Online Safety Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Like other speakers, I put on record my support for the regulator being offered independence and Parliament having a role.

However, I want to say one very brief and minor thing about timing—I feel somewhat embarrassed after the big vision of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. Having had quite a lot of experience of code making over the last three years, I experienced the amount of time that the department was able to take in responding to the regulator as being a point of power, a point of lobbying, as others have said, and a point of huge distraction. For those of us who have followed the Bill for five years and as many Secretaries of State, we should be concerned that none of the amendments has quite tackled the question of time.

The idea of acting within a timeframe is not without precedent; the National Security and Investment Act 2021 is just one recent example. What was interesting about that Act was that the reason given for the Secretary of State’s powers being necessary was as a matter of national security—that is, they were okay and what we all agree should happen—but the reason for the time restriction was for business stability. I put it to the Committee that the real prospect of children and other users being harmed requires the same consideration as business stability. Without a time limit, it is possible that inaction can be used to control or simply fritter away.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a short contribution on this substantive question of whether concerns about ministerial overreach are legitimate. Based on a decade of being on the receiving end of representations from Ministers, the short answer is yes. I want to expand on that with some examples.

My experience of working on the other side, inside a company, was that you often got what I call the cycle of outrage: something is shared on social media that upsets people; the media write a front-page story about it; government Ministers and other politicians get involved; that then feeds back into the media and the cycle spins up to a point where something must be done. The “something” is typically that the Minister summons people, such as me in my old job, and brings them into an office. That itself often becomes a major TV moment, where you are brought in, browbeaten and sent out again with your tail between your legs, and the Minister has instructed you to do something. That entire process takes place in the political rather than the regulatory domain.

I readily concede that, in many cases, something of substance needed to be addressed and there was a genuine problem. It is not that this was illegitimate, but these amendments are talking about the process for what we should do when that outrage is happening. I agree entirely with the tablers of the amendments that, to the extent that that process can be encapsulated within the regulator rather than a Minister acting on an ad hoc basis, it would be a significant improvement.

I also note that this is certainly not UK-specific, and it would happen in many countries with varying degrees of threat. I remember being summoned to the Ministry of the Interior in Italy to meet a gentleman who has now sadly passed. He brought me into his office, sat me down, pointed to his desk and said “You see that desk? That was Mussolini’s desk”. He was a nice guy and I left with a CD of his rhythm and blues band, but it was clear that I was not supposed to say no to him. He made a very clear and explicit political direction about content that was on the platform.

One big advantage of this Bill is that it has the potential to move beyond that world. It could move from individual people in companies—the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, made this point very powerfully—to changing the accountability model away from either platforms being entirely accountable themselves or platforms and others, including Ministers, somehow doing deals that will have an impact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, on the freedom of expression of people across the country. We do not want that.

We want to move on in the Bill and I think we have a model which could work. The regulator will take on the outrage and go as far as it can under the powers granted in the Bill. If the regulator believes that it has insufficient powers, it will come back to Parliament and ask for more. That is the way in which the system can and should work. I think I referred to this at Second Reading; we have an opportunity to create clear accountability. Parliament instructs Ofcom, which instructs the platforms. The platforms do what Ofcom says, or Ofcom can sanction them. If Ofcom feels that its powers are deficient, it comes back to Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others made the point about scrutiny and us continually testing whether Ofcom has the powers and is exercising them correctly. Again, that is entirely beneficial and the Government should certainly be minded to accept those amendments.

With the Secretary of State powers, as drafted in the Bill and without the amendments we are considering today, we are effectively taking two steps forward and one step back on transparency and accountability. We have to ask: why take that step back when we are able to rely on Ofcom to do the job without these directions?

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, made the point very clearly that there are other ways of doing this. The Secretary of State can express their view. I am sure that the Minister will be arguing that the Secretary of State’s powers in the Bill are better than the status quo because at least what the Secretary of State says will be visible; it will not be a back-room deal. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, has proposed a very good alternative, where the Secretary of State makes visible their intentions, but not in the form of an order—rather in the form of advice. The public—it is their speech we are talking about—then have the ability to see whether they agree with Ofcom, the companies or the Secretary of State if there is any dispute about what should happen.

It is certainly the case that visible instructions from the Secretary of State would be better, but the powers as they are still leave room for arm-twisting. I can imagine a future scenario in which future employees of these platforms are summoned to the Secretary of State. But now the Secretary of State would have a draft order sitting there. The draft order is Mussolini’s desk. They say to the people from the platforms, “Look, you can do what I say, or I am going to send an order to Ofcom”. That takes us back to this world in which the public are not seeing the kind of instructions being given.

I hope that the Government will accept that some amendment is needed here. All the ones that have been proposed suggest different ways of achieving the same objective. We are trying to protect future Secretaries of State from an unhealthy temptation to intervene in ways that they should not.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

123A: Clause 48, page 46, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) pornographic material that must be put behind age assurance as set out in section (Ofcom's guidance about age assurance).Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures parity of age assurance between pornographic material on part 3 and part 5 services.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce Amendments 123A, 142, 161 and 184 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Stevenson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. These amendments represent the very best of your Lordships’ House and, indeed, the very best of Parliament and the third sector because they represent an extraordinary effort to reach consensus between colleagues across the House including both opposition parties, many of the Government’s own Benches, a 40-plus group of Back-Bench Conservatives and the Opposition Front Bench in the other place. Importantly, they also enjoy the support of the commercial age check sector and a vast array of children’s charities and, in that regard, I must mention the work of Barnardo’s, CEASE and 5Rights, which have really led the charge.

I will spend the bulk of my time setting out in detail the amendments themselves, and I will leave my co-signatories and others to make the arguments for them. Before I do, I once again acknowledge the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who has been fighting this fight for many years, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, whose characteristic pragmatism was midwife to the drafting process. I also acknowledge the time spent talking about this issue with the Secretary of State, the noble Lord the Minister and officials at DSIT. I thank them for their time and their level of engagement.

Let me first say a few words about age assurance and age verification. Age assurance is the collective term for all forms and levels of age verification, which means an exact age, and age estimation, which is an approximate or probable age. Age assurance is not a technology; it is any system that seeks to achieve a level of certainty about the age or age range of a person. Some services with restricted products and services have no choice but to have the very highest level of assurance or certainty—others less so.

To be clear at the outset, checking someone’s age, whether by verification or estimation, is not the same as establishing identity. While it is absolutely the case that you can establish age as a subset of establishing someone’s identity, the reverse is not necessarily true. Checking someone’s age does not need to establish their identity.

Age assurance strategies are multifaceted. As the ICO’s guidance in the age-appropriate design code explains, online services can deploy a range of methods to achieve the necessary level of certainty about age or age range. For example, self-verification, parental authentication, AI estimation and/or the use of passports and other hard identifiers may all play a role in a single age assurance strategy, or any one of them may be a mechanism in itself in other circumstances. This means that the service must consider its product and make sure that the level of age assurance meets the level of risk.

Since we first started debating these issues in the context of the Digital Economy Act 2017, the technology has been transformed. Today, age assurance might just as effectively be achieved by assessing the fluidity of movement of a child dancing in a virtual reality game as by collecting their passport. The former is over 94% accurate within five seconds and is specific to that particular child, while a passport may be absolute but less reliable in associating the check with a particular child. So, in the specific context of that dancing child, it is likely that the former gives the greater assurance. When a service’s risk profile requires absolute or near absolute certainty—for example, any of the risks that are considered primary priority harms, including, but not limited to, pornography—having the highest possible level of assurance must be a precondition of access.

Age assurance can also be used to ensure that children who are old enough to use a service have an age-appropriate experience. This might mean disabling high-risk features such as hosting, livestreaming or private messaging for younger children, or targeting child users or certain age groups with additional safety, privacy and well-being interventions and information. These amendments, which I will get to shortly, are designed to ensure both. To achieve the levels of certainty and privacy which are widely and rightly demanded, the Bill must both reflect the current state of play and anticipate nascent and emerging technology that will soon be considered standard.

That was a long explanation, for which I apologise, but I hope it makes it clear that there is no single approach, but, rather, a need to clearly dictate a high bar of certainty for high-risk services. A mixed economy of approaches, all geared towards providing good outcomes for children, is what we should be promoting. Today we have the technology, the political will and the legislative mechanism to make good on our adult responsibilities to protect children online. While age assurance is eminently achievable, those responsible for implementing it and, even more importantly, those subject to it need clarity on standards; that is to say, rules of the road. In an era when data is a global currency, services have shown themselves unable to resist the temptation to repurpose information gleaned about the age of their users, or to facilitate the access to industrial amounts of harmful material for children for commercial gain. As with so many of tech’s practices, this has eroded trust and heightens the need for absolute clarity on how services build their age-assurance systems and what they do—and do not do—with the information they gather, and the efficacy and security of the judgments they make.

Amendment 125A simply underlines the point made frequently in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, that the Bill should make it clear that pornography should not be judged by where it is found but by the nature of the material itself. It would allow Ofcom to provide guidance on pornographic material that should be behind an age gate, either in Part 3 or Part 5.

Amendment 142 seeks to insert a new clause setting out matters that Ofcom must reflect in its guidance for effective age assurance; these are the rules of the road. Age assurance must be secure and maintain the highest levels of privacy; this is paramount. I do not believe I need to give examples of the numerous data leaks but I note the excessive data harvesting undertaken by some of the major platforms. Age assurance must not be an excuse to collect users’ personal and sensitive information unnecessarily, and it should not be sold, stored or used for other purposes, such as advertising, or offered to third parties.

Age assurance must be proportionate to the risk, as per the results of the child risk assessment, and let me say clearly that proportionality is not a route to allow a little bit of porn or a medium amount of self-harm, or indeed a lot of both, to a small number of children. In the proposed new clause, proportionality means that if a service is high-risk, it must have the highest levels of age assurance. Equally, if a service is low-risk or no-risk, it may be that no age assurance is necessary, or it should be unobtrusive in order to be proportionate. Age-assurance systems must provide mechanisms to challenge or change decisions to ensure that everyone can have confidence in their use, and they do not keep individuals—adults or children—out of spaces they have the right to be in. It must be inclusive and accessible so that children with specific accessibility needs are considered at the point of its design, and it must provide meaningful information so that users can understand the mode of operation. I note that the point about accessibility is of specific concern to the 5Rights young advisers. Systems must be effective. It sounds foolish to say so, but look at where we are now, when law in the US, Europe, the UK and beyond stipulates age restrictions and they are ignored to the tune of tens of millions of children.

Age assurance is not to rely solely on the user to provide information; a tick box confirming “I am 18” is not sufficient for any service that carries a modicum of risk. It must be compatible with the following laws: the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act and the UNCRC. It must have regard to the risks and opportunities of interoperable age assurance, which, in the future, will see these systems seamlessly integrated into our services, just as opening your phone with your face, or using two-factor authentication when transferring funds, are already normalised. It must consult with the Information Commissioner and other persons relevant to technological expertise and an understanding of child development.

On that point, I am in full support of the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, to require Ofcom to produce regular reports on age-assurance technology, and see his amendment as a necessary companion piece to these amendments. Importantly, the amendment stipulates that the guidance should come forward in six months and that all systems of age assurance, whether estimated or verified, whether operated in-house or by third-party providers, and all technologies must adhere to the same principles. It allows Ofcom to point to technical standards in its guidance, which I know that the ISO and the IEEE are currently drafting with this very set of principles in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, it is very compelling when your Lordships’ House gets itself together on a particular subject and really agrees, so I thank noble Lords very much for that.

I am going to do two things. One is to pick up on a couple of questions and, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, concentrate on outcomes rather than contributions. On a couple of issues that came up, I feel that the principle of pornography being treated in the same way in Parts 3 and 5 is absolute. We believe we have done it. After Committee we will discuss that with noble Lords who feel that is not clear in the amendment to make sure they are comfortable that it is so. I did not quite understand in the Minister’s reply that pornography was being treated in exactly the same way in Parts 3 and 5. When I say “exactly the same way”, like the noble Lord, Lord Allan, I mean not necessarily by the same technology but to the same level of outcome. That is one thing I want to emphasise because a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and others, are rightly concerned that we should have an outcome on pornography, not concentrate on how to get there.

The second thing I want to pick up very briefly, because it was received so warmly, is the question of devices and on-device age assurance. I believe that is one method, and I know that at least one manufacturer is thinking about it as we speak. However, it is an old battle in which companies that do not want to take responsibility for their services say that people over here should do something different. It is very important that devices, app stores or any of the supposed gatekeepers are not given an overly large responsibility. It is the responsibility of everyone to make sure that age assurance is adequate.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

I hope that what the noble Baroness is alluding to is that we need to include gatekeepers, app stores, device level and sideloading in another part of the Bill.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

But of course—would I dare otherwise? What I am saying is that these are not silver bullets and we must have a mixed economy, not only for what we know already but for what we do not know. We must have a mixed economy, and we must not make an overly powerful one platform of age assurance. That is incredibly important, so I wanted to pick up on that.

I also want to pick up on user behaviour and unintended consequences. I think there was a slight reference to an American law, which is called COPPA and is the reason that every website says 13. That is a very unhelpful entry point. It would be much better if children had an age-appropriate experience from five all the way to 18, rather than on and off at 13. I understand that issue, but that is why age assurance has to be more than one thing. It is not only a preventive thing but an enabling thing. I tried to make that very clear so I will not detain the Committee on that.

On the outcome, I say to the Minister, who has indeed given a great deal of time to this, that more time is needed because we want a bar of assurance. I speak not only for all noble Lords who have made clear their rightful anxiety about pornography but also on behalf of the bereaved parents and other noble Lords who raised issues about self-harming of different varieties. We must have a measurable bar for the things that the Bill says that children will not encounter—the primary priority harms. In the negotiation, that is non-negotiable.

On the time factor, I am sorry to say that we are all witness to what happened to Part 3. It was pushed and pushed for years, and then it did not happen—and then it was whipped out of the Bill last week. This is not acceptable. I am happy, as I believe other noble Lords are, to negotiate a suitable time that gives Ofcom comfort, but it must be possible, with this Bill, for a regulator to bring something in within a given period of time. I am afraid that history is our enemy on this one.

The third thing is that I accept the idea that there has to be more than principles, which is what I believe Ofcom will provide. But the principles have to be 360 degrees, and the questions that I raised about security, privacy and accessibility should be in the Bill so that Ofcom can go away and make some difficult judgments. That is its job; ours is to say what the principle is.

I will tell one last tiny story. About 10 years ago, I met in secret with one of the highest-ranking safety officers in one of the companies that we always talk about. They said to me, “We call it the ‘lost generation’. We know that regulation is coming, but we know that it is not soon enough for this generation”. On behalf of all noble Lords who spoke, I ask the Government to save the next generation. With that, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 123A withdrawn.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

I heard what the Minister had to say about that: that it was duplicative, and so on. I am sure there are some jolly good reasons that the Minister can adumbrate, but I do not necessarily believe that the Children’s Commissioner believes that that is their specific role in these circumstances. That is why Young Minds and the Molly Rose Foundation, established by Ian Russell after the death of his daughter Molly, have come together with the NSPCC to support the introduction of an advocacy body for children. So I hope that the Minister will be rather more positive than he started out being on Amendment 226.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I shall speak briefly to Amendments 220E and 226. On Amendment 220E, I say simply that nothing should be left to chance on IWF. No warm words or good intentions replace the requirement for its work to be seamlessly and formally integrated into the OSB regime. I put on record the extraordinary debt that every one of us owes to those who work on the front line of child sexual abuse. I know from my own work how the images linger. We should all do all that we can to support those who spend every day chasing down predators and finding and supporting victims and survivors. I very much hope that, in his response, the Minister will agree to sit down with the IWF, colleagues from Ofcom and the noble Lords who tabled the amendment and commit to finding a language that will give the IWF the reassurance it craves.

More generally, I raise the issue of why the Government did not accept the pre-legislative committee’s recommendation that the Bill provide a framework for how bodies will work together, including when and how they will share powers, take joint action and conduct joint investigations. I have a lot of sympathy with the Digital Regulation Co-operation Forum in its desire to remain an informal body, but that is quite different from the formal power to share sensitive data and undertake joint action or investigation.

If history repeats itself, enforcing the law will take many years and very likely will cost a great deal of money and require expertise that it makes no sense for Ofcom to reproduce. It seems obvious that it should have the power to co-designate efficiently and effectively. I was listening to the Minister when he set out his amendment, and he went through the process that Ofcom has, but it did not seem to quite meet the “efficiently and effectively” model. I should be interested to know why there is not more emphasis on co-regulation in general and the sharing of powers in particular.

In the spirit of the evening, I turn to Amendment 226 and make some comments before the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has outlined the amendment, so I beg her indulgence on that. I want to support and credit the NSPCC for its work in gathering the entire child rights community behind it. Selfishly, I have my own early warning system, in the form of the 5Rights youth advisory group, made up of the GYG—gifted young generation—from Gravesend. It tells us frequently exactly what it does not like and does like about the online world. More importantly, it reveals very early on in our interactions the features or language associated with emerging harms.

Because of the lateness of the hour, I will not give your Lordships all the quotes, but capturing and reflecting children’s insight and voices is a key part of future-proofing. It allows us to anticipate new harms and, where new features pop up that are having a positive or negative impact, it is quite normal to ask the user groups how they are experiencing those features and that language themselves. That is quite normal across all consumer groups so, if this is a children’s Bill, why are children not included in this way?

In the work that I do with companies, they often ask what emerging trends we are seeing. For example, they actually say that they will accept any additions to the list of search words that can lead to self-harm content, or “What do we know about the emoji language that is happening now that was not happening last week?” I am always surprised at their surprise when we say that a particular feature is causing anxiety for children. Rather than being hostile, their response is almost always, “I have never thought about it that way before”. That is the value of consulting your consumer—in this case, children.

I acknowledge what the Minister said and I welcome the statutory consultees—the Children’s Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and so on. It is a very welcome addition, but this role is narrowly focused on the codes of practice at the very start of the regulatory cycle, rather than the regulatory system as a whole. It does not include the wider experience of those organisations that deal with children in real time, such as South West Grid for Learning or the NSPCC, or the research work done by 5Rights, academics across the university sector or research partners such as Revealing Reality—ongoing, real-time information and understanding of children’s perspectives on their experience.

Likewise, super-complaints and Ofcom’s enforcement powers are what happen after harms take place. I believe that we are all united in thinking that the real objective of the exercise is to prevent harm. That means including children’s voices not only because it is their right but because, so often in my experience, they know exactly what needs to happen, if only we would listen.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)]

My Lords, I speak mainly to support Amendment 220E, to which I have added my name. I am also delighted to support government Amendment 98A and I entirely agree with the statutory consultees listed there. I will make a brief contribution to support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who introduced Amendment 220E. I thank the chief executive at Ofcom for the discussions that we have had on the designation and the Minister for the reply he sent me on this issue.

I have a slight feeling that we are dancing on the head of a pin a little, as we know that we have an absolutely world-leading organisation in the form of the Internet Watch Foundation. It plays an internationally respected role in tackling child sexual abuse. We should be, and I think we are, very proud to have it in the United Kingdom, and the Government want to enhance and further build on the best practice that we have seen. As we have already heard and all know, this Bill has been a very long time in coming and organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation, which are pretty certain because of their expertise and the good work they have done already, should be designated.

However, without knowing that and without having a strong steer of support from the Minister, it becomes harder for them to operate, as they are in a vacuum. Things such as funding and partnership working become harder and harder, as well, which is what I mean by dancing on the head of a pin—unless the Minister says something about another organisation.

The IWF was founded in 1996, when 18% of the world’s known child sexual abuse material was hosted in the UK. Today that figure is less than 1% and has been since 2003, thanks to the work of the IWF’s analysts and the partnership approach the IWF takes. We should say thank you to those who are at the front line of the grimmest material imaginable and who do this to keep our internet safe.

I mentioned, in the previous group, the IWF’s research on girls. It says that it has seen more girls appearing in this type of imagery. Girls now appear in 96% of the imagery it removes from the internet, up almost 30 percentage points from a decade ago. That is another good reason why we want the internet and online to be a safe place for women and girls. As I say, any delay in establishing the role and responsibility of an expert organisation such as the IWF in working with Ofcom risks leaving a vacuum in which the risk is to children. That is really the ultimate thing; if there is a vacuum left and the IWF is not certain about its position, then what happens is that the children who are harmed most by this awful material are the ones who are not being protected. I do not think that is what anybody wants to see, however much we might argue about whether an order should be passed by Parliament or by Ofcom.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

To conclude, I have always personally vowed to speak up for those who endure horrific suffering and injustices from tormentors. I know how the pain and trauma that comes from systems that have been set up being no longer being fit for purpose feels. I therefore say this to my noble friend the Minister: nothing is too difficult if you really want to find a solution. The public have asked for this measure and there is certainly wide precedent for it. By not allowing individuals an appeals process, the Government’s silence simply encourages the tormentors and leaves the tormented alone.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 250A and 250B; I am not in favour of Amendment 56, which is the compromise amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for setting out the reasons for her amendments in such a graphic form. I declare an interest as a member of the Expert Group on an Individual Complaints Mechanism for the Government of Ireland.

The day a child or parent in the UK has a problem with an online service and realises that they have nowhere to turn is the day that the online safety regime will be judged to have failed in the eyes of the public. Independent redress is a key plank of any regulatory system. Ombudsmen and independent complaint systems are available across all sectors, from finance and health to utilities and beyond. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, set out, they are part of all the tech regulation that has been, or is in the process of being, introduced around the world.

I apologise in advance if the Minister is minded to agree to the amendment, but given that, so far, the Government have conceded to a single word in a full six days in Committee, I dare to anticipate that that is not the case and suggest three things that he may say against the amendment: first, that any complaints system will be overwhelmed; secondly, that it will offer a get-out clause for companies from putting their own robust systems in place; and, thirdly, that it will be too expensive.

