Defamation Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this amendment simply asks that where a properly constituted complaint is received, the website operator must post a notice alongside the allegedly defamatory material within seven days, signifying that it is being challenged. Should the website operator fail to do so, he or she would forfeit their particular defence under this clause, although they could still rely on the standard defences available to the primary publisher.

The amendment arises from a recommendation of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, in response to which the Government seemed to cite only “issues of practicality”. In Committee, the Minister said that internet organisations,

“identified significant practical and technical difficulties with the proposal relating to the posting of a notice of complaint alongside defamatory material”.

He did, however, have the good grace to add that noble Lords may be saying,

“‘Well, they would say that’”.—[Official Report, 15/1/13; col. GC192.],

although he did not quite add, “wouldn’t they?”. However, when we met with Yahoo, it did not see a problem with our proposal. If it is so easy for an operator to post a comment, it should be no more difficult for it to add a rider simply stating that it is being challenged as defamatory by the person concerned.

Within this group we very much welcome government Amendment 17, which the Minister tabled and will no doubt shortly move. The aim of Clause 5 is simply to ensure that a claimant can find out from the web operator the name and contact details of the person who posted the comment so that they can sort it out between themselves. Provided that they do this, the operator has the defence that the author is the person to be sued. The exception for malice would cover where the operator in some way connived or encouraged the trouncing of someone’s reputation. I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on his work in Committee, which I think led to this provision.

For the purposes of time, we did not speak to the amendment just before the dinner break but we were similarly concerned that that might detract from the centrality of this clause, which is to allow the operator to stand back and let the two primary parties resolve the dispute between them. Therefore, although we very much welcomed parts of that amendment, which incorporated the idea of a code, we hope that the operator will wash their hands of the matter unless and until the court finds the defamation proved, when the operator will have to take down the defamation or, assuming that the Government accept our amendment, they will have to put up a note reflecting the fact that there has been a challenge.

I hope very much that the Minister will put the excuse of practicalities to one side and accept Amendment 11. Certainly, we have received no lobbying from any operator arguing against it. It would contribute to dealing with these matters openly, as well as speedily. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 11, I declare an interest in that my day job is working for Facebook—a company that operates a website.

I think that there are some challenges around this proposal. In Grand Committee, in response to amendments proposed by the noble Baroness and her colleagues, we discussed the variety of web services and websites that exist today, and that is where I think there may be a challenge. There are indeed a number of websites that would be amenable to the posting of a notice and where that would be quite straightforward. However, when we consider the vast scope of speech that may exist across the internet, it is clear that we are dealing with a wide variety of services.

The intention behind Clause 5—and it is one that I support—is to make sure that we maximise the opportunities for people to speak freely. There may be cases where we need to interfere but we do not want to overly restrict the opportunities to speak freely and, as we discussed in the previous debate, the intention behind the clause is to ensure that a defence is widely available to such services.

My concern is that, while Amendment 11 would work perfectly well for a number of web services—I suspect the larger, more mature and more sophisticated could implement a system of posting notices in a relatively straightforward manner—there is a whole host of web services of varying shapes and sizes for which this would present a barrier. That would effectively mean that those services would lose the defence—a defence which I think we agreed in a previous debate is important to sustain the notion of free speech.

I understand the noble Baroness’s intention behind the amendment and I imagine that, as a matter of good practice, operators should post such notices where it is reasonable for them to do so. Indeed, Wikipedia has implemented a good practice system so that when content is contested, people are able to discuss it. That kind of good practice is reasonable but I think that restricting the scope of the defence only to services that are able to do that goes further than is sensible if we are to maintain a broad ecosystem of services in which a citizen of the United Kingdom can speak freely without excessive interference from people bringing complaints.

