Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group are what I will term minor drafting changes designed to clarify the operation of the new offences in Clauses 65 to 67 and 69.

Amendments 199 to 208 and 210 to 229 make minor changes to ensure that the operation of the child sexual abuse image-generator offence at Clauses 65 to 67 is clear and consistent across the United Kingdom. Amendments 230 to 233 make drafting changes to clarify the language used in the “paedophile manual” offence at Clause 69.

These amendments do not modify the policy intention behind these offences; rather, they make necessary clarificatory changes to ensure that they operate effectively. I beg to move and hope that the House will agree.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s technical amendments. We spent some time in Committee debating the definition of a “thing” used to generate horrific CSA images. I am pleased that the Government have tabled Amendment 201 to clarify that a “thing” explicitly includes a service.

Modern AI is not just a program sitting on a hard drive but an ephemeral, cloud-based service. By adopting this broader language, we ensure that those who provide the underlying infrastructure for CSA image generation cannot evade responsibility through technical loopholes. These may appear to be technical drafting changes, but they provide the necessary teeth for the primary offences in Clauses 65 to 67.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group are largely consequential and minor drafting changes. They relate to the important topic of child sexual abuse image generators. I have little to say to this group other than that the topic which they address is one of serious and urgent concern.

The rapid emergence of generative AI has presented new and troubling challenges. The recent Grok AI scandal, in which an AI model generated harmful sexual content publicly, some of which involved children, highlighted the potential for mainstream tools to be misused in ways that normalise or distribute abusive material. That episode underlines why robust legal safeguards are essential as technology evolves.

The Government have continued to delay passing legislation regarding AI regulation, which was alluded to as far back as 2024. I thank the Minister for his assurances that the Government will continue to monitor developments in this area and work with industry to protect children from abuse and exploitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I can see what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is saying about Third Reading, but it would be wiser to vote for this amendment now—if noble Lords have any conscience at all, they have to vote for it—and if it is slightly defective it can be amended at Third Reading. If we do not do it now, there is a huge risk of it not coming back.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I strongly support Amendment 209, which was so convincingly spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was very pleased to have signed it, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes.

This amendment is a vital safeguard against the “innovation first, safety later” culture of big tech. Although the Bill will rightly prohibit the creation of models specifically designed to generate CSA images, it remains silent on general-purpose models that can be easily manipulated or jailbroken to produce the same horrific results. As the unacceptable use of tools such as Grok—referred to by my noble friend Lady Benjamin in her powerful speech—has recently illustrated, we cannot leave the safety of our children to chance. We face a technological and moral emergency. The Internet Watch Foundation, represented at the meeting today which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend mentioned, has warned of a staggering 380% increase in confirmed cases of AI-generated child exploitation imagery. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right that the extent of this abuse is sickening beyond imagination.

The amendment would mandate a safety-by-design intervention, requiring providers to proactively risk-assess their services and report identified risks to Ofcom within 48 hours. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, pushed back against this proposal, arguing that it

“would place unmanageable and unnecessary operational burdens on … the National Crime Agency and Ofcom”.—[Official Report, 27/11/25; col. 1533.]

He further claimed that these measures risk creating “legal uncertainty” by “duplicating” the Online Safety Act. Both assertions need rebutting. First, protecting children from an industrial-scale explosion of AI-generated abuse is not an unnecessary burden; it is the primary duty of our law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Secondly, we cannot rely on the theoretical protections of an Online Safety Act designed for a world before generative AI. Ofcom itself has maintained what might be called a tactical ambiguity about how the Act applies to stand-alone AI chatbots and large language models.

Alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who we will support if she puts the amendment to a vote, we ask for an ex ante duty: providers must check whether their models can be used to generate CSAM before they are released to the public. Voluntary commitments and retrospective enforcement are simply not enough. The Government have already committed to this principle; it is time to put that commitment into statute. I urge the Minister to accept Amendment 209 and ensure that we move away from ex post measures that address harm only after a child has been victimised.

The current definitions of “search” and “user-to-user” services do not neatly or comprehensively capture these new generative technologies. We cannot allow a situation where tech developers release highly capable models to the public without first explicitly checking whether they can be used to generate CSAM. Voluntary commitments and retrospective civil enforcement are simply not enough. We need this explicit statutory duty in the Bill today and I urge the Minister to accept Amendment 209.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require providers of relevant online services to assess and address the risks that their platforms may be used for the creation, sharing or facilitation of child sexual abuse material, placing a strengthened duty on them to take preventive action. More than anyone in this Chamber, I fully recognise the intention behind strengthening preventive mechanisms and ensuring that providers properly assess and mitigate risks to children. Requiring companies to examine how their services may facilitate abuse is, in principle, entirely sensible. The scale and evolving nature of online exploitation means that proactive duties are essential.

However, I have some concerns about the proposed mechanism, on which I hope the Minister may also be able to provide some input. The amendment appears to rely on providers conducting their own risk assessments. That immediately raises several practical questions, such as what objective standard those assessments would be measured against, whether there would be statutory guidance setting out minimum criteria, and how consistency would be ensured across companies of vastly different sizes and capabilities. There also remains the crucial question of what enforcement mechanisms would apply if an assessment was superficial or inadequate. Without clear parameters and oversight, there is a danger that such a system could become uneven in practice.

I would welcome reassurance from the Minister as to how the Government intend to ensure that risk-based duties in this space are transparent and robust for the purposes of child protection. The question is not whether we act, but how. We all share the same objective of reducing the prevalence of child sexual abuse material and protecting children from exploitation. The challenge is ensuring that the mechanisms we legislate for are clear and enforceable in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking on issues related to online safety, I seem to spend most of my time apologising for the fact that the Act is not as up-to-date, efficient or effective as it should be, but here is another example of where technology has overtaken the good work that we did all those years ago to try to bring forward that legislation.

I learned about this at the same meeting that has been referred to already. At first sight, it looks as though it is an answer to a lot of problems that we have with the way in which younger people in particular interact with the internet. Those of us who were involved in pursuing what is now the Online Safety Act will be aware that we were largely looking at the user end of the material and cycle, looking at the apps and their interactions, that were being generated by those who were involved in servicing the internet. We did not look at technology in the hardware side at all and had no real thought about anything that we were dealing with in the then Bill affecting it. Yet this seems a very interesting and easy-to-adopt technology that would solve a lot of problems in relation to issues about the spread of material, which we would think should not be available where there are things like age bars or other means of providing gaps in the access to it.

There are always going to be problems with how we manage the changeover between childhood and adulthood, and we are aware that the technology is moving fast on that as well. It may well be that what is current today may be out of date by the time this Bill becomes law. But the Government should look very closely at the way in which this technology operates to prevent, at the equipment level, access to material which should not be seen by children particularly.

There will, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has said, be issues about free speech, and I do not think we should underestimate those. There are obviously ways in which this could be used against societal values; but for the particularity of how children are to be protected, making it impossible for them to access material, which they should by law not see, on the equipment they buy seems a very useful way forward, and I commend it to Ministers.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Let me say from the outset that, in principle, on these Benches we conditionally support Amendment 239A, which has been spoken to so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.

The noble Lord very clearly set out the urgent issues involved, as did my noble friend Lady Benjamin and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and all of us who were there in the same meeting which we have referred to before. We are at a technological and moral crisis point, as we have debated in a previous group regarding child sexual abuse material online. We face a children’s mental health catastrophe, and the ubiquity of child sexual abuse material is a central driver of that catastrophe.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has explained that his amendment would mandate that manufacturers and importers of smartphones and tablets ensure their devices satisfy a CSAM requirement to prevent the creation, viewing, and sharing of such material.

