Online Safety Bill

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his words—I thought I was experiencing time travel there—and am sympathetic to many of the issues that he has raised, although I think that some of the other amendments in the group tackle those issues in a slightly different way.

I support Amendments 44 and 158 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Requiring a post-rollout assessment to ensure that the triple shield acts as we are told it will seems to be a classic part of any regulatory regime that is fit for purpose: it needs to assess whether the system is indeed working. The triple shield is an entirely new concept, and none of the burgeoning regulatory systems around the world is taking this approach, so I hope that both the Government and Ofcom welcome this very targeted and important addition to the Bill.

I will also say a few words about Amendments 154 and 218. It seems to me that, in moving away from legal but harmful—which as a member of the pre-legislative committee I supported, under certain conditionality that has not been met, but none the less I did support it—not enough time and thought have been given to the implications of that. I do not understand, and would be grateful to the Minister if he could help me understand, how Ofcom is to determine whether a company has met its own terms and conditions—and by any means, not only by the means of a risk assessment.

I want to make a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, made the other day—but I want to make it again. Taking legal but harmful out and having no assessment of whether a company has met its general safety duties leaves the child safety duties as an island. They used to be something that was added on to a general system of safety; now they are the first and only port of call. Again, because of the way that legal but harmful fell out of the Bill, I am not sure whether we have totally understood how the child risk assessments sit without a generally cleaned up or risk-assessed digital environment.

Finally, I will speak in support of Amendment 160, which would have Ofcom say what “adequate and appropriate” terms are. To a large degree, that is my approach to the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke about: let Parliament and the regulator determine what we want to see—as was said on the data protection system, that is how it is—and let us have minimum standards that we can rightly expect, based on UK law, as the noble Lord suggested.

I am not against the triple shield per se, but it radically replaced an entire regime of assessment, enforcement and review. I think that some of the provisions in this group really beg the Government’s attention, in order to make sure that there are no gaping holes in the regime.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 44 and 158 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I also note my support for the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, to ensure the minimum standard for a platform’s terms of service. My noble friend Lord Moylan has just given an excellent speech on the reasons why these amendments should be considered.

I am aware that the next group of amendments relates to the so-called user empowerment tools, so it seems slightly bizarre to be speaking to Amendment 44, which seeks to ensure that these user empowerment tools actually work as the Government hope they will, and Amendment 158, which seeks to risk assess whether providers’ terms of service duties do what they say and report this to Ofcom. Now that the Government have watered down the clauses that deal with protection for adults, like other noble Lords, I am not necessarily against the Government’s replacement—the triple shield—but I believe that it needs a little tightening up to ensure that it works properly. These amendments seem a reasonable way of doing just that. They would ensure greater protection for adults without impinging on others’ freedom of expression.

The triple shield relies heavily on companies’ enforcement of terms of service and other vaguely worded duties, as the noble Viscount mentioned, that user empowerment tools need to be “easily accessible” and “effective”—whatever that means. Unlike with other duties in the Bill, such as those on illegal content and children’s duties, there is no mechanism to assess whether these new measures are working; whether the way companies are carrying out these duties is in accordance with the criteria set out; and whether they are indeed infringing freedom of expression. Risk assessments are vital to doing just that, because they are vital to understanding the environment in which services operate. They can reduce bureaucracy by allowing companies to rule out risks which are not relevant to them, and they can increase user safety by revealing new risks, thereby enabling the future-proofing of a regime. Can the Minister give us an answer today as to why risk assessment duties on these two strands of the triple shield—terms of service and user empowerment tools—were removed? If freedom of speech played a part in this, perhaps he could elaborate why he thinks undertaking a risk assessment is in any way a threat.

Without these amendments, the Bill cannot be said to be a complete risk management regime. Companies will, in effect, be marking their own homework when designing their terms of service and putting their finger in the air when it comes to user empowerment tools. There will be no requirement for them to explain either to Ofcom or indeed to service users the true nature of the harms that occur on their service, nor the rationale behind any decisions they might make in these two fundamental parts of their service.

