Lords Chamber

Wednesday 25th March 2026

(began 2 hours, 7 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Promoting equality as part of the Break Down Barriers to Opportunity mission
-

I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
None Portrait Business of the House
-

Yeah.
15:50
15:51
15:53
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, if I may, I'd like to >> My Lords, if I may, I'd like to make a short statement on the position regarding the legislative consent motion on this Bill. While consent motion on this Bill. While the majority of the provisions in the Bill apply to England and Wales, only certain provisions also apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions relate to a mix of accepted reserves and devolved or transferred matters, and as such, engage the legislative consent process in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday, the 24th of March, the Scottish Parliament approved the Legislative Consent Motion in respect of the Bill put forward and supported by the Scottish Government. The Northern Ireland Assembly has approved three legislative consent motions on the 23rd of June, 2nd of February and 16th of March. However, the 10th of March, the Welsh Senate debated a legislative consent motion which was put forward and supported by the Welsh Government. But. However, the motion was not supported by the Senate.

This is, I think, regrettable given the measures in the Bill engage the legislative consent process, include a range of offences such as the assault on a retail worker, mobile phone theft, sexual exploitation and others. And I can't really, for the life of me understand why both PLI summary reform members, indeed conservative members from HMG opposition in the Senate and the Liberal Democrats opposed the consent motion in the Senate, but that they did, and that they will have to be accountable for.

I believe the bill should pass. But we are in discussion with the Welsh Government and the Wales Office as to the way forward, and if the Lords and noble Lords will allow me, we will set out the government's position when the Bill is next considered by the House of Commons after the recess. But in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the meantime, my Lords, I beg to move the Bill, be read a third time. Question is that this bill be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this bill be. Now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it of to clause 101, amendment one Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hanson of Flint. And my Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Government the Marshalled List. Government amendments one, 14 and 18 deliver on the government's commitment to ensure that the strongest protections possible on violence against women and girls online are in place. They seek to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual, intimate images and a requirement the processes and systems be in place so that such content and any content which is the same or substantially the same, is removed within 48 hours.

In moving these amendments, may I pay tribute to the work by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, in both raising this issue and being a tireless campaigner on this issue in your Lordships House? Now, we all know that non-consensual, intimate image abuse is utterly vile and the government is very clear that we will not allow the proliferation of demeaning and degrading images online. I believe the House is united in recognising the profound and lasting harm this form of abuse inflicts on victims, and we do share a common determination to ensure that victims receive meaningful protection.

The government is committed to delivering a strong, clear, enforceable response across the online safety regime, and I'm very grateful for the constructive engagement that has been crucial in shaping this amendment, both by the noble Lady and also, if I may say so, by my noble friend, Baroness Levitt. The Online Safety Act already places robust duties on services to minimise illegal content, including intimate image offences, and it provides effective reporting and complaints mechanism for users. However, given the particular and often acute impact of intimate image abuse, the government has now committed to going further to set out specific expectations of how platforms must respond when this content is reported.

And that brings me, my noble Lords, to amendment one, which delivers on the commitment we've made to ensure that the strongest protections possible on violence against women and girls online are in place. Amendment one seeks to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual, intimate images and a requirement that processes and systems be in place so that such content and any content which is the same or substantially the same, is removed within 48 hours. This builds on the work already undertaken to strengthen the Online Safety Act, and the House has already agreed amendments that make requesting or making intimate images and sharing or threatening to share them.

Primary offences under the Online Safety Act. This amendment will impose additional duties on all regulated services and require platforms to prioritise, detect, mitigate and remove this illegal content more quickly and systematically. Amendment one goes further and delivers on my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister's commitment at the end of February to put social media companies on notice to take down any non-consensual, intimate images within 48 hours. The government's amendment will, I believe, introduce a clear, enforceable statutory duty requiring platforms to have systems and processes in place to remove reported information as soon as possible and within 48 hours.

