, services would need to deploy this technology automatically to identify and remove such content, providing victims with reassurance that their images are being removed swiftly. Given the urgent need to strengthen protection in this area, Ofcom announced on 19 February that it is accelerating timelines and will publish its final decision on these proposals on the use of hash matching in May, with measures expected to come into effect by the summer.
We consider that the work of Ofcom meets the aims of the noble Baroness’s amendment. The protection that she seeks will be delivered promptly and robustly through Ofcom’s forthcoming codes of practice. It is an area where unnecessarily imposing duties in statute, especially where work is already in progress, could have the adverse effect of restricting the flexibility of this work should it need to respond and change to the ever-changing online landscape in the future.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
The Prime Minister launched his strategy for tackling non-compliance by saying that it would be a “one and done” system. Does the Minister acknowledge that the Ofcom system is not a “one and done” system? It is dependent on a series of factors, including whether all service providers choose to adopt third-party hashing. If they choose to operate their own hash database where they do not share the hashes, it is not a “one and done” system. I would really like to tidy up the confusion here between whether the Prime Minister is right or what is being said here is correct.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right. The difference between us is what we understand by the system. The Government’s position is that the Ofcom system will achieve what the Prime Minister said he wanted to achieve. That is the difference between the noble Baroness and me. I am not sure that I can go any further than that this evening.
I turn now to Amendment 276, once again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on the NCII register. The Government recognise the vital work undertaken by the Revenge Porn Helpline, including operating a database of existing hashes of non-consensual intimate images that are shared with participating companies to detect and remove the images online. We recognise the benefits that a register of verified NCII content would provide, including the important role that it could play in supporting victims in the removal of the content.
This is one of those instances where the issue between us is whether it is necessary or desirable to put it on a statutory footing. The Government’s position is that it is not a necessity for its success and needs very careful consideration, especially to ensure that an NCII register aligns with the process taken by the Internet Watch Foundation’s register for child sexual abuse imagery, which operates successfully and has never been on a statutory footing, and to avoid any unintended consequences. For this reason, I confirm that the Government are committing to undertake a preliminary evaluation to determine the operational needs and impact of establishing a successful central register for non-consensual intimate image abuse.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
I think it is important to clarify for the sake of the House that, with regard to the Internet Watch Foundation’s CSAM register, CSAM is illegal in and of itself. NCII—non-consensual intimate image—material is not illegal in and of itself. Therefore, a voluntary system will not work. It needs to be on a statutory footing.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I do not think anyone is suggesting that it should be voluntary. It is simply whether it should be established through primary legislation or regulation. I used the expression earlier about the unwieldiness of primary legislation. After all, one of the problems with legislating through primary legislation is that, if you get it wrong, you have to try to amend it or repeal it, whereas if you have regulations, particularly backed up by enforcement powers, it is a much nimbler way of going about things. That is the issue between us.
The evaluation will also assess critical considerations that are still outstanding, including the effect that such a registry has on intermediary liability and what is needed to establish robust verification procedures. The findings will be used to guide next steps to ensure that any options are sustainable and effective and work alongside existing regulation for platforms.
Turning again to semen-defaced images and Amendments 284 and 296A, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, as I said when opening this group, the Government agree with her that semen imagery is disgusting behaviour. That is exactly why we have brought forward our own amendments to criminalise the sharing of a semen-defaced image without consent. The inclusion of
“semen … on any part of their body”,
as in the noble Baroness’s amendment, is unnecessary, because such images would already fall within the scope of the intimate image offences. To answer her question directly, I can confirm that the example she gave will, and should, already be covered by the existing legislation. The noble Baroness asked whether we can, in effect, require the CPS to amend its guidance to make it clearer. The CPS is, of course, an independent organisation—constitutionally, importantly so—but we can certainly look at asking the CPS whether it would be prepared to do so.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I am sure the whole House agrees with, in essence, what Amendment 273 says, but I also noted from my noble friend that it is much more complex than I had understood. I am sure that she is as frustrated as everyone else that these things take time, and I wonder whether she is able to give us any timeline. Sorry, I am an optimist, but this is an extremely important amendment. I will be supporting the Government, but it would be good to know if we are talking about months or whatever, because obviously we want to see this in statute as soon as possible.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I do not think I can quite express how unpopular I would be if I suddenly, on the hoof, came out with a time. All I can say is that we are committed to doing this quickly.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I emphasise that we have talked about drafting issues on Amendment 273. Obviously, I do not want to delay proceedings, but I remind the House that I first brought up forced deletion in September 2024, so the issue has been before the House now for about 17 months. It was in the Data (Use and Access) Bill in December 2024, when the Minister said, “There’s no problem here because it should be seen under Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020”. This is not working, and the only answer really is to deal with the matter tonight.
Baroness Levitt
“Purported intimate image generators(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After section 66H insert— “66I Making or supplying purported intimate image generators(1) A person commits an offence if the person—(a) makes or adapts a thing, or(b) supplies or offers to supply a thing,for use as a generator of purported intimate images.(2) A “generator of purported intimate images” is a thing for creating, or facilitating the creation of, purported intimate images of a person.(3) A person makes, adapts, supplies, or offers to supply a thing for use as a generator of purported intimate images if a reasonable person (having regard to all the circumstances) would consider that they do so.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the thing being used for creating, or facilitating the creation of, purported intimate images of a person without the person’s consent.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine (or both).(6) Section 72(1) applies in relation to an act which, if done in England and Wales, would constitute an offence under this section as if references to a United Kingdom national included—(a) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or(b) an unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.(7) In this section—“purported intimate image” of a person, and references to creating a purported intimate image of a person, have the same meaning as in section 66E;“thing” includes a program, information in electronic form and a service.66J Section 66I: further defences(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 66I to prove that the person did the act which constituted the offence for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 66I to prove that the person—(a) was a member of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ (a “security body”), and(b) did the act which constituted the offence for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the security body.(3) “GCHQ” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 66I to prove that the person—(a) was a member of OFCOM, was employed or engaged by OFCOM, or assisted OFCOM in the exercise of any of its online safety functions, and(b) did the act which constituted the offence for the purposes of OFCOM’s exercise of any of its online safety functions.(5) In subsection (4)—(a) “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications; (b) a reference to OFCOM’s “online safety functions” has the meaning given by section 235 of the Online Safety Act 2023.66K Section 66I: application to internet service providers(1) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 66I by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 66I by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on knowing of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 66I by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) when the information was provided the provider did not know that it was, or contained, a generator of purported intimate images, and(b) on knowing that the information was, or contained, a generator of purported intimate images, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(6) In this section—“generator of purported intimate images” has the same meaning as in section 66I;“internet service provider” means a provider of—(a) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(b) a service that provides access to the internet; “user”, in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.66L Liability for offence under section 66I committed by bodies(1) This section applies where an offence under section 66I is committed by a body.(2) If the offence is committed with the consent or connivance of—(a) a relevant person in relation to the body, or(b) a person purporting to act in the capacity of a relevant person in relation to the body,the person (as well as the body) commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.(3) In this section—“body” means a body corporate, a partnership or an unincorporated association other than a partnership;“relevant person” , in relation to a body, means—(a) in the case of a body corporate other than one whose affairs are managed by its members, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body;(b) in the case of a limited liability partnership or other body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, a member who exercises functions of management with respect to it;(c) in the case of a limited partnership, a general partner (within the meaning given by section 3 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907);(d) in the case of any other partnership, a partner;(e) in the case of an unincorporated association other than a partnership, a person who exercises functions of management with respect to it.”(3) In section 79(5) (meaning of references to image of a person), for “and 66G” substitute “, 66G and 66I”.(4) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 (sexual offences for purposes of section 72), after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) an offence under section 66I;”.(5) In Schedule 3 (sexual offences for purposes of Part 2), after paragraph 33B insert—“33C An offence under section 66I of this Act (purported intimate image generators), if the offender is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause creates offences of making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply a generator of purported intimate images.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be opening this group with the introduction of government Amendments 272, 297, 449, 450 and 458. I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for the insightful recommendations in her pornography review. I also thank her for meeting me on a number of occasions over the last few months, and for the cordial and constructive tone of those meetings.
There is very little between the Government and the noble Baroness in our objectives. We recognise that her intention is to prevent the deeply unpleasant and damaging effect of what happens in both the online and offline worlds, including the effects upon our children. I hope and believe she also recognises that I am sincere when I say that we want to achieve the same thing. Where possible, the Government have tried to deliver on the issues that she has raised, and I thank her for the time she has taken to talk them through with us. I know that she has some concerns with regard to certain aspects of these amendments, to which I will respond later, but first I will speak to the government amendments.
I start with nudification apps. Together, Amendments 272 and 449 introduce a new offence that will ban the making, adapting, supplying or offer to supply of a tool or service for use as a generator of intimate images. The offence will give effect to our violence against women and girls strategy commitment to ban nudification tools. The offence will capture intimate image generators in all their unpleasant forms, including, but not limited to, apps, software, websites, AI models and bots. To be captured by the criminal offence, the tool must be made or supplied for the use of generating purported intimate images, irrespective of whether that is a primary purpose. The nudification tool ban will be the first of its kind in the world, and it will target the developers and suppliers who profit from the profound distress and victimisation of others. We will work with international partners and fora to tackle this issue.
The Government are committed to tackling the scourge of non-consensual sexual deepfakes and will continue to act to ensure that artificial intelligence cannot be misused to generate this abusive content. In addition to banning image generators, we have announced that we will table an amendment to the Bill to allow the Government to bring additional chatbots into the scope of the Online Safety Act and require them to protect their users from illegal content, including non-consensual intimate images. We will also work with international partners and fora to tackle this issue. Once the offence is in force, the Online Safety Act will impose requirements on social media and search services to have processes and systems in place to remove illegal content that supplies or offers to supply nudification tools, and this will significantly limit their accessibility to users in the UK.
I turn to another unpleasant topic: incest. It is with some pride that I bring forward Amendments 297, 450 and 458. Together, these amendments criminalise the possession or publication of pornographic images that portray sexual activity between family members, otherwise known unattractively as incest porn. In doing so, we give effect to one of the key recommendations of the Independent Review of Pornography by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I know that she will soon speak to a cluster of her own amendments on this issue but, before she does, I place on record my sincere thanks to her for the vital role that she has played in bringing forward this important change.
We know there are concerns that the proliferation of incest-themed pornography can contribute to extremely harmful attitudes, particularly where it risks normalising child sexual abuse. The government amendment recognises those concerns. We are also pleased to announce that the new offence will be listed as a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, requiring platforms to take proactive and proportionate steps to stop this harmful material appearing online.
The offence as it stands will not capture pornography depicting relationships between step-relatives. This is a controversial topic, but such relationships are not illegal in real life. To be clear, though, any pornography involving real children, whether a step element is present or not, is already criminalised under the Protection of Children Act 1978. I beg to move.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 298, 297A to 297D, 281A, 300 and 300A in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, in particular, who has worked on this issue for so many years, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding their names to this set of amendments.
One thing is clear from the past few weeks: the status quo that has allowed abuse, misogyny, paedophilia and the exploitation of women and girls to flourish cannot continue. The recent release of the Epstein files, which were porn-drenched, should be our moment of reckoning, a moment that forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about power, complicity and the systems that allow abuse to thrive in plain sight.
One of those systems is the modern online pornography industry. This House knows my steadfast commitment to bringing effective regulation to that sector, and I believe that this group of amendments will bring about this much-needed reset. It is a sector that has been driven to abusive extremes by powerful, profit-driven algorithms, too often monetising sexual violence and degradation. Categories such as “barely legal” may claim legality because performers are over 18, but the aesthetic is deliberate: youth, vulnerability and childhood. They are a fig leaf for the sexualisation of minors. Exploitation and trafficking are rife. Sexual abuse material remains far too easy to find on these sites, and many survivors tell us that what is filmed as content is in reality recorded abuse. This cannot continue.
Amendment 298, when tabled, had the intention of closing the gaping disparity between offline and online regulation. If content cannot be legally sold in a shop or on a DVD, it should not be freely available online. For decades, physical distribution has had classification, compliance and enforcement; online, self-regulation still dominates. This amendment sets out in clear terms the material that must not be distributed online. This is based on the BBFC’s guidelines and therefore mirrors what is illegal and prohibited offline, bringing parity across regimes. It also provides for an independent auditing body working alongside Ofcom—I would suggest the BBFC but I am not being specific on that—to carry out spot checks and audits of pornography so that content that would never meet the criteria for physical distribution is detected and removed, not simply noticed and ignored.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I want to be supportive of the Government, but I also urge them to listen really closely to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has said today, particularly in light of the Jeffrey Epstein files, as she mentioned. Pornography pervaded the Epstein files. This is a scandal that has shocked us all. It has come to this House. It has affected the upper echelons of society. I just want to read a message that one of Jeffrey Epstein’s friends sent to him in the Epstein files. He said:
“Porn has taken over and the guys just want in the bedroom what they’ve seen in porn”.
This is a moment for the Government to be very brave. This is not a moment to be socially conservative. It is better for the Government to be right at the vanguard on this. We often ask the exam question: how can we prove that porn is affecting real life? That time is here and now; we have seen it through the Epstein files.
I want to leave your Lordships with this. On 20 January 2017, Jeffrey Epstein was Skype-messaging with a young girl still in school. He sent her instructions to watch Pornhub. He said:
“It will be very odd at first, but think of it like a school project … Don’t be shy, watch your reactions with no judgment”.
We are seeing pornography being used in real time to groom young women and young men, and I really hope that the Government will listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I have put my name to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. Over the last eight years or more, every time that we have debated the harmful pornography issues that are in these amendments, I think, “Why is it taking so long for change?”, and I am an optimist. I never give up, so I keep on believing change is a-coming and good will prevail.
The murder of Sarah Everard and the recent revelations contained in the Epstein files, as we have just heard, expose graphically just how much online pornography has not only influenced violent sexual behaviour towards women and girls but caused massive long-term harm to the victims subjected to it. This is why these amendments are crucial to the well-being of women and girls, and men and boys, as well as very young children, to protect them from violence and harm—from having their minds distorted and, in many cases, having their childhood taken away from them.
