Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Kidron Excerpts(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 216. The amendment to ban mobile phones in schools was introduced to safeguard children’s well-being, which is a principle that I wholeheartedly support. But it is therefore imperative that we consider all the ways that a mobile phone can be vital for a child’s well-being and security.
I was recently contacted by a mother of a diabetic child who relies on a mobile phone app to monitor her glucose level and manage insulin treatment. Without that device, her child would be at serious risk. For students who depend on assistive technology, whether for communication, medical monitoring or learning support, a mobile phone is not a distraction: it is a lifeline. We must ensure that, in our efforts to protect children from the harms of excessive screen time, we do not inadvertently endanger those who rely on these technologies to participate fully and safely in school life. This amendment provides the necessary clarity and protection for vulnerable students and I urge the House to support it.
Incidentally, I was contacted today by young carers who need access to a phone because of their caring roles. One young carer said, “I’m not going to go into school, then, because I’ll be too worried that something might happen to the person I am looking after”. So there are nuances to this issue and one of the ways of dealing with them is by supporting the amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lord Addington.
On the general issue, whether it is teachers, parents or grandparents, everybody has concerns about mobile phones in school. It is interesting to remember what the head of Ofsted said. He said that they had played a part in the ongoing scandal of poor school attendance,
“whether by chipping away at attention spans and eroding the necessary patience for learning, or by promoting disrespectful attitudes and behaviours”.
He also linked mobile phones in schools to the massive increase in permanent exclusions—which, in 2023-24, were up to a record 10,885 children and young people permanently excluded from school—and to the increase in the number of suspensions. I do not know whether they are a direct result of having mobile phones in schools, but clearly Ofsted’s chief inspector thinks that that is the case.
I think a ban will have to be agreed, but I hope that, when this comes back on ping-pong, the Government might clarify some of the ways that we deal with these exceptions, because there are issues as well. If, for example, a child or young person needs their mobile phone to monitor their glucose levels, how will that phone be handed in or given back? Will there be a register for that? It all needs to be thought through but, yes, we need to ban mobile phones in school.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I too added my name to Amendment 215 but, like my noble friend Lord Hampton, I have spoken on this issue quite a lot and anyone who would like to know my view can find it in Hansard—reams of it.
However, I want to ask the Minister a few questions about the Government’s current position. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister declare that no one thinks you should have phones in schools and that schools are expected to be phone-free by default. I am particularly pleased because that is a shift in government messaging: in the last two debates on this issue, I was told that the guidance was sufficient as it is and that 90% of secondary schools already have policies in place that work.
I am delighted, but I want to understand what recycling the guidance is going to do to change the experience on the ground for children. Only 15% of children say that phones do not affect their lessons in some way. How will the new guidance help?
My second question is around Ofsted inspections. Ofsted inspects about a quarter of schools each year, so each school gets between three and four years between inspections. I would like to hear from the Minister because I am concerned that, if we pass this today and stick with the Government’s guidance, there are some schools that will not be inspected for another four years. We have a problem in the real world. We will have new guidance, but with a system that will be checked at some time in the future. I am worried that many things could happen in that gap.
Thirdly, I looked at the government website, where Ofsted’s national director of education wrote:
“If a school chooses not to follow the guidance, inspectors will continue to explore the impact of mobile phones on pupils’ behaviour, safety and wellbeing”.
Can the Minister state under what circumstances not having a bell-to-bell restriction would be appropriate, given what the national director of education has said?
Finally, I hope to give the noble Lord, Lord Addington, a little support. I have long advocated for a bell-to-bell restriction, for support for schools to store phones during the day, and for exemptions for children, carers and even for pedagogical reasons—teaching about phones—and for pupils who need assistive technology. But this has taken so long, and we cannot let the exemptions undermine the need to act. If this goes through tonight, will the Government come back with something that is sensitive to these exceptions but does not undermine the purpose of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran? We cannot have an expectation of a phone-free school day, an inspection regime that means that, even if we arrive on this today, some schools will not have seen it in four years’ time, and a policy which the inspectors represent as a choice. This does not add up.
The reason most often given by Ministers against this policy is that it is worse at home. I beg the Government to give the kids a break and eight hours off. The Government are in loco parentis when children are at school. This would be a marvellous thing for the Government to do for parents.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I spoke on this Bill at Second Reading—which seems a million months ago, but perhaps it is not quite that long—I said that I was not convinced about having a ban on phones in schools. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that I should listen to the arguments.
Whether we agree with online content and what children should access from smartphones is, in a way, a separate debate. There are two main arguments tonight which mean that I will support Amendment 215. First, as we have heard, this should be about supporting good educational outcomes. There is no doubt that having phones in schools is a distraction. We should give our young people the best possible opportunity to concentrate and focus for those eight hours in school.
Secondly, Ministers have said that there is guidance which strongly encourages schools to have policies that mobile phones should be put away. When I speak to teachers and heads, they say that, without something a bit tougher, it is very difficult to police, particularly when parents or families come in and say that there is an exception or why it should not apply. Sometimes they are even very aggressive towards teachers and heads who say that the pupils should not have phones. We should take the opportunity to support education outcomes and those who have to police this policy on the front line by supporting this amendment.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 227 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We started with AI during Oral Questions what is now yesterday afternoon. We considered the use of AAI in the debate on Amendment 209 yesterday evening. We are now back with AI within edtech. Amendment 227 is about ensuring that a minimum level of provision of software tools, including websites, is available to every pupil in England, regardless of the school they attend.
Over the last six months, I have worked with Professor Peyton Jones from the University of Cambridge and the Raspberry Pi Foundation to develop proposals for a level 3 qualification in data science and AI. This is being done in consultation with the relevant team in the Department for Education.
Importantly, this level 3 qualification would not be just for those sixth-formers who will go on to read computer science at university but, first and foremost, for the professionals of the future, such as lawyers, economists and doctors. The aim is to give those pupils in the final two years of school sufficient knowledge and experience of up-to-date AI to enable them to use it properly in their time at university and at the start of their professional careers.
