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

Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words of thanks. First, and most importantly, I thank Jodie and Sophie who bravely spoke out about their abuse and have shared their stories with noble Lords. I thank the charities and campaigners who have been with me every step of the way and have been, quite simply, amazing: Sophie from Revenge Porn Helpline; Elena from Not Your Porn; Sophie from My Image, My Choice; Rebecca from EVAW; Emma from Refuge; Lucy from Glamour and Professor Clare McGlynn KC.

I am very grateful to noble Lords across this House who have done incredible work pushing the Government into the right place on this legislation, even if it has changed its packaging along its journey. I am thankful for the way noble Lords across this House have encouraged and guided me through the maze of legislating. Thank you to the Bill Office for the endless hours shaping this Bill. Importantly, I am very grateful to the Minister for his patience and time spent working on this matter. I know it cannot have always been easy for him, and he has always been incredibly kind and thoughtful.

I feel very optimistic that the content of this Bill has been addressed and accepted by the Government in a different format. However, there is still the issue of semen images, which this Bill sought to address and which I hope the Government will agree to legislate on rapidly. I hope the Commons will recognise the strength of feeling across this House on deepfake image abuse, and I am hopeful that we are now one step closer to seeing its end.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, please allow me to express His Majesty’s Official Opposition’s strong support for this crucial Bill and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, on her determined leadership on this subject. This Bill represents a vital step forward in safeguarding dignity, decency and the fundamental rights of individuals in our society. This Bill will champion the right to privacy and change the law for the better, safeguarding women from exploitation.

Non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit images and videos is a modern technology-driven disease that has shattered lives and ruined reputations. It represents a grave affront to personal dignity and a betrayal of the trust that is often central to intimate relationships. The speed and reach of digital communication is truly frightening and has only exacerbated this harm, making it more urgent for Parliament to act decisively.

The Bill rightly strengthens our legal framework by ensuring that those who engage in this entirely unacceptable behaviour face the full force of the law. It makes it clear that consent matters and that, without it, the distribution or threat of sharing explicit material is a crime. We must also ensure that the criminal justice system provides meaningful support for victims.

Many individuals who have endured this type of abuse have spoken of the profound psychological and emotional toll that it takes. Please let us ensure that we do more than just criminalise this behaviour. Let us stand by the victims with the resources and support that they must be given to rebuild their lives. His Majesty’s Official Opposition believe in a society where people can live freely, safely and with dignity. The Bill furthers that vision. It ensures that our legal framework evolves, as it must, to meet modern challenges, while reaffirming the timeless principles of justice, accountability and respect for the individual.

Finally, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and everyone involved, both inside and outside the Palace of Westminster, in bringing the Bill forward. We urge the House to support it wholeheartedly.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

3: In the title of inserted section 66E, after “Creating” insert “or soliciting the creation of”

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to government Amendments 2, 8 and 9 and to my Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, which are tabled in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Clement- Jones. In doing so, I declare my interest as a guest of Google at its Future Forum, an AI policy conference.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who has taken so much time in the past few weeks to meet me and discuss my concerns. I am very grateful for his patience and work in getting the new government amendment to a much stronger position than the original one. I am grateful for the undertaking to amend the time limit for prosecuting cases so that prosecution can take place even after six months have elapsed from the commission of an offence.

Amendments 3, 7 and 10 relate to my substantive amendment, Amendment 4, on soliciting sexually explicit content. I thank the Minister for his commitment to ensuring that solicitation will be included in the Bill when it reaches the Commons after scrutiny by parliamentary counsel. However, noble Lords will know that I have been urging the Government to tackle solicitation and that I am entirely inspired by the experience of Jodie, whom many noble Lords have met, and many women like her.