The question, however, clearly arises as to whether this would undermine encryption or privacy. We recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in his revised Amendment 239A, does indeed include a duty of privacy in his regulations. In my view, the thing to avoid is the chance that a technological fix of this kind could involve some degree of surveillance. I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that, at first sight, the technology looks extremely promising, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned, but, before taking this further, we need to be absolutely sure about the robustness of this technology and its impact on privacy.

By requiring software to be preloaded at the system level, we would move away from the model of parental controls and platform responsibility, and we would place the duty on the manufacturers who profit from these devices. Quite apart from that, we do, of course, also need to ensure that the platforms take action.

The Minister may promise further consultation, but we do not need much more consultation to know that the status quo is failing; we need to find a solution now rather than playing an endless game of digital catch-up. As other others have urged, I hope that the Government will take a look at this proposal urgently, closely and seriously.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses one of the gravest and most distressing areas of criminality: the sexual exploitation of children and the creation and circulation of child sexual abuse material. There will be no disagreement among noble Lords about the objective behind these amendments. The scale of this crime is deeply alarming and becoming increasingly technologically sophisticated. The question before us is not whether we act but how.

I turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Nash. Once again, I entirely understand and support the underlying aim. The goal of ensuring that devices supplied in the UK have highly effective, tamper-proof system software capable of preventing the transmission or viewing of CSAM is a commendable one. Preventing abuse at source is always preferable to prosecuting it after the harm has occurred.

I recognise that Amendment 239A includes express provisions intended to safeguard user privacy, requiring that any such software must operate in a way that does not collect, retain, copy or transmit data outside the device, nor determine the identity of the user. It also provides for affirmative parliamentary approval of the regulations.

However, it is still hard to overlook the practical challenges that may arise from this amendment. Determined offenders frequently exploit encrypted platforms and modify operating systems, often using overseas-hosted services. A requirement limited to devices supplied for use in the UK could be circumvented by overseas purchases or software alterations. Even with privacy safeguards written into the regulation-making power, this amendment may still raise complex issues relating to encryption, cyber security, technical feasibility and enforcement. Mandating tamper-proof software across all relevant devices would represent a significant expansion of the regulatory framework established under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.

While I strongly support the objective of forestalling child sexual exploitation and disrupting the circulation of abuse material, I am not yet persuaded that this amendment provides a workable legislative solution. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are strengthening preventative technology and ensuring that industry plays a meaningful role in protecting children, while maintaining a framework that is technically feasible and legally robust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bertin (Con)]

My Lords, I also completely support these amendments, noble Lords will be unsurprised to hear. I have just a couple of points, because so many have been made very well already. I can feel the exhaustion of victims, still, in all this. The idea that you have to chase around all the different websites and service providers, and take it on trust, is just not acceptable: no way.

The Government have to be really careful when they make big announcements that get a lot of coverage like “One and done” or “A nudification tech ban is done”, which we will come on to later, because that leaves victims with a false sense of hope because, if we discover that that is not the case, that is just not good.

But obviously I want to thank the Minister for listening; that was a powerful point that was made before. I certainly will be backing these amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly—I hope as briefly as other noble Lords—to, first, thank the Government for the movement that they have made in tabling their amendments. Secondly, I support my noble friend Lady Doocey with her Amendment 277, which would extend the aspect of voyeurism. Thirdly, and in particular, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, nearly all of which I have co-signed, which address the devastating viral nature of non-consensual intimate image abuse, on which she has so effectively campaigned. Her amendments seek, I believe very effectively, to close the gaps that leave victims traumatised by the repeated uploading of their abuse.

In Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, resisted the call from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for a statutory NCII hash register, arguing that it would lead to duplication of work already being done voluntarily by organisations such as the Revenge Porn Helpline and tech platforms. But voluntary compliance is not a systemic solution. CSAM is tackled systematically because it is mandated. NCII victims deserve the exact same proactive statutory infrastructure to prevent cross-posting and reuploads.

The Minister also resisted the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, which sought strict deletion orders, claiming that existing deprivation orders were sufficient. Yet research shows that only a tiny fraction of intimate image prosecutions result in deprivation orders, leaving abusers with copies of the images in their cloud accounts. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained exactly why we need the new orders very clearly.

In Committee, the Minister dismissed the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, which sought to tackle the degrading practice of semen images, claiming that the drafting was too broad and might inadvertently criminalise a woman fully clothed at a hen night posing with a novelty item. I very much welcome the change of heart by the Minister, the Home Office and the MoJ in that respect.

We are talking about the targeted sick degradation of women’s images online and the law must adapt to protect women from this rapidly growing form of abuse. I believe that when a conviction is secured, the court must have the power to order the destruction of images and the disclosure of passwords. Without this, the victim lives in perpetual fear of reupload.

I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has made a very strong case for her amendments, which make substantial improvements to the government proposals. I welcome the government proposals, but I believe they could go further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Russell said about the remarkable contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I also thank the Minister for all her efforts today to explain the Government’s position, and for the amendments that she has brought forward on behalf of the Government.

Amendment 298 is very important because it seeks to regulate online harmful content, and I very much support the principle. However, I will raise an important quibble. Amendment 298 defines what is meant by “harmful material” by reference to a number of very specific matters that I think we would all agree should not be online, such as material that

“promotes or encourages sexual activity that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act”,

or any sexual act that is

“non-consensual, or … appears to be non-consensual”

or

“threatens a person’s life … or is likely to result … in serious injury to a person”,

et cetera.

I have no difficulty with that: I entirely agree with it. However, I am concerned that, in subsection (2)(b) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 298, “harmful material” also includes that which

“would be an offence under … the Obscene Publications Act 1959 or the Obscene Publications Act 1964”.

I am concerned that that would be a very unwise way for us to regulate online content. The reason is that that Act is notoriously vague and uncertain. It depends on jury assessments of what would “deprave and corrupt” a person. It does not seem appropriate or necessary to include that element of harmful conduct when the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, lists, in perfectly sensible and acceptable ways, the specific types of content that ought not to be online and that should be prohibited.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as with the last group, we on these Benches support the Government’s amendments, but we do not believe that they go far enough. Alongside the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Pannick, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her tireless work on the Independent Pornography Review and subsequently. We on these Benches fully support her amendments to ban step-incest pornography and content that mimics child sexual abuse, to implement age verification for those featured on porn sites and AI nudification apps and to establish vital parity between online and offline pornography regulation.

I will be extremely brief. Amendment 298 in particular would create parity between offline and online regulation. Offline content that would not be classified by the BBFC should not be legal online. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, rightly proposes a monitoring role for the BBFC to support Ofcom’s enforcement and I very much hope that the Government will concede on this. If the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are taken on board, the Government can easily alter that amendment at ping-pong.

I have also signed Amendment 281A. The Government’s nudification amendments are clearly too narrow. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has described, by limiting scope to UK products, they ignore the global nature of this harm. We must go further to capture possession and use of any software designed to produce these non-consensual images. I very much hope that we will be able to avoid votes on the four amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward, and that the Government will take them on board.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the many amendments in this group all concern the regulation of online pornography. It is notable that many of the amendments have been signed by noble Lords from parties across the political spectrum, showing a very firm desire in your Lordships’ House to regulate harmful online pornography. I again thank my noble friend Lady Bertin for the extensive work that she has carried out in this area and I echo what has been said by several noble Lords this evening in support of her long-standing commitment to this cause. I also thank other noble Lords who have not only spoken this evening but been involved in efforts elsewhere to make the online pornography space safer for children and adults.

