Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, removing 16 clauses—about 30% of the Bill—would potentially make this a new Bill. If this matter were not so serious, I would say that it is like saving a PDF, with versions 1, 2 and 3. We are continually reassured by the sponsor in the other place that the Bill, in the form in which it came to your Lordships’ House, had the strictest safeguards in the world, but we are now making a fundamental change to it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a very powerful case, if I may say so, for judicial control to provide the independent scrutiny that we all agree is required in some form to ensure that the criteria of the Bill are satisfied in individual cases. However, I offer a contrasting view. Although I have the greatest of admiration for His Majesty’s judges—some of my best friends are judges—I do not think that they are the only people, or indeed the best people, to decide alone the grave issues that we all agree are raised by this Bill.

I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the Committee should bear in mind what the Bill actually provides for in Schedule 2: before anyone is able to take advantage of its provisions, they must satisfy the panel that the criteria in the Bill are met. Who is on the panel? It is not simply a judge; it is a panel of three people who have a range of expertise that is, in my view, highly desirable in this sensitive context.

First, you need a legal member. It is right that there should be a legal member, because some of the issues are very much legal issues and judges have particular expertise. The legal member must either hold or have held high judicial office as a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal; as a judge or deputy judge of the High Court; or as one of His Majesty’s counsel. They may also have been requested to act as a judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court. So you need a legal member.

However, you also have on the panel a psychiatrist member; that is highly desirable in this sensitive context. You have a registered medical practitioner who is a practising psychiatrist, registered in one of the psychiatrist specialisms in the specialist register, sitting alongside the legal member. Then you have someone who is registered as a social worker to add their perspective on the difficult issues—these are difficult issues—raised by eligibility under this Bill. So you have three people and a range of expertise—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am interested in the noble Lord’s view of the panel. I appreciate that he is discussing Schedule 2, but there are parts of this Bill where a unanimous decision of that panel is not needed, so it is quite possible that the medical person could be overruled by the others.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

With great respect, that is not my understanding. The next point I was going to make is that paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 2 answers the very point just made by the noble Baroness. It states:

“The panel is to be treated as having decided to refuse to grant a certificate of eligibility if any member … votes against a decision to grant such a certificate, or … abstains from voting on such a decision”.


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will say if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, with great respect, the noble Baroness is wrong. The unanimous view of all three members of this panel is needed before the provisions of this Bill are operative.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

May I probe the noble Lord a little further? In the evidence given by witnesses to the Select Committee, it was said that somebody should not be allowed simply to abstain; and that, if these people are being appointed as professionals to these panels, they should express a view. At the moment, expressing no view is deemed to mean being in favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am sorry but, with the greatest respect, the noble Baroness has not listened or read what is in the Bill. If any of the three members is unwise enough to abstain—I agree that it is highly undesirable that they should—because they are not satisfied that the case is made out, eligibility is not satisfied and, therefore, the person concerned cannot take advantage of the provisions of this Bill. Again, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, thinks that I have misunderstood this, he will say so, but he is nodding. The noble Baroness really needs to read the Bill.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord’s assessment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

If the noble Baroness reads the Bill, her concern will be addressed.

Then we need to look at paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, which tells the commissioner that he or she

“may give guidance about … practice and procedure”.

I would be very surprised if the practice and procedure did not allow for interested parties to be heard or provide—this is another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—documents to be requested. If they were not requested and a person did not supply relevant documents, I would expect one of the three members of the panel not to be satisfied.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. If he just looks again at paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, it may be that there is a wholesale ambiguity. Sub-paragraph (2) says:

“Decisions of a panel may be taken by a majority vote; but this is subject to sub-paragraph (3)”,


which the noble Lord has read out. Do those two paragraphs contradict one another?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

No, they do not, because the majority vote does not apply to the question of whether a certificate of eligibility applies. There may be a majority vote on other issues; for example, whether to have a hearing or to require documents, or something of that sort. But on the fundamental issue—the noble Lord is shaking his head, but that is what it says—a majority vote is not permitted on the crucial, core issue of whether a certificate of eligibility is required.