The only other point that I would note from an operator perspective is that every system that is put in place is abused. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury has talked about the interests of the “little man” or individual who wishes to make a complaint of defamation. That is absolutely right. However, the experience of web service operators is that some people will try to use any system that you put in place for their own purposes, and I can immediately see the scope for that when I look at this amendment. If you can guarantee that a notice will be published on a website simply by filing a complaint, I can see huge scope for it to be used by those who wish to be aggressive towards people who post content on the internet that they do not like, irrespective of whether there is any kind of substantive defamation claim. Given that the individual filing the complaint faces no penalty in this regime, a complaint can be found groundless but there will be no comeback on the individual who filed it. It would effectively create an avenue for that person to have their content posted alongside that which they do not like. I can certainly imagine that there would be significant instances when it was used in that manner. For those reasons, Amendment 11 would not be helpful to fulfilling the intention of Clause 5.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My noble friend said that he could see the point of this and understood the need for some sort of constraint. What would he do, if this is not the right way? What would be the right way of achieving the general purpose?

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

The right way is to keep Clause 5 as it is currently drafted. The Government have done a good job in drafting the scope of this defence as an additional measure to those currently available under the e-commerce directive. It makes sense to have this additional defence. My concern is that Amendment 11 would be an additional burden and further restrict the defence only to websites that have the ability to post a notice in this way. I imagine that a significant number of websites which could avail themselves of the defence in Clause 5 would not be able to do so if there were a requirement to post a notice. I can also imagine instances when such a requirement would be abused. It makes sense to leave it to the website operator, once they have received a complaint, to deal with it under Clause 5 as it is. I also think that it would be sufficient to encourage website operators to post notices when things are contested and they believe that a notice would fit with their environment and be helpful. There are instances when you need to mandate something and instances when you want to encourage it as a model of good practice. In the context of notices, the mandated option is wrong and the good practice option is correct.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Having spent about three and a half years attempting to reform the law of defamation, and in the light of what happened on the first amendment today, my overriding objective is to get the Bill through. I want to make it clear that I shall not be moving any of the amendments in my name this evening. I say that now in case anyone else, in their sad lives, wishes to do so. Having thought about it, I take the view that the regime as it stands, with regulations, will be perfectly capable of accommodating some of these issues properly and that we are now being overcareful and overprescriptive. I know that it is very unusual for a member of the Bar to indicate that he is under a decree of self-imposed silence, but that is my position.

Defamation Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I shall speak in broad support of the sentiment behind Amendment 27 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and my noble friend Lord Allan, but first I address Amendment 26, which I support as a bare minimum. I also address the point put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, to my noble friend Lord Lester. I think that my noble friend understated the position on what is defamatory and what defamatory means. As I have always understood it, a statement is defamatory if it causes the necessary damage to reputation. It may then be that under existing law, a defence of justification can be mounted which shows that the defamatory statement is justified as true. That does not stop the statement being defamatory, but it stops the statement being unlawful. In other words, it starts off as defamatory—I see learned agreement on the other side of the Room—and then one looks at the question of defences.

It follows that without the word “unlawful” in paragraph (b), the requirement that the complaint,

“sets out the statement concerned and explains why it is defamatory of the complainant”,

goes only half way and is nowhere near enough. I echo the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Mawhinney about the view of the Joint Committee on the Bill and the topic: the purpose of whatever procedure we adopt is to give some protection, as far as is practicable, to persons defamed on the internet and, on the other side, to impose some responsibility on website operators, without ensuring that an operator is stuck with liability for all the material posted on his site.

I strongly supported, and indeed took some part in formulating, the notice and takedown procedure for material from unidentified authors proposed in our report, with the possibility of an operator securing a leave-up order for material that, although it was from an unidentified author, nevertheless the operator believed ought to stay up—for instance, in the case of whistleblowers. The Government have opted for a different procedure, and it is right that that procedure draws the correct distinction that we drew between the posts of identifiable authors, who can then be identified and sued, and anonymous material. Whatever system we have, though, it is important that there should be some quick and cheap option that levels the playing field between complainant and author or operator. The detailed notice of complaint as envisaged by Amendment 27, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has explained, is a satisfactory first step.

