Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Amendment 199 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness Kidron, for tabling Amendment 209 and for her commitment to doing all we can to prevent online harms. I was struck strongly by the contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Bertin, the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Russell of Liverpool, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.

This is a really serious issue. The Government are committed to making sure that we have constructive engagement with the noble Baroness, as I have tried to do, including one formal and one informal meeting this very day, to ensure that we can make this work in the interests of what everybody in this House wants to do: to ensure, particularly given the rapid development of technology, that the public, and especially children, are safeguarded from harm. This Government are committed to tackling sexual exploitation and abuse and ensuring that new technologies are developed and deployed responsibly. I know that that matters; I know that it is important, and I know that this Government want to make sure that we deal with it.

A few weeks ago, the Grok AI chatbot was used to create and share vile, degrading and non-consensual intimate deepfakes. This House should ensure that no one lives in fear of having their image sexually manipulated by technology. From the Prime Minister to the DSIT Secretary, we said at the time that we will do something to stamp out this demeaning and illegal image production.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for setting out his amendments. I know that he met last week with the Minister, my noble friend Lady Lloyd, and I hope that was a productive discussion. I was pleased to meet with him as well—I have lost track of the date, but it was some time in the last few months—when he graciously brought along representatives of companies that are developing the technology he talked about today. I found that meeting useful.

I acknowledge the noble Lord’s intention to protect children through this amendment, and I want to be clear, as I was on the previous amendment, that the Government share the ambition to protect children from nude imagery and prevent the spread of CSAM online. I hope that my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, showed that this is a matter the Government are taking seriously. That is why, in the violence against women and girls strategy, we have made it clear that we want to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view nude images. We strongly agree that nudity detection on a device is an effective way in which this could be achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been an important and, at times, deeply sobering debate. I place on record my sincere thanks to my noble friend Lady Owen, who has been tireless in campaigning on these issues inside and outside this House. In Committee, noble Lords from across the House recognised not only the seriousness of the harm caused by non-consensual intimate images but the persistence and expertise she has brought to improving the law in this area. That work has already borne fruit in previous legislation, and it continues to shape the debate constructively here.

It is also pleasing to hear the Government agreeing with much of what my noble friend Lady Owen has said. The Prime Minister made absolutely no mention of her work when he announced the 48-hour takedown policy, and we all know that that success lies with her, so I am pleased the Minister has rectified that today. My noble friend has also highlighted an inconsistency in the Government’s position. If they are to enact the 48-hour takedown policy, they will need to establish a central hash register, given the gap between what Ofcom is able to do and what would be required to enact the Prime Minister’s announcement.

These proposals relating to hashing and the establishment of a statutory non-consensual intimate image register build on existing voluntary initiatives, including work undertaken by the Revenge Porn Helpline. In Committee, there was recognition across the House that hashing technology has already proven effective in tackling child sexual abuse material and that extending similar mechanisms to adult victims of intimate image abuse merits serious consideration. But, more than that, they are essential to enacting the Government’s own recently announced policy.

The proposal to require deprivation and deletion orders following conviction is, surely, the logical conclusion of the existence of the offence. If it is an offence for these images to be made and shared, then a court should require their deletion.

The amendments concerning screenshotting, copying of temporarily shared images, and the creation or distribution of degrading material are also rooted in the lived experience of many individuals, particularly young women and girls. Technology has outpaced the assumptions underpinning older offences. As my noble friend has argued, consent given for a time-limited viewing is not consent to permanent capture, nor should the law allow perpetrators to evade liability through technical loopholes.

Finally, on Amendment 277, we are supportive of the proposed expansion of the voyeurism offence to include where a person records non-consensual images of a person with the intent of obtaining sexual gratification. It is appalling that people can film others without their knowledge and consent and use those images for their own nefarious purposes.

I also thank the Government for their welcome engagement with my noble friend on these matters. It has been clear, both in Committee and since the Ministers met with my noble friend and other stakeholders, that there has been constructive cross-party dialogue. This is reflected in the numerous amendments they have tabled in this group to similar effect. That spirit of collaboration is to be commended. These issues, which concern dignity, privacy, exploitation, and protection from abuse, should never be partisan. I am therefore grateful for what has been achieved up to this point.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 275 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I apologise to the House for the last-minute degrouping of this amendment. It is a vital amendment and I wanted to ensure that it could be brought back at Third Reading.