If the UK is to have a workforce ready to take advantage of the opportunities that AI offers, AI education needs to begin at school. I know that His Majesty’s Government recognise this. They have just published a set of standards which generative AI products should meet to be considered safe for users in educational settings. However, these are intended mainly for edtech developers and suppliers to schools and colleges, not schoolteachers and administrators.
During a workshop organised by the Raspberry Pi Foundation last November, I met teachers from all types of schools who were keen to learn more about a level 3 qualification in data science and AI. I soon discovered that IT departments in many schools today have a strict, if misguided, interpretation of the Online Safety Act. As far as they are concerned, the safest way to prevent pupils accessing harmful or inappropriate material while on school premises is to bar them from accessing any website, even and especially OpenAI’s. There are other schools, of course, where the staff in the IT department operate a more nuanced firewall policy.
This amendment seeks to ensure that there is an irreducible minimum set of software tools, including websites, which every pupil in any school in England will be able to access during the school day. Pupils should be prevented from accessing websites which may lead to harm, but they should instead have access to websites with strong educational missions; for example, Code.org or MathsWatch. These would be included in a register of software tools permitted in schools and whitelisted by the school network firewall system.
Schools would be free to add other websites if they wished to do so, but the amendment would ensure that all pupils in England had access to a minimum set of whitelisted software tools, enabling them to learn about data science and AI as part of their school education. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 238 to 240 are in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Cass and Lord Russell. I support Amendment 227 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tarassenko. I start by thanking the Minister and her officials for the engagement that we have had since Committee. These amendments, unlike in the previous grouping, are all about a single thing: the uses of technology in our schools. I feel that they are long overdue; we have seen many of them before in our deliberations on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, as well as earlier in this Bill.
Less than a fortnight ago, the Secretary of State delivered a speech in which she said that we are in the middle of a technology revolution in education and that technology is moving so quickly that:
“The world of even 5 years ago is gone forever—already a lost, obsolete age”.
We are in a time of change, but I am very concerned that this uncritical view of tech is difficult for schools. The Secretary of State is dismissing long-standing educational practices, honed by experience and research, in favour of technology, some of which is proven to be unsafe and to invade privacy, and much of which has yet to be tested.
I will go through the amendments quickly. Amendment 238 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a statutory code of practice on the efficacy of educational technology within 18 months of the Act’s passing, and a certification scheme for minimum pedagogical standards for edtech procurement in schools. In December, the Minister wrote to me to say that the Government were developing a new approach to certify edtech products to make certain that they are safe and fit for purpose, through an accreditation service and statutory guidance. It seemed from the letter that she was referring to filtering and monitoring, which I will come to, but I would be grateful if she would clarify that when she responds.
The problem is that the process by which we are interrogating edtech is far slower than the process by which we are introducing it into our schools. Although I welcome the idea that the Government will test novel products and consult a wide group of people, unless I am mistaken, the regime does not offer a certification scheme that guarantees the learning outcomes of edtech.
It is for that reason that I also support my noble friend Lord Tarassenko’s Amendment 227. He and I have worked on a number of issues that seek to apply existing rules to technology to ensure that those who develop it consider the needs of individuals and communities into which it is deployed. Given that my noble friend has given a detailed explanation of his whitelist amendment, I will not reiterate it now, but I commend this amendment to the Government, because it is a model for how we should deal with edtech more broadly: insist on existing standards, make adherence visible and, in doing so, make a well-designed, private, positive use case for tech in schools. Without the existing standards, we cannot see what the edtech is doing.
Amendment 239 requires the Government to set statutory standards for filtering and monitoring systems used in schools. This amendment is marginally different from the one that I tabled in Committee, in that it clarifies adherence to data collection practices, that there is nothing in them that prevents staff carrying out their safeguarding duties, and that the standards would be checked with real-time tests established through a certification scheme with which Ofsted would check that schools complied.
I have been pressing this issue for over five years and yet we have failed to solve the problem. The introduction of generative AI means that we are going backwards and I believe that the Government have turned to guidance again: they have updated their filtering and monitoring standards only this month. I am pleased to see that that guidance now clarifies that barriers to illegal content must be switched on at all times and I believe that the Minister will also commit to consultation.
However, experts at the UK Safer Internet Centre suggest that seven of the 24 filtering and monitoring systems used in the UK do not currently meet the standards that filter for illegal content and only three of them currently provide clear evidence that they can analyse and block generative AI content in real time, as the new standards require. The same experts say that market compliance is uneven, that schools are dependent on providers’ self-assessments and that there is a serious gap between policy intent and consistent implementation. We need to remove the inconsistency, meet basic safety requirements and insist that they are routinely checked. It is not right that schools are left with the burden of working out what the system they have paid for does or does not do. I understand that many school leaders believe they comply with filtering and monitoring standards, but do not. I worry that the Government are overestimating compliance overall.
It is a tragedy that we are discussing this at midnight. This amendment should have been put in front of the House. I remind noble Lords who are in the Chamber or reading this in Hansard that Frankie Thomas lost her life, and her parents, who campaigned fiercely for these amendments, have for five years been told by Minister after Minister that this would be put right, and it still has not been. I ask the Minister to give me some hope that this will be put right in statute at the basic level we require and that experts are asking for. Obviously, there will be no vote this evening.
Finally, Amendment 240 would require the ICO to issue a code of practice for educational settings. On Report of the data Bill, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, gave firm commitments that the Government would use their powers to require the ICO to publish a new code of practice. In Committee of this Bill, the Minister said the ICO was under a commitment to produce an edtech code of practice, but the Minister’s letter to me of 16 December said the Government will lay regulations in the second half of 2026 requiring the ICO to begin work on the edtech code. This is political snakes and ladders. I am back at the beginning. In the old world—which is gone for ever and obsolete—it was not doable that every movement, emotion and learning outcome of a child could be taken by a commercial company from school and pushed into the commercial world to be exploited.
Amendment 240—which I have been promised twice by two different Ministers—would set a clear time limit of six months after the Act’s passing within which an ICO code of practice for education must be established. As set out in the Minister’s letter, it will be more than 18 months from when Ministers first committed to it that it would be started. Can she speed that promise right up?
Each of these amendments asks the Government to set the standards so that tech can do the technology, the teachers can do the teaching and the children can flourish. Anything less is putting big tech ahead of children.
