Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, both today and yesterday, many noble Lords have spoken about how Queen Elizabeth embodied the values and identity of our country. However, she also embodied an international mindset and global understanding, which focused, of course, on the Commonwealth to which she was so devoted but went much further still than that.

One example of this was Her Majesty’s understanding of the importance and significance of being able to communicate in languages other than English, which often reflected so positively on the reputation of Her Majesty and the admiration in which she was held, as well as on the reputation and role of the United Kingdom. In 2014, she addressed a French state banquet in French, a language in which she was fluent.

Perhaps the most unexpected yet hugely significant example came in 2011, when Her Majesty was the first British monarch to visit Ireland in 100 years. At the state dinner in Dublin Castle, she began her speech to her hosts in Irish Gaelic, astonishing the assembled audience, from President Mary McAleese down, into spontaneous applause. At the time, commentators and politicians remarked on the incredibly astute judgment and sensitivity shown by the Queen in this gesture; it was said to contribute enormously to the future of relationships all round.

Other noble Lords have referred to Her Majesty’s consummate skill in diplomacy and soft power. Her ability to use foreign languages so judiciously was a classic example of this, for which we should all be grateful and endeavour to emulate.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, it is a truism of politics generally—and, no doubt, of your Lordships’ House—that it is easier to make a long speech than a short one. In respect of Her late Majesty, all of us could speak at length with enthusiasm, passion and not a little sadness about our experiences of her, both closely and at a distance. I will restrict myself to two comments about not the personal relationship with her but what she achieved and represented. One is about international relations, which are an important matter for me. The other is about the Irish peace process, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, just referred.

When Her Majesty came to the Throne, after two World Wars, there was a huge focus on creating an international rules-based order. There was a particular focus on the United Nations. For a long time, that was and continued to be an inspiring hope—perhaps until relatively recent times—because the United Nations Security Council is and was to be the pinnacle of international law. Now we find that two of its permanent members are, by any account, guilty of crimes against humanity. Were that to be the case of any of the members of our Supreme Court, we would lose faith in that jurisdiction.

Others of Her Majesty’s Ministers focused a great deal on getting us into the European project or, more latterly, getting us out of it. But she had a different focus during all those years. She was supportive of what her Governments were doing, of course, but it was the Commonwealth that was her particular passion, as the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, rightly said. It is my conviction that, had it not been for her passionate commitment and that of the rest of the Royal Family, we probably would not have a Commonwealth today. Instead, we have an important network of relationships that some countries that were not even members of the British Empire have applied to join.

Yesterday, I got off a plane to hear of Her Majesty’s death after a visit to Singapore at the invitation of the Singaporean Government. I have often found myself being critical of them. It seemed to me that they were not living up to some of the principles I felt were important. I came back, however, with a different set of feelings. They understand China in a way that we do not. They have a fellow feeling with India that we cannot have. They understand Asia and the West. If we are not to fall into a terrible war with China and others in the East, we desperately need that depth of understanding. It is an understanding that Her late Majesty the Queen had very deeply.

I speak of the Irish peace process. In her Golden Jubilee year, 2002, Her Majesty visited not just the Parliament here but the Senedd in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland. I was advised by the Northern Ireland Office, however, that she would not be visiting the Northern Ireland Assembly of which I was Speaker because the Northern Ireland Office felt that it would cause difficulties. I said, “I see. You’re wanting to create a constitutional crisis.” “Oh no,” they said, “We’re trying to avoid trouble.” I said, “Well, how do you think unionists will respond if Her Majesty can go to every other Parliament but not to Stormont?” They said, “But it won’t go well.” I replied, “Just back off for a little while and give me a chance to talk to those involved.”

