Member

In Committee, the Government said there were already clear laws prohibiting CSA creation, but they also made clear there are gaps. I do not understand how any reasonable person, let alone a Government that has claimed violence against women and girls as a core purpose, could in good faith reject the amendment. Yet in Committee, the Minister said that the amendments would place an “unmanageable and unnecessary” burden. Are the Government saying that the burden on a public sector crime agency or regulator is a reasonable justification for enabling widespread child sexual abuse? If the argument is that it is too much of a burden, I ask noble Lords themselves to consider if it is too much of a burden when it is their daughters, or their granddaughters, who have been made to look younger, put on all fours, and turned to the camera with a stranger abusing them. Is it too much of a burden when children who cannot yet walk and talk are abused?