Baroness Cass (CB)
I will be brief, given the time. I will talk about only two things and try to keep noble Lords awake with them: academic passion and the gut microbiome. That will keep noble Lords on their toes.
On academic passion, when I was president of the paediatric college, we thought we did not have enough female professors of paediatrics. I adhered to that view until, one day, two of them were in my office at the same time, tearing strips out of each other so aggressively that I thought: “Yes, we need more of these people, but we should never let two be in one room at the same time”.
I saw similar passion at an educational conference; the passion of those educational academics was quite something. There were arguments about whether assessment drives learning, between those who believe in it and those who do not. Similarly, there was an equally colourful argument about teaching children to read with phonics versus other methods.
The striking thing about these academics is that, while years have gone into academic research and there are all sorts of controversies, the point is that everyone who is in this field is interested in educational outcomes, not commercial incomes. That is the difference with what we are seeing in the technology we are serving up to our children.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Kidron Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, perhaps I am a simple-minded and naive bishop, but it seems we are getting into a debate we probably should have had in Committee on the different ways of approaching a quite specific issue, and I would rather we did not spend all night doing that. Yet we are where we are.
The very fact that we are mostly discussing Amendments 94A and 94B is a symptom of the fact that these issues have really come to the fore of the public’s concern in relatively recent times. I have got to the point where I am thinking, “I don’t care which amendment we pass tonight, as long as we pass something that then allows some time for things to go back to the Commons, for them to give consideration and for it to come back here”. Let us have that process. Even though we are at a relatively late stage of a Bill, we can have a good process beyond today, rather than trying to resolve the matter once and for all on the Floor of the House this evening. That is my main point.
My second point is on why we are perhaps in a better place now than we were a few months ago. It has worried me that we have not taken action against the big tech companies in the USA in recent times. We know that the US Government put this Government—us, our nation—under extreme pressure. Nobody has mentioned that today. It feels as if it is the elephant in the room. Perhaps we need to now show our courage and, particularly given all that is happening in and around Greenland, perhaps now is the time to say that we are not pusillanimous any more and that we are standing up for Britain and for what Britain needs, whatever the tech bros think is in their interests.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, because I am going to mirror his words in many ways. Before I start, I thank our warm-up act, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. It is a fantastic result. I hope that the Minister gives her all that she wants. She should be proud of herself that she has done it in just a couple of years, because the child born when I first raised it is probably in tertiary education by now, so two years is a very good timeframe.
I had written quite a different speech before I saw the Government’s consultation announcement. That made me rather angry, because it does not concern itself with the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, nor the emerging or future threats that we repeatedly raise. It does not seek to speed up enforcement or establish why non-compliant companies are not named in Ofcom research or while they are being investigated. The consultation is entirely focused on two amendments that this House might send to the other House, which its Back-Benchers might agree to. The consultation’s purpose is to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion. It is not about child safety or governance; it is about party management. The UK’s children deserve better than that.
We have two amendments before us. Neither enjoys the support of all those who care about child safety. As the right reverend Prelate said, what a gift that has been to the Government, because it allows them to kick the issue down the road. The United Kingdom—once at the forefront of tech safety, commended on its AI Safety Institute, the age-appropriate design code, the Online Safety Act and the provisions for bereaved parents, all first and best in class—has squandered its advantage. Instead, we are becoming a case study for those who would like to prove that the tech sector is beyond national laws and is a law unto itself. Regulation has failed not because it cannot work but because the regime envisaged by Parliament was weakened by lobbying and critically undermined in its implementation. It is not regulation failing in principle; it is political will failing in practice.
There are very good reasons why all the child safety experts and organisations have urged the Government not to settle for a social media ban. Their collective view is clear that a ban is blunt and partial, fails to tackle root harms, shifts the burden from tech to parents and children and abandons 16 and 17 year-olds. Possibly the biggest thing they are saying we must hear is that it sends a dangerous message to a demographic that already experiences widespread disaffection that while the future is all digital and AI, they are not invited. I agree with every single one of those points.
However, over the last 15 months, the Government have ignored the howl of pain from parents and children, preferring to sup with big tech. Many have come to the view that if they cannot have the digital world that they were promised for their children after a decade of work on the Online Safety Act, they would rather have nothing at all. I say this reluctantly, but all the social media companies caught by Australia’s ban are already in scope of the OSA, so today marks a very low day for Ofcom. We are rehearsing in these two groups exactly what Ofcom was supposed to solve.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I support many of the amendments in this group, but I also want to express my concerns about Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I have listened carefully to his arguments and those of other noble Lords who support the amendment. I too am appalled by the many stories that we have heard. I too want to stop children being exposed to harms online. I hope my record in the debates on the Online Safety Act and other digital legislation show my support for measures to increase safety for children in the digital space. I, like all noble Lords, recognise that there are many harms online.
However, I do not think that an outright ban on social media for the under-16s will be effective in protecting children. I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lady Kidron, who I normally always agree with, but we should put all the pressure we possibly can directly on Ofcom to make sure we realise the hopes and dreams of the Online Safety Act.
Early this morning, I had an interesting conversation with Jason Trethowan, who runs headspace, Australia’s national youth mental health charity, which last year was accessed by 170,000 young people aged between 12 and 25 in 170 locations across the country. His organisation is at the sharp end of the social media ban in Australia. His main message was that we all want to stop online harms to children, but he called on the Government and legislators to listen to children as well as parents.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has quite rightly highlighted the harms that exist for young people on social media. However, noble Lords also need to be aware of the crucial role that social media plays for young people in communicating with each other, getting information about the world and, very importantly, getting help and advice from like-minded people.
Jason said that we all need to understand that young people see the online world as their world. It is a central part of their existence, and no amount of bans will remove them from online space. headspace told me that the ban in Australia, which started on 10 December 2025, was a massive shock for many young people. They had been warned of its arrival for months but still were not prepared for the severing of their contacts on social media. Most did not have the phone numbers to continue communicating with their contacts and suddenly found themselves isolated from their peer groups. Many noble Lords will dismiss these severances as youthful folly, but the charity told me that of 3,000 young people who have been seen since the ban was introduced, 10% included social media bans among the reasons for their mental health deteriorating.