Since the Government are relying so heavily on their triple shield to ensure protection for adults, to me, not reviewing two of the three strands that make up the triple shield seems like fashioning a three-legged stool with completely uneven legs: a stool that will not stand up to the slightest pressure when used. Therefore, I urge the Minister to look again and consider reinstating these protections in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe that people will look back on the first two decades of the 21st century—the time that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to, from 2003, when we did not envisage what was coming, to this Bill in 2023—as a time of complete madness. They will see it as a time when we created such harmful, toxic environments—not only for children and young people but for adults—that it affected the mental health of a generation profoundly. This Bill is an opportunity to draw a line in the sand and to remedy that. The user empowerment tools and adult risk assessments offer us very important tools. We must take this opportunity and fight back against this inequality of arms. I support these amendments.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I contribute to this debate on the basis of my interests as laid out in the register: as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland; my work with the Scottish Government on people with neurological conditions; and as a trustee of the Neurological Alliance of Scotland. It is an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate, whose point about the inequality people experience in the online world is well made. I want to be clear that when I talk about ensuring online protection for people with disabilities, I do not assume that all adults with disabilities are unable to protect themselves. As the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, pointed out, survey after survey demonstrates how offline vulnerabilities translate into the online world, and Ofcom’s own evidence suggests that people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities, autism, mental health issues and others can be classed as being especially vulnerable online.

The Government recognise that vulnerable groups are at greater risk online, because in its previous incarnations, this Bill included greater protection for such groups. We spoke in a previous debate about the removal of the “legal but harmful” provisions and the imposition of the triple shield. The question remains from that debate: does the triple shield provide sufficient protection for these vulnerable groups?

As I have said previously this afternoon, user empowerment tools are the third leg of the triple shield, but they put all the onus on users and no responsibility on the platforms to prevent individuals’ exposure to harm. Amendments 36, 37 and 38A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seek simply to make the default setting for the proposed user empowerment tools to be “on”. I do not pretend to understand how, technically, this will happen, but it clearly can, because the Bill requires platforms to ensure that this is the default position to ensure protection for children. The default position in those amendments protects all vulnerable people, and that is why I support them—unlike, I fear, Amendment 34 from my noble friend Lady Morgan, which lists specific categories of vulnerable adults. I would prefer that all vulnerable people be protected from being exposed to harm in the first place.

Nobody’s freedom of expression is affected in any way by this default setting, but the overall impact on vulnerable individuals in the online environment would, I assure your Lordships, be significant. Nobody’s ability to explore the internet or to go into those strange rooms at the back of bookshops that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was talking about would be curtailed. The Government have already stated that individuals will have the capacity to seek out these tools and turn them on and off, and that they must be easily accessible. So individuals with capacity will be able to find the settings and set them to explore whatever legal content they choose.

However, is it not our duty to remember those who do not have capacity? What about adults with learning difficulties and people at a point of crisis—the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, movingly spoke about people with eating disorders—who might not be able to turn to those tools due to their affected mental state, or who may not realise that what they are seeing is intended to manipulate? Protecting those users from encountering such content in the first place surely tips the balance in favour of turning the tools on by default.

I am very sad that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, cannot be here, because her contribution to this debate would be powerful. But, from her enormous experience of work with disabled people, this is her top priority for the Bill.

In preparing to speak to these amendments, I looked back to the inquiry in the other place into online abuse and the experience of disabled people that was prompted by Katie Price’s petition after the shocking abuse directed at her disabled son Harvey. In April 2019 the Government responded to that inquiry by saying that they were

“aware of the disproportionate abuse experienced by disabled people online and the damage such abuse can have on people’s lives, career and health”—

and the Government pledged to act.

The internet is a really important place for disabled people, and I urge the Government to ensure that it remains a safe place for all of us and to accept these amendments that would ensure the default settings are set to on.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I do so somewhat reluctantly, not because I disagree with anything that she said but because I would not necessarily start from here. I want to briefly say three very quick things about that and then move on to Amendments 42 and 45, which are also in this group.

We already have default settings, and we are pretending that this is a zero-sum game. The default settings at the moment are profiling us, filtering us and rewarding us; and, as the right reverend Prelate said in his immensely powerful speech, we are not starting at zero. So I do share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about who gets to choose—some of us on this side of the debate are saying, “Can we define who gets to choose? Can Parliament choose? Can Ofcom choose? Can we not leave this in the hands of tech companies?” So on that I fully agree. But we do have default settings already, and this is a question of looking at some of the features as well as the content. It is a weakness of the Government’s argument that it keeps coming back to the content rather than the features, which are the main driver of what we see.

