Online Safety Bill

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

My second question is similar. We see now around the world—it is not available in the UK—that Meta has a verified subscription, for which you can pay around $15 per month. It is being piloted in the US as we speak. Again, I ask whether that satisfies the duty in terms of it being affordable to the average UK user. I am concerned that most UK social media users will not be able to afford £180 per social media account for verification. If that ends up being Meta’s UK offering, many users would not be given a proper, meaningful chance to be verified. What powers are there in the Bill for Ofcom to send Meta back and offer something else? So my questions really are about what “verified” means in terms of the Bill.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 141 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones. Once again, I register the support of my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who feels very strongly about this issue.

Of course, there is value in transparency online, but anonymity can be vital for certain groups of people, such as those suffering domestic abuse, those seeking help or advice on matters they wish to remain confidential, or those who face significant levels of hatred or prejudice because of who they are, how they live or what they believe in. Striking the right balance is essential, but it is equally important that everyone who wishes to verify their identity and access the additional protections that this affords can do so easily and effectively, and that this opportunity is open to all.

Clause 57 requires providers of category 1 services to offer users the option to verify their identity, but it is up to providers to decide what form of verification to offer. Under subsection (2) it can be “of any kind”, and it need not require any documentation. Under subsection (3), the terms of service must include a “clear and accessible” explanation of how the process works and what form of verification is available. However, this phrase in itself is open to interpretation: clear and accessible for one group may be unclear and inaccessible to another. Charities including Mencap are concerned that groups, such as people with a learning disability, could be locked out of using these tools.

It is also relevant that people with a learning disability are less likely to own forms of photographic ID such as passports or driving licences. Should a platform require this type of ID, large numbers of people with a learning disability would be denied access. In addition, providing an email or phone number and verifying this through an authentication process could be extremely challenging for those people who do not have the support in place to help them navigate this process. This further disadvantages groups of people who already suffer some of the most extensive restrictions in living their everyday lives.

Clause 58 places a duty on Ofcom to provide guidance to help providers comply with their duty, but this guidance is optional. Amendment 141 aims to strengthen Clause 58 by requiring Ofcom to set baseline principles and standards for the guidance. It would ensure, for example, that the guidance considers accessibility for disabled as well as vulnerable adults and aligns with relevant guidance on related matters such as age verification; it would ensure that verification processes are effective; and it would ensure that the interests of disabled users are covered in Ofcom’s pre-guidance consultation.

Online can be a lifeline for disabled and vulnerable adults, providing access to support, advice and communities of interest, and this is particularly important as services in the real world are diminishing, so we need to ensure that user-verification processes do not act as a further barrier to inclusion for people with protected characteristics, especially those with learning disabilities.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised so many of the challenges that people face online, and I am sure that the masses who are watching parliamentlive as we speak, even if they are not in here, will recognise what she was talking about. Certainly, some of the animal rights activists can be a scourge, but I would not want to confine this to them, because I think trashing reputations online and false allegations have become the activists’ chosen weapon these days. One way that I describe cancel culture, as distinct from no-platforming, is that it takes the form of some terrible things being said about people online, a lot of trolling, things going viral and using the online world to lobby employers to get people sacked, and so on. It is a familiar story, and it can be incredibly unpleasant. The noble Baroness and those she described have my sympathy, but I disagree with her remedy.

An interesting thing is that a lot of those activities are not carried out by those who are anonymous. It is striking that a huge number of people with large accounts, well-known public figures with hundreds of thousands of followers—sometimes with more than a million—are prepared to do exactly what I described in plain sight, often to me. I have thought long and hard about this, because I really wanted to use this opportunity to read out a list and name and shame them, but I have decided that, when they go low, I will try to go at least a little higher. But subtweeting and twitchhunts are an issue, and one reason why we think we need an online harms Bill. As I said, I know that sometimes it can feel that if people are anonymous, they will say things that they would not say to your face or if you knew who they were, but I think it is more the distance of being online: even when you know who they are, they will say it to you or about you online, and then when you see them at the drinks reception, they scuttle away.

My main objection, however, to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the whole question of anonymity in general is that it treats anonymity as though it is inherently unsafe. There is a worry, more broadly on verification, about creating two tiers of users: those who are willing to be verified and those who are not, and those who are not somehow having a cloud of suspicion over them. There is a danger that undermining online anonymity in the UK could set a terrible precedent, likely to be emulated by authoritarian Governments in other jurisdictions, and that is something we must bear in mind.

On evidence, I was interested in Big Brother Watch’s report on some analysis by the New Statesman, which showed that there is little evidence to suggest that anonymity itself makes online discourse more febrile. It did an assessment involving tweets sent to parliamentarians since January 2021, and said there was

“little discernible difference in the nature or tone of the tweets that MPs received from anonymous or non-anonymous accounts. While 32 per cent of tweets from anonymous accounts were classed as angry according to the metric used by the New Statesman, so too were 30 per cent of tweets from accounts with full names attached.18 Similarly, 5.6 per cent of tweets from anonymous accounts included swear words, only slightly higher than the figure of 5.3 per cent for named accounts.”