One young person on an isolated farm in rural Australia had used an LGBT group on social media to find like-minded young people. He lived in a household he regarded as homophobic, and was geographically far away from many of his online contacts. Suddenly, he found his support network taken away from him. The schools in Australia are on their summer break until the end of this month, so the full extent of the disruption to the lives of young people is not known.
The young LGBT person will not be able to renew his social media contacts, but rest assured he will find advice somewhere else on the internet. Young people who are banned from social media will find other ways online to assuage their appetites for communication, information and problem-solving.
In Australia, Headspace is already seeing this happening. Young people who can no longer use the 10 major sites, which include Snapchat, X, YouTube, Instagram and Kik, are now migrating to AI sites. Noble Lords have already had debates over concerns about AI as a form of gathering information. Many will be aware of what the West Coast techies call “hallucinations” —the rest of us call them “lies”—appearing in AI research.
Young people are using AI to resolve their problems. On 27 November last year, this House had a debate about banning AI companions, which many young people use for advice. They can be dangerous—my noble friend Lady Kidron told how this led to one young man committing suicide on the advice of an AI companion. Surely, noble Lords do not want to encourage young people to use these AI replacements for social media.
The tech companies will feed that appetite. I know that built into Amendment 94A there is a flexibility for which apps will be used. However, they found in Australia that new platforms are opening all the time. The Australian Government’s original Act banned 10 social media platforms, but already they have had to come up with another list of platforms to ban. This is a game of whack-a-mole, just as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. It will not be solved by ban on social media platforms. The media will always outpace the legislation.
There are so many harms online, on social media and other platforms. We all agree on that. I have spoken to the charities that have been mentioned many times by noble Lords—the Molly Rose Foundation, Internet Matters, NSPCC and the Online Safety Act Network. They have all championed the development of online safety for children, as noble Lords have already mentioned, and all are against a blanket ban on social media for under-16s in this country. They suggest that instead of banning social media, the Online Safety Act should be amended. I know that my noble friend Lady Kidron has said that that is not possible to do.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I am sorry but the noble Viscount is misreading what I said. I said exactly that.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I apologise. They suggest that the Act should be amended to ensure safety by design for all users, particularly young users.
There is a need to strengthen Ofcom’s response to tech platforms that breach their risk assessments. It needs to put the onus on the platforms to mitigate the risks, instead of defining the mitigation measures and taking action only when there is evidence that these measures actually work. This needs to be combined with the definition of “safety by design”.
I partially support Amendment 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Children’s safety charities have long been calling for age-appropriate content requirements to be introduced for content on social media and across the internet. However, age-appropriate design should be introduced not just for 18 year-olds but for 16 year-olds and even 13 year-olds.
I completely support Amendment 109. I am glad the Government are having a consultation on this issue. I sincerely hope that noble Lords are wrong in saying that this is an attempt to kick this down the road. Addiction is a real problem. This is about engagement and economy, and it needs to be dealt with.
I support the call for Ofcom to revisit its interpretation of the Online Safety Act so that it includes addictive design as one of the harms that it needs platforms to mitigate against. I understand the powerful instinct of noble Lords and many parents to ban social media for under-16s, but I ask them to consider that young people will not be torn away from life online. It will not be possible to force them to leave the digital world, however much a majority of adults want that to happen.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Kidron Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 494. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who signed my amendment; I will give positive support to her amendment in this group.
Educational technology—edtech—offers extraordinary opportunities for learners right through the school and education experience. In effect, it enables personalised education—for every young person to have a classroom assistant alongside them in technology form. It is an extraordinary upside and transformational, but only if we get right the framework, the construction and the underpinning principles that guide it. If we human-lead with these technologies, we will give ourselves the best opportunity to succeed and to empower all children and young people to succeed in their education journey. If we have a principles-based, outcomes-focused and inputs-understood approach, we enable, we empower and we have a clear understanding of what we require from these edtech solutions.
I turn now to the amendment. All edtech must be inclusive by design; accessible; transparent about the make-up of the technology; labelled, if AI is in the mix; and absolutely crystal clear as to how the data is used, where it is stored and how none of that data—children’s data—gets sold on to any third parties.
The opportunities are extraordinary. It is at least a touch unfortunate that so much of technology in school is being described and seen through the lens of smartphones. It is understandable, because of some of the catastrophic downsides and outcomes we have seen as a consequence, but there is nothing inevitable about that. Edtech, positively deployed, human-led, with human principles and values at its heart, and with the right oversight and approach to data, could enable such a powerful learning experience, primarily for young people and children but also for teachers, classroom assistants and the whole school community.
Amendment 494 is about pulling on the power that we have through procurement. We can achieve so much by understanding how we look at the values and underpinning principles that we put into how we procure. This amendment echoes many of the under- pinnings of Amendment 493 in understanding that, if we can get a procurement standard in place, then many of the potential problems and difficulties are dealt with before they even come into being, because of that standard being so well set before any consideration has been given to making a purchase of any edtech.
I look forward to other contributions from noble Lords and the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendments 502K, 502YI and 502YH, I also register my support for Amendments 493 and 494 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and, more broadly, to associate myself with everything he has just said. Amendment 502YI calls for a code of practice for education data. I tabled a similar amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill earlier this year and was given an assurance from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who gave me
“a firm commitment … that the Government will use powers under the Data Protection Act 2018 to require the ICO to publish a new code of practice addressing edtech issues”.—[Official Report, 28/1/25; col. 148.]
A letter I received from the department in anticipation of today’s debate suggested that the Government are “reviewing and considering”. I ask the Minister whether we are reviewing and considering the firm commitment that was made nine months ago.
We have been discussing data protection in schools since 2017 and we have had multiple promises from both department and regulator that have yet to bear fruit. Yet the Government are pressing ahead to introduce new data-hungry technology in our schools. The uses of pupils’ data are well evidenced and egregious. Some of it has ended up on adult sites and gambling sites, which is an abuse of children’s privacy.