I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that my concern about solicitation is not new. In fact, I first flagged the issue to your Lordships’ House in July last year, so I cannot help but feel disappointed that, after all this time, the Government are still asking for longer. Solicitation is an integral part of the amendment, and I believe we cannot risk the amendment going to the Commons without its inclusion. I know so many of us, and the survivors watching, will feel far more reassured to send this Bill to the Commons with the wording clearly stating that the offence is committed irrespective of the location of the person or persons solicited, whether or not they are identified and whether or not the creation occurs.

I turn now to Amendment 5, which would remove reasonable excuse. This was an issue first highlighted to me by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on Report. The amendment speaks to our concern that reasonable excuse may be interpreted in a way that Parliament has not intended and may allow abusers to escape justice, leaving victims traumatised.

Finally, Amendment 6 gives judges the option of imprisonment as well as a fine. It is vital that the Government take a strong position in standing up to those who abuse women in this appalling way. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there is no expectation that every perpetrator will end up in prison, but it is vital that the option is open to judges so that, in the most extreme of cases, there is a deterrent to show how seriously, as a society, we take this form of digital violence against women. Campaigners agree, saying that if you do not have prison, abusers will think they are untouchable. There is an attitude of being emboldened. Jodie and Sophie, both survivors, have independently described the Government's proposal of a fine as simply insulting. Jodie said:

“for the most serious cases of deepfake abuse, prison sentences must be an option for judges. The effect of this abuse is devastating, and the sentencing must reflect that”.

Sophie agreed that a fine would not have deterred her perpetrator and described the proposal as an insult to those whose lives are turned upside down.

My understanding is that the Government’s proposed non-consensual taking offence will rightly have the option of a prison sentence. I would be interested to know the Government’s reason for deeming that non-consensual taking can result in prison but non-consensual creation cannot. Internet Matters found that teenagers saw sexually explicit deepfakes as worse than real image-based abuse, for reasons such as lack of autonomy and awareness of the image, anonymity of the perpetrator and the ways in which the images may be manipulated to make the victim appear. I am sure that, like many young women, I am struggling to comprehend a legal system that offers a heavier punishment for fly-tipping than for the violation of my consent. How many more women must suffer before we finally treat VAWG offences on a par with other crimes?

I asked campaigners to share with me some of the language used to solicit this content when men posted clothed images with requests to put women in sexually explicit content. It gives an insight into the mind of the people who inflict this abuse on women. A milder one stated, “I want her done for two reasons. One, she is hot. Two, she has a huge ego and this will humble her”. Another said, “Do whatever you want to this woman. Degrade her”.

The vast majority of the language was far more extreme and left me feeling physically sick. I implore the Government to listen to the voices of survivors and to not close off the option of prison when prosecuting the people who inflict this appalling abuse, ripping away a woman’s consent to degrade her. I urge noble Lords across this House: think of the women in your lives—your daughters, granddaughters, nieces, wives. If someone had abused them in this appalling manner, would we still be saying that prison should not be an option?

For too long, women have had their pain minimised and their experiences belittled. We are at the precipice of a new age of extreme misogyny and I urge noble Lords to please strengthen the hands of the judges to tackle this abuse. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The skill and determination of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, have persuaded the Government to address this important topic in the Bill. She has performed a great service to this House. I thank the Minister, most sincerely, and the Bill team for bringing forward their Amendment 2, and for the amount of time and trouble they have taken on this subject and their patience in discussions on this matter.

The Government have come a long way in their Amendment 2, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, that there are three improvements that this House can and should make to the Bill before it travels to the House of Commons. The first is to add an offence of soliciting a purported intimate image. That is the subject of Amendments 3 and 4 from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. The people who create the purported intimate image are often outside the jurisdiction, so the law needs to penalise and deter those in this country who solicit such images from people abroad. There is no dispute from the Government. The Minister made it very clear on Report and again today that such solicitation should be an offence. The Government accept that it should be an offence whether the person solicited to create the image is here or abroad. The Government also accept that solicitation should be an offence whether or not the image is, in fact, created. All of that is agreed and Amendments 3 and 4 from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, do the job.