For years now, Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as vice-president—and CEASE have called for online pornography to be regulated to the same standards as offline. Content involving strangulation, incest and adults dressed as children, as well as that involving trafficking and torture, is rightly illegal offline—yet these images and videos remain widely accessible online. This inconsistency is indefensible and must be stopped, so it is a relief that the Government are now moving on this issue to put a stop to it. Hallelujah! Thank goodness. This change has been worth waiting for. It is common sense. Why should children be exposed to harmful online material which is rightly illegal offline? The harm of violent online pornography is not abstract or without consequence. Men who watch violent online pornography are more likely to be violent towards women and girls, as well as sexually harming children, so the sooner action is taken to make the offline and online worlds compatible, the better for our children’s well-being and mental health.
I support all of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and have to congratulate her on her tenacity and her commitment to making a difference. I will speak on Amendment 300, because it seeks to ensure that platforms undertake age-consent checks for performers. This is a critical amendment in protecting women and girls. User-generated content dominates pornography platforms, yet this content is often uploaded with little or no verification. It is great that this amendment would ensure that every individual featured in all content is an adult and has given consent but, crucially, that women are given the right to withdraw their consent at any time and have the content removed.
I also support Amendment 281A, which seeks to ban nudification apps. The Government must be commended for their actions in making it an offence to create deepfake images, but there is an outstanding issue of so-called nudification apps, as we have heard. These AI power tools are being used to create non-consensual sexual images targeting women and girls, and even very young children. The Internet Watch Foundation reported a 380% increase in AI-generated child exploitation imagery, so we must stop every loophole to make sure that that is not possible. If we do not act now, technology will continue to outpace regulation, leaving victims unprotected.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. It has been a very grim afternoon, I have to say, repeatedly hearing some of the most horrendous things that can happen to women and children. I say to the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect and who spoke passionately—a word normally associated with me—that this is still too little, too late and too long across a number of these issues. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, is relatively new in the House, but we have been debating these things for eight years and I remember having this exact discussion during the Online Safety Bill. We have to just move on. We cannot keep on saying that it moves quickly and then allowing ourselves to move this slowly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, made a really strong case that online porn affects real life. It is real-life violence and there is this unbelievably vast overlap with child sexual abuse. It is that mess that we have to see as one and, in that sense, the noble Baroness made the case for all of her amendments. I want to quickly mention government Amendment 272, which establishes an offence if a person makes or adapts, or
“supplies or offers to supply a thing, for use as a generator of … intimate images”.
What has happened to that amendment is exactly the same as what happened to the child sexual abuse amendment that has the same form. It deals with intentionality and says: “If you absolutely intend to do this, it will be illegal. But if it happens in general, on any old piece of software that somebody hasn’t bothered to train properly or put protections in, then you’re not caught”. I believe that is what the noble Baroness has in her broader amendment about software.
I really want to make the point that there seems to be a reluctance to catch general- purpose technology in these issues of child abuse, violence against women, intimate image abuse and pornography, and I hope that the Government are listening. We cannot avoid general-purpose technology if that is what is spreading, creating and making this situation available across communities. It is in that space that so many children first see porn. It is in that space that so many women are abused and that so much child sexual abuse is present.
I urge the Minister to think about the breadth and not just the intentionality, because in my view it does not really matter whether it is accidental on the part of the company. I finish by saying that I had the privilege of meeting Yoshua Bengio last week, who is absolutely central to the development of AI and neural networks, and so on. He said, and I paraphrase: show me the incentive and I will show you the design.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, partly as a male of the species, since we are largely responsible for the situation we are describing. We are behind these business models, we are the sex that is making all the money out of it, and, in most cases, we are the abusers. It behoves us to acknowledge that and speak up about it.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. As a mother of young children, she has, on our behalf, subsumed herself for over two years in a world that most of us can barely imagine. That must have been an extraordinarily unpleasant and difficult experience. I pay tribute to her for doing it, because I am not sure many of us would have taken that on or lasted the course.
With that in mind, given the time and thought that she has given to this, the number of experts she has spoken to, the number of international parameters and comparators she has taken into account in looking at this, and the detailed way in which she has analysed the business models that underline this highly profitable business, it behoves all of us, and particularly the Government, to listen very carefully. The amendments that she has brought forth are not something that she dreamed up overnight; they are based on her detailed and painful knowledge of exactly how this business operates. She is identifying some gaps in the laudable approach the Government are taking to try to do something about this.
With my business experience hat on, I say that a major fault that businesses make is overpromising and underdelivering. His Majesty’s Government are in grave danger of doing exactly that in many of these areas to do with violence against women and girls. It is wonderful to have the headlines and to say, “We are taking this seriously and we are doing something about it”, but the devil is in the detail, and the detail is effective implementation. To effectively implement, you have to understand the business model, and, as people have said previously, you have to be prepared to disrupt it.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, more than 40 years ago, Parliament ensured that pornographic material that was deemed too degrading, too explicit or too dangerous could not be distributed. Parliament never changed its mind, but technology overtook the law, which is why we now have the absurd situation where content is illegal when viewed on a DVD but legal and freely available on the internet. That is why we desperately need Amendment 298 to deliver online/offline parity. I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Bertin, her team and all the other noble Lords in this House who have, as we have heard, campaigned tirelessly on this issue for many years.
Moving on to my noble friend’s other amendments, I support all of them, but I will speak briefly to three of them. I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle incest pornography but, without including stepfamily relationships, this new amendment will have little to no impact on the actual content available. The videos will be the same; they will merely be retitled. My noble friend has already explained the popularity and violence of the “barely legal” teen pornography content. Other countries have already legislated to prevent this type of material proliferating. Amendment 300A would ensure that we did the same.
Finally, Amendment 300 is about preventing exploitation and abuse. The porn industry makes money from violence against girls and women. It is an industry that we know profits from human trafficking. This is not an industry that we can trust to do the right things. So I strongly support this amendment, and I very much hope that my noble friend will test the opinion of the House on this and all her other amendments if Ministers are not able to move further.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Russell said about the remarkable contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I also thank the Minister for all her efforts today to explain the Government’s position, and for the amendments that she has brought forward on behalf of the Government.
Amendment 298 is very important because it seeks to regulate online harmful content, and I very much support the principle. However, I will raise an important quibble. Amendment 298 defines what is meant by “harmful material” by reference to a number of very specific matters that I think we would all agree should not be online, such as material that
“promotes or encourages sexual activity that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act”,
or any sexual act that is
“non-consensual, or … appears to be non-consensual”
or
“threatens a person’s life … or is likely to result … in serious injury to a person”,
et cetera.
I have no difficulty with that: I entirely agree with it. However, I am concerned that, in subsection (2)(b) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 298, “harmful material” also includes that which
“would be an offence under … the Obscene Publications Act 1959 or the Obscene Publications Act 1964”.
I am concerned that that would be a very unwise way for us to regulate online content. The reason is that that Act is notoriously vague and uncertain. It depends on jury assessments of what would “deprave and corrupt” a person. It does not seem appropriate or necessary to include that element of harmful conduct when the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, lists, in perfectly sensible and acceptable ways, the specific types of content that ought not to be online and that should be prohibited.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as with the last group, we on these Benches support the Government’s amendments, but we do not believe that they go far enough. Alongside the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Pannick, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her tireless work on the Independent Pornography Review and subsequently. We on these Benches fully support her amendments to ban step-incest pornography and content that mimics child sexual abuse, to implement age verification for those featured on porn sites and AI nudification apps and to establish vital parity between online and offline pornography regulation.
I will be extremely brief. Amendment 298 in particular would create parity between offline and online regulation. Offline content that would not be classified by the BBFC should not be legal online. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, rightly proposes a monitoring role for the BBFC to support Ofcom’s enforcement and I very much hope that the Government will concede on this. If the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are taken on board, the Government can easily alter that amendment at ping-pong.
I have also signed Amendment 281A. The Government’s nudification amendments are clearly too narrow. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has described, by limiting scope to UK products, they ignore the global nature of this harm. We must go further to capture possession and use of any software designed to produce these non-consensual images. I very much hope that we will be able to avoid votes on the four amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward, and that the Government will take them on board.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, the many amendments in this group all concern the regulation of online pornography. It is notable that many of the amendments have been signed by noble Lords from parties across the political spectrum, showing a very firm desire in your Lordships’ House to regulate harmful online pornography. I again thank my noble friend Lady Bertin for the extensive work that she has carried out in this area and I echo what has been said by several noble Lords this evening in support of her long-standing commitment to this cause. I also thank other noble Lords who have not only spoken this evening but been involved in efforts elsewhere to make the online pornography space safer for children and adults.
I will focus briefly on some of my noble friends’ amendments. Amendment 281A, as we have heard, would create an offence for the possession of software that can produce nude images of another individual. These Benches are fully supportive of this amendment. It goes a significant way in ensuring that women and girls are protected.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the Government of course sympathise with the intention behind all these amendments. They raise important but tricky issues. I am pleased that they have received such an extensive airing this evening, and I apologise in advance for the fact that this speech is a bit longer than some of the others, but some of these are complicated. I know that some of what I will say will not be what some of your Lordships may wish to hear. I remind the House that the Government have moved on some of the important issues raised, and I assure your Lordships that we have no intention of stopping here. But there are some areas that need further consideration and others where we have genuine operational concerns.
We are committed to continuing to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I and my fellow Ministers in the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have immensely valued her time and expertise in our meetings with her. It is because of this direct engagement that we have brought forward some of the amendments today. They are entirely to her credit, and I hope we can continue the discussions.
On nudification apps, we have sympathy with the underlying objective of Amendment 281A, but we do not believe that it is necessary for two reasons. First, the aim of Amendment 281A is already captured by the recently commenced Section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which bans individuals from using nudification tools to create intimate images without consent. Section 66B of the 2003 Act bans anyone from sharing such images once they have been created.
Secondly, nudification tools are commonly accessed online—for example, via a website, an AI model or a chatbot. A person using a tool will not necessarily possess or have downloaded the relevant software or model. That means that Amendment 281A would risk creating an unworkable discrepancy between very similar tools being accessed via different means. For example, it might capture a tool if it was downloaded as code by a user but not if it was accessed as a website. For this reason, we have focused the government amendment on banning the creation and the supply of such tools, rather than just the software. The Government are confident that the combined effect of the new offence in government Amendment 272, along with regulation via the Online Safety Act and existing criminal offences banning individuals from creating and sharing intimate images without consent, is an effective package in tackling this egregious harm in all its forms.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I promise not to interrupt the Minister too much, but what about the point that it will not extend beyond UK apps?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
This is always the problem with criminal offences, which is why, on occasions, the Government have said that we want to urge caution before creating criminal offences when things that can be dealt with through regulation have a much wider reach. One drawback of criminal offences is that they typically apply only where prosecutors are able to establish UK jurisdiction. To provide some extraterritorial effect, we have ensured that Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act applies to this offence, which will enable prosecutors to target overseas offending by UK nationals, bodies and associations. But the regulations—
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I accept that and, let us face it, this is the wrong Bill for this piece of legislation— I am prepared to accept that. I know that this is a criminal Bill, but surely the Government and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have to accept—and make the point on the Floor of this House—that they will therefore re-open the Online Safety Act and bring regulation in to support the very good amendments that they are putting in at this point, or my Amendment 281A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
These are exactly the conversations that we wish to carry on having, on how to best go about this to make sure that we achieve the aim that we are all trying to get to: getting rid of these horrible things. I would like to continue the conversation with the noble Baroness in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, stressed that there was undue emphasis on intention and states of mind. Again, this is the problem with criminal offences: we do not create criminal offences where people who have done something accidentally end up being criminalised. That is why, on occasions, we say that regulation may be a better tool. The noble Baroness is looking outraged.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
No, I dare not tackle the noble Baroness on legal matters—what we do and do not do in the law—but, if you accidentally poison children’s food, you do not get a free pass. There are all sorts of places and spaces that have to—
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
We will continue this, but with the greatest of respect to the noble Baroness, the fact is that all criminal offences, pretty much, apart from those that are strict liability offences, which are pretty unpopular in the criminal law—[Interruption.] We will discuss this later, but take it from me that it is very rare to criminalise something that is done accidentally.
I turn now to incest. As I said earlier today, the Government have tabled a cluster of amendments that seek to go further than Amendment 299 by criminalising the possession and publication of pornography that depicts sexual activity between both adult and child family members. The reason for doing that is that it makes it more straightforward for law enforcement and regulators to tackle the harmful content, as pornography that portrays a family relationship will be criminalised and the prosecutor does not need to have to prove that the person concerned is under 18 or is a child. It can be very difficult to prove that the person is actually a child. We therefore consider government Amendment 297 to more robustly address the harm that the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, seeks to address.
I turn to the noble Baroness’s Amendments 297AA, 297B, 297C and 297D. Although I understand why she wishes to extend the Government’s amendment to a wider range of relationships, it is important that your Lordships understand that such an extension would criminalise sexual relationships that are lawful between adults in real life. With her Amendment 298, the noble Baroness has specifically sought to include that. It would go further than offline regulation, where some portrayals of step-relative relationships are classified, provided they are not in any way abusive in nature.
In addition, this change proposed by the noble Baroness’s amendment would significantly increase the complexity of the offence. For example, if the pornographic image depicted sex between step-siblings, operational partners would then also have to consider whether the persons live or have lived together, or whether one person is or has been regularly involved in caring for the other. It would be challenging for the police and the CPS to determine and ultimately prosecute. The intention behind the Government’s amendments is to make it as straightforward as possible to enforce and prosecute. That said, although I appreciate what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, I urge her not to press her amendment.
Turning now to parity, I put on record that the Government accept the principle at the heart of Amendment 298 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. There is a clear and urgent need for greater parity between the treatment of harmful pornography online and offline. This Government, who have prioritised tackling all forms of violence against women and girls, will show the leadership necessary to deliver it. We have, with thanks to the noble Baroness, already taken steps in the Bill to criminalise some of the most egregious forms of content that are currently mainstream online. The strangulation pornography offence added in Committee and the further changes we are bringing forward today on incest pornography have been added because of the noble Baroness. These matters are now prohibited under offline regulation.
Acknowledging that the changing online world brings new challenges that must be tackled to address emerging harms, we will also be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography to assess its effectiveness. We will ensure that our online regulatory framework keeps pace with these changes to the criminal law. Delivery of parity in regulatory treatment has already started. Once enforced, these offences will become priority offences under the Online Safety Act, requiring platforms to have proportionate systems and processes in place to prevent UK users encountering this content. This should stop this abhorrent content circulating unchecked on online platforms, where right now it is being recommended to unwitting users.
