Online Safety Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow other noble Lords who have spoken. I too support this key first amendment. Clarity of purpose is essential in any endeavour. The amendment overall sets out the Bill’s aims and enhances what will be vital legislation for the world, I hope, as well as for the United Kingdom. The Government have the very welcome ambition of making Britain the safest country in the world to go online. The OSB is a giant step in that direction.

As has been said, there has been remarkable consensus across the Committee on what further measures may still be needed to improve the Bill and on this first amendment, setting out these seven key purposes. Noble Lords may be aware that in the Christian tradition the number seven is significant: in the medieval period the Church taught the dangers of the seven deadly sins, the merits of the seven virtues and the seven acts of mercy. Please speak to me later if a refresher course is needed.

Amendment 1 identifies seven deadly dangers—I think they are really deadly. They are key risks which we all acknowledge are unwelcome and destructive companions of the new technologies which bring so many benefits: risks to public health or national security; the risk of serious harm to children; the risk of new developments and technologies not currently in scope; the disproportionate risk to those who manifest one or more protected characteristics; risks that occur through poor design; risks to freedom of expression and privacy; and risks that come with low transparency and low accountability. Safety and security are surely one of the primary duties of government, especially the safety and security of children and the vulnerable. There is much that is good and helpful in new technology but much that can be oppressive and destructive. These seven risks are real and present dangers. The Bill is needed because of actual and devastating harm caused to people and communities.

As we have heard, we are living through a period of rapid acceleration in the development of AI. Two days ago, CBS broadcast a remarkable documentary on the latest breakthroughs by Google and Microsoft. The legislation we craft in these weeks needs future-proofing. That can happen only through a clear articulation of purpose so that the framework provided by the Bill continues to evolve under the stewardship of the Secretary of State and of Ofcom.

I have been in dialogue over the past five years with tech companies in a variety of contexts and I have seen a variety of approaches, from the highly responsible in some companies to the frankly cavalier. Good practice, especially in design, needs stronger regulation to become uniform. I really enjoyed the analogy from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, a few minutes ago. We would not tolerate for a moment design and safety standards in aeroplanes, cars or washing machines which had the capacity to cause harm to people, least of all to children. We should not tolerate lesser standards in our algorithms and technologies.

There is no map for the future of technology and its use, even over the rest of this decade, but this amendment provides a compass—a fixed point for navigation in the future, for which future generations will thank this Government and this House. These seven deadly dangers need to be stated clearly in the Bill and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, to be a North Star for both the Secretary of State and Ofcom. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I too support this amendment. I was at a dinner last night in the City for a group of tech founders and investors—about 500 people in a big hotel ballroom, all focused on driving the sort of positive technology growth in this country that I think everyone wants to see. The guest speaker runs a large UK tech business. He commented in his speech that tech companies need to engage with government because—he said this as if it was a revelation—all Governments turned out not to speak with one voice and that understanding what was required of tech companies by Governments is not always easy. Business needs clarity, and anyone who has run a large or small business knows that it is not really the clarity in the detail that matters but the clarity of purpose that enables you to lead change, because then your people understand why they need to change, and if they understand why, then in each of the micro-decisions they take each day they can adjust those decisions to fit with the intent behind your purpose. That is why this amendment is so important.

I have worked in this space of online safety for more than a decade, both as a technology leader and in this House. I genuinely do not believe that business is wicked and evil, but what it lacks is clear direction. The Bill is so important in setting those guardrails that if we do not make its purpose clear, we should not be surprised if the very businesses which really do want Governments to be clear do not know what we intend.

I suspect that my noble friend the Minister might object to this amendment and say that it is already in the Bill. As others have already said, I actually hope it is. If it is not, we have a different problem. The point of an upfront summary of purpose is to do precisely that: to summarise what is in what a number of noble Lords have already said is a very complicated Bill. The easier and clearer we can make it for every stakeholder to engage in the Bill, the better. If alternatively my noble friend the Minister objects to the detailed wording of this amendment, I argue that that simply makes getting this amendment right even more important. If the four noble Lords, who know far more about this subject than I will ever do in a lifetime, and the joint scrutiny committee, which has done such an outstanding job at working through this, have got the purposes of the Bill wrong, then what hope for the rest of us, let alone those business leaders trying to interpret what the Government want?

That is why it is so important that we put the purposes of the Bill absolutely at the front of the Bill, as in this amendment. If we have misunderstood that in the wording, I urge my noble friend the Minister to come back with wording on Report that truly encapsulates what the Government want.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to clarify the purposes of the Bill, but I am not sure that the amendment helps as my North Star. Like the Bill, it throws up as many questions as answers, and I found myself reading it and thinking “What does that word mean?”, so I am not sure that clarity was where I ended up.

It is not a matter of semantics, but in some ways you could say—and certainly this is as publicly understood—that the name of the Bill, the Online Safety Bill, gives it its chief purpose. Yet however well-intentioned, and whatever the press releases say or the headlines print, even a word such as “safety” is slippery, because safety as an end can be problematic in a free society. My worry about the Bill is unintended consequences, and that is not rectified by the amendment. As the Bill assumes safety as the ultimate goal, we as legislators face a dilemma. We have the responsibility of weighing up the balance between safety and freedom, but the scales in the Bill are well and truly weighted towards safety at the expense of freedom before we start, and I am again not convinced the amendment weights them back again.

Of course, freedom is a risky business, and I always like the opportunity to quote Karl Marx, who said:

“You cannot pluck the rose without its thorns!”


However, it is important to recognise that “freedom” is not a dirty word, and we should avoid saying that risk-free safety is more important than freedom. How would that conversation go with the Ukrainian people who risk their safety daily for freedom? Also, even the language of safety, or indeed what constitutes the harms that the Bill and the amendments promise to keep the public safe from, need to be considered in the cultural and social context of the norms of 2023. A new therapeutic ethos now posits safety in ever-expanding pseudo-psychological and subjective terms, and this can be a serious threat to free speech. We know that some activists often exploit that concept of safety to claim harm when they merely encounter views they disagree with. The language of safety and harm is regularly used to cancel and censor opponents—and the Government know that, so much so that they considered it necessary to introduce the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill to secure academic freedom against an escalating grievance culture that feigns harm.

Part of the triple shield is a safety duty to remove illegal content, and the amendment talks about speech within the law. That sounds unobjectionable—in my mind it is far better than “legal but harmful”, which has gone—but, while illegality might sound clear and obvious, in some circumstances it is not always clear. That is especially true in any legal limitations of speech. We all know about the debates around hate speech, for example. These things are contentious offline and even the police, in particular the College of Policing, seem to find the concept of that kind of illegality confusing and, at the moment, are in a dispute with the Home Secretary over just that.