The expert group of which I was a member looked very carefully at each of these questions and, after taking evidence from all around the globe, it concluded that the system need not be overwhelmed if it had the power to set clear priorities. In the case of Ireland, those priorities were complaints that might result in real-world violence and complaints from or on behalf of children. The expert group also determined that the individual complaints system should be

“afforded the discretion to handle and conclude complaints in the manner it deems most appropriate and is not unduly compelled toward or statutorily proscribed to certain courses of action in the Bill”.

For example, there was a lot of discussion on whether it could decide not to deal with copycat letters, treat multiple complaints on the same or similar issue as one, and so on.

Also, from evidence submitted during our deliberations, it became clear that many complainants have little idea of the law and that many complaints should be referred to other authorities, so among the accepted recommendations was that the individual complaints system should be

“provided with a robust legal basis for transferring or copying complaints to other bodies as part of the triage process”—

for example, to the data regulator, police, social services and other public bodies. The expert group concluded that this would actually result in better enforcement and compliance in the ecosystem overall.

On the point that the individual complaints mechanism may have the unintended consequence of making regulated services lazy, the expert group—which, incidentally, comprised a broad group of specialisms such as ombudsmen, regulators and legal counsel among others—concluded that it was important for the regulator to set a stringent report and redress code of practice for regulated companies so that it was not possible for any company to just sit back until people were so fed up that they went to the complaints body. The expert group specifically said in its report that it

“is acutely aware of the risk of … the Media Commission … drawing criticism for the failings of the regulated entities to adequately comply with systemic rules. In this regard, an individual complaints mechanism should not be viewed as a replacement for the online platforms’ complaint handling processes”.

Indeed, the group felt that an individual complaints system complemented the powers given to the regulator, which could and should take enforcement against those companies that persistently fail to introduce an adequate complaints system—not least because the flow of complaints would act as an early warning system of emerging harms, which is of course one of the regulator’s duties under the Bill.

When replying to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, last week about funding digital literacy, the Minister made it clear that the online safety regime would be self-financing via the levy. In which case, it does not seem to be out of proportion to have a focused and lean system in which the urgent, the vulnerable and the poorly served have somewhere to turn.

The expert group’s recommendation was accepted in full by Ireland’s Minister for Media, Culture and Tourism, Catherine Martin, who said she would

“always take the side of the most vulnerable”

and the complaint system would deal with people who had

“exhausted the complaints handling procedures by any online services”.

I have had the pleasure of talking to its new leadership in recent weeks, and it is expected to be open for business in 2024.

I set that out at length just to prove that it is possible. It was one of the strong recommendations of the pre-legislative committee, and had considerable support in the other place, as we have heard. I think both Ofcom and DSIT should be aware that many media outlets have not yet clocked that this complicated Bill is so insular that the users of tech have no place to go and no voice.

While the Bill can be pushed through without a complaints system, this leaves it vulnerable. It takes only one incident or a sudden copycat rush of horrors, which have been ignored or trivialised by the sector with complainants finding themselves with nowhere to go but the press, to undermine confidence in the whole regulatory edifice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I had to miss a few sessions of the Committee but I am now back until the end. I remind fellow Members of my interests: I worked for one of the largest platforms for a decade, but I have no current interests. It is all in the register if people care to look. I want to contribute to this debate on the basis of that experience of having worked inside the platforms.

I start by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. The thrust of their amendments—the idea that something will be needed here—is entirely correct. We have created in the Online Safety Bill a mechanism that we in this Committee know is intended primarily to focus on systems and how Ofcom regulates them, but what the public out there hear is that we are creating a mechanism that will meet their concerns—and their concerns will not end with systems. As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, eloquently described, their concerns in some instances will be about specific cases and the question will be: who will take those up?

If there is no other mechanism and no way to signpost people to a place where they can seek redress, they will come to Ofcom. That is something we do not want. We want Ofcom to be focused on the big-ticket items of dealing with systems, not bogged down in dealing with thousands of individual complaints. So we can anticipate a situation in which we will need someone to be able to deal with those individual complaints.

I want to focus on making that workable, because the volume challenge might not be as people expect. I have seen from having worked on the inside that there is a vast funnel of reports, where people report content to platforms. Most of those reports are spurious or vexatious; that is the reality. Platforms have made their reporting systems easy, as we want them to do —indeed, in the Bill we say, “Make sure you have really easy-to-use reporting systems”—but one feature of that is that people will use them simply to express a view. Over the last couple of weeks, all the platforms will have been inundated with literally millions of reports about Turkish politicians. These will come from the supporters of either side, reporting people on the other side—claiming that they are engaged in hate speech or pornography or whatever. They will use whatever tool they can. That is what we used to see day in, day out: football teams or political groups that report each other. The challenge is to separate out the signal—the genuinely serious reports of where something is going wrong—from the vast amount of noise, of people simply using the reporting system because they can. For the ombudsman, the challenge will be that signal question.

Breaking that down, from the vast funnel of complaints coming in, we have a smaller subset that are actionable. Some of those will be substantive, real complaints, where the individual simply disagrees with the decision. That could be primarily for two reasons. The first is that the platform has made a bad decision and failed to enforce its own policies. For example, you reported something as being pornographic, and it obviously was, but the operator was having a bad day—they were tired, it was late in the day and they pressed “Leave up” instead of “Take down”. That happens on a regular basis, and 1% of errors like that across a huge volume means a lot of mistakes being made. Those kinds of issues, where there is a simple operator error, should get picked up by the platforms’ own appeal mechanisms. That is what they are there for, and the Bill rightly points to that. A second reviewer should look at it. Hopefully they are a bit fresher, understand that a mistake was made and can simply reverse it. Those operator error reports can be dealt with internally.

The second type would be where the platform enforces policies correctly but, from the complainant’s point of view, the policies are wrong. It may be a more pro-free speech platform where the person says, “This is hate speech”, but the platform says, “Well, according to our rules, it is not. Under our terms of service, we permit robust speech of this kind. Another platform might not, but we do”. In that case, the complainant is still unhappy but the platform has done nothing wrong—unless the policies the platform is enforcing are out of step with the requirements under the Online Safety Bill, in which case the complaint should properly come to Ofcom. Based on the individual complaint, a complainant may have something material for Ofcom. They are saying that they believe the platform’s policies and systems are not in line with the guidance issued by Ofcom—whether on hate speech, pornography or anything else. That second category of complaint would come to Ofcom.

The third class concerns the kind of complaint that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, described. In some ways, this is the hardest. The platform has correctly enforced its policies but, in a particular case, the effect is deeply unfair, problematic and harmful for an individual. The platform simply says, “Look, we enforced the policies. They are there. This piece of content did not violate them”. Any outsider looking at it would say, “There is an injustice here. We can clearly see that an individual is being harmed. A similar piece of content might not be harmful to another individual, but to this individual it is”. In those circumstances, groups such as the South West Grid for Learning, with which I work frequently, perform an invaluable task. We should recognise that there is a network of non-governmental organisations in the United Kingdom that do this day in, day out. Groups such as the Internet Watch Foundation and many others have fantastic relations and connections with the platforms and regularly bring exceptional cases to them.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

We are glad to have the noble Lord back. I want also to put on the record that the South West Grid for Learning is very supportive of this amendment.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

It has let me know as well. In a way, the amendment seeks to formalise what is already an informal mechanism. I was minded initially to support Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

This landscape is quite varied. We have to create some kind of outlet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly said. That parent or individual will want to go somewhere, so we have to send them somewhere. We want that somewhere to be effective, not to get bogged down in spurious and vexatious complaints. We want it to have a high signal-to-noise ratio—to pull out the important complaints and get them to the platforms. That will vary from platform to platform. In some ways, we want to empower Ofcom to look at what is and is not working and to be able to say, “Platform A has built up an incredible set of mechanisms. It’s doing a good job. We’re not seeing things falling through the cracks in the same way as we are seeing with platform B. We are going to have to be more directive with platform B”. That very much depends on the information coming in and on how well the platforms are doing their job already.

I hope that the Government are thinking about how these individual complaints will be dealt with and about the demand that will be created by the Bill. How can we have effective mechanisms for people in the United Kingdom who genuinely have hard cases and have tried, but where there is no intermediary for the platform they are worried about? In many cases, I suspect that these will be newer or smaller platforms that have arrived on the scene and do not have established relationships. Where are these people to go? Who will help them, particularly in cases where the platform may not systemically be doing anything wrong? Its policies are correct and it is enforcing them correctly, but any jury of peers would say that an injustice is being done. Either an exception needs to be made or there needs to be a second look at that specific case. We are not asking Ofcom to do this in the rest of the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

Following on from my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, can I just say to the Minister that I would really welcome all of us having a meeting? As I am listening to this, I am thinking that three to five years is just horrific for the families. This Bill has gone on for so long to get where we are today. We are losing sight of humanity here and the moral compass of protecting human lives. For whichever Government is in place in three to five years to make the decision to say it does not work is absolutely shameful. Nobody in the Government will be accountable and yet for that family, that single person may commit suicide. We have met the bereaved families, so I say to the Minister that we need to go round the table and look at this again. I do not think it is acceptable to say that there is this timeline, this review, for the Secretary of State when we are dealing with young lives. It is in the public interest to get this Bill correct as it navigates its way back to the House of Commons in a far better state than how it arrived.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I would love the noble Viscount to answer my very specific question about who the Government think families should turn to when they have exhausted the complaints system in the next three to five years. I say that as someone who has witnessed successive Secretaries of State promising families that this Bill would sort this out. Yes?

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I stress again that the period in question is two years not three.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

It is between two and five years. It can be two; it can be five. I am very happy to meet my noble friend and to carry on doing so. The complaints procedure set up for families is to first approach the service provider in an enforceable manner and should the provider fail to meet its enforceable duties to then revert to Ofcom before the courts.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I am sorry but that is exactly the issue at stake. The understanding of the Committee currently is that there is then nowhere to go if they have exhausted that process. I believe that complainants are not entitled to go to Ofcom in the way that the noble Viscount just suggested.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

Considerably more rights are provided than they have today, with the service provider. Indeed, Ofcom would not necessarily deal with individual complaints—

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I have offered a meeting; I am very happy to host the meeting to bottom out these complaints.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I understand that the Minister has been given a sticky wicket of defending the indefensible. I welcome a meeting, as I think the whole Committee does, but it would be very helpful to hear the Government say that they have chosen to give individuals no recourse under the Bill—that this is the current situation, as it stands, and that there is no concession on the matter. I have been in meetings with people who have been promised such things, so it is really important, from now on in Committee, that we actually state at the Dispatch Box what the situation is. I spent quite a lot of the weekend reading circular arguments, and we now need to get to an understanding of what the situation is. We can then decide, as a Committee, what we do in relation to that.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

As I said, I am very happy to hold the meeting. We are giving users greater protection through the Bill, and, as agreed, we can discuss individual routes to recourse.

I hope that, on the basis of what I have said and the future meeting, noble Lords have some reassurance that the Bill’s complaint mechanisms will, eventually, be effective and proportionate, and feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, that would be a sensible way to view it. We will work on that and allow noble Lords to see it before they come to talk to us about it.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I put on record that the withdrawal of Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 will be greeted with happiness only should the full schedule of AV and harms be put into the Bill. I must say that because the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, is not in her place. She worked very hard for that piece of legislation.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I take it as a win that we have been offered a meeting and further discussion, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, agreeing with every word I said. I hope we can continue in this happy vein in my time in this House.

The suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, of a table is a welcome one. Something that has interested me is that some of the offences the Minister mentioned were open goals: there were holes leaving it open in Northern Ireland and not in England and Wales, or whatever. For example, epilepsy trolling is already a criminal offence in Scotland, but I am not sure that was appreciated when we started this discussion.

I look forward to the meeting and I thank the Minister for his response. I am still unconvinced that we have the right consultation process for any devolved authority wanting to apply for a subordinate devolved Administration to be included under this regime.

It concerns me that the Minister talked about leaving requesting data that Ofcom deemed to be appropriate. The feeling on the ground is that Ofcom, which is based in London, may not understand what is or is not necessarily appropriate in the devolved Administrations. The fact that in other legislation—for example, on broadcasting—it is mandated that it is broken down nation by nation is really important. It is even more important because of the interplay between the devolved and the reserved matters. The fact that there is no equivalent Minister in the Scottish Government to talk about digital and online safety things with means that a whole raft of different people will need to have relationships with Ofcom who have not hitherto.

I thank the Minister. On that note, I withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay. I want to address a couple of issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allan. He made a fantastic case for adequate redress systems, both at platform level and at independent complaint level, to really make sure that, at the edge of all the decisions we make, there is sufficient discussion about where that edge lies.

The real issue is not so much the individuals who are in recovery and seeking to show leadership but those who are sent down the vortex of self-harm and suicide material that comes in its scores—in its hundreds and thousands—and completely overwhelms them. We must not make a mistake on the edge case and not deal with the issue at hand.

There is absolutely not enough signposting. I have seen at first hand—I will not go through it again; I have told the Committee already—companies justifying material that it was inconceivable to justify as being a cry for help. A child with cuts and blood running down their body is not a cry for help; that is self-harm material.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

From experience, I think it is true that companies get defensive and seek to defend the indefensible on occasion. I agree with the noble Baroness on that, but I will balance it a little as I also work with people who were agonising over not wanting to make a bad situation worse. They were genuinely struggling and seeking to do the right thing. That is where the experts come in. If someone would say to them, “Look, take this stuff down; that is always better”, it would make their lives easier. If they said, “Please leave it up”, they could follow that advice. Again, that would make their lives easier. On the excuses, I agree that sometimes they are defending the indefensible, but also there are people agonising over the right thing to do and we should help them.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I absolutely agree. Of course, good law is a good system, not a good person.

I turn to the comments that I was going to make. Uncharacteristically, I am a little confused about this issue and I would love the Minister’s help. My understanding on reading the Bill very closely is that self-harm and suicide content that meets a legal definition will be subject to the priority illegal content duties. In the case of children, we can safely anticipate that content of this kind will be named primary priority content. Additionally, if such content is against the terms of service of a regulated company, it can be held responsible to those terms. It will have to provide a user empowerment tool on category 1 services so that it can be toggled out if an adult user wishes. That is my understanding of where this content has already been dealt with in the Bill. To my mind, this leaves the following ways in which suicide and self-harm material, which is the subject of this group of amendments, is not covered by the Bill. That is what I would like the Minister to confirm, and I absolutely stand by to be corrected.

In the case of adults, if self-harm and suicide material does not meet a bar of illegal content and the service is not category 1, there is no mechanism to toggle it out. Ofcom has no power to require a service to ensure tools to toggle self-harm and suicide material out by default. This means that self-harm and suicide material can be as prevalent as they like—pushed, promoted and recommended, as I have just explained—if it is not contrary to the terms of service, so long as it does not reach the bar of illegal content.

Search services are not subject to these clauses— I am unsure about that. In the case of both children and adults, if self-harm and suicide material is on blogs or services with limited functionality, it is out of scope of the Bill and there is absolutely nothing Ofcom can do. For non-category 1 services—the majority of services which claim that an insignificant number of children access their site and thus that they do not have to comply with the child safety duties—there are no protections for a child against this content.

I put it like that because I believe that each of the statements I just made could have been fixed by amendments already discussed during the past six days in Committee. We are currently planning to leave many children without the protection of the safety duties, to leave vulnerable adults without even the cover of default protections against material that has absolutely no public interest and to leave companies to decide whether to promote or use this material to fuel user engagement—even if it costs well-being and lives.

I ask the Minister to let me know if I have misunderstood, but I think it is really quite useful to see what is left once the protections are in place, rather than always concentrating on the protections themselves.

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in her Amendment 96 and others in this group. The internet is fuelling an epidemic of self-harm, often leading to suicide among young people. Thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I have listened to many grieving families explaining the impact that social media had on their beloved children. Content that includes providing detailed instructions for methods of suicide or challenges or pacts that seek agreement to undertake mutual acts of suicide or deliberate self-injury must be curtailed, or platforms must be made to warn and protect vulnerable adults.

I recognise that the Government acknowledge the problem and have attempted to tackle it in the Bill with the new offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm and suicide and by listing it as priority illegal content. But I agree with charities such as Samaritans, which says that the Government are taking a partial approach by not accepting this group of amendments. Samaritans considers that the types of suicide and self-harm content that is legal but unequivocally harmful includes information, depictions, instructions and advice on methods of self-harm or suicide, content that portrays self-harm and suicide as positive or desirable and graphic descriptions or depictions of self-harm and suicide.

With the removal of regulation of legal but harmful content, much suicide and self-harm content can remain easily available, and platforms will not even need to consider the risk that such content could pose to adult users. These amendments aim to ensure that harmful self-harm and suicide content is addressed across all platforms and search services, regardless of their functionality or reach, and, importantly, for all persons regardless of age.

In 2017 an inquiry into suicides of young people found suicide-related internet use in 26% of deaths in under-20s and 13% of deaths in 20 to 24 year-olds. Three-quarters of people who took part in Samaritans’ research with Swansea University said that they had harmed themselves more severely after viewing self-harm content online, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out. People of all ages can be susceptible to harm from this dangerous content. There is shocking evidence that between 2011 and 2015, 151 patients who died by suicide were known to have visited websites that encouraged suicide or shared information about methods of harm, and 82% of those patients were over 25.

Suicide is complex and rarely caused by one thing. However, there is strong evidence of associations between financial difficulties, mental health and suicide. People on the lowest incomes have a higher suicide risk than those who are wealthier, and people on lower incomes are also the most affected by rising prices and other types of financial hardship. In January and February this year the Samaritans saw the highest percentage of first-time phone callers concerned about finance or unemployment—almost one in 10 calls for help in February. With the cost of living crisis and growing pressure on adults to cope with stress, it is imperative that the Government urgently bring in these amendments to help protect all ages from harmful suicide and self-harm content by putting a duty on providers of user-to-user services to properly manage such content.

A more comprehensive online safety regime for all ages will also increase protections for children, as research has shown that age verification and restrictions across social media and online platforms are easily bypassed by them. As the Bill currently stands, there is a two-tier approach to safety which can still mean that children may circumnavigate safety controls and find this harmful suicide and self-harm content.

Finally, user empowerment duties that we debated earlier are no substitute for regulation of access to dangerous suicide and self-harm online content through the law that these amendments seek to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My initial response is, yes, I think so, but it is the role of Ofcom to look at whether those terms of service are enforced and to act on behalf of internet users. The noble Lord is right to point to the complexity of some marginal cases with which companies have to deal, but the whole framework of the Bill is to make sure that terms of service are being enforced. If they are not, people can turn to Ofcom.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I am sorry to enter the fray again on complaints, but how will anyone know that they have failed in this way if there is no complaints system?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I refer to the meeting my noble friend Lord Camrose offered; we will be able to go through and unpick the issues raised in that group of amendments, rather than looping back to that debate now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for the advance notice to think about that; it is helpful. It is difficult to talk in general terms about this issue, so, if I can, I will give examples that do, and do not, meet the threshold.

The Bill goes even further for children than it does for adults. In addition to the protections from illegal material, the Government have indicated, as I said, that we plan to designate content promoting suicide, self-harm or eating disorders as categories of primary priority content. That means that providers will need to put in place systems designed to prevent children of any age encountering this type of content. Providers will also need specifically to assess the risk of children encountering it. Platforms will no longer be able to recommend such material to children through harmful algorithms. If they do, Ofcom will hold them accountable and will take enforcement action if they break their promises.

It is right that the Bill takes a different approach for children than for adults, but it does not mean that the Bill does not recognise that young adults are at risk or that it does not have protections for them. My noble friend Lady Morgan was right to raise the issue of young adults once they turn 18. The triple shield of protection in the Bill will significantly improve the status quo by protecting adults, including young adults, from illegal suicide content and legal suicide or self-harm content that is prohibited in major platforms’ terms and conditions. Platforms also have strong commercial incentives, as we discussed in previous groups, to address harmful content that the majority of their users do not want to see, such as legal suicide, eating disorder or self-harm content. That is why they currently claim to prohibit it in their terms and conditions, and why we want to make sure that those terms and conditions are transparently and accountably enforced. So, while I sympathise with the intention from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, her amendments raise some wider concerns about mandating how providers should deal with legal material, which would interfere with the careful balance the Bill seeks to strike in ensuring that users are safer online without compromising their right to free expression.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 240, alongside Amendment 225 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would place new duties on Ofcom in relation to suicide and self-harm content. The Bill already has provisions to provide Ofcom with broad and effective information-gathering powers to understand how this content affects users and how providers are dealing with it. For example, under Clause 147, Ofcom can already publish reports about suicide and self-harm content, and Clauses 68 and 69 empower Ofcom to require the largest providers to publish annual transparency reports.

Ofcom may require those reports to include information on the systems and processes that providers use to deal with illegal suicide or self-harm content, with content that is harmful to children, or with content which providers’ own terms of service prohibit. Those measures sit alongside Ofcom’s extensive information-gathering powers. It will have the ability to access the information it needs to understand how companies are fulfilling their duties, particularly in taking action against this type of content. Furthermore, the Bill is designed to provide Ofcom with the flexibility it needs to respond to harms—including in the areas of suicide, self-harm and eating disorders—as they develop over time, in the way that the noble Baroness envisaged in her remarks about the metaverse and new emerging threats. So we are confident that these provisions will enable Ofcom to assess this type of content and ensure that platforms deal with it appropriately. I hope that this has provided the sufficient reassurance to the noble Baroness for her not to move her amendment.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I asked a number of questions on specific scenarios. If the Minister cannot answer them straight away, perhaps he could write to me. They all rather called for “yes/no” answers.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The noble Baroness threw me off with her subsequent question. She was broadly right, but I will write to her after I refresh my memory about what she said when I look at the Official Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 97 and 304, and I wholeheartedly agree with all that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said by means of her excellent introduction. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has to say as she continues to bring her wisdom to the Bill.