While these measures mark a significant step forward in protecting individuals online, we acknowledge that they do not address the totality of the complex question on parity. The current offline regime relies on checks on individual pieces of content, which can consider wider context and nuance in a way that does not easily translate to the scale and speed of online content. For this reason, we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, but because we completely agree with the need for greater parity, the Government are committing our joint pornography team, which was announced as part of the VAWG strategy, to produce a delivery plan within six months of Royal Assent.
Crucially, the delivery plan will set out how, not whether, the Government can most effectively close the gap. This will include consideration of how a new approach can address other potentially harmful content, such as pornography portraying step-incest relationships or adults role-playing as children. The delivery plan will thoroughly test which approach will be most effective by testing audit and reporting functions and considering how this can be done at scale to achieve the desired impact. The plan will also consider how and which regulatory frameworks can best address the issue, noting the interactions with the BBFC’s existing remit and that of Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, and how to ensure that there is effective enforcement in any future system. It will examine the case for tools, including fines and business disruption measures. We will keep up the pace. I can commit to including clear timelines for implementation in the plan, and we will keep them as short as possible, factoring in the possible need for legislation, subject to parliamentary timing. I know that my fellow Ministers will welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, joining us as we conduct this work.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I want to say thank you. The Minister has just made a very big announcement and I thank her, because she has acknowledged parity, and I hope that she will therefore be using regulation to make sure that we absolutely do create that level playing field. I just want to acknowledge that.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I turn to Amendment 300. While we accept the intended aim of this amendment, we cannot accept the proposed approach. The part of the amendment relating to the withdrawal of consent and its application to professional entertainment contracts has a number of practical implications. Where content is produced legally, as with the wider film industry, the rules and regulations governing its use are usually a commercial matter to be agreed between the performer and the production company, taking into account the intellectual property framework. I add that much of the content captured by this proposed offence is already illegal. The creation, distribution and possession of child sexual abuse material and sharing an intimate image without consent are already criminal offences.
The law is also crystal clear about the distribution of indecent images of children. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, the UK has a strict prohibition on the taking, making, circulation and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child under 18. That said, as I said earlier this evening, we accept that there is harmful material, including content that is non-consensual and displays child sexual abuse, that remains online, and that is not good enough. So, while we cannot support the amendment today, we are keen once again to work with the noble Baroness further to consider existing best practice in the area and, where there are gaps, how these can be filled. The outcome of the work on parity to which we have committed today will also influence consideration of how this amendment could be regulated.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
Law enforcement is already duty bound to investigate any material that may contain a child, so I do not believe that the amendment would suddenly create a whole load of legal activity that could stop the protection of children. I just do not accept that.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The concern expressed by law enforcement is that it would divert resources from what they are doing at the moment. We will consider this issue as part of our rapid work on parity, and we will also consider the issue as part of our broader work on reviewing the criminal law. I do not underestimate the importance of all these matters. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for the length of time it has taken me to deal with them. My hope is that your Lordships will take the commitments that I have made and the government amendments that I have tabled as a sign of the Government’s genuine intention. Take it from me: we will go further, but we must get these issues right. In the meantime, with every respect, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
“Duty to make deprivation and deletion orders (non-consensual intimate images)Where a person is convicted of an offence involving sharing or threatening to share intimate images without consent, as described by sections 66A and 66H of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (intimate images), the court must—(a) order the destruction of any content used to commit the offence on any device or data store containing such images;(b) order the defendant to disclose any password, key or authenticator necessary to access accounts or devices containing such images;(c) order verified deletion of such images from all locations, including cloud services;(d) direct the prosecutor to lodge a deletion verification report within 28 days.”
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, we cannot allow victims to continue to suffer long after their abusers walk free. It is time we resolve this issue. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Hashing(1) No later than 12 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for the generation and lawful sharing of hashes of intimate images shared without consent in contravention of section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2023 (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film), for the purpose of preventing re-upload , subject to safeguards.(2) The Secretary of State must make the regulations in cooperation with industry standard initiatives (such as StopNCII).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment works in conjunction with others in the name of Baroness Owen regarding a mandatory removal period or de-indexing period of 48 hours for non-consensual intimate images and the establishment of a statutory Non-Consensual Intimate Image Register. This allows the Revenge Porn Helpline (who would be the preferred register holders) to share the verified hashes to internet infrastructure providers to ensure content is removed and blocked in cases where removal is not possible.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, every day this content remains online is another day women have to live in fear of it been viewed, downloaded or reshared. This is a vote to tackle non-compliant websites and allow victims to reclaim their lives. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Middle East
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region, and our response. The United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. That has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.
President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it, but it is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region. It has launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries that did not attack it, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. Overnight, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel, seeking to escalate the war.
There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region—residents, families on holiday and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole House and the whole country. Our Armed Forces are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were 300 British personnel on the base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. Last night, a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in this strike. It is important for me to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear: the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision that we have taken. In our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran’s aggression towards Britain and our interests is long-standing, and that is why we have always ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level.
It is very clear that the death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran launching these strikes. In fact, its approach is becoming even more reckless, and more dangerous to civilians. It is working, ruthlessly and deliberately, through a plan to strike not only military targets, but economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties. That is the situation that we face today, and to which we must respond.
I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran’s attacks, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty—the highest duty of my office—to protect British lives. That is why we put British jets in the air—Typhoons and F35s—as part of co-ordinated defensive operations, which have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes, including taking out a drone heading towards a coalition base in Iraq housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant service men and women for putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect.
However, it is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source—in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because it has the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joining US and Israeli offensive strikes. The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have produced a summary of our legal advice, which sets this out very clearly. We will keep the decision under review.
We are not joining the strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at source. I have been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merz in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region, to that end.
Be in no doubt: the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, it murdered thousands of its own people; the full horror of that is still hidden from the world. For decades, it has sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Its proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red Sea; it has facilitated Russia’s barbarism in Ukraine; and the regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it is clear that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get its hands on a nuclear weapon. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will be achieved at the negotiating table.
In this dangerous moment, our first thoughts are with our citizens in the region—friends, family members and constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for all those involved, and for communities across the country. We are asking all British citizens in the region to register their presence, so that we can provide the best possible support, and to monitor the Foreign Office travel advice, which is being regularly updated. Across much of the region, airspace remains closed, and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.
The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground. We are in close contact with the travel industry and Governments in the region, including our friends in the UAE, given the concentration of British nationals in that country. We are looking at all options to support our people. We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible. The FCDO phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs and others to discuss any individual cases. We are also reaching out to communities across the UK, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place.
The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the House in the coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, and bringing anxiety and fear. That is why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.
We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. I say again: we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and British lives. That is what this Government are doing. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement. As someone who has spent many years studying the history of that region, I have the profoundest respect for the history and culture of Iran, which over millennia has been one of the greatest pillars of world civilisation. Since the Islamist takeover in 1979, its extraordinary people have suffered horrendously—for the last 37 years under the pitiless hand of the late unlamented dictator Khamenei. The Statement implies that for our greatest ally, the United States, to act against this abhorrent regime was unlawful. It conspicuously offers no support for the strikes and says repeatedly that we will do nothing like them. Can the Lord Privy Seal please set out the Government’s legal position on the US action? It is simply not enough for them to say that this is for the US to explain. Frankly, that is a cop-out. She has the leading expert sitting alongside her.
Can she also say why our bases could not be used to protect US and Israeli citizens when they were under attack but can be used now when other nations are attacked? Is this an example of what they call two-tier international law? Did the savage slaughter of thousands of unarmed youngsters crying for freedom a few weeks ago not tell us anything about the brutality of this regime? Was that mass murder not unlawful? Did the fact that this regime has conducted multiple plots on British soil not sway the Government? Did the fact that the Iranian regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism not tell the Government anything? Was mass terror paid for by Iran for decades not unlawful? Had the Government not noticed that the declared objective of the regime was to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state? Did they not hear Khamenei praising the massacre of innocent Jews on that dreadful 7 October? Was that in accordance with international law?
Were we simply to watch and let this regime acquire nuclear weapons and the missiles to target them on Britain? Was an attempt to stop that by the USA unlawful? As my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the shadow Attorney-General, has said:
“If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies while forcing them to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed”.
The Statement calls for negotiation, and of course that is the ideal. But the Khamenei regime faked negotiation, reneged on what was negotiated, played for time to develop nuclear weapons, and even now repudiates a negotiated course. Sometimes in human affairs there comes a deciding moment when we are called on to take a choice on where we stand. Opinions may legitimately differ, but the choice has to be made. Last week was such a time, and history will record that when our US ally asked us for help, this Government chose to say no.
Our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by the US. My right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has made it very clear that we on this side also stand with the US and Israel for taking necessary action to defend themselves and nations across the world from a regime steeped in blood and terror for decades. Where were we when our American allies called last week? We did not just pass by on the other side; we stood in their way and said they could not use the bases. They have noticed.
We welcome the fact, as the noble Baroness has told us today, that the Government have changed their mind on the use of our bases, albeit after far too long. But can she explain to the House how we will know whether each US combat mission is, as the Statement puts it, in line with a
“specific and limited defensive purpose”?
Can she set out to us how in practice this will be determined, mission by mission, and by whom?
The reckless and indiscriminate attacks by Iran on its neighbours in the last days did not reveal but simply confirmed the regime’s well-laid aggressive plans and intent. As the noble Baroness has said, the thoughts of the whole House will be with our brave service men and women, and those of other allied nations, many under attack by Iran, who are now engaged in action. Like the noble Baroness, we salute them and we think of their families.
I also thank the Government for setting out in some detail the actions they are taking to support and protect the hundreds of thousands of our citizens caught in areas under Iranian attack. Many people in the House will have family or friends in the Gulf. I certainly do, and I know at first hand of their current anxiety. Will the noble Baroness keep the House informed of the development of any contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens?
On another issue, does the noble Baroness accept that, in the light of clear evidence of the world strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and in the context of a major conflict in the Middle East, the Bill proposing the naive deal to surrender the Chagos Islands cannot proceed? From this Dispatch Box I have often—and noble Lords opposite will know this—praised the role of the Prime Minister on the international stage. I have spoken here highly of his record on and support of Ukraine. So it was sad to hear this morning the President of the United States feeling he had to be so critical of the Prime Minister on both the strikes over the weekend and the Chagos deal.
This is indeed a time of trial. Our allies and the wider world will judge of what we are made, and we must be decisive, resolute and implacable in the face of this barbarous terror regime.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is an unlawful war and has an unclear justification, with contradictory messages already from the Trump White House, State Department and Defense Department. The statements from the President today have not added clarity. The Government are right not to have allowed the use of UK assets for offensive use. The US and Israeli Governments’ actions have put UK lives at risk, including our personnel.
Ayatollah Khamenei headed a homicidal regime which brutalised its own people, denied basic human rights and was deeply destabilising from the Gulf through to central Africa and Sudan. But changes of regimes are for the people of that country, not for the interests of another simply because that other has military prowess.
In June 2025, after the bombing of Iran by the US and IDF forces, we were told that that bombing was successful. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that
“our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons”.
IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Eyal Zamir said that
“we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back by years, I repeat, years”.
Special envoy from the US Steve Witkoff said then that
“reporting out there that in some way suggests that we did not achieve our objective is just completely preposterous”,
but this week he said that:
“They are probably a week away from having industrial grade bomb making material, and that’s really dangerous”.
We have been told that threats were imminent, and they were not.
The victims of the war are already clear, from the terrible scenes—now being investigated by the United States’ CENTCOM—of the bombing of a girls’ school to the civilians in Lebanon and beyond. There is every chance that the civilian death toll is likely to grow significantly. This is yet another conflict where protection of civilians is being set aside, and this is deplorable. Will the Leader state that His Majesty’s Government stress that protection of civilians in conflict is mandated in international humanitarian law and is not discretional?
These are the early days of this action. We are yet to know the full consequences, and they are hard to predict. They are even harder to predict since what our Government consider our closest ally—which, incidentally, was criticising us yesterday—is led by an untrustworthy President. He could halt the attacks when he wishes, because the objectives have not been outlined, and he could claim a mission accomplished as he defines it himself. He has said enough since the weekend to suggest that he would blame the Iranian population themselves if they did not rise up to topple a military regime—rising up in streets they are fearful of being in because they are being bombed.
There is also no clear endgame. We do not know whether the United States wants a democratically appointed Government, as the protesters do, or a more amenable revolutionary ideological Government and a managed transition to a more acceptable dictator. United States Senator Cotton said yesterday that he hoped that those who could become the leaders of Iran will be “auditioning to be the next Delcy Rodriguez”—that it is fine to be a dictator but one amenable to the United States. This is not what the civilian protesters want either. They are likely to be let down twice.
The regime could topple after a tipping point; if there is no internal security, then we will see some form of “Libyafication”, which does not necessarily bring stability to the region, or there could be an internal factional struggle, with internal strife, for which civilians will pay the penalty. The Iranian regime is one of an immense deep state with enormous state capture, which I have previously described as homicidal but not suicidal. We do not know how long it would take to exhaust its missile and drone stockpiles and the ability to replenish them. On the one hand, it is okay to be jingoistic, but we also have to be clear-eyed that there is not necessarily a clear endgame to what has been started. That is not necessarily in our interests or that of our Gulf allies.
There is likely to be continuous economic instability for the trade routes and for energy, especially in our key economic areas or economic relationships in the hub in the Gulf. We know that, the longer this continues, the increased likelihood there is of economic costs to the United Kingdom. Of the people impacted, businesses, individuals and tourists are likely to be disproportionately affected. With insurance cover now likely to be disrupted in shipping and tourism, can the Leader state what contingencies we have in place given the likelihood of sharp increases in insurance in shipping as well as the cost to our own personnel and our own citizens within the Gulf? Can the Leader give more indications of what a contingency might be for the evacuation of British nationals in the area?
New leadership in Hamas and Hezbollah—not eradication—and now in Iran, adds to greater unpredictability within the region and is likely to perpetuate greater economic instability. That said, I agree with the Statement; there is no justification for any instances of increased antisemitism or Islamophobia in Britain as a result of this. I hope that there will be cross-party consensus on ensuring that all parts of our society have the right levels of reassurance and protection.
