King’s Speech

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and his sweeping look at history and the constitution.

The gracious Speech has a lot of legislation contained therein, but there are two omissions which I want to mention in passing. The first is a very welcome omission: the decision not to proceed with the Diego Garcia Bill, which, of course, was an affront to the rights of the BIOT community. The second omission is a missed opportunity, on welfare reform, and no doubt we will come back to that matter.

In the short time available to me, I want to highlight just two issues—the first is around extremism. The Minister will be pleased to hear that I met with Jonathan Hall KC just last week, who is carrying out a review of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act and its effectiveness in dealing with the glorification of terrorism. I look forward to continuing the dialogue with Mr Hall about his review and hope that he can make impactful recommendations to His Majesty’s Government.

For me, there is a gap in the legislation which allows the praising of terrorism. The impact of that goes beyond direct incitement—it is about the erosion of democratic resilience and social cohesion as well. I believe we need to send a clear message from Parliament to confront and reject extremism in all its forms, by making the glorification of terrorism something which is not normalised but rather seen as the radicalisation tool that it is.

Secondly, as this debate covers the union, I want briefly to reflect on the recent election results across the nation, with the sometimes inaccurate commentary that has followed. First, I certainly do not think the results should be ignored or glossed over by those of us who care deeply about the union, but they should also not be misrepresented. In Wales, Plaid Cymru has broken through in a remarkable way and become the largest party, with 35.4% of the vote. But with respect to Plaid’s victory, that figure is nowhere near a majority for breaking up the union in Wales, especially when one looks at the turnout, which was only 51.6%—meaning that nearly half the Welsh electorate stayed at home.

In Scotland, the SNP captured 38.2% of the vote in the constituency ballot, which is down 9.2% from 2021. When combined with the pro-independence Greens, the vote share for pro-independence parties totals only 41.15%, which is the second-lowest vote share for pro-independence parties since 2007.

There were more seats won, however, with fewer votes, because of the fragmentation of the pro-union vote. This, unfortunately, is something with which we are very familiar in Northern Ireland. In 2022, the Sinn Féin vote was just 29%, and when combined with the SDLP, it reached 38%. So, there is still clearly a pro-union majority, not just in Northern Ireland but in Scotland and Wales as well. I want to point out to noble Lords that the Sinn Féin First Minister of Northern Ireland is a joint First Minister with the unionist deputy First Minister. The First Minister cannot take any decision without the agreement of the deputy First Minister, and the hyperbole about the three devolved First Ministers being separatists is not correct. Northern Ireland is led jointly by two Ministers in the Executive Office, with equal powers and equal say. That is the price of power-sharing. Many have conveniently forgotten or chosen to ignore that fact, and it is very important that it be noted here today.

Finally, for the First Minister of Scotland to cosy up to Sinn Féin and tell us to move on, I say this: it is difficult to move on from Sinn Féin’s dark past when it refuses to move on from its dark past and continues to glorify the violence of the IRA. As Elie Wiesel said:

“To forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time”.

Child Grooming Victims: Compensation Awards

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The difficulty with that question is that it presupposes the existence of a compensation scheme for these victims. There is no such compensation scheme in existence. Whether or not that is something that is recommended by the national inquiry, we will wait to see. As I have already said, there are a number of different categories of victims in these cases, and not all the same conditions apply to all of them. But I take the point that if there were to be a compensation scheme, it would be important that it paid out quickly.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Given the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, surely a very specific compensation scheme would deal with those issues. I suggest to the Minister that she looks at the scheme that we set up in Northern Ireland to deal with institutional child abuse. The way in which that scheme worked meant that it was very quickly operated and that victims were able to access it. It is something that the national inquiry could very much benefit from looking at.

European Convention on Human Rights

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I can quote from my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor’s speech in Strasbourg in June, where she acknowledged the letter—which was of course signed by EU members; the UK Government were not invited to sign that. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend said that there should indeed be an

“open conversation about the future of the Convention”

and that the UK wants to play its full part in that.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, are His Majesty’s Government at all concerned about the diversion of interpretation of ECHR rights between the courts in Northern Ireland the rest of the United Kingdom—particularly in relation to Article 2 rights concerning veterans?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has laid a draft proposal for a draft remedial order to set out his intention to introduce primary legislation when parliamentary time allows. The Government are engaging with victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland and all interested parties to fulfil the commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act.

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

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and I agree with every single thing he had to say. I also congratulate the noble Baroness on her excellent Bill and the way in which she introduced it this afternoon. I regret that, as Back-Benchers, we have so little time to speak today; however, that is less important than the import and content of the Bill. I thank her also for the manner in which she has engaged with all of us across the House, and for the discussion we had before today’s debate.

Since I arrived in this place just two short years ago last month, I have highlighted the impact of social media on women and girls and, in particular, the negative role that social media plays in women entering public life. I very much believe that the Bill, if passed, will assist in dealing with some of the worst imagery posted online, both non-consensual and deepfake. The deliberate targeting of women with non-consensual images to cause upset and distress, particularly in election campaigns, is something all democrats should be concerned about.

Last year, there was a 400% rise in new deepfake imagery online, and of course, 99% of that was of women and girls. Encouraging young women into public life is so important, and there is no doubt that social media misuse is a growing barrier to more women being involved in public life. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who said that, of course, you do not have to be in the public eye to be a victim, and I pay tribute to the victims who are with us today. This is even harder to deal with if you are a private individual and then all of a sudden, you are propelled into the public sphere.

The Bill will close the gaps that have transpired in the 2003 legislation, as Clause 1 removes the requirement to prove motivation. That means that those who are charged will no longer be able to argue that, “It wasn’t meant to harm” or, “It wasn’t for sexual gratification”. There is strict liability, which is really important, and I hope the Government recognise that. Under the Bill, it is just the taking of or soliciting the taking of the non-consensual sexually explicit photo or film which becomes the offence.

Lastly, the Bill also future-proofs this area, as in Clause 1, which talks of “otherwise capturing” the photo or film. That covers screenshotting, of course, but is also widely enough drafted to deal with capturing the image or film in ways that we have not thought of. That is really important as well. We all know how difficult it is to future-proof legislation, but this is a really good attempt to do so, if I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I know that she has had a lot of help in doing that, and that needs to be recognised as well, because violence against women and girls continues to grow.

Unfortunately, we have had some awful deaths recently—particularly in Northern Ireland over the last six months—and, in my view, a lot of the dehumanisation of women that happens online then spills out into reality and into some terrible consequences. I support the Bill. I know that the mind of the House is to support the Bill, and I hope the Government will too.