Is it really appropriate that this Bill enlists and mandates private social media companies to judge criminality using the incredibly low bar of “reasonable grounds to infer”? It gets even murkier when the legal standard for permissible speech online will be set partly by compelling platforms to remove content that contravenes their terms and conditions, even if these terms of service restrict speech far more than domestic UK law does. Big tech is being incited to censor whatever content it wishes as long as it fits in with their Ts & Cs. Between this and determining, for example, what is in filters—a whole different issue—one huge irony here, which challenges one of the purposes of the Bill, is that despite the Government and many of us thinking that this legislation will de-fang and regulate big tech’s powers, actually the legislation could inadvertently give those same corporates more control of what UK citizens read and view.

Another related irony is that the Bill was, no doubt, designed with Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google, TikTok and WhatsApp in mind. However, as the Bill’s own impact assessment notes, 80% of impacted entities have fewer than 10 employees. Many sites, from Wikipedia to Mumsnet, are non-profit or empower their own users to make moderation or policy decisions. These sites, and tens of thousands of British businesses of varying sizes, perhaps unintentionally, now face an extraordinary amount of regulatory red tape. These onerous duties and requirements might be actionable if not desirable for larger platforms, but for smaller ones with limited compliance budgets they could prove a significant if not fatal burden. I do not think that is the purpose of the Bill, but it could be an unintended outcome. This also means that regulation could, inadvertently, act as barrier to entry to new SMEs, creating an ever more monopolistic stronghold for big tech, at the expense of trialling innovations or allowing start-ups to emerge.

I want to finish with the thorny issue of child protection. I have said from the beginning—I mean over the many years since the Bill’s inception—that I would have been much happier if it was more narrowly titled as the Children’s Online Safety Bill, to indicate that protecting children was its sole purpose. That in itself would have been very challenging. Of course, I totally agree with Amendment 1’s intention

“to provide a higher level of protection for children than for adults”.

That is how we treat children and adults offline.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to follow so many powerful speeches. My second daughter was born in the year Facebook launched in the UK and Apple sold its first iPhone. Today she is 15; she has lived her whole life in a digitally enabled world. She has undoubtedly benefited from the great things that digital technology brings, but, throughout that life, she has had no meaningful legal protection from its harms.

A number of noble Lords have referenced the extraordinarily moving and disturbing briefing that Ian Russell and his lawyer, Merry Varney, gave us on Monday. When I went home from that briefing, first, I hugged my two teenage girls really close, and then I talked to them about it. My 15 year-old daughter said, “Mum, of course, I know about Molly Russell and all the awful content there is on social media. Didn’t you realise? When are all you adults going to realise what’s going on and do something about it?” The Bill is important, because it is the beginning of us doing something about it.

It is also a huge Bill, so we need to be careful not to let perfect be the enemy of the good. Like other noble Lords, I urge this House to focus on the critical areas where we can improve this already much debated and discussed Bill and try to resist the temptation to attach so many baubles to it that it no longer delivers on its core purpose of protecting our children online. So, like others, I will focus my remarks on three structural changes that I hope will help make the Bill more effective at driving the positive changes that, I think, everyone in this House intends: first, the consequences for senior managers of not complying with the legislation; secondly, how compliance is defined and by whom; and, finally, which services are included.

To change digital platforms and services to protect children is not impossible—but it is hard, and it will not happen by itself. Tech business models are simply too driven by other things; development road maps are always too contested with revenue-raising projects, and competition for clicks is just too intense. So we need to ask ourselves whether the incentives in the Bill to drive compliance are strong enough to counter the very strong incentives not to.

It is clear that self-regulation will not work, and relying on corporate fines is also not enough. We have learned in other safety-critical industries and sectors that have needed dramatic culture change, such as financial services, that fines alone do not drive change. However, once you name an individual as responsible for something, with serious consequences if they fail, change happens. I look forward to the government amendment that I hope will clearly set out the consequences for named senior managers who do not deliver on their overall online safety responsibilities.

The second area I highlight is how compliance is defined. Specifically, the powers that the Bill grants the Secretary of State to amend Ofcom’s proposed code of conduct are far too wide. Just as with senior tech managers, the political incentives not to focus on safety are too strong. Almost every Minister I have ever met is keen to support tech sector growth. Giving the Secretary of State the ability to change codes of conduct for economic reasons is asking them to trade off economic growth against children’s safety—the same trade-off that tech companies have failed to make over the last 15 years. That is not right, it is not fair on the Ministers themselves, and it will not deliver the child protections we are looking for.

The third area I will cover—I will be very brief—has been highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It is important that we capture all the services that are accessed by children. If not, we risk creating a dangerous false sense of security. Specifically, I am worried about why app stores are not covered. In the physical world—I say this as an erstwhile retailer—retailers have long come to terms with the responsibilities they bear for ensuring that they do not sell age-restricted products to children. Why are we shying away from the same thing in the digital world?

There are many other things I would support, not least the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I finish by simply saying that the most important thing is that the Bill is here. We need to do this work—our children and grandchildren have waited far too long.

BBC: Future Funding (Communications and Digital Committee Report)

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Friday 16th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in the debate, although I fear that I will have no anecdotes to come close to those of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Stowell on her excellent introduction and comprehensive summary of the report, and on her outstanding chairing of the Select Committee, on which it has been a privilege to serve.

As my noble friend said, there is a real danger that the subject—the funding of a treasured national institution—will very quickly become polarised and political, and that any challenge to the status quo is seen as an existential threat to the institution itself. We have exactly the same problem in our debates on another beloved institution, the NHS: that suggesting reform can risk being accused of not believing in the principle of the institution. What has been hugely encouraging about the way the Communications and Digital Committee has developed the report, under my noble friend’s excellent leadership, is that we have been able to move away from those kinds of debates and false polarisation.

As the report and today’s debate have so clearly set out, we all fundamentally and passionately believe in the BBC. As many of us said in the recent debate to mark 100 years of the BBC, we all want to see it thrive for another 100 years and beyond; and—not “but”—we are also clear, as the title of the report suggests, that, for the BBC to continue to command the broad support of the population, change is needed. In fact, as the title says, we want to give the BBC licence to change.

The most important reason why the status quo is not an option is precisely because the BBC is so important to our society, democracy and country. As a number of noble Lords have said, technology is driving huge change in society in general, and in our media in particular—some good, and some not so good. Technology connects us directly with people all over the world who share our interests and enables us to access an extraordinary array of content on multiple platforms and devices. However, at the same time, our children and grandchildren face online threats that were inconceivable when we were growing up; the echo chambers of social media are making it harder for people to have civilised debate on our political differences; and the fragmentation of audiences is making it ever harder for a mid-sized media organisation such as the BBC to thrive.