The amendment mandates the Secretary of State to create a mechanism whereby sites have to have clear and accessible reporting systems for content that a person believes breaches Section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act on the sharing of non-consensual intimate images. Vitally, it mandates internet services to remove or de-index this content within 48 hours. Critically, it includes sanctions for internet services to remove duplicates.

Last year I was contacted by Christina Trevanion, host of “Bargain Hunt”. Christina spoke to me about the ongoing trauma she faced trying to remove non-consensual, sexually explicit deepfakes of herself from the internet. She is one of many brave survivors of intimate image abuse who spoke out and inspired my 48-hour take-down amendment. She said, “It’s too late for me, but I do not want my daughters to grow up in a world where posting a photograph of themselves online puts them at risk”.

The amendment was based on the precedent set in the USA with the TAKE IT DOWN Act, itself inspired by the incredible advocacy of a young woman called Elliston and her mum, Anna. Anna described to me the unending trauma her daughter suffered knowing that, for the rest of her life, those pictures could be there. Anna’s biggest priority was getting those images taken down from the internet. For victims such as Christina and Elliston, every day that goes by is another day when they live in constant fear that their content will be viewed, downloaded or reshared in an ongoing cycle of revictimisation. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to work with me on this amendment. I think the Minister knows how passionate I am about this.

I am very pleased that the Government have committed to bring back their own amendment at Third Reading; we will get the exact details in a second. I am very keen to secure an undertaking that we can return to this issue at Third Reading. If for any reason the Government do not follow through and bring an amendment back in time for Third Reading, I reserve the right to bring back my Amendment 275, covering all the elements I have raised on this important issue. I am very grateful to the Minister for her collaboration and determination to work together on this. I know she is committed to getting it right. I ask her to confirm that the Government will provide an undertaking to bring back amendments at Third Reading to address the 48-hour take-down requirement for intimate images. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her amendment, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the Act being passed, to make provisions for the way in which offences of sharing intimate images are reported and the mechanisms by which content is removed by the relevant internet service. I understand that the Government have given my noble friend an undertaking for Third Reading, and I am pleased that they have done so.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to put on record that this Government completely accept and agree with the intention that underlies this amendment. That is why, as I said earlier, the Government will introduce a legal duty for tech platforms to take down reported non-consensual intimate image abuse within 48 hours, to ensure that victims get rapid protection. This change, which will be brought forward at Third Reading, will create a strong, enforceable foundation for getting harmful material removed from online circulation, so that victims are no longer left chasing platforms for action. To support swift and effective action to remove this material by internet infrastructure providers, we will also explore any barriers to blocking and how this can be addressed. This will help ensure that rogue sites operating outside the scope of the Online Safety Act will be targeted. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s eagerness to see this change brought about quickly, but as the Government intend to bring forward amendments to this effect at Third Reading, I hope she will be content to withdraw her amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

289: Clause 82, page 98, leave out lines 3 to 11
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the ability of the court to dismiss an action in respect of personal injuries attributable to child sexual abuse on the grounds that the defendant would suffer substantial prejudice.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 289 is a probing amendment through which I am seeking the Government’s justification for the substantial prejudice provision in Clause 82. By way of background, Clause 82 removes the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims in cases relating to child sexual abuse. As such, it implements recommendation 15 of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse chaired by Professor Jay. The inquiry found that most personal inquiry claims relating to child sexual abuse are not only modest in value, but in many cases do not result in compensation being paid. The reason for the high rate of failure is that a significant number of those claims are prevented from proceeding as a result of the limitation period on bringing forward a claim under the Limitation Act 1980. That Act permits the three-year period for claims resulting from sexual abuse as a child to begin from age 18, therefore expiring at 21, but many survivors do not feel comfortable with coming forward and telling people what happened until much later, never mind gathering the courage to bring a lawsuit against their abuser. The result is a lack of justice for those who have been abused as a child, and it is welcome, therefore, that the Government have decided to bring this forward.

However, there is possibly an issue with the drafting of Section 11ZB, which is inserted by this clause. It establishes the situations in which the court must dismiss an action for injury arising from child sexual abuse. It states that for all cases brought after the commencement of this clause, the court must dismiss the action if the defendant can prove that a fair hearing cannot take place. However, for any case that started before this new clause comes into force, the test for dismissal is set considerably lower because in this instance, the court must dismiss the claim if the defendant can prove that they would suffer substantial prejudice, and thus the proceedings are inequitable.

This goes further than was recommended by the Jay inquiry. Its report referred to

“the express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants to show that a fair trial is not possible”.