Let me say from the outset, if it has not been said strongly enough already, that violence against women and girls is an abomination. If we allow a culture of intimidation and misogyny to exist online, it will spill over to offline experiences. According to research by Refuge, almost one in five domestic abuse survivors who experienced abuse or harassment from their partner or former partner via social media said they felt afraid of being attacked or being subjected to physical violence as a result. Some 15% felt that their physical safety was more at risk, and 5% felt more at risk of so-called honour-based violence. Shockingly, according to Amnesty International, 41% of women who experienced online abuse or harassment said that these experiences made them feel that their physical safety was threatened.

Throughout all our debates, I hesitate to differentiate between the real and virtual worlds, because that is simply not how we live our lives. Interactions online are informed by face-to-face interactions, and vice versa. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the lived experience of the majority—particularly, dare I say, the younger generations. As Anglican Bishop for HM Prisons, I recognise the complexity of people’s lives and the need to tackle attitudes underpinning behaviours. Tackling the root causes of offending should always be a priority; there is potential for much harm later down the line if we ignore warning signs of hatred and misogyny. Research conducted by Refuge found that one in three women has experienced online abuse or harassment perpetrated on social media or another online platform at some point in their lives. That figure rises to almost two in three, or 62%, among young women. This must change.

We did some important work in your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act to ensure that all people, including women and girls, are safe on our streets and in their homes. As has been said, introducing a code of practice as outlined will help the Government meet their aim of making the UK the safest place in the world to be online, and it will align with the Government’s wider priority to tackle violence against women and girls as a strategic policing requirement. Other strategic policing requirements, including terrorism and child sexual exploitation, have online codes of practice, so surely it follows that there should be one for VAWG to ensure that the Bill aligns with the Government’s position elsewhere and that there is not a gap left online.

I know the Government care deeply about tackling violence against women and girls, and I believe they have listened to some concerns raised by the sector. The inclusion of the domestic abuse and victims’ commissioners as statutory consultees is welcomed, as is the Government’s amendment to recognise controlling and coercive behaviour as a priority offence. However, without this code of conduct, the Bill will fail to address duties of care in relation to preventing domestic abuse and violence against women and girls in a holistic and encompassing way. The onus should not be on women and girls to remove themselves from online spaces; we have seen plenty of that in physical spaces over the years. Women and girls must be free to appropriately express themselves online and offline without fear of harassment. We must do all we can to prevent expressions of misogyny from transforming into violent actions.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 97 and 304, and I support the others in this group. It seems to be a singular failure of any version of an Online Safety Bill if it does not set itself the task of tackling known harms—harms that are experienced daily and for which we have a phenomenal amount of evidence. I will not repeat the statistics given in the excellent speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the right reverend Prelate, but will instead add two observations.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. He has made me think of the fact that a particular area where this may be of grave concern is cosmetic procedures, which I think we debated during the passage of the Health and Care Act. These things are all interrelated, and it is important that we see them in an interrelated way as part of what is now the health system.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in this group. I want to make the point that misinformation and disinformation was probably the issue we struggled with the most in the pre-legislative committee. We recognised the extraordinary harm it did, but also—as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—that there is no one great truth. However, algorithmic spread and the drip, drip, drip of material that is not based on any search criteria or expression of an opinion but simply gives you more of the same, particularly the most shocking, moves very marginal views into the mainstream.

I am concerned that our debates over the last five days have concentrated so much on content, and that the freedom we seek does not take enough account of the way in which companies currently exercise control over the information we see. Correlations such as “Men who like barbecues are also susceptible to conspiracy theories” are then exploited to spread toxic theories that end in real-world harm or political tricks that show, for example, the Democrats as a paedophile group. Only last week I saw a series of pictures, presented as “evidence”, of President Biden caught in a compromising situation that gave truth to that lie. As Maria Ressa, the Nobel Peace Prize winner for her contribution to the freedom of expression, said in her acceptance speech:

“Tech sucked up our personal experiences and data, organized it with artificial intelligence, manipulated us with it, and created behavior at a scale that brought out the worst in humanity”.


That is the background to this set of amendments that we must take seriously.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, Amendment 52 will ensure that platforms undertake a health misinformation risk assessment and provide a clear policy on dealing with harmful, false and misleading information. I put it to the Committee that, without this requirement, we will keep the status quo in which clicks are king, not health information.

It is a particular pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on his Amendments 59 and 107. Like him, I am instinctively against taking material down. There are content-neutral ways of marking or questioning material, offering alternatives and signposting to diverse sources—not only true but diverse. These can break this toxic drip feed for long enough for people to think before they share, post and make personal decisions about the health information that they are receiving.

I am not incredibly thrilled by a committee for every occasion, but since the Bill is silent on the issue of misinformation and disinformation—which clearly will be supercharged by the rise of large language data models—it would be good to give a formal role to this advisory committee, so that it can make a meaningful and formal contribution to Ofcom as it develops not only this code of conduct but all codes of conduct.

Likewise, I am very supportive of Amendment 222, which seeks independence for the chair of the advisory body. I have seen at first hand how a combination of regulatory capture and a very litigious sector with deep pockets slows down progress and transparency. While the independence of the chair should be a given, our collective lived experience would suggest otherwise. This amendment would make that requirement clear.

Finally, and in a way most importantly, Amendment 224 would allow Ofcom to consider after the effect whether the code of conduct is necessary. This strikes a balance between adding to its current workload, which we are trying not to do, and tying one hand behind its back in the future. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister why we would not give Ofcom this option as a reasonable piece of future-proofing, given that this issue will be ever more important as AI creates layers of misinformation and disinformation at scale.

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 52, tabled by my noble friend Lady Merron. This is an important issue which must be addressed in the Bill if we are to make real progress in making the internet a safer space, not just for children but for vulnerable adults.

We have the opportunity to learn lessons from the pandemic, where misinformation had a devastating impact, spreading rapidly online like the virus and threatening to undermine the vaccine rollout. If the Government had kept their earlier promise to include protection from harmful false health content in their indicative list of harmful content that companies would have been required to address under the now removed adult safety duties, these amendments would not be necessary.

It is naive to think that platforms will behave responsibly. Currently, they are left to their own devices in how they tackle health misinformation, without appropriate regulatory oversight. They can remove it at scale or leave it completely unchecked, as illustrated by Twitter’s decision to stop enforcing its Covid-19 misinformation policies, as other noble Lords have pointed out.

It is not a question of maintaining free speech, as some might argue. It was the most vulnerable groups who suffered from the spread of misinformation online—pregnant women and the BAME community, who had higher illness rates. Studies have shown that, proportionately, more of them died, not just because they were front-line workers but because of rumours spread in the community which resulted in vaccine hesitancy, with devastating consequences. As other noble Lords have pointed out, in 2021 the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that only 42% of women who had been offered the vaccine accepted it, and in October that year one in five of the most critically ill Covid patients were unvaccinated, pregnant women. That is a heartbreaking statistic.

Unfortunately, it is not just vaccine fears that are spread on the internet. Other harmful theories can affect patients with cancer, mental health issues and sexual health issues, and, most worryingly, can affect children’s health. Rumours and misinformation play on the minds of the most vulnerable. The Government have a duty to protect people, and by accepting this amendment they would go some way to addressing this.

Platforms must undertake a health misinformation risk assessment and have a clear policy on dealing with harmful, false and misleading health information in their terms of service. They have the money and the expertise to do this, and Parliament must insist. As my noble friend Lady Merron said, I do not think that the Minister can say that the false communications offence in Clause 160 will address the problem, as it covers only a user sending a knowingly false communication with the intention of causing harm. The charity Full Fact has stated that this offence will exclude most health misinformation that it monitors online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this debate has demonstrated the diversity of opinion regarding misinformation and disinformation—as the noble Lord said, the Joint Committee gave a lot of thought to this issue—as well as the difficulty of finding the truth of very complex issues while not shutting down legitimate debate. It is therefore important that we legislate in a way that takes a balanced approach to tackling this, keeping people safe online while protecting freedom of expression.

The Government take misinformation and disinformation very seriously. From Covid-19 to Russia’s use of disinformation as a tool in its illegal invasion of Ukraine, it is a pervasive threat, and I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Bethell and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care during the pandemic to counter the cynical and exploitative forces that sought to undermine the heroic effort to get people vaccinated and to escape from the clutches of Covid-19.

We recognise that misinformation and disinformation come in many forms, and the Bill reflects this. Its focus is rightly on tackling the most egregious, illegal forms of misinformation and disinformation, such as content which amounts to the foreign interference offence or which is harmful to children—for instance, that which intersects with named categories of primary priority or priority content.

That is not the only way in which the Bill seeks to tackle it, however. The new terms of service duties for category 1 services will hold companies to account over how they say they treat misinformation and disinformation on their services. However, the Government are not in the business of telling companies what legal content they can and cannot allow online, and the Bill should not and will not prevent adults accessing legal content. In addition, the Bill will establish an advisory committee on misinformation and disinformation to provide advice to Ofcom on how they should be tackled online. Ofcom will be given the tools to understand how effectively misinformation and disinformation are being addressed by platforms through transparency reports and information-gathering powers.

Amendment 52 from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, seeks to introduce a new duty on platforms in relation to health misinformation and disinformation for adult users, while Amendments 59 and 107 from my noble friend Lord Moylan aim to introduce new proportionality duties for platforms tackling misinformation and disinformation. The Bill already addresses the most egregious types of misinformation and disinformation in a proportionate way that respects freedom of expression by focusing on misinformation and disinformation that are illegal or harmful to children.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I am curious as to what the Bill says about misinformation and disinformation in relation to children. My understanding of primary priority and priority harms is that they concern issues such as self-harm and pornography, but do they say anything specific about misinformation of the kind we have been discussing and whether children will be protected from it?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry—I am not sure I follow the noble Baroness’s question.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Twice so far in his reply, the Minister has said that this measure will protect children from misinformation and disinformation. I was just curious because I have not seen any sight of that, either in discussions or in the Bill. I was making a distinction regarding harmful content that we know the shape of—for example, pornography and self-harm, which are not, in themselves, misinformation or disinformation of the kind we are discussing now. It is news to me that children are going to be protected from this, and I am delighted, but I was just checking.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, that is what the measure does—for instance, where it intersects with the named categories of primary priority or priority content in the Bill, although that is not the only way the Bill does it. This will be covered by non-designated content that is harmful to children. As we have said, we will bring forward amendments on Report—which is perhaps why the noble Baroness has not seen them in the material in front of us—regarding material harms to children, and they will provide further detail and clarity.

Returning to the advisory committee that the Bill sets up and the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and my noble friend Lord Moylan, all regulated service providers will be forced to take action against illegal misinformation and disinformation in scope of the Bill. That includes the new false communication offences in the Bill that will capture communications where the sender knows the information to be false but sends it intending to cause harm—for example, hoax cures for a virus such as Covid-19. The noble Baroness is right to say that that is a slightly different approach from the one taken in her amendment, but we think it an appropriate and proportionate response to tackling damaging and illegal misinformation and disinformation. If a platform is likely to be accessed by children, it will have to protect them from encountering misinformation and disinformation content that meets the Bill’s threshold for content that is harmful to children. Again, that is an appropriate and proportionate response.

Turning to the points made by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, services will also need to have particular regard to freedom of expression when complying with their safety duties. Ofcom will be required to set out steps that providers can take when complying with their safety duties in the codes of practice, including what is proportionate for different providers and how freedom of expression can be protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and I join her in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for introducing this group very clearly.

In taking part in this debate, I declare a joint interest with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in that I was for a number of years a judge in the Debating Matters events to which she referred. Indeed, the noble Baroness was responsible for me ending up in Birmingham jail, during the time that such a debate was conducted with the inmates of Birmingham jail. We have a common interest there.

I want to pick up a couple of additional points. Before I joined your Lordships’ Committee today I was involved in the final stages of the Committee debate on the economic crime Bill, where the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, provided a powerful argument—probably unintentionally—for the amendments we are debating here now. We were talking, as we have at great length in the economic crime Bill, about the issue of fraud. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, highlighted, in the context of online harms fraud is a huge aspect of people’s lives today and one that has been under-covered in this Committee, although it has very much been picked up in the economic crime Bill Committee. As we were talking about online fraud, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, said that consumers have to be “appropriately savvy”. I think that is a description of the need for education and critical thinking online, equipping people with the tools to be, as he said, appropriately savvy when facing the risks of fraud and scams, and all the other risks that people face online.

I have attached my name to two amendments here: Amendment 91, which concerns the providers of category 1 and 2A services having a duty, and Amendment 236, which concerns an Ofcom duty. This joins together two aspects. The providers are making money out of the services they provide, which gives them a duty to make some contribution to combatting the potential harms that their services present to people. Ofcom as a regulator obviously has a role. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Knight, who said that the education system also has a role, and there is some reference in here to Ofsted having a role.

What we need is a cross-society, cross-systems approach. This is where I also make the point that we need to think outside the scope of the Bill—it is part of the whole package—about how the education system works, because media literacy is not a stand-alone thing that you can separate out from the issues of critical thinking more broadly. We need to think about our education system, which is far too often, for schools in particular, where we get pupils to learn and regurgitate a whole set of facts and then reward them for that. We need to think about how our education system prepares children for the modern online world.

There is a great deal we can learn from the example—often cited but worth referring to—of Finland, which by various tests has been ranked as the country most resistant to fake news. A very clearly built-in idea of questioning, scrutiny and challenge is being encouraged among pupils, starting from the age of seven. That is something we need to transform our education system to achieve. However, of course, many people using the internet now are not part of our education system, so this needs to be across our society. A focus on the responsibilities of Ofcom and the providers has to be in the Bill.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, over the last decade, I have been in scores of schools, run dozens of workshops and spoken to literally thousands of children and young people. A lot of what I pass off as my own wisdom in this Chamber is, indeed, their wisdom. I have a couple of points, and I speak really from the perspective of children under 18 with regard to these amendments, which I fully support.

Media literacy—or digital literacy, as it is sometimes called—is not the same as e-safety. E-safety regimes concentrate on the behaviour of users. Very often, children say that what they learn in those lessons is focused on adult anxieties about predators and bullies, and when something goes wrong, they feel that they are to blame. It puts the responsibility on children. This response, which I have heard hundreds of times, normally comes up after a workshop in which we have discussed reward loops, privacy, algorithmic bias, profiling or—my own favourite—a game which reveals what is buried in terms and conditions; for example, that a company has a right to record the sound of a device or share their data with more than a thousand other companies. When young people understand the pressures that they are under and which are designed into the system, they feel much better about themselves and rather less enamoured of the services they are using. It is my experience that they then go on to make better choices for themselves.

Secondly, we have outsourced much of digital literacy to companies such as Google and Meta. They too concentrate on user behaviour, rather than looking at their own extractive policies focused on engagement and time spent. With many schools strapped for cash and expertise, this teaching is widespread. However, when I went to a Google-run assembly, children aged nine were being taught about features available only on services for those aged over 13—and nowhere was there a mention of age limits and why they are important. It cannot be right that the companies are grooming children towards their services without taking full responsibility for literacy, if that is the literacy that children are being given in school.

Thirdly, as the Government’s own 2021 media literacy strategy set out, good media literacy is one line of defence from harm. It could make a crucial difference in people making informed and safe decisions online and engaging in a more positive online debate, at the same time as understanding that online actions have consequences offline.

However, while digital literacy and, in particular, critical thinking are fundamental to a contemporary education and should be available throughout school and far beyond, they must not be used as a way of putting responsibility on the user for the company’s design decisions. I am specifically concerned that in the risk-assessment process, digital literacy is one of the ways that a company can say it has mitigated a potential risk or harm. I should like to hear from the Minister that that is an additional responsibility and not instead of responsibility.

Finally, over all these years I have always asked at the end of the session what the young people care about the most. The second most important thing is that the system should be less addictive—it should have less addiction built into it. Again, I point the Committee in the direction of the safety-by-design amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell that try to get to the crux of that. They are not very exciting amendments in this debate but they get to the heart of it. However, the thing the young people most often say is, “Could you do something to get my parents to put down their phones?” I therefore ask the Minister whether he can slip something into the Bill, and indeed ask the noble Lord, Lord Grade, whether that could emerge somewhere in the guidance. That is what young people want.

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight and others in this group.

We cannot entirely contain harmful, misleading and dangerous content on the internet, no matter how much we strengthen the Bill. Therefore, it is imperative that we put a new duty on category 1 and category 2A services to require them to put in place measures to promote the media literacy of users so that they can use the service safely.

I know that Ofcom takes the issue of media literacy seriously, but it is regrettable that the Government have dropped their proposal for a new media literacy duty for Ofcom. So far, I see no evidence that the platforms take media literacy seriously, so they need to be made to understand that they have corporate social responsibilities towards their clients.

Good media literacy is the first line of defence from bad information and the kind of misinformation we have discussed in earlier groups. Schools are trying to prepare their pupils to understand that the internet can peddle falsehoods as well as useful facts, but they need support, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, just said. We all need to increase our media literacy, especially with the increasing use of artificial intelligence, as it can make the difference between decisions based on sound evidence and decisions based on poorly informed opinions that can harm health and well-being, social cohesion and democracy.

In 2022, Ofcom found that a third of internet users are unaware of the potential for inaccurate or biased information online, and 61% of social media users who say they are confident in judging whether online content is true or false actually lack the skills to do so, as my noble friend Lord Knight, has pointed out.

Amendment 91 would mean that platforms have to instigate measures to give users an awareness and understanding of the nature and characteristics of the content that may be on the service, its potential impact and how platforms operate. That is a sensible and practical request that is not beyond the ability of companies to provide, and it will be to everyone’s benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a good debate. I am glad that a number of noble Lords mentioned Lord Puttnam and the committee that he chaired for your Lordships’ House on democracy and digital technologies. I responded to the debate that we had on that; sadly, it was after he had already retired from your Lordships’ House, but he participated from the steps of the Throne. I am mindful of that report and the lessons learned in it in the context of the debate that we have had today.

We recognise the intent behind the amendments in this group to strengthen the UK’s approach to media literacy in so far as it relates to services that will be regulated by the Bill. Ofcom has a broad duty to promote media literacy under the Communications Act 2003. That is an important responsibility for Ofcom, and it is right that the regulator is able to adapt its approach to support people in meeting the evolving challenges of the digital age.

Amendments 52A and 91 from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and Amendment 91A from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, seek to introduce duties on in-scope services, requiring them to put in place measures that promote users’ media literacy, while Amendment 98 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would require Ofcom to issue a code of practice in relation to the new duty proposed in his Amendment 91. While we agree that the industry has a role to play in promoting media literacy, the Government believe that these amendments could lead to unintended, negative consequences.

I shall address the role of the industry and media literacy, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, dwelt on in her remarks. We welcome the programmes that it runs in partnership with online safety experts such as Parent Zone and Internet Matters and hope they continue to thrive, with the added benefit of Ofcom’s recently published evaluation toolkit. However, we believe that platforms can go further to empower and educate their users. That is why media literacy has been included in the Bill’s risk assessment duties, meaning that regulated services will have to consider measures to promote media literacy to their users as part of the risk assessment process. Additionally, through work delivered under its existing media literacy duty, Ofcom is developing a set of best-practice design principles for platform-based media literacy measures. That work will build an evidence base of the most effective measures that platforms can take to build their users’ media literacy.

In response to the noble Baroness’s question, I say: no, platforms will not be able to avoid putting in place protections for children by using media literacy campaigns. Ofcom would be able to use its enforcement powers if a platform was not achieving appropriate safety outcomes. There are a range of ways in which platforms can mitigate risks, of which media literacy is but one, and Ofcom would expect platforms to consider them all in their risk assessments.

Let me say a bit about the unintended consequences we fear might arise from these amendments. First, the resource demands to create a code of practice and then to regulate firms’ compliance with this type of broad duty will place an undue burden on the regulator. It is also unclear how the proposed duties in Amendments 52A, 91 and 91A would interact with Ofcom’s existing media literacy duty. There is a risk, we fear, that these parallel duties could be discharged in conflicting ways. Amendment 91A is exposed to broad interpretation by platforms and could enable them to fulfil the duty in a way that lacked real impact on users’ media literacy.

The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes proposes a duty to promote awareness of financial deception and fraud. The Government are already taking significant action to protect people from online fraud, including through their new fraud strategy and other provisions in this Bill. I know that my noble friends Lord Camrose, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lady Penn met noble Lords to talk about that earlier this week. We believe that measures such as prompts for users before they complete financial transactions sit more logically with financial service providers than with services in scope of this Bill.

Amendment 52A proposes a duty on carriers of journalistic content to promote media literacy to their users. We do not want to risk requiring platforms to act as de facto press regulators, assessing the quality of news publishers’ content. That would not be compatible with our commitment to press freedom. Under its existing media literacy duty, Ofcom is delivering positive work to support people to discern high-quality information online. It is also collaborating with the biggest platforms to design best practice principles for platform-based media literacy measures. It intends to publish these principles this year and will encourage platforms to adopt them.

It is right that Ofcom is given time to understand the benefits of these approaches. The Secretary of State’s post-implementation review will allow the Government and Parliament to establish the effectiveness of Ofcom’s current approach and to reconsider the role of platforms in enhancing users’ media literacy, if appropriate. In the meantime, the Bill introduces new transparency-reporting and information-gathering powers to enhance Ofcom’s visibility of platforms delivery and evaluation of media literacy activities. We would not want to see amendments that would inadvertently dissuade platforms from delivering these activities in favour of less costly and less effective measures.