I will focus briefly on some of my noble friends’ amendments. Amendment 281A, as we have heard, would create an offence for the possession of software that can produce nude images of another individual. These Benches are fully supportive of this amendment. It goes a significant way in ensuring that women and girls are protected.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I had hoped to speak to this Bill on Second Reading, but was unable to do so; I hope noble Lords will allow me to jump in in Committee.

As has been pointed out elegantly by previous speakers, standard compensation orders are simply not suited to complex economic crimes such as sanctions offences. We now have these two amendments, which seek to ensure that victims are not excluded from receiving compensation simply because their harm is deemed too indirect or too complex for UK law to handle. We also know that it is highly likely that the UK will bring in yet more sanctions, particularly in the context of Russia and Ukraine. It is therefore timely to adjust our laws now.

In the comprehensive briefing that we all received from Redress, of which I am honoured to be a patron, it has been estimated that, at present, there are almost 3,000 targets of sanctions imposed by the UK Government, and more are likely to follow. However, as we have learned, at present the courts have almost no legal basis to channel any of the proceeds to Ukrainian victims, who the sanctions are intended to protect.

Achieving a way to compensate victims of Russian aggression from the criminal assets of oligarchs breaching UK sanctions will be perceived by the Ukrainians as a form of justice that is not to be sniffed at. These amendments would strengthen UK law by empowering courts to award compensation orders for

“public interest or social purposes”

by means of compensation forfeiture orders arising from criminal conduct under the UK’s sanction laws. I thoroughly support these amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 418. I also support Amendments 417 and 419, which were spoken to so well by the noble Lords, Lord Banner and Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady D’Souza—powerful testimony. Collectively, these amendments provide a necessary pathway for turning the proceeds of international crime into a force for restorative justice.

Currently, when the Crown Court makes a confiscation order, the primary objective is to deprive a defendant of their benefit from crime. While we support this, a significant gap remains in how these recovered funds are used, particularly when the criminal conduct involves serious human rights violations, mass-atrocity crimes or grand corruption. At present, funds not directly owed to a specific claimant in the immediate proceedings often flow into the general consolidated fund.

The Minister, in his recent letter to the human rights organisation Redress—of which I know there are many supporters in the Chamber today—suggests that current mechanisms are sufficient. He argued that the UK already shares over 50% of proceeds recovered through international co-operation with other Governments. However, as Redress compellingly points out, state-level sharing is not the same as victim redress. When funds are returned to a foreign state, the level of support victims receive depends entirely on the political will and potential corruption risks within that recipient state. Victims of mass atrocities and grand corruption have a clear preference for reparations paid for by their abusers and enablers. It is a matter of human dignity, justice and their own healing journey.

Amendment 418 would give courts the discretion to direct a portion of these confiscated proceeds towards

“public interest or social purposes”.

This is not a mere accounting change but a mechanism to provide support, redress or therapeutic services to victims of international human rights violations who might otherwise have no procedural pathway to compensation. To ensure that these funds are managed with the highest level of integrity, my Amendment 418 would require the Secretary of State to establish a public purpose fund. This fund would be subject to strict regulations, operation and auditing. It would ensure that recovered sums are applied to defined social purposes before any remaining balance reverts to the state under Section 55(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and it would require the court to calculate directives while respecting the duty to ensure full payment of any existing priority orders or compensation directives for direct victims.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

As I have previously stated in the House, Internet Matters found that teenagers saw sexually explicit deepfakes as worse than real images, for reasons such as lack of autonomy and awareness of the image, the anonymity of the perpetrator and the ways in which the image may be manipulated to portray the victim. The Girlguiding survey found that 59% of 11 to 21 year-olds were concerned that AI may be used to create fake images of them online. The accessibility of this technology quite simply facilitates the gamification of abuse, and I believe that we must take this opportunity to put a stop to it.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard some very powerful and emotional speeches, and I very much hope that, having seen the unanimous support all around the Committee, the Minister will respond positively today. I wholeheartedly support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin; I would have added my name to all of them, had there been space on the Order Paper.

This has been quite a dark debate, but as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, these are the direct, evidence-based conclusions of her independent pornography review. I very much welcome the questions the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked about the lack of a response to the Creating a Safer World review. It analysed 132,000 videos and clearly established an unambiguous link between the consumption of extreme pornography and violence against women and girls, both online and offline. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, it is poison; as the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Boycott, said, it is motivated by money; and as the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, said, it is the worst end of human nature for profit.

As we have heard today from all around the Committee, we are extremely mindful of the emotional impact on young women and girls in particular. I acknowledge that, in their later Amendments 294 and 295, the Government have made some progress on the possession and publication of pornographic images portraying strangulation and suffocation. The review by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, found that such content is rife on mainstream platforms and has normalised life-threatening violence, to the extent that 58% of young people have seen it, so I welcome the Government’s moves to close that specific gap.

However, while the Government have addressed the issue of strangulation, these amendments address the remaining glaring legislative gaps identified by the review. We cannot shut the door on one form of extreme violence, while leaving the windows wide open for others.

Amendment 314 seeks to establish a fundamental principle: parity between the online and offline worlds, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and others, have explained. Since 1984, we have prohibited content offline that the British Board of Film Classification would refuse to classify, such as material promoting non-consensual acts or sexual violence. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I hope that, given the extremely effective way the BBFC has carried out its duties, we will not find it too difficult to find a way of sharpening that amendment to make sure that there is a very clear definition of the kind of content online that is equivalent to that offline, which we are seeking to regulate.

Amendments 290 and 291 address content that mimics child sexual abuse and incest. The noble Baroness’s review highlighted that “teen” is one of the most frequently searched terms, often leading to videos featuring performers styled with props, such as lollipops and school uniforms, to look underage. Experts working with sex offenders have made it clear that viewing this type of violent or age-play pornography is a key risk factor. Men who offend against children are 11 times more likely to watch violent pornography than those who do not. By allowing this content to proliferate, we are effectively hosting a training ground for abuse. These amendments would extend the definition of extreme pornography to cover these specific, harmful depictions.

Amendment 292 would introduce a duty for pornography websites to verify not just age but consent. We know that the average age of entry into trafficking for pornography in the US is just 12.8 years. Currently, once a video is online, a woman who has been coerced, trafficked or simply changed her mind has often no legal mechanism to withdraw that consent. What the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, said on this was particularly telling. This amendment would provide a necessary right to erasure, ensuring that platforms must remove content if consent is withdrawn. If the banking sector can verify identity to secure our finances, the multi-billion pound pornography industry can verify identity to secure human dignity.

Amendment 298 addresses the rapid rise of AI nudification apps. As my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, the Internet Watch Foundation reported a 380% increase in AI-generated child exploitation imagery between 2023 and 2024—a staggering figure. These tools are being weaponised to humiliate women and children. This amendment would criminalise the possession of software designed to create non-consensual nude images, closing a loophole before it widens further. I add to what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said on the need for wider guard-rails on large language models in, I hope, future government legislation.

The Government have rightly recognised the harm of strangulation content, and I urge them now to accept the logic of their own position and to support these additional amendments to deal with incest, child-mimicking content and the fundamental issue of consent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, we should be ashamed of ourselves, and I hope that we now ensure that the legislation catches up with the reality of the digital age.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Bertin not just for tabling and speaking to these amendments but for the excellent work she has done and continues to do in this area, which by all accounts has taken its toll. She has campaigned on these matters for a long time and deserves so much praise from all of us.

When I first discussed these amendments with my noble friend, I could hardly believe what she was telling me. Essentially, their underlying premise is that certain forms of extreme pornography are still allowed despite the fact that they have been proven to have highly damaging impacts on the development and behaviour of young boys and adolescents, not to mention the exploitation of children, women and so many victims and potential victims of this subject matter.