I appreciate that it can be said that, subject to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the word “unlawful” is required, but regulations could be made within the ambit of “defamatory and unlawful” that would expand upon the requirements for a detailed notice of complaint. However, I suggest that it is better that, rather than being left to regulation, the broad contents of the notice of complaint should be spelt out in statute. I say that because one of the purposes of the Bill, as we saw it in the Joint Committee, was to make the law as accessible as possible so that anyone could look up what procedures would be required by looking at the Act. By effectively leaving the requirements for a notice of complaint to delegated legislation, the simplicity of accessing the statute and accessing law on the internet is reduced.

It would then be necessary to add to the requirements for a detailed notice of complaint, something like Amendments 25A and 25B proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in the previous group. I, too, was pleased to see the Minister’s response to those amendments show at least some flexibility or promise thereof. We would then have the beginnings of a system to ensure that, where defamatory material was posted by an operator, the detailed process of complaint would get some publicity because the notice of complaint would be put on the website by the operator. That would offer some partial protection to the person defamed. I applaud the suggestion that if the operator then fails to put up such a notice of complaint, which he can do, he must take his chances and accept that he is made liable to be sued by the deprivation of the Clause 5 defence.

I reiterate what has been said: neither the proposed system nor any system that we could possibly devise would be perfect, for the simple reason that my noble friend Lord Lester mentioned earlier today—namely, that we are trying to formulate a local response to an international phenomenon. However, I suggest in answer to some of the defeatism—the Minister was defeated up to a point in his earlier reply—there is no reason to give up on the problem because the system is not perfect and therefore do nothing. It is worth doing all that we can, I suggest, for two reasons. The first is that we can ensure fairness in respect of posts that are subject to our jurisdiction. The second, I suggest, is that by what we introduce in legislation, we can set an example of best practice for website operators elsewhere.

I would like to say a word or two about civil procedures that would be appropriate either under Amendment 27, under Clause 5 or under the regulations. I suggest that it is essential that any such procedures we adopt respond fully to the point made by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury that the procedures that involve going to court can be very expensive. The answer from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that this can be dealt with in the ordinary way before Masters is a partial answer only, because those of us who have attended before Masters, and have prepared interim applications before Masters and district judges in other cases, know that they themselves can be very expensive indeed.

What we envisaged on the Joint Committee was a quick and cheap paper-based or internet-based procedure, with specialist district judges simply looking at the case presented to them on paper and making a decision. Those specialist judges would give their decision, but it would of course be only a holding position, because action would be deferred. However, it is not right to introduce, by what we do now, a whole new level of expensive procedure in respect of internet actions, which, from the McAlpine case, we know can sometimes result in £5 awards or £5 settlements over a very large number of cases. Those cases need to be kept small, simple, quick and cheap.

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my earlier declaration of interest that I work for Facebook, which is a reasonable-sized website operator. In supporting the amendment that I and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, have tabled, I first wanted to set out that we all have a common goal here, whichever side of the debate we are coming from. In a sense, it has been divided into sides, but I think that there is one common objective: unlawful defamatory material should be swiftly removed from wherever it should appear, whether in print media or on the internet. At the same time, there should be minimal collateral damage to content that is not unlawful. We want content that is lawful to stay up and people to be able to share it with each other, and content that is unlawful to come down. It is a simple objective, and both Amendments 26 and 27 are trying to take us towards that.

Amendment 27, in particular, is crafted in the context where we have people who are prepared to use any legal tools that we make available in ways that we did not perhaps intend, and will use them maliciously. There is no doubt that tools that are made available for people to request take-downs of internet content are used, and will be used, by people who are seeking to interfere with the freedom of speech of others. We must make sure that we have crafted the tools in such a way that we minimise that possibility, as well as maximising the opportunity for people to get content taken down that should be taken down. The objective is that 100% of the requests made through this process should result in the right form of action and that that action should be swift. I think the amendment, by specifying in more detail the form which the notice should take, is aimed to create what one might call a well formed notice. A well formed notice that has all the necessary information will be able to be acted on swiftly by the recipient of that information—in this case, the website operator—and the solution can be reached more speedily.