The duty is designed to work with the Online Safety Act Systems and Processes framework, ensuring that Ofcom can enforce it effectively at scale and deliver for victims of intimate image abuse. This also means that the amendment will be subject to the full suite of enforcement powers at Ofcom's disposal, and I want to tell the House that Ofcom is currently going to consult on additional safety measures to support the removal of uploads, including work on hash matching regime, which would require relevant services to adopt technology to detect and prevent re uploads of non-consensual, intimate images.

Now together, the statutory takedown duty and the hash matching measures will create a joined up system that delivers, I believe, a stronger and more sustainable protection for victims than a standalone 48 hour rule. I just, if I may. In conclusion, I want to just quote again my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for science, Innovation and Technology, who when the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to table this amendment, said, and I quote, the days of tech firms having a free pass are over because of the action we're taking.

Platforms must now find and remove intimate images shared without consent, within a maximum of 48 hours. No woman should have to chase platform after platform, waiting days for an image to come down. And I concur with that message. These amendments ensure that nonconsensual images, images, and intimate images are treated with the seriousness that it warrants under the UK's regulatory regime. For online platforms and online safety, with enforcement and sanctions reflective of the severe harm caused to victims. If I may, also government's amendments 19 to 21 are minor technical and drafting changes which I hope are uncontroversial.

I pay tribute to the noble Lady. I pay tribute to all those who have pressed the government to take action on this matter. The government have taken action. The noble Baroness has amendments in this group, as indeed does the noble Lady Burton. I will respond to those, if I may, once I've heard comments from the noble Baroness and anybody else from the House who wishes to speak, but for now I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
16:01
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 101. Insert the new clause printed 101. Insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List as an amendment to amendment one, amendment two. Baroness Owen of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alderley Edge. My Lords, I rise to speak to the Government amendments and the amendments in my name and the names amendments in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron and the noble Lords, Clement-Jones and Stevenson of Balmacara. In doing so, I declare an interest as receiving pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya on image based sexual abuse. I am grateful to the government for working with me to bring forward their amendment in response to my amendment at Committee stage on 48 hour takedown.

I am pleased they are working with me on my amendments that the Lords passed at Report stage on the creation of a centralised hash registry and hash sharing. I must add that it is disappointing that after months of speaking to the government about the importance of hashing and 48 hour amendments working together, that they cannot be scrutinised together. Whilst I am very pleased Government Amendment one addresses the concerns I brought forward on indexing and duplicates, I do not believe it is sufficient in achieving the mechanism that I set out to create in my original 48 hour takedown amendment at Committee stage.

My intention was to create a system where no victim is left behind. This requires the mechanism to be agile and for internet services to feel the consequence of not acting upon each individual instance, reported my Lords. The government amendment has done the bare minimum and simply updated the Online Safety Act, where it already instructed internet services to swiftly take down such content to now add as soon as reasonably, reasonably practicable and no later than 48 hours. In reality, this represents very little change, as the good actors will still move at pace and the bad actors will continue to ignore.

One survivor, Jodie, who many noble Lords have met, responded to the government amendment, saying it is hugely frustrating to see headline grabbing commitments without the substance needed to actually protect victims. A 48 hour deadline sounds strong, especially when delivered by the Prime Minister to millions on breakfast television. But without real enforcement, it risks creating false hope. Another victim, Daria, said simply as a survivor, I feel this is quite simply gaslighting. My Lords, we must remember that Ofcom rules are about systems and processes and not outcomes.

If a service has followed the rules. But individual violations still occur, an internet service will not be held responsible. Sophie Mortimer, at the Revenge Porn Helpline confirmed this, stating that while platforms that already act in good faith will meet these standards, the persistent bad actors who continue to drive the sharing of this content will ignore. And the government amendment does not give Ofcom enough weapons to respond. My Lords, I am deeply concerned that the government has not specified how Ofcom will even know if a service fails to act within 48 hours.