Paragraph 9 addresses another of the concerns the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has mentioned. It says, in paragraph 9(1), that panels must—I emphasise must—give reasons in writing for their decision.

Finally, it is not irrelevant—and these were points made very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, if I may say so—that our courts are currently massively overburdened. Of course, judges do their best to hear urgent cases as speedily as they can, but delays are a serious problem in our court system. The Minister will no doubt have something to say about this. When the Committee considers what is the best, most effective and efficient way to address the real issues of independent assessment, it is important to bear in mind that the provisions of the Bill will apply only to those with six months or less to live. To have a system that builds in delays is going to damage the whole purpose of the Bill.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I wish to speak to Amendments 25 and 120 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which my name is attached. They are amendments which I believe go to the very heart of the Bill. It is vital that if the Bill eventually comes into law the system set up for approving requests for assisted dying should have the trust of the general public. We have to bear in mind that although people generally trust one another, trust in institutions is now at a record low; to put it another way, there is in our society now a deep distrust of official bodies.

However, having said that, there is one exception: the judiciary. Between 70% and 73% of the public trust judges to tell the truth, which is why we need a court-based system. The Member in the other place, when she introduced the Bill, argued that having a High Court judge would give the system an extra layer of protection against coercion and pressure, making it the “most robust” and safest system in the world. She was right in saying that. As we now know, however, she changed her mind, and the Bill comes to us in a very different form, with panels instead of a judge.

The main reason for the change was the view that the High Court did not have the capacity to meet another set of demands; hence the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that requests should be dealt with by the Family Division. As he pointed out, although there are only 20 High Court judges in the Family Division, there are 40 other designated judges trained to hear serious cases; with this cohort there would be enough people available to hear requests for assisted dying.

The other reason for having a court-based system, which I find persuasive, is that a court has the legal powers to summon witnesses and order documents. If a judge had a concern about financial pressure being involved in some way, he or she could summon relatives or others involved to help him or her reach a decision. I am not aware that the proposed panel currently in the Bill will have a similar power. In Clause 17, “Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance”, the word “may” is mentioned eight times in subsection (4). The panel “may” call for this or that, but so far as I can see, it has no powers to make people comply.

We heard a very powerful defence from my noble friend Lord Pannick of the panel system with its experts and its other people. But I remind my noble friend that at the Second Reading of his Assisted Dying Bill in 2014, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accepted an amendment from my noble friend to add a review of the Family Division of the High Court. He pointed out, rightly, that the Family Division deals with very difficult cases such as the Bland case or the separating of the Siamese twins, and he argued that they could deal with very difficult cases speedily and in time.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, also told us that he disagreed with alternative proposals for the panel, which was, at that time, a panel of magistrates, not the kind of panel we have now. He said then:

“I think that you need the highest-quality judges to decide these issues”.—[Official Report, 7/11/14; col. 1881.]


The Times, in its leader on 15 December, described the move away from a court-based system to a panel as an “ill-advised about-turn”, and it was.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, pointed to, quite rightly, the extra pressure that will be put upon the Family Division. But on the assumption that the Bill will go through—it has, after all, been voted on by the elected House—we have to ask ourselves: which is actually safer? Is it safer to have a court-based system or to have the panel? I believe that given that it is judges who are trusted in society, we should go for a court-based system, and I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

With regard to Amendment 68, if the Government are not with us, I will be moved to test the opinion of the House. But I emphasise that that is in respect of Amendment 68.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can the noble and learned Lord clarify, at an appropriate point, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 68? It says:

“Sentencing remarks may be published only”


in certain circumstances. My first question is: is that meant to restrict the rights of the victim under subsection (1) of the proposed new clause to obtain the remarks, or is it concerned with further publication?