[Lord May of Oxford]

This is possibly a stupid point, and it may reveal my misunderstanding, but as I look at this—I said this during our first Sitting—there are occasions, particularly in the scientific sphere, when the intent is correctly defamatory, where one is saying, “This is wrong”, “This is dishonest” or, “This experiment has been faked”, and the like. Much of the wording of this assumes that if it is harming you, then you have rights, as it were, to stop the harm. However, I can think of lots of examples where the intention is deliberately and properly defamatory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

I think that the noble Lord, Lord May, is correct. If I understand the intent of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, it is precisely to address those circumstances where, again, somebody who intends to create a defamatory statement that is lawful is not prevented from doing so. For that reason, I support Amendment 26 as well.

In setting out the various criteria that we have included in Amendment 27, I hope that these will also address similar concerns, in that they will require the complainant to go into a little more detail about why their complaint constitutes unlawful content as opposed to simply content that they do not like. The reality today is that people will simply fire off a letter to a website operator, saying, “I allege that this is defamatory”, with very little more detail than that. It is very hard then for the website operator to act swiftly, which we all want, and to guarantee fairness, which I think that we also want, between the two parties involved.

--- Later in debate ---

Those two issues got most attention in our committee. I have made it clear that this is a probing amendment to put those issues on the table for the Government to think about and for other noble Lords to comment on if they wish. At this stage, the committee was not seeking to persuade the Government specifically but it was anxious that the Government should not simply follow those who say, “Leave us alone; it’s worldwide; it’s totally impossible; walk away”. Perhaps, ultimately, your Lordships will come to the view that the decision has to be to walk away. But we thought that some other issues should be explored before that decision was reached. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said that this was a probing amendment and I will speak to it in that spirit. It needs a response to clarify the concerns that there might be on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord McNally’s “little man” who uses the internet if we were ever to go down a route where there were these broader requirements for people always to identify themselves when speaking across the internet. As I read the amendment, there would be an absolute requirement for people in the United Kingdom always to identify themselves if they wished to avail themselves of internet platforms.

We need to bear in mind the key concepts in the context of other areas where government has quite rightly identified a need to be able to detect wrongdoing on the internet and to go after those who are carrying out that wrongdoing, whatever form it may take. Those are the basic concepts that we think about when considering the right to privacy and the necessity of proportionality. We certainly should not have a counsel of despair; we should try to identify people and make them own their own content in the circumstance of an allegation of defamation. I think that we are agreed across the Committee about that basic principle of trying to connect the people who have a complaint with those who have made that speech.

I certainly would not hold to a counsel of despair that says, “This is impossible”. In most cases, people can be identified. Most of the cases that we will be dealing with will be arguments between people who are identified and known to each other and who have an issue around whether the speech that one has made about the other is unlawful and defamatory and whether one of them wishes to take some action over that. In some of the cases that we have seen recently and that people have quoted, such as the Lord McAlpine case, it is clear that there has been an ability to identify and go after the principal people complained against.

When we think about those who genuinely are going to be able to hide behind anonymity, we are talking about a minority of instances. That is why I ask whether the test of requiring everyone to identify themselves whenever they speak would be a proportionate response to what will be a relatively small set of circumstances and whether it is necessary to do that.

Where I certainly have some sympathy, and we have had some reference to this already in today’s debate, is with regard to the cost of getting orders to disclose identity details. Again, we should be clear that those who provide internet services need some form of judicial authority to be able to disclose people’s personal data. I hope that we would all agree on the basic principle that it would be inappropriate for a service provider to disclose personal data about an individual simply on request; there has to be some kind of process that enables that release to be lawful and to be lawfully made. However, the current circumstances, as we have heard today, make that very expensive.