The Government’s position, as the Minister has said, is that the solicitation offence will be added—he gave this commitment—in the House of Commons. I simply do not understand why a solicitation offence cannot be added in this House, to make it clear to the House of Commons that noble Lords believe that this is of fundamental importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes a fair point. In practice, this offence is very likely to be charged with the threat to share and other offences, which are of course imprisonable in their own right. As I said, there is no limitation to the number of offences that can be charged. We think it more appropriate that this be a fine-only offence, given the plethora of other offences which can be charged in this field.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

It is important to clarify that someone can be in a relationship with a partner who creates a sexually explicit deepfake, which presents a very real threat to that person even if their partner has not actually threatened to share it. That is what campaigners and victims believe: if you are in this kind of relationship and you know that someone has developed these sexually explicit deepfakes without your consent, that presents a very real threat. We believe that should be imprisonable.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in a sense, this will be tested in the courts. If the woman knows that the images have been created, the threat is there; that is what she is worried about. Of course, that is a separate offence, as I have already said. On the offence where there is no threat and it is just the creation of the image, we believe that a fine-only sentence is appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

5: In inserted section 66E, leave out subsection (5)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a “reasonable excuse” defence when a defendant has intentionally created the purported intimate image, the victim does not consent and the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim consents.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

6: In inserted section 66E(6), leave out “a fine” and insert “imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for a summary offence or a fine (or both)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the courts have the option of sentencing a convicted defendant to a term of imprisonment if the court thinks that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, this gives me a chance to thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is essential that we have prison as a deterrent in our fight against this appalling abuse. Victims view a fine as an insult and, with that in mind, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

7: In the title of inserted section 66F, after “Creating” insert “or soliciting the creation of”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

10: After “creation” insert “and solicitation”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment relates to Amendment 4.

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

Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I believe in a woman’s right to choose; the right to choose what she does with her own body and who owns her naked image. With the dawn of AI technology, women have lost this ability. A woman can no longer choose who owns an intimate image of her. Technology has made it possible for intimate images to be created by anyone, anywhere, at any time, regardless of whether a woman consents. The Bill will return power to where it belongs, in the hands of each individual woman. Each clause represents the lived experience of a survivor of image-based sexual abuse. Make no mistake, deepfake abuse is the new frontier of violence against women, and the non-consensual creation of a woman’s naked image is an act of abuse.

Since this technology emerged around 2017, we have seen a rapid proliferation in the content created. It is now near impossible to accurately describe the quantity of these images and videos being made every single day. Research by #MyImageMyChoice found that one app, new to the market, processed 600,000 images in its first three weeks. The largest site dedicated to deepfake abuse has 13.4 million hits every single month.

It is a disproportionately sexist form of abuse, with 99% of all sexually explicit deepfakes being of women. Women are sick and tired of their images being used without their consent to misrepresent, degrade and humiliate them. One survivor, Sophie, who I am honoured to say has joined us today, recalled, “After discovering these images, I questioned, ‘Why me?’. Why had he targeted me in such a way? I stopped making an effort, stopped wearing make-up and didn’t wear my hair down, because maybe, just maybe, if I hadn’t done that before, maybe he wouldn’t have looked at me twice, and maybe it would prevent it happening again”. This abuse causes untold trauma, anxiety and distress.

All women are now forced to live under the ever-present threat than anyone can own sexually explicit content of them. The current law is a patchwork of legislation that cannot keep pace, meaning that we are for ever playing catch-up, while the abuse of women races ahead in a technological revolution of degradation. Meanwhile, victims face a challenging legal situation during a time that one survivor described as leaving her “at the brink of survival”.

The Bill has been written with victim/survivor experience at its heart. This legislation is for Sophie, for Jodie and for every single other woman who has been violated by intimate image abuse: may their experience guide us in creating solid law that criminalises those who seek to minimise and hurt others in this way. The Bill aims to be comprehensive and future-proof against the evolution of these harms. I am grateful for the thoughtful and unwavering counsel of Professor Clare McGlynn, KC, and to the charities and organisations backing the Bill: Refuge, the Revenge Porn Helpline, #MyImageMyChoice, #NotYourPorn, the End Violence Against Women coalition and Jodie Campaigns. I declare my interest as a guest of Google at its future forum, a policy conference where we discussed the vital importance of clear legislation to tackle image-based abuse.