The second thing I want to say—this is where I am anxious about the triple shield—is: does not knowing you are being abused mean that you are not abused? I say that as someone with some considerable personal abuse. I have my filter on and I am not on social media, but my children, my colleagues and some of the people I work with around the world do see what is said about me—it is a reputational thing, and for some of them it is a hurtful thing, and that is why I am reluctant in my support. However, I do agree with all the speakers who have said that our duty is to start with those people who are most vulnerable.

I want to mention the words of one of the 5Rights advisers—a 17 year-old girl—who, when invited to identify changes and redesign the internet, said, “Couldn’t we do all the kind things first and gradually get to the horrible ones?” I think that this could be a model for us in this Chamber. So, I do support the noble Baroness.

I want to move briefly to Amendment 42, which would see an arbitrary list of protected characteristics replaced by the Equality Act 2010. This has a lot to do with a previous discussion we had about human rights, and I want to say urgently to the Minister that the offer of the Online Safety Bill is not to downgrade human rights, children’s rights and UK law, but rather to bring forward a smart and comprehensive regime to hold companies accountable for human rights, children’s rights and UK law. We do not want to have a little list of some of our children’s rights or of some of our legislation; we would like our legislation and our rights embedded in the Bill.

I have to speak for Amendment 45. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for tabling it. It would require Ofcom, six months after the event, to ask whether children need these user empowerment tools. It is hugely important. I remind the Committee that children have not only rights but an evolving capacity to be out there in the world. As I said earlier, the children’s safety duties have a cliff-edge feel to them. As children go out into the world on the cusp of adulthood, maybe they would like to have some of these user empowerment tools.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that, with regard to safety by design, will address functionality and harms—whatever exactly we mean by that—as well as child safety duties and codes of practice. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Kidron, have laid things out very clearly, and I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, a happy birthday.

I also support Amendment 261 in the name of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to consider safety by design, and not just content, when reviewing the regime.

As we have heard, a number of the amendments would amend the safety duties to children to consider all harms, not just harmful content, and we have begun to have a very interesting debate on that. We know that service features create and amplify harms to children. These harms are not limited to spreading harmful content; features in and of themselves may cause harm—for example, beautifying filters, which can create unrealistic body ideals and pressure on children to look a certain way. In all of this, I want us to listen much more to the voices of children and young people—they understand this issue.

Last week, as part of my ongoing campaign on body image, including how social media can promote body image anxiety, I met a group of young people from two Gloucestershire secondary schools. They were very good at saying what the positives are, but noble Lords will also be very familiar with many of the negative issues that were on their minds, which I will not repeat here. While they were very much alive to harmful content and the messages it gives them, they were keen to talk about the need to address algorithms and filters that they say feed them strong messages and skew the content they see, which might not look harmful but, because of design, accentuates their exposure to issues and themes about which they are already anxious. Suffice to say that underpinning most of what they said to me was a sense of powerlessness and anxiety when navigating the online world that is part of their daily lives.

The current definition of content does not include design features. Building in a safety by design principle from the outset would reduce harms in a systematic way, and the amendments in this group would address that need.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments. Last week, I was lucky—that is not necessarily the right word—to participate in a briefing organised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, with the 5Rights Foundation on its recent research, which the noble Lord referred to. As the mother of a 13 year-old boy, I came away wondering why on earth you would not want to ensure safety by design for children.

I am aware from my work with disabled children that we know, as Ofcom knows from its own research, that children—or indeed anyone with a long-term health impact or a disability—are far more likely to encounter and suffer harm online. As I say, I struggle to see why you would not want to have safety by design.

This issue must be seen in the round. In that briefing we were taken through how quickly you could get from searching for something such as “slime” to extremely graphic pornographic content. As your Lordships can imagine, I went straight back to my 13 year-old son and said, “Do you know about slime and where you have you seen it?” He said, “Yes, Mum, I’ve watched it on YouTube”. That echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—to whom I add my birthday wishes—that these issues have to be seen in the round because you do not just consume content; you can search on YouTube, shop on Google, search on Amazon and all the rest of it. I support this group of amendments.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

An offence in this Bill is an offence under the law of any part of the UK. There is a complex interplay between online safety, which is reserved, and devolved matters such as child and adult protection, education, justice and policing. I realise that the legislative differences between Scotland and England are quite topical. The offence, for example, protecting people with epilepsy does not cover Scotland as Scottish law already covers this behaviour, as is the case with the new cyberflashing offence.