I talked to Dr Paisley, who was very wroth because he was convinced that it would not be possible. I talked to others. Eventually, I talked to Alex Maskey, the then Chief Whip of Sinn Féin. I said, “Alex, you know, I want to be able to invite the Irish President here but I cannot invite her if Her Majesty cannot come.” “Ah,” he said, “We’ll have a chat about it.” So the ard chomhairle of Sinn Féin got together. You can imagine them speaking in Dublin about Her Majesty’s visit to Belfast. They came back to me, and the answer was clear: “We will deal with it with a dignified detachment. We won’t be able to be there but we won’t create trouble.”

On the morning of Her Majesty’s visit, Gerry Kelly was interviewed on the BBC. My first response was a sinking heart. What would Gerry say? He was asked whether he would meet her. He said, “Well, if she’s going to hand the place over, I’d be very happy to meet with her, but I don’t expect that’s what she’s coming for. So we will deal with it with a dignified detachment.” Of course, that is what happened; they dealt with it appropriately.

We went on to have the remarkable visit to Dublin and the meeting with Mary McAleese. Then, in 2012, we had the visit to Belfast where Her Majesty shook hands with Martin McGuinness. In 2002, it was dignified detachment. In 2012, it was dignified engagement. None of that would have happened had she not, by her whole life, person and example, demonstrated dignity in relations and respect for and mutual recognition of those with whom she and her country disagreed. She was a remarkable person. She has given those of us in my part of the United Kingdom a remarkable legacy, but we are fortunate because King Charles III is also part of her legacy. God save the King.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it has never been a greater privilege to be a part of this House and listen to some extraordinary speeches; they will last as long as this House does, I think. With humility, I want to share some of my own experiences.

Last night, when we heard that extraordinarily magisterial and immensely moving speech from the new King, King Charles III, he made us remember some different aspects of our late Queen. He spoke of

“a promise of destiny kept”

and renewed that same promise of lifelong service. Of course, one of those promises that the Queen made was the one she made to the people of Aberfan, after the disaster in 1966 when 116 children and 28 adults died, that she would return. It was one of the defining moments of her reign and was not without controversy. For those of us who come from those valleys, it marked an extraordinary relationship. At that terrible time, the people of Aberfan were immensely and uniquely comforted by her. She was deeply affected; she sat quietly with them, sometimes quite silently.

One of the bereaved families said, “She was with us from the beginning”, and she more than kept her promise to return. She went back four times, once to open the new school. She understood and paid tribute to the dignity and the indomitable spirit that characterises the people of that village and the surrounding valleys, and that rare gift exemplified so much of what made her so special to everyone she met. She understood grief. She had been brought up never to show her emotions, but she knew what people felt, and people knew that she knew. She knew that silence is more eloquent than words and she taught us that there is a unique value in silence.

She also had a terrific zest for life. I experienced that because I am a member of the trade union of previous Baronesses in Waiting. She treated us with enormous respect and helped us understand the role. The humility in being present to greet a distinguished overseas Head of State who is expecting to meet the Queen and finds himself instead meeting an overenthusiastic and completely unknown Baroness is something you never quite forget. It teaches you a life lesson about expectations.

Her Majesty honoured her promises and the sweep of history in so many other ways. One of the charities with which she had the longest association was the Charterhouse, the great medieval charity in the City so well known to Members of this House—there are many of its previous governors in this House. The Charterhouse has stood for 400 years as a symbol of philanthropy, one of the four buildings in London that Elizabeth I would recognise. There have been royal governors for 400 years. Elizabeth I made her base there after the death of Mary. For 400 years, Thomas Sutton’s will has been honoured in the community of elderly men and women who live out their final days there. I am privileged to be a governor and to have that duty of care now.

The late Queen’s first visit was in 1958, after the restoration following the Blitz. Her final visit, some 60 years later in 2017, was to open our new museum, which revealed the Charterhouse in its full 700-year history. Like every governor, she would have had three brothers in her care. She caused some confusion occasionally by referring to them. Yesterday, our brothers honoured her and the love they feel for her when they tolled the Charterhouse bell 96 times for their royal governor, who joined hands over the centuries with that other great Elizabeth, 400 years ago. I have an image of those two Elizabeths sitting in the great chamber at the Charterhouse, conspiring together about how to get the best from their councillors.