The Bill should be seen as a piece of the puzzle of the much wider Sexual Offences Act. It is designed to complement the pre-existing offences within the Act in order to keep consistency and make the current law more comprehensive by closing the gaps that abusers slip through. The taking, creating and solicitation offences in the Bill are, importantly, consent-based, aligning with existing offences and removing the need for victims to prove the motivation of the perpetrator, a hugely unnecessary and re-traumatising burden on victims. Proposed new section 66E, the taking offence, follows the Law Commission recommendation that the current voyeurism and upskirting offences needed updating with a single taking offence. The new section defines “taking” by including the words “otherwise capturing”, in order to future-proof for the ways in which the taking of a photo will evolve over time. In this way, vitally, it brings screenshotting into the scope of the Bill.

Proposed new section 66F makes it an offence to create or solicit the creation of sexually explicit content without a person’s consent. The solicitation offence is inspired by my work with Jodie, who I had the privilege of introducing to many noble Lords at the briefing last week. In the course of five years, Jodie found that her images were being stolen from her private Instagram page and posted on forums, with requests to use her image to create sexually explicit content. The images, which were of her fully clothed and were uploaded by someone she counted as her best friend, were accompanied by degrading captions and incitations, asking others on the forum what they would like to do to “little Jodie” and to deepfake her into pornographic situations on his behalf. One depicted Jodie as a schoolgirl being raped by her teacher.

Jodie’s experience emphasises to us that it is not enough simply to make a creation offence; we must also make it an offence to solicit the creation from others. The borderless nature of the internet means that any creation law can be circumvented by asking others in different jurisdictions to create the content for you. I would like a firm commitment from the Government today that they will make the solicitation of sexually explicit content an offence, for Jodie’s sake.

The Bill would introduce a clause on forced deletion to make the law clearer for survivors to navigate. The brilliant Revenge Porn Helpline, which offers essential support to those who are victims of image-based abuse, shared the case of a woman who, after a long fight for justice, managed to bring charges against her ex-boyfriend for the non-consensual sharing of her intimate images—only to be contacted by the police, telling her that they now had to hand back all the devices to the perpetrator, with the content remaining on them.

That is yet another example of the abuse of women not being treated on a par with other crimes. I am sure we would all struggle to imagine a convicted criminal being handed back contraband. That survivor has to live under the ever-present threat that her ex-partner is still in possession of those photos of her. My Bill would give the court the right to enforce the deletion and destruction of those images, both physical and digital, so that survivors do not have to suffer the trauma of that content being in the hands of their abuser and living in fear that the content may be republished at any given moment. Will the Minister make a commitment today to legislate for forced deletion?

The Bill works with the pre-existing definition of “an intimate state” in the Sexual Offences Act in order to have consistency. I have added to the definition as follows:

“something else depicting the person that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual because of its nature”.

In that way, it brings into scope the victims of semen images, rather sickeningly referred to in the online community as a “cum tribute”. This is where men physically masturbate over a woman’s image and share the image online, or artificially use AI to put semen on to the images.

At present, if the victim depicted in the image is not nude or participating in a sexual act, they are afforded legal recourse only by way of a communication or harassment offence. The new wording would bring semen images into scope for not only the creation offence but the pre-existing sharing offence. Critically, the wording would also future-proof against the evolution of these harms. Does the Minister agree with me that this degradation is clearly sexual in nature and that women should be afforded greater protection from this sickening violation?

Most importantly, the Bill would be implemented as soon as it reached Royal Assent. The victims of intimate image abuse have waited long enough. Given the rapid proliferation of that abuse, every day that we delay is another day when women have to live under this ever-present threat. It would simply be unconscionable to make them wait any longer.