However, the Bill does give Scottish Ministers the powers to amend regulations relating to priority offences in Part 2 of Schedule 6. I think government amendments in the other place mean that Scotland’s hate crime Act will not affect what people can and cannot say online in the rest of the UK, since it was passed by a devolved authority without the Government’s consent. But I believe a loophole remains whereby a future Government could simply approve that or any other law that has been passed in Holyrood, so Nicola Sturgeon could still become the content moderator for the whole of the UK. How should online providers therefore respond where there are differences in legislation across the four nations?

Access to data is clearly essential to ensure that the dynamic landscape of online harms is understood in the Scottish context. I am thinking of issues for rural and remote communities, how online platforms respond to sectarian content, or understanding the online experiences of people with drug or gambling addictions. Are there any differences across the UK? In terms of the transparency reports required by the Bill, will Ofcom be able to see that data in a nation-specific way?

Scotland has a thriving gaming industry, but it is unclear if there is industry awareness or involvement in this Bill and its implications for gaming platforms. I declare an interest as a board member of Creative Scotland. Will the Minister elaborate on what consultation there has been with gaming companies across the UK, including in Scotland?

The Bill rightly recognises that children are a vulnerable group, but has thought been given to the definition of a child throughout the United Kingdom, because in Scotland it varies. The 2014 Act includes all children up to the age of 18, but there are instances where someone aged 16 may legally be treated as an adult, and other circumstances where disabled or care-experienced children can be included in children’s services until their 26th birthday. As other noble Lords have mentioned, people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities or mental health issues, people in care, people with addictions and many more of all ages could be classed as being vulnerable online. What is the data on looking at online harms from purely an age perspective?

I note that there is an obligation to consult disabled people on decision-making, but should not all those within the CRPD definition of disabled be within the scope of the consultation requirements of the Bill? I would like to see the consultation duties under Clauses 36 and 69 strengthened. I also support calls from other noble Lords for requirements to be placed on providers to risk-assess their customer base, and to provide basic safety settings set to “on” by default.

However, I do welcome the Bill. It is, as others have said, a landmark piece of legislation. We will be far better off with it on the statute book than we are now, but I hope we can get some of the details right as it makes its way through your Lordships’ House.

Music Education

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I too welcome the refreshed national plan for music education and warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Fleet on chairing the advisory panel and securing this important debate. I declare my various interests up front: I am a former pupil of a vocational school on the music and dance scheme; I am also a board member of Creative Scotland and my connections with health and disability organisations are laid out in the register.

There is a growing interest in the connection between arts and culture and health and well-being, which the national plan touches on, and today’s debate gives me the opportunity to speak to both of these strands. I am heartened that the plan includes a focus on young people with special educational needs and disabilities. As chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, I recognised Kira’s story, where the consistent, long-term provision of a combination of school and community-based music making, delivered by the charity the Music Man Project, enabled her to build understanding and confidence despite the challenges of living with quadriplegic cerebral palsy, as well as epilepsy, severe learning difficulties and blindness. Being ambitious for people living with such challenges and recognising the transformational capabilities of music and cultural engagement will enable more SEN children to shine. Music education can thus be an important means of tackling social inclusion.

However, I want to sound a note of caution because many of these programmes employ a mixed-income, multifunding model in partnership with third sector organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, argued strongly on the importance of these partnerships with music charities but, with ferocious competition for funding from grant-giving trusts and foundations, the Government should consider how such projects can continue to be delivered. Third sector organisations cannot fill all the gaps in provision and cannot continue to provide partnership support without sustainable funding.

In Scotland, music plays a very important part in our national identity and gives us a distinctive voice internationally. Music is one of the most popular subjects on our school curriculum; it is the sixth most popular Advanced Higher, whereas in England, I believe music is around only the 25th most popular A-level subject and is experiencing year-on-year decline. The evidence in Scotland indicates that music education is shaped by supply and not demand. There is an unmet demand of around 100,000 young people across Scotland, with not enough qualified teachers to ensure equality of provision. Teacher training, as my noble friend Lady Fleet outlined in her excellent introduction to this debate, is vital, and I am concerned that, while the plan speaks of supporting music educators through music hubs, demand may outstrip supply and, without inspirational music teachers, the ambitions of the plan may not be realised.

I also heartily support the final goal of the plan for children and young people with musical talent to have the opportunity to fulfil their potential, including professionally. Too often, financial support for excellence is downgraded; too often, the value of the arts is expressed only through the prism of health or education. The Music and Dance Scheme is vital to supporting talent, but it can only provide means-tested grants and help with fees—not uniform, travel or any other extras—at eight independent schools and 21 centres for advanced training. In reality, given the cost of living and inflationary pressures, these places are still out of reach for too many children. As my noble friend Lord Black pointed out, the music industry is indeed a burgeoning and successful commercial sector full of opportunity, and we should recognise the importance of the financial support for excellence to build and protect the talent pipeline as an effective investment in the future of our young people.