There is probably a lot of mileage that we could cover in terms of using legal processes that require the disclosure of data to narrow down the cases that we are talking about, where someone is genuinely and maliciously hiding behind anonymity, but I consider, as I referenced earlier, that those cases will be very much a minority. When we consider the measures that we should take in response, we should bear in mind that they should be proportionate and not do something excessive to deal with that tiny minority of problematic cases.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

The Libel Reform Campaign is strongly opposed to this amendment but I shall not elaborate on what it says about it. I want to draw attention to one thing that may not have occurred to some Members of the Committee, which is how this debate will be regarded in Beijing. In Beijing, they have precisely this kind of amendment in their extraordinary firewall regulations because what they most want to do is identify political dissidents of one kind or another and then go after them for violating their internet regulations. This is exactly what they have and want to maintain, and if we give it any currency at all, they will use the fact that the United Kingdom has done so, even though our context is entirely different and we are not doing it to persecute dissidents and so on. I suggest that we should be very careful, in the lawmaking that we are indulging in now, to think about the transnational implications.

Defamation Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Lucas]

We are dealing with the web operator as a conduit and not as a publisher. If I want to make a particular statement about a company that I feel has wronged me, I will do so using public media such as Facebook, Twitter or other sites on which I might post a comment. That is me making that statement. If I am identifiable, which I think is quite proper, then the action should be against me. Otherwise, it means that those who are behaving badly and wish to hide that bad behaviour can simply wipe all record of my complaint off all public websites without any risk or trouble to themselves. I would say that it is in the public interest that I make my views on this particular company known, but I am going to be deprived of all means of doing so in an electronic world because I will have no access to what becomes the medium of communication, because as soon as I say anything there the company that I have complained about can wipe it out. That seems to me an entirely unreasonable situation.

We have to recognise that we are dealing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, with a different world and a different way of doing things and that if we want news of bad practice to spread, we have to allow it to be published. Allowing it to be published means holding harmless those who are acting as a conduit. I am a publisher and recognise that if I publish something unpleasant about some school or person then I, as a publisher, take that on the chin. That is part of my remunerated business. However, the owners of Twitter are getting no benefit from the fact that I have tweeted something on it—there is no revenue with which to offset the cost of establishing that I have a right under law to say what I have said, so they will immediately take it down, if complained against, unless we provide them with some kind of “hold harmless” defence. So it is very important that the conduits, if they behave well, establish the identity and share it with the complainant, and can continue to publish until the point has been reached where it has been established in a court of law, or by agreement or otherwise, that what has been said is defamatory.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that it is very important that, where something has been said about a company or a person that is considered defamatory, a statement from the person who is being defamed should be published alongside the original statement. That is a relatively easy technical thing to do, and I do not think people should have to wait seven days. It should be relatively automatic. These days, one day—certainly one working day—is enough to do that. That should be an automatic right, because it is easy to do and balances things reasonably.

I am also interested in the question of moderation, which has been referred to. The status of moderation under this clause seems to be very uncertain. By moderating to any extent, do you become the publisher of what has been said? A lot of sites will just allow unrestricted publication, and that appears to be safe, but we and many other sites will moderate; that is, we will want to see what has been said before we decide that it can be published. If we moderate and then publish, have we assumed liability for what is said? Have we assumed a liability for checking it? If not, it becomes impossible to moderate and you are saying, “We wish the web to be entirely unmoderated and we think that the process of moderation is undesirable”. I am not sure that that is what the Government intend to say.

If you allow moderation, do you allow within that any kind of editing or advice? If someone posts a comment and it appears to be a statement of fact rather than opinion, are you allowed to say to that person, “You have not phrased this as a statement of opinion. If you resubmit it as a statement of opinion, we will publish it”. Is that taking responsibility for what as been said? I think of moderation as something we should encourage. It improves the quality of the web as a whole, although it is an expensive thing to do. We should be clear in this clause about the extent to which we are prepared to support and protect the process of moderation.

Lastly, I come back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said about TripAdvisor. I think that it is barking up the wrong tree. I suggest that it employs what we have effectively used over many years and I will call the Good Schools Guide defence. If a school starts to complain about comments we have made, we merely post the fact that we are not prepared to allow comments on this school because we do not agree with the school’s policy on taking down comments. That is as good as anything. If TripAdvisor were to do that to a hotel, that would be worse than any comment that anyone could possibly publish. It would achieve the end result it wanted without pain.