The pandemic and the Ukraine war have brought soaring inflation, and, with that, hardship, uncertainty and fear. That all means that institutions and ways of living that bind our society together are even more important than they were before, so a healthy BBC really matters. It is a public service media organisation that has a mandate of universality to inform, educate and entertain all of us in some way or other, and it brings us all together when it really matters. It helps us to articulate the values we hold dear in our country, acting as national glue in an increasingly fragmented and social media-driven world. However, to do that, the BBC needs to remain genuinely relevant and valued, which means that it needs to change with the times. Change is hard for everyone; the older you get, the harder the change gets. If you are a 100 year-old and much-loved national institution, there is no doubt that change can be quite hard to face into.

I would like to use my speech to highlight three areas that the report draws attention to where the BBC needs to change. The first and most obvious, given the title of the report and its subject matter, is the way in which the BBC is funded. The current funding mechanism is not sustainable. My children’s generation find it baffling that they need a TV licence when they leave home to go to university without a television. If they want to watch anything, they are not watching on a television, as they do not own one, but we expect them to pay something linked to a TV set. It is not surprising that that generation is the least engaged group of BBC viewers. Linking funding to the ownership of a television set will be ever less justifiable—and this matters, because for a BBC to remain relevant to all, the way we pay for it must be relevant and justifiable to all of us. Changing the funding mechanism, as many others have said this morning, is not going to be easy, but not changing sends the BBC down a certain path where gradually it becomes less and less relevant to society.

The report sets out the pros and cons of the various options. It is clear that an advertising model or full-subscription model would not be financially sustainable or consistent with a mandate of universality. Some form of levy will likely be necessary. We are not the first country to face this transition of funding our public service broadcaster based on the TV set and moving towards some form of levy, and there is much to learn from Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries. One of the biggest learnings, as the noble Lord, Lord Hall, highlighted, is that this takes time. If we are going to do this, we need to get started. Even to be in a position to make a decision for the next charter renewal period, we do not have much time left. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm what the timetable is that gets us to a decision point with ample opportunity for full public consultation and debate in time for the next charter renewal?

Secondly, I would like to address how the BBC delivers on its commitment to universality. I know that the BBC reaches 75% of 16 to 34 year-olds each week, but TikTok is ahead of it with 16 to 24 year-olds. We heard directly from young people in Salford and from people of all ages from other communities outside the elite metropolitan bubble we live in here that they do not feel that the BBC fully reflects them and their interests. Just as how we pay for the BBC must reflect modern society, of course the content really needs to too. I appreciate that this is not easy, and cannot mean that the BBC tries to literally be all things to all people. Choices need to be made, and made wisely. But I worry that the BBC leadership finds it hard to admit the scale of this challenge for fear of the debate really being existential. I think the opposite is true: the only thing that could present an existential threat to the BBC is a failure to acknowledge the need to improve and therefore not to listen hard enough to those communities’ needs. The BBC should be more open about the challenges it faces in delivering for all communities and work ever harder to address them.

Thirdly, we need the BBC to lead us in this overall work. It was encouraging, as my noble friend said, to see the recent speech made by the BBC director-general at the television conference and hear that he is aiming to make the BBC a digitally-led public service media company. But one speech does not deliver it, nor does one speech give us sufficient clarity on the BBC’s long term vision and plan to inform, educate and entertain us in the digital era. I know that the director-general is right that no organisation on the planet has delivered a successful digital transformation without investment, but no investment proposal should be approved without a compelling long-term vision and plan. We need the BBC to be brave and to set that out for us. That is hard to do if you think the real debate is about your existence—but it is not, and should not be. It is about how the BBC thrives and continues to play a central role in our society for the next 100 years.

Public Service Broadcasting: BBC Centenary

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating and welcoming my noble friend back to his rightful place on the Front Bench. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for securing this debate.

I declare my interests in the register and, if noble Lords will forgive me, I will highlight a correction recently made to them. I have been undertaking work for Vitrifi Ltd, a telecoms business that is part of a fund managed by Octopus Ventures, which I had incorrectly declared as working for Octopus Ventures. My entry in the register now accurately reflects that I am working directly for Vitrifi, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive my inaccurate previous statement.

As many noble Lords have said, public service broadcasting and broadcasters enjoy broad public support. Inquiries by committees of both Houses have consistently found support not just for the principles of public service broadcasting but for the programmes themselves. But the world is very different from 100 years ago, when the BBC was born—both the media landscape and British society. We no longer sit in our living rooms, watching linear broadcast channels all together as a single family unit on the single family TV set: the landscape is now multimedia, multidevice and multiplatform. We have and need public service media, not just public service broadcasters.

Society is also very different from 100 years ago: it is more diverse and more open. Our digital native children and grandchildren access media completely differently from the way that we in this Chamber do and did. As we heard, viewing of BBC channels, for example, by 16 to 34 year-olds has halved over the last 10 years, according to our Communications and Digital Committee report. So, if we value public service broadcasters—I do not think that anyone has spoken today from a position other than valuing them—we should not be afraid of change. In fact, I would argue that updating and changing to reflect the modern world is essential to maintain the public glue and the very value that we all hold so dear in our public service broadcasters.

Noble Lords may call me naive, but I worry that in public debate we too quickly move to hero or villain. It is very hard for individuals and institutions to admit mistakes or that that they could do better without immediately being castigated as the villain. It is also very hard to take risks and to change if you are put on a pedestal as the hero. It is entirely possible both to be incredibly proud of an organisation, its role in society and its performance and to acknowledge that it can and should change and do better.

That is where I am about public service broadcasters in the round. Our PSBs are one of the things that hold our country together. Like many of my fellow citizens, I am incredibly proud of them. I watch and love their content, and I think they could do better. Indeed, we could help them do better. There is something for all of us in helping them to do that. As a number of noble Lords have said, legislation is clearly needed to recognise that existing rules that worked in a linear TV and radio world need to be updated to reflect the digital age of streaming and global tech platforms. Clearly, prominence rules need to be updated, but we also need things such as the Digital Markets Unit in Ofcom to be put on a firm legal footing. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that that legislation will be coming soon.

There is clearly work for government to do as well. It needs to face into the difficult decision of funding the BBC. Our generation here today might just about be able to get our heads around a licence fee being linked to a television set, but that is impossible for my children, who consume almost all their media on other devices. I fear we risk the credibility of our system of funding the BBC by tethering it to an increasingly anachronistic model of media consumption—that of just the television set. I do not pretend that replacing the licence fee as it stands today is easy, but just ignoring the need for change is definitely not the answer.