The plan, however, does not mention the potential of the many new revenue streams, such as streaming. Spotify has opened up boundless opportunities for young musicians not only to be heard but to make a good and sustained living. Streaming provides long-term income for thousands of musicians, big or small. Younger, tech-savvy musicians are able to build careers in completely new ways—but it is competitive, with 100,000 new songs released every day. You therefore need talent, and that must be inspired, taught and nurtured.

It is clear that, in many places, cultural education, cultural services and cultural institutions are under threat as never before. Years of successive budget cuts, at national and local levels, have taken a toll and, with more to come, there are real questions about sustainability. I welcome any focus on the importance of music in education, and I call for a focus not solely on music but on arts, culture and the creative industries as a whole. I therefore also welcome the announcement that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, is to chair the advisory panel for the upcoming cultural education plan, and I look forward to welcoming that plan, hopefully, in another debate on its publication next year. In the meantime, while I too join the chorus in welcoming the Minister back to his place—I am delighted to see him there—I urge him to do all he can to ensure that this plan does indeed become an action plan, as my noble friend Lady Fleet urged, and that the recommendations are acted upon by his department.

Broadcasting Sector White Paper

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, it remains the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to take forward the work that went into the White Paper.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, the independent television sector in Scotland is worth more than £300 million to our economy. I declare an interest as a board member of Creative Scotland. Why do a Conservative Government propose to undermine the successful and growing business model of entrepreneurial producers to create a bureaucratic, grant-giving, centrally directed levelling-up fund, and how would that fund support the regional production centres in any way more efficiently or successfully than the current ownership model of Channel 4?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My noble friend points to the success of independent production companies that are privately owned. We want to ensure that Channel 4, whose remit was to promote that important sector 40 years ago, is able to continue to commission from those companies at a time when costs are going up because of the greater budgets and commissioning spending of the American streaming giants.

Channel 4: Consultation

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The noble Lord speaks with great experience of the sector. I am about the same age as Channel 4; the environment in which it was launched in 1982 was very different from the environment now. The Government should never stand still when it comes to ensuring the success of our public service broadcasters and the growth of competitors such as Netflix, as the noble Lord mentioned. That is why it is appropriate to reflect on Channel 4’s future and consider whether the current model gives it the best chance to succeed in the new environment as we seek to ensure that it is set up for success for decades to come.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

I declare an interest as a board member of Creative Scotland. For producers in Scotland, Channel 4 is a key buyer. Regional independent production companies have said very clearly that they believe that the privatisation of Channel 4 will cause great harm to their businesses. What evidence does the Minister have that they are wrong and what reassurances can he give them for their future?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Channel 4’s access to networks outside London and its work with independent producers right across the UK are likely to be attractive assets that any potential buyer would nurture and develop. Whatever decision we take, however, will not compromise the Government’s commitment to the independent production industry. That is why we have consulted on these issues and are working through the responses to inform our decision-making.

Charities Bill [HL]

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. Charities are our society’s vital safety net, so it is important, to ensure public trust and confidence, that the regulatory and legislative framework relating to charities is up to date and fit for purpose.

I refer to my interests in that I am a trustee of charities. I am the chief executive of a Scottish charity, Cerebral Palsy Scotland, and a board member of the Scottish charity regulator, OSCR. I am speaking in a personal capacity.

A great deal of assurance is to be had from the extensive consultation with the sector and other interested parties before the Law Commission’s report was published, allowing a good level of confidence in the conclusions and recommendations coming out of that work. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said, and I love his description,

“I found that charities faced a number of historic obstacles under the current law. These unnecessary burdens on trustees act like barnacles on a boat, causing a drag when all should be plain sailing … Although its recommendations may appear to be highly technical, cumulatively I believe they would have a huge impact on the sector, helping trustees to work effectively in modern-day conditions.”

As the Minister said in her introduction, this is a highly technical Bill, but this is key and we should not apologise for it. It is simple and it has a clear purpose. We should do all we can to ensure that charity trustees can indeed work effectively in modern-day conditions. It is frustrating, as the Explanatory Notes to this Bill outline, that:

“Charities legislation is commonly perceived as being complicated, uncertain and in places unduly burdensome.”