My second question relates to the proposed new subsection (2), which says:

“Sentencing remarks may be published only where a judge … has approved their release, having regard to—”


two factors, which it lists. Is it intended that those are the only factors that the sentencing judge can have regard to—that is

“the accuracy of the record and … the need to comply with any reporting restrictions”—

or is it intended, which I would hope not, that the sentencing judge would have some general discretion here?

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. It is intended that the court should have regard only to the two elements that are referred to therein.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we recognise the purpose of time limits and we recognise the right to fair trial, but survivors of child sexual abuse should not be barred from justice simply by the passage of time. The difficulty lies, of course, in striking that balance. At the moment, too many claims with merit are rejected at the outset or, more often, not brought at all. Clause 82 is therefore welcome in principle, yet new Section 11ZB(3) then proceeds to undermine it, mandating dismissal if defendants can show “substantial prejudice”—a vague term undefined in the Bill, which, as my noble friend Lady Brinton said, may be appealing to defence lawyers. A court already has the power to dismiss a case if it believes that the defendant cannot receive a fair trial, so we find it difficult to understand the justification for this extra layer of protection. The inclusion of this provision risks effectively undoing all the good work of the clause. Amendment 289 would close that escape hatch, ensuring that it brings meaningful change. I urge the Government to reconsider in the light of this amendment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I add my voice to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. The fundamental principle is set out in new Section 11ZB(2): if the defendant cannot have a fair trial, the hearing cannot proceed. The gravity of the allegations and the public interest demand that there be no hearing, notwithstanding the damage that this causes to the unfortunate alleged victim. I entirely agree that new Section 11ZB(3) confuses the position; it introduces uncertain concepts and will inevitably lead to unhelpful litigation.

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

My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 289, I thank my noble friend Lady Royall, who is not in her place today because she is ill, and Mr Stephen Bernard, both of whom met me recently. We discussed both the impact of the limitation period on victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and their concern over the test of substantial prejudice within this clause. I was moved by what Mr Bernard told me and I thank him for his courage in telling me about what happened to him.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for moving Amendment 289. I hope both my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Lord will be reassured that I fully understand the sentiment behind the amendment. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Blencathra, for welcoming the general spirit of the clause and for their constructive comments. I make it clear that we absolutely do not want to add additional or unnecessary barriers to stop victims of child sexual abuse from proceeding with their civil claims. So I have asked my officials to look closely at the issues this amendment raises for further consideration, and I aim to provide a further update to your Lordships on Report.

Turning to the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to Clause 82 standing part of the Bill, I think he is well known for being very expert in this area and I pay tribute to that. But Clause 82 implements important recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The noble Lord raised concerns during Second Reading and again during this debate that the reform is unnecessary and would lead to greater uncertainty and litigation, but, with respect, I disagree. The inquiry looked at this in great detail. It found that the limitation period for civil claims itself acted as a deterrent to victims and survivors—just the very fact that it existed. The inquiry also found that it acted as a deterrent irrespective of the existence of the discretion in Section 33, and the inquiry therefore found that Section 33 did not provide sufficient protection for victims and survivors.

The inquiry found that the regime acted as a barrier to claimants at three stages: first, solicitors’ willingness to take on claims, because it can make it really hard for them to find a lawyer to represent them; secondly, the settlement and valuation of claims, because it can lead to victims accepting lower settlements because of uncertainty about the limitation issue; and, thirdly, the hearings themselves in relation to the limitation period, the effect of which on the claimants was described as “intrusive and traumatic”.

I think the noble Lord will find that it was not this Government who said they were not in favour of these recommendations; it was actually the previous Government. This Government accepted the recommendation in February of this year and are satisfied that Clause 82 is necessary and proportionate. The courts are perfectly capable, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, of deciding when a claim is inappropriate or unfair and should not succeed. This Government and my department put victims at the heart of everything we do. This is why we believe that this reform is necessary and important for victims and survivors. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to withdraw his amendment and I hope the Committee will join me in supporting Clause 82.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, like everyone else, I am in favour of all the amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, set out very powerfully and alarmingly the reality of what is happening online. I do not think that I need to go through all the amendments in detail—other noble Lords have done that very well—but I was very struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said about asking ourselves if this is the normal that we want to live in.