The only test the independent inquiry wanted was that the test of whether a fair trial can take place applied to all past and future cases. I know there is concern that the ability of the court to dismiss actions due to substantial prejudice placed on the defendant will create uncertainty for survivors of child sexual abuse and delay access to justice. This has the potential to undermine the purpose of the recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and might not provide the certainty and support survivors deserve.

I reiterate that this is simply a probing amendment, and I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on why the Government have gone further than recommended by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have an amendment in this group. I repeat a declaration of interest I made at Second Reading: that I have appeared as a barrister in a number of the leading cases about limitation of the law of tort. The purpose of limitation periods is to give a claimant a fair chance to decide whether to bring a claim, but also to place some sort of time limit on claims. Limitation periods vary according to the cause of action—for example, defamation claims have to be brought within one year. Personal injury claims have always been in a special category. The normal limit is three years or, in the case of a young person, three years after attaining the age of majority. But because some personal injuries manifest themselves only some time after they have been caused, particularly those relating to disease claims, the law has responded by postponing the starting date to reflect something called the “date of knowledge”.

What constituted knowledge was difficult to encapsulate in statute and gave rise to a lot of litigation, particularly in the context of what are generally known as historic claims for child sexual abuse. But these difficulties were largely overcome by Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, which gave the court a complete discretion to disapply the limitation period. Although the section gave various sensible guidelines as to matters to be taken into consideration, the discretion was expressed to be entirely unfettered.

One difficulty of the law remained. In claims for deliberate acts of assault, there was a finite six-year limitation period, rather than a three-year extendable limit for claims in negligence, so some claimants did not have the advantage of Section 33. This problem was overcome by the decision of A v Hoare in 2008— I was one of the unsuccessful defendants in that case—when the House of Lords decided that, whether the claim was in negligence or in assault, there was still a discretion to disapply the limitation period.

The only question that remained was whether it would ever be too late to bring a claim in the light of Section 33. Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, a much-missed Member of your Lordships’ House, made this observation:

“If a complaint has been made and recorded, and more obviously still if the accused has been convicted of the abuse complained of, that will be one thing; if, however, a complaint comes out of the blue with no apparent support for it (other perhaps than that the alleged abuser has been accused or even convicted of similar abuse in the past), that would be quite another thing. By no means everyone who brings a late claim for damages for sexual abuse, however genuine his complaint may in fact be, can reasonably expect the court to exercise the section 33 discretion in his favour. On the contrary, a fair trial (which must surely include a fair opportunity for the defendant to investigate the allegations …) is in many cases likely to be found quite simply impossible”.


That passage was in fact referred to in the conclusions of IICSA, which decided that the three-year period should be removed, but that there should be

“express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants to show a fair trial is not possible”.

The Government responded to IICSA’s report and did not support getting rid of limitations. The Government acknowledged the importance of Section 33 and made this point:

“A limitation period also encourages disputes to be resolved timeously thus promoting finality and certainty. Both are key cornerstones of the legal system. As such, the Government’s opening position, ahead of consultation, is that it does not support this option”.


Nor did they support a special limit for claims arising from sexual abuse. I remind the Committee that, in 2017, in the case of Carroll v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, the Court of Appeal emphasised the unfettered nature of the Section 33 discretion.

My question to the Government at Second Reading was essentially this: what cases do they envisage would now be allowed to proceed which would not have done under the current law? I do not expect an immediate answer, but the Government have now had plenty of time to consider their response. There was a consultation following the Government’s response that I referred to, but it was not particularly large and did not contain consistent answers.

Changing the law of limitation is best an exercise following the careful balancing of respective interests, perhaps by the Law Commission. What appears to have happened here is that the Government, notwithstanding the initial view that I referred to, have decided to come up with some sort of compromise. In doing so, I fear they have produced in Clause 82 a real dog’s dinner of a provision.

Clause 82 is headed:

“Removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases”,


but it does not do that. It specifically provides that sexual abuse is in a separate category from, for example, physical abuse, although this was precisely what the Government did not want when they responded to the original recommendations. It contains a rather unclear provision that, when a dispute has been settled, it will no longer be subject to these new provisions. It probably does not include discontinued claims or claims settled otherwise than by way of a formal agreement.

New Section 11ZB contains some very unclear provisions as to the circumstances in which the court can dismiss an action, while at the same time containing in new subsection (2) the provision:

“The court must dismiss the action if the defendant satisfies the court that it is not possible for a fair hearing to take place”.


The interrelationship of new subsections (2) and (3) is incoherent and will inevitably result in litigation. The lack of clarity on what is and is not sexual abuse, and what is and is not settlement, will, I fear, also give rise to litigation.