Finally, I wish to speak about something that was not referenced in the Statement and that is going on while this conflict is apparent. In the West Bank in Palestine, we see continuing violence and growing concerns over what may be an active annexation. At this time of tension with regard to Iran, what representations are His Majesty’s Government making to the Israeli Government that annexation of the West Bank is contrary to UK policy? It is right that we have recognised the Palestinian state, but there must be a Palestine to recognise.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, that was an interesting set of questions, as their views were diametrically opposed. But one thing the whole House unites around is abhorrence of the Iranian regime. I do not think there is any dissent on our view on that.
I was slightly puzzled by the comments by the noble Lord, Lord True. I think he has probably taken his lead from his leader in the House of Commons. Let me be clear: there were two separate decisions made in this regard, and we have always said that we will comply with international law.
On our second decision, we were asked to allow our bases to be used for defensive support, and we agreed to do so. The noble Lord’s comments seemed to say that, whatever the Americans decide and ask for, we should accede to their requests. We have to take a more measured approach than that, for two reasons. First, we have to act at all times in what is in the national interest of this country. Secondly, if we are to ask British troops to go into action, they need to be assured that there is a clear legal mandate for them to do so. To do anything else would be an irresponsible attitude.
The noble Lord talked about what happened over the last 14 years. I do not recall his party in any of those 14 years say that it supported military action against the regime. The request was made and we declined to take part in offensive action that is not in our remit but agreed to take defensive action when British citizens are under threat, and when requested to by allies in the region, because of the nature of the retaliation from the Iranian Government. That is completely clear and a rational, sensible approach to take in the national interest of our country.
The noble Lord asked whether we will keep the House informed of any measures regarding evacuation. Yes, of course. I managed to get further information today about the number of British nationals who have already registered their presence. The work of the Foreign Office in keeping in contact with them and giving advice is of the utmost importance.
What is clear is that the action we are taking is to protect British nationals. I do not know whether this expression has been used before: it is important that we do not just attack the arrows but the archers. That is why the focus is on those launch sites where missiles can be launched on to our friendly countries and British nationals. We are acting to protect them.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked a number of questions. Most of his questions are for the American Government to answer rather than me. It is not the policy of this Government to take action for regime change, as he said. The American Government said that; we have not said that.
On the wider points that the noble Lord made, yes, the obligation to protect civilians is mandated. We cannot opt out of that obligation; it is not discretionary. Of course, it is always the case that civilians are killed and injured during military action, and we have seen that happen already. We have seen that American soldiers have been killed, and military from other countries. We saw the Kuwaiti flights today; the American soldiers were injured but they have survived, I understand. That is not discretionary.
The noble Lord asked about economic instability. That is something that the Treasury will keep under review at all times. Obviously, it is a priority.
The noble Lord talked about antisemitism and Islamophobia in this country. He will have heard in the Statement some of the measures that are being taken, but there is a duty on us all—as I said before, it is a responsibility of every Member of this House—to act in that regard and call it out whenever and wherever it happens. Undoubtedly there are concerns among the Jewish community, as we have heard.
The noble Lord asked about Palestine, and he will be aware of the recognition of Palestine. Whenever there is a serious incident in one part of the world, that does not absolve us of our responsibilities in other areas. There are numerous areas of conflict or tension. We should take care how we respond in a way that is in the national interest, protects British citizens and abides by international law.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now have 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions. In order that we can get as many noble Lords in as possible, I remind noble Lords that their contributions should be questions, not speeches.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned international law. I suggest to her—and to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, who I am pleased to see in his place—that no rational international law could prohibit the United States and Israel from taking pre-emptive action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons when it is the avowed policy of that state to use such weapons to annihilate another sovereign state, Israel. It cannot be rational to say to the United States and Israel, “You must wait until Iran has developed such weapons and is about to use them”, because then it will be too late to take action against Iran.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
How the United States and Israel act when they feel under threat is a matter for them. The noble Lord, Lord True, tuts, but I suggest that he calms down a bit; I think it is a bit rude to be tutting from a sedentary position. That is a matter for the United States and for Israel, while of course we will always answer for and defend our actions and act within international law in this country’s interests.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, many people went to Israel to celebrate tonight the festival of Purim, which is the story of Queen Esther saving the Jewish people in Persia, somewhat ironically, instead of which they are in bomb shelters awaiting missiles to attack. They are ashamed and embarrassed, as are many people, of the actions of the Prime Minister in prevaricating, delaying and dithering, and then supporting half-heartedly, as the noble Baroness has said herself, attacks against the evil regime of Iran that has perpetrated attacks in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has explained. In opposition, Labour called for the IRGC to be proscribed. They have been in office for I do not know how long, but nothing has happened. The reason given for not proscribing the IRGC was because we needed an embassy in Tehran. What is the excuse now?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
There are two points that I will raise with the noble Lord. First, I completely, utterly and totally reject his characterisation of the decision that has been taken. There were two separate decisions. If he thinks it is acceptable to say to British soldiers and our military, “You can go into action without a clear international legal basis to do so”, he is mistaken. We are quite clear on that, and I am confident in the decisions taken by the Prime Minister on my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General’s advice.
Secondly, on the IRGC, I was talking to my noble friend Lord Coaker about this earlier, because he remembers discussing this issue when the party opposite voted against proscribing the IRGC—although the noble Lord did not; I think he was the only Member on his side to vote with us.
The noble Lord will know that we do not comment on ongoing discussions or what is under consideration, but perhaps there is something I can say that will help him. He will be aware of Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threat legislation. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of Jonathan Hall’s stand-alone report last year, where he made the point that existing counterterrorism legislation, when applied to state threats, is not as fit for purpose as it should be, and that creates challenges. He has made recommendations, and we are committed to implementing all of them. If the noble Lord would like more information on that, I can supply it; I think he was unaware of it. That takes us a step forward, not particularly regarding the IRGC but in how we respond to state threats in dealing with issues such as proscription. I will be reporting back to the House on that issue in due course.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I also thank her, and through her the Government, for the intelligence brief I had this afternoon on the current situation. Clearly, President Trump and now His Majesty’s Opposition seem to have forgotten Secretary of State Colin Powell’s rule about the china shop—once you break it, you own it. It is not clear from what has been said publicly that there is any way forward or strategy on what is going to happen in Iran. As a former Defence Minister, I know the detailed legal constraints that are taken into consideration when the strikes take place. Are there those same legal constraints around the use of the bases which we are allowing the Americans to use?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If I have understood the noble Lord correctly, the answer would be that all the decisions taken are around self-defence and the protection of our allies. It is a defensive mechanism, not an offensive decision that was taken.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, some of those who wanted a more robust legal position by the Government point to Tony Blair’s speech and doctrine of a quarter of a century ago about the responsibility to intervene against oppressive regimes—that was applied in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans. Given Iran’s record of terror and aggression, which the Prime Minister talks about in the Statement, I wonder whether the Government think that anything remains of Tony Blair’s doctrine.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness is talking about two slightly different things. If I recall correctly, that speech was made before Tony Blair was Prime Minister. He also spoke about humanitarian intervention, which was not military intervention, if I have understood correctly.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I can be the only Member of this House who has close family members living and working in the Gulf region who find themselves in possible physical jeopardy at this time. I want to probe the Leader on the legal justification for the Government’s initial decisions. Those of us who have been lawyers know that international law is not a precise science capable of delivering an absolutely authoritative conclusion. Is it not significant that the Prime Ministers in Australia and Canada—who are both from the centre-left, like her own Government, and both of whom operate in a similar legal system to ours—have decided that this was not an objection to supporting what the US and Israeli Governments did?
Is there not a real-world reality here, which is that to protect the very large numbers of British citizens who are now in physical jeopardy—and it must have been understood that there would be a retaliation by Iran—the best way would have been to ensure that the initial strikes were the most effective possible, in what the noble Baroness rightly says is the key objective, in taking out the offensive weapons, drones, and missiles and stopping them being launched at all? If the Government had opened the way for our bases to be used to support this, there would have been better protection available for those who now find themselves in danger.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, my Lords, I pray in aid with some pride that I am not a lawyer—I know that there are many in your Lordships’ House—but I thought the whole point of the law was that it was quite precise in many cases, and that is why we have certain decisions. The noble Lord asked about Australia and Canada. My understanding is that neither Australia nor Canada have been asked for any military support. They have spoken in support but have not been asked to provide military support, so there are two great differences there. The reality is that what we saw in the retaliation from Iran was reckless and indiscriminatory. Therefore, the basis on which the Prime Minister has made the decision to allow UK bases to be used, within international law, is that it is in self-defence and in support of our allies. It is the nature of the response that we saw from Iran on countries that were not involved at all and had not expected it. That is the basis for the self-defence reason in taking the action that we have.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, in the other place this afternoon the Prime Minister referenced “the mistakes of Iraq”. Do the Government accept that while it can be credibly argued that deposing Saddam Hussein’s regime ushered in the environment for Islamist terror to be exported across the region and to the West, in this instance we have a country—an Iranian regime—which is the chief exporter already of Islamist terrorism around the world? It would therefore be a false lesson to learn that you can make the world safer by, in effect, keeping this regime as a credible negotiating partner.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord talks about the lessons of Iraq; I think the lessons of Iraq that he learned are perhaps different from those that I did, and certainly, from those the Prime Minister is making his judgment on. The Prime Minister has been clear on the legal basis for his judgment and the purpose of the action that is being taken. It is very much the case that we want to take out those launchpads from which missiles are being launched on to allies of this country, putting British lives at risk, and that is the basis of it.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, some of your Lordships will know of my personal interest in this topic, having experienced at first hand something of the brutality of the Iranian regime. While I certainly would not lament the end of that regime, I share the concern of those who express it that this war is neither legal nor necessary, and that peace is best secured by returning to the negotiating table—which incidentally seemed to be showing some signs of working. Does the noble Baroness agree that while the Islamic republic will certainly have been weakened by these strikes, the regime’s survival instinct is not to be underestimated? Does she agree that while Iranians must decide their own future, western Governments should be cautious about asking protesters to further degrade that regime’s capacity by protesting on the streets, when we know that the Iranian security service will likely use that as a pretext for intensified repression? A bloody descent into a Syrian-style civil war is in no one’s interest and is surely best avoided.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, as we sit in this House, and we feel safe and secure, our thoughts must be with those across the region, but particularly in Iran, who will be fearing what comes next and what their lives are going to be in the weeks to come. It is not for us to urge anyone to fight back, but I think there will be a natural reaction from people who have been protesting. The right reverend Prelate is right to speak of caution: if we look at how many protesters in Iran have been killed—murdered by the security forces—we realise how dangerous this has become for them. I appreciate that there are lessons to be learned from what happened in the past, and I agree with her on the survival instinct of the regime, but it is the right action to take to try to remove the weaponry they have to wreak havoc on others, including their own people.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her wisdom and the Statement that she has repeated. Among the many important questions that this conflict raises is the prospect of a two-state solution. In a Statement about the Middle East, it is important to look at all the core elements of this debate. One part of the two-state solution must be the building of an effective Palestinian state that has the rule of law. The Government’s recognition of Palestine was a major step forward, and I congratulate Ministers on that work. I also draw attention to the active support that the Government are giving, and indeed the previous Government gave, to the building of a future Palestinian state through the Palestinian Authority. This is work that I am personally involved in. Can my noble friend reassure me that the importance of building a Palestinian state is not diminished by the conflict going on around this area? Indeed, it may be more important than it has ever been.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend makes a similar point to that made earlier: conflict in one part of the world should not distract us from seeking to resolve conflict in another part of the world. It is very difficult when you look at the various hotspots around the world at the moment. I pay tribute to the work that my noble friend has done on this over many years. He is absolutely right. Even when it seems difficult, holding out hope for a two-state solution, with a viable Palestine and a safe and secure Israel, is so important. The whole area needs that safety and security. The conflict in Iran obviously has wider implications across the region, but just because we are involved in, and are trying to resolve, one issue, that does not mean that we can ignore the many other issues that bring conflict to the world.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in late 2024, the UK announced that it was joining, as a third party, the US-Bahrain Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement, happily shortened to C-SIPA. This treaty is aimed at contributing to a fully integrated regional security architecture, and we duly signed and ratified it. How do our obligations to this treaty reflect on what goes forward, particularly as this organisation was aimed at maintaining open seaways from Bahrain through to the Strait of Hormuz? What is the role of this treaty going forward, and how do the Government view our legal obligations to it?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Lord a specific answer on that treaty, but I can say that Bahrain is one of the countries that has been under attack and that it has approached us for help and support. We will continue to regard it as an ally and work with it. I can take up the issue of the treaty in due course. The noble Lord asks whether I will write to him. If I have the information, I will, but I want to ensure that we work with Bahrain at the moment to do what we can to protect its security and safety.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches next and then from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Leader referred to a “clear legal mandate” that would be needed by our troops if they were to act in the defensive way in which the Government have said that they may be able to do. I looked at the summary of the Government’s legal advice, which was rather restricted to
“acting in self-defence is the only feasible means to deal with an ongoing armed attack and where the force used is necessary and proportionate”.
Does the Leader think that that is a “clear legal mandate” that can be given by officers to troops whom we ask to go into dangerous situations?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, that is a summary of the UK’s legal position. The Prime Minister will have looked at all the legal advice that he received. The noble Lord knows that we do not publish all the legal advice, but the information that the Prime Minister had will have given him confidence that there was a clear legal mandate for us to make the decision that we have to support America and Israel in their defensive role of protecting British citizens and safety in the region.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I also have people in Dubai who cannot get out, but I want to concentrate purely on the effects on domestic policy. One thing that is certain about what has happened is that it has made our streets that little bit less safe for Jews. We have seen a wave of antisemitism take over the community. That antisemitism has largely been funded and activated by Iran and the revolutionary guard. We know and understand that the Government will do their best to protect British Jews, but that is not enough, because we are largely creating a society in which a British Jew cannot get married, go to school or go to a community event without having a guard outside. We need not just to talk about implementing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism but to implement it. It needs to be implemented by everyone in government and in power in this country.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness saw last week the delegation of parents of children affected by antisemitism. I was struck by one woman who said very clearly—I hope the noble Baroness will agree with this—that British Jews do not want extra security; they want to feel secure. Will the Government commit to making British Jews secure?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I think everybody would say that we want not security but to feel safe, which is a basic human right for anybody in this country. The degree of antisemitism we have seen on the streets of the UK has been shocking and distressing, but those in the Jewish community have felt it in their soul because it is their very essence that is being attacked. I am sure the noble Lord is not questioning—I do not think anyone can question—the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensure that safety for British Jews. I am not sure what the noble Lord’s question was at the end. Do I agree with the lady who said she wants to feel safe? Yes, of course I do, and we will do everything in our power to help with that.