As a number of noble Lords have said, the public service broadcasters themselves must work much harder to appeal to all groups, especially young people and those from more diverse backgrounds, both urban and rural. As with the funding decisions, this is really easy to say, but it is much harder to do well. That is what will mark out successful public service broadcasters and media organisations worldwide. It is those which develop platforms and programmes that make us all feel welcome and have something for all of us to treasure that will flourish in the future. We need our wonderful public service broadcasters to stand up to that challenge.

We as parliamentarians have a role to play as well. Our public service broadcasters are the envy of the free world, and it has been all too fashionable to bash many of the establishment organisations in this country. It is hugely important that we do not fall into that trap. Nor should we put them on a pedestal. Our role as parliamentarians should be to be hugely proud of our public service broadcasters but also to challenge them to do an even better job. One hundred years ago, it was the most fantastic moment that the BBC was born. We need to both respect and challenge our PSBs to deliver for another 100 years ahead.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, before I begin to speak to this group, I declare my interest as a land and business owner in Wales with various wayleaves.

In Committee, several of your Lordships expressed support for an amendment to facilitate the more effective use of telegraph poles situated on private land. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay explained that the Government were looking into this. Subsequent discussions with stakeholders clarified the significant benefits to which changes in this area can lead and the barriers that currently prevent apparatus such as telegraph poles being used to their best effect.

I also thank my noble friend Lady Harding, whose insightful contributions have been of great assistance. Based on these discussions, I am pleased to bring forward Amendment 18 to improve the existing regime which regulates overhead networks contained in Part 11 of the code.

Before turning to the amendment itself, I will explain how Part 11 operates. Part 11 confers rights on operators to keep apparatus on or over land. I will refer to them as main operators. The apparatus with which this part is concerned is typically telegraph poles.

The rights conferred by Part 11 permit these main operators to install and keep lines connected to their poles, which may also pass over neighbouring land. These rights are automatic but subject to specific height restrictions, a notice requirement and a right to object in certain circumstances. However, while the Part 11 regime allows a main operator to fly lines from these poles, it does not permit them to upgrade or carry out works to the poles that may be needed to deliver gigabit-capable connections—for example, running cable wire from the base of the pole to the top. Similarly, the regime does not permit operators other than the main operator to fly their own lines from the poles, creating an obstacle to apparatus sharing.

Amendment 18 is designed to address both gaps. It extends the right in paragraph 74 of the Electronic Communications Code to install and keep lines to operators other than the main operator, provided that the main operator consents to this, subject to the same height restrictions, notice requirement and right to object already in place for the main operator. Sharing the use of these poles will not only speed up the pace of deployment but reduce the need for additional installations and their associated impacts. In addition, the amendment will confer new rights on either operator to upgrade or carry out any other works to the pole so that the lines flown from them can deliver gigabit-capable connections.

Among other things, this change will ensure that, as my noble friend Lady Harding raised at Second Reading, the benefits of other rights that we are introducing to permit greater sharing of underground ducts will extend to overhead networks, by allowing upgraded fibre from such ducts to be rolled up the pole and subsequently strung between the poles to deliver gigabit connections.

The new rights will be subject to specific conditions, intended to protect the interests of individuals affected by them. First, exercise of these rights cannot have more than a minimal adverse impact on the appearance of the pole. Secondly, exercise of these rights cannot have more than a minimal adverse impact on the land on which the pole is kept. Thirdly, these rights cannot be used to carry out works that will cause loss, damage or expense to any person with an interest in the land on which the pole is kept.

In addition to the above, operators entering land on which a pole is kept, to exercise any Part 11 right, must have the occupier’s permission. This does not need to be a written agreement, but it is important that operators obtain consent before entering private land, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Harding in Committee. For main operators, access rights may already be in place but, where they are not and where other operators wish to exercise their new rights, permission to enter the land must be obtained. I beg to move.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare a new interest as an adviser on the telecoms market to Octopus Ventures. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harlech on his new role and welcome my noble friend Lord Kamall to a small, select club of people with a shared passion for healthcare and telegraph poles. One can find a number of us in the Chamber today. I thank both my noble friends, and the staff in DCMS, for the extremely constructive way that they have approached this Bill and thank my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the predecessor of my noble friend Lord Kamall, for his excellent work on this Bill and more broadly on the DCMS brief.

I am encouraged by this amendment and very grateful for it. It addresses the specific issue that I and others raised in Committee. With that, I also thank my noble friends Lord Vaizey and Lady Stowell, the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for their work. This might be a small and technical amendment, but it has been a real team effort.

I have two clarifying questions. As we discussed in Committee, the devil is in the detail of this, and we share the same goal of being able to lay the fibre cable up the telegraph pole and from one pole to another. Perhaps your Lordships will humour my two very specific questions. First, the amendment gives operators the right to share the existing pole infrastructure

“with the agreement of the main operator.”

Can the Minister explain what proof of permission from a main operator an operator wishing to avail themselves of these provisions will be required to secure? Also, how easy will it be for them to do so? For example, will the normal provisions of PIA be an acceptable route to do that?

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, if my noble friend Lady Harding is not in the Chamber—I was not expecting to do this—I will move the amendment on her behalf. I look to other noble Lords whose names are on this amendment to introduce it more comprehensively than I can. I just want to get this debate going, because I know that there is broad support across the Chamber for Amendment 18. Noble Lords may remember that I expressed my support on this matter when it was referred to at Second Reading, because it is of benefit to all telecoms operators. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise. I rise to speak to Amendment 18 in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lord Vaizey, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for putting their names to it. I apologise—I am slightly breathless, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, gave us a little bit of disinformation about today’s Order Paper.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I beg your Lordships’ pardon—the moving of the Statement on the Metropolitan Police was not communicated to several of us.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

Many apologies. I also thank my noble friend Lady Stowell, who I was not expecting to see, but who has been extremely helpful already this afternoon. I promise I will be brief. The aim of this amendment is to address an issue that other noble Lords and I raised on Second Reading: ensuring that the Bill enables the sharing of pre-2017 poles on private land without requiring an additional wayleave, just as it does for ducts on private land. This may sound very detailed—it is—but will substantially speed up the rollout of full-fibre broadband, on which we are all agreed.

There are an estimated 1 million-plus telegraph poles on private land. Access to them is particularly important in accelerating fibre rollout in rural England and urban Scotland. As with ducts, these poles are regulated under Ofcom’s PIA mechanism. That means that any operator is able to access those poles, so extending the provision to pre-2017 poles on private land would allow all operators to speed up their rollout equally. Without this, operators will have to dig up streets or put up new poles, which will slow down the rollout in the very parts of the country that suffer some of the slowest broadband speeds, based on copper.

