Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 38Z22 to Commons Amendment 38Z17, Amendment 38Z23 to Commons Amendment 38Z18, Amendment 38Z24 to Commons Amendment 38Z20, and Amendment 38Z25 to Commons Amendment 38Z21—
(c) compliance with—
(i) any Codes of Practice published by OFCOM pertaining to the safety of children as users of internet services, and
(ii) the Children’s Code published by the Information Commissioner’s Office, and
(d) the risk of exposure of children to—
(i) risks of serious harm, manipulation, sycophancy or exploitation,
(ii) illegal content or primary priority content,
(iii) serious loss of privacy, and
(iv) contact from strangers.”
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as we reach these final stages of ping-pong on the Bill, I will first express the profound regret and disappointment of the Liberal Democrat Benches at the posture now being adopted by the Conservative Opposition. I have immense respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the tireless campaign he has waged to protect children from online harms. Yet, last night in the Commons, the Conservative Front Bench effectively laid down their arms, deciding that it is now “reasonable” to give the Government some time. By caving in at the 11th hour, the Conservatives have chosen to accept a compromise that leaves our children waiting far too long for meaningful protection.
We on these Benches acknowledge that the Government have moved their position, and I thank Ministers for their engagement throughout. We welcome the change to a “must” duty and the introduction of a timeline in the Bill. However, when we look at the reality of the Government’s latest proposals, passed in the Commons yesterday, the fatal flaw remains that timeline. The Minister in the Commons outlined a timeline that consists of a progress report in three months, 12 months to lay regulations and a further six-month buffer for so-called “exceptional circumstances”, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, has outlined today. As my honourable friend Munira Wilson pointed out in the Commons last night, this adds up to 21 months before we might see any real action. Let us be absolutely clear: giving platforms nearly two years to comply is simply unacceptable and unsellable to the parents whose children are suffering at this moment.
Because the Conservative Opposition have backed down, this is our last opportunity to stand for the robust measures that so many parents, experts and civil society groups have been crying out for. Therefore, we have tabled these short, very clear amendments to do a few vital things.
First, our Amendments 38Z24 and 38Z25 would slash the Government’s bloated timetable down to a strict three plus six plus three-month framework. They demand a progress report in three months, would give the Government just six months to lay regulations and would allow only a tight three-month extension if absolutely necessary. Secondly, our Amendments 38Z22 and 38Z23 would incorporate the principles championed so expertly throughout the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We must regulate the product, not just the user. Amendment 38Z22 would mandate strict compliance with Ofcom’s codes of practice and the ICO’s children’s code, which of course was enabled on to the statute book by the noble Baroness. It explicitly demands that regulations protect children from the risk of serious harm, manipulation, sycophancy, exploitation and unsolicited contact from strangers.
Crucially, Amendment 38Z23 would ensure that the Government cannot ignore the voices of parents. It would force the Secretary of State to have regard to representations made by the public regarding children in imminent danger arising from their contact with internet services. Furthermore, it demands a strict six-month review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers, forcing the Government to formally consider whether the regulator needs stronger teeth, specifically evaluating the need for business disruption measures, injunctive relief and individual redress. We cannot allow the tech giants to use this 21-month window to continue business as usual. We must act decisively and we cannot let this moment pass without making the strongest possible point that our children’s safety cannot wait. We must send a clear message to the public that there are still those in this House who will not compromise on a tight, workable timeline to dismantle the addictive architecture of big tech. Because the timeline is the critical issue and because we believe that this House must hold the Government’s feet to the fire, we give notice at this point that, at the conclusion of this debate, it is very likely that we will wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his openness, his campaigning and his extraordinary ability to bring different views together. This morning, he and I agreed that, whatever the outcome of this particular conversation, we would work continuously and ferociously for child safety in the future.
I support Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in its entirety. However, I will draw attention to two particular matters. The first is new subsection (8A)(b) inserted by Amendment 38Z23, which states that, when making regulations, the Secretary of State must give consideration to representations
“by members of the public in relation to children in imminent danger arising from their contact with an internet service”.