She also honoured her people in other ways. During her 60th Jubilee, in 2012, the first excursion that she made was to Burnley, on a freezing day. She travelled up the canal on the “Pride of Sefton”, with Prince Philip and the then Prince Charles, to see the transformation of Burnley mill into a new centre of technical education. It was one of many such projects to which our present King was committed for so long and with such success, and it enabled us at the Prince’s Regeneration Trust and English Heritage to bring back to life and to repurpose significant historic buildings which could bring new life to communities such as Burnley. The mill was put to work again, for another generation to learn how to master the future.

That day, in that mill, on the threshold of its new life, the Queen spoke of her immense pride in all that her son had achieved, not just in the restoration of our physical heritage but in empowering so many young people, through the Prince’s Trust, to find the confidence and success to make their own place in history.

It is no wonder that we have all felt so completely overwhelmed by hearing the accounts of people we have met, or those people I saw at Victoria Station this morning armed with bunches of flowers and on their way to Buckingham Palace. We are unmoored by the death of a Queen for whom duty was her signature on a page of history, as well as her love. We now have a new King who shares her values and who will, as he said last night, bring loyalty and love, warmth and empathy in connection. We are extremely lucky to have lived in her reign, and we will be lucky to live in his.

God save the King.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, particularly Lady McIntosh in what she has said about child contact centres and organisations offering child contact which are not accredited. It seems to me, as a matter of principle, that all contact centres and organisations involved in providing this crucial service should be accredited in some way or another. As for the idea that they can set up without anybody having to check, it seems blindingly obvious that this should not happen.

As a judge, I used to be very involved with the National Association of Child Contact Centres, and with individual contact centres. I was a patron of several of them, so I have some knowledge of the importance of child contact centres as places where children can meet their parents or parent. It is crucial that the safeguarding issue be recognised in such a way that no one can fall through the gap, so I support this amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

Before we come to the winding-up speakers, does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak who is not on the list? If not, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and to others whose knowledge far exceeds my own, for all their efforts to bring this amendment forward. I have to join my cross-party colleagues in expressing disappointment at the Government’s eventual response to this amendment, despite the undoubted work and good will of the Minister.

The Minister in the Commons, Victoria Atkins, seemed to consider that a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to the President of the Family Division and the chief officer of Cafcass requesting that they “raise awareness” would resolve the issue. It will not. The problem here is that the Government are talking about one thing, the formal requests from the family courts—not that they are all up to speed in using registered child contact centres—while the main problem lies elsewhere, in less formally constituted organisations sent by local authorities and other cash-strapped bodies. The Government seem to think that the existing guidelines will filter through by osmosis to everyone who is commissioning a child contact. There is a lack of awareness on the part of courts and local authorities and, if an unfortunate incident occurs because centre staff have not been trained properly and a child suffers or is put in jeopardy, the likely outcome is that the matter will be hushed up. We will not hear about it in the public domain, which is why it is difficult to provide evidence on the extent of the problem.

The revised amendment we are discussing today is far less prescriptive than its predecessor previously discussed by your Lordships. As noble Lords have said, it simply applies the same criteria to child contact centre staff as to anyone working with children— for example, a DBS check. The requirement for a register is gone. No protocol and no policies are being stipulated: that will be down to the Government themselves. A child minder or a nursery assistant will have the same requirement imposed on them. These are national standards for anyone working with children, so who could argue that this bare minimum should not be applied to child contact centre staff, volunteers or agency workers? The national standards and regulations would be for the Government to determine.