My noble friend Lord Holmes asked about the Online Media Literacy Strategy, published in July 2021, which set out the Government’s vision for improving media literacy in the country. Alongside the strategy, we have committed to publishing annual action plans each financial year until 2024-25, setting out how we meet the ambition of the strategy. In April 2022 we published the Year 2 Action Plan, which included extending the reach of media literacy education to those who are currently disengaged, in consultation with the media literacy task force—a body of 17 cross-sector experts—expanding our grant funding programme to provide nearly £2.5 million across two years for organisations delivering innovative media literacy activities, and commissioning research to improve our understanding of the challenges faced by the sector. We intend to publish the research later this year, for the benefit of civil society organisations, technology platforms and policymakers.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, in his Amendment 186, would stipulate that Ofcom must levy fees on regulated firms sufficient to fund the work of third parties involved in supporting it to meet its existing media literacy duties. The Bill already allows Ofcom to levy fees sufficient to fund the annual costs of exercising its online safety functions. This includes its existing media literacy duty as far as it relates to services regulated by this Bill. As such, the Bill already ensures that these media literacy activities, including those that Ofcom chooses to deliver through third parties, can be funded through fees levied on industry.

I turn to Amendments 188, 235, 236, 237 and 238. The Government recognise the intent behind these amendments, which is to help improve the media literacy of the general public. Ofcom already has a statutory duty to promote media literacy with regard to the publication of anything by means of electronic media, including services in scope of the Bill. These amendments propose rather prescriptive objectives, either as part of a new duty for Ofcom or through updating its existing duty. They reflect current challenges in the sector but run the risk of becoming obsolete over time, preventing Ofcom from adapting its work in response to emerging issues.

Ofcom has demonstrated flexibility in its existing duty through its renewed Approach to Online Media Literacy, launched in 2021. This presented an expanded media literacy programme, enabling it to achieve almost all the objectives specified in this group. The Government note the progress that Ofcom has already achieved under its renewed approach in the annual plan it produced last month. The Online Safety Bill strengthens Ofcom’s functions relating to media literacy, which is included in Ofcom’s new transparency-reporting and information-gathering powers, which will give it enhanced oversight of industry activity by enabling it to require regulated services to share or publish information about the work that that they are doing on media literacy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, asked about the view expressed by the Joint Committee on minimum standards for media literacy training. We agree with the intention behind that, but, because of the broad and varied nature of media literacy, we do not believe that introducing minimum standards is the most effective way of achieving that outcome. Instead, we are focusing efforts on improving the evaluation practices of media literacy initiatives to identify which ones are most effective and to encourage their delivery. Ofcom has undertaken extensive work to produce a comprehensive toolkit to support practitioners to deliver robust evaluations of their programmes. This was published in February this year and has been met with praise from practitioners, including those who received grant funding from the Government’s non-legislative media literacy work programme. The post-implementation review of Ofcom’s online safety regime, which covers its existing media literacy duty in so far as it relates to regulated services, will provide a reasonable point at which to establish the effectiveness of Ofcom’s new work programme, after giving it time to take effect.

Noble Lords talked about the national curriculum and media literacy in schools. Media literacy is indeed a crucial skill for everyone in the digital age. Key media literacy skills are already taught through a number of compulsory subjects in the national curriculum. Digital literacy is included in the computing national curriculum in England, which equips pupils with the knowledge, understanding and skills to use information and communication technology creatively and purposefully. I can reassure noble Lords that people such as Monica are being taught not about historic things like floppy disks but about emerging and present challenges; the computing curriculum ensures that pupils are taught how to design program systems and accomplish goals such as collecting, analysing, evaluating and presenting data.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Does the Minister know how many children are on computing courses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I had the great privilege of serving as a member of this House’s Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee under the excellent chairing of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. She has already told us of the ghastly effects that fraud has on individuals and indeed its adverse effects on businesses. We heard really dramatic statistics, such as when Action Fraud told us that 80% of fraud is cyber enabled.

Many of us here will have been victims of fraud—I have been a victim—or know people who have been victims of fraud. I was therefore very pleased when the Government introduced the fraudulent advertising provisions into the Bill, which will go some way to reducing the prevalence of online fraud. It seems to me that it requires special attention, which is what these amendments should do.

We heard in our inquiry about the problems that category 1 companies had in taking down fraudulent advertisements quickly. Philip Milton, the public policy manager at Meta, told us that it takes between 24 and 48 hours to review possibly harmful content after it has been flagged to the company. He recognised that, due to the deceptive nature of fraudulent advertising, Meta’s systems do not always recognise that advertising is fraudulent and, therefore, take-down rates would be variable. That is one of the most sophisticated tech platforms—if it has difficulties, just imagine the difficulty that other companies have in both recognising and taking down fraudulent advertising.

Again and again, the Bill recognises the difficulties that platforms have in systematising the protections provided in the Bill. Fraud has an ever-changing nature and is massively increasing—particularly so for fraudulent advertising. It is absolutely essential that the highest possible levels of transparency are placed upon the tech companies to report their response to fraudulent advertising. Both Ofcom and users need to be assured that not only do the companies have the most effective reporting systems but, just as importantly, they have the most effective transparency to check how well they are performing.

To do this, the obligations on platforms must go beyond the transparency reporting requirements in the Bill. These amendments would ensure that they include obligations to provide information on incidence of fraud advertising, in line with other types of priority illegal content. These increased obligations are part of checking the effectiveness of the Bill when it comes to being implemented.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, told us on the fifth day of Committee, when taking about the risk-assessment amendments she had tabled:

“They are about ensuring transparency to give all users confidence”.—[Official Report, 9/5/23; col. 1755.]


Across the Bill, noble Lords have repeatedly stated that there needs to be a range of ways to judge how effectively the protections provided are working. I suggest to noble Lords that these amendments are important attempts to help make the Bill more accountable and provide the data to future-proof the harms it is trying to deal with. As we said in the committee report:

“Without sufficient futureproofing, technology will most likely continue to create new opportunities for fraudsters to target victims”.


I ask the Minister to at least look at some of these amendments favourably.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I shall say very briefly in support of these amendments that in 2017, the 5Rights Foundation, of which I am the chair, published the Digital Childhood report, which in a way was the thing that put the organisation on the map. The report looked at the evolving capacity of children through childhood, what technology they were using, what happened to them and what the impact was. We are about to release the report again, in an updated version, and one of the things that is most striking is the introduction of fraud into children’s lives. At the point at which they are evolving into autonomous people, when they want to buy presents for their friends and parents on their own, they are experiencing what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, expressed as embarrassment, loss of trust and a sense of deserting confidence—I think that is probably the phrase. So I just want to put on the record that this is a problem for children also.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, made a very simple proposition. I am very grateful to her for introducing this so clearly and comprehensively. Of course, it is all about the way that platforms will identify illegal, fraudulent advertising and attempt to align it with other user-to-user content in terms of transparency, reporting, user reporting and user complaints. It is a very straightforward proposition.

First of all, however, we should thank the Government for acceding to what the Joint Committee suggested, which was that fraudulent advertising should be brought within the scope of the Bill. But, as ever, we want more. That is what it is all about and it is a very straightforward proposition which I very much hope the Minister will accede to.

We have heard from around the Committee about the growing problem and I will be very interested to read the report that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was talking about, in terms of the introduction of fraud into children’s lives—that is really important. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned some of the statistics from Clean Up the Internet, Action Fraud and so on, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. And, of course, it is now digital. Some 80% of fraud, as he said, is cyber-enabled, and 23% of all reported frauds are initiated on social media—so this is bang in the area of the Bill.

It has been very interesting to see how some of the trade organisations, the ABI and others, have talked about the impact of fraud, including digital fraud. The ABI said:

“Consumers’ confidence is being eroded by the ongoing proliferation of online financial scams, including those predicated on impersonation of financial service providers and facilitated through online advertising. Both the insurance and long-term savings sectors are impacted by financial scams perpetrated via online paid-for advertisements, which can deprive vulnerable consumers of their life savings and leave deep emotional scars”.


So, this is very much a cross-industry concern and very visible to the insurance industry and no doubt to other sectors as well.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on her chairing of the fraud committee and on the way it came to its conclusions and scrutinised the Bill. Paragraphs 559, 560 and 561 all set out where the Bill needs to be aligned to the other content that it covers. As she described, there are two areas where the Bill can be improved. If they are not cured, they will substantially undermine its ability to tackle online fraud effectively.

This has the backing of Which? As the Minister will notice, it is very much a cross-industry and consumer body set of amendments, supporting transparency reporting and making sure that those platforms with more fraudulent advertising make proportionately larger changes to their systems. That is why there is transparency reporting for all illegal harms that platforms are obliged to prevent. There is no reason why advertising should be exempt. On user reporting and complaints, it is currently unclear whether this applies only to illegal user-generated content and unpaid search content or if it also applies to illegal fraudulent advertisements. At the very least, I hope the Minister will clarify that today.

Elsewhere, the Bill requires platforms to allow users to complain if the platform fails to comply with its duties to protect users from illegal content and with regard to the content-reporting process. I very much hope the Minister will accede to including that as well.

Some very simple requests are being made in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will take them on board.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

Okay; I thank my noble friend for his response. However, I would just say that we never would have broken like that, before 7.30 pm. I will leave it at that, but I will have a word with the usual channels.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 141 and 303 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Before I do, I mention in passing how delighted I was to see Amendment 40, which carries the names of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—may there be many more like that.

I am concerned that without Amendments 141 and 303, the concept of “verified” is not really something that the law can take seriously. I want to ask the Minister two rather technical questions. First, how confident can the Government and Ofcom be that with the current wording, Ofcom could form an assessment of whether Twitter’s current “verified by blue” system satisfies the duty in terms of robustness? If it does not, does Ofcom have the power to send it back to the drawing board? I am sure noble Lords understand why I raise this: we have recently seen “verified by blue” ticks successfully bought by accounts impersonating Martin Lewis, US Senators and Putin propagandists. My concern is that in the absence of a definition of verification in the Bill such as the one proposed in Amendments 141 and 303, where in the current wording does Ofcom have the authority to say that “verified by blue” does not satisfy the user verification duty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I entirely understand what the noble Baroness is saying, and I know that she feels particularly strongly about these issues given her experiences. The whole Bill is about trying to weigh up different aspects—we are on day 5 now, and this has been very much the tenor of what we are trying to talk about in terms of balance.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we did discuss anonymity in relation to the issues that she has put forward. A company should not be able to use anonymity as an excuse not to deal with the situation, and that is slightly different from simply saying, “We throw our hands up on those issues”.

There was a difference between the fact that companies are using anonymity to say, “We don’t know who it is, and therefore we can’t deal with it”, and the idea that they should take action against people who are abusing the system and the terms of service. It is subtle, but it is very meaningful in relation to what the noble Baroness is suggesting.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

That is a very fair description. We have tried to emphasise throughout the discussion on the Bill that it is about not just content but how the system and algorithms work in terms of amplification. In page 35 of our report, we try to address some of those issues—it is not central to the point about anonymity, but we certainly talked about the way that messages are driven by the algorithm. Obviously, how that operates in practice and how the Bill as drafted operates is what we are kicking the tyres on at the moment, and the noble Baroness is absolutely right to do that.

The Government’s response was reasonably satisfactory, but this is exactly why this group explores the definition of verification and so on, and tries to set standards for verification, because we believe that there is a gap in all this. I understand that this is not central to the noble Baroness’s case, but—believe me—the discussion of anonymity was one of the most difficult issues that we discussed in the Joint Committee, and you have to fall somewhere in that discussion.

Requiring platforms to allow users to see other users’ verification status is a crucial further pillar to user empowerment, and it provides users with a key piece of information about other users. Being able to see whether an account is verified would empower victims of online abuse or threats—I think this partly answers the noble Baroness’s question—to make more informed judgments about the source of the problem, and therefore take more effective steps to protect themselves. Making verification status visible to all users puts more choice in their hands as to how they manage the higher risks associated with non-verified and anonymous accounts, and offers them a lighter-touch alternative to filtering out all non-verified users entirely.

We on these Benches support the amendments that have been put forward. Amendment 141 aims to ensure that a user verification duty delivers in the way that the public and Government hope it will—by giving Ofcom a clear remit to require that the verification systems that platforms are required to develop in response to the duty are sufficiently rigorous and accessible to all users.

I was taken by what the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, particularly the case for Ofcom’s duties as regards those with disabilities. We need Ofcom to be tasked with setting out the principles and minimum standards, because otherwise platforms will try to claim, as verification, systems that do not genuinely verify a user’s identity, are unaffordable to ordinary users or use their data inappropriately.

Likewise, we support Amendment 303, which would introduce a definition of “user identity verification” into the Bill to ensure that we are all on the same page. In Committee in the House of Commons, Ministers suggested that “user identity verification” is an everyday term so does not need a definition. This amendment, which no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will speak to in more detail, is bang on point as far as that is concerned. That was not a convincing answer, and that is why this amendment is particularly apt.

I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, had to say, but in many ways the amendment in the previous group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, met some of the noble Baroness’s concerns. As regards the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we are all Wikipedia fans, so we all want to make sure that there is no barrier to Wikipedia operating successfully. I wonder whether perhaps the noble Lord is making quite a lot out of the Wikipedia experience, but I am sure the Minister will enlighten us all and will have a spot-on response for him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Is the answer to my question that the blue tick and the current Meta system will not be considered as verification under the terms of the Bill? Is that the implication of what he said?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes. The blue tick is certainly not identity verification. I will write to confirm on Meta, but they are separate and, as the example of blue ticks and Twitter shows, a changing feast. That is why I am talking in general terms about the approach, so as not to rely too much on examples that are changing even in the course of this Committee.

Government Amendment 43A stands in my name. This clarifies that “non-verified user” refers to users whether they are based in the UK or elsewhere. This ensures that, if a UK user decides he or she no longer wishes to interact with non-verified users, this will apply regardless of where they are based.

Finally, Amendment 106 in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe would make an addition to the online safety objectives for regulated user-to-user services. It would amend them to make it clear that one of the Bill’s objectives is to protect people from communications offences committed by anonymous users.

The Bill already imposes duties on services to tackle illegal content. Those duties apply across all areas of a service, including the way it is designed and operated. Platforms will be required to take measures—for instance, changing the design of functionalities, algorithms, and other features such as anonymity—to tackle illegal content.

Ofcom is also required to ensure that user-to-user services are designed and operated to protect people from harm, including with regard to functionalities and other features relating to the operation of their service. This will likely include the use of anonymous accounts to commit offences in the scope of the Bill. My noble friend’s amendment is therefore not needed. I hope she will be satisfied not to press it, along with the other noble Lords who have amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, this is my first opportunity to speak in Committee on this important Bill, but I have followed it very closely, and the spirit in which constructive debate has been conducted has been genuinely exemplary. In many ways, it mirrors the manner in which the Joint Committee, on which I had the privilege to serve with other noble Lords, was conducted, and its report rightly has influenced our proceedings in so many ways. I declare an interest as deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group, which is a member of the News Media Association, and a director of the Regulatory Funding Company, and note my other interests as set out in the register.

I will avoid the temptation to ruminate philosophically, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, entertained us by doing. I will speak to Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the other amendments which impact on the definition of “recognised news publisher”. As the noble Lord said, his amendments are pretty robust in what they seek to achieve, but I am very pleased that he has tabled them, because it is important that we have a debate about how the Bill impacts on freedom of expression—I use that phrase advisedly—and press and media freedom. The noble Lord’s aims are laudable but do not quite deliver what he intends.

I will explain why it is important that Clauses 13 and 14 stand part of the Bill, and without amendments of the sort proposed. The Joint Committee considered this issue in some detail and supported the inclusion of the news publisher content exemption. These clauses are crucial to the whole architecture of the Bill because they protect news publishers from being dragged into an onerous regime of statutory content control. The press—these clauses cover the broadcasters too—have not been subject to any form of statutory regulation since the end of the 17th century. That is what we understand by press freedom: that the state and its institutions do not have a role in controlling or censoring comment. Clauses 13 and 14 protect that position and ensure that the media, which is of course subject to rigorous independent standard codes as well as to criminal and civil law, does not become part of a system of state regulation by the back door because of its websites and digital products.

That is what is at the heart of these clauses. However, it is not a carte blanche exemption without caveats. As the Joint Committee looked at, and as we have heard, to qualify for it, publishers must meet stringent criteria, as set out in Clause 50, which include being subject to standards codes, having legal responsibility for material published, having effective policies to handle complaints, and so on. It is exactly the same tough definition as was set out in the National Security Bill, which noble Lords across the House supported when it was on Report here.

Without such clear definitions, alongside requirements not to take down or restrict access to trusted news sources without notification, opaque algorithms conjured up in Silicon Valley would end up restricting the access of UK citizens to news, with scant meaningful scope for reinstating it given the short shelf life of news. Ultimately, that would have a profound impact on the public’s right to access news, something which the noble Baroness rightly highlighted. That is why the Joint Committee recommended, at paragraph 304 of its report, that the Bill was

“strengthened to include a requirement that news publisher content should not be moderated, restricted or removed unless it is content the publication of which clearly constitutes a criminal offence, or which has been found to be unlawful by order of a court within the appropriate jurisdiction”.

The Government listened to that concern that the platforms would put themselves in the position of censor on issues of democratic importance, and quite rightly amended the draft Bill to deal with that point. Without it, instead of trusted, curated, regulated news comment, from the BBC to the Guardian to the Manchester Evening News, news would end up being filtered by Google and Facebook. That would be a crushing blow to free speech, to which all noble Lords are absolutely committed.

So, instead of these clauses acting as a bulwark against disinformation by protecting content of democratic importance, they would weaken the position of trusted news providers by introducing too much ambiguity into the system. As we all know, ambiguity brings with it legal challenge and constant controversy. This is especially so given that the exemptions that we are talking about already exist in statute elsewhere, which would cause endless confusion.

I understand the rationale behind many of the amendments, but I fear they would not work in practice. Free speech—and again I use the words advisedly—is a very delicate bloom, which can easily be swept away by badly drafted, uncertain or opaque laws. Its protection needs certainty, which is what the Bill, as it stands, provides. A general catch-all clause would be subject, I fear, to endless argument with the platforms, which are well known for such tactics and for endless legal wrangling.

I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, in his superb speech on the opening day in Committee, when he said that one issue with the Bill is that it

“is very difficult to understand, in part because of its innate complexity and in part because it has been revised so often”. [Official Report, 19/4/23; col. 700.]


He added, in a welcome panegyric to clarity and concision, that given that it is a long and complex Bill, why would we add to it? I agree absolutely with him, but those are arguments for not changing the Bill in the way he proposes. I believe the existing provisions are clear and precise, practical and carefully calibrated. They do not leave room for doubt, and protect media freedom, investigative journalism and the citizen’s right to access authoritative news, which is why I support the Bill as it stands.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, given the lateness of the hour, I will make just three very brief points. The first is that I find it really fascinating that the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, come from a completely different perspective, but still demand transparency over what is going on. I fully support the formation that she has found, and I think that in many ways they are better than the other ones which came from the other perspective. But what I urge the Minister to hear is that we all seek transparency over what is going on.

Secondly, in many of the amendments—I think I counted about 14 or 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and also of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall—there is absolutely nothing I disagree with. My problem with these amendments really goes back to the debate we had on the first day on Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. He set out the purposes of the Bill, and the Minister gave what was considered by most Members of your Lordships’ House to be the groundwork of a very excellent alternative, in the language of government. It appears, as we go on, that many dozens of amendments could be dropped in favour of this purposive clause, which itself could include reference to human rights, children’s rights, the Equality Act, the importance of freedom of expression under the law, and so on. I urge the Minister to consider the feeling of the House: that the things said at the Dispatch Box to be implicit, again and again, the House requires to be explicit. This is one way we could do it, in short form, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, just urged us.

Thirdly, I do have to speak against Amendment 294. I would be happy to take the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, through dozens of studies that show the psychological impact of online harms: systems that groom users to gamble, that reward them for being online at any cost to their health and well-being, that profile them to offer harmful material, and more of the same whether they ask for it or not, and so on. I am also very happy to put some expert voices at his disposal, but I will just say this: the biggest clue as to why this amendment is wrongheaded is the number of behavioural psychologists that are employed by the tech sector. They are there, trying to get at our behaviours and thoughts; they anticipate our move and actually try to predict and create the next move. That is why we have to have psychological harm in the Bill.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

I support Amendment 44. I am pleased that, as part of the new triple shield, the Government have introduced Clause 12 on “User empowerment duties”, which allow users to protect themselves, not just from abusive posts from other users but from whole areas of content. In the Communications and Digital Committee’s inquiry, we had plenty of evidence from organisations representing minorities and people with special characteristics who are unable adequately to protect themselves from the hate they receive online. I am glad that subsections (10) to (12) recognise specific content and users with special characteristics who are targets of abuse and need to be able to protect themselves, but subsection (3) requests that these features should be

“designed to effectively … reduce the likelihood of the user encountering content”

they want to avoid. I am concerned that “effectively” will be interpreted subjectively by platforms in scope and that each will interpret it differently.

At the moment, it will not be possible for Ofcom to assess how thoroughly the platforms have been providing these empowerment tools of protection for users. If the features are to work, there must be an overview of how effective they are being and how well they are working. When the former Secretary of State, Michelle Donelan, was asked about this, she said that there was nothing in this clause to pin an assessment on. It seems to me that the lists in Clause 12 create plenty of criteria on which to hang an assessment.

The new duties in Clause 12 provide for control tools for users against very specific content that is abusive or incites hatred on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sex, gender reassignment or sexual orientation. However, this list is not exhaustive. There will inevitably be areas of content for which users have not been given blocking tools, including pornography, violent material and other material that is subject to control in the offline world.