For well over a decade, I have responded to requests for help from families of children at risk of serious harm or, in far too many cases, when it is already too late. It is an enormous privilege, but it is also a tragic one, and it is a sad indictment of our current regime that those parents feel compelled to turn to me rather than to government, the regulator or the police.
Yesterday, the Minister said:
“When potential criminal activity is being threatened and there are imminent risks, that is also a matter for the police”.—[Official Report, 27/4/26; col. 946.]
My heart sank when I heard that. I have repeatedly warned, both on this Bill and the Crime and Policing Bill, that the police will not accept complaints where a child is being manipulated, groomed or threatened by a chatbot, because there is no human perpetrator. Equally, in cases of self-harm or threats that do not meet the threshold of a criminal offence, Ofcom has no role.
The Government have resisted every attempt to provide a route for parents in crisis. They have, on several occasions, whipped heavily to prevent the creation of an individual reporting mechanism, a route to the courts or an offence to which the police could respond. New subsection (8) effectively requires DSIT to establish a mechanism through which the public can inform the department directly about children in imminent danger. Of course, I would far prefer a comprehensive regime, but perhaps if cases of individual imminent danger come regularly to the department’s attention, Ministers may yet come to a different conclusion about the need for an individual complaints mechanism.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on Motion A1. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who have done so much to contribute to the way this debate has moved forward. I thank the Ministers for their engagement, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who I know will be missed from the Opposition Front Bench. She is always gracious, even under fire. I thank and pay tribute to all the bereaved families, without whom we would not have had the representations that we have had, and all their supporting charities.
I heard the exhortation from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, to exercise our inner sheepdog, but all I can display is my inner Dobermann, and so, at the end of the day, despite all the thanks and tributes to all those who have taken part, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Motion A2. Before I do, however, I wish to say that if the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, decides to divide the House on Motion C1, I will support her. I hope, though, that some other accommodation has been made.
Motion A2 is deliberately drafted so that a successful vote for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, will automatically pre-empt it. That is intentional, and I wish to be clear at the outset that I will vote for Motion A1 alongside the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Indeed, we can be seen as a bit of a double act, with the noble Lord’s Motion capturing the urgent need for action, and my Motion providing a more comprehensive outline of what action should look like.
We are at something of an endgame this week. I have in front of me a chart that compares Motions A, A1 and A2; I would be very happy to send it to any noble Lord who wishes to see it. It shows clearly that government Motion A fails to address key risks identified by Ofcom’s register of risks and does not totally tackle additional risks identified by the companies themselves. It shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the fundamental issue of enforcement, without which none of this really matters, because Ofcom will get more duties without having the power to enforce them.
The chart shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the need for parents to have somewhere to go when their child is at imminent risk of harm. I was very disappointed to hear the Minister talking in her opening remarks about parents going to the police when I explained at such great length, when the Government overturned the chatbot amendments, that when a family goes to the police, the police say there is no perpetrator and that they cannot deal with chatbots. It also shows clearly and quite astonishingly that the Government have no sense of urgency. The government Motion gives them three years to introduce measures. If that was not so egregious, it would be quite funny: they have given themselves their entire term of office to bring forward duties that we then do not believe are possible to properly enforce, and all with no role for Parliament.
As I said to the House last week, the online world is more dangerous for children than it was two years ago, yet the Government have refused to engage with the substance of my concerns. Motion A2 offers a guide for what they should be doing. It is bound by the scope of the Bill, but it would be a phenomenal start. The Motion builds on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which will rightly pass again today. Every aspect of the noble Lord’s Motion is also covered in Motion A2. Equally, there is nothing in it that precludes the Government using what they learn from their consultation. In effect, Motion A2 offers the Government something meaningful to offer in lieu of what I hope and believe will be the triumph of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, today.
The Government say that they need the timeline to perfect the details and get this right, but this is a double standard. They have no such concerns for the detail when rolling out data centres, AI in classrooms, giving away creators’ copyright, and putting valuable datasets and government services straight into the pockets of US companies. But when it comes to children, they are overwhelmed by caution and deaf to the cries of pain from parents and teachers, and the demand of children themselves for action. The Minister said in her opening statement that these are matters on which the Government’s amendments would make changes now. Which now? Which change? They have given themselves 30 months to make those changes.