It went through various metrics, but it said, “slightly higher, not much of a difference”. That is to be borne in mind: the evidence is not there.

In this whole debate, I have wanted to emphasise freedom as at least equal to, if not of greater value than, the safetyism of this Bill, but in this instance, I will say that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, for some people anonymity is an important safety mechanism. It is a tool in the armoury of those who want to fight the powerful. It can be anyone: for young people experimenting with their sexuality and not out, it gives them the freedom to explore that. It can be, as was mentioned, survivors of sexual violence or domestic abuse. It is certainly crucial to the work of journalists, civil liberties activists and whistleblowers in the UK and around the world. Many of the Iranian women’s accounts are anonymous: they are not using their correct names. The same is true of Hong Kong activists; I could go on.

Anyway, in our concerns about the Bill, compulsory identity verification means being forced to share personal data, so there is a privacy issue for everyone, not just the heroic civil liberties people. In a way, it is your own business why you are anonymous—that is the point I am trying to make.

There are so many toxic issues at the moment that a lot of people cannot just come out. I know I often mention the gender-critical issue, but it is true that in many professions, you cannot give your real name or you will not just be socially ostracised but potentially jeopardise your career. I wrote an article during the 2016-17 days called Meet the Secret Brexiteers. It was true that many teachers and professors I knew who voted to leave had to be anonymous online or they would not have survived the cull.

Finally, I do not think that online anonymity or pseudonymity is a barrier to tracking down and prosecuting those who commit the kind of criminal activity on the internet described, creating some of the issues we are facing. Police reports show that between 2017-18, 96% of attempts by public authorities to identify anonymous users of social media accounts, their email addresses and telephone numbers, resulted in successful identification of the suspect in the investigation; in other words, the police already have a range of intrusive powers to track down individuals, should there be a criminal problem, and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 allows the police to acquire communications data—for example, email addresses or the location of a device—from which alleged illegal anonymous activity is conducted and use it as evidence in court.

If it is not illegal but just unpleasant, I am afraid that is the world we live in. I would argue that what we require in febrile times such as these is not bans or setting the police on people but to set the example of civil discourse, have more speech and show that free speech is a way of conducting disagreement and argument without trashing reputations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I have slightly abused my position because, as the noble Baroness has just said, this is a rather oddly constructed group. My amendments, which carve great chunks out of the Bill—or would do if I get away with it—do not quite point in the same direction as the very good speech the noble Baroness made, representing of course the view of the committee that she chairs so brilliantly. She also picked out one or two points of her own, which we also want to debate. It therefore might be easier if I just explain what I was trying to do in my amendments; then I will sit down and let the debate go, and maybe come back to pick up one or two threads at the end.

In previous Bills—and I have seen a lot of them—people who stand up and move clause stand part debates usually have a deeper and more worrying purpose behind the proposition. Either they have not read the Bill and are just trying to wing it, or they have a plan that is so complex and deep that it would probably need another whole Bill to sort it out. This is neither of those approaches; it is done because I want to represent the views mainly of the Joint Committee. We had quite a lot of debate in that committee about this area, beginning with the question about why the Bill—or the White Paper or draft Bill, at that stage—used the term “democratic importance” when many people would have used the parallel term “public interest” to try to reflect the need to ensure that matters which are of public good take place as a result of publication, or discussion and debate, or on online platforms. I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Black, is able to be with us today. I am sure he will recall those debates, and hopefully he will make a comment on some of the work—and other members of the committee are also present.

To be clear, the question of whether Clauses 13, 14, 15 and 18 should stand part of the Bills is meant to release space for a new clause in Amendment 48. It is basically designed to try to focus the actions that are going to be taken by the Bill, and subsequently by the regulator, to ensure that the social media companies that are affected by, or in scope of, the Bill use, as a focus, some of the issues mainly related to “not taking down” and providing an appeal mechanism for journalistic material, whether that is provided by recognised news publishers or some other form of words that we can use, or it is done by recognised journalists. “Contentious” is an overused word, but all these terms are difficult to square away and be happy with, and therefore we should have the debate and perhaps reflect on that later when we come back to it.

The committee spent quite a lot of time on this, and there are two things that exercised our minds when we were working on this area. First, if one uses “content of democratic importance”, although it is in many ways quite a clever use of words to reflect a sensibility that you want to have an open and well-founded debate about matters which affect the health of our democracy, it can be read as being quite limiting. It is very hard to express—I am arguing against myself here—in the words of a piece of legislation what it is we are trying to get down to, but, during the committee’s recommendations, we received evidence that the definition of content of democratic importance was wider, or more capable of being interpreted as wider, than the scope the Government seem to have indicated. So there is both a good side and a bad side to this. If we are talking about content which is, or appears to be, specifically intended to contribute to the democratic political debate of the United Kingdom, or a part or area of the United Kingdom, we have got to ask the Minister to put on the record that this also inclusive of matters which perhaps initially do not appear necessarily to be part of it, but include public health, crime, justice, the environment, professional malpractice, the activities of large corporations and the hypocrisy of public figures when that occurs. I am not suggesting this is what we should be doing all the time, but these are things we often read about in our papers, and much the better off we are for it. However, if these things are not inclusive and not well rooted in the phrase “content of democratic importance”, it is up to the Government to come forward with a better way of expressing that, or perhaps in debate we can find it together.