Do we want to allow content that makes child abuse appear acceptable? Surely not. Do we want to see websites trivialise and, indeed, promote incest as some form of entertainment? Surely not. Should we allow tools that enable the nudification of images, which are overwhelmingly used to target women and girls, and which, as we have heard, are being used in schools? Surely not. Instead, do we want to ensure that age and consent are clearly verified, and that consent can be withdrawn at any time? Yes, we do. Do we want to see a parity between what is prohibited offline and what is prohibited online? Surely yes.

That is what this group sets out to do. I hope that the Minister will accept all the amendments in this group to ensure that we have a new normal that we all want to see.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I too support these amendments. I will make two points that are additional to the powerful factors that have been addressed so far. First, I am very concerned to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, that the Government have not yet responded in full to her review. Can the Minister tell us why that is, given the importance of the subject, and when there will be a full response?

Secondly, although I support the objective of Amendment 314 to apply the same principles to material online as to material offline, I am very doubtful that the way the amendment seeks to achieve this is sensible. The amendment seeks to incorporate into the Bill the definition of “harmful material” found in Section 368E(3)(a) and Section 368E(3)(b) of the Communications Act 2003. However, those provisions refer simply to the decisions and criteria of the British Board of Film Classification without specifying the criteria applied by that body. The criteria that that body applies, as set out in its guidelines, are helpful, but they are not categorical. For example, the guidelines say:

“Exceptions are most likely in the following areas”,


and the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, helpfully set out the factors that they have regard to.

This is perfectly appropriate in the context of the BBFC, from whose decisions appeals are possible, because the context is the licensing of an R18 video, which, of course, can only be sold in a licensed sex shop. However, we are concerned here with criminal law, which needs to be defined with precision so that people know exactly what cannot be published online. Therefore, we need a revised Amendment 314, which I hope the Government will accept in principle, to set out in specific terms what Parliament is prohibiting online, such as material that depicts conduct in breach of the criminal law and material that depicts or appears to suggest non-consensual sexual conduct. There may well be other categories; let us set them out so that everybody knows what is prohibited online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I will deal with my noble friend’s second point first. There are decisions of the domestic courts here that support the fact that you cannot bring prosecutions for what was the unlawful sexual intercourse offence under Section 6, nor can you even bring a prosecution for sexual assault based on the same facts, because that would transgress the prohibition in Article 7. As regards the time limit, Section 9 of the 2003 Act has no time limitations in it, which is the usual principle of criminal offences in this country, but for this tiny cohort of behaviour—it really is very small—you could not prosecute under Section 9 because of Article 7. Section 6 no longer exists, and you cannot get round it by using Section 9, but it really is a very small number of cases.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I suggest to the noble Baroness that, in addition, these offences are so serious that they would not be prosecuted in the magistrates’ court; they would be indictable offences, would they not?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite correct: this has nothing to do with magistrates’ court time limits. There was a statutory time limit contained within Section 6 of the 1956 Act that said that all prosecutions for offences under Section 6 must be brought within 12 months in any court. It is nothing to do with the time limits in the Magistrates’ Courts Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am of course more than happy to write to my noble friend, and it must be my fault I am not explaining this properly. There is no time limit for prosecutions brought under Section 9 generally, unless it refers to particular behaviour—so that would be an offence committed against a girl aged between 13 and 15—that took place before the repeal of the 1956 Act and the bringing into force of the 2003 Act. You could not prosecute that under Section 9 because the time limit has expired for bringing it under Section 6, in the same way that you cannot prosecute for sexual assault for the same behaviour because you cannot bring a prosecution under Section 6. I had better write, because I can see from the puzzled look on my noble friend’s face that I have not explained it very well.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Perhaps the noble Baroness could also include in that letter reference to what is either a decision of the Appellate Committee or the Supreme Court—I think it is the former—which addresses this and explains precisely why those who are alleged to have committed offences before the relevant dates are protected by the 1956 Act and continue to be so.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord has explained it rather better than I did.