Motion A2 is not aspirational; it sets out the provisions we need for children to be safe online. It requires action within eight months; the prevention of sycophantic, manipulative and exploitative features; compliance with Ofcom’s and the ICO’s children’s codes; that all risks identified by Ofcom’s register of risks or additional risks identified by its services are mitigated; that there is no safe harbour; and mandatory data access for researchers and education for under-16s. It would allow 17 year-olds—a particularly vulnerable group as they go out into their adult life—to have some consideration from Parliament, Ofcom and government as to their safety, and it would bring in executive liability for senior individuals within companies, injunctive relief so that parents have somewhere to go when their child is at immediate risk of harm, individual redress, and a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers, including its business disruption powers, within six months.
Again, I say to the Minister: if the review is within scope, bring it forward and make it happen. There has been a single fine, of £50,000, paid under the OSA. Please do not tell the House that enforcement is going to work as it does now.
If we are not here to protect children, why are we here? Whose moral compass are we following? Whose interests are we serving? What outcome are we all working towards? I am a Cross-Bench Peer who, on this issue, sadly, does not enjoy the support of the Official Opposition in the other place nor of the Government in power. Both those facts are a source of immense disappointment. But it is not me but children who are going to pay this price.
I said to the House during the debate on chatbots that if we failed to protect children, we would see more children die. We have failed. Today, I put this on the record so that each one of us understands the price of our inaction.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I speak in strong support of Motion A2 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. As I said the last time we debated the Bill, we are united in this House in our objective to protect children online, yet we still differ on how to achieve it. The noble Baroness’s amendment represents the precise, workable and robust framework that our children so desperately need.
We on these Benches welcome recent concessions—and I thank the Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Lloyd of Effra, for their engagement—such as the “must” rather than “may” duty, but the Government’s core approach remains flawed. The Government continue to cling to sweeping Henry VIII powers that will allow them to amend primary legislation via secondary regulations, bypassing full parliamentary debate. We need a sunset clause to ensure that this power is not abused in the future. The current proposal of up to three years, possibly, to implement regulations is simply unacceptable. We on these Benches believe that the timeline is the critical issue. Our aspiration is a six plus six model—six months for a progress statement and six months for regulations—rather than the protracted window currently offered.
The Government are focusing on regulating user access, rather than addressing the toxic nature of the platforms themselves. We recognise the new references to “features or functionalities” in the Government’s amendments, but they avoid referring to addiction and do not include a list of prohibited features, nor manipulative features such as penalties for non-engagement or interaction with AI companions. Finally, we are concerned about the enforcement of the Online Safety Act and whether these provisions would be robustly enforceable. Will the Government promise a review?
The last time the Bill was in the House, I expressed our considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his campaign. However, his central mechanism is a near-blanket ban for under-16s. We on these Benches favour a more proportionate approach. A total ban of this sort would risk creating a dangerous cliff edge—where children are suddenly exposed to an unfiltered internet at 16, without having developed digital resilience—and accidentally blocking essential and safe services, such as educational platforms or Wikipedia.
Motion A2 offers the safety by design alternative, which we on these Benches strongly endorse. These amendments would require tech companies to fundamentally rewrite their code to remove harmful features. The key strengths of Amendment 38Z10 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, include specific prohibitions, explicitly targeting addictive design features that hijack a child’s attention, including infinite scrolling, autoplay, AI companions, and push notifications during the school day or at night. It moves beyond assessing risks to explicitly identifying and banning the architectural hooks of social media. It introduces a private right of action, as the noble Baroness explained, allowing children who suffer harm to seek court orders against non-compliant providers. It mandates a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers to ensure that it is fit for purpose in protecting children.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D on the phone ban. The Minister talked about strengthening guidance and Ofsted being able to inspect schools’ mobile phone policies, but I speak as a parent as well as a teacher when I say that parents do not understand statutory footing; they understand a legal ban. If the Government want to reduce unnecessary burdens on head teachers then, from what we have seen over and again, that has to mean an outright ban in the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley in his Motion A1. We are united across this House and, indeed, across Parliament in our desire to protect children from the significant harms of the online world, but, as we consider these amendments in lieu, we are presented with three rather different legislative strategies.