It is the responsibility of everybody in this House and across the country to support those efforts. Whenever we see antisemitism, if we fail to call it out we are colluding in it. I urge everybody to be very conscious of that and to think about what we all can do to make this a safer place for all British Jews.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:41 - Division on Amendment 281A - Ayes: 144 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 281A agreed.
21:56 - Division on Amendment 297AA (to Amendment 297) - Ayes: 144 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 297AA agreed.
22:08 - Division on Amendment 300 - Ayes: 143 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 300 agreed.
22:19 - Division on Amendment 300A - Ayes: 142 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 300A agreed.
“Content removal reporting and enforcement(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for—(a) the way in which offences under section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film) can be reported to the relevant internet service as defined in section 228 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (internet service), and (b) the mechanism by which content created as a result of offences under that section must be removed by the relevant internet service.(2) The regulations must include—(a) a mandatory removal period or de-indexing period, as the case may be, for content that the reporting party reasonably believes to be in breach of section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 of 48 hours,(b) a requirement that the reporting process must be clear and accessible, and guidance on what constitutes clear and accessible reporting,(c) sanctions for malicious reporting,(d) sanctions for internet services for the failure to remove duplicates of offending material,(e) a review period after the initial 48 hours for assessing suspected offending content, and(f) a statement of which internet services are within scope of this section, produced after consultation with the Revenge Porn Helpline and other relevant stakeholders.”
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 275 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I apologise to the House for the last-minute degrouping of this amendment. It is a vital amendment and I wanted to ensure that it could be brought back at Third Reading.
The amendment mandates the Secretary of State to create a mechanism whereby sites have to have clear and accessible reporting systems for content that a person believes breaches Section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act on the sharing of non-consensual intimate images. Vitally, it mandates internet services to remove or de-index this content within 48 hours. Critically, it includes sanctions for internet services to remove duplicates.
Last year I was contacted by Christina Trevanion, host of “Bargain Hunt”. Christina spoke to me about the ongoing trauma she faced trying to remove non-consensual, sexually explicit deepfakes of herself from the internet. She is one of many brave survivors of intimate image abuse who spoke out and inspired my 48-hour take-down amendment. She said, “It’s too late for me, but I do not want my daughters to grow up in a world where posting a photograph of themselves online puts them at risk”.
The amendment was based on the precedent set in the USA with the TAKE IT DOWN Act, itself inspired by the incredible advocacy of a young woman called Elliston and her mum, Anna. Anna described to me the unending trauma her daughter suffered knowing that, for the rest of her life, those pictures could be there. Anna’s biggest priority was getting those images taken down from the internet. For victims such as Christina and Elliston, every day that goes by is another day when they live in constant fear that their content will be viewed, downloaded or reshared in an ongoing cycle of revictimisation. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to work with me on this amendment. I think the Minister knows how passionate I am about this.
I am very pleased that the Government have committed to bring back their own amendment at Third Reading; we will get the exact details in a second. I am very keen to secure an undertaking that we can return to this issue at Third Reading. If for any reason the Government do not follow through and bring an amendment back in time for Third Reading, I reserve the right to bring back my Amendment 275, covering all the elements I have raised on this important issue. I am very grateful to the Minister for her collaboration and determination to work together on this. I know she is committed to getting it right. I ask her to confirm that the Government will provide an undertaking to bring back amendments at Third Reading to address the 48-hour take-down requirement for intimate images. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her amendment, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the Act being passed, to make provisions for the way in which offences of sharing intimate images are reported and the mechanisms by which content is removed by the relevant internet service. I understand that the Government have given my noble friend an undertaking for Third Reading, and I am pleased that they have done so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to put on record that this Government completely accept and agree with the intention that underlies this amendment. That is why, as I said earlier, the Government will introduce a legal duty for tech platforms to take down reported non-consensual intimate image abuse within 48 hours, to ensure that victims get rapid protection. This change, which will be brought forward at Third Reading, will create a strong, enforceable foundation for getting harmful material removed from online circulation, so that victims are no longer left chasing platforms for action. To support swift and effective action to remove this material by internet infrastructure providers, we will also explore any barriers to blocking and how this can be addressed. This will help ensure that rogue sites operating outside the scope of the Online Safety Act will be targeted. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s eagerness to see this change brought about quickly, but as the Government intend to bring forward amendments to this effect at Third Reading, I hope she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
Can the Minister confirm to the House that not only will the Government be bringing forward amendments but if I am not satisfied with them, I may bring back my own?
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
May I just check that that is an undertaking? We have a nod. Thank you. I am very pleased that we will return to this issue at Third Reading, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Register of intimate images shared without consent(1) No later than 12 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a statutory Non-Consensual Intimate Image Register for the purpose of preventing access to and dissemination of material shared online in contravention of section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film) (“NCII material”).(2) The Register must contain hashes of verified NCII material.(3) The Secretary of State must appoint a regulator for the Register to be responsible for oversight, enforcement, and coordination with internet service providers and online platforms.(4) Providers designated by the appointed regulator must use the Register to prevent the re-upload or distribution of NCII material.(5) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on governance, accuracy, proportionality, and privacy safeguards.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
For the purposes of this amendment, the Revenge Porn Helpline is the preferred body to manage the register. The service currently runs a voluntary hashing register and has indicated that they would be able to operate it. The register would be the authoritative source for platforms, search engines, and ISPs to block, delist and prevent access to NCII content.
Baroness Levitt
“1A After section 66A insert—“66AA Sharing semen-defaced image(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally shares a semen-defaced image of another person (B),(b) B does not consent to the sharing of the semen-defaced image, and(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.(2) A “semen-defaced image” of a person (B) is—(a) a photograph or film which—(i) shows, or appears to show, B, and(ii) has, or appears to have, semen on it or in its immediate vicinity, or(b) a photograph or film of a photograph or film within paragraph (a). (3) “Photograph” includes the negative as well as the positive version.(4) “Film” means a moving image.(5) References to a photograph or film also include—(a) an image, whether made or altered by computer graphics or in any other way, which appears to be a photograph or film,(b) a copy of a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a), and(c) data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a).(6) A person “shares” a semen-defaced image if the person, by any means, gives or shows it to another person or makes it available to another person.(7) But a provider of an internet service by means of which a semen-defaced image is shared is not to be regarded as a person who shares it.(8) For the purposes of subsection (1)—(a) “consent” to the sharing of a semen-defaced image includes general consent covering the particular act of sharing as well as specific consent to the particular act of sharing, and(b) whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for sharing the semen-defaced image.(10) A person (A) who shares a semen-defaced image of another person (B) does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if—(a) the semen-defaced image had, or A reasonably believes that it had, been previously publicly shared, and(b) B had, or A reasonably believes that A had, consented to the previous sharing.(11) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence of sharing a photograph or film of a person where the image has, or appears to have, semen on it or in its immediate vicinity, without the person’s consent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at Schedule 11, page 321, line 19.
Baroness Levitt
“66AD Creating a copy of intimate photograph or film shared temporarily(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) another person (B)— (i) shares with A a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, B in an intimate state, and(ii) does so in such a way that A can view the photograph or film for a limited time, but cannot send it to another person,(b) A intentionally creates a copy of the photograph or film that A can view at other times,(c) A knows that the photograph or film is shared with A by B,(d) B does not consent to the creation of the copy, and(e) A does not reasonably believe that B consents to the creation of the copy.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(ii)—(a) the cases in which A can view the photograph or film for a limited time include the case where A can view it for as long as B allows A to do so;(b) sending the photograph or film to another person does not include showing it to another person.(3) References in this section to creating a copy of a photograph or a film include —(a) creating a copy of part of a photograph or film, or(b) creating a copy of a photograph or film with modifications,where the copy shows, or appears to show, B in the intimate state in which B is shown, or appears to be shown, in the photograph or film.(4) Subsection (1) is subject to section 66AE (exemptions).(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the copy.(6) Section 76 applies to an offence under this section.(7) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).66AE Creating a copy of intimate photograph or film shared temporarily: exemptions(1) A person (A) does not commit an offence under section 66AD(1) in relation to a photograph or film shared with A if—(a) the photograph or film was, or A reasonably believes that it was, taken or recorded in a place to which the public or a section of the public had or were permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise),(b) the person the photograph or film shows, or appears to show, in an intimate state (B) had no reasonable expectation of privacy from such a photograph or film being taken or recorded, and(c) B was, or A reasonably believes that B was, in the intimate state voluntarily.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), whether a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy from a photograph or film being taken or recorded is to be determined by reference to the circumstances that A reasonably believes to have existed at the time the photograph or film was taken or recorded.(3) A person (A) does not commit an offence under section 66AD(1) in relation to a photograph or film shared with A if—(a) the photograph or film had, or A reasonably believes that the photograph or film had, been previously publicly shared, and(b) B had, or A reasonably believes that B had, consented to the previous sharing.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence of creating a copy of a photograph or film showing, or appearing to show, a person in an intimate state, that has been shared with the person creating the copy only temporarily.
Baroness Bertin
“66AD Possession of software to create or amend a digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film(1) A person (A) commits an offence if A intentionally possesses, obtains or stores software whose primary purpose is to create or alter a digitally produced photograph or film which shows another person (B) in an intimate state.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for possessing, obtaining or storing software whose primary purpose is to create or amend digital images of a person in an intimate state.(3) A person (A) commits an offence if A possesses, obtains or stores software with the intention to create or alter a digitally produced photograph or film which shows another person (B) in an intimate state.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for intending to create or amend digital images of a person in an intimate state.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).(6) Where A is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may require A to delete—(a) the software used in the commission of an offence this section;(b) any copies of a photograph or film they have taken under this section, including physical copies and those held on any device, cloud-based programme, or digital or messaging platform they control.(7) A person can only commit an offence under this section if they are aged 18 or over.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create offences to possess software which can produce nude images of another individual.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I want to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Levitt
“(2A) In subsection (3), at the end insert “, or as a person with whom it is shared”.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the provider of an internet service by means of which a photograph or film is shared is not regarded as a person with whom it is shared for the purposes of the offence in section 66AD of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of photograph or film in section 66D(4B) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the new sections inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
Baroness Levitt
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of consent in section 66D(10) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the new sections inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of consent in section 66D(10) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the new sections inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of consent in section 66D(10) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the new sections inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of consent in section 66D(10) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the new sections inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
Baroness Levitt
“(za) section 66AA;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends the time limit for prosecuting the offence in new section 66AA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 321, line 19).
“(ba) section 66AD;” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends the time limit for prosecuting the offence in new section 66AD of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at Schedule 11, page 325, line 18.
“An offence under section 66AD(1) (creating copy of intimate photograph or film shared temporarily) | The defendant intentionally creating a copy of the photograph or film in question.” |
This amendment is consequential on new section 66AD(6) of the Sexual Offences Act inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
“Section 66AD | Copy of a photograph or film to which the offence relates” |
This amendment enables a deprivation order under section 177DA of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to be made in respect of a copy the creation of which is an offence under new section 66AD of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13).
“Section 66AD | Copy of a photograph or film to which the offence relates” |
This amendment enables a deprivation order under section 154A of the Sentencing Code to be made in respect of a copy the creation of which is an offence under new section 66AD of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13).
Baroness Levitt
“Online Safety Act 2023 (c. 50)
23 In Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 (priority offences), in paragraph 28A (Sexual Offences Act 2003), at the end insert—“(c) section 66E (creating purported intimate image of adult);(d) section 66F (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds offences to Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023, requiring service providers to take action to identify and minimise users’ exposure to content created or requested in the commission of those offences and to mitigate the risk of services being used to commit those offences.
Baroness Levitt
“Pornographic images of sex between relatives(1) After section 67D of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (inserted by section 90 of this Act) insert—“67E Possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives(1) It is an offence for a person (P) to be in possession of an image if—(a) the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63,(b) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person (A) sexually penetrating—(i) the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of A’s body or anything else, or(ii) B’s mouth with A’s penis,(c) a reasonable person looking at the image would think that A and B were real, and(d) a reasonable person—(i) looking at the image, and(ii) taking into account any sound or information associated with the image,would think that A and B were related, or pretending to be related, in a way mentioned in subsection (2).(2) That is to say, A being related to B as parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.(3) It is an offence for a person to publish an image of the kind mentioned in subsection (1).(4) Publishing an image includes giving or making it available to another person by any means.(5) For the purpose of subsection (1)(d)—(a) the reference to sound or information associated with the image is—(i) when subsection (1)(d) applies for the purpose of an offence under subsection (1), to sound, or information, associated with the image that is in P’s possession, and(ii) when subsection (1)(d) applies for the purpose of an offence under subsection (3), to sound, or information, associated with the image that the person in subsection (3) publishes with the image, and(b) A and B are not to be taken as pretending to be related if it is fanciful that they are actually related in the way pretended.(6) In subsection (2)—“(a) “parent” includes an adoptive parent;“(b) “child” includes an adopted person within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002;“(c) “uncle” means the brother of a person’s parent, and “aunt” has a corresponding meaning;“(d) “nephew” means the child of a person’s brother or sister, and “niece” has a corresponding meaning.(7) For the purpose of this section—“(a) “image” has the same meaning as in section 63;(b) penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal;“(c) “vagina” includes vulva; (d) references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).(8) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply to excluded images, within the meaning of section 64.(9) Nothing in—(a) section 47 of the Adoption Act 1976 (which disapplies the status provisions in section 39 of that Act for the purposes of this section in relation to adoptions before 30 December 2005), or(b) section 74 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (which disapplies the status provisions in section 67 of that Act for those purposes in relation to adoptions on or after that date),is to be read as preventing the application of section 39 of the Adoption Act 1976 or section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 for the purposes of subsection (6)(a) or (b).(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.67F Defences to offence under section 67E(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 67E(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).(2) The matters are—(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 67E(1);(c) that the person—(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time;(d) that—(i) the person directly participated in the act portrayed as person A or B mentioned in section 67E(1)(b),(ii) the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and(iii) the person is not related to person B or A (as the case may be) in a way mentioned in section 67E(2).(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 67E(3), it is a defence for a person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (4).(4) The matters are—(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for publishing the image concerned to the persons to whom they published it;(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 67E(1);(c) that—(i) the person directly participated in the act portrayed as person A or B mentioned in section 67E(1)(b),(ii) the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person,(iii) the person is not related to person B or A (as the case may be) in a way mentioned in section 67E(2), and(iv) the person only published the image to person B or A (as the case may be).(5) In this section, “non-consensual harm” has the same meaning as in section 66. 67G Penalties for offences under section 67E(1) A person who commits an offence under section 67E(1) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).(2) A person who commits an offence under section 67E(3) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).”(2) In section 68 of that Act (special rules relating to providers of information society services), after “67A” (inserted by section 90 of this Act) insert “and 67E”.(3) In Schedule 14 to that Act (special rules relating to providers of information society services), in paragraphs 3(1), 4(2) and 5(1) after “67A” (inserted by section 90 of this Act) insert “or 67E”.(4) In section 47(1) of the Adoption Act 1976, for “or sections 64 and 65 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sex with an adult relative)” substitute “sections 64 and 65 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sex with an adult relative), or section 67E of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives)”.(5) In section 74(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002—(a) omit the “or” after paragraph (a);(b) after paragraph (b) insert “, or(c) section 67E of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives).”(6) In Schedule 34A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (child sex offences for the purposes of section 327A), after paragraph 13ZA (inserted by section 90 of this Act) insert—“13ZB An offence under section 67E of that Act (possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives).”(7) In Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 (priority offences), in paragraph 29, after paragraph (b) (inserted by section 90 of this Act) insert “;(c) section 67E (possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it an offence to possess or publish pornographic images of sex between relatives (that is to say, incest).