There is clear consensus across the industry that the Bill needs to make this possible. I understand that the Digital Infrastructure Minister recently received a letter from all the major operators and trade bodies, asking that this issue be resolved and clearly stating the public benefit that doing so would bring. There is cross-party support for the amendment, and at Second Reading my noble friend the Minister was clear that he was keen to look into the matter very closely. However, as drafted, the Bill does not actually solve the problem. There is no explicit right in the Bill to access the pole or install equipment on it. My amendment is relatively simple and seeks to set that straight. It is limited in scope.

By extending the rights granted under the existing paragraph 74 of the code, these powers would be a code right and therefore apply equally to all operators. That is a really important principle in maintaining the Government’s pro-competition policy. By explicitly including the right to carry out

“works to install, maintain and keep such lines and other reasonably associated apparatus”,

this amendment ensures that there is a right for limited works only and apparatus that is associated only with flying lines between poles. It will not allow large, unsightly or unassociated apparatus to be put on the poles, so there would be very limited visual impact. In fact, it is important to remember that technology is getting smaller all the time; a number of these telegraph poles already have equipment on them, so this would most probably reduce the visual impact rather than increase it.

This amendment also protects the rights of landowners. It grants limited additional rights for operators on how they use the poles. It does not give operators additional rights to get to the pole in people’s back gardens. Landowners would still need to give their consent—that could be a simple verbal agreement—to allow an engineer to enter the property. This amendment does not intend to change that.

With over 1 million poles on private land today, this small and straightforward amendment would significantly increase the rollout of full fibre, on which we all agree. I ask my noble friend to tell us that he agrees that the Bill must be amended to do this. I am not precious about the specific wording or the exact amendment. I understand that DCMS lawyers have some concerns about whether the wording achieves our aim of going up the pole and putting the necessary equipment on it, but I have not seen any alternative proposals. I hope my noble friend will take this amendment in the constructive way in which it is intended. If he has concerns about the specific wording, I hope we will be able to work together between Committee and Report to bring back an amendment that delivers the outcome that I believe we all agree on.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, a cup of tea lies gently cooling in the tea room, unpaid for as I sprinted to move my amendment—and failed to arrive in time. It would never do for me to blame the Liberal Democrats for the mess that I find myself in; I take entire responsibility for not following with due care the moving of the Statement on the Metropolitan Police. Although the finely crafted Amendments 17A and 17B will not be debated, I have the chance to address at least some of the issues they raise in my response to my noble friend Lady Harding’s excellent exposition of Amendment 18.

We are talking about the ability to upgrade telecoms infrastructure. It is worth taking a step back to think about what the Bill is about in its focus on telecoms infrastructure and reform of the Electronic Communications Code. As I pointed out at Second Reading, when I was a Minister I had the opportunity to change the Electronic Communications Code, and I freely admit that I did so after extensive representations from infrastructure providers of all kinds who made the point that the rents that they were being charged by landowners, both in the countryside and on buildings, were extremely high and were affecting their ability to invest in infrastructure. The time had come to redress the balance so that the rents charged were proportionate to the investment being made in infrastructure. However, in the Bill we are trying to revise it further so that the infrastructure can be upgraded much more easily. We find ourselves in a slightly invidious position where, every time a telecoms provider wants to upgrade the existing infrastructure, in theory it has to start all over again on how it negotiates the rents.

Amendment 18, and, had they been moved, Amendments 17A and 17B, address essentially the same issue, which is existing infrastructure and the ability to upgrade it with as little fuss as possible. All of us in this House know that telecoms infrastructure is constantly being modernised and changed. Indeed, sometimes political issues come into play: for example, the decision to remove Huawei from our telecoms infrastructure will require a great deal of changes to existing infrastructure.

It is quite clear that all the infrastructure providers and indeed the Government support some kind of amendment that will allow infrastructure providers to upgrade infrastructure on telegraph poles. That is without dispute. The question we face is whether we can craft a suitable amendment that balances the rights of landowners and infrastructure providers to allow that to happen as smoothly as possible. What I find strange is the fact that multi-dwelling units do not attract the same support. However, I think I understand why telegraph poles are uncontroversial and multi-dwelling units controversial. That is because of a perceived monopoly of Openreach in multi-dwelling units but not telegraph poles. As my noble friend pointed out, telegraph poles fall under the public interest infrastructure access regulations, which means that a telegraph pole that is, as it were, owned by Openreach but on somebody’s land can still be accessed by a competitor, whereas a multi-dwelling unit cannot be accessed where Openreach has its infrastructure.

I ask the Minister again to take a step back and think about the purpose of the Bill and what he and his colleagues are trying to achieve in terms of the £5 billion subsidy to support the upgrading of infrastructure to full fibre, particularly in rural areas. As I said on Second Reading, this is all about planning, not about technology. It is trying to remove as far as possible all the obstacles that exist when it comes to planning. The Minister must ask himself: what is the reality on the ground? It is that Openreach is indeed present in many premises where its competitors are not. There are something like 1.5 million multi-dwelling units in this country that are at risk of not being upgraded because people cannot get access. Openreach tells me that there are something like 620,000 flats to which it has not been able to gain access and 165,000 flats where it has had no response from landlords at all for six months. Those flats will be left out if we do not consider the position of multi-dwelling units. That is not the subject of this amendment but I posit that it is exactly a parallel case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

As I am explaining, we think that the views from other operators point out that my noble friend’s amendment, which was not moved, would create an unfair advantage for operators who already have equipment; that would itself be anti-competitive. Given that the amendment was not put and, as I hope he has heard, would have been resisted in any case—certainly from the Liberal Democrat Benches—perhaps it may be best if he and I discuss it over a cup of tea, which he can add to his tab, between now and Report. I hope that he will not feel it necessary to bring these amendments back on Report.

On Amendment 18 regarding telegraph poles, while reassuring noble Lords that we will continue to look at this actively, I hope that my noble friend Lady Harding —or my noble friend Lady Stowell, who moved it—will be happy to withdraw that amendment for now.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

 I rise, somewhat hesitantly, having consulted the oracle that is the former Leader of this House, to respond. I thank my noble friend for that response. As a brief aside, I am pleased to hear his conviction and belief in competition before we come back on Report, if we do, to the amendments that have not been debated.