For goodness’ sake, let us at least weed out the bad people, so that we do not expose our children to them at arguably the most vulnerable time of their lives. For that reason, if the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, decides to test the opinion of the House, I and my party will support her.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, we discussed in Committee that there are no laws against anyone operating as a therapist, psychotherapist or counsellor. Cheap online courses allow people to cheat to complete them, leading to qualifications that are often meaningless. The Health and Care Professions Council is a statutory regulator for practitioner psychologists in the UK. “Registered psychologist” and “practitioner psychologist” are protected titles, as are the specialist titles “clinical psychologist”, “counselling psychologist”, “health psychologist” and others. The title “chartered psychologist” is also protected by statutory regulation, meaning that a psychologist is a chartered member of the British Psychological Society, but not necessarily registered with the Health and Care Professions Council. However, the title of “psychologist” by itself is not protected, meaning that if psychologists do not use one of the protected titles, they can offer their psychological services without any regulation. The public have no idea that these people are not regulated in any way; even if serious concerns are expressed or complaints raised about them, they remain immune from investigation because they are not registered.

These people can wreak huge harm and havoc in other people’s lives. They can drain them of all their finances, create false assertions, produce false evidence and exploit them, driving them away from family members who love them and would support them, and trapping them in a cycle of ever more dangerous psychological dependency. Yet, the victims of such charlatan practitioners have no redress. That is why this amendment is needed and I strongly support it.

[Lord Alderdice (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in addition to the powerful arguments that have already been brought by noble friends, I have a few more. The first question is whether the amendment is appropriate to a Bill about domestic abuse. Few would argue that the victims of domestic abuse are not entitled to seek emotional and psychological help and support. The problem is that, either when they are undergoing the abuse or when they are trying to put their lives back together after a period as a victim of abuse, they are likely to seek psychological help.

If they can access psychotherapists, psychologists or others through the health service, there is a degree of protection. Even in a context where there is no statutory registration of psychotherapists working within the health service, as is the case, there is a degree of protection for the patient or client. But the majority of psychotherapists do not work in the health service; they work in private practice, community facilities or voluntary organisations, but not in the health service.

This produces two kinds of vulnerability. First, as we have already discussed, the victims themselves are open to be abused by those who claim to be psychotherapists, but who have a malign influence. I do not think I would have to go terribly far in your Lordships’ House to find uncertainty or confusion about what is a psychiatrist, psychologist, psychotherapist or similar title. One could hardly expect vulnerable victims to be more able to parse and find an appropriately trained person.

There is a further complexity, which has been made worse by Covid. Many perfectly reasonable and helpful people who are not registered psychotherapists and, in some cases, are not registered with any organisation never mind statutorily are working in quite isolated situations themselves now. I have talked to some psychotherapist colleagues, who are working from morning until night, every day of the week, on Zoom, with very vulnerable people. They are isolated themselves, socially and professionally, so their relationships with their patients and clients begin to have a degree of dependency. These people are not even professionally protected so, apart from the malign individual who consciously exploits the victim of domestic abuse, either currently or after their victimhood, it is not hard to see how a person who is not particularly malign may find themselves behaving in that way, for a series of psychological reasons.

What is troubling is that the knowledge of this has been around for a long time. In 1971, the Government commissioned and received a report from Sir John Foster. It was stimulated by concern about the Church of Scientology, but it looked at people who used coercive or controlling behaviour when providing psychotherapy or counselling services under that institution. The recommendation was that there needed to be registration —50 years ago. In 1978, Paul Sieghart produced a report with the same recommendations and, in 1981, Graham Bright produced a Private Member’s Bill in the other place based on Paul Sieghart’s report to register psychotherapy.