The Government’s proposal in Motion A asks this House to grant sweeping, enduring Henry VIII powers to the Secretary of State, allowing them to amend or repeal primary legislation via secondary regulations. The Government’s amendments remain completely silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government are fighting big tech with one arm tied behind their back, regulating, as we have heard today, the user rather than fixing the product.
I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his tireless and principled campaigning in this area, and I welcome the fact that his Motion A2 attempts to rein in the Government’s executive overreach by applying a two-year sunset clause to these Henry VIII powers. I recognise that his amendments are no longer a blanket ban, but his core proposal remains a blunt instrument. Although well-intentioned, this approach is built entirely on exclusion. It risks creating a dangerous cliff edge for young people: rather than helping children to safely develop digital resilience, it would potentially suddenly expose them to the unfiltered internet the moment they turned 16.
Motion A1, by contrast, offers a far more precise, workable and future-proof alternative. Instead of handing unchecked powers to Ministers or trying to build an impossible wall around the internet, it places direct statutory duties on tech companies to clean up their platforms. As we have heard, that is essential. Under our Amendment 38Q, where any user is identified as being under 16, the platform must apply proportionate measures to limit the supply of addictive design features and prevent access to harmful content. As my honourable friend, Munira Wilson MP, stated in the Commons:
“This needs to be big tech’s seatbelt moment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/26; col. 920.]
Recent US court cases, which the noble Lord, Lord Nash, mentioned, have exposed internal documents showing that tech executives deliberately designed these platforms to keep children hooked. Motion A1 would dismantle this addictive architecture, preserve parliamentary sovereignty and spark a race to the top for safe, enriching online spaces. I urge the House to support that approach.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend’s Motion A2 and my Motion D1. My noble friend has once again laid out the arguments in favour of his Motion A2 most eloquently and elegantly and the Minister in her opening remarks talked about it being
“not whether but how and what action will be taken”
by the Government. Her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today have at different times made a commitment to act. But that is not what we have in the Government’s amendment. Their amendment is not a commitment to act; my noble friend’s amendment is. I hope that the Ministers opposite will forgive me for pointing out that the only charities they ever quote are those which have caution about the approach that my noble friend is advocating. As he said, over 40 charities have signed the principles document that has been developed with them. Of course, that gives those of us on this side of the House reason for real concern as to why no other charities are ever quoted in interviews by the Government.
My noble friend’s amendment has several material advantages over the Government’s current approach. First is the simplicity in that the commitment to act is in the Bill. Your Lordships are very familiar with the risks posed by putting everything in secondary legislation, particularly secondary legislation with an enormous Henry VIII-shaped power. Secondly, it puts into effect the Prime Minister’s commitment but also allows the Government to use the consultation to shape the “how”—including on enforcement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly pointed out, and in relation to breadth and scope—but it sets out very clearly at proposed subsection (4)(a)(i) to (iv) the principles that would be followed in relation to addictive behaviour, serious harm and exploitation, illegal content and loss of privacy; your Lordships, I know, will have read the amendment. Thirdly, with great simplicity, it also sunsets the Henry VIII powers, which I think we can welcome across the House.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I will move on. I will try harder to read further to get to the same place as the noble Lord, Lord Nash—but I doubt it.
Pinterest was implicated in the suicide completed by Molly Russell. Molly’s father, Ian, is thoughtful, brave and inspiring. I listened to him talk on the BBC this week about why he and countless other expert children’s charities are against a blanket ban on social media for under-16s. They worry about the unintended consequences for children’s safety. A blanket ban is likely to lead to under-16s finding less regulated platforms to connect to online, such as gaming platforms or the dark web. It is worth noting that according to recent Internet Matters research, boys spend significantly more time on gaming platforms than on social media platforms.