I agree with the Opposition Front Bench’s probing amendment that we should get rid of new Section 11ZB(3), but that would leave a repetition of what the law is anyway and would not deal with the points about what constitutes sexual abuse or settlement via agreement. My conclusion is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the law as it is. This rather messy compromise will give rise to unnecessary litigation and I am unsure it will provide remedies where remedies are not already available.

Sexual abuse, particularly of children, is abhorrent, and we now know there has been far more of it than was originally perceived. It is, however, important to point out that claims are not usually made against individual perpetrators; one can understand why there would not be much sympathy for a claim being brought, however late, against such a perpetrator. The usual defendant is, for example, a school, religious organisation, local authority or even central government. They may or may not have any knowledge of what happened but, because of the expanded doctrine of vicarious liability, will be deemed in law to be responsible for what occurred. They may or may not be covered by insurance.

As Lord Brown pointed out, there will come a time when it is quite simply inappropriate, many years later, for claims to be brought before the court. However sympathetic one is to the victims of sexual abuse, the law currently caters adequately for the balance between the interests of claimants and defendants. If we include Clause 82 in the Bill, I fear we will make bad law. The clause should not stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, it is no answer to say that another Government considered it carefully: different Governments have different priorities. I am not sure that that is going to come as a great surprise to the noble Lord. As for Section 33, this Government are satisfied that it does not provide sufficient protection.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief in my response. As I say, this was a probing amendment, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I thank the Minister for her clarification. I am content with the Government’s assurances, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 289 withdrawn.

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

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

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

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow so many impressive speeches and a great responsibility to speak in support of my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge’s Bill to outlaw non-consensual sexually explicit images and videos. The Bill is not only timely but essential in addressing a profound harm that has emerged with the proliferation of new technology—a harm that disproportionately affects women, vulnerable individuals and the very fabric of our society’s values of dignity, respect and privacy. I speak as someone who has had to deal with female victims of sexual crime in many years of policing. I have seen it at its worst.

The Labour Party manifesto committed to banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. However, as has been pointed out, no proposal featured in the King’s Speech. This Bill is supported by the Revenge Porn Helpline, Refuge, Not Your Porn, My Image My Choice, End Violence Against Women, Professor Clare McGlynn KC and Jodie Campaigns. It is clearly a well-thought-out Bill that will be effective in tackling this appalling practice. It is vital that, in making legislation such as this, we listen to victims and survivors.

The creation of sexually explicit images and videos without consent and with malicious intent has become a pervasive practice. This is unacceptable. For victims, the impact is shattering. This is a form of sexual violence. It is an act that exploits trust, invades privacy and causes real harm to its victims.

This Bill rightly proposes a robust response to this abhorrent behaviour by creating specific offences for the non-consensual creation of sexually explicit material. It also seeks to ensure that the law reflects the realities of how technology is weaponised in this context. It seeks to enshrine in law a woman’s right to consent as to who has the right to own sexually explicit content of her. This legislation is a declaration that the law is not blind to the realities of the digital age. It is a clear message to perpetrators that such actions will not be tolerated. It is a lifeline to victims and survivors, offering the promise of a clear path to justice and the reassurance that their suffering will not be ignored any longer.

The Bill has a wider social resonance. It is about the type of society we aspire to be: one where everyone, regardless of age, gender or background, can live with dignity and without fear of exploitation. By passing this legislation, we will send a very powerful signal that the values of respect, consent and justice are not just ideals but what we expect of people in this country.

Back in July 2023, Alex Davies-Jones MP, the then Shadow Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said that big players in the tech industry should not be dictating to government how artificial intelligence policy should look, and that urgent regulation is needed. That was in response to a damning new report by the Ada Lovelace Institute. Alex Davies-Jones MP is now the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for victims. I would expect not only that her views would remain the same but that she will be keen to put her words into practice through legislation such as we are discussing today.

This is as important a Private Member’s Bill as has ever come before your Lordships’ House. It sends a consistent message from noble Lords of the urgent need to address the sickening issues that victims and survivors must face in connection with the creation of this material. This is an oven-ready Bill. There should be no hesitation or prevarication on the part of government in helping to introduce it imminently, by whatever vehicle. I have only one question for the Minister, which I hope he will answer today: why not, and why not now?

I commend my noble friend Lady Owen for her work in championing this vital cause. I urge all Members of the House to support the Bill. It was an impassioned speech. Let us seize this opportunity to stand with victims, modernise our legal framework, and affirm our commitment to a society in which dignity and respect are safeguarded for all. With support across the political spectrum in the House, I sincerely hope the Minister listens to these arguments, and I urge the Government to support this Bill.

