Computer-generated Child Sexual Abuse Material

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, a number of noble Lords have raised concerns about Grok and those unacceptable images. The Minister says that it is a duty of Ofcom. Is he aware whether Ofcom has actually raised the issue of these images with Grok directly yet?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The position is that Ofcom is the regulator for this area and that all child sexual abuse images et cetera are currently illegal. The question is about the use of powers to take them down and hold tech companies to account. That is what the consultation will be completed on and by April 2026 we will have, as a Government, the full response from Ofcom. We will act on that response when we receive it.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for the comprehensive way in which he presented this Bill. In opening the debate for the Official Opposition, let me be clear that, as a Front Bench, we have no collective view on either the principle of terminally ill people receiving interventions to end their lives early or on the drafting of the Bill. Noble Lords on this side of the House will have a free vote both on the Bill and on the Motions we are debating. The Official Opposition do not have a collective position on those Motions.

Given this fact, I will speak neither in favour of nor against the Bill. But, as the noble and learned Lord said, this is a historic occasion. It is not hyperbole to say that this Bill may be one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever to be considered by this Parliament, with far-reaching implications for our society and the sort of society that we want to live in. Noble Lords will appreciate this significance simply from the sheer volume of correspondence received. Those speaking on both sides of the debate will be informed by their own experiences, whether that be professional or personal experience. We will hear many moving stories in these debates, and perhaps even shed a few tears. But, as a revising Chamber, I know that noble Lords will respect those experiences and reflect on them in good faith as we work to properly scrutinise and improve the Bill where necessary.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, we have received a clear signal from the elected House on the principle of the Bill. While that does not prevent noble Lords opposing the Bill per se, it is the duty of your Lordships’ House to do its work as a revising Chamber diligently. This Bill has received much scrutiny in the other place: over 100 hours across all stages, more than other Private Members’ Bills. But we should also not forget that 174 amendments were made to the Bill in Committee, and further amendments were made at Third Reading, not all of which have been properly scrutinised. So the Bill your Lordships received in this House is much changed since its introduction and is in need of thorough scrutiny.

The arguments around this Bill are finely balanced. A noble friend of mine who, let us put it this way, is not exactly known for sitting on the fence, said to me that he attended the last time we debated this and that, after almost every speech, he found himself agreeing with the speaker. To this day, he remains torn. It just shows how finely balanced these arguments are.

Let me attempt to frame the debate and touch on some areas that noble Lords may wish to probe in Committee. In debating this Bill, we must have in mind the well-being and dignity of those for whom it was originally proposed: the terminally ill who want to end their lives early. We will hear powerful arguments based on compassion and bodily autonomy from the Bill’s supporters.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has indicated his openness to amendments to the Bill. We on these Benches welcome that openness. I expect amendments to come from supporters of this legislation who want to make it the best Bill possible. We have seen that in some of the emails noble Lords have shared with each other; we also saw it in Committee in the other place, where the Bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, tabled 142 such amendments.

On the other side of the debate, there will be noble Lords who oppose the Bill on principled grounds. For some, it will be based on their faith. Others may support the principle behind the Bill but not the current drafting, either because of insufficient safeguards or because of limited access to palliative care, which denies patients a meaningful choice. They too approach this Bill with compassion. This is a matter of conscience, and as the Government Chief Whip said, we should respect the views of noble Lords who disagree profoundly with this Bill just as much as we respect the views of those in favour of it. Those who oppose the Bill will also choose to bring amendments to improve it, despite their overall view. So, whether an amendment is tabled by a supporter of the Bill, an opponent of the Bill or someone who has yet to make up their mind, those watching the debate from outside your Lordships’ House should not mistake amendments to this Bill for outright opposition.

A number of organisations, including the Law Society, the Complex Life and Death Decisions group at King’s College London, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have proposed amendments to address some serious concerns over the drafting of the Bill as it stands. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has himself acknowledged, both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have recommended amendments to the Bill, highlighting that there are now 42 regulation-making powers in this version of it—the version that came to this House. Both the Hansard Society and the Constitution Committee have pointed out that, as it is a Private Member’s Bill and the Government remain neutral as to its purpose, it is unclear how these powers will be used. These are all important challenges that we must take the time to consider carefully.

There are noble Lords with strong views on both sides of this debate, but all approach it in good faith. My opening comments are not meant to persuade your Lordships to vote one way or the other or to support certain amendments over others; they are an attempt to frame the overall debate and to touch on some of the issues that may need to be probed in Committee. The decisions we take are not easy and the consequences are not always clear, but I have no doubt that the Bill will receive the scrutiny needed in this House—whether we are in favour or against—with all the emotions and concerns that will be expressed. No matter how challenging that may be, let us work together to examine the Bill in detail and do our work diligently.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the individual mentioned has had that level of distress, I will apologise from the Dispatch Box for the intrusion into their private life and for the justification for a scheme for which there should have been automatic qualification. The purpose of the Windrush unit—it was disbanded but has been re-established by this new Government—is to tackle the very issues that the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Brinton and Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton mentioned. I will take those factors back and we will resolve them. I hope that this House can accept that this Government are committed to putting energy into the scheme, which we will deliver as quickly as possible, and that we will announce a Windrush commissioner shortly. That is a solid manifesto commitment, not just a whim from the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly said that this scandal has plagued Governments of all colours. Can he explain some of the difficulties that the Home Office’s internal processes face when trying to identify the victims and prove that they are actually victims of this scandal? What is slowing down the process, and what are the Government doing about that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have received more than 9,300 claims, and decisions have been made on 8,448 of them. Some claims have been turned down, which means that it is a bureaucratic process by its very nature. People have to prove, difficult though it is, that the issues that have driven them to apply to the scheme are valid, because ultimately this is about using taxpayers’ money for an injustice. There are a number of problems, but we are trying not to worry about what happened previously. We are trying to reset the relationship to ensure that—with the new Windrush scheme, with an independent commissioner and with energy from Ministers to get this driven through—we can resolve this issue in the interests of not only Windrush victims but wider society as a whole.