I am cautiously optimistic that we will find a solution to this. I was slightly worried when I heard my noble friend say “if” we bring something back, rather than when. I would feel considerably more optimistic about solving this problem if I had heard him say “when”. I would also feel a bit more optimistic if I had heard him say that he and the department will be considering alternatives, rather than observing and watching. We have been observing and watching since Second Reading, and the department has proposed no alternatives to my amendment. I look forward to some more active discussions about alternatives to the amendment but, on that basis, I am happy to withdraw it.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, may I make one additional comment? Despite my noble friend Lord Vaizey thinking I am personally responsible for mobile investment and pricing, I should like to put on the record that TalkTalk did not do anything to mobile pricing; it is a fixed-line broadband provider, not a mobile provider.

Regardless, I should like to make a serious point about competition. The noble Earl made the point that we should believe in a free market, which I definitely do. I firmly believe that competition will get to the right answer, but completely unfettered, unregulated infrastructure markets do not drive competition—they drive the opposite. That is one reason I am really concerned about the multi-dwelling unit amendment that we did not debate, because that risks the absence of competition.

In the same way, I support my noble friend Lord Vaizey because if we do not have a regulated approach to the valuation, we will find not the domination of big mobile companies but the monopoly control of individual landowners, particularly when there is already a mobile mast on their site, as they have a complete monopoly control of that site. It is important that we find a balance because there is power on both sides of this relationship. Big is not always the most powerful. I say that having learned that myself at TalkTalk. I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Vaizey. This is not as one-sided as this debate has perhaps felt.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, the issue of valuation, as we have heard clearly today, generates one of the most significant ranges of concerns. Noble Lords have been extremely helpful in unpacking the issues, whichever side they may be on in this debate. I will focus on Amendment 21, which I am pleased to have tabled. It seeks to guide courts in relation to the appropriate reduction in rents paid by operators to landowners. The amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the Government’s previous indication that losses would be confined to something in the order of 40% maximum. I will confine my comments to that point.

When the Government reformed the code in 2017, Ministers indicated that, although landowners would lose out overall, they could expect to receive some 60% of the sum to which they had become accustomed. As we have heard in this debate, losing 40% of proceeds, despite exactly the same access rights being granted to operators, is quite a situation to contend with. As discussed at Second Reading, cases have been cited where reductions reached some 90%.

I am aware that the campaign group Speed Up Britain has objected to the quoted figure of 90%, citing industry figures that show an average rental reduction of 63%. However, even that is substantially higher than the 40% promised by the Government, which has led to many churches, village halls, sports clubs, farmers and even hospitals scratching their heads, trying to make sense of the situation.

We all know that we need the infrastructure; that was made clear by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. We want that infrastructure quickly, but we also want an appropriate balance of the rights and responsibilities of both telecoms operators and landowners. It is not a convincing argument that lower rents automatically mean higher investment in infrastructure. I am sure that is a discussion we will return to during the eighth group for debate today.

Our Amendment 21 is but one suggestion and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has brought forward a number of his own. I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing his expertise to bear in addressing these issues. I certainly hope the Minister will engage in his usual considerate way with all the propositions put before the Committee. I also appreciate the amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is also seeking to ensure fairness and balance between the parties.

So I hope the Minister will address a point that he made at Second Reading and that is relevant today. He suggested that rent reductions were likely to be compensated for—not directly but as a matter of degree —by funds allocated under other DCMS schemes. It would be helpful if he could provide the figures to back that up; I realise that that requires considerable detail, so he could perhaps respond not today but subsequently, in writing.

The list of case studies grows day by day and, given this, many people are asking why the Government did not stand by their original commitment to a maximum reduction of 40%. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments and respond to that question.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the Bill. This is very technical legislation, but technical does not make for unimportant, even today. In fact, my experience in business is that it is in the detailed technical and operational delivery that businesses succeed or fail—and when it comes to building national infrastructure, the same is true.

The strategy is relatively easy. I spent seven years as the chief executive of a telecoms company and, during that time and in the five years since, I have not found any community, business or politician who wants a different outcome. Everyone wants ubiquitously available, safe to use, affordable and, above all, high-speed connectivity at home, at work and on the move, on an ever-increasing number of devices, everywhere. The direction of travel is not up for debate. What is are the technical details to get us there as effectively as possible, which is what this Bill is about. As technical and detailed as it may be, it is none the less extremely important. It is in the shaping of these detailed laws and regulations that we determine whether we have the effective digital connectivity that we are all so agreed upon.

I am supportive of both parts of the Bill and will speak very briefly on the first half, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, is, I suspect, less contentious. I will then speak in more detail about the second half.

I am pleased to see in Part 1 a clear framework for regulating the security of connected devices. I have been involved in a related area of digital regulation—child internet safety—for over a decade, and that experience has taught me that it is necessary to put regulation on to a legal footing. For far too long, technology companies have tried to persuade us that self-regulation is the right route for the digital world, yet we are seeing in every area of digital, as here, that self-regulation leads to no regulation and that we need to do our job as legislators and set the rules of the game. The digital world is really no different from the physical world, where responsible capitalism works best when we set legal guardrails and encourage commercial creativity and innovation within them. As such, I welcome Part 1.

Turning to Part 2, even those stakeholders concerned about it are united in their agreement that enabling the rapid and effective build-out of mobile and fixed digital connectivity is an essential part of modern society. The devil really is in the detail here. I believe the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting property owners’ rights and the broader benefits to the whole of society of speeding up the delivery of faster connectivity.

Again, we should take our cues from the physical world. The Government are right not to move away from the changes in valuation methodology made in 2017, bringing telecoms infrastructure in line with other much older physical utilities, and right to extend this approach to renewals. I appreciate that this has meant a material reduction in rent, but as telecoms matures, surely it is fair to consumers, and ultimately landowners, to treat it in the same way as other essential utilities.

It is also important that, wherever possible, we enable rather than restrict competition in the building of these telecoms networks. When I first came into the industry in 2010, BT was not investing at all in building full-fibre networks. For the best part of a decade, the UK lagged behind many other countries because BT preferred to upgrade its copper, in large part because there was no credible threat to its Openreach-monopoly copper infrastructure. We are in a very different position today, with several alternative fibre providers building scale networks, which is providing consumer choice and spurring on Openreach to invest. It is in the detailed changes to telecoms regulation that this has been made possible; among other things, by forcing Openreach to make its ducts and poles open to alternative providers.

This physical infrastructure access—or PIA, to those of us in the industry—is a very important ingredient in speeding up the rollout of fibre broadband. It has enabled competition, which in turn is driving investment. As currently drafted, the Bill extends the effectiveness of PIA by allowing the sharing of existing ducts under private land, which will significantly speed up and extend rollout, and resolves the anomaly of different rules for cable duct infrastructure if built before or after 2017. However, it is not clear how telegraph poles are treated. This is where the detail starts to really matter. I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify that operators cannot only lay cable to a telegraph pole and string fibre in the air between poles but can roll fibre up the pole itself. That may seem obvious, but if we do not get this sort of detail right in regulations, you cannot build the connectivity.