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
Amendment 297A, as an amendment to Amendment 297, is replaced by manuscript Amendment 297AA tabled today, which clarifies where it amends Amendment 297.
Baroness Bertin
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I intend to test the opinion of the House. It is not acceptable that step-incest is still currently available in pornography, and we should absolutely outlaw it. The Sexual Offences Act means that it is completely illegal in nearly all step-relations, and it should be outlawed, so I will divide the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Bertin
“Pornographic content: duty to verify age(1) A person commits an offence if they publish or allow or facilitate the publishing of pornographic content online where it has not been verified that—(a) every individual featuring in pornographic content on the platform has given their consent for the content in which they feature to be published or made available by the service,(b) every individual featuring in pornographic content on the platform has been verified as an adult, and that age verification was completed before the content was created and before it was published on the service, and(c) every individual featured in pornographic content on the platform, that had already been published on the service on the day on which this Act was passed, is an adult.(2) It is irrelevant under subsection (1)(a) whether the individual featured in pornographic material has previously given their consent to the relevant content being published if they have subsequently withdrawn that consent in writing, either directly or via an appointed legal representative, to—(a) the platform, or(b) the relevant regulator where a contact address was not provided by the platform to receive external communications.(3) If withdrawal of consent under subsection (2) has been communicated in writing to an address issued by the platform or to the relevant public body, the relevant material must be removed by the platform within 24 hours of the communication being sent.(4) An individual guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).(5) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of where the offence takes place.(6) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if any part of the offence takes place in the United Kingdom.(7) The platform on which material that violates the provisions in this section is published can be fined up to £18 million or 10 per cent of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.(8) The Secretary of State must appoint one or more public bodies to monitor and enforce compliance by online platforms with this section, with the relevant public body—(a) granted powers to impose business disruption measures on non-compliant online platforms, including but not limited to service restriction (imposing requirements on one or more persons who provide an ancillary service, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, in relation to a regulated service); and access restriction (imposing requirements on one or more persons who provide an access facility, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, in relation to a regulated service);(b) required to act in accordance with regulations relating to monitoring and enforcement of this section issued by the Secretary of State, including but not limited to providing the Secretary of State with a plan for monitoring and enforcement of the provisions in this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, and publishing annual updates on enforcement activity relating to this section.(9) A relevant public body has a duty to act under subsection (8)(a) if it is satisfied an offence has taken place under this section even in the absence of a prosecution or if it is notified by an individual that consent has been withdrawn by that individual under subsection (2).(10) Internet services hosting pornographic content must make and keep a written record outlining their compliance with the provisions of this section, and such a record must be summarised in a publicly available statement alongside the publishing requirements in section 81(4) and (5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (duties about regulated provider pornographic content).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes it a requirement for pornography websites to verify the age and permission of everyone featured on their site, and enable withdrawal of consent at any time.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
Age and consent checks on porn companies are the very minimum standards that we should be putting on these organisations, which cannot be self-regulated and need to have this regulation put on them. It is the very basic thing that we should be asking of them. I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Bertin
“Amendment of Protection of Children Act 1978(1) The Protection of Children Act 1978 is amended as follow. (2) In section 1(1)(a) (indecent photographs of children) after “child” insert “or a person who appears to be or is implied to be a child”.(3) In section 7 (interpretation), after subsection (9) insert—“(10) When determining under section 1 whether an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph is of a person who appears to be or is implied to be a child, reference may be had to—(a) how the image is or was described (whether the description is part of the image itself or otherwise);(b) any sounds accompanying the image;(c) where the image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images—(i) any sounds accompanying the series of images,(ii) the context provided by that narrative;(d) the overall context in which the image appears, including but not limited to, the setting, the conduct and appearance of the depicted person or persons, and any other relevant factors.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a series of amendments to the Protection of Children Act 1978 to extend the offence of making an indecent photograph of a child to cases where the child depicted is an adult.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
We must outlaw content that mimics child sexual abuse. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
“Sexual activity with an animal(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).(2) For section 69 (intercourse with an animal) substitute—“69 Sexual activity with an animal(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person intentionally touches an animal (whether living or dead),(b) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what is touched, and(c) the touching is sexual.(2) For the purposes of this section, touching is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that—(a) because of its nature it may be sexual, and(b) because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.” (3) In section 78 (meaning of “sexual”), after “66D” insert“, 69”.(4) In section 79 (Part 1: general interpretation) omit subsection (10).(5) In paragraphs 35 and 92 of Schedule 3 (sexual offences that make offender subject to notification requirements), for “intercourse” substitute “sexual activity”.(6) In the following provisions, for “intercourse” substitute “sexual activity”—(a) paragraph 151 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003;(b) paragraph 38(az) of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the existing offence of intercourse with an animal with a wider offence of sexual activity with an animal.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, we have dealt with some unattractive topics already this evening, and we are about to embark on another one. Government Amendments 301, 302, 451 and 465 in my name deal with the unpalatable but very serious question of animal sexual abuse.
These amendments respond directly to concerns raised in both Houses. I am grateful to many noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Blencathra and Lord Pannick, and Danny Chambers MP, all of whom argued persuasively that the current offence does not reflect the full range of abhorrent behaviour that we believe should be prohibited. I pay particular tribute to David Martin and Paula Boyden from the Links Group, who met me and provided the Government with further evidence.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 390 in my name, to which my noble friend Lord Blencathra has added his own. He is an exceptional champion of animal welfare and it is an honour, as always, to have his support.
First, I shall speak to government Amendment 301. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. As she said, we had a good debate on this subject in Committee—also quite late at night, if I recall. The Government clearly listened carefully to the arguments and to the strength of feeling in the House and have acted on that. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me—along with my colleagues from across the sector, especially, as she said, David Martin and Paula Boyden, to whom I pay tribute for their tireless work and insight—to discuss these issues in some depth, and to her officials who have worked on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has also been extremely supportive and helpful.
I welcome the Government’s amendment, which goes a long way to dealing with the issues I highlighted in Committee and supported. This is a really important step forward, both in terms of animal welfare and in recognising the link between animal sexual abuse—ASA—and domestic abuse and violence. There are one or two matters on which I would just like briefly to press the Minister.
First, it is disappointing that there are no powers of disqualification for individuals convicted of ASA or specific powers to deprive the offender of any animals they own at the time of their conviction. The best way to protect animals is to ensure that those inclined to commit such despicable crimes are banned from owning them or having access to them. The Minister may argue that this would follow on from a sexual harm prevention order but, as I understand it, such orders are available only if the court imposes a custodial sentence of two years or more, and the vast majority of these cases will not meet that threshold.
There may be other mechanisms through which a perpetrator could be deprived of the ownership of the animal they abused, but that will require the courts to remember to do this, and that cannot always be taken for granted. The best way to ensure that is to have something on the face of this legislation but, perhaps, if that is not possible, the Minister could kindly make clear the Government’s intentions in this area, for future reference.
Secondly, it is unfortunate that there is a discrepancy between the maximum sentence for physical animal abuse, which is five years, and for ASA, which will be set at two years. This could be said to convey the message that animal sexual abuse is less of a crime than physical animal abuse. I am absolutely sure that that is not what the Government intend, so again perhaps the Minister could just clarify the reasons for the discrepancy.
Thirdly, the amendment does not deal comprehensively with the issues around the possession and sharing of animal pornography, and here too there are no powers of disqualification or deprivation for imagery offences involving ASA.
These are technical points, but they are none the less very important and I would be very grateful if we could get the Minister’s views on the record. Ideally, there may be some way of sorting them out at Third Reading and the Minister and her officials would have my strong support in doing so. Having said all that, I am not going to make the perfect the enemy of the best. This amendment is real progress in dealing with this vile crime of animal sexual abuse and I am very grateful to the Government.
I turn to my Amendment 390, on a linked subject, which seeks to create notification requirements for people convicted of animal cruelty. It is analogous in many ways to the requirements relating to the sex offenders register. As we discussed in Committee, there is a real and frightening link between cruelty towards animals and violence towards a partner. As domestic abuse charities have consistently made clear, those who maim or kill animals often go on to become involved in incidents of domestic violence and, in the worst cases, murder.
One of the early warning signs of an abusive partner is the way they treat pets, which is why it is one of the questions on the DASH—domestic abuse, stalking and harassment—risk assessment routinely used by police across the UK to determine a victim’s risk of further harm. The evidence is as overwhelming and alarming as it is painful to read. Pets are often the first to be abused and harmed as perpetrators of domestic abuse seek to coerce, control or punish. Research undertaken by Refuge4Pets, which does wonderful work in this area in association with Dogs Trust, found that almost nine in 10 households which experienced domestic abuse said that their animals were also abused by the perpetrator. In 49% of cases, animals, appallingly and tragically, are killed by the abuser. A study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found that animal abusers are five times as likely also to harm humans. Unsurprisingly, 70% of people who have committed animal abuse also have criminal records for violence, property or drugs offences, or disorderly behaviour.
Beyond these statistics, horrific though they are on their own, is the very real human face of the victims, one of whom was a lady called Holly Bramley. Holly was murdered at the age of just 26 by her husband, Nicholas Metson, in 2023. The following year, Metson was convicted of her murder and sentenced to life in prison. Before she was so tragically robbed of her life, Holly was subjected to horrendous abuse by Metson, who had also been reported to the police for repeated extreme cruelty to her beloved pets. That was a red flag for the tragic events that followed, if only anyone had known about it.
Holly’s courageous mother, Annette Bramley, is now campaigning for a new nationwide protection register to identify those who have been found guilty of cruelty to animals in a bid to stop this sort of tragedy ever happening again. As Annette has said:
“Had there been a register with his name on there that we could have looked at, perhaps Holly might be here today”.
This campaign for what is dubbed Holly’s law is already backed by a petition with 50,000 signatures on it. The Member for South Holland and The Deepings in the other place, Sir John Hayes, has been a strong campaigner for action. I pay tribute to the tenacious work that he has been doing in gathering support from across the political spectrum for something to be done.
I know that the Government recognise the link between animal abuse, particularly of pets, and domestic violence. I therefore very much hope that, despite what the Minister has said, they will see the strength of this amendment, which would provide a vital resource for both individuals like Holly and their families, who may be in danger, and for law enforcement. It is a simple change that could help thousands of potential victims and ensure that no more families like Holly’s tragically have to suffer the same anguish because vital signs are missed.
I hear what the Minister has said, and I take her points on board. I hope that she might think again about this at some point. I am not going to take this any further forward this evening. If she is unable to do so as part of this Bill, maybe we could look at it again with regard to measures that come out of the Government’s animal welfare strategy in due course. I am very grateful to the Government for the action that has been taken.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we should at least be grateful that we are dealing with this matter well after the dinner break. I support my noble friend’s amendment. I also support government Amendment 301. It is a big improvement on the current law, but I am very disappointed that it omits some of the essential features of the proposed new clause in the original Amendment 316 that my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood had advocated for.
The Minister is a very talented lawyer, an excellent addition to this House and a nice person to boot. Her amendment is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is also incredibly able and almost as nice as the Minister. So I am being brave, or rather suicidal, when I say that these two lawyers have missed some of the crucial points in Amendment 301, as opposed to the proposed new clause in my noble friend’s original amendment. It seems that the government amendment is punishing people only for the perversion of the crime itself and not for the cruelty to the animal concerned.
Rather than continuing to say “the proposed new clause in the original amendment from my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood”, I will simply refer to it as Amendment 316, which was its number in the Marshalled List in Committee. Amendment 316 would have not only criminalised sexual activity with animals but treated the conduct as an animal welfare matter. It would have given courts express powers to remove animals from offenders, direct their disposal, rehoming or destruction, and make disqualification orders tied to the Animal Welfare Act.
Government Amendment 301 criminalises sexual activity and touching but does not include those explicit welfare remedies or the statutory link to the Animal Welfare Act. Amendment 316 had a built-in mechanism for disqualification orders for owning, keeping, dealing in or transporting animals, and would have required those orders to be treated
“as if made under section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006”.
Government Amendment 301 contains no parallel disqualification provisions, so an offender convicted under that amendment will not automatically be subject to the same statutory animal control prohibitions unless other legislation applies. Later in my remarks I shall come to the Animal Welfare Act and say why it is not adequate to deal with this problem.
Amendment 316 would have expressly allowed courts to make offenders subject to notification requirements and tied in amendments to the Sexual Offences Act and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act for images. Government Amendment 301 changes the wording elsewhere, replacing “intercourse” with “sexual activity”, but the core text does not set out the same notification on image-related court powers.
Amendment 316 explicitly amended the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to add images of sexual activity with animals and attach the same animal welfare disqualification remedies to convictions for those image offences. Amendment 301 does not include those parallel amendments.