We have heard compelling speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Kennedy, and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, in support of these amendments. There are so many perspectives from which one can look at them. One slightly personal perspective I have is that of a father of teenage children. I have teenage sons. Like all teenagers, they are bombarded with technology, challenged by social media and confronted with the unlimited scope that access to the internet can provide, with all its positive possibilities but also all its temptations, and in particular the dangers inherent in online pornography of an extreme nature. My sons, in effect, are the target audience of much of this material and I do not want this to be the new normal, as one of my noble friends described it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, spoke of poison and how we have to find ways of dealing with it. I concur completely. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who said so powerfully that technology is outpacing regulation. That is the real danger here. As my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson said, we have to close the loopholes.

My noble friend Lady Bertin has highlighted that, at present, we criminalise child sexual abuse in all its forms. We thus criminalise sexual activity within certain family relationships and the making of indecent images of children, yet, astonishingly, online content that depicts, fantasises about or encourages these same criminal acts is legally and widely available.

Amendment 290 confronts the deeply troubling reality that material which appears to portray a child—even when the performer is an adult—can be used to groom, normalise or encourage sexual interest in children. We know that such material is not harmless fantasy. Law enforcement, child protection organisations and international research bodies have all warned that material appearing to depict children fuels harmful attitudes and increases the risk that individuals progress towards real-world offending.

Crucially, Amendment 290 would also create a new offence of producing or distributing material that glorifies or encourages sexual activity with a child or family member. No one in this Chamber needs reminding that such conduct is criminal and profoundly harmful, yet text-based, audio and visual material explicitly celebrating child abuse and incest remains widely accessible on mainstream pornography sites and user-generated content platforms. The law should recognise the role of such material in grooming, desensitisation and normalisation of abuse.

Amendment 291 addresses the glaring inconsistency whereby extreme pornographic content is prohibited in many contexts yet explicit depictions of unlawful sexual acts between family members—including those involving persons described or portrayed as under 18 —are not necessarily captured by existing legislation. Incest is a criminal offence, reflecting both the safeguarding imperative and the inherent power imbalance within some familial relationships. Yet, again, pornographic content portraying incest, often stylised to appear illicit, coercive or involving younger family members, remains permissible to host, sell and distribute online so long as it is performed by adults.

This amendment would not criminalise lawful adult behaviour; it would criminalise the possession of extreme pornographic images depicting acts that would themselves be criminal if performed in reality. Once again, the principle is consistency. What is an offence offline should not be freely commodified online under the guise of entertainment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I add my voice to the support for my noble friend Lady Owen from across the Committee. She has done a great service to victims of these crimes all across the country, most of whom we know are women and girls, but men and boys can be affected too.

I will focus on Amendment 334 which, as my noble friend Lady Coffey has mentioned, would add the word “reckless” in relation to the spiking offence. This is very important. I remember being the Home Office Minister when the phenomenon of needle spiking first hit the headlines. It focused a lot of attention on spiking in general as a phenomenon and meant the Home Office had to put its focus and resources behind it. We found it was very difficult to prosecute these crimes. Often, the substance had left the body. Often, victims were blamed for their behaviour, for putting themselves in those situations.

When I went to talk to the victims, I often heard that they thought that people were just doing it for a laugh, and a lot of the hospitality industry—bars, clubs and festivals—said the same thing. They said that it was really inadequate to have the requirement to prove harm or a sexual motive. That was part of the reason, though not the whole reason, why we have seen such a woefully low level of prosecutions for this. It is my belief that we need to make sure we include this recklessness element, and that is also the belief of most of the campaigners that I have worked with, including Stamp Out Spiking and, of course, Richard Graham, who did a tremendous job. I hope that the Government will adopt this amendment and all the others.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a privilege to take part in today’s Committee. I think anyone reading Hansard subsequently will get a much better insight than they ever had before of the risks and experience of young women and girls in today’s world, sadly. It has been a privilege listening to all the speeches, particularly on these amendments.

Like others, started by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, for the forensic way she has identified the digital loopholes that currently allow abusers to evade justice. As we have been reminded, she has been a doughty campaigner on the Data (Use and Access) Act, with a winning streak that I hope will continue.

At the same time, I welcome the government amendments in this group, which at least signal a positive direction of travel. For far too long, victims of intimate image abuse have been timed out of justice by the six-month limit on summary offences. The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, identified this injustice, and I am delighted that the Government have listened with their Amendment 300. Then, of course, we have a number of other amendments. The noble Baroness’s amendments go further than time limits; they address harms that the Bill completely misses.

In particular, I highlight Amendment 298B, which addresses the malicious practice known as doxing. It is a terrifying reality for survivors that perpetrators often do not just share an intimate image; they weaponise it by publishing the victim’s address, employer or educational details alongside it. This is calculated to maximise distress, vulnerability and real-world danger. This amendment would rightly establish that providing such information is a statutory aggravating factor and would ensure that the court must treat this calculated destruction of a victim’s privacy with the severity it deserves.

While we welcome the government amendments regarding deprivation orders, I urge the Minister to look closely at Amendment 295BB, also in the name of the noble Baroness. Current police powers often focus on seizing the physical device—the phone or laptop—but we live in an age of cloud storage. Seizing a phone is meaningless if the image remains accessible in the cloud, ready to be downloaded the moment the offender buys a new device. Amendment 295BB would create a duty for verified deletion, including from cloud services. We must ensure that when we say an image is destroyed, it is truly gone.

I also strongly support the suite of amendments extending the law to cover audio recordings. As technology evolves, we are seeing the rise of AI-generated audio deepfakes—a new frontier of abuse highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and the Revenge Porn Helpline, as we have heard today. I pay tribute to her for raising this issue. By explicitly including audio recordings in the definition of intimate image offences, these amendments could future-proof the legislation against these emerging AI threats.

Finally in this area, Amendment 295BD offers a systematic solution: a non-consensual intimate image register using hashing technology, which was so clearly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. We cannot rely on a game of whack-a-mole, where victims must report the same image to platform after platform. A hash registry that identifies the unique digital fingerprint of an image to block its upload across providers is the only scalable technical solution to this problem.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we also welcome the new offence of administering harmful substances in Clause 101, but the current drafting requires specific intent to “injure, aggrieve or annoy”. Perpetrators of spiking often hide behind the defence that it was just a prank or done to liven up a friend. This leaves prosecutors struggling to prove specific intent. Amendment 334 would close this gap by introducing recklessness into the offence. If you spike a person’s drink, you are inherently being reckless as to the danger you pose to that person. The law should reflect that reality, and I urge the Government to accept this strengthening of the clause.

Finally, we support Amendment 356B, which would modernise domestic abuse protection orders. Abusers are innovative; they use third parties and digital platforms to bypass physical restrictions. This amendment would explicitly prohibit indirect contact and digital harassment, ensuring that a protection order actually provides protection in the 21st century.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who is not in his place but currently on the Woolsack, said on Report, the two clauses of this Bill fully reflect neither the nearly 1,000 pages of learning that the Law Commission produced on the subject of digital assets, nor the almost equal volume of written and oral evidence received by the Special Public Bill Committee, variously approving the Law Commission’s approach and characterising the Bill as pointless or even dangerous. That the Committee, which I chaired, was able to consider these issues and debate them out with a degree of thoroughness in the Moses Room prior to a further debate, largely thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on Report, is a tribute to our clerk, Matthew Burton, and all members of the committee—including not least the Minister—whose collective expertise was remarkable.