Ofcom have confirmed that there is no automatic mechanism for them to know if services are not meeting the 48 hour takedown requirement in any given case. Further, the only recourse the government provides should a service be found to generally not comply, are the long and bureaucratic business disruption measures. This means that women will will still suffer ongoing trauma when platforms refuse to comply. My amendments seek to address the gaps in the government amendments, which I will outline briefly. Amendments two and eight mandate services to publicly report and report to Ofcom.

Their average takedown times amendments three and nine strengthened the government wording on finding duplicate images to ensure services have to take all reasonable steps, instead of simply relying on what a service may identify. Amendments four and ten incentivise services to act by creating a more agile mechanism whereby they can be fined per violation, and this violation can increase for every 24 hour period in which they fail to act, thus ensuring there is a consequence for not acting on individual instances of abuse.

I believe these amendments create a more agile mechanism and do not solely rely on business disruption measures. This amendment is based on the Take It Down Act, which operates which operates under the rules of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA. The sum I have chosen is based upon the figure levied under FTC rules for continued instances of violation. After companies have been notified. Amendments five and 11 mandate the Secretary of State to create a mechanism where individuals can report to Ofcom in cases where the service provider has failed to remove the content within 48 hours.

At present, it is not clear what a victim would do if they reported the content to a service, who then fails to act after the initial 48 hours. Amendments six and 12 ensure that services have to be have clear and conspicuous notices where victims can report NCI content. This uses the wording from the Take It Down act and gives more clarity to internet services, the government amendment and the Online Safety Act simply refer to being able to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider.

Amendments seven and 13 add provisions that seek to kerb against malicious reporting by requiring a statement that the report has been made in good faith. Additionally, this provides internet services with further assurances they need to act quicker upon receiving reports. My Lords, I am grateful for the government for coming to the table on this issue. However, victims deserve so much more than press releases which promise action but in reality represent little practical change in the most traumatic moment of their lives.

I implore noble Lords to vote with me so that no victim

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is left behind. I beg to move. Amendment proposed as an amendment to the new clause proposed as amendment one in subsection two, after inserting subsection two, after inserting subsection three, A, insert the new words printed on the Marshalled List.
16:07
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Portrait Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour)
-
-
List. >> My Lords, at Third Reading. It is extraordinarily rare to find is extraordinarily rare to find issues still in context and have been presented, as we have today, a choice on which we will have to vote. Normally by this stage, the party, the issues have been clearly discussed and the parties concerned. The government on one side and those proposing amendments on the other, have had enough meetings to be able to get to a point where they can agree on what's going forward.

Having said that, I'm I'm sure we're at the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lords Minister, my noble friend, for bringing forward what he has brought forward. These are substantial changes to the Online Safety Act. They're extraordinarily welcome. They cover the ground very well. But as has been pointed out, they perhaps do not quite go as far as they could do. We are at Third Reading, my Lord. It's therefore very difficult to find time and the space to be able to resolve what I think are quite relatively small differences between the two sides.

So I would simply point out to my noble friend, the Minister, that this place is those who support the noble Baroness, and her amendments are in a difficult position about his amendments, which we want to support, but the only way to get them to resolution is probably to vote with the noble Baroness. I hope he will appreciate that and suggest to him that when he comes to respond, he makes it very clear that the government still is willing to talk about these issues, is still willing to meet with those who have concerns and views about what the government has done and might be able to promise that action could be taken to resolve this in the Commons.
16:09
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:14
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lords who've spoken. Up in noble Lords who've spoken. Up in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, of all the ages. Amendments, Owen, of all the ages. Amendments, and I briefly rise to express our firm support on these benches for amendments 2 to 13, which she's brought forward and which I've signed and wish to speak to her, amendments to the government's new clause. And, my Lords, we also support the noble Baroness Bertin amendments.

Now, my Lords, as the noble Lord Stevenson did, and noble Baroness Kidron we acknowledge that the government has moved, and I think the words used by the noble Lord Stevenson was substantially. By tabling amendment one, they've accepted the principle of a 48 hour statutory takedown limit for non-consensual, intimate images, and I was pleased to hear also what the noble Lord the Minister had said about hash matching work, my Lords, which is ongoing. But and this, of course, is a victory for the noble Baroness Mone and survivors.