Commission on Justice in Wales

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am the Minister of Justice for devolution and the various countries within the UK. The manifesto has made it clear that we want to work in practical ways for the benefit of the people of Wales. Two points that I made in my initial Answer to the noble Baroness were on probation and youth courts. I know that a number of very positive examples of practice in Wales are better than the average within England and Wales. We want to build on what is positive that is already happening rather than look at the overall devolution of these powers.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, any observer of Welsh politics these days will not fail to have noticed that the Welsh NHS has 22,000 people on its waiting list awaiting operations, the Welsh education system is the worst in Europe, the Welsh Government are about to spend roughly £150 million on 36 additional Members, and there are vanity projects such as 20 miles per hour everywhere. Does the Minister really believe that the Welsh Labour Government can cope with the complexities of any aspect of the criminal justice system being devolved?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I notice that the noble Lord is addressing the House from the Back Benches, whereas I understood that he had a Front-Bench position. He is shaking his head, so I apologise. To answer his question, we want to work constructively with the Welsh Government. I personally will be visiting Cardiff and Newport before the end of this month, and I know that many of my colleagues have ministerial visits; we want to work constructively with the local Ministers.

Lord Chancellor and Law Officers (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and thank her not only for her comprehensive opening remarks and for the committee’s report but for inviting me to give evidence to the committee last year. It is a very balanced report which, if I am right, underlines the importance within our constitution of the roles of both the Lord Chancellor and the law officers in protecting the rule of law. The noble Baroness was entirely right to remind us of the recent occasions when that has broken down. I am also delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, in his place, because it means we can benefit from his wisdom this afternoon, and also because, I hope, it suggests that his health has been restored to him. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister and from other noble Lords speaking this afternoon.

At the risk of doing something unusual, I will talk about myself. I am by no means the only lawyer here, but I believe I am the only person here who can claim membership of the former Solicitors-General club. Long ago, an Attorney-General said that being Attorney-General was the worst job in government and being Solicitor-General was the best. Both have their upsides and downsides, but I have a certain pride that I held an office in the 21st century that was held in the 18th century by my direct ancestor William de Grey. I have inherited his gout but not his intellect: he had what we nowadays call a stellar chancery commercial practice at the Bar and, although in his final years his hands were riddled with gout, preventing him from holding a quill, he was able to give extempore judgments as Lord Chief Justice after long and complex trials that stand the test of time to this day.

Shortly after my appointment in 2010, I was showing off to the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that de Grey had been successively Solicitor-General and Attorney-General from 1763 to 1771, under five Prime Ministers. After that, I told him, de Grey became Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. The noble and learned Lord smiled engagingly and gently reminded me that some apparent precedents are easily distinguished upon their facts.

Before I return to the subject of law officers, I agree with the current Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, who said earlier this week at Mansion House—reflecting some of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, a moment ago—that:

“It is my belief that a Lord Chancellor’s primary interest should lie in nurturing the long-term health of the Courts and Tribunals, the legal system and the independence of the judiciary”.


If I had my way, I would return to the Lord Chancellor’s duties doing the things that the noble and learned Lord mentioned. Some would say that the ship carrying that sort of Lord Chancellor has sailed, never to return. I disagree. If it can be changed in one way, it can be changed in another way.

Government departments are frequently repurposed. It simply requires the political will to do it. I would release the Lord Chancellor from the prisons portfolio and the expenditure responsibilities that go with being Secretary of State for Justice, save those connected with the administration of justice. The Lord Chancellor does not need to be an elderly lawyer devoid of ambition; our current Lord Chancellor is, after all, young—at least from where I am looking—but by no means the youngest there has been. He is a very able lawyer, bright and enterprising, and a member of the former Solicitors-General club. Whoever it is, they should be someone with sufficient calibre and character to hold their own in and be listened to with respect by the Cabinet—and someone who does not feel the need to ring up Downing Street for permission to support the judiciary. Elizabeth Truss’s response to the committee, as cited by the noble Baroness a moment ago, was inadequate. I agree with the assessment of the noble Baroness of what one needs in a Lord Chancellor.

In my evidence to the Constitution Committee last year, I said that one of the things I have worried about over the last several years is that the fellowship of lawyers and Members of Parliament, between the judiciary and the Government and the judiciary and Parliament, has gone. We no longer speak the same language. When I took one of the many recent Lord Chancellors to dinner in my inn, they felt like they were going into a foreign country. Not so very long ago, the Lord Chancellor not only would have known most of the people there but would have appointed many of the judges in the room. There was a shared constitutional understanding about their separate roles: the role of Parliament, the role of the Executive and the role of lawyers and the judiciary. That has gone.