I have some narrow questions. Are we agreed that what is currently in the Bill is intended specifically to contribute to democratic political debate, and is anything more needed to be said or done in order to make sure that happens? Secondly, the breadth of democratic political debate is obviously important; are there any issues here that are going to trip us up later when the Government come back and say, “Well, that wasn’t what we meant at all, and that doesn’t get covered, and therefore that stuff can be taken down, and that stuff there doesn’t have to be subject to repeal”? Are there contexts and subjects which we need to talk about? This is a long way into the question of content of democratic importance being similar or limited to matters that one recognises as relating to public interest. I think there is a case to be argued for the replacement of what is currently in the Bill with a way of trying to get closer to what we now recognise as being the standard form of debate and discussion when matters, which either the Government of the day or people individually do not like, get taken up and made the subject of legal discussion, because we do have discussions about whether or not it is in the public interest.

We probably do not know what that means. Therefore, a third part of my argument is that perhaps this is the point at which we try to define this, even though that might cause a lot of reaction from those currently in the press. In a sense, it is a question that needs to be resolved. Maybe this is or is not the right time to do that. Are the Government on the same page as the Joint Committee on this? Do they have an alternative and is this what they are trying to get across in the Bill?

Can we have a debate and discussion in relation to those things, making it clear that we want something in the Bill ensuring that vibrant political debate—the sort of things the noble Baroness was talking about on freedom of expression, but in a broader sense covering all the things that matter to the body politic, the people of this country—is not excluded by the Bill? That was the reason for putting down a raft of rather aggressive amendments. I hope it has been made clear that that was the case. I have other things that I would like to come back to, but I will probably do that towards the end of the debate. I hope that has been helpful.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, to which I have added my name. As we heard, the amendments originally sat in a different group, on the treatment of legal content accessed by adults. Noble Lords will be aware from my previous comments that my primary focus for the Bill has been on the absence of adequate provisions for the protection of adults, particularly those who are most vulnerable. These concerns underpin the brief remarks I will make.

The fundamental challenge at the heart of the Bill is the need to balance protection with the right to freedom of expression. The challenge, of course, is how. The noble Baroness’s amendments seek to find that balance. They go beyond the requirements on transparency reporting in Clause 68 in several ways. Amendment 46 would provide a duty for category 1 services to maintain an up-to-date document for users of the service, ensuring that users understand the risks they face and how, for instance, user empowerment tools can be used to help mitigate these risks. It also provides a duty for category 1 services to update their risk assessments before making any “significant change” to the design or operation of their service. This would force category 1 services to consider the impact of changes on users’ safety and make users aware of changes before they happen, so that they can take any steps necessary to protect themselves and prepare for them. Amendment 47 provides additional transparency by providing a duty for category 1 services to release a public statement of the findings of the most recent risk assessment, which includes any impact on freedom of expression.

The grouping of these amendments is an indication, if any of us were in doubt, of the complexity of balancing the rights of one group against the rights of another. Regardless of the groupings, I hope that the Minister takes note of the breadth and depth of concerns, as well as the willingness across all sides of the Committee to work together on a solution to this important issue.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 51, which is also in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McNally. I have done so because I think Clause 15 is too broad and too vague. I declare an interest, having been a journalist for my entire career. I am currently a series producer of a series of programmes on Ukraine.

This clause allows journalism on the internet to be defined simply as the dissemination of information, which surely covers all posts on the internet. Anyone can claim that they are a journalist if that is the definition. My concern is that it will make a nonsense of the Bill if all content is covered as journalism.

I support the aims behind the clause to protect journalism in line with Article 10. However, I am also aware of the second part of Article 10, which warns that freedom of speech must be balanced by duties and responsibilities in a democratic society. This amendment aims to hone the definition of journalism to that which is in the public interest. In doing so, I hope it will respond to the demands of the second part of Article 10.

It has never been more important to create this definition of journalism in the public interest. We are seeing legacy journalism of newspapers and linear television being supplanted by digital journalism. Both legacy and new journalism need to be protected. This can be a single citizen journalist, or an organisation like Bellingcat, which draws on millions of digital datapoints to create astonishing digital journalism to prove things such as that Russian separatist fighters shot down flight MH17 over Ukraine.