We now come to the crux of the matter: the penalties. Amendment 316 carried higher maximum custodial sentences—up to five years on indictment—and therefore signals a higher statutory seriousness and sentencing range than Amendment 301, which is up to just two years on indictment. However, when we look at sexual activity with a corpse in government Amendment 302, we see that the maximum penalty will be raised to seven years, if I am right.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this is another X-rated group of amendments. I added my name to government Amendment 301, on sexual activity with an animal, and I spoke on this subject in Committee. The prohibition of sex with animals has a long history—it was proscribed in Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 23—and it is high time that the statute book comprehensively addressed this subject. The predecessor section in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 fails to do that. I am pleased that the Minister, whom I thank, listened very carefully to the debate. She has listened to all those who made representations, and the Government have brought forward an amendment that—while it is no doubt less than perfect, for the reasons that the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Black, indicated—is a very considerable step forward. I am grateful to the Government and support Amendment 301.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendment on sexual activity with an animal. The original amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Black, shone a fierce but necessary light on the grim intersection of animal abuse, child exploitation and online coercion, and it is because of that work that we are now debating a meaningful change to the law. What matters now is that the law recognises the overlap between animal sexual abuse, child sexual exploitation and wider patterns of coercive control, and that we respond with tools that are fit for purpose in 2026.
The Government’s amendment to Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act replaces the narrow offence of “intercourse with an animal” with a broader offence of
“sexual activity with an animal”,
defined by intentional or sexual touching, whether the animal is living or dead. It also ensures that such conduct engages the notification regime in Schedule 3, so that those convicted can be managed as sexual offenders. That is a significant and very welcome step. However, there remain gaps that need to be addressed. The terminology widely used in policing and safeguarding is “animal sexual abuse” because it captures a spectrum of exploitative acts, including material that is filmed, traded online or used to groom children. These are not marginal cases; they go to the heart of how abusers terrorise children and partners, including by targeting family pets.
Amendment 390 from the noble Lord, Lord Black, would introduce notification and offender management requirements for a defined list of serious animal cruelty offences, placing those convicted on a register. That would apply to those who cause unnecessary suffering, arrange animal fights, possess extreme pornographic images of animals, damage protected animals or intentionally engage in sexual activity with an animal, as well as those who cause, coerce or permit another person, including a child, to do so, or who use an animal for sexual gratification. These are not technical tweaks. Notification and active offender management recognise the strong links between serious animal cruelty and the risk of harm both to animals and to people, especially children, who may be targeted with these horrific images or forced to participate in their creation.
A similar system to the sex offenders register would allow the police and probation service to monitor such offenders and retain the information needed to manage the risk they pose over time. I freely acknowledge the progress already made, but without the robust notification and management framework envisaged in Amendment 390 we will still be asking front-line agencies to deal with extremely dangerous offenders with one hand tied behind their back. The cost of getting this wrong is borne not only by animals but by the children and adults who are terrorised, coerced or groomed through this abuse. While I welcome the Government’s amendment as an important milestone, I urge the Minister to go further and to match the full ambition of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Black, on notification and offender management.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments in this group and I echo the thanks of my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood to the Minister for her remarks and for listening and acting on the concerns raised in Committee. I acknowledge the work of my noble friends Lord Black and Lord Blencathra, who are tireless champions of animal welfare and have worked effectively with the Government on the Bill.
We welcome the introduction of Amendment 301 and its consequential amendments, which build on the debate in Committee and update the offence of “intercourse with an animal” with a wider provision that covers all sexual activity, as we have heard. This area of law has long needed updating, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, and I am glad that the Government are doing it now. My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood raised a couple of concerns that were worth highlighting. He said that to deprive an individual of animals that they own after they have been convicted is a logical next step. If the primary goal is to promote the welfare of animals, as I believe it is, it seems to me that the best way to achieve that would be to ensure that those who have been convicted are prevented from owning or having access to animals.
Similarly, he spoke about the discrepancy in sentences and that does not seem to make complete sense, as it stands. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say in reply.
My noble friend also mentioned the possession and sharing of animal pornography. I am sure that there is not much appetite for further discussion of pornography today, but this is an important issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could commit to considering measures to curbing animal pornography in the future.
Finally, these Benches wholly support the intention behind the amendment in the names of my noble friends. In the interest of brevity, I will not repeat the statistics or arguments raised by my noble friend Lord Black in his speech, but the evidence base is clear and irrefutable. It seems there is a causal link between animal abuse and domestic abuse and sexual violence. As he highlighted, pets are often used to coerce and control victims of domestic abuse. There seems to be institutional knowledge within relevant authorities that this is happening and yet we lack the safeguards to address it. My noble friend also mentioned the tragic case of Holly Bramley.
The cost/benefit of this measure is hard to argue against. The child sex offender register, a current practice that uses the same principle, costs just £1.92 million per year. I suggest that we would be in similar sums for this. I understand that the Minister may not be able to offer her support to this measure at this point, but I hope that it is something that the Government will return to in the future.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Blencathra, Lord Pannick and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for welcoming the Government amendments today and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for the flattering remarks that he made which were very welcome after a long day in your Lordships’ House. I am pleased to hear that the amendments have this support and, once again, I thank those who raised this with us in Committee.
This new offence is focused solely on strengthening the criminal offence relating to sexual abuse of animals, given the scope of this Bill. To establish this offence, the new offence that the Government are bringing today, the prosecution does not have to prove that the animal actually suffered, because this was sometimes an obstacle to prosecutions in the past. This was something that we were persuaded of during the meetings with the noble Lord and those who came with him. Where the conduct has caused the animal to suffer, the defendant can be charged with an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, for which orders such as removing the animal from the offender’s ownership, rehoming or destroying the animal, or disqualifying the offender from keeping animals are available. It is not either or—they can both be charged at the same time. It is quite common with criminal behaviour.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The Minister says that the accused could be charged. Charged and prosecuted by whom?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Although the RSPCA conventionally prosecutes, there is nothing to stop the Crown Prosecution Service from prosecuting. If you had conduct that fell within both, you would not have two separate prosecutors bringing two separate sets of proceedings; it would be the Crown Prosecution Service for both. However, I understand the concerns. I am committing to continuing to engage with parliamentarians and key stakeholders on this issue. We will keep it under consideration.
As far as animal pornography is concerned—obviously a great worry to everybody—the offence of possession of extreme pornographic images under Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 already criminalises possession of pornographic images depicting extreme acts, which includes intercourse or oral sex with an animal, whether living or dead. We do not believe that further legislation is necessary.
Turning to the question of sentence, the current offence of intercourse with an animal carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment, which we will retain for the new offence. We do not have evidence at the moment that this is insufficient to enable the courts to deal appropriately with offending of this nature, but we know that, when animal suffering occurs, there are higher penalties available under the animal cruelty legislation, which—as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—provides sentences of up to five years’ imprisonment. Once again, we will engage with parliamentarians and key stakeholders as to how the existing animal cruelty offences operate alongside the new offence. With that in mind, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Black, to withdraw—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am sorry for holding the House back this late at night. The Minister says that there is nothing to stop the CPS prosecuting for animal cruelty if it is prosecuting a case of sex with an animal and discovers cruelty. In that case, will she guarantee that the CPS will issue guidance to all its prosecutors that, where a prosecutor is prosecuting for animal sexual abuse and discovers animal cruelty, he or she will automatically prosecute it and not wait for the RPSCA to do it God knows when?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The difficulty is that the Crown Prosecution Service, as a matter of constitutional convention, is independent of the Government and does not take well to being told what to do by them. However, we can raise this with it and ask whether it will look at it again. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment updates the wording of a reference to the offence of sexual activity with a corpse in paragraph 92 of Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
“Restriction on applying for gender recognition certificateAny offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 may not obtain a gender recognition certificate.”
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 307 in my name. I spoke to it in Committee and have brought it back because it is an important issue. The amendment would simply ban any convicted sex offender from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I remind your Lordships that a gender recognition certificate would enable this individual to legally change their gender from male to female. That means they can live legally as a woman and access women’s and single-sex spaces.
When we debated this before, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, responded to my remarks and I thank him very much for his letter to me. I have tabled a number of Written Questions on this issue. I will make a couple of points about why this amendment is still needed and why I am not satisfied with the Government’s assurances.
In my discussions with the Government, they have rightly highlighted their tightening up of the requirements and safeguards to protect the public when people are changing their name. That may be the case with a gender recognition certificate. If somebody is changing their gender, they may wish to change their name—not necessarily, but it could happen. The Government are tightening up those requirements, putting in enhanced notification requirements, restricting changes to identity documents and bringing in closer requirements for police supervision. All those things are good, but it still requires the sex offender to notify the police of any changes to their personal information. It happens after the event; it is not a blanket ban. The onus is on the criminal to go to the police and say, “I have changed my name”. This is a convicted sex offender, so many would say that it stands to reason that there is a low level of trust in them anyway. To me, it is not a satisfactory answer.
The other objection the Government mentioned when I was bringing this forward and tabling Questions was that the scale of the problem is very small. That may be true, but the numbers are as follows. Almost 10,000 gender recognition certificates have been issued since 2004. Last year alone, 1,169 were granted. Nobody is saying that every single person who has been granted a gender recognition certificate is a sex offender or criminal—not at all—but the issue is that we do not know whether any of them are. There may be individuals within that population who are convicted sex offenders. I say that this is possible because, as the Government have confirmed, a criminal conviction is not disclosed in the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate. Apparently, the panel assesses risk and looks at a number of factors regarding that individual, but a criminal conviction is not part of that process.
I found that very strange, and various members of the public who have written to me have also found it rather strange. The argument that this is a small number of people is not adequate to reassure the public that we would not have somebody who has been convicted of a horrific crime—sex with a child, rape, paedophilia—go on to potentially obtain a gender recognition certificate. What possible reason could that individual have for changing their gender? There would be only one reason: they want to access more vulnerable people and commit horrendous crimes.
To me, it seems a matter of common sense that you could make the process of applying for this certificate something that has a step somebody must go through to say “I am not a convicted sex offender”, or the panel should require that evidence in its deliberations to ensure that somebody who has been convicted of rape or sexual offences of a serious nature should not be permitted to change their gender. The Government say that these issues are judged on case-by-case basis, but they do not keep the information that would really inform those decisions. The questions I have tabled to the Government show that applicants are not required to provide details of criminal convictions, and only 6% of those applications are refused for any reason. So it does look like a reasonably permissive process that people are able to get through quite easily.
If a person has successfully changed their gender and name, the onus is on them to go to the police. This is a system that is full of loopholes. It is not satisfactory to say “Well, it’s only a small number of individuals”, because even one person being able to do that is too many.
I will very briefly come back to the absolutely horrendous case I mentioned before. A perpetrator called Ryan Haley sexually abused a girl who was only 13 years old; she had to go to court and watch him on trial for sexual abuse, where he insisted that everyone call him Natalie Wolf and said he was celebrating his body and his choice. What about the body of the young girl who was abused under horrific circumstances? Why should he get to stand up and be treated as a woman when he committed disgraceful acts on a 13 year-old girl? That is the reason for my amendment, and I look forward to the Government’s response.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for outlining her reasons behind Amendment 307. However, I approach this from a somewhat different perspective. I do not sit behind the fact that there is a very low number of transgender people who are convicted of sex offences; I turn it around and look through the other end of the telescope. This is why I found the Government’s updated guidance called Crime and Policing Bill: Management of Offenders Factsheet extremely helpful.
First, the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, referred to names. The factsheet very clearly says that sex offenders may not make name changes without the permission of the police; if they do not have permission, they are committing an offence. They also have to notify the police of any contact with children. In the past, that has meant that, whenever they spend 12 hours or more in a household where children are present, they have to notify the police of the address, the date on which they are going to stay and when residence began.
The changes will remove the time threshold and the responsibility not only on the offender but of those involved in monitoring the offender, whether it is the police or probation, meaning that any contact with children in the future will be monitored. Further, if they are away from a previously notified address, that is an offence, as the other items are under the Sexual Offences Act, if they do not notify authorities. The police will be watching for people who are on the sexual offences register to make sure that they comply, and I suspect they and probation would be very concerned if there were gaps in appearances and would chase them.
Is the Minister satisfied that the public would be safe from any sex offender on the register who is caught by the terms of this factsheet—which is a very good practical document for police, probation and others—whether they are transgender or not?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly. As was the case in Committee, we wholly support the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment. It would serve to prevent those who commit a sexual offence obtaining a gender recognition certificate and is a necessary step that would stop criminals retroactively exploiting gender recognition laws. Our view is that we should not put inmates at risk by placing other criminals of a different sex in prison with them, for instance. I have direct experience of this in Scotland, where a few years ago there was the celebrated case of Isla Bryson, who was a double rapist initially housed in the female prison estate having decided to transition while standing trial, and I would not want to see those mistakes repeated in the rest of the UK. I hope that the Minister can offer his support for this amendment and I look forward to hearing his reply.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for setting out Amendment 307. As she knows, we have discussed this in Committee, we have corresponded and I am grateful for her acknowledgement of that. Amendment 307 seeks to prevent anyone with a conviction for an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 being eligible to obtain a gender recognition certificate.
As I said in Committee, individuals with sexual offence convictions are already subject to a comprehensive set of post-conviction measures, including the notification requirements, sexual harm prevention orders and oversight through multi-agency public protection arrangements. These ensure that offenders are monitored and managed according to the level of risk they present and not their gender. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, obviously we believe that the measures in place are supportive and preventive and will manage offenders. We can never guarantee that offenders do not reoffend, but there is very close supervision and oversight through those multi-agency protection arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, mentioned the number of gender recognition certificates issued and the potentially small number of people with a gender recognition certificate who commit an offence. Most of those who have one are living their lives legally, honestly and decently and will not come within the remit of this legislation. Given the strength of the post-conviction risk management systems that I have just mentioned, together with the very small number of gender recognition certificates issued each year, the Government do not consider a statutory prohibition of this kind to be necessary. To return to the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the notification regime exists to support risk management, and we remain unconvinced that a blanket restriction on access to a gender recognition certificate will provide any meaningful additional protection.
Where a registered sex offender seeks to change their name following a change in gender—which goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, with the Scottish example that he gave—whether or not a gender recognition certificate is involved, in England and Wales, the measures as outlined in Clause 98 will apply.
I think that the measures in Clause 98—I know she has read them—are quite important. The notification requirements state:
“A relevant offender must notify a new name to the police … no less than 7 days before using it”.