It is a great pity, and it discourages members of the Bar and solicitors from entering public life. By that I mean not just those who have law degrees or those who are called to the Bar or admitted as solicitors or advocates in Scotland; I mean those with High Court and appellate practices, men and women of standing within the legal professions who command the respect, if not always the agreement, of the judges they appear before. These people are discouraged from coming into the House of Commons. Why give up a good practice? Why swap all that for the likely inability to continue your practice and, associated with that, the public obloquy that goes with being a Member of Parliament in an era of social media? I know plenty of people much younger than me who would make excellent Members of Parliament, excellent Ministers and excellent law officers, but they will not come anywhere near Parliament because they see it as poison. The consequence is that, although we may from time to time find lawyers of sufficient experience fit to be law officers, it is becoming increasingly difficult.

I was lucky enough to have a London-based practice, which required me to travel no further than the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, so I could maintain it to a reasonable level while a Member of Parliament. However, for a criminal barrister with a circuit practice, nowadays it is either Parliament or practice but not both. In 1992, when I first got in, the Whips kindly told me that I could not have two passports: I was either at the Bar or I was a Member of Parliament. I ignored them. But when, for example, my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham was first in the House of Commons, he was in court in Birmingham during the day and in the Commons in the evenings. My late noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell told me that, when he entered the House of Commons in 1955, he was told by the Whips that he was not expected to be present until late afternoon and that, if he did come in, it would be assumed that he had no practice.

More than 40 years ago, Lord Rawlinson, a former Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, led me in a very long libel action that gave us plenty of time to get to know each other. He told me that, when he was appointed Solicitor-General in 1962, the then Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, said, “Remember, you are the last of the Crown officers who remains a Member of the House of Commons”. He then gave him a learned seminar on the history and constitutional role of the law officers. It was made clear that, as Solicitor-General, his first duty was to the Crown, his second was to Parliament and his third—and it was only third—was to the Government of which he was a member. He was told that the Attorney-General is the principal agent for enforcing legal rights and is required to intervene when the public interest, not the Government’s interest, is affected. Sir Hartley Shawcross, one of the great Attorney-Generals, said that

“although the Attorney-General is a member of the government he has certain duties which he cannot abdicate in connection with the administration of the law, especially the criminal law”.

Of course, along with the DPP, the Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecution agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are responsible for criminal prosecutions as part of their quasi-judicial, independent role. Although Dominic Grieve and I made a point of going to court, for example to prosecute in contempt cases and to appear in criminal appeals that had nothing whatever to do with the Government or in the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice to represent the United Kingdom, we wished that we could have done so more often. I think that we appeared in court a good deal more than both our immediate predecessors and those who came after us.

More recently, the law officers have appeared in court only rarely and most often in unduly lenient appeals, but this was an important part of our duties that had nothing whatever to do with our political existence. Neither of us found it difficult to separate ourselves into our respective functions as politically aware but apolitical law officers on the one hand and party-political Members of Parliament on the other. Having a foot in both camps made us more useful advocates and advisers in a way that a Civil Service lawyer could not be.

Mr Cameron appointed me Solicitor-General in 2010 during a three-minute telephone call. Had he had the time to think about it, I am sure that he would have agreed with Macmillan. I certainly tried to keep Harold Macmillan’s advice to Peter Rawlinson in the forefront of my mind when I was Solicitor-General.

To many Ministers and Members of Parliament, the law officers are either mysterious, barely known creatures or an inconvenient reminder that the law of the land applies to them. Like lawyers in private practice, law officers cannot talk in detail about their work, which is confidential to their client—the Government. However, nor should they just say “no”; they should try to be imaginative and help the Government navigate through their difficulties. Their power, if they have any at all, lies in speaking truth unto power and in resignation. The law officers are more like submarines than the ships of the line in the Cabinet: you know that they are down there somewhere, unseen and unheard, quietly going about their business patrolling the murky waters of Whitehall, but, if they surface and their concerns or disagreements with the Government become known to the wider world, either the Government are in trouble or they are.