Pupils are, first and foremost, children. They are not critical sources of data for commercial enterprise. It is beyond time to act. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment so that this Bill is the one that finally sets out the scope and timescale for a data regime that delivers children the protection they deserve when they are at school.
I turn to Amendment 502K. I wish to be very clear that I, too, welcome the potential of technology to contribute to learning and well-being at schools, but while the Secretary of State Bridget Phillipson has heralded a
“new technological era to modernise our education system”,
there is as yet no corresponding binding commitment to ensure that the technology being introduced at pace actually works. The Education Endowment Foundation has said that gains are often very small and has warned that edtech may be a “gap-widener” for socioeconomically disadvantaged students. A 2023 DfE survey found that fewer than half of teachers thought that technology improved pupil attainment, and UNESCO referred to the use of edtech as a “tragedy”, and the results from the huge global investment in edtech during the pandemic as “far from clear”.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I just want to raise the question of timing. The Government, as the Minister says, are putting a huge amount of money into digital infrastructure and, as later amendments that she will turn to say, putting assessment online and so on. I am trying to understand why it takes decades to get the rules in place, and why we have not yet learned that we need to put them in place as we put the infra- structure in.
I will read the debate very carefully, and I respect the generous way in which the Minister answered, but I sit here as someone who has been fighting for nearly a decade for something that is still being promised some time before 2030. I am finding it very difficult to put that together with the idea that we are now making a huge investment in edtech, that this is going to be central to children’s lives and that the Government will be responsible for the outcomes. Many noble Lords across the House have said that we want edtech and learning, and to be part of this movement, but look at what is happening around the edges. It is being treated like a commercial market, not a pedagogical outcome, a safety outcome or, indeed, an inclusive one, as the noble Lord was referring to.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I hope that the noble Baroness will carefully read what I said. I was certainly not saying that. In my response, I have gone further in explaining the work that the department is doing to meet many of the concerns that she outlined than we have done previously. I am most certainly not saying that it will be done to the 2030 timetable. I understand her concern around regulation and accountability, and I have given some considerable steers, at the very least, about the direction in which that work is going—it is not to a 2030 timetable. Turning to—
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
Baroness Kidron ExcerptsMonday 22nd April 2024
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 View all Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 30-VI Sixth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (18 Apr 2024)
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I also submit that Schedule 11 should not stand part of the Bill. I note the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, which seek to temper the impact of these powers, but they do not go far enough. To have these clauses in a Bill labelled “data protection” contradicts its very title. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Kamall, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is detained elsewhere but he asked that I raise a number of his concerns. I am grateful for his experience, as I am for the legal opinion provided by Dan Squires KC and Aidan Wills of Matrix Chambers.
The provisions create new powers for the DWP to obtain information about the bank accounts of people who receive benefit payments by requiring financial institutions to monitor customers’ accounts, to identify cases that merit further consideration and to establish whether the relevant benefits are being, or have been, paid in accordance with the law. Paragraph 2(1) of proposed new Schedule 3B makes it clear that the information that can be requested is very wide indeed, although it is not specified.
Schedule 11 also sets out provisions that would allow the DWP to issue account information notices; those AINs would apply to any account into which benefits will be, are being or have been paid within the past year, as well as to any account linked to such an account. The account holder may be a person who is entitled to the benefit or a person who receives the payment on their behalf, such as a parent, partner or carer. It may also include a joint account holder or, where housing benefit is paid direct, a landlord and all their related accounts.
All benefits, both those that are means tested and those that are not—child tax credit, the state pension, personal independence payments, the disability living allowance, working tax credit, universal credit and the employment and support allowance—are in scope. Counsel’s advice is that it is
“reasonable to assume that AINs will be issued on a rolling basis to most financial institutions which provide banking services and, in order to comply, financial institutions would need to subject most, if not all, of their account holders to algorithmic surveillance”.
Counsel also found that an AIN being issued to a particular financial institution would almost certainly be secret, to avoid tipping off account holders, and that the criteria triggering a search would also be kept confidential.
The Social Security Administration Act 1992 already contains powers for the Secretary of State to compel banks and others to provide information in order to ascertain whether a benefit is being paid correctly, as well as to prevent, detect and secure evidence of benefit fraud—that is to say, the DWP already has these powers if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that fraud is taking place. What is proposed is that the DWP no longer has to have a suspicion of wrongdoing but can survey vast swathes of the UK population without their knowledge in order proactively to surface cases that may or may not merit further consideration.
The legal opinion is also pretty damning on whether the powers contravene Article 8 on the possibility of extremely private information—such as on political allegiance and sexuality—being accessed, and it is equally damning on both the practicalities and the lack of oversight. If the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, had been with us, he would have made the following points. First, this is a power to collect highly sensitive personal information in bulk. Such powers exist under the Investigatory Powers Act but are attended by an array of statutory safeguards, ranging from authorisation of the original warrant, which must be approved by an independent judicial commissioner, and checks on the level of material requested to other issues such as record keeping, retention, dissemination and destruction, error reporting and a right to reply to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Few, if any, of these safeguards exist in the Schedule 11 power.
Secondly, the full extent and significance of the power will be apparent only once there is a code of practice. However, there is no draft code of practice and no commitment to produce one; there is merely a discretion. This is in sharp contrast to the Investigatory Powers Act, where key excerpts were made available in advance of Committee in both Houses. The impact of Schedule 11 on privacy is arguably much greater, yet we have seen no draft code of practice—indeed, we cannot be sure that a code of practice will be issued at all.
Finally, Schedule 11 contrasts with HMRC’s much more limited power to access information and documents for the purpose of checking a taxpayer’s tax position or collecting a tax debt. Under paragraph 4A of Schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008, HMRC has been able to authorise a financial information notice on an individual, but not on a bulk basis. An FIN, unlike an AIN, must name the taxpayer to whom it relates. The most recent corporate report records that only 647 FINs were issued in the year to March 2023—an insignificant number in relation to the proposals in front of us. I hope that, when he responds, the Minister will be able to explain why investigating tax fraud is so carefully and narrowly constructed, whereas the DWP measures that will impact many more millions of people, a significant proportion of whom do not even receive benefits, are so broad.