When I was appointed as the first consultant psychiatrist in psychotherapy in Ireland, north or south, I started training in psychotherapy through the medical faculty at Queen’s University Belfast, not just for those who were medically qualified but for others who were not, to enable them to become properly qualified. However, I quickly discovered that there was lots of what I call “wild psychotherapy”, so I talked to the Department of Health and Social Services, which agreed and provided some funds. We appointed one of my staff, Gillian Rodgers, to do a report, and she presented it to the department in May 1995—nothing was done.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendments 17 and 18 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 19. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 19

Moved by

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

I do appreciate that support for migrant victims of domestic abuse is rightly a significant issue for many noble Lords. We recognise this and that is why we have worked with the sector to launch the support for migrant victims scheme. That scheme will run to March next year and we should await the outcome so that we can determine the appropriate long-term solution on the basis of clear evidence of need and the resource implication of meeting that need. For those who would argue that we should not lose this opportunity to legislate, I remind noble Lords that the DDVC has operated successfully as an administrative scheme, so we do not need legislation to provide further support to other cohorts of migrant victims. In light of the action that we have taken and continue to take, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister and so I call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]]

I thank the Minister for her considered response and want to acknowledge her support and compassion for migrant victims of domestic abuse. The issue for me is still the one that has been raised throughout this debate of how we guarantee long-term protection for migrant women with insecure immigration status, given all we have heard about the mismatch in timing between the pilot scheme and this Bill. So I really welcome discussion with the Minister as we determine whether to bring this matter back at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we still have a number of amendments to get through this evening, but I think now might be an opportune moment for a short break. I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn until 8.23 pm.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

My Lords, the Committee will now adjourn until 8.23 pm, and we will return to deal with the group beginning with Amendment 149.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 149. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 157 or 168.

Amendment 149

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments and specifically wish to speak to Amendment 157, to which I have added my name. Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 covers coercive or controlling behaviours by family members who live with their victims; this amendment would ensure that this is broadened to include those family members who reside at a different address.

As I outlined at Second Reading, many older people suffer from domestic abuse, which all too often goes unreported. Until very recently, the ONS did not collect data for those aged 75 and over in the national crime survey. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, the ONS has stopped asking questions around sensitive topics including domestic abuse and sexual assault, so it will not be until sometime after the pandemic that the ONS will start publishing data on the abuse of older people.

From the information we do have, however, we know that the abuse of older people is often committed by family members and victims can be reluctant to report this. In cases where parents are abused by their children, they often feel that the abuse reflects on them as parents—and indeed it might. The Metropolitan Police and other UK police forces have said that this is a significant factor in the underreporting of abuse against older people.

The organisation Hourglass, formerly Action on Elder Abuse, which I originally set up with the help of the Department of Health and of which I am a patron, has a helpline to support older people who are victims of abuse. The most frequent perpetrators recorded by the helpline are sons and daughters, making up 30% of all calls in 2019 and 38% of calls in the first six months of the pandemic, from March to September 2020.

Abuse against older people, like abuse against people of any age, takes many forms, as we know. Hourglass reports that, in 2019, 40% of calls to its abuse helpline involved financial abuse. Very often, this form of abuse is carried out by family members who do not reside at the same address as the victim.

One way this financial abuse occurs is through the use of technology and the digital exclusion of older people. In June 2020, the International Longevity Centre UK, of which I am chief executive, published a paper entitled Straddling the Divide, which highlighted the issues that many older people face with digital exclusion during the Covid-19 pandemic. The report found that, in the UK,

“around 11.9 million people lack the digital skills they need for everyday life.”

It also found that

“only 47% of adults aged 75 years and over recently used the internet.”

At a time when older people have been told to stay home and shield, many have not been able to go to the bank as they have in the past. More than ever before, many now rely on others to manage their finances online. Very often, this is done by a close family member and sadly, as we know, this can lead to financial abuse.

Such abuse is often coupled with controlling and coercive behaviours by the perpetrator where other forms of abuse, such as physical or psychological abuse, are not used. It is crucial that the offence of controlling or coercive behaviours by family members includes those not residing with the victim, as this would strengthen the law in protecting against the abuse of older people—which, I hope all noble Lords agree, is a serious and often urgent issue that must be resolved as a matter of urgency.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I am advised that the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, was unable to get online so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I pay heartfelt and fulsome tribute to her for all her tireless work for older people. There is much to commend in Amendments 149 and 157 in this group, but I will direct my remarks to Amendment 149; I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and her co-signers for introducing it.