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

My Lords, I also declare a considerable interest in that I work for Facebook, one of the web operators which may receive notices under subsection (5). In contributing to the debate, I am trying to bring some of the expertise that we have as operators of internet websites more generally to what is, I know, a complex and difficult debate and one which we make more complex and difficult by having fast-moving technology. In that respect, I shall touch first on the amendment which proposes that we should talk about electronic platforms rather than websites per se. In doing so, I will pick up on some of the other points made in the debate around whether websites are different and special; they may be or they may not.

There are essentially two classes of website. There are websites which are owned by a single organisation and over which that organisation has editorial control. It could be argued that such websites should be treated like a newspaper or any other form of media. Indeed, those websites are specifically excluded from having this defence because, under subsection (2), they are clearly the organisation that posted the statement in question to the website, so it runs the website and creates the content for it.

There is a whole class of other websites or platforms where the body which produces that platform has no direct interest in the content, exercises no editorial control and simply exists, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, described it, as a conduit that enables a citizen to speak with other citizens all over the world. These platforms have become tremendously successful precisely because they democratise speech in a way that was not previously possible because you needed a printing press or other expensive equipment. It is right that in the context of Clause 5 we should think about the position of those operators. That is much more widely recognised in law, if we look at the e-commerce directive, which has been very successful. It was designed precisely with the fact in mind that we have on the internet platforms the job of which is to connect people, but which are not responsible for the content being shared between the people connecting through these platforms. This covers a whole range of other areas such as copyright, illegal content and so on.

However, this does not mean it is a lawless space —that discussion was held earlier—in fact, it is a very lawful space. The operators have responsibility but the primary responsibility for content shared across a platform has to reside with the person who posted and shared that content. In that respect, Clause 5 takes us absolutely in the right direction. It directs platforms—the second type of website that is not editorially responsible—towards a regime within which it is in their interests to connect the poster of the content with the complainer about it and to seek to resolve the dispute between the two parties. Where that dispute cannot be resolved between them, the operator then has some responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

To equate the world wide web with a pub discussion is bizarre. The thing about a pub discussion is that it goes no further than the pub and it is all within a context that people understand. The problem with the web is that the defamation can shoot around the world in 24 hours and remain out there for years.

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

I agree with the noble Lord. The new concept has been described. There is a lot of thinking and literature being developed around this. We are talking about private speech in a public space. Essentially, the speech is made in a private tone but the reality is that the speech is publicly accessible, because of the nature of the technology, to anyone in the world. That does not mean that we ignore it, with which I completely agree. In this clause, we are aiming to get towards a sensible way of dealing with that speech and recognising that it is different from the speech traditionally regulated through defamation law, which was speech through editorialised large organisations.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I am grateful that the noble Lord made this argument because of all the arguments we heard in the committee this was the one we thought probably had the least validity. If you make a statement and it goes round the world, who—I was almost tempted to say a naughty word—cares whether it is made in a pub, in Tesco or anywhere else? Who cares if it is made by a friend to a friend? To use that argument is to somehow say there is a qualitative difference. I will speak later in this debate at greater length but I want my noble friend to think carefully before relying on what is almost a patently non-sustainable argument.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)]

I want to remind the Committee that the Chamber will be rising in about five minutes and, in the spirit of Christmas, if noble Lords can keep their comments short we will finish after the end of this group.

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

I shall aim to do so. I turn specifically to the amendments. Let me work through those. There is a lot of merit in Amendment 23A, on the electronic platform. I am interested in the Government's response about what they perceive the legal definition of a website to include. It is certainly the case, and the expectation in the technology community, that most content will be accessed within as short a space as two to three years, primarily through untethered mobile devices and applications—specific applications tied to a particular service. The traditional notion of going to a web browser and typing in a web address will not necessarily be the dominant form of accessing information. It is a fact that most information and contact will be delivered in a different and more sophisticated way, and it is important to ask the question now as to whether the definition of website that the Government intend covers this wide range of information services or is intended to cover stuff delivered by the http protocol; the traditional web browser.