On the day I tabled my amendments, I received an email from a woman who cares for her adult son with complex needs. She has a bank account to receive his benefits, from which she pays for his care. Under the terms of the Government’s proposal, all her bank accounts would be connected to his payments and therefore open to monitoring. Caring for an adult child is a heavy burden for a parent. Many parents do it with a love-filled grace that is humbling to witness, but it is a task that is out of season with the life that most of us live and all of us expect, in which children grow up, leave home and, as our strength wanes, come to our aid. It is also a service that the Government—and, by extension, all the rest of us—rely on.
In 2023, the University of Sheffield and Carers UK estimated that unpaid care, largely from family members, saved UK plc a whopping £162 billion a year, dwarfing the £120 million the Government expect to retrieve by these measures. It is nothing less than cruel to make a claimant or carer anxious, let alone homeless. But, if I cannot appeal to the Government’s compassion, I hope they will consider this: some who have contacted me suggested that they would no longer be prepared to continue to hold accounts on behalf of others; others suggested that their landlords would not be prepared to let them rent; and one said that their mental health had already suffered at the prospect. How many families need to put caring responsibilities back on the state, how many landlords need to make people on benefits homeless and how many people need to seek support from mental health services before the advertised gains are eroded?
For the life of me, I cannot work out whether these measures are intended to hurt or whether a focus on the shiny prospect of AI to sort out the DWP’s problems led incrementally to this place. Whichever it is, the measures are cruel to a degree that should worry us all. In a later group of amendments, we will discuss the capacity for technological systems to malfunction. Horizon might be top of mind, but Nationwide, McDonald’s, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Greggs, 999, air traffic control and public bodies, including the NHS and DWP, have all experienced technology failures where service provision suffered.
I am not against technology—we live in a world organised by technological systems—but introducing a system that may impact the finances of up to 40% of the UK’s population, including the most vulnerable, the poorest and the oldest, without checks and balances and, indeed, while downgrading the protections on automated decision-making, is dangerous.
Can the Minister can tell the Committee what plans the DWP has for when things go wrong, when people have benefits stopped and their children go hungry because the computer says no? Can he tell us how it will prevent a repeat of the hounding of so-called fraudulent payments, as is currently being reported in relation to the carer’s allowance, until people lose homes, jobs and mental health as a result of overpayments? In many cases, they were the department’s own fault and, in one case, involved as little as 30p a week. What has the department learned from a similar Australian scheme that, over 12 months, resulted in 1 million additional welfare payments being stopped, often without warning and notified by text with no human to complain to? That scheme dissipated as it became unworkable.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
When the noble Baroness says, “more targeted”, is what way are they more targeted? That is what I would like to know.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
They relate to individual people by name, not whole sweeps of people who have done nothing wrong but get a particular benefit.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
What I am advocating to the Committee is that, in terms of our approach in this country to everyone in either category—or to people who are sometimes in both categories because they are, for example, entitled to some universal benefits but none the less must pay tax on their earnings, inheritance or whatever—the appropriate approach is a targeted approach beginning with at least some reasonable suspicion that a person’s financial matters are a cause for concern. Once there is reasonable suspicion—not even hard proof—because of their activities, that should be the trigger for an intrusion into their affairs. We have had that approach to privacy in this country for a very long time; it is the approach that, broadly speaking, is entrenched in Article 8 of the convention. Even if one does not like human rights conventions, it is none the less a tradition that people in this country—not just lawyers—have long understood.
Further, and in reference to the remarks attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich—who is not in his place, which is the reason why I am also risking being sensible—it is absolutely flabbergasting that there are greater checks and balances for investigating matters of national security than for investigating what could be minor benefit fraud. An example is the allegation that the person giving a Christmas present to their pensioner relative or their relative who is not able to work should trigger a response in the algorithm that this is somebody who should no longer be worthy of the benefit or who, worse still, should face criminality or even potential incarceration.
I cannot say how horrified I am that the Government should have proceeded with a measure of this kind even as we still learn about the extent of the injustice perpetrated on the postmasters. After what we are just beginning to understand about the postmasters, I cannot understand why the Government would allow this kind of discriminatory intrusion to be turbocharged by AI and inflict the potential for the same type of injustice—not just for a limited cohort of people who were unfortunate enough to be serving their communities by working as postmasters—on millions of people in the United Kingdom.
This is what Committee on a Bill is for. I will therefore calm myself in the knowledge and belief—and certainly the hope—that, in his response, the Minister will at least offer to meet with Members of the Committee who have put their names to the clause stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and with campaigners and experts to hear a little about the detail of the concerns and to compare this provision with the other provisions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested in relation to national security, or indeed for tax fraud. Nobody is suggesting that fraud should be perpetrated with impunity, but we must learn from the mistakes of injustices already perpetrated. They are perpetrated because of blanket trust in the authorities and AI and a lack of checks and balances. There were plenty of humans in the loop at the Post Office, but that is not enough. This is a sweeping power that will lead only to intrusion, discrimination and the worst kind of injustice. In the meantime, before that moment even comes, millions of people will live in fear.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have a response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about signals. The signal is where the criteria or rules for benefit eligibility appear not to be met, and Parliament will have agreed those rules.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, the Committee will be grateful to hear, I hope, that I will not try to capture such a rich conversation. I thank the Minister for his careful listening and consideration. I will read carefully what was said at the Dispatch Box and what is about to be said during our discussion on the next two groupings because, without seeing all that in the round, I cannot truthfully say whether the questions asked by noble Lords have been answered.
I share a little of the concern that I can see agitating the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the words “signals”, “criteria” and “codes”, which are not promised in the Bill but are suddenly appearing. Indeed, the Minister will remember that, in a private meeting, we talked about how those criteria might be gamed and, therefore, how detailed they could possibly be. There may still be some differences of opinion, and possibly differences of practice, that need to be worked out.
Of course, for now, I will not press my opposition to Clause 128 standing part. I welcome further conversation between now and Report but, I have to say, I lost count of the number of times noble Lords have said “proportionate” in this debate and how many times the issues of scope, sweeping powers and so on were stated by some very expert people—both in and outside of this Room, not simply noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, mentioned a pilot but I seem to remember that some of the outcomes on equality in that pilot got lost in translation. Perhaps it would be good to find out exactly what the pilot did and did not reveal—that is, not just the things that the department would like to reveal but some of the things that were not tested.