The Government’s view is that the definition of “in the public interest” is too vague to be useful to tech platforms when they are systematically filtering through possible journalistic content that needs to be protected. I do not agree. The term “public interest” is well known to the courts from the Defamation Act 2013. The law covers the motivation of a journalist, but does not go on to define the content of journalism to prove that it is in the public interest.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Bull Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, no one who has heard Molly Russell’s story can be in any doubt about the need to better protect young people online, and I join others in paying tribute to her family for their tireless campaign.

As we have heard, vulnerability online does not evaporate on turning 18. Some adults will be at risk because mental illness, disability, autism, learning disabilities or even age leaves them unable to protect themselves from harm. Others will be vulnerable only at certain times, or in relation to specific issues. The “legal but harmful” provisions were not perfect, but stripping out adult safety duties—when, as the Minister himself said, three-quarters of adults are fearful of going online—is a backward step.

With category 1 services no longer required to assess risks to adults, it is hard to agree when the Minister says this will be

“a regulatory regime which has safety at its heart”.

Without risk assessments, how will platforms work out what they need to include in their terms and conditions? How will users make informed choices? How will the effectiveness of user empowerment tools be measured? Without the real-time information that risk assessments provide, how will the regulator stay on top of new risks, and advise the Secretary of State accordingly?

Instead, the Bill sets out duties for category 1 services to write and enforce their own terms and conditions—they will be “author, judge and jury”, to quote my noble friend Lady Kidron—and to provide tools that empower adult users to increase control over types of content listed at Clause 12. Harms arise and spread quickly online, yet this list is static, and it has significant gaps already. Harmful or false health content is missing, as are harms relating to body image, despite evidence linking body shaming to eating disorders, self-harm and suicide ideation. Smaller sites that target specific vulnerabilities, including suicide forums, would fall outside scope of these duties.

Describing this list as “content over which users may wish to increase control” is euphemism at its best. This is not content some might consider in poor taste, or a bit off-colour. This is content encouraging or promoting suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. It is content that is abusive or incites hate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sex, gender, sexual orientation and misogyny, which evidence connects directly to violence against women and girls.

And yet tools to hide this content will be off by default, meaning that people at the point of crisis, those seeking advice on self-harm or starvation, will need to find and activate those settings when they may well be in an affected mental state that leaves them unable to self-protect. The complexities of addiction and eating disorders disempower choice, undermining the very basis on which Clause 12 is built.

We heard it said today that all adults, given the tools, are capable of protecting themselves from online abuse and harm. This is just not true. Of course, many adults are fortunate to be able to do so, but as my noble and expert friends Lady Hollins and Lady Finlay explained, there are many adults who, for reasons of vulnerability or capacity, cannot do so. Requiring the tools to be on by default would protect adults at risk and cause no hardship whatever to those who are not: a rational adult will be as capable of finding the off button as the one that turns them on.

Last week, Ministers defended the current approach on the basis that failing to give all users equal access to all material constitutes a chilling effect on freedom of expression. It is surely more chilling that this Bill introduces a regime in which content promoting suicide, self-harm, or racist and misogynistic abuse is deemed acceptable, and is openly available, harming some but influencing many, as long as the platform in question gives users an option to turn it off. This cannot be right, and I very much hope Ministers will go back and reconsider.

When the Government committed to making the UK the safest place in the world to be online, I find it hard to believe that this is the environment that they had in mind.

BBC: Future Funding (Communications and Digital Committee Report)

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Friday 16th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, it’s a great privilege to serve on the Communications and Digital Committee and, like many committee members, I start by declaring interests both past and present: I was a BBC governor and I have made and presented programmes on television and radio, where I still pop up from time to time as a contributor. I also join fellow committee members in congratulating the noble Lady, Baroness Stowell, on her skilled chairing and her excellent introduction; and I too note the work of our excellent clerking team.

Being this far down the list means that the debate has already ranged widely across the pages of our report, and I echo many of the points raised, particularly the need for the BBC to better represent and include the full diversity of the UK today. I will use my late billing as licence to focus my remarks more narrowly on the fundamental principle underpinning all our recommendations: that the shape of the future funding model must depend on what the BBC is for and what it provides.

While the Reithian mission to inform, educate and entertain continues to stand the test of time, the 2022 White Paper sets out the Government’s intention to review the PSB purposes and objectives, so that PSBs focus on areas where they are uniquely positioned to deliver and which would make us poorer as a nation—culturally, economically and democratically—if they were not provided. This seems to hint towards a market failure role, often regarded as a purpose of public service broadcasting. While some witnesses to our inquiry argued that this should be the exclusive focus of the BBC, many did not, with one suggesting that this kind of “eat your greens” mandate would see the BBC fail to reach large sections of the public.

I was particularly interested in a contribution on this subject from Professor Mariana Mazzucato, from UCL’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, who has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck. Mazzucato makes a persuasive case for seeing the BBC in terms not of market failure but of market shaping: a more accurate description in her view of the role it plays in leading innovation, setting new standards and taking the risks necessary for new markets, creative ecosystems and supply chains to emerge.