The mental anguish and emotional strain of this form of abuse, continuing post separation, is worthy of our attention this evening. I thank the charities such as Refuge, Surviving Economic Abuse—known as SEA—and others that have brought this issue to our attention in the context of this Bill. The figures brought forward in research undertaken by Refuge suggest that 53% of survivors of economic abuse said that it stopped after they had separated from their partner.

However, the controlling and coercive behaviour offence does not cover abuse that occurs when couples are no longer in a relationship or living together, so there are strong arguments for bringing in the type of behaviour so eloquently outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in moving this amendment. In paying tribute to the work of these charities and the many who have suffered abuse, we should look at the inconsistencies and at closing the loophole in the present laws. My starting point is that, now that economic abuse is being recognised in the context of the Domestic Abuse Bill, it makes sense to bring this type of coercive behaviour within the remit of the Bill.

In responding to the powerful arguments put forward in this debate, if my noble friend the Minister cannot adopt the amendments before the House, I hope that she will look kindly on bringing forward amendments from the department and in her own words to ensure that the inconsistencies identified in this amendment are brought to an end and that this type of abuse, the forms taken and its pervasiveness—this abuse can continue long after separation—are brought to a timely end. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for moving this amendment. I believe that it is worthy of the attention of the House, and that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and should be brought within the remit of this Bill. If that does not happen this evening, I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on bringing forward on Report a form of words that we can all unite around.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 161 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 162. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for putting down this amendment, which I strongly support.

One way to judge the gravity of a crime is to assess the anguish it brings to its victims. Usually, this emotional suffering comes as a by-product of, say, physical harm or financial loss. However, sometimes the creation of anguish is deliberate, the whole point of the crime, and a source of great satisfaction to the criminal. It is perhaps no surprise that our courts have reserved special condemnation for those responsible for this sort of behaviour. In 2015, amid mounting evidence of a growing problem, the Government decided to tackle the ugly phenomenon of so-called revenge porn: the sadistic online dissemination without consent of sexually explicit photos and videos, usually of young women, and usually by disgruntled former boyfriends. Ministers recognised that this behaviour is particularly nasty because it targets the most private and personal aspects of life, exploiting intimacy to create ridicule, contempt and public shame. Indeed, each of these emotions is precisely what is intended by the perpetrator, particularly the public shaming. This conduct was thus made a crime that could lead straight to prison.

However, it is now clear that the present law does not go far enough, for what about threats to share intimate images? As your Lordships have been told, at present, these attract no criminal sanction at all, although the evidence shows that significant numbers of women and girls face this menacing behaviour.

Much has been said in this debate about the survey carried out by Refuge, the country’s largest provider of domestic abuse services. That is not surprising when the results of this survey appear to show that as many as one in seven young women in England and Wales have faced these threats.

These figures portray a world of anxiety and dread. Because most of these threats come from current or former partners, they also speak of deliberate schemes of domination and control that we should acknowledge for what they are: straightforward examples of domestic abuse. Like all crimes in this category, they gift a gratifying sense of power to the abuser, who is intent on using this power to signal the victim’s utter lack of worth.

Amendment 162 provides the opportunity to change the law to criminalise this behaviour, granting thousands of women and girls access to justice and protection—the first duty of the law. At present the Government prefer to push this issue off into the future, awaiting a Law Commission review into all forms of image-based abuse. But for all the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, people subjected right now to this behaviour should not have to wait. I hope the Government will accept what is widely acknowledged: that this is a gap in the law and the Government’s duty is to plug it without delay.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in this morning’s Times there is an article in which the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead officer for child protection, Simon Bailey, said that arresting hundreds of sex offenders every month has little effect, because millions of abuse images are readily available online. Mr Bailey pointed out that the number of indecent images in circulation has risen exponentially, from 7,000 in 1990 to 17 million today. They predominantly involve girls aged between 11 and 13, because 44% of these images were or are self-generated. This is part of the ever-growing online library of intimate images, curated—in the loosest sense of the word—by technology and social media platforms, only some of which grudgingly acknowledge a limited degree of responsibility.

