Lord Banner (Con)

My Lords, I, too, emphatically support the Bill. As the father of a seven year-old girl, with her teenage years and young adulthood ahead of her, I found the stories of those subject to deepfake abuse to be truly terrifying, as is the rate of its proliferation. In the last year alone, over 140,000 new deepfake videos appeared online—more than in all previous years put together. The largest website dedicated to this abuse receives over 13 million visits monthly; one app processed 600,000 images in its first three weeks of operation. The law urgently needs to catch up with this new reality and the Bill would make that happen. I would like to make three points about it. First, I completely reject the suggestion in some quarters—thankfully, not among any speakers today so far—that the Bill would be an unjustified interference with individual freedoms. This completely devalues the concept of civil liberties and individual freedoms, and it is frankly insulting to those who have devoted and given their lives to defending those freedoms to tarnish them by association with the abusive creation of demeaning fake sexual images of people. The only real rights in play here are those of the victims, as my noble friend Lady Owen so compellingly put it. Secondly, I support the Bill’s approach of making the proposed offence consent-based, as opposed to the perpetrator’s intent having to be proved. As the Law Commission has explained, it would be impractical to require proof in each case that the perpetrator had the specific motive of causing distress or sexual gratification. Such a requirement would deprive the legislation of practical utility. Like dangerous driving, the act is itself sufficiently reprehensible for the law to treat it as criminal without having to delve into the perpetrator’s mind. In any event, let us be realistic here: it is no leap of faith for the law to assume that someone involved in creating or soliciting deepfake images without consent is not doing so innocently, or is oblivious to the obvious impact that such images can have on their victims. So I ask the Minister to confirm whether the Government will commit, whether through this Bill or other legislation, to a consent-based offence. Thirdly, I part with the Law Commission in relation to its suggestion—albeit two years ago—that there is insufficient evidence of harm to criminalise creation and solicitation without sharing. For the reasons I gave at the outset of my speech, that view no longer reflects the reality. Today’s AI tools can create highly convincing deepfakes in minutes, presenting an immediate threat both to dignity and safety. If the law does not step in at that stage, before the horse has bolted, in practice it will be ineffective. The Labour Party manifesto specifically committed to “banning the creation of … explicit deepfakes”. Despite the urgency I have outlined, no such proposal has featured in the King’s Speech. Mañana is not an answer. I congratulate my noble friend on taking the initiative with this Bill. I urge the Government to support it and not kick the can down the road in favour of future legislation with diluted and less effective regulation.