I put on record my gratitude to all noble Lords across the House and to those in the other place for their unwavering support for the Bill. I am grateful to the Government, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the Minister, Alex Davies-Jones, for taking the time to meet me and discuss this legislation. I am disappointed by their response, suggesting that they will not support this vital Bill, and by their apparent willingness to delay on legislating on image-based abuse.

The Government should be in no doubt that image-based abuse is the new frontier of violence against women. If they value legislation with victim survivor experience at its heart, if they want to fulfil their own manifesto commitment as quickly as possible, and if they are serious in their pledge to tackle violence against women and girls, they must change their minds and back the Bill. The Home Secretary committed to using every tool available to take power from abusers and hand it to victims, so I ask the Minister: why not this one? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by acknowledging the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that there is obviously formidable support for the Bill, as we have heard in today’s debate. It is an important Bill, and one which is bringing this issue to the very top of the political agenda.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I too have experienced in my role as a magistrate many cases of domestic abuse and domestic violence. I know the noble Lord had that experience during his time as a police officer. Sadly, it is not unusual; it is just that the perpetrators are finding different ways to extend such misogynistic abuse towards women. That is what underlies the noble Baroness’s Bill today.

I would be happy to meet my noble friend Lord Knight and other noble Lords to discuss the Bill and, if I may say so, the wider context of how within government we are going to try to meet the objectives of the Bill through other legislation. I will write to noble Lords on any specific questions that I fail to answer.

I thank the guests of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen: the victims and survivors who are here today. Their physical presence here adds an additional seriousness to the debate. I reiterate the point of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that this is a very well-attended debate for a Friday afternoon, which again is a testament to the importance of the issue.

The Government and I share your Lordships’ concern that more needs to be done to protect women from this form of abuse and to punish those responsible for it. Advances in technology have meant that intimate images can now easily be taken, created or shared without consent, and all at the click of a button. The technology to create realistic deepfake sexual images is readily available to turn harmless everyday images from a person’s social media profile into pornographic material which can then be shared with millions in milliseconds. This cannot continue unchecked.

First, I will talk about the criminal law. Our police must have a comprehensive suite of offences, so that they can effectively target these behaviours. There is a range of existing offences to tackle intimate image abuse, both online and offline, but it is clear that some gaps in protection remain. That is why the Government made a clear commitment in the manifesto to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images of adults. I appreciate that noble Lords and campaigners want us to act without delay, and may be concerned that we are not seizing the opportunity to support this Bill. Let me reassure the noble Baroness and the whole House that we will deliver our manifesto commitment in this Session of Parliament. However, we must act carefully, so that any new measures work with existing law and, most importantly, effectively protect victims and bring offenders to justice. That is what our legislation later in this Session will do. Our manifesto commitment is just the beginning. We are considering whether further legislation is needed to strengthen the law around taking intimate images without consent. I will update the House in due course on this issue.

Ahead of that, I want to mention briefly a couple of areas that have been discussed today. The first is the question of solicitation, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Owen. As I am sure the noble Baronesses know, for every offence, except those that are specifically excluded, it is automatically also an offence to encourage or assist that offence. Therefore, as soon as we have made it an offence to create a sexually explicit deepfake, it will also be an offence to encourage or assist someone else to commit that offence.

I want to be clear on this: you cannot get round the law by asking someone else in this country to break the law for you. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is also concerned about the solicitation of deepfake sexually explicit images from other jurisdictions. The question of the application of the laws of England and Wales to other countries is very complex, particularly in relation to offences where elements are committed in different jurisdictions. I reassure her that we are looking very carefully at that issue.