Consider the 11 to 13 year-old girls of today and how they may feel about these images existing and getting into the wrong hands as they navigate through adolescence and towards adulthood. Consider those women who were the 11 to 13 year-olds five, 10 or 15 years ago, who not only have their legacy images stored in the cloud but who may have continued to populate that library in the interceding years. This is the reality of the scale of the problem we are discussing tonight.

The statistics are compelling and depressing. An estimated 130,000 young people aged between 18 and 20 have experienced threats to share their intimate images, and almost 1 million people now in their 20s have experienced similar threats. Whether we like it or not, the sending and receiving of intimate images is an increasingly common part of dating and relationships. In 40% of cases in which individuals have received threats to share intimate images, they did not consent to those photos or videos being taken in the first place.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, which I wholeheartedly support, is an important and necessary part of what must be a legal and societal assault on the myriad ways in which technology can be used to abuse, control and coerce. Whether individuals consented to their images being taken is irrelevant; they should have ironclad protection under the law from those images being used without their consent. Their bodies, their self-esteem and their right to privacy and protection should be theirs and theirs alone.

On 28 December last year, as we enjoyed a later-than-usual Boxing Day bank holiday in England, and your Lordships prepared themselves for the rigours of the 30 December debate on the TCA with the EU, in Dublin, President Higgins signed the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill into law. This created two new offences. One deals with the taking, distribution or publication of, or threat to distribute, intimate images without consent and with intent to cause harm, with the penalty of an unlimited fine or up to seven years in prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 162, although, by this stage in the evening, the arguments have already been made. It is not necessary for me to outline the damage that is done by threats to share intimate images or how distressing it is for victims. Anyway, the Government recognise the problem, which is why they have asked the Law Commission to conduct a review.

I understand why the Government wish to wait for the outcome of that review, but we already know that these threats are carried out largely in the context of domestic abuse, which seems to make this Bill the appropriate legislative vehicle. So that leaves us with a conundrum. I appreciate the difficulty, so simply ask my noble friend the Minister how the Government intend to address this issue, in a timely way, if they cannot consider this amendment at this moment in time.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Jones, have withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin.

[Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]]

My Lords, absolutely it is late in the day, and so many other noble Lords have made brilliant speeches to which I cannot add a great deal. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 162 and thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for setting out the case so well.

We have heard a lot about why we are waiting for the Law Commission. I do not think that we should wait, because threats to share intimate images make up such a small part of this review. Amendment 162 is a simple, narrow yet powerful amendment to extend an existing offence. I ask the Minister how many more victims will live without the legal protection they need while we wait years for the law to change—a change that we can make right now in this Bill. I hope that the Government consider and take on board this amendment.

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak only briefly on Amendment 162. I too thank those organisations that have provided a briefing for this debate, particularly Refuge, which has been excellent throughout. Like other noble Lords, I commend its report, The Naked Threat.

At the beginning of the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, eloquently outlined why we need to act now. It is impossible to imagine the horror that someone might feel when their phone pings with a message from their ex-partner with photos attached, perhaps ones that they did not even know had been taken, and a threatening message saying, “How bad would it be if these were sent to your work colleagues?” By threatening to share the photographs, your ex-partner is escalating a campaign of intimidation and coercive control to make you do what they want. You can try to deal with it, but he is going to continue with those threats. He had been volatile and controlling, which is why you left him, and now he is trying to get you to go back to him or he wants to prove that he can still control you.

Over time, those threats become darker and more unsettling. You become anxious, you feel unsafe, you are not sure whether he is coming to your home or your work, following you or contacting your friends. He is now frightening you and threatening your physical well-being. Finally, you go to the police, but they decline to help on the basis that he has not done anything wrong and has not committed an offence, so there is nothing they can do. You feel deeply depressed, isolated and fearful. You stay away from friends and virtually go into hiding, not knowing where to turn for help.