My only remaining concern is that, since the committee was entirely lacking in female members, it is entirely possible that we have succeeded in missing something obvious. The work of this House is now complete. I was delighted to hear just now that the Bill has been endorsed in Northern Ireland, and I wish it well on its onward journey.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Law Commission for its work on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has mentioned the almost 1,000 pages of work from the Law Commission, its consultation paper, the final report, the supplemental report—no one accused the Law Commission of a lack of thoroughness as far as this two-clause Bill is concerned. Its purpose, as it said, was to ensure that the courts can respond sensitively to the complexity of emerging technology and apply the law to new fact patterns involving that technology. It also said:

“We conclude that the flexibility of common law allows for the recognition of a distinct category of personal property that can better recognise, accommodate and protect the unique features of certain digital assets (including crypto-tokens and cryptoassets). We recommend legislation to confirm the existence of this category and remove any uncertainty”.


As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has explained, we have thoroughly examined the resulting Bill under the Special Public Bill procedure, and it clearly fulfils that purpose, so I would like to thank our witnesses. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his excellent chairing of the committee; our clerk, Matthew Burton; the Minister, of course; my fellow members for all their work on the Bill; and I agree with the Minister’s particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his stimulating and provocative input into our deliberations. But, as ever, there is more work to be done. The Law Commission recommended that the Government create a panel of industry experts who can provide guidance on technical and legal issues relating to digital assets, and I understand that the Ministry of Justice has asked the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, an expert group chaired by the Master of the Rolls that produces non-binding guidance on areas of legal uncertainty, to take forward this work.

The Law Commission also made recommendations to provide market participants with legal tools that do not yet exist in England and Wales, let alone in Northern Ireland, such as new ways to take security over crypto tokens and tokenised securities. It recommended that this work be undertaken by a multidisciplinary project team. Whether the Minister can give us an update today, I do not know, but I very much hope that he will write to members of the committee, because that is unfinished business and it would be very useful to hear from the Minister about it.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. Like other noble Lords, I have, rightfully, a long list of thanks, not least to all those witnesses who gave oral and written evidence to our Special Bill Committee; to Matthew Burton, our clerk, and all his team; to the Minister for his careful and thoughtful engagement, and all his officials; and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his excellent chairing of our Special Bill Committee.

This is a short Bill, but one with significant impact for the UK, and indeed beyond our shores, because through our legislative process, the world is watching what we do in this space. We have a great fintech tradition in this country, a great fintech ecosystem, and whether it is financial market infrastructure, dematerialisation of our capital markets or crucially important financial inclusion, digital assets have a critical role to play. With some trillions of the UK and world economy due to be transacted by digital assets by the end of this decade, the UK needs to ensure that it is well set for this future. The Bill does this through non-prescription, but using the great good fortune of English and Welsh common law, with its agility and its adaptability, as the Minister rightly said, for new technologies not yet even imagined.

It was an extraordinary pleasure to be part of this legislative process. My only question for the Minister is whether there is a schedule yet in the other place, so we can ensure that Bill becomes law as soon as possible. Not only does it send a signal to the world; it sends a signal to all those involved in digital assets in this country that with the financial centre of London and our fantastic fintech start-ups, scale-ups and larger businesses, London and the United Kingdom is an excellent place to be involved in digital assets business.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, in my name, I will speak to Amendments 2 and 3 in this group.

It is a pleasure to open Report of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as adviser to Ecospend and Members Capital Management. I take a brief moment to thank all of those who have got the Bill to this stage, including Professor Green and her team at the Law Commission, everyone who was involved with our Special Public Bill Committee—particularly the clerk, Matthew Burton, and all his staff—and all colleagues who have shown an interest in and engaged with the Bill.

There is an extraordinary opportunity when it comes to digital assets and delivering clarity, consistency and certainty around their property classification. By 2030, it is estimated that somewhere between 10% and 14% of GDP will come from digital assets. To put it another way, transactions in 2030 involving digital assets will range between £10 trillion and £24 trillion. That is a huge opportunity for the planet and for the UK, not least because of our excellence in financial services and in fintech—financial technology—but, crucially, because of the great good fortune of English common law.

What we see with the Bill is the leading-edge deployment of that great tradition in the most modern of contexts. To take just one example, if we get effective dematerialisation of the capital markets, that will save £20 billion year-on-year in reduced costs and speeded up transactions. Clarification of digital assets will not only help capital markets but will assist with financial inclusion and financial market infrastructure transformation, impacting positively on our economy and, through that, our society. We should note that the world is watching as we pass this Bill—following, as it does, a suite of Bills from the Law Commission, not least the recent Electronic Trade Documents Bill, now Act.

This is a very good Bill, which does a very simple task of enabling a third category of property: taking a “thing in possession” and a “thing in action” and enabling a potential third category to accommodate digital assets which do not neatly fit within either of those current property classes. It is a good Bill, and it has been through an excellent Committee and Special Public Bill Committee procedure, but I believe it is worthy of stress-test through these amendments this evening.

Amendments 1 and 2 go to the very heart of the Bill and propose that the presumption that digital assets cannot be fitted within the existing two categories of property be reversed. Consider something such as an NFT, a non-fungible token. To put it in simpler terms, it is largely a piece of electronic software on the hardware of a digital ledger. It has an existence beyond its legal form, but it is difficult to possess in the way you would possess, for example, a bag of gold. In that sense, the Bill is structured to enable this third category. The amendment seeks to stress-test that and reverse that presumption, as we have seen in some of the recent judgments in Australia and Singapore.

I am not suggesting that this amendment is the right amendment; it is merely put to stress-test how the Bill is set out. It seeks to stress-test the claim made by Professor Green, when she gave evidence to our Special Public Bill Committee, that this amendment would take the bite out of the Bill. If indeed it would take the bite out of the Bill, then it would not satisfy my three Cs test of what the Bill needs to achieve if we are to realise the opportunities and the economic benefits from digital assets. Those three tests are: clarity, certainty and consistency.

Amendment 3 seeks to assist with this by suggesting codes of practice that could be brought to bear to assist the courts when they come to consider issues around digital assets. With that, I beg to move Amendment 1.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and his passion for all things digital. But this is a good yet very modest Bill, and I not sure that we need stress-testing at this point in the proceedings. Through the Special Public Bill process that we have all been through over the last few months, we have kicked the tyres pretty hard already on this. We have taken evidence and had amendments in Committee, so I will be extremely brief and perhaps disappoint the noble Lord by not being in favour of any of his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I am afraid I am also going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, because I do not think these amendments are necessary. But I agree with many of the things he said, especially about the evidence that we received. I had never been a Member of a Special Public Bill Committee before— I do not know how many of your Lordships in the Chamber tonight have been—but it is really a very interesting procedure. When I consider the length of the Bill compared with the height of the amount of evidence that we received both in writing and orally, I do not think I have ever seen such a strong proportion of that kind.

I want to say one thing about Amendment 4 and data centres. I agree that this is not really within the remit of the Bill. If it was not for the noble Lord tabling all these amendments, we would not have had a Report debate of any kind, so I thank him for that too. The House is beginning to understand, I think, that data centres use phenomenal quantities of electricity —it is staggering. I do not know how the future is going to unfold but when the noble Lord refers to them as the “foundries” of the 21st-century economy, I think he makes a very good point.

I am a member of the UK Engagement with Space Committee of your Lordships’ House and one of the many interesting things that is beginning to emerge there is that in the future data centres may be placed in space—where, incidentally, it is easier to keep them cool—and then you would send the data to and from. I agree that this goes much more widely than the debate on the Bill.