Children may also turn to VPNs, which would then undermine the child safety gains of the Online Safety Act. The VPN amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tries to address this, but age-gating VPNs may be extremely problematic. My phone uses a VPN, following a personal device cyber consultation offered by this Parliament. VPNs can make us more secure, and we should not rush to deprive children of that safety. A blunt, blanket ban—it is a struggle not to call it a Blunkett ban—would also deny young people the positives of some of the less addictive social media.
Young people will continue to want to connect with each other. They will want to share music, their photos and videos, and their creative content. I was of the mixtape generation, now replaced by the shareable playlist. Young entrepreneurs will want to market their products: will they have to use an adults account on an adult’s phone, and be exposed to the risks of adult content as a result?
When I speak to young people in my capacity as president of Young Citizens, I am struck by how well informed they are. They find out what is going on in the world through social media. Is it right that we lower the voting age to 16 and simultaneously prevent access to news for 15 year-olds when we want them to become well informed?
The arguments for doing something urgent and meaningful about the dangers to children of social media are compelling, but so are the arguments for doing it in a more sophisticated way. For that reason, we should back the Government’s consultation. I note that this is a three-month consultation. Can the Minister please reassure us that action will follow within the 12-month timeline suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash?
We should at the same time urgently review how the Online Safety Act is working. We need to retain the risk-based approach to regulation in the Act. But Ofcom’s current stance of treating all children, all the way to 18, as the same is flawed. We need age-appropriate design, and we should give Ofcom the unambiguous requirement to ensure that age restrictions and guidance about social media access are rigorously enforced. This in turn requires mandated, robust age assurance. We must develop this, sensitive to the digital rights of children and mindful that we do not want unwittingly to require big tech to hold sensitive data about our children. I also echo Ian Russell’s call for us to listen to children and young people as we make these changes. That is one of the really good reasons why we should go ahead with a consultation.
I conclude by urging Ministers to act swiftly and to listen to parliamentarians, but also to experts and young people, and then to act robustly, platform by platform, to deliver the ambition of the Online Safety Act to make this country the safest place in the world for children to grow up.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight. Like him, I have been involved in debating online safety issues—from the internet safety Green Paper through to the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, and then seeing the Online Safety Bill become an Act. I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation.
I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley’s Amendments 94B and 94C, which are amendments to Amendment 94A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. In doing so, I urge the House to strengthen his proposal by transforming it from a blanket ban into an effective, harms-based approach to social media regulation that can actually be implemented and enforced within the same timetable.
Preschool Children: Digital Technology
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have probably gone as far as I can today in talking about the work that the Government are doing in thinking about how we can improve the guidance for parents. We will have more to say about this in the near future. As I said, we will also have the opportunity to consider this in more detail when we come back to Report on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. However, any guidance that we produce needs to be easily accessible to parents. That will mean, for example, using the Best Start in Life hubs and website. We will also require public health dissemination as well.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said today, but can she explain how any DfE guidance is co-ordinated with the work of Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, the ICO’s age-appropriate design code and DHSC advice, so that parents and providers receive a clear and consistent message rather than a patchwork of partial guidance?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point: in all this work, it is important that we are evidence led—as I suggested, we are developing that evidence through ongoing research—and, secondly, that we are able to provide clear information for parents and for early years settings, for example, with respect to the youngest children. There is considerable work going on between the DfE, DSIT and Ofcom to make sure both that the research is coherent and that the results of that research are appropriately communicated and go alongside some of the regulatory measures that the noble Lord mentioned.
Curriculum and Assessment Review
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education. That includes supporting and empowering the workforce: for example, we will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers have access to high-quality professional development. We want more pupils to develop strong language skills and to have their achievements recognised earlier than at GCSE. For that reason, we will explore the feasibility of developing a new flexible languages qualification which enables all pupils to have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready, rather than at fixed points.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, alongside my noble friends and the irrepressible noble Lord, Lord Baker, I very much welcome today’s Statement. It talks about “boosting digital literacy through a reformed computing curriculum to allow pupils to navigate the opportunities and challenges of AI and much more”. What is the “much more”?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We want, first, to recognise that digital skills are an enormously important element of a young person’s development in the modern world. That is why we will widen the GCSE beyond simply computing and introduce a new level 3 qualification in data science and AI.