As noble Lords have said, young women are disproportionately affected by these threats. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has compellingly set out the statistics. This issue is only going to grow, so any form of protection now needs to be brought in rapidly. The data is clear and illustrates why it is vital that an amendment is made to this Bill. No doubt, as other noble Lords have said, the Minister will cite the Law Commission review. However, as we know, those reviews can take years to come to a conclusion, as well as the Government deciding which recommendations they will accept. The Government then need to find parliamentary time. In replying to the debate, the Minister really does have to answer the question put by other noble Lords: if we are to wait for the outcome of the review and the Government’s decision on which recommendations they will apply, how long will that take? How long are the Government asking the survivors of this abuse to wait?

The Law Commission review covers a vast area of policy. Amendment 162 is not about pre-empting the full review. The changes it would make are small, straightforward amendments to an existing law that would not have a broader impact on the legal landscape. There really is nothing to stop the Government making this small change now, given that we have appropriate legislation before us.

This debate has clearly demonstrated that the threat to share intimate images is widespread. It is linked to domestic abuse and is having a devastating impact on the survivors of abuse. It is an issue that is going to increase and will continue to put power in the hands of the perpetrator, leaving survivors traumatised and isolated, perhaps forced to change their lives and move away from their homes, simply because the Government refuse to make this small change to the law. I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Minister will explain clearly, if the Government are unable to accept the amendment, how they propose to protect the survivors of this abuse.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for bringing this much-needed amendment to the House and recognising that the changes that have occurred in the past few decades, since the widespread introduction of mobile phone technologies and social media coverage, have irreversibly changed the way in which we communicate. The inherent dangers of the misuse of that communication have become increasingly prevalent. As the noble Baroness said, we are living our lives online, and today’s debate is into its ninth hour.

As a former teacher of media studies, I taught my students that the medium is the message—but, like many of my colleagues, I had no idea at that time how exploitative the medium would become. The key element to this amendment is that the Bill as it stands does not do enough to ensure that survivors of technology-facilitated abuse have sufficient protection in the criminal law. Threats to share intimate or sexual images and films are an increasingly common tool of coercive control that can have enormous negative impacts on survivors of abuse. While the sharing of intimate and sexual images without consent is a crime, threatening to share is not, leaving survivors of this form of abuse without the protection of the criminal law.

During my reading for this topic, I was powerfully moved by a key report, Shattering Lives and Myths, by Professor Clare McGlynn and others at Durham Law School. This was launched at the Supreme Court last year, and it sets out the appalling consequences to victims of intimate images being posted without consent on the internet. Nearly half of the victim-survivors the researchers spoke to had experienced threats to share nude or sexual images and videos without consent. While many of these threats were followed by non-consensual sharing, there must be a recognition that threats to share such images can in and of themselves have significant life-threatening impacts.

The domestic abuse commissioner designate has also supported this addition to the law, saying:

“The threat to share an intimate image … is an insidious and powerful way that perpetrators of domestic abuse seek to control their victims, and yet the law does not provide the protection that is needed. Threats to share these images play on fear and shame, and can be particularly dangerous where there might be multiple perpetrators or so-called ‘honour-based’ abuse is a factor. What’s more, the advent of new technologies enables perpetrators to make these threats even where such images do not exist, but there is no clear criminal sanction for this behaviour.”


Lack of support leaves victim-survivors isolated, often attempting to navigate alone an unfamiliar, complex and shifting terrain of legal provisions and online regulation. There needs to be a recognition in the Bill that image-based sexual abuse is a sexual offence, and an adoption of a comprehensive criminal law to cover all forms of image-based sexual abuse, including threats.

The Domestic Abuse Bill is the most appropriate vehicle to make this change: victims and survivors would benefit almost immediately, and it would help them in preventing further abuse and getting away from their perpetrator. This amendment can close that gap in the law, and I urge its support in this Committee.