I conclude by saying that when the noble Lord says the world is watching, I agree with that too, because the Bill will allow common law to develop in the way that common law has done for decades. It will also entrench the central position of London as a jurisdiction for the arbitration of disputes and arguments about digital assets, and I think and hope that London will continue to do that. Therefore, there is that element to the Bill, which I strongly support, although I am in favour of the noble Lord withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I can be extremely brief because I agree with much of what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has had to say. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is nothing if not consistent. We had data centres brought up in the Data (Use and Access) Bill and in this Bill, and I am sure he will ruthlessly bring up data centres on every possible occasion. Of course, the Government need a data centre strategy but the primary purpose of this Bill is very specific: to resolve the Colonial Bank v Whinney issue that the Law Commission wished to do. That is what we should be focused on today.

The Bill does not make digital assets property. It removes a legal barrier to their recognition as such by confirming that the traditional twofold classification is not exhaustive. That is all the Bill does, so I think that requiring a comprehensive economic impact assessment does not flow directly from this very narrow but useful Bill. I feel the same way about Amendment 5, which proposes a review within six months. Again, that goes way too far. Framing the review as being triggered

“due to any such digital assets being treated as property by virtue of this Act”

suggests that the Bill creates the property status, which is misleading.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, already knows all the arguments against his amendments so I shall carry on no further.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, an impact assessment is not practicable, whether in six months’ or three months’ time, we respectfully suggest. It would be premised on too many uncertainties. What we know is that the Bill will do no harm and is likely to do good. We have, if you like, the theoretical impact assessment of the Law Commission, which looked at all the issues in great detail. So, I suggest that we do not need this amendment, and we would not support it.

As to Amendment 5, six months’ time is, again, with respect, too short. I would suggest in parentheses that a review in five years’ time to see whether it is useful, whether it needs further amendment, how it is operating and what the effect is on the London market and litigation in London, could well be of value. Whether it needs a formal assessment or not is something that can be looked at four years down the road, but this is early days. We simply do not know enough. With respect to my noble friend, a review in a few months’ time will not help us at all. We do not support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and agree with his amendment. My only regret is that I did not sign it, because you can have four names on an amendment and, if I had another life, I would have immediately put my name to it. I echo his comments about the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who was a wonderful chair of this Special Public Bill Committee. I may never sit on another such committee—who knows?—but it was an enjoyable and interesting experience. To match up the Long Title with what is called the operative clause in the Bill is a good and sensible thing. Apart from anything else, the Bill replaces an obscure late-19th century judgment of which I confess I had never heard before I went into the committee, but it is a Bill for the future and, with that, I wish it well.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, add to our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who was a very good chair. It was a very harmonious committee, as these Law Commission Committees tend to be. I am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for a change, but it is very lucky we did not pass Amendment 1, that is all I can say.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, we support this amendment, for the reasons advanced by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for all the hard work which he put in and to our excellent clerk, Matthew Burton. It is a pleasure now to see this Bill reach a happy conclusion, I hope.

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

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to take part in the Third Reading of this Bill. I give many congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on this rare and much-deserved victory with the contents of a Private Member’s Bill. She made a very generous comment about the Minister, and I failed to do so the other day. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, paid tribute to the Minister. Even though he could not quite get over the line, at least some of the substance of the offence is there. I very much hope that that will remain in the Bill and that the noble Lord’s Commons colleagues will make sure of that. As we have heard in the debates on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, this is part of a wider battle against misogyny, and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has landed a really important blow in that battle.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has had to run a gauntlet online of Corbynite malcontents, misfits and misogynists. Her courage in taking this forward with such persistence and skill should be commended additionally in that context. Those people ought to give a public apology to her today; they will not, of course, but that is on them, because the country is with her on this.

When I came into this place, I was a relative youngster. It is appropriate to note that this place does not simply require people of my generation—free bus pass people—bringing great wisdom and experience; it can benefit equally, and sometimes more, from younger voices bringing a different and more modern perspective. Perhaps that points some direction for the future of this place.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to congratulate the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on the amazing work she has done. Furthermore, I appeal to the Government and all the different departments that may be involved in bringing before Parliament any legislation that in any way, shape or form involves children. We have repeatedly had to deal with Bills that have arrived in this House where it is quite clear that the needs and vulnerabilities of children are not being recognised right from the beginning in the way the legislation is put together. We have to pull it apart in this House and put it back together, because it has not been thought of properly in the first place.

I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. We need to learn the lessons of the battles that we have had to fight in recent years with a variety of Bills—largely successfully, mainly thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We do not want to keep on repeating those battles. We need to learn and do better.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to be part of the tech team and a pleasure to welcome a government amendment for a change. Although some of us might quibble with the rather convoluted paragraph 4, we should not stand on ceremony in that respect. I pay huge tribute to the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, throughout a series of Bills, not just this one. Our motivation in pressing for this kind of amendment has been the safety of children, whether with the Online Safety Act or this Bill. This amendment takes the Bill a step further but, as the noble Baroness says, we will remain on the case. We look forward to engaging with the ICO on this as the Bill is implemented.

I echo the noble Baroness’s thanks to the Minister and the Government for putting forward the CSEA offence. As the noble Baroness said, that had its origin in this Bill but will now be in the crime and policing Bill. I thank the Government for taking that forward. Also, it is very nice to see the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, back in her place.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment. I too welcome the return of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and wish her a speedy end to her recovery.

Most of all, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her successful campaigning to deliver better protections for children during the passage of this Bill. Throughout our consideration of the Bill, we on these Benches have firmly supported stronger protections for children in the Bill, which build on the important and collaborative work done by so many of us in the tech team under the previous Government and this one. Although we had some specific concerns about the drafting of some previous amendments on this topic, we are delighted that the Government have listened to the noble Baroness and brought forward their own amendment, which the noble Baroness is able to support. We firmly agree that children merit specific protection regarding their personal data, as they may be less aware of the risks and consequences of data processing. We support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I want to say just one thing. In light of what has been said, I urge the Government to accept these amendments. They will do themselves no credit by resisting them, and I am certain the amendments will be passed.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I think we have an open-and-shut case. I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, who has recruited a formidable group of Members of this House in support of her amendments. I cannot understand why the Government are allowing what could have been a very civilised agreement to founder on these three rocks. That seems to me to be quite extraordinary, particularly when we have heard that forensic tearing apart of the Government’s case by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. One of the great campaigning skills of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has been to recruit him to deliver an absolutely brilliant destruction of the Government’s case. The “reasonable excuse” and solicitation aspects are both coach and horses. We do not want the Bill to leave this House without the noble Baroness’s amendments; otherwise, a coach and horses will be driven through those provisions.

As for the imprisonment aspect, that is probably the most important of the three for many of us. All the other comparable offences—false communications; threatening communications; encouraging or assisting serious self-harm; cyber flashing; revenge porn; epilepsy trolling; harassment and stalking—are imprisonable to a greater or lesser degree, so we really ask the Government to rethink their position before going to a vote. We will support the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, if she pushes this to a vote, which I very much hope she will if the Government do not concede. She used the phrases “digital violence” and “extreme misogyny”. Digital violence leads to and constitutes extreme misogyny, and that is why we are so passionate about this offence and getting it right.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lady Owen in her amendments. Thanks to her tireless and frankly inspiring work, we have an opportunity to make a real difference now—today. She made a powerful and disturbing case for her amendments, and we have heard in Committee, on Report and now today how important these changes are to the many women who have already been victims of deepfakes. This is clearly something we need to address urgently to protect others from being victims in future and to bring perpetrators to justice. Deepfakes can ruin lives, and now is the time to act. In this, my noble friend has our full support.