This was beautifully illustrated in a recent article by Bill Thompson, in which he looks back at market-shaping innovations pioneered by the corporation over its first 100 years: the BBC Marconi Type A ribbon microphone, as well as the lip mic mentioned by my noble friend; NICAM stereo recording and transmission; and DVB-T2, the second-generation system that ultimately made Freeview HD possible and, in doing so, freed up broadcast spectrum for mobile phones, giving us the always-connected world that we live in today.

Then there is outside broadcasting, pioneered in 1936 to relay the Coronation of King George VI, or the BBC’s work on broadcasting standards conversion, which allows signals from one type of system to be seen on another. It was this invisible innovation that enabled UK viewers to watch the 1968 Mexico Olympics in colour and to see the 1969 lunar landings as they happened—not just one small step for a man, but a giant leap for international live broadcasting. And who can forget Ceefax; the BBC networking club, a sort of internet forerunner; BBC computers; and the iPlayer?

I mention these innovations not just to enjoy a trip down memory lane, but as a clear example of how BBC innovations have impacted on and beyond the media and broadcasting sectors. They demonstrate not only the BBC’s role in shaping and supporting the creative industries, but the importance of the creative industries to an innovation economy. This impact can be seen in two ways: in the way new technologies generated by creative businesses such as the BBC are adopted by other industrial sectors; and in how creative businesses push producers in other sectors to meet their creative needs by developing new products and services. One immediately accessible example of this is the new underwater filming technologies developed for “Blue Planet II”, which have created ongoing legacy benefits for scientific research.

Alongside these examples of the BBC as inventor, investor, innovator and “de-risker” of new technologies, its market shaping role is also played out through its content creation and its contribution to talent and skills development, both on and off screen, as already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hall. This is value distributed across multiple domains and, looked at in these terms, “market shaping” seems a far better lens than “market failure” through which it should be considered. However, fully understanding this kind of value, and then translating it into a source of stable and adequate funding, will require new ways of thinking and new approaches to analysis and assessment.

This is what our report calls for: from the BBC, a bold new vision with its market-shaping role featured prominently; and, from government, a commitment that any future funding model and remit incentivises the corporation to strike the right balance between addressing market failure and shaping markets for the benefit of the UK creative industries and the wider economy.

When we think about the BBC, we tend primarily, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said, to think about content—the programmes we love and hate—and about whether we like the platforms on which that content is currently made available. Reimagining the BBC as a shaper and creator of markets, rather than as a public service broadcaster whose role is to fill in where the market fails, offers an alternative way to view the BBC’s public value and to consider what the BBC is for, what it provides and how it should therefore be funded.

Arts and Creative Industries Strategy

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak today. I declare my long-term interest in the cultural sector, a place I have worked for much of my adult life, as well as my role chairing an advisory panel for the Government’s forthcoming cultural education plan.

I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount on securing this important and timely debate. His title invites a number of approaches to an already broad sector; a sector that encompasses advertising, architecture, arts and culture, craft, design, fashion, games, music, publishing, TV and film. What unites these distinct industries is a shared critical dependency on creativity, skill and talent, and a shared potential to create jobs and wealth through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property. This they have in common.

However, as individual subsectors, they differ significantly in their education and career pathways, structures, funding and business models, and potential for economic contribution and local placemaking. Any strategy for the creative industries will therefore require a shared vision and collaborative working between at least three departments—four, if you include the Department for Levelling Up—so I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister, who stands alone at the Dispatch Box today.

It is this role in levelling up on which I want to focus my contribution. There is a lot of very strong evidence about the potential for arts, culture and heritage to help shape the place where we live and to generate direct and indirect benefits for local communities. The Reimagining Where We Live report from the DCMS Select Committee in the other place drew on this evidence to show how art, culture and the creative industries can help levelling up by supporting education, building local pride, generating jobs, and enhancing health and well-being. However, the report also noted

“pervasive and persistent barriers to cultural placemaking”,

highlighting geographical disparities, poor levels of social mobility and inclusivity in the cultural sector, and skills shortages across the creative industries.

The issue of geographical disparity has been pushed into the spotlight once again following the recent Arts Council announcement of national portfolio organisations to 2026. If there are universal benefits to making, taking part in and enjoying arts and culture, as I passionately believe that there are, then few would argue with the principle that access to these opportunities should not be dependent on where you live. From this perspective, we should celebrate the 276 newly supported organisations in the ACE portfolio, which are doing excellent, high-quality work in new and different places and with different and diverse artists and communities. Their success is welcome and deserved.

The debate is not about the principle; it is about how—and it is not new. Christopher Gordon, David Powell and Peter Stark’s report, Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital, brought the issue to wider attention, as those of us with long memories will know, in 2013, pointing then to the dilemma we face now: how to rebalance distribution of cultural funding without unbalancing a connected and complex sector with a historic footing in the capital city.