Another key area where we need to be careful about protecting competition is in access to multiple-dwelling units, or MDUs. I have huge sympathy with Members of the other place who have proposed amendments aimed at making it easier for Openreach to fibre-enable blocks of flats where it is having trouble contacting landlords. It is so important that we do not exacerbate existing non-digital inequalities in the digital world, which is exactly what happens when the fibre rollout goes past blocks of flats in many communities across London and other cities.

But—and it is a big “but”—there is a very big difference between the cabling in multiple-dwelling units and the ducts and poles in rural areas. Ducts and poles are now part of the PIA regime I mentioned earlier, so competing fibre providers can all use them. Openreach’s existing copper cables in multiple-dwelling units are its to use alone, so relaxing the rules for Openreach in MDUs such that it does not need permission from the landlord to upgrade to fibre is not only an extraordinary power of entry—one we do not even give the police—but gives Openreach a huge competitive advantage. Tempting though it might be in the short run, relatively recent history shows that embedding an infrastructure provider’s monopoly—in fact, embedding this infrastructure provider’s monopoly—is never good for consumers in the end. I encourage my noble friend the Minister to resist similar amendments should they be brought to this place.

With the not inconsiderable challenges our economy faces as we emerge from Covid, we need detailed supply-side changes such as this Bill that will help drive growth across the country via digitally enabled, safe, secure and competitive markets. As such, I am pleased to support it.

Age Assurance (Minimum Standards) Bill [HL]

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for bringing this Bill and for her characteristic passion and commitment to this extremely important topic. Her work championing these issues has been so important and has undoubtedly led to the UK genuinely leading the world in digital safety. Today is another opportunity for us to do the same again.

Many people think that age assurance is all about pornography, but I think that we have a much broader and therefore potentially even more damaging digital age-assurance problem. It is a problem with the underlying social media and technology platforms themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, go into any primary school year 6 classroom and ask the assembled 10 year-olds who is on social media—on TikTok, YouTube, WhatsApp or Instagram—and almost all of them will say yes. Yet all these providers tell us that their products are not appropriate for 10 year-olds.

The evidence is mounting that the dangers of social media on young minds are substantial, so if the companies themselves tell us that 13—WhatsApp says 16—is the youngest that you should be to use these services, I suspect that that is the bare minimum. Yet we are living in a society where it is completely normal for the majority of children younger than 13 to be regular users of these products.

We do not tolerate this in the physical world; why should we tolerate it in the digital world? I will talk briefly about the physical world. Age assurance already exists there. I worked for much of my life in food retailing and, over the last 20 years, prevention of the sale of alcohol to underage children has changed beyond all recognition. When I was a teenager, sadly much more than 20 years ago, there was no impact on the publican, waiting staff, cashier or store owner if they sold me a beer. Now there is a material financial and criminal impact on them all if they are found selling alcohol to my underage children. As a result, they have developed effective age-assurance processes. We do not have hard age verification for selling alcohol in this country and do not all walk around with our passports in our hands, but we have an age-assurance approach.

Think 21 was, I believe, first launched in Wetherspoons in 2005, when signs were put up and staff were trained to look for people who looked under 21 and ask them for identification. That evolved to Think 25, as it is quite hard to tell the difference between an 18 year-old and a 21 year-old. Working together, food retailers and the hospitality industry have built systems, processes, training and communication that are much more effective than when I was young. That has not meant a loss of privacy or a material change to access to alcohol for adults—quite the opposite.

I would argue that the age-assurance tools available to social media and technology companies are much more sophisticated than those available to food retailers or pubs—at least, that is the premise on which the whole multibillion pound online advertising industry is based. I have every confidence that the truly brilliant behavioural scientists and software engineers currently focused on profiling our behaviour to sell us more things could switch their focus to ensuring that only people of the appropriate age are using their platforms—if they had to. The critical question is: why have they not? Sadly, I fear it is just so much easier not to try. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, it is better not to know how old someone is so you can claim ignorance; or, better still, to argue that it is the parents’ responsibility to prevent their younger children from straying.

Unlike the more mature and established food and hospitality sectors, unforced collaboration on projects with no financial gain does not come easily to the global tech giants. In fact, those of us who have worked on child internet safety over the past 10 years, including me, have all found that it is only when you legislate that you get real, concrete change in this space, as the age-appropriate design code championed by the noble Baroness has so ably demonstrated. What we have also learned from the age-appropriate design code is that it is possible to define standards in the digital space, and that good regulators can do that in such a way that it sparks real innovation and creativity in the sector that they regulate.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I fear that the Government will be tempted to agree with the principles of the Bill but will argue that it should all be picked up as part of the draft online safety Bill. I do not think that is the right approach. When you build new functionality into digital platforms, you make those changes in a series of releases—bite-size changes that can be developed, tested and implemented in a relatively short space of time and that deliver real benefits to users, one after another. That is why you have a series of releases of software upgrades on your mobile phone, rather than one big change every few years.

We should be taking the same approach to digital safety. Rather than waiting for the single, enormous project that always takes longer than you think it will, costs more and fails to deliver on the overarching vision, where we have clearly identified improvements that can be set out and then built into products and are consistent with our overall direction, we should get on with them. Age assurance is a known and tightly defined issue with known, real harms happening every day. The sooner tech companies have certainty of the minimum standards expected of them, the sooner they can commence the innovation and development needed to comply, and we have seen from the age-appropriate design code that genuine improvements from those tech platforms are forthcoming.

We have been debating digital age verification and age assurance in this House for many, many years now. It is time to stop debating and act. I urge the Government to support this Bill not just in principle but in practice, so that Ofcom and the tech sector can get started now in ensuring that our children use only age-appropriate services, rather than wait longer still. Our children have waited too long as it is.

Regulating in a Digital World (Communications Committee Report)

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by commending and congratulating the Communications Committee and its chairman, my noble friend Lord Gilbert, for an excellent and very far-sighted report. I should declare my own interest: I was a trustee of Doteveryone until recently, and the chief executive of TalkTalk less recently.

I have personally campaigned for balanced internet safety regulation for a long time. I passionately believe in the good that the digital world is bringing to society. I also believe in free markets and competition driving that good. However, it is clear that we also need to have a civilised digital world and that it needs regulation to protect the vulnerable and to ensure a level, competitive playing field in order to continue driving innovation.

