Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Pannick

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Owen and Lady Gohir. The Government of course share the concerns that have been expressed by noble Lords across the House. That is why we committed in our manifesto to criminalising the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes, and why we have been listening carefully to the issues and evidence that noble Lords and campaign groups have put forward on the best way to achieve our shared target of deterring people from creating these images and delivering justice to victims where this deterrent does not work.

As I made clear in my opening speech, the Government will not press Amendments 56A, 74A and 77. Instead, as I have set out, we intend to bring forward new amendments at Third Reading based on Amendment 69 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and drawing on aspects of Amendment 70. These will incorporate and address the issues raised during this debate. The new amendments will criminalise the intentional creation of an intimate image deepfake without consent or a reasonable belief of consent. This will not require any additional motivation. They will use the same definition of an “intimate state” as in the sharing intimate images offence. They will amend the Sentencing Code to ensure that the courts can deprive offenders of the relevant images if convicted of this offence, as well as any hardware on which they are stored.

We have agreed that we want to make it criminal to ask someone to create a sexual deepfake on your behalf, regardless of where they are in the world and regardless of whether the image is created. I remind the House that the Government are making a firm commitment that this will be done quickly. However, this is a complex area of law and any responsible Government should want to ensure that criminal law will function as intended.

I repeat my earlier commitment to provide an update on the specific issue of solicitation at Third Reading. The Government have not only heard the case put forward by noble Lords; they are acting to respond to those concerns and deliver these important changes. We must do this in a way that works alongside existing offences and will be effective in securing convictions, to make sure that victims will be protected and perpetrators brought to justice. I hope that the noble Baroness will bear this in mind as she considers whether to work with the Government ahead of Third Reading or press her amendments later this evening.

I will pick up some of the points made by noble Lords, starting with one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I agree wholeheartedly with her point that it does not matter where the good ideas come from; we need to work across this House to try to implement the measures that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has inspired this House to support, if I can put it like that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, asked about audio. I am advised that this is a very novel and difficult aspect of law. While I will do absolutely everything I can in my current role as a Minister to move this forward, I am not in a position to give a more fulsome commitment to the amendment she seeks at this stage. However, I absolutely undertake that we will pursue this matter.

As I said, we commit to addressing solicitation at Third Reading, but the amendments will come back at whatever necessary stage in the House of Commons—so within this Bill. Of course, if any amendment is made there, this House can consider the matter again.

In summary, I hear the concerns that have been raised in this debate and it is my intention to act on those concerns, as far as possible. I hope the noble Baroness will not feel it is necessary to press her amendment, but, whether she presses it or not, I look forward to working with her on these issues in the weeks to come.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I just ask the Minister, before he sits down, whether he will address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised. The Minister said that he will address matters at Third Reading, but of course he can address matters only if an amendment is brought forward. Is he accepting, as I hope he is, that if the Government do not bring forward some form of amendment for debate purposes at Third Reading, it would be entirely appropriate, and the Government would support the idea, that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, could bring forward her own amendment at Third Reading for the purposes of further of further debate? Is he accepting that?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the opening amendment in this group is a government amendment that we are withdrawing, so we are setting up the debate. There could be a similar mechanism at Third Reading. I do not know how it will actually be worked out, but there is an undertaking on behalf of the Government to say how far we have got on the solicitation issue, with a view to moving amendments in the other place.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Pannick

Report stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I am unclear whether the Government accept, as I think they must, that the reason why they wish to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is because they recognise that, without such disapplication, the substantive provisions of this Bill would plainly contradict Britain’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights as far as is possible. Clauses 49 to 52 would disapply Section 3 to prisoners as a group when it comes to legislation about their release. It is disappointing to see this Government wasting parliamentary time and public money to remove human rights from prisoners.

There is no evidence of the Human Rights Act 1998 limiting the Parole Board from making decisions about prisoners. These clauses appear to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, while the Government ignore the many critical problems across our criminal justice system. We in the Labour Party are proud that it was a Labour Government who brought about the Human Rights Act in 1998, and a future Labour Government will continue to be a bastion of justice and hope, unlike this current Government, who cannot bring themselves to focus on the real issues affecting the public.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lady Lister spoke about the lack of support from the Labour Party if he were to press this matter to a vote. He said—I wrote it down—that he thought this was “a sad portent for the future”. That is a harsh interpretation of our stance. I have just reiterated our commitment to the Human Rights Act. We would not have chosen to support him if he had pressed the matter, but the statement I have read out reaffirms the Labour Party’s commitment to the Human Rights Act. Having said that, I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has put his finger on the central question. If the Government see no diminution of the Human Rights Act, why are they disapplying Section 3 within this Bill? Do they believe that it would breach the Human Rights Act if they failed to disapply the Act in this case?

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Pannick

Report stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we in the Opposition are accepting the principle that terrorism is uniquely terrible and needs to be dealt with in that way. However, my amendment calls for a review of the impact of this on certain lower-level cases.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord is being patient, but what is there to review? Why has he not put down an amendment that simply excludes from this objectionable clause those who are convicted only in circumstances that lead to a non-custodial sentence? That surely is the logic of what he is saying. Why do we need a review?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

We need a review because we do not know what the impact is unless we have looked at the data. It seems to be as simple as that.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Pannick

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Paddick, make a very strong case. Clause 46 addresses a serious mischief: abuse of trust to gain sexual advantage. Like them, I cannot understand why this is to be addressed only in the context of sport and religion and not in the context of dance, drama and music.

I have one other question for the Minister. I also cannot understand why sport is only to be covered in relation to games in which physical skill is the predominant factor. What if there is an abuse of trust by someone who is training young people in chess or bridge? Why is it not equally objectionable if they take sexual advantage of those young people? Why should that not be included within the scope of the offence?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for giving those very good and relevant examples of abuses of trust in dance, music and drama. I remember the points that the Minister made when we had this debate in Committee: he did indeed ask for examples, and I thank the noble Lord for providing them.

Surely, the similarity in everything that we are talking about is the nature of the relationship. It is a trusting relationship where a lot of time may well be spent alone with the young person, and it is open to abuse. The Minister had other arguments about why dance, music and drama should not be included, and I would be interested to hear how he rehearses them, given that there is unanimity in the views expressed in today’s debate. I do not know whether the noble Lord will press his amendment to a vote—I think probably not—nevertheless, I will listen to the Minister’s answer.