Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

2: In subsection (2), after inserted subsection (3A), insert—
“(3AA) A duty to record and report the average time taken to take down content under the duty in subsection (3A) to OFCOM and to publish the information publicly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services must report the average time they take to remove non-consensual intimate images.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the government amendments and to the amendments in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord 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 in Committee on 48-hour take-down. I am pleased they are working with me on the amendments that your Lordships’ House passed on Report 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.

While I am very pleased that government Amendment 1 addresses the concerns I brought forward on de-indexing and duplicates, I do not believe it is sufficient to achieve the mechanism I set out to create in my original 48-hour take-down amendment in Committee. 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 on each individual instance reported. 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 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 by saying that

“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:

“As a survivor, I feel this is quite simply gaslighting”.


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:

“While the 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”.


I am deeply concerned that the Government have not specified how Ofcom will even know if a service fails to act within 48 hours. Ofcom has confirmed that there is no automatic mechanism for it to know whether services are not meeting the 48-hour take-down requirement in any given case. Further, the only recourse the Government provide should a service be found to generally not comply are the long and bureaucratic business disruption measures. This means that women will still suffer ongoing trauma when platforms refuse to comply.

My amendments seek to address the gaps in the government amendments, and I will outline them briefly. Amendments 2 and 8 mandate services to publicly report—and report to Ofcom—their average take-down times.

Amendments 3 and 9 strengthen the government wording on finding duplicate images to ensure that services have to take all reasonable steps, instead of simply relying on what a service may identify.

Amendments 4 and 10 incentivise services to act by creating a more agile mechanism whereby they can be fined per violation, and this 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 rely solely on business disruption measures. This amendment is based on the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which operates under the rules of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA. The sum I have chosen is based on the figure levied under FTC rules for continued instances of violation after companies have been notified.

Amendments 5 and 11 mandate the Secretary of State to create a mechanism whereby 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 which then failed to act after the initial 48 hours.

Amendments 6 and 12 ensure that services have “clear and conspicuous” notices of where victims can report NCII 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 refer simply to being able

“to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider”.

Amendments 7 and 13 add provisions that seek to curb 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 more quickly upon receiving reports.

I am grateful to the Government for coming to the table on this issue. However, victims deserve so much more than press releases that 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 is left behind. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, at Third Reading it is extraordinarily rare to find issues still in contest, and to be presented, as we have been today, with a choice on which we will have to vote. Normally, by this stage, the issues have been clearly discussed and the parties concerned—the Government on the 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 is going forward.

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

I point out simply to my noble friend the Minister that this places those of us who support the noble Baroness in her amendments 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 I suggest to him that, when he comes to respond, he makes it very clear that the Government are still willing to talk about these issues and still willing to meet those who have concerns and views about what the Government have done. I hope he might be able to promise that action could be taken in the Commons to resolve this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Baroness, Lady Owen, for tabling her amendments and initiating this discussion. I feel like someone who has brought a birthday cake to a party, only to have someone else blow the candles out. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, I have tried my best to bring forward proposals that meet the objectives the Government themselves have set, as well as those of the noble Baroness.

Taken together, Amendments 2 to 13 would amend government Amendment 1 by introducing fixed penalties, public performance reporting and new escalation routes to Ofcom. I note the support for these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, from the Liberal Democrat Benches; the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower; my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick; and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I also note the short, sharp intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which I very much welcomed.

On the proposal to require services to publish average take-down times, I say to the noble Baroness and others that I recognise the desire for both transparency and public accountability. 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 necessarily includes occasionally verifying that reports are valid.

A single, public average-time metric could encourage the unintended removal of lawful content, undermine procedural safeguards and, critically, ultimately undermine confidence in the regime among the very victims this Government wish to stand with the noble Baroness in support of. Ofcom has strong powers to require detailed performance data where there are concerns about systemic compliance. Regulator-led scrutiny is a more effective, credible and proportionate means of accountability that ensures a regime that best delivers for its victims.

Amendments 3 and 9 would require providers to take all reasonable steps to identify duplicates or substantially similar content. 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.

On the proposal of specific fines, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned that it is important that there are financial consequences for any illegal action. I say to them and to the noble Baroness that, as they know, 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, and these fines can even be augmented with daily fines on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it is not necessary to introduce an additional fixed-rate fine mechanism on the face of the Bill, given that a 10% fine on qualifying worldwide revenue is a significant and effective potential punishment from Ofcom, which has those enforcement powers.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

Can the Minister say what an individual woman should do if her content is not removed within 48 hours? Is the Minister suggesting that, without a mechanism to contact Ofcom, she waits for Ofcom to recognise that a website has failed in its duty, and therefore for the Secretary of State to mandate long and bureaucratic business disruption measures, and for Ofcom to seek 10% of the business’s worldwide revenue—and all the while her intimate image is left online?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The purpose of the regulation is to provide a disincentive to putting content up in the first place. If anybody who places that content on any online platform knows that Ofcom has the power to levy a 10% fine on worldwide revenue, there will be that disincentive. The purpose of that power is to deter people from breaking the law. Coupled with the powers in government Amendment 1, it will provide strong reassurance to anybody who has had illegal content put online by any particular organisation or individual.

There may be an honest disagreement between the noble Baroness and me on this, but I want to prevent any illegal content being put up in the first place. I would argue that a 10% fine of any worldwide revenue for the platform that hosts that content is a significant contribution. It would mean, ultimately, that Ofcom has the power to cause significant damage to any organisation that puts up that illegal content. I accept and understand the concerns that have been raised; I just hope that the noble Baroness can also understand that the Government are trying to support the very victims she speaks about.

We appreciate the intention behind enabling individuals also to report non-compliance. They can raise that concern through Ofcom’s reporting portal, and such reports can signal potential systemic issues and can be used for wider investigations, as I have just mentioned. I also recognise the urgency with which victims rightly expect this content to be removed—the very point the noble Baroness has just made. I consider that a systems and processes approach remains the most effective way to secure consistent compliance and deliver protection at scale.

On the amendment the noble Baroness has brought forward that would require 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. Again, Ofcom is best placed to specify details about this in its code of practice. 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 the subject of that content or are acting on the subject’s behalf. Additionally, the Secretary of State has regulation-making powers to specify further requirements if needed. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness. I hope the House can recognise that the Government have moved significantly on this issue, but we will hear the noble Baroness’s response in due course.

Amendments 15 to 17, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, are accepted by the Government. They were, as she has said, tidying-up amendments agreed by the House on Report but sadly missed. As such, the Government will not oppose the amendments and will actively support them. This is, however, without prejudice to any further consideration of the substantive amendments carried on Report. We will set out the Government’s position on these and other amendments passed on Report when the Bill returns to your Lordships’ House after the Easter Recess, once it has been considered by the House of Commons.

I have tried to be constructive in my response on behalf of the whole of the Government—from the Prime Minister to the different departments that have contributed to this. I hope they were helpful engagements. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her amendments, and I hope that, having heard what has been said—it is, perhaps, with little hope—she will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords I thank the Minister for his response. I feel that, on this point, we have not reached an agreement. While 10% of an internet service’s worldwide revenue is great, a more agile system where no woman and no victim is left behind is much better. With that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

3: In subsection (2), after inserted subsection (3A), insert—
“(3AA) In fulfilling their duty under subsection (3A)(b), the provider must take all reasonable steps to identify any other content that is the same, or substantially the same, as the content in the report.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services must take all reasonable steps to find non-consensual intimate image content that is a duplicate of (or substantially the same as) reported content.