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
Lord Clement-Jones ExcerptsMonday 22nd April 2024
(2 years 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)
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I do not know how unusual this is, but we are on the same page across both sides of the Committee.
First, having signed the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I express my support for the first batch, Amendments 199 to 201, which are strongly supported by the Advertising Association and the Interactive Advertising Bureau for obvious reasons. The noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Bassam, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, have expressed why they are fundamental to advertising on the internet. Audience measurement is an important function, for media owners in particular, to determine the consumption of content and to price advertising space for advertisers.
I understand that the department, DSIT, has conceded that most of the use cases for audience measurement fit within the term “statistical purposes”. It is this area of performance that is so important. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, seemed to indicate, we may be within touching distance of agreement on that, but the Minister needs to be explicit about it so that the industry understands what the intent behind that clause really is. As a number of noble Lords have said, this is a specific and targeted exemption for audience measurement and performance cookies that limits the consent exemption for those purposes and, as such, should definitely be supported. I very much hope that, if the Minister cannot give the necessary assurance now, then, as a number of noble Lords have said, he will engage in further discussions.
Amendments 203, which I have signed, and 205 are extremely important too. Amendment 203, picked up clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is potentially important; it could save an awful lot of aggravation for users on the internet. It is potentially game-changing given that, when we approach the same site—even Google—we have to keep clicking the cookie. I very much hope the Minister will see the sense in that because, if we are changing the EC regulations, we need to do something sensible and useful like that. It might even give the Bill a good name.
As all noble Lords have rightly said, the Secretary of State needs to think about the implementation of the regulations and what they will affect. Amendment 202 is fundamental and badly needed. You need only look at the list of those who are absolutely concerned about the centralisation of cookies: the Internet Advertising Bureau, the Advertising Association, the Data & Marketing Association, the Market Research Society, the News Media Association, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the Association of Online Publishers and the Professional Publishers Association. I hope that the Government are in listening mode and will listen to their concerns.
As the PPA says, centralising cookie consent with browsers could cause consumers far more harm than good. The Secretary of State’s powers would override cookie consent relationships between individuals and specialist publishers, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, talked about in particular. As the PPA says, in all likelihood a significant number of internet users would not consent to cookies from the browser but would consent to cookies on the websites of publishers that they know and trust. If the Secretary of State were to use this power to enforce cookie centralisation, many publishing businesses would be forced to present consumers with paywalls in order to be financially sustainable. As the PPA says, this would lead to consumers missing the opportunity to access high-quality publishing content without having to pay a fee.
The PPA has made an extremely good case. This would amplify existing barriers to competition in the digital market. There are provisions in the DMCC Bill that would give powers to the CMA to address any problems, such as enforced data sharing from platforms to publishers, but centralising cookie consent would completely undermine the objectives of that legislation. It is clear that this Bill should be amended to withdraw the provisions giving the Secretary of State the power to introduce these centralised cookie controls. I very much hope that the Minister will have second thoughts, given the weight of opinion and the impact that the Secretary of State’s powers would have.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, if the Committee will indulge me, I was a little late arriving for the introduction to this group of amendments by my noble friend Lord Lucas, but I heard most of what he said and I will speak briefly. I am quite sympathetic to the arguments about the exemption being too tightly drawn and the advantage that this is likely to give the likes of Google and Meta in the advertising ecology. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, a range of different trade bodies have raised concerns about this, certainly with me.