Not only will the present list for such tools need to be assessed for its thoroughness in allowing users to protect themselves from specific harms, but surely the types of harm from which they need to protect themselves will change over time. Ofcom will need regularly to assess where these harms are and make sure that service providers regularly update their content-blocking tools. Without such an assessment, it will be hard for Ofcom and civil society to understand what the upcoming concerns are with the tools.

The amendment would provide a transparency obligation, which would demand that service providers inform users of the risks present on the platform. Surely this is crucial when users are deciding what to protect themselves from.

The assessment should also look for unintended restrictions on freedom of expression created by the new tools. If the tools are overprotective, they could surely create a bubble and limit users’ access to information that they might find useful. For example, the user might want to block material about eating disorders, but the algorithm might interpret that to mean limiting the user’s access to content on healthy lifestyles or nutrition content. We are also told that the algorithms do not understand irony and humour. When the filters are used to stop content that is abusive or incites hatred on the basis of users’ particular characteristics, they might also remove artistic, humorous or satirical content.

Repeatedly, we are told that the internet creates echo chambers, where users read only like-minded opinions. These bubbles can create an atmosphere where freedom of expression is severely limited and democracy suffers. A freedom of expression element to the assessment would also, in these circumstances, be critical. We are told that the tech platforms often do not know what their algorithms do and, not surprisingly, they often evolve beyond their original intentions. Assessments on the tools demanded by Clause 12 need to be carefully investigated to ensure that they are keeping up to date with the trends of abuse on the internet but also for the unintended consequences they might create, curbing freedom of expression.

Throughout the Bill, there is a balancing act between freedom of expression and protection from abuse. The user empowerment tools are potentially very powerful, and neither the service providers, the regulators nor the Government know what their effects will be. It is beholden upon the Government to introduce an assessment to check regularly how the user empowerment duties are working; otherwise, how can they be updated, and how can Ofcom discover what content is being unintentionally controlled? I urge the Minister, in the name of common sense, to ensure that these powerful tools unleashed by the Bill will not be misused or become outdated in a fast-changing digital world.

[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 ---

[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.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said words to the effect that perhaps we should begin by having particular regard for certain vulnerabilities, but we are dealing with primary legislation and this really concerns me. Lists such as in Clause 12 are really dangerous. It is not a great way to write law. We could be with this law for a long time.

I took the Communications Act 2003 through for Her Majesty’s Opposition, and we were doing our absolute best to future-proof the legislation. There was no mention of the internet in that piece of legislation. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, with whom I sparred in those days, in was not that Act that introduced Ofcom but a separate Act. The internet was not even mentioned until the late Earl of Northesk introduced an amendment with the word “internet” to talk about the investigative powers Act.

The reality is that we already had Facebook, and tremendous damage being done through it to people such as my daughter. Noble Lords will remember that in the early days it was Oxford, Cambridge, Yale and Harvard; that is how it all began. It was an amazing thing, and we could not foresee what would happen but there was a real attempt to future-proof. If you start having lists such as in Clause 12, you cannot just add on or change. Cultural mores change. This list, which looks great in 2023, might look really odd in about 2027. Different groups will have emerged and say, “Well, what about me, what about me?”.

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Who will be the decider of what is right, what is rude or what is abusive? I have real concerns with this. The Government have had several years to get this right. I say that with great respect to my noble friend the Minister, but we will have to think about these issues a little further. The design of the technology around all this is what we should be imposing on the tech companies. I was on the Communications and Digital Committee in 2020 when that was a key plank of our report, following the inquiry that we carried out and prior to the Joint Committee, then looking at this issue of “legal but harmful”, et cetera. I am glad that was dropped because—I know that I should not say this—when I asked a civil servant what was meant by “harmful”, he said, “Well, it might upset people”.

It is a very subjective thing. This is difficult for the Government. We must do all we can to support the Government in trying to find the right solutions, but I am sorry to say that I am a lawyer—a barrister—and I worry. We are trying to make things right but, remember, once it is there in an Act, it is there. People will use that as a tool. In 2002, at New Scotland Yard, I was introduced to an incredible website about 65 ways to become a good paedophile. Where does that fit in Clause 12? I have not quite worked that out. Is it sex? What is it? We have to be really careful. I would prefer having no list and making it more general, relying on the system to allow us to opt in.

I support my noble friend Lady Morgan’s amendment on this, which would make it easier for people to say, “Well, that’s fine”, but would not exclude people. What happens if you do not fit within Clause 12? Do you then just have to suck it up? That is not a very House of Lords expression, but I am sure that noble Lords will relate to it.

We have to go with care. I will say a little more on the next group of amendments, on anonymity. It is really hard, but what the Government are proposing is not quite there yet.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

That seemed to be provoked by me saying that we must look after the vulnerable, but I am suggesting that we use UK law and the rights that are already established. Is that not better than having a small list of individual items?

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

I agree. The small list of individual items is the danger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Does the Minister therefore think that the Government condone the current system, where we are inundated algorithmically with material that we do not want? Are the Government condoning that behaviour, in the way that he is saying they would condone a safety measure?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We will come to talk about algorithms and their risks later on. There is an important balance to strike here that we have debated, rightly, in this group. I remind noble Lords that there are a range of measures that providers can put in place—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

But as I think the noble Baroness understands from that reference, this is a definition already in statute, and with which Parliament and the courts are already engaged.

The Bill’s overarching freedom of expression duties also apply to Clause 12. Subsections (4) to (7) of Clause 18 stipulate that category 1 service providers are required to assess the impact on free expression from their safety policies, including the user empowerment features. This is in addition to the duties in Clause 18(2), which requires all user-to-user services to have particular regard to the importance of protecting freedom of expression when complying with their duties. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 283ZA would require category 1 providers to make judgments on user empowerment content to a similar standard required for illegal content. That would be disproportionate. Clause 170 already specifies how providers must make judgments about whether content is of a particular kind, and therefore in scope of the user empowerment duties. This includes making their judgment based on “all relevant information”. As such, the Bill already ensures that the user empowerment content features will be applied in a proportionate way that will not undermine free speech or hinder legitimate debate online.

Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, would require the Secretary of State to lay a Statement before Parliament outlining whether any of the user empowerment duties should be applied to children. I recognise the significant interest that noble Lords have in applying the Clause 12 duties to children. The Bill already places comprehensive requirements on Part 3 services which children are likely to access. This includes undertaking regular risk assessments of such services, protecting children from harmful content and activity, and putting in place age-appropriate protections. If there is a risk that children will encounter harm, such as self-harm content or through unknown or unverified users contacting them, service providers will need to put in place age- appropriate safety measures. Applying the user empowerment duties for child users runs counter to the Bill’s child safety objectives and may weaken the protections for children—for instance, by giving children an option to see content which is harmful to them or to engage with unknown, unverified users. While we recognise the concerns in this area, for the reasons I have set out, the Government do not agree with the need for this amendment.

I will resist the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to talk about bots because I look forward to returning to that in discussing the amendments on future-proofing. With that, I invite noble Lords—

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I noted the points made about the way information is pushed and, in particular, the speech of the right reverend Prelate. Nothing in the Government’s response has really dealt with that concern. Can the Minister say a few words about not the content but the way in which users are enveloped? On the idea that companies always act because they have a commercial imperative not to expose users to harmful material, actually, they have a commercial imperative to spread material and engage users. It is well recorded that a lot of that is in fact harmful material. Can the Minister speak a little more about the features rather than the content?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We will discuss this when it comes to the definition of content in the Bill, which covers features. I was struck by the speech by the right reverend Prelate about the difference between what people encounter online, and the analogy used by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about a bookshop. Social media is of a different scale and has different features which make that analogy not a clean or easy one. We will debate in other groups the accumulated threat of features such as algorithms, if the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will allow me to go into greater detail then, but I certainly take the points made by both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in their contributions.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Debate on Amendment 29 resumed.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in her search to make it clear that we do not need to take a proportionate approach to pornography. I would be delighted if the Minister could indicate in his reply that the Government will accept the age-assurance amendments in group 22 that are coming shortly, which make it clear that porn on any regulated service, under Part 3 or Part 5, should be behind an age gate.

In making the case for that, I want to say very briefly that, after the second day of Committee, I received a call from a working barrister who represented 90 young men accused of serious sexual assault. Each was a student and many were in their first year. A large proportion of the incidents had taken place during freshers’ week. She rang to make sure that we understood that, while what each and every one of them had done was indefensible, these men were also victims. As children brought up on porn, they believed that their sexual violence was normal—indeed, they told her that they thought that was what young women enjoyed and wanted. On this issue there is no proportionality.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I also support Amendments 29, 83 and 103 from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. As currently drafted, the Bill makes frequent reference to Ofcom taking into account

“the size and capacity of … a service”

when it determines the extent of the measures a site should apply to protect children. We have discussed size on previous days; I am conscious that the point has been made in part, but I hope the Committee will forgive me if I repeat it clearly. When it comes to pornography and other harms to children, size does matter. As I have said many times recently, porn is porn no matter the size of the website or publisher involved with it. It does not matter whether it is run by a huge company such as MindGeek or out of a shed in London or Romania by a small gang of people. The harm of the content to children is still exactly the same.

Our particular concern is that, if the regulations from Ofcom are applied to the bigger companies, that will create a lot of space for smaller organisations which are not bending to the regulations to try to gain a competitive advantage over the larger players and occupy that space. That is the concern of the bigger players. They are very open to age verification; what concerns them is that they will face an unequal, unlevel playing field. It is a classic concern of bigger players facing regulation in the market: that bad actors will gain competitive advantage. We should be very cognisant of that when thinking about how the regulations on age verification for porn will be applied. Therefore, the measures should be applied in proportion to the risk of harm to children posed by a porn site, not in proportion to the site’s financial capacity or the impact on its revenues of basic protections for children.

In this, we are applying basic, real-world principles to the internet. We are denying its commonly held exceptionalism, which I think we are all a bit tired of. We are applying the same principles that you might apply in the real world, for instance, to a kindergarten, play centre, village church hall, local pub, corner shop or any other kind of business that brings itself in front of children. In other words, if a company cannot afford to implement or does not seem capable of implementing measures that protect children, it should not be permitted by law to have a face in front of the general public. That is the principle that we apply in the real world, and that is the principle we should be applying on the internet.

Allowing a dimension of proportionality to apply to pornography cases creates an enormous loophole in the legislation, which at best will delay enforcement for particular sites when it is litigated and at worst will disable regulatory action completely. That is why I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I would not want to disagree with the noble Baroness for a moment.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Does the noble Lord think it is also important to have some idea of measurement? Age assurance in certain circumstances is far more accurate than age verification.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

Yes; the noble Baroness is right. She has pointed out in other discussions I have been party to that, for example, gaming technology that looks at the movement of the player can quite accurately work out from their musculoskeletal behaviour, I assume, the age of the gamer. So there are alternative methods. Our challenge is to ensure that if they are to be used, we will get the equivalent of age verification or better. I now hand over to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

My other question is: are we confident that the amendment as drafted really tackles the very senior managers? I share some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: we do not want middle managers, deep in the leviathan of an enormous company, being sacrificial lambs while the company does not really address the issue. We want change from the top to reshape the way these companies think about the trade-offs they have to face. I hope the Minister can clarify that.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I support something between the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Bethell, and the Government. I welcome all three and put on record my thanks to the Government for making a move on this issue.

There are three members of the pre-legislative committee still in the Chamber at this late hour, and I am sure I am not the only one of those three who remembers the excruciating detail in which Suzanne Webb MP, during evidence given with Meta’s head of child safety, established that there was nowhere to report harm, but nowhere—not up a bit, not sideways, not to the C-suite. It was stunning. I have used that clip from the committee’s proceedings several times in schools to show what we do in the House of Lords, because it was fascinating. That fact was also made abundantly clear by Frances Haugen. When we asked her why she took the risk of copying things and walking them out, she said, “There was nowhere to go and no one to talk to”.

Turning to the amendments, like the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I am concerned about whether we have properly dealt with C-suite reporting and accountability, but I am a hugely enthusiastic supporter of that accountability being in the system. I will be interested to hear the Minister speak to the Government’s amendment, but also to some of the other issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight.

I will comment very briefly on the supply chain and Amendment 219. Doing so, I go back again to Amendment 2, debated last week, which sought to add services not covered by the current scope but which clearly promoted and enabled access to harm and which were also likely to be accessed by children. I have a long quote from the Minister but, because of the hour, I will not read it out. In effect, and to paraphrase, he said, “Don’t worry, they will be caught by the other guys—the search and user-to-user platforms”. If the structure of the Bill means that it is mandatory that the user-to-user and search platforms catch the people in the supply chain, surely it would be a great idea to put that in the Bill absolutely explicitly.

Finally, while I share some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I repeat my constant reprise of “risk not size”. The size of the fine is related to the turnover of the company, so it is actually proportionate.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a really interesting debate. I started out thinking that we were developing quite a lot of clarity. The Government have moved quite a long way since we first started debating senior manager liability, but there is still a bit of fog that needs dispelling—the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, have demonstrated that we are not there yet.

I started off by saying yes to this group, before I got to grips with the government amendments. I broadly thought that Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and Amendment 182, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, were heading in the right direction. However, I was stopped short by Trustpilot’s briefing, which talked about a stepped approach regarding breaches and so on—that is a very strong point. It says that it is important to recognise that not all breaches should carry the same weight. In fact, it is even more than that: certain things should not even be an offence, unless you have been persistent or negligent. We have to be quite mindful as to how you formulate criminal offences.

I very much liked what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, had to say about the tech view of its own liability. We have all seen articles about tech exceptionalism, and, for some reason, that seems to have taken quite a hold—so we have to dispel that as well. That is why I very much liked what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said. It seemed to me that that was very much part of a stepped approach, while also being transparent to the object of the exercise and the company involved. That fits very well with the architecture of the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, put her finger on it: the Bill is not absolutely clear. In the Government’s response to the Joint Committee’s report, we were promised that, within three to six months, we would get that senior manager liability. On reading the Bill, I am certainly still a bit foggy about it, and it is quite reassuring that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, is foggy about it too. Is that senior manager liability definitely there? Will it be there?

The Joint Committee made two other recommendations which I thought made a lot of sense: the obligation to report on risk assessment to the main board of a company, and the appointment of a safety controller, which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned. Such a controller would make it very clear—as with GDPR, you would have a senior manager who you can fix the duty on.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I would very much like to hear from the Minister on the question of personal liability, as well as about Ofcom. It is important that any criminal prosecution is mediated by Ofcom; that is cardinal. You cannot just create criminal offences where you can have a prosecution without the intervention of Ofcom. That is extraordinarily important.

I have just a couple of final points. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, comes back quite often to this point about regulation being the enemy of innovation. It very much depends what kind of innovation we are talking about. Technology is not necessarily neutral. It depends how the humans who deploy it operate it. In circumstances such as this, where we are talking about children and about smaller platforms that can do harm, I have no qualms about having regulation or indeed criminal liability. That is a really important factor. We are talking about a really important area.

I very strongly support Amendment 219. It deals with a really important aspect which is completely missing from the Bill. I have a splendid briefing here, which I am not going to read out, but it is all about Mastodon being one example of a new style of federated platform in which the app or hub for a network may be category 1 owing to the size of its user base but individual subdomains or networks sitting below it could fall under category 2 status. I am very happy to give a copy of the briefing to the Minister; it is a really well-written brief, and demonstrates entirely some of the issues we are talking about here.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that I think the amendment is very well drafted. It is really quite cunning in the way that it is done.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Russell and to thank him for his good wishes. I assure the Committee that there is nowhere I would rather spend my birthday, in spite of some competitive offers. I remind noble Lords of my interests in the register, particularly as the chair of 5Rights Foundation.

As my noble friend has set out, these amendments fall in three places: the risk assessments, the safety duties and the codes of practice. However, together they work on the overarching theme of safety by design. I will restrict my detailed remarks to a number of amendments in the first two categories. This is perhaps a good moment to recall the initial work of Carnegie, which provided the conceptual approach of the Bill several years ago in arguing for a duty of care. The Bill has gone many rounds since then, but I think the principle remains that a regulated service should consider its impact on users before it causes them harm. Safety by design, to which all the amendments in this group refer, is an embodiment of a duty of care. In thinking about these amendments as a group, I remind the Committee that both the proportionality provisions and the fact that this is a systems and processes Bill means that no company can, should or will be penalised for a single piece of content, a single piece of design or, indeed, low-level infringements.

Amendments 24, 31, 77 and 84 would delete “content” from the Government’s description of what is harmful to children, meaning that the duty is to consider harm in the round rather than just harmful content. The definition of “content” is drawn broadly in Clause 207 as

“anything communicated by means of an internet service”,

but the examples in the Bill, including

“written material … music and data of any description”,

once again fail to include design features that are so often the key drivers of harm to children.

On day three of Committee, the Minister said:

“The Bill will address cumulative risk where it is the result of a combination of high-risk functionality, such as live streaming, or rewards in service … This will initially be identified through Ofcom’s sector risk assessments, and Ofcom’s risk profiles and risk assessment guidance will reflect where a combination of risk in functionalities such as these can drive up the risk of harm to children. Service providers will have to take Ofcom’s risk profiles into account in their own risk assessments for content which is illegal or harmful to children”.—[Official Report, 27/4/23; col. 1385.]


However, in looking at the child safety duties, Clause 11(5) says:

“The duties … in subsections (2) and (3) apply across all areas of a service, including the way it is designed, operated and used”,


but subsection (14) says:

“The duties set out in subsections (3) and (6)”—


which are the duties to operate proportionate systems and processes to prevent and protect children from encountering harmful content and to include them in terms of service—

“are to be taken to extend only to content that is harmful to children where the risk of harm is presented by the nature of the content (rather than the fact of its dissemination)”.

I hesitate to say whether that is contradictory. I am not actually sure, but it is confusing. I am concerned that while we are reassured that “content” means content and activity and that the risk assessment considers functionality, “harm” is then repeatedly expressed only in the form of content.

Over the weekend, I had an email exchange with the renowned psychoanalyst and author, Norman Doidge, whose work on the plasticity of the brain profoundly changed how we think about addiction and compulsion. In the exchange, he said that

“children’s exposures to super doses, of supernormal images and scenes, leaves an imprint that can hijack development”.

Then, he said that

“the direction seems to be that AI would be working out the irresistible image or scenario, and target people with these images, as they target advertising”.

His argument is that it is not just the image but the dissemination and tailoring of that image that maximises the impact. The volume and frequency of those images create habits in children that take a lifetime to change—if they change at all. Amendments 32 and 85 would remove this language to ensure that content that is harmful by virtue of its dissemination is accounted for.

I turn now to Amendments 28 and 82, which cut the reference to the

“size and capacity of the provider of the service”

in deeming what measures are proportionate. We have already discussed that small is not safe. Such platforms such as Yubo, Clapper and Discord have all been found to harm children and, as both the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, told us, small can become big very quickly. It is far easier to build to a set of rules than it is to retrofit them after the event. Again, I point out that Ofcom already has duties of proportionality; adding size and capacity is unnecessary and may tip the scale to creating loopholes for smaller services.

Amendment 138 seeks to reverse the exemption in Clause 54 of financial harms. More than half of the 100 top-grossing mobile phone apps contain loot boxes, which are well established as unfair and unhealthy, priming young children to gamble and leading to immediate hardship for parents landed with extraordinary bills.

By rights, Amendments 291 and 292 could fit in the future-proof set of amendments. The way that the Bill in Clause 204 separates out functionalities in terms of search and user-to-user is in direct opposition to the direction of travel in the tech sector. TikTok does shopping, Instagram does video, Amazon does search; autocomplete is an issue across the full gamut of services, and so on and so forth. This amendment simply combines the list of functionalities that must be risk-assessed and makes them apply on any regulated service. I cannot see a single argument against this amendment: it cannot be the Government’s intention that a child can be protected, on search services such as Google, from predictive search or autocomplete, but not on TikTok.

Finally, Amendment 295 will embed the understanding that most harm is cumulative. If the Bereaved Parents for Online Safety were in the Chamber, or any child caught up in self-harm, depression sites, gambling, gaming, bullying, fear of exposure, or the inexorable feeling of losing their childhood to an endless scroll, they would say at the top of their voices that it is not any individual piece of content, or any one moment or incident, but the way in which they are nudged, pushed, enticed and goaded into a toxic, harmful or dangerous place. Adding the simple words

“the volume of the content and the frequency with which the content is accessed”

to the interpretation of what can constitute harm in Clause 205 is one of the most important things that we can do in this Chamber. This Bill comes too late for a whole generation of parents and children but, if these safety by design amendments can protect the next generation of children, I will certainly be very glad.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour, once again, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in this Committee. I am going to speak in detail to the amendments that seek to change the way the codes of practice are implemented. Before I do, however, I will very briefly add my voice to the general comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, have just taken us through. Every parent in the country knows that both the benefit and the harm that online platforms can bring our children is not just about the content. It is about the functionality: the way these platforms work; the way they suck us in. They do give us joy but they also drive addiction. It is hugely important that this Bill reflects the functionality that online platforms bring, and not just content in the normal sense of the word “content”.

I will now speak in a bit more detail about the following amendments: Amendments 65, 65ZA, 65AA, 89, 90, 90B, 96A, 106A, 106B, 107A, 114A—I will finish soon, I promise—112, 122ZA, 122ZB and 122ZC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want, apart from anything else, to speak in defence of philosophical ruminations. The only way we can scrutinise the amendments in Committee is to do a bit of philosophical rumination. We are trying to work out what the amendments might mean in terms of changing the Bill.