That position has felt quite a lonely place for quite a long time, with many of my fellow tech leaders arguing strongly that liberal markets will solve these problems; that the internet should be a completely open, unregulated space; or that no regulation is possible, because technology is moving too fast. On the other hand, campaigners have argued for blanket bans and blocks. I am therefore delighted to see—in this report, in the Government’s response in the online harms White Paper and in views expressed on both sides of the House, in this Chamber and in the other place—that there is a growing consensus that self-regulation of the digital world is not enough and not working, and that we need regulation that is thoughtfully designed across a whole range of potential social and economic harms.

I am particularly pleased to see agreement on legislating to create a statutory duty of care. That puts into practice the first principle that the committee’s report sets out: that we need to look for parity between the offline and online world wherever possible. A statutory duty of care that, in a sensible and balanced way, puts the onus on organisations to look after their customers and stakeholders seems to me a fantastic way forward, and we have plenty of offline precedent to guide us in our online regulation.

I would also like to congratulate the committee on its work in setting out a principles-based approach to regulation; its 10 principles are excellent. Why are some of those 10 principles not replicated in the Government’s thinking in their response? It seemed to me that they are a balanced and comprehensible set of guidelines for us to shape regulation for the future.

I would like to move to an important issue raised by my noble friend Lord Gilbert, on which I am less convinced that there is consensus: whether we should be addressing digital regulation piecemeal in each different part of society as it arises, or in a co-ordinated and more strategic way. In business, almost every large historic, physical, non-digital business has worked out that you need to bring digital leadership into one place for at least a period of time—you need to bring together all the teams looking at driving change on your digital agenda if you are really going to get momentum. It does not need to be done for ever. I have tried it both ways in my business career—keeping it separate or pulling it together—and, if you really want to create a step change in a physical organisation that is learning about the digital world, you need to have an overarching digital strategy and a team of people who specialise in looking at all the interconnectivity of these different digital issues.

It seems to me that the recommendation in this report to create the digital authority does exactly that in our physical society as we learn to integrate it with digital. The skills are too limited to keep them spread and the issues are too overlapping. It requires a different way of thinking from the old physical world. In all my experience in business, if you organise that together, you will get an acceleration of thinking and learning that can then be embedded in all the different parts of the system.

I think the committee is really on to something here. I am concerned that the Government do not appear to agree and instead prefer a more fragmented approach, creating additional regulators—which, as a good liberal Conservative, I do not like anyway—in what looks like an attempt to glue together this approach in a digital charter. To me, it looks more like a digital work plan than a charter, when compared with a statutory digital authority.

I am concerned for a number of reasons. First, I am worried that the digital charter is too close to politics. These are complex and technical issues that require a lot of detailed thought from experts who really understand the subject. Regardless of who is in charge in whichever Government we have, I am nervous about the digital charter being glued into the DCMS in a purely informal way. I also think it is too easily captured by powerful lobbyists. The tech industry is not separating out its approach to lobbying on digital regulation. Do not think for a moment that there are disparate teams working on online safety and online competition: there is one unified thought process coming through the tech industry. If we are going to get to the right, balanced answer, we should be doing the same.

It is dangerous to have your core digital strategy interwoven with an economic Ministry in DCMS. We are asking our DCMS Ministers and civil servants to be poacher and gamekeeper: to attract inward investment, but at the same time to create a fair, level playing field and safety net for the vulnerable.

Those are all reasons why, in principle, we should accept the recommendation of this report and establish a digital authority. I think we can see in practice why we should as well. Like the right reverend Prelate, I am concerned that the kids’ code—the age-appropriate design code—will get watered down through hugely effective lobbying from people who will tell you that it is impossible or that it should be very narrow. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will give us more detail on this when she speaks, so I will try not to steal her thunder. It is a great example of why, if we are not very careful, it is impossible to balance poacher and gamekeeper.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the Communications Committee and its chair on this excellent report, and to ask the Minister to reconsider the Government’s response and bring forward legislation to set up a digital authority and to implement the 10 principles set out in this report. I suspect that all of us in the Chamber this evening agree that this presents a real opportunity for us to do what we did in this country 150 years ago: to manage that balance between being open to innovation and protecting everyone in society as technological innovation gathers pace. This is a hugely exciting report and I am delighted to be part of the debate this evening.

Social Media: News

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for creating this opportunity for a hugely important debate. It seems to be my lot to follow her in a number of debates where she speaks so eloquently and passionately about the importance of protecting the vulnerable in the digital age. Since she has set out so clearly the challenges and problems of civilising the digital space, I will start by reminding us all of the opportunities and the value. Social media is something that the vast majority of the world now loves. We, our children and grandchildren and our parents and grandparents in various different ways all use it for good reason—because it adds real value to our lives. We and they genuinely enjoy the privilege of being able to communicate directly with whoever we want without any intermediation. As we think about the downsides, it is important that we put it in the context of the upsides and the huge possibility and opportunity that social media gives us all.

The technology itself really is morally neutral. It is what we as human beings do with it and how we configure it that drives the good and the bad. Clearly, we have to face into the bad. I am troubled by the trade-off of choosing between platform and publisher. I worry that we are ascribing old-world, analogue labels to a new-world digital phenomenon. It is akin to looking back 100 years and asking, is the car a bicycle or a train? It is neither and both. Instead of trying to look for an old world analogy, we have to really get into the detail of the new-world risks and opportunities, otherwise we just polarise the debate. I do not think it is a surprise that the biggest proponents of the publisher analogy are old-world publishers themselves, or that the biggest proponents of the platform analogy are the new media companies themselves. Methinks both of them have vested interests in this debate and we need to get into the detail properly of what is the potential and actual real harm that is happening in this new digital space.

For social media companies, this needs to be much more than fine words. I often think the sole job of the big social media companies, ably represented by very talented people in the UK, is to say no politely to every real request for change. At best, we get fine words and some money donated to education campaigns. What we do not get is what the social responsibility of a social media company ought to be, which is to roll up its sleeves and dedicate its really scarce resource, which is the engineers that develop the technology, to configure so that we can have the good and mitigate the bad. It will require genuine changes to the technology to have both, rather than just to polarise the debate. That is how we will tackle illegal extremist content, fake news, child protection and the protection of intellectual property rights in the space—by real technology changes.

The social media businesses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has set out—the biggest, most profitable, arguably most successful companies of this millennium—have the resources and need to start putting them to work on these subjects. If they do not, we need to be willing and able to legislate to make them. It is a responsibility on us as legislators, and for government itself, to make sure that we get enough into detail that we are not ourselves conned into the Punch and Judy show of publisher versus platform but instead get into the detail of what can practically be done to ensure that we lean into the benefits of the new technology but protect the vulnerable and protect some of the most important things in our society, our very democracy and our freedoms, as a result.