But as we reach this stage, we must ensure that the common sense safeguards that the noble Baroness has championed are not diluted in the government's new framework. And there is, as the noble Baroness Kidron and the noble Lord Pannick have said, there is an effective enforcement mechanism, my Lords, and there are a number of critical areas where the government's current position falls short. Governments clause requires takedown within 48 hours, but it provides no mechanism for the public or the regulator to see if this is actually happening.

So, for example, amendment two requires platforms to record and report the average time taken to remove content and publish that data. Without this, we're back to tactical ambiguity. We need to know which platforms are meeting the 48 hour mark and which are consistently dragging their feet. A 48 hour duty is only half the battle. If a victim has to report every single copy of an image manually, amendment three requires platforms to take all reasonable steps to find duplicates or substantially similar content once a report is made.

If the government is serious about ending the trauma of digital whack a mole, they must accept this duty to proactively scrub all versions of an abusive image from their systems. Under the standard Online Safety Act procedures. Enforcement is notoriously slow. Amendment four introduces a specific deterrent. Fine. As the noble Baroness Owen described a fine of £39,000 for every 24 hour period that a service remains in breach after the initial 48 hours has elapsed. This creates the immediate incentive needed to ensure that safety is treated as a priority, not an optional compliance cost.

An amendment 11 mandates the ability to set up an accessible process for individuals to report directly to Ofcom when a service has failed its 48 hour duty, it gives the victim a voice in the enforcement process. Process. My Lords, in summary, the Government's amendment number one is a welcome step, but without the noble Baroness amendments, it will lack the teeth to handle the true nature of modern image abuse. And I urge the Minister to accept these amendments and adopt the noble Baroness Bull package of safeguards.
16:17
16:19
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Once again, I'm grateful to the noble Lady Owen for tabling the amendments and initiating the amendments and initiating the discussion. I feel like someone has brought a birthday cake to a party to have someone else blow the candles out, but I have tried our best on behalf of the Prime Minister, the Department of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office to bring forward proposals that met the objectives that the government itself has set and which met the objectives of the noble Lady as well.

Taken together, amendments 2 to 13 would amend Government Amendment one by introducing fixed penalties, public performance reporting and new escalation routes the noble Lord Clement-Jones noble. My noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Baroness Kidron noble and learned Lord Pannick and the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, in support of those amendments, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Molluscum, for her short, sharp intervention, which I. I very much welcome. But may I just say to to her and to others that on the proposal to require services to publish average takedown times, I recognise the desire for both transparency and public accountability.

I just say to the noble Lady that Ofcom already has the power to request information of this nature, which would also apply to the government's amendment. However, publicly benchmarking speed in this way risks hardwiring the wrong incentive into the system. This duty is not intended to be a race to remove any reported content at all costs, including where reports are mistaken, malicious or vexatious. Parliament is asking providers to act quickly and responsibly, which can necessarily include occasionally verifying that reports are valid.

A single public average time metric could encourage unintended removal of lawful content, undermine procedural safeguards and ultimately undermine confidence in the regime critically, amongst the very victims who this government wishes to stand with the noble Lady in support of Ofcom. I would also say to the House how strong powers to require detailed performance data, where there are concerns about systemic compliance, the regulator led scrutiny is a more effective, credible and proportionate means of accountability and ensures a regime that best delivers for its victims.

Now, the proposed amendment requires providers to take all reasonable steps to identify duplicates or substantially similar content. And again, I share that objective on behalf of the government. Providers are already required to take proportionate steps to seek out this illegal content under wider illegal content duties. Now, if I may, I want to just turn to the issue of the specific fines and the proposal for specific fines, the noble and learned Lord Pannick and the noble Lord Thomas have mentioned that it's important that there are financial consequences for any illegal action.