I read these amendments, noted their use of “eliminate” —we have to “eliminate” all risks—and wondered what that would mean. I do not want to feel that I cannot ask these kinds of difficult questions for fear that I will offend a particular group or that it would be insensitive to a particular group of parents. It is difficult but we are required as legislators to try to understand what each other are trying to change, or how we are going to try to change the law.

I say to those who have put “eliminate” prominently in a number of these amendments that it is impossible to eliminate all risks to children—is it not?—if they are to have access to the online world, unless you ban them from the platforms completely. Is “eliminate” really helpful here?

Previously in Committee, I talked a lot about the potential dangers, psychologically and with respect to development, of overcoddling young people, of cotton wool kids, and so on. I noted an article over the weekend by the science journalist Tom Chivers, which included arguments from the Oxford Internet Institute and various psychologists that the evidence on whether social media is harmful, particularly for teenagers, is ambiguous.

I am very convinced by the examples brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—and I too wish her a happy birthday. We all know about the targeting of young people and so forth, but I am also aware of the positives. I always try to balance these things out and make sure that we do not deny young people access to the positives. In fact, I found myself cheering at the next group of amendments, which is unusual. First, they depend on whether you are four or 14—in other words, you have to be age-specific—and, secondly, they recognise that we do not want to pass anything in the Bill that actually denies children access to either their own privacy or the capacity to know more.

I also wanted to explore a little the idea of expanding the debate away from content to systems, because this is something that I think I am not quite understanding. My problem is that moving away from the discussion on whether content is removed or accessible, and focusing on systems, does not mean that content is not in scope. My worry is that the systems will have an impact on what content is available.

Let me give some examples of things that can become difficult if we think that we do not want young people to encounter violence and nudity—which makes it seem as though we know what we are talking about when we talk about “harmful”. We will all recall that, in 2018, Facebook removed content from the Anne Frank Centre posted by civil rights organisations because it included photographs of the Holocaust featuring undressed children among the victims. Facebook apologised afterwards. None the less, my worry is these kinds of things happening. Another example, in 2016, was the removal of the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph “The Terror of War”, featuring fleeing Vietnamese napalm victims in the 1970s, because the system thought it was something dodgy, given that the photo was of a naked child fleeing.

I need to understand how system changes will not deprive young people of important educational information such as that. That is what I am trying to distinguish. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about “harmful” not being defined—I have endlessly gone on about this, and will talk more about it later—is difficult because we think that we know what we mean by “harmful” content.

Finally, on the amendments requiring compliance with Ofcom codes of practice, that would give an extraordinary amount of power to the regulator and the Secretary of State. Since I have been in this place, people have rightly drawn my attention to the dangers of delegating power to the Executive or away from any kind of oversight—there has been fantastic debate and discussion about that. It seems to me that these amendments advocate delegated powers being given to the Secretary of State and Ofcom, an unelected body —the Secretary of State could amend for reasons of public policy in order to protect children—and this is to be put through the negative procedure. In any other instance, I would have expected outcry from the usual suspects, but, because it involves children, we are not supposed to object. I worry that we need to have more scrutiny of such amendments and not less, because in the name of protecting children unintended consequences can occur.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I want to answer the point that amendments cannot be seen in isolation. Noble Lords will remember that we had a long and good debate about what constituted harms to children. There was a big argument and the Minister made some warm noises in relation to putting harms to children in the Bill. There is some alignment between many people in the Chamber whereby we and Parliament would like to determine what harm is, and I very much share the noble Baroness’s concern about pointing out what that is.

On the issue of the system versus the content, I am not sure that this is the exact moment but the idea of unintended consequences keeps getting thrown up when we talk about trying to point the finger at what creates harm. There are unintended consequences now, except neither Ofcom nor the Secretary of State or Parliament but only the tech sector has a say in what the unintended consequences are. As someone who has been bungee jumping, I am deeply grateful that there are very strict rules under which that is allowed to happen.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. In many ways, I am reminded of the article I read in the New York Times this weekend and the interview with Geoffrey Hinton, the now former chief scientist at Google. He said that as companies improve their AI systems, they become increasingly dangerous. He said of AI technology:

“Look at how it was five years ago and how it is now. Take the difference and propagate it forwards. That’s scary”.


Yes, the huge success of the iPhone, of mobile phones and all of us, as parents, handing our more redundant iPhones on to our children, has meant that children have huge access. We have heard the stats in Committee around the numbers who are still in primary school and on social media, despite the terms and conditions of those platforms. That is precisely why we are here, trying to get things designed to be safe as far as is possible from the off, but recognising that it is dynamic and that we therefore need a regulator to keep an eye on the dynamic nature of these algorithms as they evolve, ensuring that they are safe by design as they are being engineered.

My noble friend Lord Stevenson has tabled Amendment 27, which looks at targeted advertising, especially that which requires data collection and profiling of children. In that, he has been grateful to Global Action Plan for its advice. While advertising is broadly out of scope of the Bill, apart from in respect of fraud, it is significant for the Minister to reflect on the user experience for children. Whether it is paid or organic content, it is pertinent in terms of their safety as children and something we should all be mindful of. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that as I understand it, the age-appropriate design code does a fair amount in respect of the data privacy of children, but this is much more about preventing children encountering the advertising in the first place, aside from the data protections that apply in the age-appropriate design code. But the authority is about to correct me.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Just to add to what the noble Lord has said, it is worth noting that we had a debate, on Amendment 92, about aligning the age-appropriate design code likely to be accessed and the very important issue that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, raised about alignment of these two regimes. I think we can say that these are kissing cousins, in that they take a by-design approach. The noble Lord is completely right that the scope of the Bill is much broader than data protection only, but they take the same approach.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Baroness, and I hope that has assisted the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey.

Finally—just about—I will speak to Amendment 32A, tabled in my name, about VPNs. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. In many ways, I wanted to give the Minister the opportunity to put something on the record. I understand, and he can confirm whether my understanding is correct, that the duties on the platforms to be safe is regardless of whether a VPN has been used to access the systems and the content. The platforms, the publishers of content that are user-to-user businesses, will have to detect whether a VPN is being used, one would suppose, in order to ensure that children are being protected and that that is genuinely a child. Is that a correct interpretation of how the Bill works? If so, is it technically realistic for those platforms to be able to detect whether someone is landing on their site via a VPN or otherwise? In my mind, the anecdote that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, related, about what the App Store algorithm on Apple had done in pushing VPNs when looking for porn, reinforces the need for app stores to become in scope, so that we can get some of that age filtering at that distribution point, rather than just relying on the platforms.

Substantially, this group is about platforms anticipating harms, not reviewing them and then fixing them despite their business model. If we can get the platforms themselves designing for children’s safety and then working out how to make the business models work, rather than the other way around, we will have a much better place for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will come on to talk a bit about dissemination as well. If the noble Lord will allow me, he can intervene later on if I have not done that to his satisfaction.

I was about to talk about the child safety duties in Clause 11(5), which also specifies that they apply to the way that a service is designed, how it operates and how it is used, as well as to the content facilitated by it. The definition of content makes it clear that providers are responsible for mitigating harm in relation to all communications and activity on their service. Removing the reference to content would make service providers responsible for all risk of harm to children arising from the general operation of their service. That could, for instance, bring into scope external advertising campaigns, carried out by the service to promote its website, which could cause harm. This and other elements of a service’s operations are already regulated by other legislation.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I apologise for interrupting. Is that the case, and could that not be dealt with by defining harm in the way that it is intended, rather than as harm from any source whatever? It feels like a big leap that, if you take out “content”, instead of it meaning the scope of the service in its functionality and content and all the things that we have talked about for the last hour and a half, the suggestion is that it is unworkable because harm suddenly means everything. I am not sure that that is the case. Even if it is, one could find a definition of harm that would make it not the case.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Taking it out in the way that the amendment suggests throws up that risk. I am sure that it is not the intention of the noble Lord or the noble Baroness in putting it, but that is a risk of the drafting, which requires some further thought.

Clause 11(2), which is the focus of Amendments 32, 85 and 295, already means that platforms have to take robust action against content which is harmful because of the manner of its dissemination. However, it would not be feasible for providers to fulfil their duties in relation to content which is harmful only by the manner of its dissemination. This covers content which may not meet the definition of content which is harmful to children in isolation but may be harmful when targeted at children in a particular way. One example could be content discussing a mental health condition such as depression, where recommendations are made repeatedly or in an amplified manner through the use of algorithms. The nature of that content per se may not be inherently harmful to every child who encounters it, but, when aggregated, it may become harmful to a child who is sent it many times over. That, of course, must be addressed, and is covered by the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, to require regulated services to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As we continue to attempt to strengthen the Bill by ensuring that the UK will be the safest place for children to be online, there is a danger that platforms may take the easy way out in complying with the new legislation and just block children entirely from their sites. Services must not shut children out of digital spaces altogether to avoid compliance with the child safety duties, rather than designing services with their safety in mind. Children have rights and, as the UN convention makes clear, they must be treated according to their evolving capacities and in their best interests in consideration of their well-being.

Being online is now an essential right, not an option, to access education, entertainment and friendship, but we must try to ensure that it is a safe space. As the 5Rights Foundation points out, the Bill risks infringing children’s rights online, including their rights to information and participation in the digital world, by mandating that services prevent children from encountering harmful content, rather than ensuring services are made age appropriate for children and safe by design, as we discussed earlier. As risk assessments for adults have been stripped from the Bill, this has had the unintended consequence of rendering a child user relative to an adult user even more costly, as services will have substantial safety duties to comply with to protect children. 5Rights Foundation warns that this will lead services to determine that it is not worth designing services with children’s safety in mind but that it could be more cost effective to lock them out entirely.

Ofcom must have a duty to have regard for the UNCRC in its risk assessments. Amendment 196 would ensure that children’s rights are reflected in Ofcom’s assessment of risks, so that Ofcom must have regard for children’s rights in balancing their rights to be safe against their rights to access age-appropriate digital spaces. This would ensure compliance with general comment No. 25, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned, passed in 2021, to protect children’s rights to freedom of expression and privacy. I urge the Ministers to accept these amendments to ensure that the UK will be not only the safest place for children to be online but the best place too, by respecting and protecting their rights.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, and will make two very brief points. Before I do, I believe that those who are arguing for safety by design and to put harms in the Bill are not trying to restrict the freedom of children to access the internet but to give the tech sector slightly less freedom to access children and exploit them.

My first point is a point of principle, and here I must declare an interest. It was my very great privilege to chair the international group that drafted general comment No. 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment. We did so on behalf of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and, as my noble friend Lord Russell said, it was adopted formally in 2021. To that end, a great deal of work has gone into balancing the sorts of issues that have been raised in this debate. I think it would interest noble Lords to know that the process took three years, with 150 submissions, many by nation states. Over 700 children in 28 countries were consulted in workshops of at least three hours. They had a good shout and, unlike many of the other general comments, this one is littered with their actual comments. I recommend it to the Committee as a very concise and forceful gesture of what it might be to exercise children’s rights in a balancing way across all the issues that we are discussing. I cannot remember who, but somebody said that the online world is not optional for children: it is where they grow up; it is where they spend their time; it is their education; it is their friendships; it is their entertainment; it is their information. Therefore, if it is not optional, then as a signatory to the UNCRC we have a duty to respect their rights in that environment.

My second point is rather more practical. During the passage of the age-appropriate design code, of which we have heard much, the argument was made that children were covered by the amendment itself, which said they must be kept in mind and so on. I anticipate that argument being made here—that we are aligning with children’s rights, apart from the fact that they are indivisible and must be done in their entirety. In that case, the Government happily accepted that it should be explicit, and it was put in the Data Protection Act. It was one of the most important things that happened in relation to the age-appropriate design code. We might hope that, when this Bill is an Act, it will all be over—our job will be done and we can move on. However, after the Data Protection Act, the most enormous influx of lobbying happened, saying, “Please take the age down from 18 to 13”. The Government, and in that case the ICO, shrugged their shoulders and said, “We can’t; it’s on the face of the Bill”, because Article 1 of the UNCRC says that a child is anyone under the age of 18.

The evolving capacities of children are central to the UNCRC, so the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, which I very much share, that a four year-old and a 14 year-old are not the same, are embodied in that document and in the general comment, and therefore it is useful.

These amendments are asking for that same commitment here—to children and to their rights, and to their rights to protection, which is at the heart of so much of what we are debating, and their well-being. We need their participation; we need a digital world with children in it. Although I agreed very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and her fierce defending of children’s rights, there are 1 billion children online. If two-thirds of them have not seen anything upsetting in the last year, that rather means that one-third of 1 billion children have—and that is too many.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate but I have been inspired by it.

I was here for the encryption debate last week, which I did not speak in. One of the contributions was around unintended consequences of the legislation, and I am concerned about unintended consequences here.

I absolutely agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, around the need for children to engage on the internet. Due to a confidence and supply agreement with the then Government back in 2017, I ensured that children and adults alike in Northern Ireland have the best access to the internet in the United Kingdom, and I am very proud of that. Digital literacy is covered in a later amendment, Amendment 91, which I will be strongly supporting. It is something that everybody needs to be involved in, not least our young people—and here I declare an interest as the mother of a 16 year-old.

I have two concerns. The first was raised by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Weir, around private companies being legally accountable for upholding an international human rights treaty. I am much more comfortable with Amendments 187 and 196, which refer to Ofcom. I think that is where the duty should be. I have an issue not with the convention but with private companies being held responsible for it; Ofcom should be the body responsible.

Secondly, I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said about general comment No. 25. If what I say is incorrect, I hope she will say so. Is general comment No. 25 a binding document on the Government? I understood that it was not.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

We need to see the UNCRC included in the Bill. The convention is never opened up again, and how it makes itself relevant to the modern world is through the general comments; that is how the Committee on the Rights of the Child would interpret it.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

So it is an interpretive document. The unintended consequences piece was around general comment No. 25 specifically having reference to children being able to seek out content. That is certainly something that I would be concerned about. I am sure that we will discuss it further in the next group of amendments, which are on pornography. If young people were able to seek out harmful content, that would concern me greatly.

I support Amendments 187 and 196, but I have some concerns about the unintended consequences of Amendment 25.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns terms of service. All the amendments either have the phrase “terms of service” in them or imply that we wish to see more use of the phrase in the Bill, and seek to try to tidy up some of the other bits around that which have crept into the Bill.

Why are we doing that? Rather late in the day, terms of service has suddenly become a key fulcrum, under which much of the operations of the activity relating to people’s usage of social media and service functions on the internet will be expressed in relation to how they view the material coming to them. With the loss of the adult “legal but harmful” provisions, we also lost quite a considerable amount of what would have been primary legislation, which no doubt would have been backed up by codes of practice. The situation we are left with, and which we need to look at very closely, is the triple shield at the heart of the new obligations on companies, and, in particular, on their terms of service. That is set out primarily in Clauses 64, 65, 66 and 67, and is a subject to which my amendments largely refer.

Users of the services would be more confident that the Government have got their focus on terms of service right, if they actually said what should be said on the tin, as the expression goes. If it is the case that something in a terms of service was so written and implemented so that material which should be taken down was indeed taken down, these would become reliable methods of judging whether or not the service is the one people want to have, and the free market would be seen to be working to empower people to make their own decisions about what level of risk they can assume by using a service. That is a major change from the way the Bill was originally envisaged. Because this was done late, we have one or two of the matters to which I have referred already, which means that the amendments focus on changing what is currently in the Bill.

It is also true that the changes were not consulted upon; I do not recall there being any document from government about whether this was a good way forward. The changes were certainly not considered by the Joint Committee, of which several of those present were members—we did not discuss it in the Joint Committee and made no recommendation on it. The level of scrutiny we have enjoyed on the Bill has been absent in this area. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford will speak shortly to amendments about terms of service, and we will be able to come back to it. I think it would have been appropriate had the earlier amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, been in this group because the issue was the terms of service, even though it had many other elements that were important and that we did discuss.

The main focus of my speech is that the Government have not managed to link this new idea of terms of service and the responsibilities that will flow from that to the rest of the Bill. It does not seem to fit into the overall architecture. For example, it is not a design feature, and does not seem to work through in that way. This is a largely self-contained series of clauses. We are trying to ask some of the world’s largest companies, on behalf of the people who use them, to do things on an almost contractual basis. Terms of service are not a contract that you sign up to, but you certainly click something—or occasionally click it, if you remember to—by which you consent to the company operating in a particular set of ways. In a sense, that is a contract, but is it really a contract? At the heart of that contract between companies and users is whether the terms of service are well captured in the way the Bill is organised. I think there are gaps.

The Bill does have something that we welcome and want to hold on to, which is that the process under which the risks are assessed and decisions taken about how companies operate and how Ofcom relates to those decisions is about the design and operation of the service—both the design and the operation, something that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is very keen to emphasise at all times. It all starts and ends with design, and the operation is a consequence of design choices. Other noble Baronesses have mentioned in the debate that small companies get it right and so, when they grow, can be confident that what they are doing is something that is worth doing. Design, and operating that design to make a service, is really important. Are terms of service part of that or are they different, and does it matter? It seems to me that they are downstream from the design: something can be designed and then have terms of service that were not really part of the original process. What is happening here?

My Amendments 16, 21, 66DA, 75 and 197 would ensure that the terms of service are included within the list of matters that constitute “design and operation” of the service at each point that it occurs. I have had to go right through the Bill to add it in certain areas—in a rather irritating way, I am sure, for the Bill team—because sometimes we find that what I think should be a term of service is actually described as something else, such as a “a publicly available statement”, whatever that is. It would be an advantage if we went through it again and defined terms of service and made sure that that was what we were talking about.

Amendments 70 to 72, 79 to 81 and 174 seek to help the Government and their officials with tidying up the drafting, which probably has not been scrutinised enough to pick up these issues. It may not matter, at the end of the day, but what is in the Bill is going to be law and we may as well try to get it right as best we can. I am sure the Minister will say we really do not need to worry about this because it is all about risks and outcomes, and if a company does not protect children or has illegal content, or the user-empowerment duties—the toggling—do not work, Ofcom will find a way of driving the company to sort it out. What does that mean in practice? Does it mean that Ofcom has a role in defining what terms of service are? It is not in the Bill and may not reach the Bill, but it is something that will be a bit of problem if we do not resolve what we mean by it, even if it is not by changing the legislation.

If the Minister were to disagree with my approach, it would be quite nice to have it said at the Dispatch Box so that we can look at that. The key question is: are terms of service an integral part of the design and operation of a service and, if so, can we extend the term to make sure that all aspects of the services people consume are covered by adequate and effective terms of service? There is probably going to be division in the way we approach this because, clearly, whether they are terms of service or have another name, the actual enforcement of illegal and children’s duties will be effected by Ofcom, irrespective of the wording of the Bill—I do not want to question that. However, there is obviously an overlap into questions about adults and others who are affected by the terms of service. If you cannot identify what the terms of service say in relation to something you might not wish to receive because the terms of service are imprecise, how on earth are you going to operate the services, the toggles and things, around it? If you look at that and accept there will be pressure within the market to get these terms of service right, there will be a lot of dialogue with Ofcom. I accept that all that will happen, but it would be good if the position of the terms of service was clarified in the Bill before it becomes law and that Ofcom’s powers in relation to those are clarified—do they or do they not have the chance to review terms of service if they turn out to be ineffective in practice? If that is the case, how are we going to see this work out in practice in terms of what people will be able to do about it, either through redress or by taking the issue to court? I beg to move.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I support these amendments, which were set out wonderfully by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I want to raise a point made on Tuesday when the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said that only 3% of people read terms of service and I said that 98% of people do not read them, so one of us is wrong, but I think the direction of travel is clear. She also used a very interesting phrase about prominence, and I want to use this opportunity to ask the Minister whether there is some lever whereby Ofcom can insist on prominence for certain sorts of material—a hierarchy of information, if you like—because these are really important pieces of information, buried in the wrong place so that even 2% or 3% of people may not find them.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has given us the opportunity to talk about terms of service, and I will make three points again, in a shorter intervention than on the previous group.

First, terms of service are critical as the impact of terms of service will generally be much greater in terms of the amount of intervention that occurs on content than it will ever be under the law. Terms of service create, in effect, a body of private law for a community, and they are nearly always a superset of the public law—indeed, it is very common for the first items of a terms of service to say, “You must not do anything illegal”. This raises the interesting question of “illegal where?”—what it generally means is that you must not do anything illegal in the jurisdiction in which the service provider is established. The terms of service will say, “Do not do anything illegal”, and then they will give a whole list of other things, as well as illegality, that you cannot do on the platform, and I think this is right because they have different characteristics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, before speaking to my Amendment 137, I want to put a marker down to say that I strongly support Amendment 135 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. I will not repeat anything that he said but I agree with absolutely every word.

Amendment 137 is in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. This amendment is one of five which I have tabled with the purpose of meeting a core purpose of the Bill. In the words of my noble friend the Minister in response to Amendment 1, it is

“to protect users of all ages from being exposed to illegal content”—[Official Report, 19/4/23; col. 724.]

—in short, to ensure that what is illegal offline is illegal online.

If accepted, this small group of amendments would, I strongly believe, make a really important difference to millions of people’s lives—people who are not necessarily listed in Clause 12. I therefore ask the Committee to allow me to briefly demonstrate the need for these amendments through the prism of millions of people and their families working and living in rural areas. They are often quite isolated and working alone in remote communities, and are increasingly at risk of or are already suffering awful online abuse and harassment. This abuse often goes way beyond suffering; it destroys businesses and a way of life.

I find it extraordinary that the Bill seems to be absent of anything to do with livelihoods. It is all about focusing on feelings, which of course are important—and the most important focus is children—but people’s businesses and livelihoods are being destroyed through abuse online.