It is the fate of the law officers, if they behave as law officers and restrain themselves from making excessively political speeches, to be seen by their parliamentary colleagues as part of some mysterious priesthood, out of touch with the cut and thrust of political controversy. Their offices are off Central Lobby, well away from those of the departmental Ministers behind the Speaker’s Chair, and they cannot show off about their work because it is largely confidential. However, they are not vestal virgins or Trappist monks. They are active constituency MPs or legislators in one House or the other.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Can I ask the noble and learned Lord to bring his speech to a close?

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I am just doing precisely that. The law officers have party-political allegiances and accept collective government responsibility. Their offices and that of the Lord Chancellor are not bad because they are old; they are old because they are good. So long as we can encourage good lawyers from all parties and all three jurisdictions to come into Parliament—as we actively should—these offices should remain to serve our constitution. Let us therefore work tirelessly to restore that fellowship between the law and Parliament, which has been lost, and do both institutions a favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this considered report, building as it does on earlier reports of the committee, not just on the role of the Lord Chancellor and the office of Attorney-General but on other constitutional issues, to which I shall refer. The report is thorough and balanced.

None of these commendations applies to the Government’s response, which no speaker so far has mentioned; there may be a reason for that. It is, regrettably, not untypical of some of the government responses we have had to committee reports. Where the report entails no action on the part of government, the Government agree with it; where there is a recommendation for change, the Government either disagree or deflect responsibility elsewhere. Indeed, the Government’s response reminds me of an episode of “Father Ted” in which Father Jack is coached to respond to difficult questions by saying, “That would be an ecumenical matter”. In the Government’s response, the equivalent is, “That would be a matter for the Prime Minister”. The response says:

“Ministerial appointments are a matter for the Prime Minister”,


and

“These, along with tenure … are all matters for the Prime Minister”,


at paragraph 9. Paragraph 13 says:

“It is ultimately the Prime Minister who has overall responsibility for the constitution”.


Paragraph 14 says that

“it is entirely for the Prime Minister to determine where constitutional responsibilities should sit”.

Paragraph 16 says:

“Decisions around Law Officer appointments are for the Prime Minister”,


and paragraph 22 says:

“Amendment of the Ministerial Code … is a matter for the Prime Minister”.


The Prime Minister, then, has ultimate responsibility. The Government say, at paragraph 12, that they see greater strength

“in having a number of senior Ministerial leads on discrete constitutional matters, all answerable to the Prime Minister”.

That position is stated but no justification is offered for it. Indeed, the Government now appear to have departed from it. Last month, I tabled a Question asking

“which member of the Cabinet has overall responsibility for constitutional affairs and upholding the constitution”.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe replied on 26 June:

“The Deputy Prime Minister holds ministerial responsibility for constitutional policy, with support on matters relating to the constitution from a wider ministerial team within the Cabinet Office and across Government”.


So there is now a senior Minister, other than the Prime Minister, with responsibility, which is to be welcomed. The Government have departed from the position they took in March.

The only problem is that I cannot find anywhere on the public record, other than in my noble friend’s Answer, the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility for the constitution. It is not in his list of responsibilities on the Government’s website. It is obviously not in the List of Ministerial Responsibilities, which has not been updated since December. Last week, in answer to another Question of mine, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said that the updated list

“will be published before the summer recess”.

Perhaps my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy can confirm that it will appear in the updated list.

It would also be valuable to hear from my noble and learned friend which Ministers comprise the wider ministerial team within the Cabinet Office and across government that supports the Deputy Prime Minister. In the December List of Ministerial Responsibilities, only three Ministers—all of them junior, including my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy—have the constitution listed among their responsibilities.

Attempting to locate responsibility within government for dealing with constitutional issues is a task that has variously been undertaken by the Constitution Committee. I very much endorse its recommendations in this report, which are designed to enhance the position of the Lord Chancellor as the upholder of constitutional propriety within government. I also therefore endorse much of what other speakers, not least the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, have said.

As the report recognises, the shift is as much to do with culture as with law and regulation. This entails, as we have heard, ensuring that we have a senior figure who has the qualities detailed by the committee and—this is equally important and has been stressed—is widely recognised within Parliament and the legal profession and beyond as having those qualities. It is imperative that there is a dedicated Minister with the responsibility not only for upholding constitutional propriety but for actively promoting the values of the constitution.

The Prime Minister is now the Minister for the Union; that establishes the importance of the union, but a Prime Minister does not have time to focus consistently on it. As I and the Constitution Committee have argued before, the Government need to be on the front foot in making the case for the union. We have to stress the benefits of coming together as one United Kingdom and not simply be on the back foot, responding to demands from different devolved bodies for more powers. We need to stop treating devolved parts of the union on a grace and favour basis.