I do not doubt the personal integrity of the Minister in the slightest but I am unsure about the idea that the “test and learn” approach has no boundaries around it in the Bill. It is like saying, “Trust us. We test and learn, and all those powers exist”. With that, I will withdraw my stand part notice on Clause 128, but we have quite a lot of questions still to answer in our discussions on the next group of amendments and beyond.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I intervene very briefly. I thank my noble friend who, with her usual forensic clarity, identified some really important points. The last one in particular is very worrying. I have a question. It may be that I misheard what the Minister said in response to the last set of amendments. I thought I heard him say that child benefit would not be included, but it appears to have been on the list that was given to my noble friend. Of course, the point is partly that it is administered by HMRC, but it has replaced child tax allowances, so it should be treated in the same way as a tax allowance when it comes to this purpose—so I hope that I heard the Minister correctly and that child benefit will not be included.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, in relation to the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, she mentioned “personal” accounts. I would like to double-check that business accounts, charitable accounts and other accounts that have one’s name or one’s partner’s name on, or are connected, do not go on ad infinitum.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Because of the way the amendments are grouped, I have the opportunity to repeat my questions. The first one is relatively straightforward. Does the Minister accept that introducing these provisions—obviously we are talking about Amendment 234 on pensions—will discourage people from claiming pension credit? Despite all the efforts of the Government to encourage people to claim pension credit, clearly this will discourage them. Have the Government made any effort to estimate what impact this will have? Obviously, it is a very difficult task, but have they thought about it and does the Minister accept that it will have a deterrent effect.
My second question relates to the issue I have already raised. The state pension or state pension equivalent is paid by the state, by a pension fund or by a personal pension provider. Does the Minister think it odd that there is a difference in treatment? Everyone is receiving their pension from the state, but with a person who receives their pension from a private pension scheme or personal pension provider there is not the same right to look at their bank accounts in relation to those benefits. Now I am not advocating that as a solution. The question is: does this not indicate the illogicality and extent of the Government’s powers over some people’s incomes that they do not have over other types of income? To me, particularly when it comes to the payment of a pension—a benefit paid as of right—this discontinuity points to the extent of the Government’s overreach.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The Government do wish to have that power. I should make it clear that an appointee could be a claimant as well, so there is a dual issue. It is important that we retain that power, to be sure that we cover the whole ground. But I will reflect on the noble Baroness’s point.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
There were a number of questions on the other group that related specifically to people’s willingness to take these roles on and what the unintended consequence of putting appointees and carers in this position might be for the DWP, with people saying, “Actually, not me, then”.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. I may be able to give her further reassurances in a letter because, on the one hand, we do want the power to be able to cover the ground. On the other hand, there are necessary protections that we must put in place. So further reassurances probably need to be given. There is that balance to be struck, but I hope I can continue to do that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I will add to that the issue of overseas bank accounts. I cannot see how the British Government can apply this measure to them. Will this not push people to go to overseas bank accounts? Or will the Government try to pursue them through challenger banks—including multiple accounts from one person who may have one original, normal current account here?
Baroness Kidron (CB)
How many accounts of “signalling” already exist in the current backlog in the business-as-usual version? What kind of investment will it take when you supercharge these powers and get many more tens of thousands of signals?
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I will add to the Minister’s grief. He has talked a number of times about the limited information that will be provided to the DWP, but that is not what the Bill says. The Bill refers to
“such further information in connection with those accounts as may be specified”.
There is no limitation in the Bill to the information that the DWP can request from the bank—assuming that it is a bank, after my previous question. I am struggling to understand how we get from that to “limited”.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will finish this answer, if I may. The DWP personal information charter lists banks and financial institutions, and other parties, among the parties with which DWP may share data and from which we may receive data. It also lists checking accuracy and preventing and detecting fraud among the purposes for which we may share or receive information.
A claimant will not be notified if their account details have been returned to DWP by a third party as that could alert fraudsters to the criteria, enabling them to evade detection—I think that is a valid point—but they will be notified if a DWP agent determines that a review is required as a result of the information provided by the third party. That notification will be done through the business-as-usual processes.
Moving on to defining working-age payments in legislation, which relates to the final amendment in this group, Amendment 235, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, it would require the Government to specify in regulations the working-age benefits with which this power could be used. As she demonstrated, there is a wide range of benefits and therefore potential avenues for fraudsters to seek or exploit or for error to creep in. That is why it is important that the power enables the department to respond proactively as new fraud risks emerge.
That said, as the noble Baroness knows, the power will not be exercisable in all the benefits she listed—I took note of her long list—such as child benefit, which we have just mentioned, because the legislation is drafted in such a way that it could reasonably be exercised in relation to benefits for which the Secretary of State is responsible. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the Committee that in the first instance, we plan to use this with universal credit, employment and support allowance—ESA, pension credit and housing benefit. That is the way forward.
There may be a number of questions that I have not addressed, but I hope that I have continued to make the case for why this measure is so important and our aim to tackle fraud and error. I continue to make the case that it is proportionate and that proportionate safeguards are in place. With that, I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Will people with power of attorney over the account of someone who receives a benefit also be caught up in all this? That is another vulnerable group, so this could be extensive and quite worrying. Secondly, I am concerned by the Minister’s answers on this group. They have made me feel somewhat more strongly than I did when giving my response on the previous group, so I feel I should put that on the record.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is understood. I know that I need to provide further reassurances. Attorneys are included for the reasons that I set out for appointees.
Culture: Cinema
Baroness Kidron Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I am a working film-maker, a former trustee of both the BFI and the UK Film Council, and a trustee of multiple arts organisations recorded on the register.
I want to address just three points. Last year, the arts community greeted with howls of outrage Culture Secretary Maria Miller’s assertion that we must focus on culture’s “economic impact”. She said that,
“there is no doubt as to the real social and educational case for public investment. But that is never going to be the argument that wins the day”.
She has continued to insist on privileging an economic measure. This value-driven approach misunderstands both the multiple values of art and how the sector operates. The creative economy is a complex ecosystem where the most valuable flowerings may gestate in long and very unpredictable ways.