My view is that this rethinking should not have been demanded within the short timeframe of a single funding round. In doing so, the February directive from the then Culture Secretary gnawed at the fingers of the arm’s-length principle. Planning for such a fundamental shift requires a much longer horizon if it is to avoid destabilisation, particularly within a sector still recovering from the pandemic, and if it is to lead to sustainable and positive change that delivers for all communities across all parts of the UK.

The rebalancing report pointed to the often overlooked role of local authorities in cultural provision and called for greater join-up across local and national government, as well as more local involvement in decision-making. This is echoed in the Cornerstones of Culture report, mentioned already, which is published today by the Commission on Culture and Local Government, chaired by my noble friend Lady Young of Hornsey. This report highlights the £1.1 billion that local councils invest directly in cultural services every year and calls for closer collaboration between arm’s-length bodies, local and national government, cultural organisations and communities to safeguard the future of local cultural infrastructure and to deliver on its full potential for levelling up.

Its conclusions resonate strongly with those of the DCMS Select Committee, that levelling up will not work if it is top-down. Cultural strategies set at a local level, in partnership, can deliver vibrant cultural ecosystems that will create jobs, support health and well-being, enhance learning, open up opportunities for young people, support the growing creative industries, and ultimately make places in which people want to live, work and thrive. But both reports sound the same warning: this kind of success will follow only if those critical and persistent issues of geographic disparities, poor levels of social mobility and structural inclusion in the cultural sector, equitable access to cultural education and skills shortages in the creative industries are resolved.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, pointed out, this cuts across the remits of not only DCMS but DfE, BEIS, DLUHC and possibly the Cabinet Office too, given that it has the responsibility for social mobility. Can the Minister reassure the House that all these departments recognise their roles in the success of the cultural and creative industries, and understand the imperative to join up with local government and arm’s-length bodies, if the potential of arts, culture and the creative industries in levelling up is to be fully realised? DCMS has a pivotal role to play in convening and facilitating collaboration, but it cannot achieve this on its own.

Music Education

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Black, who brings so much expertise to this area. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, on her adept stewardship of the advisory panel that oversaw this plan, as well as an excellent introduction to this debate. I also congratulate the two departments—Education and DCMS—on coming together to produce and own this plan. It is always heartening to see interdepartmental join-up, and particularly so when collaboration is fundamental to success, as it is in the delivery of music education and indeed arts education more generally. The opening line of the plan’s introduction sets out a clear commitment to music as part of a young person’s education, describing music as

“a cornerstone of the broad and balanced education that every child should receive.”

I think that we can all say amen to that.

Section 78 of the Education Act 2002 requires that a

“balanced and broadly based curriculum”

must promote

“the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society”,

and prepare pupils

“for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life.”

This plan goes some way to articulating just how music education can contribute to those laudable aims. It could say more on this, but I will save those comments to the end.

First, though, I warmly welcome the overarching vision that all children and young people

“should have access to a high-quality music education”.

This is a clear commitment to universality and inclusivity, with inclusivity underlined by a dedicated section on delivering for those with special educational needs, as well as the promise of a pilot music progression fund, which will support disadvantaged pupils who have significant “potential, enthusiasm and commitment” in music. Perhaps in responding the Minister, who I warmly welcome back to his role, might say a little more about how this pilot scheme will be developed and when we might see it launched.

Like others, I welcome the reference to early years. There is a mass of evidence across multiple disciplines—neuroscience, cognitive science and developmental psychology—that demonstrates how arts engagement at the earliest years of a child’s development can support education readiness and, as a result, enhance life chances. Early years providers are already required to deliver an educational programme in expressive arts and design as part of the early years foundation stage statutory framework, and the plan encourages greater connectivity between music hubs and providers to deliver this. But, given that most early years providers are commercial entities and that most of the people teaching music in early years settings will not be specialists, I would welcome the Minister’s view on what more the Government might do to encourage and facilitate those connections.

Partnership, which is the second of three goals, is also a welcome theme for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, set out. The plan provides clarity on the role of music hubs in enabling and driving partnerships, and it recognises that education takes place not only in schools. Different localities will have different requirements and different areas will have different assets on which to draw in forming these partnerships across education, cultural organisations large and small, the private sector, industry, community, charity and voluntary organisations. I was particularly pleased to see the contribution of the voluntary sector recognised, knowing what a vital role it plays in supporting state-funded provision in so many areas of our lives.

The third goal is that all children and young people with music interests and talents should have the opportunity to progress, including into professional careers. This is vital—even more so when it is linked to the vision of universal provision and inclusivity. We know that pathways into the creative industries, including music, remain uneven, with the workforce drawn disproportionately from the middle and privileged classes and a marked absence of people of colour and people from working-class backgrounds. Many interconnected factors contribute to this lack of diversity, but the status of music and arts within the state-funded education system has been key. This is in stark contrast to private schools, which so often sell themselves to parents on the basis of their outstanding music and arts provision.

