Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Grand Committee

It should not be possible for the Home Office to manage and for the MoJ to not manage. We need a Government where all departments work on behalf of all victims. I will wait to hear what the Minister says, and I very much hope I can congratulate her when I stand up again. I beg to move.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I rise today in support of Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I declare an interest as a recent guest of Google at its Future Forum policy conference. I apologise for not being able to make Second Reading and for not being present for my last amendment; as a newer Peer, I am very new to this and still learning as I go. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for stepping in.

I commend the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment, which tackles the full process of training these models, from the collection of data or images to use as training data, all the way through to possessing a model. With these apps easily downloadable on app stores, there is a lack of friction in the process. This means that we have seen horrific cases of children using these apps in schools across the world with devastating consequences. In summer, I met the father of a little girl who had been bullied in this way and sadly took her own life.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for this thoughtful and comprehensive amendment, which seeks to future-proof with its inclusion of avatars. We have already seen these threats evolving in the metaverse. I encourage the Government to adopt this amendment so that we can begin to see an end to this abusive market.

I turn to my Amendment 211G. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for putting their names to it. Noble Lords may recognise it from my Private Member’s Bill on non-consensual sexually explicit images and videos. I will keep my remarks brief as many of your Lordships were present on Friday.

The amendment seeks to create offences for the non-consensual creation of sexually explicit content and to close the gaps in the Sexual Offences Act. It is, vitally, consent-based, meaning that victims do not have to suffer the trauma of proving the motivation of their perpetrator. It includes solicitation to prevent any creation laws being circumnavigated by asking those in other jurisdictions to create such content for you through the uploading of clothed images to forums. Finally, it includes forced deletion so that victims can clearly see their rights to have the content destroyed from any devices or cloud-based programmes and do not have to live in fear that their perpetrator is still in possession of their content.

This amendment is inspired by the lived experience of victim survivors. The Government have repeatedly said that they are looking for the most suitable legislative vehicle to fulfil their commitment to criminalise the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. It seems they did not think my Private Member’s Bill was the right vehicle, but it is my firm belief that the most appropriate legislative vehicle is the one that gets there quickest. I am hopeful that the Government will be more receptive to an amendment to their legislation, given the need urgently to tackle this rapidly proliferating form of abuse.

Amendment 211H addresses the problem of sexually explicit audio, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, spoke about so movingly in Friday’s debate. We have seen satirical voice cloning, such as of Gareth Southgate at the 2024 Euros. However, the most state-of-the-art systems now require around three seconds of voice audio data to create speech on a parity with a human. This could be data from a short phone call or a TikTok video. As we are reaching the point where less data is required to create high-quality audio, this now has the potential to be weaponised. There is a real risk that, if we do not future-proof against this while we have the opportunity, it could rapidly develop in the way that sexually explicit deepfake images have. We are already seeing signs of new sexually explicit audio online. Its ease of use combined with its accessibility could create a huge risk in future.

Henry Ajder, the researcher who pioneered the study of non-consensual deepfake image abuse, said:

“2024 has seen AI generated voice audio widely used in spreading political disinformation and new forms of fraud, but much less attention has been paid to its potential as a tool for digital sexual abuse”.


In his research in 2018, he observed several cases of online communities experimenting with voice-cloning capabilities, targeting celebrities to create non-consensual “synthetic phone sex” content. This Bill could be a key opportunity to future-proof against this problem before it becomes widespread.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK, which operates a national helpline. I also apologise for not being here at Second Reading, but I felt compelled to speak today after the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, put forward her amendments. Before I speak to them, I support all the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—everything she says is always very powerful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, made her case powerfully today, as she did last week. I too spoke in that debate. We were disappointed across the House that the Government were not very supportive of the Bill, but they hinted that its amendments and recommendations could be integrated into another Bill. This Bill could be it.

I will focus my comments on audio recordings, which I raised last week. This element gets overlooked, because we tend to focus on sexually explicit images and video recordings. However, perpetrators will also record audio of sexual activities without consent and either share or threaten to share it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, mentioned, people can create deepfakes very easily with new technologies. A person’s voice is recognisable to the people who know them, so this must be addressed and it can be in this Bill.

Perpetrators of intimate image and intimate audio abuse can instil fear, humiliate and make victims feel unsafe without even sharing, or threatening to share, it. They can manipulate and control their victims simply by making them aware that they have recorded or created these images and recordings.

The Muslim Women’s Network’s helpline has had women call to say that, when relationships have broken down, husbands and boyfriends have made secret audio recordings and then threatened them with those recordings. Sometimes, they have shared them online or with family members and friends. Just knowing that they possess these recordings makes these women feel very unsafe and live in fear. In some communities and cultures where people will be worried about honour-based abuse, women will be even more fearful of the repercussions of these audio recordings being shared.