John Major was the last Conservative Prime Minister to put the integrity of the constitution at the forefront of government thinking. His successors have been tied up with dealing with specific constitutional as well as economic and other issues. There has been no serious thinking about the constitution as a constitution.

I see merit not only in having a senior Cabinet Minister with responsibility for the constitution but in the Lord Chancellor being that Minister. Giving the task to the Deputy Prime Minister is a step forward—it means that a senior Minister has that dedicated responsibility—but not all Prime Ministers accord the title of Deputy Prime Minister to one of their colleagues, and it is a title and not a post. Oliver Dowden’s posts are Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Giving responsibility to a different chancellor—the Lord Chancellor—not only ensures consistency but places it with a Minister who has or should have standing appropriate to the task and who will ideally be in post for some time. It provides a dedicated voice in a way that the Prime Minister cannot usually provide. The Lord Chancellor can ensure that other Ministers respect and are alert to the values of our constitution and the need to uphold them. Otherwise, there is the danger of those values being overlooked by Ministers as they address their departmental responsibilities and the Prime Minister addresses other crucial issues facing government.

I will not go through all the recommendations in the report. However, the report is like other reports from the committee: an extremely valuable and important study, which highlights the need for a body to address constitutional issues. The report merited a more substantive response, both in length and substance, from government. I look forward to my noble and learned friend the Minister providing such a response.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The next speaker will be my noble friend Lord Cormack.

Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 11 and 15 May be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 June.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House and on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, I beg to move the Motions en bloc standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Motions agreed.

National Security Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Lords Chamber

Clause 88 agreed.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I advise noble Lords to keep an eye on the annunciator for further information regarding the resumption of the Committee.

House resumed.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Davidson of Lundin Links on her excellent maiden speech today and say how very good it is to see her here in your Lordships’ House.

Like many others in your Lordships’ House, I have received a hefty mailbag of correspondence. In addition, I have received a large number of emails. I have read them all and have been deeply moved by some of the extremely sad and heartfelt issues that have been brought to my notice. It is difficult to condense matters into three minutes, given the many aspects, but in opposing this Bill, I thought that I might evidence some of the correspondence, as opposed to just opinionating. Yes, I confess that my Christian beliefs play a big part in this, but, as I said, I have been very moved by the letters both for and against, and I will quote from two of them that significantly assisted me in forming an opposing view.

The first is very moving and might well be known to some of your Lordships as it has been the subject of a television documentary. It is a letter from a doctor who has already been quoted by other noble Lords in today’s debate. He is a consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine and writes that

“half my professional time is spent alleviating pain and suffering, and the other half caring for pretty critically ill patients in ICU, a significant proportion of whom go on to die. I have cared for thousands of patients in my career so far. Only once do I recall thinking, ‘I would like the option of intentionally ending life to end my patient’s suffering’. He was a young father, suffering with intractable pain from a haematological condition. I turned out to be wrong. He went on to make a significant recovery from his critical illness and returned home to be with his family.”

The doctor says that his critical care team cared for another patient who had suffered a devastating stroke:

“In our view, he was clearly dying, so we switched the focus of care to comfort and discharged him to the general ward for ongoing palliation. Two weeks later, he walked back into our ICU to thank us for our care on his way back home to continue his recovery. Doctors are poor at predicting when people will die.


I embarked on a vocation in medicine with the aim to cure sometimes, to relieve often and to comfort always. Killing patients is antithetical to the medical enterprise and allowing it would irrevocably harm the doctor-patient relationship.”


The situation described in the second letter was, as I said, part of a BBC documentary. It concerns Ian and Sue Farquhar, whose brother Peter Farquhar met a young man called Ben Field—noble Lords may recall this story.

“Field was a student of Peter’s as well as a church warden—an outwardly respectable young man. Then he set about gaslighting and slowly poisoning Peter into a belief that he was dying from an unexplainable disease. Then, in 2015, he died. He did so having left his detached house in Buckingham and a substantial sum of money to Ben Field. Over the course of a meticulous police investigation, we learned that our brother Peter had never been sick at all.”


I fear for the elderly and infirm, in the form of abuse and coercive control behind closed doors, and the pressure that carers are placed under in hard-pressed families. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly spoke of the immense pressure that this Bill would place on family court judges. I will add to that. I fear that a Bill such as this would create nothing less than an onerous and difficult challenge for the police, who may be called on to investigate a variety of issues which may have led to a doubtful or suspicious termination of life. This is an extremely dangerous path to go down and I firmly oppose the Bill.