The measures are there to ensure that reasonable, practical steps are taken. The clause provides the recognition that we are putting in place, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned: a registered offender must notify a new name to the police before a name change is put in place. In the small number of cases where somebody wishes to have a gender recognition certificate involved in a name change, Clause 98 covers the points clearly. It becomes clear that requiring offenders to notify the police of the acquisition of a gender recognition certificate will aid the police in the risk management of sex offenders. The Government can exercise existing regulation-making powers to introduce such a requirement.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
I thank the Minister for his comments. Just to be very clear and direct, it would be one less individual for the MAPPA arrangements to worry about, because that individual would not have changed their gender. They would still be living in their previous gender and there would be a very straightforward process there. There would be no risk of loopholes and that person falling outside the MAPPA arrangements.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I again draw the noble Baroness’s attention to Clause 98, which says:
“A relevant offender must notify a new name to the police … no less than 7 days before using it”.
Again, criminal or not, if people wish to identify in the way in which they identify, I think they are entitled to be allowed to do so. I give way again.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise for intervening at this time of night. Surely the key point is that, once someone has been convicted of a sex offence, being on the register, either indefinitely or for a particular period, is the trigger for the monitoring of that offender. Whether they have a gender recognition certificate or not is almost irrelevant. It is not irrelevant to the noble Baroness, and I absolutely accept that, but all the monitoring of that individual will happen regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I said this in my opening remarks, but I will repeat myself to enforce what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said: the arrangements in place ensure that offenders are monitored and managed according to the level of risk they present, not according to their gender. That is the key point that I put to the noble Baroness. The gender issue is covered by Clause 98. The management of risk is covered whatever their gender happens to be at any time. People still have the right to change their gender and identify as they feel right, according to their own circumstances.
I say again to the noble Baroness that the vast majority of people who apply for a gender recognition certificate are not going to be sex offenders. They are going to be ordinary people walking round the streets and living in communities and never even thinking of being sex offenders. I do not wish to tarnish those individuals who have a full right to live their life as they choose, so I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
I will not detain the House. I have heard what the Minister said and I am unsatisfied, but I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Katz
“(b) in subsection (1), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;(c) in subsection (2), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement, is the civil standard.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, following consideration of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in Committee, the Government have brought forward amendments to the stalking provisions in Part 6.
Amendments 308 to 313, 314 and 315 explicitly provide for the civil standard of proof to apply when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement to an order in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. This includes when the courts are deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order. This will promote consistency and improve clarity in understanding of the standard of proof applicable in cases of stalking protection orders.
In addition, I am very happy to accept Amendment 316 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which will convert the power conferred on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about stalking into a duty to do so. This will align the provision on guidance in the Stalking Protection Act 2019 with that in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, promoting consistency in the legislative provisions which aim to tackle violence against women and girls.
My noble friend Lady Royall also has Amendment 313A in this group. I will respond to it once she and other noble Lords have contributed to the debate, but in the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 313A, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward amendments in response to my amendment in Committee. These amendments clarify the evidential threshold for obtaining an SPO, bringing this in line with the domestic abuse protection orders, so ensuring swifter and less onerous access to these protective orders, and it will make a real difference to the protection and safety of victims.
I am grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for meeting me, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and to the Victims’ Commissioner and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for their support.
Amendment 313A is very similar to the one I moved in Committee, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It would introduce stalking protection notices—SPNs—to provide an immediate safeguard to prevent unwanted contact or communication from a perpetrator until a full SPO is granted, thus mirroring domestic abuse protection notices. In response to the debate on that amendment, my noble friend the Minister suggested that the amendment as drafted would be disproportionate, since it would criminalise the breach of a police-issued notice without court oversight. I have therefore updated the amendment so that a breach of an SPN would not be a criminal offence, ensuring that it reflects the framework for DAPOs.
Why is this amendment necessary? Because, as highlighted in the Suzy Lamplugh Trust super-complaint and its report on experiences of the CPS and the courts, the use of full and interim SPOs is currently inadequate, including lack of applications by the police and the time that it takes to obtain one, given that both the full and interim orders have to be granted by a court. Victims say that when police do apply for SPOs, the judiciary do not recognise the need for an SPO, particularly if other orders are already in place.
In response to the super-complaint, HMICFRS highlighted the arduous application process for the police and their frustrations over their inability to issue orders themselves. It called for the Government to use the DAPN framework as a template to legislate for a new stalking protection notice, which, like the DAPN, would not require an application to the court and could be issued by the police to offer protection in stalking cases.
The length of delays in cases varies from months to years. For victims of stalking, a delay in taking their case to trial means a continuation of the stalking behaviours, especially if no protective orders are put in place. The failure to put in place an interim or full SPO at the earliest opportunity puts victims at risk of further acts of stalking, which increases the potential psychological and physical harm that they are likely to suffer. Data on SPOs is also limited and outdated, making it hard to establish how many are refused by the courts.
It is both right and logical that SPNs should be enabled and put in place following a similar approach to DAPNs. They would offer immediate police-applied protection in stalking cases and set a timeframe for the courts to consider a full order. It cannot be right that, at the moment, a woman who is at risk of violence from a stalker has less protection than a woman at risk of violence at the hands of her domestic abuser, so steps must be taken to bring this into line.
The hour is late, but I will cite one case study from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust relating to delays in SPOs and the harm caused. This case opened in January 2025. The client was subjected to criminal damage, vexatious complaints to her employer and an online campaign aimed at discrediting her. The offender also moved house to be closer to the client. This has had a significant impact on her quality of life. The case has had four different OICs and different teams from the outset, which has caused considerable delay—to the detriment of the client. An SPO has been considered throughout the investigation, but there has been little progress or ownership of responsibility across the police force.
The advocate has pointed this out on numerous occasions. Several complaints have been made to the police and the local MP but, as far as the advocate knows, no response has been received. Legal services within the force had been contacted about an SPO in February 2025. Multiple witness statements had been obtained to support the application. The police stated that the SPO application was submitted in March 2025, but this turned out to be incorrect. The judge, in a separate non-molestation order request hearing, asked why after six months the force had not secured an SPO. At the time of writing, the SPO application was sitting with the force’s legal services awaiting a court date. Due to the time that has elapsed, the perpetrator has now been on bail for so long that it has required a magistrate’s application to secure a bail extension.
This and hundreds of similar cases demonstrate the need for swift action and the introduction of stalking protection notices. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for setting out the details of her amendment, which I signed. I will not repeat any of the things that she said. I completely endorse them. I thank the Government for their amendments. Moving from the criminal level of proof to a civil standard of proof is important. We have been arguing for this for some time, so I am very grateful that the Government have taken this on board.
My Amendment 316 is another attempt to draw parallels between all the protections for victims of domestic abuse and those of stalking. It felt an odd decision that a Secretary of State might be able to report but not have to report on conditions. So I am very grateful that the Minister has signed my amendment. I look forward to seeing the statutory reports in due course.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, as a preliminary point, when we debated this part of the Bill in Committee, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower made the point that the Government are not taking a strong enough line on sentencing for those convicted of stalking offences. That remains the case. I hope that Ministers will heed that warning. Violence against women and girls is unacceptable. We can all agree that and we must have a zero-tolerance approach. Strengthening stalking protection orders is just one step, but we need to take a tougher approach on sentencing and enforcement.
Amendment 313A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is a reasonable proposal which Ministers should consider. It sets out the structure of the SPN procedure. The noble Baroness also spoke to existing flaws in the current SPO system. I have a couple of questions that I would be grateful if the Minister could consider. Do the Government feel that the existing stalking protection order system is dealing with orders sufficiently quickly? What steps are Ministers taking to speed up the process when issues arise?
Given the hour, I do not intend to detain the House further. We accept the government amendments in this group on the civil standard of proof, which respond to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. They have the effect of clarifying the position on the standard of proof used when imposing SPOs. Clarity of the law and its application are essential parts of any just legal system and we welcome them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank everyone who has taken part in this short but important debate. As my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon set out, Amendment 313A would introduce a stalking protection notice, which could be imposed by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent. I am grateful to my noble friend for continuing to raise the operational issues impacting how well stalking protection orders work in practice and the differences between existing protective order frameworks for addressing violence against women and girls.
I am also grateful to my noble friend, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for meeting with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint, to discuss their amendment. I understand and sympathise with the intention of noble Lords to address this issue. In our violence against women and girls strategy, published in December, we committed to launch stalking protection order intensification sites into select police force areas. These will aim to drive up the use of stalking protection orders and provide opportunities to test innovative approaches to enforcing conditions and monitoring breaches which could be adopted nationwide.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I have just had a look to see whether I can find any data on the number of stalking protection orders issued to those under 18, and the answer is that they are not disaggregated. The Minister is drawing this great distinction about those aged between 10 and 17. We have just had a debate on another matter where we think there is a very small number involved. It would be useful to know if we could have some help from the Minister on the likelihood of numbers.
Lord Katz (Lab)
It may not entirely surprise the noble Baroness that I do not have that data or the awareness of what we can do with the data to hand, but I am certainly happy to undertake to write to her with as much detail as we can summon.
I hope that my noble friend will be content not to move her Amendment 313A and, with other noble Lords, will support the government amendments in this group.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
“(i) in paragraph (a), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement in a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
“364I Stalking protection notices and streamlined process for stalking protection orders(1) A senior police officer of the rank of Superintendent or above may issue a stalking protection notice (“SPN”) where they have reasonable grounds to believe that—(a) the defendant has carried out behaviour associated with stalking as described in this Act,(b) the defendant is aged 18 or over, and(c) it is necessary to issue a notice to protect another person from the risk of stalking.(2) A stalking protection notice may—(a) prohibit the defendant from engaging in conduct which amounts to stalking, or from contacting or attempting to contact another person (“the protected person”) in a manner associated with stalking behaviour,(b) include a direction for a defendant to attend a magistrate’s court within 72 hours for an application for a Stalking Protection Order, and(c) remain in force until that hearing takes place.(3) A stalking protection notice must—(a) state the grounds on which it is made,(b) set out the terms of the notice, and(c) inform the Defendant of the date, time and location of the court hearing.”
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the response from my noble friend the Minister. I did not really understand the point about age, so I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I look forward to reading Hansard and to receiving a letter likewise.
It is great to know that there is an internal review taking place, and of course we look forward to Richard Wright’s review. I note that the Government have said that they will respond to the review within four months, so we look forward to a response before the summer. With that, I am happy not to press my amendment.
“(ii) after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;(c) in subsection (3), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement, is the civil standard.
“(aa) in subsection (3)(a), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
Baroness Brinton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the issuance of stalking guidance by the Secretary of State, mirroring the provisions for guidance within the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for signing my amendment, and I am grateful that the Ministers said they would accept my amendment. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Addington
“Consultation on guidance for serious self-harm offences(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance regarding the application of sections 115 and 116 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm). (2) Before issuing or revising any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult extensively with the following persons and organisations—(a) representatives of self-harm support charities and organisations;(b) mental health professionals, including those providing trauma-informed care and support;(c) legal experts, including prosecutors and defence practitioners, regarding the application of the specific intent requirement;(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) The guidance issued under this section must—(a) clearly differentiate between conduct falling within the criminal offence under section 102 (which requires specific intention to encourage or assist serious self-harm) and legitimate, supportive, or therapeutic activity;(b) include instruction for law enforcement and relevant agencies on identifying and engaging with vulnerable individuals in a trauma-informed manner.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of any guidance issued or revised under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the serious self-harm sections of this Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I join the Bill, at this late stage, very much as the understudy. I am afraid my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones could not be with us any longer, but the hour is late and I do not think anybody can accuse him of not putting in a shift. He gave me brief notes, and I will try to précis them further.
This is inspired by charities feeling that the advice they give out may be caught by the Bill. Of course, this will not be the intention of government, but the cock-up theory of history is one I have always found very appealing. If it can go wrong, it probably will, unless you put something in place.
I believe my noble friend was waiting for a letter from the noble Baroness the Minister; I am not policing his inbox so I do not know what has happened there, but if we can get some clarity from the Dispatch Box that steps will be made so that there is no confusion and this very important work can take place, then the noble Baroness, if she is replying to this, will be doing us all a favour in making sure that help can be given to people who desperately need it. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I had written “I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones”, which I crossed out, and then “the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey”, which I also crossed out. I will now say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing forward this amendment and for the careful way in which he outlined the basis for it.
We support the intention behind Clauses 115 and 116. These are serious offences, designed to capture those who deliberately encourage or assist serious self-harm. Precisely because the subject matter is so grave and so bound up with vulnerability, it is essential that the law is applied with clarity and care.
The amendment’s focus on consultation and guidance is pragmatic and proportionate, because policy in this area must be rooted in the lived experience of mental health professionals and legal practitioners, so guidance that distinguishes criminal intent from legitimate activity will be vital to avoid unintended consequences. For those reasons, we lend our support to the principle behind this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I too had a speech that started off thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I too crossed that out and wrote in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I also now thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for moving this amendment.
I am, however, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who is not in his place now, for meeting me to discuss his amendment. I think I was able to persuade him and to reassure him that guidance on the application of Clauses 115 and 116 is not necessary. I also wrote to him—I know I cleared the letter, and it may even have been the day before yesterday; I think I have just received a message saying that it may not have been sent until this afternoon, but it has definitely gone. We have placed a copy in the House Library. The letter was written with the intention that it could be sent to the various charities so that they could see exactly what I was saying.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I discussed, the existing offence that these amendments seek to broaden, which is under Section 184 of the Online Safety Act, is already in active use by the CPS and law enforcement. We are not aware of any cases involving therapeutic support where prosecutors have struggled to determine whether a prosecution was appropriate. The CPS guidance is clear about the requirement of intention, which must be present to meet the threshold of the offence, and the CPS legal guidance will be updated to reflect the widened scope of the offence, which now covers conduct both online and in person.
The offence also contains two important safeguards. First, the defendant must intend to encourage or assist the serious self-harm. Secondly, their act must be capable of doing so. These safeguards ensure that vulnerable individuals and those providing mental health support are not also inadvertently captured.
I should make it clear that it is absolutely not the Government’s intention to target either vulnerable people or the therapeutic services that support them. The Government believe the offence as it operates now and as it will be expanded in the Bill is proportionate and targets only the most serious and culpable offending. I hope that the noble Lord is content with these reassurances and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving that assurance. Having it repeated again at the Dispatch Box makes it easier for people to feel secure about this. That, along with the letter, which I am sure is a work of great wisdom, will add to the fact that we will have a defence in place, just in case there are misunderstandings. With that, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.