Whether it is original audio or digitally created deepfake audio, the law needs to be amended to prevent this type of abuse. If the Labour Party and the Government are serious about halving abuse against women and girls, they must shut down every avenue of abuse and accept these amendments.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

With the caveat that, having moved Amendment 56A, I will in due course withdraw it, I beg to move.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 69, 70 and 72. I declare my interest as a guest of Google at its Future Forum and AI policy conference. I will also speak to government Amendments 56A, 74A and 77. I am grateful to the Government—particularly the Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and Sarah Sackman, who I know want to do the right thing by victim survivors—for taking the time to meet me and other noble Lords from across this House, and for the movement they have made in not pressing their own amendment.

I am so grateful for the offer to work together to put victim survivor experience at the heart of our legislation. As I have always advocated, a consent-based approach is the only approach that shows that the violation of a woman’s consent through the non-consensual creation of sexually explicit images and films is an act of abuse, regardless of a person’s motivation.

I am pleased that the Government have finally conceded that a woman’s consent is enough and, in doing so, will not press their amendments. I turn first to Amendment 69, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. In doing so, I thank them for their steadfast and unwavering support.

I understand that the Government wish to bring forward their own amendment in time for Third Reading, I need to get absolute assurances from the Minister that it would be consent-based, as he has confirmed, cover solicitation, use the same definition of “an intimate state” as in the pre-existing sharing offence, that the limitation of time under the Magistrates’ Court Act will be taken as the date on which the victim becomes aware that the content has been created, and not the date on which it was created, and that it will include clarity under the law that the content used for image-based abuse will have clear guidance under Section 153 of the Sentencing Code.

If I cannot have absolute assurance from the noble Lord, I am motivated to test the opinion of the House, because a deepfake offence without the inclusion of solicitation will not be holistic. Amendment 69 vitally includes the solicitation of this content in order to close the gaps in the law and ensure that it cannot be circumnavigated by asking someone else in another jurisdiction where they have not yet legislated to create the content for you. It makes it an offence to solicit the content whether or not the creation happens. This vitally reflects the borderless nature of the internet and ensures that those in the UK who seek to abuse women by circumnavigating the proposed law will be held accountable.

Anyone who has had to witness their clothed images being touted on these sites dedicated to abuse will be subject to enormous fear and forced to live under the threat that the creation of sexually explicit content could happen at any moment. I would be grateful for the Minister’s absolute assurance that this will be part of the Government’s new amendment that they will bring at Third Reading and that it will be a consent-based solicitation offence. Without the inclusion of solicitation, we will be left with a gaping omission in our legislation.

My amendment uses the definition of “an intimate state” from Sections 66D(5), (6) and (7) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in order to have consistency with the pre-existing sharing laws. Unlike with the government amendment, victims will not have two separate definitions to contend with, depending on whether their image has been created or shared or both. I would just like a final reassurance from the Minister that this will be the definition.

My amendment clearly states in relation to Section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 on the limitation of time that the date on which the matter of complaint arose will be taken as the date on which the victim becomes aware of the content, as opposed to the date on which the perpetrator created the content. I need assurance from the Minister that their proposed amendment would do the same, so women are not inadvertently timed out of seeking justice. This issue was highlighted to me by campaigners at #NotYourPorn.

I turn now to Amendment 70 on the deletion of data used to perpetrate intimate image abuse. Following Committee, where I explained to the House that victims were being retraumatised by their abusers still being in possession of sexually explicit content of them following successful prosecution, I was very disheartened by the government response that no action was necessary due to Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020. I believe clarity under the pre-existing law is essential in order to avoid situations where victims are left traumatised and in a state of anxiety by their abusers keeping their intimate images.

However, I am very pleased that, following my amendment, the Government have had a change of heart. I understand that they are now willing to commit to amending the deprivation order powers of Section 153 of the Sentencing Code 2020 to ensure that courts can apply the orders to images and videos relating to the conviction of this offence, and any hardware. I would need the Minister’s assurance that it would also include physical copies and those held on any device, cloud-based programmes, digital messaging or social media platforms that the perpetrator controls. I would also like the commitment that this will be applied to the other pre- existing intimate image abuse offences, as my amendment did.

I turn to Amendment 72, which is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, has previously highlighted to the House the growing problem of audio abuse. It is easy to envisage that, in only a short space of time, we could very realistically be in the same place on audio abuse as we are with sexually explicit deepfakes, as less data is required to create high-quality audio. This has the potential to be weaponised to yet again abuse women. We have the chance now to be proactive. I hope the Government, if they are not prepared to commit to it now, will take it seriously in their upcoming justice Bill.

As I have set out, I am extremely grateful for the Minister’s movement on these issues. I know that it is not straightforward to produce complex amendments at speed and I know the Minister is committed to getting the details right in this vital legislation. I expect the Government to provide an undertaking to bring amendments back at Third Reading to address this issue. Unless I receive reassurances that such amendments will address all the issues in the manner I have set out, I will test the opinion of the House. If I receive the reassurances that I am looking for today but, for any reason, the Government do not follow through with them at Third Reading, I reserve the right to bring back my own amendment covering all the elements I have raised on this important issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I support everything the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has said. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I will briefly speak on Amendment 72 about sexually explicit audio abuse, which I have raised a couple of times before.