This plan will help to address that inequality, but perhaps the Minister could pick up with his education colleagues the ongoing absence within statutory careers guidance for schools of any reference at all to creative careers, and its explicit steer to ensure that children have the opportunity to learn about how STEM subjects can lead to a wide range of career paths. Now that we have a clear plan for music education, with a stated aim to help young people into careers within the music industry, it would be very odd if the Government’s own careers guidance did not align with this core aim.

Without wishing to dilute my welcome for this plan, I will finish by touching briefly on three areas of concern. The first, as we have heard, is the non-statutory status of the plan. As things stand, music hubs can be held to account for failing to deliver but schools cannot, so can the Minister say how the Government intend to hold schools accountable and what role the music education board will have in this?

My second area of concern, which has already been raised, relates to the workforce, both the training of non-specialists to deliver music education and the overall requirement for an increased skilled workforce to achieve the plan’s aims. We have heard about the forecast that DfE will be able to recruit only 57% of its target for music teacher trainees in 2022, so how will the Government ensure that appropriately trained staff are available to make this plan a reality, as the noble Baroness has promised it will be?

Finally, I would like to have seen a more explicit acknowledgement of the role that music education plays in supporting young people to develop a broader and transferable set of personal, social, cognitive and problem-solving skills that will, as the Education Act requires, prepare young people for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life. The Ministers’ joint letter at the front of the document concludes:

“Now is the time to unleash the creativity of our children and young people, to support them to achieve their musical ambitions.”


The comma between the two clauses leaves open to question the relationship between the two. My belief is that music education can do both. The development of creativity is key to musical success, but creativity is also a core life and employability skill. Its value extends beyond the creative industries and across the workplace, the economy and society.

Arts: Energy Cost Support

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

In a recent conversation with my officials, we were talking about how galleries, museums and other community spaces may well be used this year by people who do not normally attend them. I do not want to overplay this card, but it may well bring a new audience to libraries. Central government needs to be careful because local government is very fierce and tells us that it knows what is best for local communities, so we are working at local level with galleries, museums, libraries et cetera to look at whether they can be warm hubs or whether there are other solutions.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, at the height of the pandemic, local arts centres demonstrated their commitment to their communities by pivoting business to meet their needs by supporting education catch-up and health and well-being and even providing food banks. It is likely that they will attempt to do the same in the current crisis, opening as warm banks and possibly offering well-being activities too. What will the Government do to incentivise and encourage partnership working between local authorities, statutory services, the voluntary sector and the cultural sector to maximise this kind of much-needed provision and make sure that it is advertised and available to the people who need it most?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point about partnerships. Government partners, the sector itself or even individual galleries cannot do this alone; we have to work in a clear partnership. It is quite clear that public libraries are run by local authorities, but some are run by local communities and are a great example of civil society. We want to make sure that we understand the picture. We are talking to local authorities, the sector, the Arts Council and UK Theatre, for example, to understand the granularity of these needs and the best way to help people during this difficult period. We know very well the role that the cultural sector has played in the past. It will continue to play a role and we hope it will be open to new audiences.

London Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012: Legacy

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an important point, which a number of noble Lords have raised with me since I took on this position. While there are some events for which there is a lot of consensus that they should be free to air, there are others who say, “Maybe not that sport or this sport or this event.” It will require a lot of conversations to make sure that we have a list on which there is wide consensus.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, one of the hopes of the 2012 Olympics was that they would inspire a generation not just of athletes and participants but of volunteers. We saw a remarkable upsurge in volunteering during the Olympic Games. Unfortunately, the figures since have shown a dramatic decline and there seems to be some lack of co-ordination in galvanising the opportunity presented by occasions such as the Olympic Games. What role do the Government have in ensuring that these volunteer programmes are built and grown after such events, rather than being allowed to decline?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Volunteering did increase in the years after London 2012, halting what had been a long-term decline, and more than half of the 70,000 London 2012 Games makers continue to volunteer in their communities. One of the things I am very happy about, having moved departments, is that I am now the Minister for Civil Society, and one of the things I am talking about is how we encourage more volunteers and more local champions who want to set up a project in their local community. One of the ideas we are looking at is that you can put your postcode into a civil society portal, for example, and offer yourself as a volunteer or have your hand held while you set up a local community project.

Musicians and Creative Professionals: Working in the European Union

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Clancarty, not just on securing today’s debate but on his energy and resilience in keeping these matters so firmly on the agenda. The nature of this QSD means that this debate is inevitably structured in the form of a theme and variations, which is probably fitting giving its relationship to music. My noble friend has comprehensively set out so many of the themes in his excellent speech; all we have to do is extemporise on one or more of them in our allotted time. But I will attempt to do a little more, suggesting ways in which the current dissonance might shift towards consonance and even resolution.

The extent of the challenges resulting from the omission of any provision for the touring of creative professionals and their support staff has been masked to date by the pandemic. But, as touring starts up again, we are seeing tangible evidence of impacts across four key areas.