In the context of Amendment 25A and the notice to be posted alongside the publication, I have concerns about how realistic that is. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about how straightforward that might be. Given the different formats out there and the wide range and type of contact that may be posted, to be able to guarantee that a notice of complaint is posted alongside the original content may prove to be much more technically complex than has been imagined. I wonder about the value of doing that given how people access content through small-screen devices and the way in which the content scrolls and moves rapidly these days. The idea of a notice next to a piece of content is again looking back to the newspaper model, where you have something much more static and in a much more defined format. I have questions about the workability of the notice in Amendment 25A.

The e-mail contact in Amendment 25B goes back to the website versus platform debate. It may come as a surprise to the Committee but e-mail is a dying communications mechanism. Young people do not use e-mail. E-mail is for work and if you want to communicate with people whom you know and like and with organisations, you use different forms of communication—instant messaging-type applications and a whole range of new communications services. In the context of how website operators might receive complaints, e-mail is probably for a large operator one of the least efficient ways of doing this. It is relatively unstructured and people will send anything to an e-mail address.

A much better approach, if we want to include something in the Bill, is to say that there must be an efficient contact mechanism and then allow the website operators to determine the most efficient contact mechanism for them. In the case of a lot of the large providers, their preference, rather than e-mail, would be for people to use a contact form. A contact form allows you to give guidance to the person. You can have a very simple flow. Somebody types a defamation on a website. The website says, “Hey. If you want to report defamation go here”, and they are given a screen that takes them through all the information that they need to provide in careful detail and then offers them a form that they can send in. The great advantage of that method is that the form then sends the information to the legal team to do an assessment, with all the relevant contact information. A smaller operator may choose to use e-mail because they have nothing else and they do not have the technology, but we should not specify the technology used for contact in the Bill. We should leave that up to the operators.

Those are my comments on this group of amendments. I know that we will come back to the larger issues of principle and the balance of power between the complainant and the website operator in the next group.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I will try to do this as briefly as possible. I support my noble friend Lady Hayter’s amendments and also—I hope it does him no harm—the amendment and comment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I was responsible for intellectual property at the relatively short lived Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. One of the things that I found completely astounding, almost every day, was that when we tried to deal with widespread theft of other people's intellectual property, and the propensity of some people to use the internet for serious criminal purposes involving children or whatever, one argument always and consistently was put to us. “We are only a conduit. We are no different from the Post Office. It went through in a sealed envelope in the mail. Who would know? Why on earth should we take any responsibility?”.

What I observed, as noble Lords may expect, from this sequence of events was that it was perfectly okay for people who are creating music, film, literature or many other products that are vital to the creative output of the United Kingdom—and very successful in the interests of the economy of the United Kingdom. But their interests were as nothing when compared with this apparent complete barrier to dealing with anything that happened to be done through a web platform or internet company. They had no responsibility in any circumstances. I have never bought that argument, which is why I agree so strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on the matter. It may be very complex and it may be that the technology keeps advancing, but the reality is that, unless there are some restraints on what people can do with this form of technology, the argument inevitably goes to the point where it is possible to protect individuals, even with inequality of arms, from some forms of publication but they are completely and inevitably lost when it comes to electronic publication. That is a very dangerous and damaging concept for our society.

I know the importance of the businesses and the value of the work conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others, but I respectfully say that the idea that Twitter or anybody else is not making money out of it is completely bizarre. It is not, of course, making money in the sense that people who post anything on Twitter are paying for it; at least in general they are not. However, advertising revenues are created around these new media platforms, including, pre-eminently, Facebook. The ability of companies to be able to track people’s interests and identify how to approach them with commercial products—I have seen this in sports websites that are associated with Facebook, for example—is an amazing way of generating vast amounts of money. It is no surprise that the companies have become worth so much money in their quoted positions as well.