I am concerned about why, now the Government know and are aware that sexually explicit audio abuse is a thing, they do not want to act now. We have victims right now. Perpetrators are making these recordings and using them to threaten and blackmail. They share these recordings to shame their victims and to maintain power and control. In some communities where shame and honour are a thing, those victims are then at risk of honour-based abuse. With new technologies, you can create deepfake audio as well.

It feels like the Government are kicking this into the long grass. I welcome the Minister’s comments that this will be considered, but there seems to be no timetable; it could be years before action is taken. I wonder whether the Government are waiting for there to be more noise on the issue and for more victims to come forward before they take action. Why not nip this in the bud now? The Minister mentioned the crime and policing Bill. It would be good to know why, for example, it cannot be included in that. I hope that we can shut down this avenue of abuse now and prevent there being more victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes. If the noble Baroness wants to bring back a similar amendment on this issue, that indeed can be debated at Third Reading.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I get his assurance that deletion will include cloud-based systems and physical copies? He mentioned hardware, but I would like the assurance on the additional physical copies, those held on any device, cloud-based system, digital, messaging or social media platform that a person controls, because you can post something to a personal account without actually having shared it with other people. I would like clarification around that.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

That is certainly the intention of the legislation, but I am aware that it is extremely complex.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down again—forgive me—I am concerned about women being inadvertently timed out by the six-month limitation. Could the noble Lord address this point with a little more clarity please?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I understand the point the noble Baroness makes. but that is also something which we are willing to look at. The noble Baroness’s amendment was on the point at which a woman knows that has been such an intimate image abuse. I would point out to her that there may be many cases where the woman never knows that there has been such a type of abuse. I am thinking of previous legislation on upskirting. There have been successful convictions of people for upskirting where the woman never knew she was a victim and the images were of no particular determinate time. I understand the point the noble Baroness is making and I agree in general terms, but there may be a way of addressing the point, capturing the wider point I am making of women who may not know they are victims.

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 56A.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

69: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Digitally created sexually explicit photographs or filmsIn the Sexual Offences Act 2003, after section 66D, insert—“66E Creating or soliciting a non-consensual digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) A creates or solicits the creation of a digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film of another person (B),(b) B does not consent to the creation or solicitation of the photograph or film, and(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.(2) Subsection (1) applies when the solicitation of the creation of digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film has taken place in the United Kingdom, irrespective of the location of the person or persons who have been solicited for the creation of such a photograph or film.(3) A person (A) may commit an offence under this section whether or not creation occurs.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating, or soliciting the creation of, the photograph or film.(5) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).(6) In relation to section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 (limitation of time) the date on which the “matter of complaint” arose will be taken as the date on which B becomes aware that an offence under this section may have been committed. (7) In this section, “soliciting” means encouraging or facilitating the creation of a digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film.(8) In this section, “sexually explicit photograph or film” means a photograph or film, as defined in section 66A(3) to (5), which appears to be a photograph or film of anyone in an “intimate state” as defined in section 66D(5), (6) or (7).””

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who spoke. The Minister stopped short of saying that he will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading. It is clearly the will of the House to address and debate this issue at Third Reading. I therefore give notice that in the absence of a government amendment I will be bringing back an amendment next week at Third Reading. I accept the noble Lord’s kind offer to continue to engage.

Amendment 69 not moved.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

3: In the title of inserted section 66E, after “Creating” insert “or soliciting the creation of”

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes a fair point. In practice, this offence is very likely to be charged with the threat to share and other offences, which are of course imprisonable in their own right. As I said, there is no limitation to the number of offences that can be charged. We think it more appropriate that this be a fine-only offence, given the plethora of other offences which can be charged in this field.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

It is important to clarify that someone can be in a relationship with a partner who creates a sexually explicit deepfake, which presents a very real threat to that person even if their partner has not actually threatened to share it. That is what campaigners and victims believe: if you are in this kind of relationship and you know that someone has developed these sexually explicit deepfakes without your consent, that presents a very real threat. We believe that should be imprisonable.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in a sense, this will be tested in the courts. If the woman knows that the images have been created, the threat is there; that is what she is worried about. Of course, that is a separate offence, as I have already said. On the offence where there is no threat and it is just the creation of the image, we believe that a fine-only sentence is appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

5: In inserted section 66E, leave out subsection (5)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a “reasonable excuse” defence when a defendant has intentionally created the purported intimate image, the victim does not consent and the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim consents.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

6: In inserted section 66E(6), leave out “a fine” and insert “imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for a summary offence or a fine (or both)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the courts have the option of sentencing a convicted defendant to a term of imprisonment if the court thinks that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, this gives me a chance to thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is essential that we have prison as a deterrent in our fight against this appalling abuse. Victims view a fine as an insult and, with that in mind, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

7: In the title of inserted section 66F, after “Creating” insert “or soliciting the creation of”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

10: After “creation” insert “and solicitation”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment relates to Amendment 4.