I congratulate the Government on having travelled some way in tabling their amendment today. We are disappointed that they have still not been able to deliver including solicitation in the proposed offence. My noble friend’s amendments would ensure that it is an offence to solicit—I, too, rather prefer that term—or commission the creation of these kinds of images, and we support her inclusion of solicitation in the new offence.

Of course, I understand that the Government plan further amendments, but for now we are also disappointed that they have decided not to give the courts the option of imposing a custodial sentence on those who commit this new offence, and have chosen not to remove the “reasonable excuse” defence when a defendant has intentionally created an image of this type. Given the seriousness of the new offence and its significant impact on the lives of victims, this new law must have more teeth. We support my noble friend in bringing Amendment 6 to the House, and we will vote with her on this and her other amendments if she chooses to test the opinion of the House. Like others, I rather hope she will.

I conclude by once again paying tribute to my noble friend, who has assembled such a distinguished and respected group of signatories to and supporters of her amendments. Her approach to the Bill is in the highest traditions of your Lordships’ House, and I am proud to support her today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I think we have had quite enough excitement for one day. I want to thank colleagues all Benches—they know who they are—for making the fairly gruelling passage of this Bill endurable. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Vallance. We were sorry to lose the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, played the part of a kind of impact substitute in the second half of the match, and I thank him. I thank Mohamed-Ali Souidi in our Whips office for his enormous hard work on this Bill. I also thank the rather sleep-deprived Bill team. They engaged constantly on the Bill and what has resulted is a much better Bill than its predecessor, the DPDI Bill—but it is still not perfect.

I think we have made some progress, as the Minister outlined, on the charities’ soft opt-in, which I welcome that very much, the automated decision-making code to be drawn up by the ICO, the jurisdiction review, which was not heralded in Hansard, but I very much hope that the MoJ will get that under way, enhanced children’s duties, which were just passed today, assurances on researcher access to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and two enormous strides, potentially. I tend to think of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the web crawlers as a new rock band, but we place a lot of hope that the Government will see the light on that and that in due course we will also see the outcome of the debate on what constitutes scientific research. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has triumphed today with her new offence and I very much hope that, in its full form, it will take its place in statute.

Sadly, there was no movement on ministerial powers in key areas such as recognised legitimate interest, but we live in hope that this Government will, at least at some stage, have a self-denying ordinance. We are not there yet; maybe we have to keep plugging away in future Bills. But we are a lot more content with this Bill going forward to the Commons than we would have been if the DPDI Bill had gone in the same direction.

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

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on bringing this important Bill forward and on her totally persuasive introduction. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, she made an “unimpeachable” case. We have heard some very powerful speeches today and not a dissenting voice. I hope that the Minister takes note of that.

It was particularly interesting to hear from my noble friend Lady Grender that it can be done. She campaigned to make revenge porn a criminal offence and she emphasised the importance not only of getting it through but of the enforcement process afterwards. I also totally agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that, when you pass legislation, you have to make sure that it absolutely fulfils its intent. Many of us are very unhappy about the way that the categorisation process is being carried out at the moment with the Online Safety Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, reminded us that we have some form in campaigning on these issues in this House. There is now a formidable supporters’ club for this Bill, honed through quite a few years’ experience. Again, I hope that the Minister takes note of that.

An extraordinary one in 14 adults have experienced threats to share intimate images in England and Wales, rising to one in seven among young women. We need to ensure effective prevention of image-based abuse, while supporting the victims. It would take too long to read out the names of all the noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have described in some detail the impact on the victims.

As technology develops, so does the risk, not only to high-profile figures in public life—I pay tribute to the resilience of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, in that respect, as did the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster—but to people going about their daily lives as well.

There is a clear link between gender-based violence and image-based abuse. The Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls, explore how future legislation can safeguard victims, improve prosecutions and deter potential perpetrators from committing image-based abuse crimes. I would have thought that that very much covers what we are talking about today. Sharing intimate images without consent has, I grant you, been designated a “priority offence” under the Online Safety Act, but the Government need to go further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and every other speaker in this debate, has urged.

As we have heard, current UK law clearly does not effectively address non-consensual intimate image creation. Although it is currently illegal to share or threaten to share non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes, creating them is not yet illegal. This means that someone could create a deepfake image of another person without their consent and not face legal consequences, so long as they do not share or threaten to share it.

The Online Safety Act added new offences to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, making it illegal to share or threaten to share intimate images. However, the Law Commission, which advises the UK Government on legal reform, believed that there was not enough evidence of harm to criminalise creating deepfakes if they were not shared, which many of us think was too timid. We have heard quite the contrary today. The very welcome Bill brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, fills that gap in the law by criminalising the creation of non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes.

It is welcome that the Bill does not require intention. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, requiring intention would make it virtually unenforceable. The use of the term “strict liability” by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was absolutely correct.

The Bill specifically, and rightly, targets deepfakes due to their rising prevalence, as we have heard, and their potential for harm, particularly towards women. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John, that none of us anticipated the power of AI when we looked at it back in 2017 and 2018. We have heard some of the figures. An Internet Matters study in 2023 revealed that 13% of teenage children in the UK aged 13 to 17 have encountered a nude deepfake image, equating to over 500,000 young people. Security Hero research showed that 98% of deepfake videos online were pornographic, with 99% of those featuring women and girls, making it a problem that is, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, “inherently sexist” and

“the new frontier of violence against women”.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that this is a problem created by men.

The ease with which these videos can be created using readily available apps and online platforms further exacerbates the issue. In a welcome way, the Bill expands the definition of taking an image to encompass digital creation. This explicitly includes the creation of deepfakes under the umbrella of illegal activities relating to intimate images. It also rightly criminalises, as we have heard, soliciting the creation of non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes.

I hope the Government, in considering their position, acknowledge the severe impact that intimate image deepfakes can have on victims, even if the images are not shared, and that the psychological distress, violation of privacy and potential for reputational damage caused by deepfakes will be taken into consideration. I very much hope that, despite signs to the contrary so far, they will adopt the Bill and redeem their manifesto pledge to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.

There have been a number of takeaways from almost every speaker. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, urged speed. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked who we would be protecting in not passing this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that if South Korea can do it, so can we. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, noted that this tool is available now and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said that the Government should use Private Members’ Bills and the tool provided by this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that this will become a bigger issue if we do not act now and my noble friend Lady Featherstone that women cannot wait. I very much hope the Minister is mindful of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the whole purpose of the discussion today has been, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that there should be strict liability and not intent. Surely we are not talking about mens rea in this at all.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely heard what the noble Baroness said about strict liability offences. The Government’s position is as I just said. However, I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness said.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Second reading committee
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in the register. I add my thanks to the Minister for his clear introduction. I am an admirer of the work of the Law Commission, so it is intriguing to be debating the merits of this one-clause Bill with such a distinguished group of digital aficionados. Despite the brevity of the Bill, as the Minister has described, it has seen quite a careful run-up through consultation, response, report and draft Bill to help inform us. We have heard some great speeches today explaining why digital assets are important because of their impact, both negative and positive, on society and the economy.

The Law Commission has essentially recommended that we legislate to confirm that the outcome of the 1885 case Colonial Bank v Whinney, which decided that all personal things are either in possession or in action, is clearly superseded. Effectively, we are confirming that the common law of England and Wales has, over the last 10 years, clearly moved towards explicit recognition of a third category of things to which personal property rights can relate. In the words of the Law Commission, the courts have recognised that those things are

“capable of being objects of personal property rights at law”.