The Bill removes some of the complexity and inconsistencies that have made English charity law difficult to apply and to regulate.

The past year and a half has brought the need for charities to be able to operate effectively into very sharp focus as they, like other organisations, have often been left with unprecedented challenges due to the pandemic but with the added challenge that, as statutory and other community services were closed or redeployed, many of them were left to deal with a perfect storm of how to meet the increased, and sometimes different, needs of their beneficiaries at a time of restrictions on their ability to operate services and reduced fundraising opportunities. The demands on trustees to be flexible and responsive and to make quick decisions has never been more crucial; I hope that this Bill will enable them to do so. It is very positive for the charity sector in England and Wales that the Government are proceeding with this legislation.

However, like my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, I am not clear why the Government rejected the recommendation from the Law Commission report that would make it easier for the Charity Commission to appeal to a tribunal on rulings of a point of law.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her explanation that the financial thresholds in this Bill will be regularly reviewed and will be reviewed in 2022. There are, however, a few points in the Bill that I would like further clarification on. I apologise in advance if these might be points better raised in Committee—please accept my relative newness in this position as my excuse.

As the aim of the Bill is to ensure that trustees can work without undue burdens, I am confused by Clause 6(3), which seeks to ensure that small gifts of £120 per year or under do not have to be returned to donors if the particular charitable purpose cannot be met. Only when you read the Explanatory Notes is it made clear that the £120 excludes gift aid, but there is no mention in the Explanatory Notes, for example, of other charges such as those incurred by online giving platforms for either the donor or the charity.

Also, the Explanatory Notes are helpful in explaining that, where such a gift is received from two or more parties, whether they are treated as an individual donor for the purposes of the total amount of the gift should be determined in each case. Can the Minister suggest an example of when it would be appropriate to treat such a gift as a single donation? Surely it would be much easier for charities to decide that, if two individuals have given a joint gift of, say, £240 in a financial year, it should be treated as two separate gifts of £120 so that they would never be eligible to return the donation under this clause.

In Clause 6(4), the donation does not have to be returned if, after the agreed actions are taken, the donor is not identified. It is quite common for charities not to be able to find their donors—the original donor may be deceased—so I completely support the intention of this subsection. However, is this where consideration should be given to the scale of gifts? Should charities perhaps be obliged to try to track down not just the donor but the next of kin or executors if the gift is of significant value and that value could be specified?

I move on to Clause 7, which also deals with failed fundraising appeals. Yes, fundraising appeals absolutely may fail, as per the illustration in the Explanatory Notes, or may exceed their targets—how wonderful. I am struck, however, by the fact that there is no mention anywhere in this clause of beneficiaries. The Bill states that funds should go towards purposes that are,

“so far as reasonably practicable, similar to the specific … purposes for which the money … was given”.

I also understand that trustees absolutely will want to ensure that decisions are

“effective in light of current social and economic circumstances”,

but it can be the case that beneficiaries are overlooked to ensure organisational sustainability. The duty of trustees to act in the charity’s best interests is not a direction to preserve the charity for its own sake, so I am keen that there are no grey areas on this matter, to the detriment of beneficiaries and purpose.

Turning to Part 3, I welcome the recognition of potential confusion about the working names of charities, as opposed to their formal names, and that these are being addressed. However, here, I am struck by the contrast between the regulatory regimes of England and Wales and those of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Charities in England and Wales have to register only if they have an income of more than £5,000 a year, although elsewhere all charities of any size are included on the charity register. This means that there may be more than 100,000 other organisations that are not on the Charity Commission’s register. How are these organisations to be covered by Part 3? Although I appreciate that the Charity Commission does not currently have the resources to deal with the additional burden, regulation and a register of all charities supports public trust and confidence. I cannot help but feel that the Bill is an opportunity missed on that front.

As your Lordships can imagine, with my Scottish charities’ focus I have scrutinised the Bill for any unintended consequences or adverse impacts on cross-border charities. The Minister will be pleased to hear that I have not spotted any, although I will be keeping a close eye on this as the Bill progresses. I am also aware that there are certain improvements in this legislation that could be beneficial to the sector in Scotland and which I hope the Scottish Government may wish to replicate, preferably sooner rather than later.

I look forward to continuing to scrutinise and support the Bill as it makes its way through the House. I commend its purpose to ensure the smooth running of our charitable sector.