No number of focus groups or spreadsheets could predict the mainstream success of strip-teasing steelworkers in “The Full Monty”, women’s football in “Bend it Like Beckham” or, indeed, the plasticine chickens in “Chicken Run”. Art seeks not to replicate that which has sold well in the past but to break new ground. Even the most commercial films rely on having actors, directors and technicians who have learnt their craft and rejuvenate their creativity by making subsidised art movies or working in other artistic mediums.
Misunderstanding cultural values, which are crucial to any development of the economic strength of the cultural or entertainment industries, risks undermining the very thing that the Culture Secretary is hoping to promote. The current crop of successes that saw the UK film industry dominate this year’s awards circuit were, of course, commissioned before the coalition was in power. Films take a long time to conceive, to write, to fund, to make and to get to the public. We will have to wait another decade before we can truly say whether the current policy has made the sector risk-averse or has undermined the original and non-commercial sparks that brought the likes of Steve McQueen, Danny Boyle, Alfonso Cuarón and Clio Barnard to prominence.
Last year in this Chamber my noble friend Lord Clancarty questioned the Competition Commission ruling on the Cineworld/Picturehouse merger. Again, by failing to recognise the distinction between an art cinema and a mainstream multiplex, the Competition Commission jeopardised art cinemas in Aberdeen, Bury and Cambridge, despite audience-building and supporting British and specialist cinema being key tenets of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Smith. It was an absurd decision in which there were no winners. Will the Minister now undertake to sit down with the Competition Commission to seek a way that allows the commission to attach a cultural measure when deciding on competition issues in the cultural industries? I am asking not for the Cineworld decision to be overturned, or for an inappropriate representation to an independent body to be made, but for Her Majesty’s Government’s convening power to be used to engage all stakeholders in a process that would deliver cultural breadth and depth of provision of British and specialist cinema right across the UK.
The Cultural Learning Alliance is just one of dozens of organisations to express dismay that for the first time in more than 20 years no mention of film has been made in the new national curriculum. It states:
“This is a real blow, and one that will make it extremely difficult to ensure that young people have the literacy skills to succeed in a world dominated by these forms of communication and expression”.
I am the founder of a charity that pioneered the educational use of film for school-age children, and I am now a founding trustee of Into Film, a new organisation charged with delivering the BFI’s 5 to 19 education offer in schools. We have a community of 8,000 clubs and the 300,000 weekly members are shown to have better communication skills, improved literacy, both verbal and written, and better educational outcomes overall.
We are a nation whose identity is inextricably bound up with the commercial films we produce, from James Bond and “Gregory’s Girl” to “Kes” and “Oliver Twist”. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, does not demand that we consider the value of the commercial industry, which of course contributes £4.6 billion to GDP and provides more than 100,000 jobs; he presents us with a more difficult question about how we might support cinema culture. Implicit in the Question is that culture is different from commerce and that we must support it.
Film is a meeting place of drama, music, literature, technical skills and art. It provides a gateway to other cultural experiences. It is a route for young people to discuss almost any subject. It comes in multiple languages from all corners of the earth, offering a window into our ever-more globalised world. In short, it delivers cultural and knowledge capital, which is desperately needed by the young. Ninety-two per cent of teachers running clubs say that they see the educational benefits, 99% of teachers say that it improves communication skills and 78% of teachers say that it positively impacts on reading and writing. Film is an explosive tool in educating the young. Head teachers need the imprimatur and explicit support of the Department for Education confidently to put film at the centre of the curriculum. Teachers need to be taught to use it effectively and creatively as part of their training. The educational success of using film as a key component of education, with its ability to improve literacy, behaviour and critical thinking, needs formal recognition and protection into the future. Young people are the citizens, audience and film-makers of the future. Her Majesty’s Government handsomely support the creative economy. They need both in voice and in deed now to support the cultural economy. They are not separate but synonymous.
25th Anniversary of the World Wide Web
Baroness Kidron Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox for bringing a party to the House and apologise for raining a little on the parade. I declare an interest as having recently made a documentary film about teenagers and the net. I am specifically raising the issue of how data relate to young people today.
Unlike the early cry of “free, open and democratic”, we are all aware that the web has become monetised with a value that is entirely dependent on harvesting data—data created by our interacting as much as humanly possible with the commercial platforms on the web. The millions spent on the vast and incremental experimentation of combining neuroscience and technology to keep us attached to our devices is not disputed by those who do it, but it fuels a culture of compulsion, disclosure and distraction that has a particular implication for young people who are not yet fully formed.
Our young people are growing up with devices that act as their telephone, post box, camera, scrapbook, family album, newspaper and school pigeonhole. In using those devices they routinely relinquish ownership of every interaction, private and public. It is worth reminding ourselves that, in this context, the data we are talking about are actually the intimate details of young people in their period of greatest personal developmental and social change. It is as if we are taking their bedrooms and putting them up for sale on eBay. We have allowed a situation to develop in which it is legal for a multibillion dollar industry to own, wholly and in perpetuity, the intimate and personal details of children. We all know that this space is moving so fast that we do not really know what might happen to it in the future.
In every other part of life, children are children, and we take a view on their level of maturity and accompanying levels of responsibility. We protect them from every other addictive substance. On the net, it seems, we are asking that they take responsibility on their own, even as we denude them of power over, and ownership of, their own histories.
I did want to come to the party. I was an early adopter and I love the internet. It has delivered previously unimaginable opportunities that hold within them the full gamut of human creativity, but it is not without cost. We have a responsibility in this House to ensure that it is not the next generation who pay the price. In July last year, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that,
“when it comes to the internet in the balance between freedom and responsibility we’ve neglected our responsibility to children … So we’ve got to be more active, more aware, more responsible about what happens online. And when I say we I mean we collectively: governments, parents, internet providers and platforms, educators and charities”.
I could not agree more.
At 25, the world wide web, unlike many of its young users, has reached the age of maturity. What better celebration could we have than designing and putting in place a regulatory framework that protects young people from the routine collection of their data, to be stored and sold in perpetuity without any recourse or protection?