I just say to both them, but also to the noble Lady, that she will know that the Online Safety Act already equips Ofcom with very strong enforcement powers. Ofcom can already issue a heavy fine of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue in the event of contravention of regulations that Ofcom is empowered to monitor. These fines can be augmented even with daily fines on a case by case basis. Therefore, I just simply say to the two noble Lords from the crossbenches who've spoken to the noble Lady, that I would argue it's not necessary to introduce an additional fixed rate fine mechanism on the face of the bill.

When a 10% qualifying worldwide revenue is a significant and effective potential punishment by Ofcom, who have those enforcement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powers. Sorry. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for giving way. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, answer noble Lord, the Minister, answer how what an individual woman does in the case of her, the content not in the case of her, the content not being removed within 48 hours is the noble Lord. The Minister, suggesting that she waits for Ofcom to recognise, without a mechanism to recognise, without a mechanism to go to Ofcom, that a website has failed in its duty and therefore failed in its duty and therefore waits for the Secretary of State to mandate long and bureaucratic business disruption measures all the time, with her intimate image left online.

Whilst Ofcom seeks 10% of the worldwide revenue of that business.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the purpose of the regulation is to provide a regulation is to provide a disincentive to putting the content up in the first place. And if a up in the first place. And if a anybody who places that content on any online platform in the first place knows that Ofcom have the place knows that Ofcom have the power to alleviate 10% of worldwide fines, and the purpose of that, fines, and the purpose of that, that that power is to deter people from undertaking that breaking of the law in the first place, coupled with the powers that be given in amendment one.

I think that is a strong reassurance to anybody who has that illegal content put up by any particular organisation or individual. Now, there might be an honest disagreement between the noble Lady and myself on that, but I want to prevent prevent any illegal content being put up in the first place. And I would argue that a 10% fine of any worldwide revenue on the platform that is hosting, that is a significant contribution. And it would mean, ultimately, that Ofcom does have the power to make significant damage to any organisation that, in my view, put up that illegal content.

So I accept and I understand the concerns that have been raised, and I just hope that the noble Lady can understand as well that the government is trying to support the very victims that she is speaking to. Also, I think that it's important that we appreciate the intention behind enabling individuals also to report non-compliance. They can raise that concern through Ofcom's reporting portal. These reports can signal potential systemic issues, and they can be used for wider investigations, as I've just mentioned.

But I do recognise also the urgency with which victims rightly expect this content to be removed. Very point. The noble Lady has just mentioned. I consider that a systemic systems and processes approach remains the most effective way to secure consistent compliance and deliver protection at scale. And now, on the amendment that the noble Lady has brought forward, requiring providers to display reporting notices and routes, the 2023 act already requires platforms to have clear, accessible reporting routes that allow users to easily make intimate image reports, and again, Ofcom is best placed to specify details about this in its code of practice.

And turning to proposals for good faith declarations, the government amendment requires reporting individuals to state that the content is intimate image content, and that they are subject of that content, or they are acting on a subject's behalf. And additionally, the Secretary of State has regulation making powers to specify further requirements if needed. Now, again, I hope that satisfies the noble Lady. I appreciate that, you know, and again, I hope the House can recognise the government has moved significantly on this issue.

But we will see in the noble Ladies response in due course the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, proposed 15, 16 and 17 are accepted by the government. They were, as she has said, tidying up amendments agreed by the House at Report stage, but sadly missed. As such, the government won't oppose the amendments and will actively support them. This is without, however, prejudice to any further consideration of the substantive amendments carried out. Report. We will set out the government's position on these and other amendments passed at report when the Bill returns to your Lordships House after the Easter recess, when it's been considered by the House of Commons.

So I hope again, I've tried to be constructive in response, on behalf of the whole of the government, from the Prime Minister to the different departments that have contributed to this, I hope that they are helpful engagements. I thank the noble Baroness lady for her amendments, but I hope that having heard what she said, with perhaps little hope that she will withdraw her amendments.
16:27
16:27
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page