Research carried out by the Countryside Alliance has revealed a deeply disturbing trend online that appears to be disproportionately affecting people who live in rural areas and who are involved in rural pursuits. Beyond direct abuse, a far more insidious tactic that activists have adopted involves targeting businesses involved in activities of which they disapprove, such as livestock farming or hosting shoots. They post fake reviews on platforms including Tripadvisor and Google Maps, and their aim is to damage the victim, their business and their reputation by, to put it colloquially, trashing their business and thereby putting off potential customers. This is what some call trolling.

Let me be clear that I absolutely defend, to my core, the right to freedom of expression and speech, and indeed the right to offend. Just upsetting someone is way below the bar for the Bill, or any legislation. I am deeply concerned about the hate crime—or non-crime—issue we debated yesterday; in fact, I put off reading the debate because I so disagree with this nonsense from the College of Policing.

Writing a negative review directly based on a negative experience is entirely acceptable in my book, albeit unpleasant for the business targeted. My amendments seek to address something far more heinous and wrong, which, to date, can only be addressed as libel and, therefore, through the civil courts. Colleagues in both your Lordships’ House and in another place shared with me tremendously upsetting examples from their constituents and in their neighbourhoods of how anonymous activists are ruining the lives of hard-working people who love this country and are going the extra mile to defend our culture, historic ways of life and freedoms.

Fortunately, through the Bill, the Government are taking an important step by introducing a criminal offence of false communications. With the leave of the Committee, I will briefly cite and explain the other amendments in order to make sense of Amendment 137. One of the challenges of the offence of false communications is the need to recognise that so much of the harm that underpins the whole reason why the Bill is necessary is the consequence of allowing anonymity. It is so easy to destroy and debilitate others by remaining anonymous and using false communications. Why be anonymous if you have any spine at all to stand up for what you believe? It is not possible offline—when writing a letter to a newspaper, for example—so why is it acceptable online? The usual tech business excuse of protecting individuals in rogue states is no longer acceptable, given the level of harm that anonymity causes here at home.

Therefore, my Amendment 106 seeks to address the appalling effect of harm, of whatever nature, arising from false or threatening communications committed by unverified or anonymous users—this is what we refer to as trolling. Amendments 266 and 267, in my name and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and my noble friend Lord Leicester, would widen the scope of this new and welcome offence of false communications to include financial harm, and harm to the subject of the false message arising from its communication to third parties.

The Bill will have failed unless we act beyond feelings and harm to the person and include loss of livelihood. As I said, I am amazed that it is not front and centre of the Bill after safety for our children. Amendment 268, also supported by my noble and learned friend, would bring within the scope of the communications offences the instigation of such offences by others—for example, Twitter storms, which can involve inciting others to make threats without doing so directly. Currently, we are unsure whether encouraging others to spread false information—for example, by posting fake reviews of businesses for ideologically motivated reasons—would become an offence under the Bill. We believe that it should, and my Amendment 268 would address this issue.

I turn briefly to the specifics of my Amendment 137. Schedule 7 lists a set of “priority offences” that social media platforms must act to prevent, and they must remove messages giving rise to certain offences. However, the list does not include the new communications offences created elsewhere in Part 10. We believe that this is a glaring anomaly. If there is a reason why the new communications offences are not listed, it is important that we understand why. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain.

The practical effect of Amendment 137 would be to include the communications offences introduced in the Bill and communications giving rise to them within the definition of “relevant offence” and “priority illegal content” for the purposes of Clause 53(4) and (7) and otherwise.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I ask the Committee to have a level of imagination here because I have been asked to read the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I do not know who advised the noble Baroness—and forgive me for getting up and getting all former Leader on her—but this is a practice that we seem to have adopted in the last couple of years and that I find very odd. It is perfectly proper for the noble Baroness to deploy the noble Viscount’s arguments, but to read his speech is completely in contravention of our guidance.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I beg the pardon of the Committee. I asked about it and was misinformed; I will do as the noble Baroness says.

The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is unable to be with us. He put his name to Amendments 273, 275, 277 and 280. His concern is that the Bill sets the threshold for illegality too low and that in spite of the direction provided by Clause 170, the standards for determining illegality are too vague.

I will make a couple of points on that thought. Clause 170(6) directs that a provider must have

“reasonable grounds to infer that all elements necessary for the commission of the offence, including mental elements, are present or satisfied”,

but that does not mean that the platform has to be certain that the content is illegal before it takes it down. This is concerning when you take it in combination with what or who will make judgments on illegality.

If a human moderator makes the decision, it will depend on the resources and time available to them as to how much information they gather in order to make that judgment. Unlike in a court case, when a wide range of information and context can be gathered, when it comes to decisions about content online, these resources are very rarely available to human moderators, who have a vast amount of content to get through.

If an automated system makes the judgment, it is very well established that algorithms are not good at context—the Communications and Digital Committee took evidence on this repeatedly when I was on it. AI simply uses the information available in the content itself to make a decision, which can lead to significant missteps. Clause 170(3) provides the requirement for the decision-makers to judge whether there is a defence for the content. In the context of algorithms, it is very unclear how they will come to such a judgment from the content itself.

I understand that these are probing amendments, but I think the concern is that the vagueness of the definition will lead to too much content being taken down. This concern was supported by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, which wrote to the former Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, on that matter. I apologise again.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that probe how removing illegal material is understood and will be used under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, explained a lot of my concerns, as indeed did the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, via his avatar. We have heard a range of very interesting contributions that need to be taken seriously by the Government. I have put my name to a number of amendments.

The identification of illegal material might be clear and obvious in some cases—even many cases. It sounds so black and white: “Don’t publish illegal material”. But defining communications of this nature can be highly complex, so much so that it is traditionally reserved for law enforcement bodies and the judicial system. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that, despite Home Secretaries, this House, regulations and all sorts of laws having indicated that non-crime hate incidents, for example, should not be pursued by the police, they continue to pursue them as though they are criminal acts. That is exactly the kind of issue we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is genuinely difficult to summarise such a wide-ranging debate, which was of a very high standard. Only one genuinely bright idea has emerged from the whole thing: as we go through Committee, each group of amendments should be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, because it is only after I have heard his contribution on each occasion that I have begun to understand the full complexity of what I have been saying. I suspect I am not alone in that and that we could all benefit from hearing the noble Lord before getting to our feet. That is not meant to sound the slightest bit arch; it is absolutely genuine.

The debate expressed a very wide range of concerns. Concerns about gang grooming and recruiting were expressed on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and my noble friend Lady Buscombe expressed concerns about trolling of country businesses. However, I think it is fair to say that most speakers focused on the following issues. The first was the definition of legality, which was so well explicated by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. The second was the judgment bar that providers have to pass to establish whether something should be taken down. The third was the legislative mandating of private foreign companies to censor free speech rights that are so hard-won here in this country. These are the things that mainly concern us.

I was delighted that I found myself agreeing so much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, even though she was speaking in another voice or on behalf of another person. If her own sentiments coincide with the sentiments of the noble Viscount—

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I am sorry to intrude, but I must say now on the record that I was speaking on my own behalf. The complication of measuring and those particular things are terribly important to establish, so I am once again happy to agree with the noble Lord.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am delighted to hear the noble Baroness say that, and it shows that that pool of common ground we share is widening every time we get to our feet. However, the pool is not particularly widening, I am afraid to say—at least in respect of myself; other noble Lords may have been greatly reassured—as regards my noble friend the Minister who, I am afraid, has not in any sense addressed the issues about free speech that I and many other noble Lords raised. On some issues we in the Committee are finding a consensus that is drifting away from the Minister. We probably need to put our heads together more closely on some of these issues with the passage of time in Committee.

My noble friend also did not say anything that satisfied me in respect of the practical operation of these obligations for smaller sites. He speaks smoothly and persuasively of risk-based proactive approaches without saying that, for a large number of sites, this legislation will mean a complete re-engineering of their business model. For example, where Wikipedia operates in a minority language, such as in Welsh Wikipedia, which is the largest Welsh language website in the world, if its model is to involve monitoring what is put out by the community and correcting it as it goes along, rather than having a model in advance that is designed to prevent things being put there in the first place, then it is very likely to close down. If that is one of the consequences of this Bill the Government will soon hear about it.

Finally, although I remain concerned about public order offences, I have to say to the Minister that if he is so concerned about the dissemination of alarm among the population under the provisions of the Public Order Act, what does he think that His Majesty’s Government were doing on Sunday at 3 pm? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

20: Clause 10, page 9, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) to (h) and insert—
“(a) the level of risk that children who are users of the service encounter the harms as outlined in Schedule (Online harms to children) by means of the service;(b) any of the level of risks to children encountered singularly or in combination, having regard to—(i) the design of functionalities, algorithms and other features that present or increase risk of harm, such as low-privacy profile settings by default;(ii) the business model, revenue model, governance, terms of service and other systems and processes or mitigation measures that may reduce or increase the risk of harm;(iii) risks which can build up over time;(iv) the ways in which level of risks can change when experienced in combination with others;(v) the level of risk of harm to children in different age groups;(vi) the level of risk of harm to children with certain characteristics or who are members of certain groups; and(vii) the different ways in which the service is used including but not limited to via virtual and augmented reality technologies, and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children;(c) whether the service has shown regard to the rights of children as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (see general comment 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require providers to look at and assess risks on their platform in the round and in line with the 4 Cs of online risks to children (content, contact, conduct and contractual/commercial risks). Although these risks will not be presented on every service, this amendment requires providers to reflect on these risks, so they are not forgotten and can be built into future development of the service.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment and Amendments 74, 93 and 123 are part of a larger group that have been submitted as a package loosely referred to as the AV and harms package. They have been the subject of much private debate with the Government, for which we are grateful, and among parliamentarians, and have featured prominently in the media. The amendments are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, but enjoy the support of a vast array of Members of both Houses. I thank all those who have voiced their support.

The full package of amendments defines and sets out the rules of the road for age assurance, including the timing of its introduction, and the definition of terms such as age verification and age assurance. They introduce the concept of measuring the efficacy of systems with one eye on the future so that we as parliamentarians can indicate where and when we feel that proportionality is appropriate and where it is simply not—for example, in relation to pornography. In parallel, we have developed a schedule of harms, which garners rather fewer column inches but is equally important in establishing Parliament’s intention. It is that schedule of harms that is up for debate today.

Before I lay out the amendment, I thank the 26 children’s charities which have so firmly got behind this package and acknowledge, in particular, Barnardo’s, CEASE and 5Rights, of which I am chair, which have worked tirelessly to ensure that the full expertise of children’s charities has been embedded in these amendments. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who in this area of policy has shown us all the way.

The key amendment in this group is Amendment 93, which would place a schedule of harms to children in the Bill. There are several reasons for doing so, the primary one being that by putting them in the Bill we are stating the intention of Parliament, which gives clarity to companies and underlines the authority of Ofcom to act on these matters. Amendments 20, 74 and 123 ensure that the schedule is mirrored in risk assessments and tasks Ofcom with updating its guidance every six months to capture new and emerging harms, and as such are self-evident.

The proposed harms schedule is centred around the four Cs, a widely used and understood taxonomy of harm used in legislation and regulation around the globe. Importantly, rather than articulate individual harms that may change over time, it sets its sight on categories of harm: content, contact, conduct and contract, which is sometimes referred to as commercial harm. It also accounts for cumulative harms, where two or more risk factors create a harm that is greater than any single harm or is uniquely created by the combination. The Government’s argument against the four Cs is that they are not future-proof, which I find curious since the very structure of the four Cs is to introduce broad categories of harm to which harms can be added, particularly emerging harms. By contrast, the Government are adding an ever-growing list of individual harms.

I wish to make three points in favour of our package of amendments relating first to language, secondly to the nature of the digital world, and finally to clarity of purpose. It is a great weakness of the Bill that it consistently introduces new concepts and language—for example, the terms “primary priority content”, “priority content” and “non-designated content”. These are not terms used in other similar Bills across the globe, they are not evident in current UK law and they do not correlate with established regimes, such as equalities legislation or children’s rights under the convention, more of which in group 7.

The question of language is non-trivial. It is the central concern of those who fight CSAE around the world, who frequently find that enforcement against perpetrators or takedown is blocked by legal systems that define child sexual abuse material differently—not differently in some theoretical sense but because the same image can be categorised differently in two countries and then be a barrier to enforcement across jurisdictions. Leadership from WeProtect, the enforcement community and representatives that I recently met from Africa, South America and Asia have all made this point. It undermines the concept of UK leadership in child protection that we are wilfully and deliberately rejecting accepted language which is embedded in treaties, international agreements and multilateral organisations to start again with our own, very likely with the same confused outcome.

Secondly, I am concerned that while both the Bill and the digital world are predicated on system design, the harms are all articulated as content with insufficient emphasis on systems harms, such as careless recommendations, spreading engagement and the sector-wide focus on maximising engagement, which are the very things that create the toxic and dangerous environment for children. I know, because we have discussed it, that the Minister will say that this is all in the risk assessment, but the risk assessment asks regulated companies to assess how a number of features contribute to harm, mostly expressed as content harm.

What goes through my mind is the spectre of Meta’s legal team, which I watched for several days during Molly Russell’s inquest; they stood in a court of law and insisted that hundreds, in fact thousands, of images of cut bodies and depressive messages did not constitute harm. Rather, they regarded them as cries for help or below the bar of harm as they interpreted it. Similarly, there was material that featured videos of people jumping off buildings—some of them sped-up versions of movie clips edited to suggest that jumping was freedom—and I can imagine a similar argument that says that kind of material cannot be considered harmful, because in another context it is completely legitimate. Yet this material was sent to Molly at scale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I really appreciated the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, because she asked a lot of questions about this group of amendments. Although I might be motivated by different reasons, I found it difficult to fully understand the impact of the amendments, so I too want to ask a set of questions.

Harm is defined in the Bill as “physical or psychological harm”, and there is no further explanation. I can understand the frustration with that and the attempts therefore to use what are described as the

“widely understood and used 4 Cs of online risk to children”.

They are not widely understood by me, and I have ploughed my way through it. I might well have misunderstood lots in it, but I want to look at and perhaps challenge some of the contents.

I was glad that Amendment 20 recognises the level of risk of harm to different age groups. That concerns me all the time when we talk about children and young people, and then end up treating four year-olds, 14 year-olds and 18 year-olds. I am glad that that is there, and I hope that we will look at it again in future.

I want to concentrate on Amendment 93 and reflect and comment more generally on the problem of a definition, or a lack of definition, of harm in the Bill. For the last several years that we have been considering bringing this Bill to this House and to Parliament, I have been worried about the definition of psychological harm. That is largely because this category has become ever more expansive and quite subjective in our therapeutic age. It is a matter of some discussion and quite detailed work by psychologists and professionals, who worry that there is an expanding concept group of what is considered harmful and what psychological harm really means.

As an illustration, I was invited recently to speak to a group of sixth-formers and was discussing things such as trigger warnings and so on. They said, “Well, you know, you’ve got to understand what it’s like”—they were 16 year-olds. “When we encounter certain material, it makes us have PTSD”. I was thinking, “No, it doesn’t really, does it?” Post-traumatic stress disorder is something that you might well gain if you have been in the middle of a war zone. The whole concept of triggering came from psychological and medical insights from the First World War, which you can understand. If you hear a car backfiring, you think it is somebody shooting at you. But the idea here is that we should have trigger warnings on great works of literature and that if we do not it will lead to PTSD.

I am not being glib, because an expanded, elastic and pathologised view of harm is being used quite cavalierly and casually in relation to young people and protecting them, often by the young people themselves. It is routinely used to close down speech as part of the cancel culture wars, which, as noble Lords know, I am interested in. Is there not a danger that this concept of harm is not as obvious as we think, and that the psychological harm issue makes it even more complicated?

The other thing is that Amendment 93 says:

“The harms in this Schedule are a non-exhaustive list of categories and other categories may be relevant”.


As with the discussion on whose judgment decides the threshold for removing illegal material, I think that judging what is harmful is even more tricky for the young in relation to psychological harm. I was reminded of that when the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, complained that what she considered to be obviously and self-evidently harmful, Meta did not. I wondered whether that is just the case with Meta, or whether views will differ when it comes to—

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

The report found—I will not give a direct quotation—that social media contributed to the death of Molly Russell, so it was the court’s judgment, not mine, that Meta’s position was indefensible.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I completely understand that; I was making the point that there will be disagreements in judgments. In that instance, it was resolved by a court, but we are talking about a situation where I am not sure how the judgment is made.

In these amendments, there are lists of particular harms—a variety are named, including self-harm—and I wanted to provide some counterexamples of what I consider to be harms. I have been inundated by algorithmic adverts for “Naked Education” on Channel 4, maybe because of the algorithms I am on. I think that the programme is irresponsible; I say that having watched it, rather than just having read a headline. Channel 4 is posing this programme with naked adults and children as educational by saying that it is introducing children to the naked body. I think it is harmful for children and that it should not be on the television, but it is advertised on social media—I have seen quite a lot of it.

The greatest example of self-harm we encounter at present is when gender dysphoric teenagers—as well as some younger than teenagers; they are predominately young women—are affirmed by adults, as a kind of social contagion, into taking body-changing and body-damaging hormones and performing self-mutilation, whether by breast binding or double mastectomies, which is advertised and praised by adults. That is incredibly harmful for young people, and it is reflected online at lot, because much of this is discussed, advertised or promoted online.

This is related to the earlier contributions, because I am asking: should those be added to the list of obvious harms? Although not many noble Lords are in the House now, if there were many more here, they would object to what I am saying by stating, “That is not harmful at all. What is harmful is what you’re saying, Baroness Fox, because you’re causing psychological harm to all those young people by being transphobic”. I am raising these matters because we think we all agree that there is a consensus on what is harmful material online for young people, but it is not that straightforward.

The amendment states that the Bill should target any platform that posts

“links to, or … encourages child users to seek”

out “dangerous or illegal activity”. I understand “illegal activity”, but on “dangerous” activities, I assume that we do not mean extreme sports, mountain climbing and so on, which are dangerous—that comes to mind probably because I have spent too much time with young people who spend their whole time looking at those things. I worry about the unintended consequences of things being banned or misinterpreted in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I appreciate that that this is the case we all have in the back of our minds. I am asking whether, when Meta says it is content agnostic, the Bill is the appropriate place for us to list the topics that we consider harmful. If we are to do that, I was giving examples of contentious, harmful topics. I might have got this wrong—

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I will answer the noble Baroness more completely when I wind up, but I just want to say that she is missing the point of the schedule a little. Like her, I am concerned about the way we concentrate on content harms, but she is bringing it back to content harms. If she looks at it carefully, a lot of the provisions are about contact and conduct: it is about how the system is pushing children to do certain things and pushing them to certain places. It is about how things come together, and I think she is missing the point by keeping going back to individual pieces of content. I do not want to take the place of the Minister, but this is a systems and processes Bill; it is not going to deal with individual pieces of content in that way. It asks, “Are you creating these toxic environments for children? Are you delivering this at scale?” and that is the way we must look at this amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I will finish here, because we have to get on, but I did not introduce content; it is in the four Cs. One of the four Cs is “content” and I am reacting to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. I do not think I am harping on about content; I was responding to amendments in which content was one of the key elements.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Let us leave it there.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I speak in support of these amendments with hope in my heart. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for leading the charge with such vigour, passion and determination: I am with them all the way.

The Government have said that the purpose of the Bill is to protect children, and it rests on our shoulders to make sure it delivers on this mission. Last week, on the first day in Committee, the Minister said:

“Through their duties of care, all platforms will be required proactively to identify and manage risk factors associated with their services in order to ensure that users do not encounter illegal content and that children are protected from harmful content. To achieve this, they will need to design their services to reduce the risk of harmful content or activity occurring and take swift action if it does.—[Official Report, 19/4/23; cols. 274-75.]


This is excellent and I thank the Government for saying it. But the full range of harms and risk to children will not be mitigated by services if they do not know what they are expected to risk-assess for and if they must wait for secondary legislation for this guidance.

The comprehensive range of harms children face every day is not reflected in the Bill. This includes sexual content that does not meet the threshold of pornography. This was highlighted recently in an investigation into TikTok by the Telegraph, which found that a 13 year-old boy was recommended a video about the top 10 porn-making countries, and that a 13 year-old girl was shown a livestream of a pornography actor in her underwear answering questions from viewers. This content is being marketed to children without a user even seeking out pornographic content, but this would still be allowed under the Bill.

Furthermore, high-risk challenges, such as the Benadryl and blackout challenges, which encourage dangerous behaviour on TikTok, are not dealt with in the Bill. Some features, such as the ability of children to share their location, are not dealt with either. I declare an interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s, which has highlighted how these features can be exploited by organised criminal gangs that sexually exploit children to keep tabs on them and trap them in a cycle of exploitation.

It cannot be right that the user-empowerment duties in the Bill include a list of harmful content that services must enable adults to toggle off, yet the Government refuse to produce this list for children. Instead, we have to wait for secondary legislation to outline harms to children, causing further delay to the enforcement of services’ safety duties. Perhaps the Minister can explain why this is.

The four Cs framework of harm, as set out in these amendments, is a robust framework that will ensure service risk assessments consider the full range of harms children face. I will repeat it once again: childhood lasts a lifetime, so we cannot fail children any longer. Protections are needed now, not in years to come. We have waited far too long for this. Protections need to be fast-tracked and must be included in the Bill. That is why I fully support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I was about to list the four Cs briefly in order, which will bring me on to commercial or contract risk. Perhaps I may do that and return to those points.

I know that there have been concerns about whether the specific risks highlighted in the new schedule will be addressed by the Bill. In terms of the four Cs category of content risks, there are specific duties for providers to protect children from illegal content, such as content that intentionally assists suicide, as well as content that is harmful to children, such as pornography. Regarding conduct risks, the child safety duties cover harmful conduct or activity such as online bullying or abuse and, under the illegal content safety duties, offences relating to harassment, stalking and inciting violence.