From my perspective, the other point of interest that I want to flag is that the Communications and Digital Committee is currently doing an inquiry into the future of news. As part of the evidence that we have taken in that inquiry, one of our witnesses from the news industry raised their concerns about a lack of joined-up thinking, as they described it, within government when it comes to various different bits of legislation in which there are measures that are inadvertently detrimental to the news or publishing industry because there has been no proper understanding or recognition of how the digital news environment is now so interconnected. Something like this, on cookies, could have quite a profound effect on the news and publishing industry, which we know is reliant on advertising and is increasingly feeling the pinch because the value that it gets from digital advertising is being squeezed all the time. I just wanted to reinforce the point, for the benefit of my noble friend the Minister, that concern about this is widespread and real.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am interested in the Minister’s point about the flexibility the Government see in this clause, but I am not sure who in the end has the responsibility to lead on that flexibility. Will it come from the commissioner or be driven by the Secretary of State’s considerations? The consultation duties seem very dependent on the commissioner’s view and I am not sure at what stage the Secretary of State would want to intervene to ensure that they have got this bit right. That is very important, because the balance is quite sophisticated.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister used the expression “when the evidence emerges”, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, in another context last week. I would have thought that these organisations know what they are about, and they have provided some pretty comprehensive evidence about the impact on their businesses. Is that not a pretty good reason for the Government to think that they might not have this set of provisions entirely right, quite apart from the other aspects of this group of amendments? If that evidence is not enough—I read out the list of organisations—the Government are more or less saying that they will not accept any evidence.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their interventions. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, there is a trifecta of decision-making between the Secretary of State, the ICO and the organisations all working together. That is why there is a consultation requirement before using the power. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, it is a question of your point of view; we feel that we have done stakeholder engagement and believe that we have got the balance right between the needs of organisations—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Will the Minister write and unpack exactly what the balance of opinion was? We are talking about pretty crucial stuff here. It is not always a question just of numbers; it is quite often a question of weighting the arguments. The Minister should write to us and tell us how they came to that conclusion, because the case was clearly being made during the consultation, but the Government have effectively ignored it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
In this tripartite geography that the noble Lord described, the power—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am not a gambling man. It is an interesting term. The Minister is suggesting that power rests equally among those three elements but it does not. The Secretary of State is the all-powerful being and the commissioner is there to ensure that regulation works effectively. How will this operate in practice? There is no advisory body here; it is the Secretary of State having a discussion with the commissioner and then, on the balance of some of the consultation information that comes in, making a decision. That will not enable the sector, the market and those providers to be engaged.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I thank noble Lords for those further points requesting clarification. On how we have come to this decision, I am happy to write to all noble Lords in the Committee. The noble Lord went in an interesting direction because, in the context of the rest of the Bill, so many of the amendments have been about protecting private users, but the noble Lord seems to be swaying more in favour of the advertisers here.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is all about the relative importance and the weighting. Maybe that is a good illustration of where the Government are not getting their weighting correct for the beginning and this part of the Bill.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point. We are working with industry and will continue to do so. For the benefit of the Committee, we are, as I said, happy to write and explain the points of view, including those from Data: A New Direction. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, power ultimately lies with Parliament via the affirmative resolution procedure for the Secretary of State power.
I will go back to the amendments we were discussing. This regulation applies to complex and technical markets. The very reason we have taken a delegated power is so that the new exemptions can be carefully created in consultation with all affected stakeholders. As I explained, the Bill includes a requirement to consult the Information Commissioner, the Competition and Markets Authority and any other relevant stakeholders, which would include trade associations and consumers or web users.
Amendment 201 would widen the application of the “strictly necessary” exemption. Currently, it applies only to those purposes essential to provide the service requested by the user. Amendment 201 would extend this exemption so that it applies to the purposes considered essential to the website owner. We do not think this would be desirable, as it would reduce a user’s control over their privacy in a way that they might not expect.
For the reasons I have set out—and once again reaffirming the commitment to write to noble Lords on how the weighting was worked out—I hope my noble friend and the noble Baroness will not press their amendments.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 208A. I declare my interest as a solicitor but not one who has been directly involved with personal injury claims. This is an area of particular specialism that requires particular expertise and experience for it to be carried out to the best advantages of those who seek that help.