It was interesting to be reminded, while preparing for this debate, of the traditional forms of personal property. In the dim and distant past, I remember my supervising partner when I was an articled clerk—in the quill pen era—being very surprised when I had no idea how to draft an assignment of a chose in action. Actually, I had no idea what a chose in action was, despite two years of law at university. Anyway, young lawyers will now have to learn how to assign a digital asset as well.

The Electronic Trade Documents Act, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—it is also good to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—and which I was pleased to help on its way recently, was an exception in that it provided that electronic, or digital, trade documents could be treated as things in possession. Sadly, the Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation, soon to become an international centre, recently said that, while there are some signs of adoption, particularly among large commodity traders using e-bills of lading, the dial has yet to move on more general usage of the Act to make international trade faster, cheaper and simpler—as suggested in the impact assessment—especially for the SME sector. So, sadly, not all Law Commission efforts bear fruit quickly.

However, as the Law Commission discusses in its consultation paper, it did not think that the arguments for using possession as the operative concept for electronic trade documents were as persuasive in respect of other forms of digital asset. It concluded that

“it is not necessary or appropriate for legislation to define the boundaries of such a third category”.

We are essentially being asked to take an act of faith in the adaptability of the common law and to accept that

“the common law remains best placed to describe the parameters of third category things that are capable of being objects of personal property rights”.

This is in line with the first two of the principles that the Law Commission has explicitly and rightly adopted. The first is:

“Championing and supporting the inherent flexibility of the common law and making clear that, in general, it is sufficiently flexible, and already able, to accommodate digital assets”.


The second is:

“Statutory reform only to confirm the existing common law position or where the common law cannot develop the legal certainty the market requires”.


So we see reflected in this short Bill the Law Commission’s recommended legislation confirming the simple proposition that the fact that a thing is neither a thing in possession nor a thing in action does not prevent it being a thing to which personal property rights can relate. As we have heard today from a number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Holmes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—this is designed to cover crypto tokens, such as bitcoin, ether and stablecoins, NFTs and carbon credits, which may not have rights or claims attached to them so they may not qualify as things in action.

Some lawyers say that there is already a high degree of legal certainty and that there exist certain types of intangible property that are already recognised by the law of England and Wales. In essence, the Law Commission says that the recommendation for statutory intervention seeks merely to confirm and support what it considers the existing position in law. It goes further in its belief that the common law can do the necessary job in further defining digital assets, saying that

“it is not necessary, appropriate or helpful for the law of England and Wales to adopt statutory definitions of digital things for the purposes of answering the question as to whether such things are capable of being objects of personal property rights”.

It continues:

“We think that this logic applies equally to defining hard boundaries of a category of thing to which personal property rights can relate, distinct from things in possession and things in action”.


So, broadly speaking, the Law Commission leaves detailed implications to be fleshed out through future judicial decisions and ongoing common-law development, perhaps with the expert panel.

This includes the important aspect of remedies. The commission concludes that

“the vitiating factors of mistake, misrepresentation, duress and undue influence apply similarly to contracts involving third category things as they do to contracts involving things in possession and things in action”.

We are taking quite a lot on faith here. However, when it comes to certain other aspects, such as the entry into operation and enforcement of collateral arrangements for crypto tokens and crypto assets, the Law Commission concludes that

“it is not possible for the common law alone to develop a legal framework”

and that

“such a regime would be beneficial for the law of England and Wales and would provide market participants with important legal tools that do not exist today”.

Some questions arise. What next steps are proposed for this? Is this another case for the expert panel to look at? Is the common law adequate to deal with transfers and intermediate holding arrangements?

There are a number of additional questions, to which I hope we will get the answers in the course of our Committee proceedings when we take evidence. For instance, the report touches on general consequences, such as clearer rules for inheritance, bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, touched on the vexed issue of digital assets in wills, while the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned it in the context of divorce—happy days. What are the potential legal consequences of the Bill’s approach for the parties involved in digital asset transactions? How will this impact issues such as ownership disputes, inheritance, bankruptcy and insolvency?

The Bill leaves detailed implications to be fleshed out through future judicial decisions and ongoing common-law development. The report clearly states that the courts will play a critical role in shaping the contours of this new category. Are they fully equipped to do so? Is that the best way forward, rather than providing more granular definitions in the Bill itself? Is there any transition of existing digital assets required from their current legal status to their status as a result of the Bill? What are the potential risks or unintended consequences of the proposed legislation? Will the explicit recognition of digital assets as personal property have an impact on the financial, technological and legal sectors? How do stakeholders from those sectors view the proposed Bill?

While the Law Commission in its reports acknowledges the possibility of unintended consequences, it argues that the flexibility of the common law approach will allow for adjustments and refinements as necessary, rather than detailing specific risks, and I am certain that the Committee will want to explore that approach.

Finally, I have two questions that the Minister may be able to answer today. The report discusses potential impacts, such as increased legal certainty and more straightforward asset management, but it does not provide an in-depth analysis of sector-specific impacts. Do the Government propose to produce an assessment of the impact that the recognition of digital assets as personal property will have on various sectors, or do they believe that because of the confirmatory nature of the Bill, that is already baked in?

Then, on a matter that a number of other noble Lords raised today—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Holmes—there is the whole question of how the proposed legislation aligns with existing international models. We heard mention of MiCA in the EU, while Dubai has digital asset legislation and a regulator, VARA, and the US will probably become more bullish about crypto assets under its new Administration. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was also very clear about the importance of the competitive aspect in terms of choice of jurisdiction. This question remains largely unanswered in the report, with the Law Commission not detailing how the Bill will align with international legal frameworks or affect international transactions. What are the potential risks or unintended consequences of any of the proposed legislation in this respect?

Other questions were rightly raised about the future regulation of crypto assets and cryptocurrencies. On whether we are going as far as we should in this respect, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, are pretty much on opposite sides of the equation. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, rightly made the point that the criminal law is ahead of the civil law—I see we are debating a statutory instrument on this subject on Monday. It may be beyond the Minister’s brief to be talking about the digital Michael Parkinson, but perhaps he could shine some light and give us a glimpse of the regulatory future as regards some of these digital assets.

There are many unanswered questions. I look forward to Committee, when I hope that we will get some more answers.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is now over 15 years since I last spoke at the Second Reading of an assisted dying Bill. However, I regret that I am no more persuaded by the eloquent and powerful arguments put for this Bill than I was at the time for that of Lord Joffe.

Nearly all of us come to this debate with a personal experience. I certainly do. I was a carer for my late wife, who endured a great deal of pain and suffering while undergoing all the ups and downs of five years of ultimately unsuccessful cancer treatment. She was also a doctor and she founded a cancer support charity. Despite her experience, she was of the strong view that the answer was high-quality palliative care, not the availability of assisted suicide. My heart goes out to my great friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for the lack of that care in her case. I still hold to that view, if anything more strongly. It is not just about some of the problematic wording in the Bill regarding prognosis and settled wish to die; it goes much wider than that. It is about risks to the inevitably vulnerable and the impossibility of safely mitigating that risk, especially in the light of what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, had to say about the future and what the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Lord Mawson, said about the present.

When we debated Lord Joffe’s Bill, it could be argued that the Netherlands and Oregon had had their teething problems but that they demonstrated the safety and viability of assisted suicide legislation. After the passage of years, that assertion has been punctured, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, demonstrated. On the contrary, we can now see the real flaws in their systems and that of Canada, variously a lack of supervision, doctor shopping, a great increase in assisted deaths, greatly widened eligibility from the initial scope, and impact on investment in palliative care and charitable hospice activity. I am firmly on the side in this debate of the many people who have written so cogently and movingly in opposition to this Bill. I will vote to defeat it if given the opportunity.