First, the absence of a universal visa waiver agreement means that different EU members can treat UK artists and their staff in different ways, creating a complex and costly regulatory landscape, particularly in the case of multi-country tours. Secondly, the costs associated with an ATA carnet are proving to be prohibitive, especially for larger operations such as orchestras, whose instruments and equipment can be valued at millions of pounds. Thirdly, cabotage restrictions, as we have heard, permit only three internal movements in the EU for UK hauliers over 3.5 tonnes—disastrous when tours cover multiple countries over weeks and months. Dual registration does not provide a solution for ensembles with a single, purpose-built touring vehicle which cannot create the required EU base. Finally, CITES requirements for musical instruments containing protected materials can prevent last-minute bookings, which are often the things which provide vital career breaks.

The creative sector has been working hard to propose solutions to these challenges. It has put forward a cultural exemption, applied reciprocally, to cover cabotage, CITES and carnets, and suggested a bespoke visa-waiver agreement to allow visa-free working for 90 in 180 days across the whole of the EU and UK—something many countries already offer. Some small steps have been made—I am sure that the Minister will refer to them in winding—but progress has been lamentably slow over the two and half years since the TCA was signed.

Here is where I move from the minor to the major key. When it became clear that touring had indeed been omitted from the TCA, each side claimed that it had offered a deal on touring that the other had rejected. At this point in time, the important part of this sorry story is not that we failed to agree a deal or that we could not agree on who was to blame; it is that we wanted the same thing. If we could now agree to focus not on the past but on the future, that common aim—our shared ambition to enable creative touring—means that we could make rapid progress on resolving this issue, unlike some of the more contentious issues currently on the table. There is a structure in place through which such progress can be made: the Partnership Council has the power to adopt amendments to the TCA and so could achieve what the original negotiators, on both sides, say that they wanted but failed to agree.

The history of art is one of finding inspiration from each other’s cultures, of building ideas and of innovating practice, as artists travel from city to city, state to state. In Europe, this has been the case for hundreds of years and it has enriched our shared and distinctive heritages. Not only that, but when artists and musicians tour, they bring with them direct and indirect economic benefits. They contribute to healthy societies, they promote intercultural understanding and they foster positive relations between nations.

There is much to be gained for both sides in resolving the question of touring. Failure to find resolution will leave us all the poorer and it will be disproportionately hard on emerging and early-career artists, for whom touring is a vital element of professional development. We need to move now to avoid disadvantaging the next generation. I hope that the Minister will do everything that he can to persuade colleagues that working together with the EU to resolve this relatively uncontentious issue would demonstrate our shared desire to make a success of our future relationship with our closest neighbours, with whom we share such a rich and productive history of cultural exchange.

Public Health: Media Advertising

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, I will speak to my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care, not least as the Bill is still before your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, there is good evidence that advertising that presents idealised and unrealistic bodies can drive negative body image and trigger or exacerbate mental health conditions, including eating disorders. Will the Government support the call for advertisers to be required to make it clear where images are digitally altered for commercial purposes?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we are aware of evidence which demonstrates a link between poor body and poor mental health, which can cause people anxiety, depression and many other harms. It is not currently the Government’s intention to legislate on body image in advertising. We want to make sure that any government intervention makes a real and positive difference. We intend to consult on this issue and the harms created by it as part of the online advertising programme, which will allow us further to develop our evidence base on this issue.

Creative Professionals: EU Tours

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they intend to have with the European Union concerning the post-Brexit position of the United Kingdom’s creative professionals touring in the European Union.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clancarty, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK made proposals for permit-free touring and for specialist hauliers to be exempt from cabotage limits. Sadly, these were rejected by the European Union. We have raised touring at both the EU-UK Partnership Council and the EU-UK Trade Specialised Committee on Services, Investment and Digital Trade. Our focus is now on supporting the sector, including by working directly with member states. This approach has delivered results, most recently with Spain, meaning that 21 member states now allow some visa-free and permit-free touring.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the music industry is frustrated that so little has been done to resolve touring issues in the 13 months since the TCA was applied, and is concerned that increased costs will rule out European touring for artists, companies and orchestras. Will the Government negotiate a cabotage exemption for the cultural and creative sector and an own-account exemption for groups that tour with their own trucks and now face extra costs of £16,000 per day? Does the Minister accept that dual registration, on which the Government are currently consulting, is not a workable solution for a UK orchestra with a single specialist touring vehicle?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, through our bilateral agreement, 21 of the 27 member states have confirmed that UK musicians and performers do not need visas or work permits for some short-term touring. As I say, we continue our discussions bilaterally with the six remaining member states. On own-account vehicles, such as those used by orchestras, the UK pushed hard for liberalised access for hauliers carrying equipment for cultural events during negotiations but the EU sadly did not agree to our requests. The Department for Transport continues to work across government and with the industry to consider what options may be possible for own-account operators.