I next move on to the deletion of images, again raised by various noble Lords. I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that perpetrators who are convicted of an intimate image abuse offence are not given their device back by the police with images of the victim still on it. There is already provision under Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for the court to deprive a convicted offender of their rights in any property, including images, which has been used for the purpose of either committing or facilitating any criminal offence, or which the offender intends to use for that purpose, by making a deprivation order. The courts already have the power to deprive offenders of devices used to commit a sharing offence and of the images which are shared without consent. While judges’ use of these powers is a matter of judicial independence, we will closely examine what changes may be necessary to make sure that such incidents do not occur.

To talk a little more widely about the work that we are doing, while the criminal law is important, it is just one lever we can use to tackle intimate image abuse. Let me outline for noble Lords some of the other work that the Government are doing in this area. I noted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, about how advertising drives so much of revenue, which may well be encouraging the further development of these forms of abuse.

Intimate image abuse rightly has serious criminal consequences, but we are also taking steps to tackle the prevalence of this harmful online content. In November we legislated to make sharing intimate images without consent a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, which we have heard quite a lot about in today’s debate. These images will therefore become “priority illegal content” under the Act, forcing social media firms and search service companies to take action to remove them. I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, about how all these platforms, not just the big ones, should be subject to these new provisions in the Online Safety Act. We know there are concerns about the process of getting images removed online. The Government’s priority is getting Ofcom’s codes of practice in place. Then we will assess, based on evidence, how effective those protections are and whether we need to go further.

As I have already mentioned, the internet has opened up new outlets for misogyny, and I know noble Lords share my concern at the rise of certain influencers who make a living by peddling their vile ideologies to our young men and boys. This toxic online culture can all too easily lead on to violence against women in the real world. That was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, and the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Clement-Jones, and I agree.

It is also critical that we support the victims. There are, of course, many victims of this form of abuse. I remind noble Lords that my department provides funding for a number of services to help victims cope and recover from the impact of crime, including intimate image abuse.

I am not going to have time to address all the points, but I want to pick up one particular point, which I had not heard before, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, about audio abuse. I take that point seriously and will make sure it gets fed into the system when we are considering legislation.

I find it difficult to disagree with any of the points made by noble Lords, but I know there will be frustration across the House about the Government pursuing their own legislation within this Session. I hope that noble Lords will understand that we want to make it sustainable and that we want the legislation to be solid, to use the noble Baroness’s word, and future-proof as far as is possible. I know very well that this is a difficult thing to do. We have a lot of work to do, and I am sure that all noble Lords will support the Government’s efforts in this field.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I get his assurance that any pledge on a creation offence will be consent-based and that intent will not have to be proved? He has pledged to legislate in this Session of Parliament, creating the offence, but I would really like to know what kind of vehicle that is going to be and what the implementation period is. As all noble Lords have said, we cannot afford to wait. Any legislative vehicle that is going to take a year to pass, with a long implementation period, is simply not good enough.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Regarding the noble Baroness’s question about consent, I would like to reassure the House that in a criminal case the onus is never on the victim to marshal evidence or to prove intent of the perpetrator; it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service when investigating the alleged offence or prosecuting the case in court. That is why we work with the CPS when considering changes to the criminal law, to ensure the offence can be prosecuted effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate, as well as those who could not be here but offered their support and advice. I thank again the wonderful charities that have fought so hard for so long on this issue. I pay tribute to the women who found out, in the worst possible way, where the gaps in the law are failing victims.

I am devastated by the Government’s refusal to back this Bill, and I know that survivors will feel let down. I will continue to fight using every legislative vehicle available to me, because we cannot afford any more delays in getting these protections enshrined in law. This was about offering a clear pathway to justice for victims.

When speaking to Jodie about the possible government response, she said that deepfake abuse made her feel like her autonomy had been ripped away, leaving her terrified, isolated and questioning everyone around her. She added that

“every day this abuse goes unaddressed is another day women are left to suffer in silence, abandoned by the very systems that are meant to protect them. Time is of the essence. The longer we wait, the more women will find themselves isolated, afraid, and desperate, just as I was. This bill will save lives, and delaying action is a betrayal of those who need our protection the most”.

I urge the Minister and the Government: please do not let women like Jodie down.

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