Criminal Court Reform

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, was the Minister as surprised as I was by the terms of the attack made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on these proposals. He suggested that these proposals involve the “destruction” and “dismantling” of jury trials and an “act of constitutional vandalism”? Does she agree that these proposals are nothing of the sort? There has never been an absolute right to jury trial. Pragmatism has always determined which prosecutions are to be heard by a jury and which are to be heard by judges or magistrates.

Does the Minister agree that these proposals shift the dial but that they shift the dial for very sensible, pragmatic and practical reasons? She emphasised the impact of delay on victims, and she mentioned defendants who game the system. Would she agree that the scandalous delays that occur at the moment in the Crown Courts also have an appalling impact on a defendant who is innocent? The man who is accused of rape and has that charge hanging over him for years cannot get on with his life. That is also outrageous. It is outrageous for the victim and for the defendant. I support these proposals.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he made. It will not surprise him to hear that I will not respond to most of them other than by saying yes. But in relation to the defendants, it is a point very well made. I was a defender for much of my career, and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said. There will be people within the system waiting for their trials who are unable to get on with their lives because they are on bail for an offence. We need to think about them as well.

“Hillsborough Law”

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I think that is, if I may say so, a similar question to that from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I have heard that the ongoing discussions are in fact reasonably positive, and we are very hopeful of reaching an agreement in the coming weeks and months. It is certainly not the intention to water down recommendations; however, it is our intention to come up with a workable Bill that forms part of a wider work programme. As I think I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we have also put in place this website where people can monitor how the Government are making progress on other recommendations on other scandals, such as the infected blood scandal and the Grenfell scandal.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm—I think he said this in answer to my noble friend Lord Alton—that the Bill will guarantee funding for legal representation for families who participate in inquests and other inquiries? Without such funding, families cannot effectively participate.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said before, it is a manifesto commitment to provide legal aid at inquests for victims of disasters or state-related deaths.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise what the right reverend Prelate has said. As he may know, I sat as a youth magistrate for 17 years and as a family magistrate for a long period as well, and I recognise the general problem of disproportionality. There is not a single way of solving that problem, but a number of agencies within the criminal justice field and the MoJ are looking at the different aspects of disproportionality. He opened by pointing at the care system in particular. Probably well over 50% of all the youths I saw in youth court had come from the care system in one way or another, so I recognise what he is saying, and it is something that we take very seriously.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in addressing the very serious problems faced by the criminal justice system, it is important not to romanticise the jury, given that 90% of all criminal trials in this country are heard without a jury and relatively speedily—not as speedily as perhaps they could be, but relatively so—and they are heard effectively and with justice.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord—of course I would agree because, as a magistrate, I was among those who hear 90% of all criminal cases. There is no right to a jury trial; however, there is a right to a fair trial. For a fair trial, it must be heard in a timely manner. That is where we are failing. We need these systemic changes to address that fundamental problem, so that people—both victims and defendants—can get a fair trial in a timely way.

European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol 12

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I am not aware of any government initiative to extend the number of protected characteristics. If I am mistaken on that, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can the Minister explain why the Government have not joined with other contracting states in their attempt to promote discussion about reform of the European convention, particularly in relation to immigration matters?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The first point is that the Government were not asked whether they wanted to be a signatory to that letter, which was for all members of the EU—it was they who signed the letter. Nevertheless, we are monitoring the situation very closely. We are sympathetic to some of the sentiments expressed in the letter, so we will continue to monitor that situation.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

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

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