With regard to commercial or contract risks, providers specifically have to assess the risks to children from the design and operation of their service, including their business model and governance under the illegal content and child safety duties. In relation to contact risks, as part of the child safety risk assessment, providers will need specifically to assess contact risks of functionalities that enable adults to search for and contact other users, including children, in a way that was set out by my noble friend Lord Bethell. This will protect children from harms such as harassment and abuse, and, under the illegal content safety duties, all forms of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including grooming.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I agree that content, although unfathomable to the outside world, is defined as the Minister says. However, does that mean that when we see that

“primary priority content harmful to children”

will be put in regulations by the Secretary of State under Clause 54(2)—ditto Clause 54(3) and (4)—we will see those contact risks, conduct risks and commercial risks listed as primary priority, priority and non-designated harms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I have tried to outline the Bill’s definition of content, which I think will give some reassurance that other concerns that noble Lords have raised are covered. I will turn in a moment to address priority and primary priority content, if the noble Baroness will allow me to do that, and then perhaps intervene again if I have not done so to her satisfaction. I want to set that out and try to keep track of all the questions which have been posed as I do so.

For now, I know there have been concerns from some noble Lords that if functionalities are not labelled as harm in the legislation they would not be addressed by providers, and I reassure your Lordships’ House that this is not the case. There is an important distinction between content and other risk factors such as, for instance, an algorithm, which without content cannot risk causing harm to a child. That is why functionalities are not covered by the categories of primary, priority and priority content which is harmful to children. The Bill sets out a comprehensive risk assessment process which will cover content or activity that poses a risk of harm to children and other factors, such as functionality, which may increase the risk of harm. As such, the existing children’s risk assessment criteria already cover many of the changes proposed in this amendment. For example, the duties already require service providers to assess the risk of harm to children from their business model and governance. They also require providers to consider how a comprehensive range of functionalities affect risk, how the service is used and how the use of algorithms could increase the risks to children.

Turning to the examples of harmful content set out in the proposed new schedule, I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the Government’s proposed list of primary, priority and priority content covers a significant amount of this content. In her opening speech she asked about cumulative harm—that is, content sent many times or content which is harmful due to the manner of its dissemination. We will look at that in detail on the next group as well, but I will respond to the points she made earlier now. The definition of harm in the Bill under Clause 205 makes it clear that physical or psychological harm may arise from the fact or manner of dissemination of the content, not just the nature of the content—content which is not harmful per se, but which if sent to a child many times, for example by an algorithm, would meet the Bill’s threshold for content that is harmful to children. Companies will have to consider this as a fundamental part of their risk assessment, including, for example, how the dissemination of content via algorithmic recommendations may increase the risk of harm, and they will need to put in place proportionate and age-appropriate measures to manage and mitigate the risks they identify. I followed the exchanges between the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Fox, and I make it clear that the approach set out by the Bill will mean that companies cannot avoid tackling the kind of awful content which Molly Russell saw and the harmful algorithms which pushed that content relentlessly at her.

This point on cumulative harm was picked up by my noble friend Lord Bethell. The Bill will address cumulative risk where it is the result of a combination of high-risk functionality, such as live streaming, or rewards in service by way of payment or non-financial reward. This will initially be identified through Ofcom’s sector risk assessments, and Ofcom’s risk profiles and risk assessment guidance will reflect where a combination of risk in functionalities such as these can drive up the risk of harm to children. Service providers will have to take Ofcom’s risk profiles into account in their own risk assessments for content which is illegal or harmful to children. The actions that companies will be required to take under their risk assessment duties in the Bill and the safety measures they will be required to put in place to manage the services risk will consider this bigger-picture risk profile.

The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would remove references to primary priority and priority harmful content to children from the child risk assessment duties, which we fear would undermine the effectiveness of the child safety duties as currently drafted. That includes the duty for user-to-user providers to prevent children encountering primary priority harms, such as pornography and content that promotes self-harm or suicide, as well as the duty to put in place age-appropriate measures to protect children from other harmful content and activity. As a result, we fear these amendments could remove the requirement for an age-appropriate approach to protecting children online and make the requirement to prevent children accessing primary priority content less clear.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked in her opening remarks about emerging harms, which she was right to do. As noble Lords know, the Bill has been designed to respond as rapidly as possible to new and emerging harms. First, the primary priority and priority list of content can be updated by the Secretary of State. Secondly, it is important to remember the function of non-designated content that is harmful to children in the Bill—that is content that meets the threshold of harmful content to children but is not on the lists designated by the Government. Companies are required to understand and identify this kind of content and, crucially, report it to Ofcom. Thirdly, this will inform the actions of Ofcom itself in its review and report duties under Clause 56, where it is required to review the incidence of harmful content and the severity of harm experienced by children as a result of it. This is not limited to content that the Government have listed as being harmful, as it is intended to capture new and emerging harms. Ofcom will be required to report back to the Government with recommendations on changes to the primary priority and priority content lists.

I turn to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, helpfully raised earlier about things that are in the amendments but not explicitly mentioned in the Bill. As he knows, the Bill has been designed to be tech-neutral, so that it is future-proof. That is why there is no explicit reference to the metaverse or virtual or augmented reality. However, the Bill will apply to service providers that enable users to share content online or interact with each other, as well as search services. That includes a broad range of services such as websites, applications, social media sites, video games and virtual reality spaces such as the metaverse; those are all captured. Any service that allows users to interact, as the metaverse does, will need to conduct a children’s access assessment and comply with the child safety duties if it is likely to be accessed by children.

Amendment 123 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seeks to amend Clause 48 to require Ofcom to create guidance for Part 3 service providers on this new schedule. For the reasons I have just set out, we do not think it would be workable to require Ofcom to produce guidance on this proposed schedule. For example, the duty requires Ofcom to provide guidance on the content, whereas the proposed schedule includes examples of risky functionality, such as the frequency and volume of recommendations.

I stress again that we are sympathetic to the aim of all these amendments. As I have set out, though, our analysis leads us to believe that the four Cs framework is simply not compatible with the existing architecture of the Bill. Fundamental concepts such as risk, harm and content would need to be reconsidered in the light of it, and that would inevitably have a knock-on effect for a large number of clauses and timing. The Bill has benefited from considerable scrutiny—pre-legislative and in many discussions over many years. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has been a key part of that and of improving the Bill. The task is simply unfeasible at this stage in the progress of the Bill through Parliament and risks delaying it, as well as significantly slowing down Ofcom’s implementation of the child safety duties. We do not think that this slowing down is a risk worth taking, because we believe the Bill already achieves what is sought by these amendments.

Even so, I say to the Committee that we have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others and have worked to identify changes which would further address these concerns. My noble friend Lady Harding posed a clear question: if not this, what would the Government do instead? I am pleased to say that, as a result of the discussions we have had, the Government have decided to make a significant change to the Bill. We will now place the categories of primary priority and priority content which is harmful to children on the face of the Bill, rather than leaving them to be designated in secondary legislation, so Parliament will have its say on them.

We hope that this change will reassure your Lordships that protecting children from the most harmful content is indeed the priority for the Bill. That change will be made on Report. We will continue to work closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, my noble friends and others, but I am not able to accept the amendments in the group before us today. With that, I hope that she will be willing to withdraw.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I thank all the speakers. There were some magnificent speeches and I do not really want to pick out any particular ones, but I cannot help but say that the right reverend Prelate described the world without the four Cs. For me, that is what everybody in the Box and on the Front Bench should go and listen to.

I am grateful and pleased that the Minister has said that the Government are moving in this direction. I am very grateful for that but there are a couple of things that I have to come back on. First, I have swiftly read Amendment 205’s definition of harm and I do not think it says that you do not have to reach a barrier of harm; dissemination is quite enough. There is always the problem of what the end result of the harm is. The thing that the Government are not listening to is the relationship between the risk assessment and the harm. It is about making sure that we are clear that it is the functionality that can cause harm. I think we will come back to this at another point, but that is what I beg them to listen to. Secondly, I am not entirely sure that it is correct to say that the four Cs mean that you cannot have primary priority, priority and so on. That could be within the schedule of content, so those two things are not actually mutually exclusive. I would be very happy to have a think about that.

What was not addressed in the Minister’s answer was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, in supporting the proposal that we should have in the schedule: “This is what you’ve got to do; this is what you’ve got to look at; this is what we’re expecting of you; and this is what Parliament has delivered”. That is immensely important, and I was so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for putting his marker down on this set of amendments. I am absolutely committed to working alongside him and to finding ways around this, but we need to find a way of stating it.

Ironically, that is my answer to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Fox: we should have our arguments here and now, in this Chamber. I do not wish to leave it to the Secretary of State, whom I have great regard for, as it happens, but who knows: I have seen a lot of Secretaries of State. I do not even want to leave it to the Minister, because I have seen a lot of Ministers too—ditto Ofcom, and definitely not the tech sector. So here is the place, and we are the people, to work out the edges of this thing.

Not for the first time, my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, read out what would have been my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I have gone round and round, and it is like the Marx brothers’ movie: in the end, harm is defined by subsection (4)(c), but that says that harm will defined by the Secretary of State. It goes around like that through the Bill.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 157, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and others, including my own. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, indicated, it is specific in the nature of what it concentrates on. The greatest concern that arises through the amendment is with reference to category 2A. It is not necessarily incompatible with what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposes; I do not intend to make any direct further comment on his amendments. While the amendment is specific, it has a resonance with some of the other issues raised on the Bill.

I am sure that everyone within this Committee would want to have a Bill that is as fit for purpose as possible. The Bill was given widespread support at Second Reading, so there is a determination across the Chamber to have that. Where we can make improvements to the Bill, we should do that and, as much as possible, try to future-proof the Bill. The wider resonance is the concern that if the Bill is to be successful, we need as much consistency and clarity within it as possible, particularly for users. Where we have a level of false dichotomy of regulations, that runs contrary to the intended purposes of the Bill and creates inadvertent opportunities for loopholes. As such, and as has been indicated, the concern is that in the Bill at present, major search engines are effectively treated in some of the regulations on a different basis from face-to-face users. For example, some of the provisions around risk assessment, the third shield and the empowerment tools are different.

As also indicated, we are not talking about some of the minor search engines. We are talking about some of the largest companies in the world, be it Google, Microsoft through Bing, Amazon through its devices or Apple through its Siri voice tool, so it is reasonable that they are brought into line with what is there is for face-to-face users. The amendment is therefore appropriate and the rationale for it is that there is a real-world danger. Mention has been made—we do not want to dwell too long on some of the examples, but I will use just one—of the realms of anti-Semitism, where I have a particular interest. For example, on search tools, a while ago there was a prompt within one search engine that Jews are evil. It was found that when that prompt was there, searches of that nature increased by 10% and when it was removed, they were reduced. It is quite fixable and it goes into a wide range of areas.

One of the ways in which technology has changed, I think for us all, is the danger that it can be abused by people who seek to radicalise others and make them extreme, particularly young children. Gone are the days when some of these extremists or terrorists were lonely individuals in an attic, with no real contact with the outside world, or hanging around occasionally in the high street while handing out poorly produced A4 papers with their hateful ideology. There is a global interconnection here and, in particular, search engines and face-to-face users can be used to try to draw young people into their nefarious activities.

I mentioned the example of extremism and radicalisation when it comes to anti-Semitism. I have seen it from my own part of the world, where there is at times an attempt by those who still see violence as the way forward in Northern Ireland to draw new generations of young people into extremist ideology and terrorist acts. There is an attempt to lure in young people and, sadly, search engines have a role within that, which is why we need to see that level of protection. Now, the argument from search engines is that they should have some level of exemptions. How can they be held responsible for everything that appears through their searches, or indeed through the web? But in terms of content, the same argument could be used for face-to-face users. It is right, as the proposer of this amendment has indicated, that there are things such as algorithmic indexing and prompt searches where they do have a level of control.

The use of algorithms has moved on considerably since my schooldays, as they surely have for everyone in this Committee, and I suspect that none of us felt that they would be used in such a fashion. We need a level of protection through an amendment such as this and, as its proposers, we are not doctrinaire on the precise form in which this should take place. We look, for example, at the provisions within Clause 11—we seek to hear what the Government have to say on that—which could potentially be used to regulate search engines. Ensuring that that power is given, and will be used by Ofcom, will go a long way to addressing many of the concerns.

I think all of us in this Committee are keen to work together to find the right solutions, but we feel that there is a need to make some level of change to the regulations that are required for search engines. None of us in this Committee believes that we will ultimately have a piece of legislation that reflects perfection, but there is a solemn duty on us all to produce legislation that is as fit for purpose and future-proofed as possible, while providing children in particular with the maximum protection in what is at times an ever-changing and sometimes very frightening world.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I agree in part with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I was the person who said that small was not safe, and I still feel that. I certainly do not think that anything in the Bill will make the world online 100% safe, and I think that very few noble Lords do, so it is important to say that. When we talk about creating a high bar or having zero tolerance, we are talking about ensuring that there is a ladder within the Bill so that the most extreme cases have the greatest force of law trying to attack them. I agree with the noble Lord on that.

I also absolutely agree with the noble Lord about implementation: if it is too complex and difficult, it will be unused and exploited in certain ways, and it will have a bad reputation. The only part of his amendment that I do not agree with is that we should look at size. Through the process of Committee, if we can look at risk rather than size, we will get somewhere. I share his impatience—or his inquiry—about what categories 2A and 2B mean. If category 2A means the most risky and category 2B means those that are less risky, I am with him all the way. We need to look into the definition of what they mean.

Finally, I mentioned several times on Tuesday that we need to look carefully at Ofcom’s risk profiles. Is this the answer to dealing with where risk gets determined, rather than size?

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak along similar lines to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will address my noble friend Lord Moylan’s comments. I share his concern that we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good but, like the noble Baroness, I do not think that size is the key issue here, because of how tech businesses grow. Tech businesses are rather like building a skyscraper: if you get the foundations wrong, it is almost impossible to change how safe the building is as it goes up and up. As I said earlier this week, small tech businesses can become big very quickly, and, if you design your small tech business with the risks to children in mind at the very beginning, there is a much greater chance that your skyscraper will not wobble as it gets taller. On the other hand, if your small business begins by not taking children into account at all, it is almost impossible to address the problem once it is huge. I fear that this is the problem we face with today’s social media companies.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, hit the nail on the head, as she so often does, in saying that we need to think about risk, rather than size, as the means of differentiating the proportionate response. In Clause 23, which my noble friend seeks to amend, the important phrase is “use proportionate measures” in subsection (2). Provided that we start with a risk assessment and companies are then under the obligation to make proportionate adjustments, that is how you build safe technology companies—it is just like how you build safe buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Government will give serious consideration to moving in this direction and to accepting the force of the amendments that have been put forward today. This is not about weakening the fight against appalling harms such as child sexual abuse material and terrorism, but rather about finding the most practical way to wage that fight in a world where end-to-end encryption exists and is being used to mitigate other material risks to our online lives. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 285 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. That is not to say that I do not have a great deal of sympathy for the incredibly detailed and expert speech we have just heard, but I want to say just a couple of things.

First, I think we need to have a new conversation about privacy in general. The privacy that is imagined by one community is between the state and the individual, and the privacy that we do not have is between individuals and the commercial companies. We live in a 3D world and the argument remains 2D. We cannot do that today, but I agree with the noble Lord that many in the enforcement community do have one hand on human rights, and many in the tech world do care about human rights. However, I do not believe that the tech sector has fully fessed up to its role and the contribution it could make around privacy. I hope that, as part of the debate on the Bill, and the debate that we will have subsequently on the data Bill No. 2, we come to untangle some of the things that they defend—in my view, unnecessarily and unfairly.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I point out that one of the benefits of end-to-end encryption is that it precisely stops companies doing things such as targeted advertising based on the content of people’s communications. Again, I think there is a very strong and correct trend to push companies in that direction.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for the intervention. For those noble Lords who are not following the numbers, Amendment 285, which I support, would prevent general monitoring. Apart from anything else, I am worried about equivalence and other issues in relation to general monitoring. Apart from a principled position against it, I think to be explicit is helpful.

Ofcom needs to be very careful, and that is what Amendment 190 sets out. It asks whether the alternatives have been thought about, whether the conditions have been thought about, and whether the potential impact has been thought about. That series of questions is essential. I am probably closer to the community that wants to see more powers and more interventions, but I would like that to be in a very monitored and regulated form.

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. Some of these amendments must be supported because it is worrying for us as a country to have—what did the noble Lord call it?—ambiguity about whether something is possible. I do not think that is a useful ambiguity.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 203 in this group, along with those of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Moylan. I shall speak in general terms about the nature of the group, because it is most usefully addressed through the fundamental issues that arise. I sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for his careful and comprehensive introduction to the group, which gave us a strong foundation. I have crossed out large amounts of what I had written down and will try not to repeat, but rather pick up some points and angles that I think need to be raised.

As was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, this debate and the range of these amendments shows that the Bill is currently extremely deficient and unclear in this area. It falls to this Committee to get some clarity and cut-through to see where we could end up and change where we are now.

I start by referring to a briefing, which I am sure many noble Lords have received, from a wide range of organisations, including Liberty, Big Brother Watch, the Open Rights Group, Article 19, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Reset and Fair Vote. It is quite a range of organisations but very much in the human rights space, particularly the digital human rights space. The introduction of the briefing includes a sentence that gets to the heart of why many of us have received so many emails about this element of the Bill:

“None of us want to feel as though someone is looking over our shoulder when we are communicating”.

--- Later in debate ---

It is worth coming back to the overall view of this. Sometimes we say that the security services were always able to open letters and look at individual communications, when we hope they had the legal basis to do so. Here we are talking about everything, everybody, all the time, which is an entirely different world situation to that individual, targeted legal basis.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I want to take advantage of the noble Baroness having raised that point to say that perhaps I was not clear enough in my speech. While I absolutely agree about not everything, everybody, all the time, for my specific concerns around child sexual abuse, abuse of women and so on, we have to find new world order ways of creating targeted approaches so it does not have to be everything, everybody, all the time.

--- Later in debate ---

This is true. Most child abuse happens offline. Online child abuse needs to be dealt with, but I worry that we will say to people, “Don’t worry, all will be well because we’re dealing with it in the Online Safety Bill”.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

No one in the Committee or anyone standing behind us who speaks up for children thinks that this is going to be a silver bullet. It is unacceptable to suggest that we take that position. Much child abuse takes place offline and is then put online, but the exponential way in which it is consumed, created, and spread is entirely new because of the services we are talking about. Later in Committee I will explain some of the new ways in which it is creating child abuse—new forms, new technologies, new abuse.

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I have made my feelings clear that I am not an end-to-end encryption “breaker”. There are amendments covering this; I believe some of them will come up later in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on safety by design and so on. I also agree with the noble Baroness that we need more resources in this area for the police, teachers, social workers and so on. However, I do not want child sexual abuse to be a football in this conversation.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I agree with the noble Baroness, which is precisely why I am suggesting that we need to consider whether privacy should be sacrificed totally in relation to the argument around encryption. It is difficult, and I feel awkward saying it. When I mentioned a silver bullet I was not talking about the noble Baroness or any other noble Lords present, but I have heard people say that we need this Bill because it will deal with child abuse. In this group of amendments, I am raising the fact that when I have talked about encryption with people outside of the House they have said that we need to do something to tackle the fact that these messages are being sent around. It is not just child abuse; it is also terrorism. There is a range of difficult situations.

Things can go wrong with this, and that is what I was trying to raise. For example, we have a situation where some companies are considering using, or are being asked to use, machine learning to detect nudity. Just last year, a father lost his Google account and was reported to the police for sending a naked photo of their child to the doctor for medical reasons. I am raising these as examples of the problems that we have to consider.

Child abuse is so abhorrent that we will do anything to protect children, but let me say this to the Committee, as it is where the point on privacy lies: children are largely abused in their homes, but as far as I understand it we are not as yet arguing that the state should put CCTV cameras in every home for 24/7 surveillance to stop child abuse. That does not mean that we are glib or that we do not understand the importance of child abuse; it means that we understand the privacy of your home. There are specialist services that can intervene when they think there is a problem. I am worried about the possibility of putting a CCTV camera in everyone’s phone, which is the danger of going down this route.

My final point is that these services, such as WhatsApp, will potentially leave the UK. It is important to note that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan: this is not like threatening to storm off. It is not done in any kind of pique in that way. In putting enormous pressure on these platforms to scan communications, we must remember that they are global platforms. They have a system that works for billions of people all around the world. A relatively small market such as the UK is not something for which they would compromise their billions of users around the world. As I have explained, they would not put up with it if the Chinese state said, “We have to see people’s messages”. They would just say, “We are encrypted services”. They would walk out of China and we would all say, “Well done”. There is a real, strong possibility of these services leaving the UK so we must be very careful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am hesitant to give too tight a definition, because we want to remain technology neutral and make sure that we are keeping an open mind to developing changes. I will think about that and write to the noble Lord. The best endeavours will inevitably change over time as new technological solutions present themselves. I point to the resourcefulness of the sector in identifying those, but I will see whether there is anything more I can add.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

While the Minister is reflecting, I note that the words “best endeavours” are always a bit of a worry. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, made the good point that once it is on your phone, you are in trouble and you must report it, but the frustration of many people outside this Chamber, if it has been on a phone and you cannot deal with it, is what comes next to find the journey of that piece of material without breaking encryption. I speak to the tech companies very often—indeed, I used to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, when he was in position at then Facebook—but that is the question that we would like answered in this Committee, because the frustration that “It is nothing to do with us” is where we stop with our sympathy.