Looking back, I am concerned that this matter has been raised, in different fora, on a number of occasions. For instance, in 2016, the Telephone Preference Scheme opt-out was discussed when it was removed from the control of Ofcom to that of the ICO. At that point, there was a great opportunity for this matter to be dealt with. Indeed, a number of organisations, including personal injury lawyers, the Motor Accident Solicitors Society and others, said that it was vital to carry this out and that cold calling should be ended because of the pressures it placed on an awful lot of very vulnerable people.
Since 2016, things have got worse in one respect—although, perhaps, they are a little less bad in respect of telephone calling. It is a little while now since I was last told that I had just had a major accident in my car as I was sitting enjoying a glass of wine and not having such worries in my mind. Telephone cold calling seems to have diminished but pressures through social media contact, various scams and so on have increased dramatically. I have been told this by a number of my legal colleagues.
In 2023, the Government produced the UK’s Fraud Strategy. As I am sure noble Lords will know, when it was published, it specifically pursued the question of extending the ban on cold calling to personal injury cases; that was very important and included all servers. So, unless there is some relationship already in place—something where that is a defence, as it were, here—and a voluntary willingness on the part of those who suffer from personal injuries to be contacted by an organisation with which they already have a relationship, this is something that we should pursue very strongly indeed.
Although it is correct that the legal profession, and perhaps other professions, are banned from this procedure, on a regulatory or disciplinary basis, some of my colleagues in the profession are, in some cases, susceptible to financial and commercial challenges through these organisations, such that they would become—sometimes, almost inadvertently—part of the process. Therefore, I hope that, in passing such an amendment, we would give a clear sign to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society that it underlines yet again that these practices are not acceptable to those members of the profession.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 208A. I am a recovering solicitor. Many moons ago, I gave public affairs advice to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which is a fine organisation. I very much support its call and this amendment on that basis. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on his introduction to this amendment; he and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, made a terrific case.
APIL took the trouble to commission research from YouGov, which showed that 38% of UK adults had received a cold call or text while 86% had a strong emotional response and were left feeling annoyed, angry, anxious, disgusted or upset. Therefore, the YouGov research reveals that almost all those who received a call supported a total ban on personal injury cold calls and text messages.
There is little for me to add but I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is not with us—she has just exited the Room, which is unhappy timing because, in looking back at some of the discussions we have had in the House, I was about to quote her. During Report stage in the Lords on the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, when she was a Minister, she told us:
“We know that cold calls continue and understand that more needs to be done truly to eradicate this problem. We have already committed to ban cold calls relating to pensions, and are minded to bring forward similar action in relation to the claims management industry. I have asked officials to consider the evidence for implementing a cold-calling ban in relation to claims management activities, and I am pleased to say that the Government are working through the detail of a ban on cold calling by claims management companies. There are complex issues to work through, including those relating, for example, to EU directives”;
of course, we do not have those any more. She went on to say:
“We would therefore like time to consider this important issue properly, and propose bringing forward a government amendment in the other place to meet the concerns of this House”.—[Official Report, 24/10/17; col. 861.]
How much time do the Government need? Talk about unfinished business. I know it is slightly unfair as you can unearth almost anything in Hansard but the fact is that this is bull’s eye. It is absolutely spot on on the part of APIL to have found this. I thought for one delirious minute that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was going to stand up and say, “Yes, I plead guilty. We never pursued this”.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I have texted the noble Baroness asking her to return as soon as possible so that she can listen to the noble Lord’s wise words.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am not going to carry on much longer. I know that that will be a grave disappointment but it makes the case, I think, that it is high time that the Government did something in this area. It is clearly hugely unpopular. We need to make sure that Amendment 208A is passed. If not now, when?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for tabling Amendment 208A and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for moving it. This amendment would insert new Regulation 22A into the privacy and electronic communications regulations and would prohibit via email or text unsolicited approaches encouraging people to commence personal injury claims sent by, or on behalf of, claims management companies.
The Government agree that people should not receive unsolicited emails and texts from claims management companies encouraging them to make personal injury claims. I assure noble Lords that this is already unlawful under the existing regulations. Regulation 22(2) prohibits the sending of all unsolicited electronic communications direct marketing approaches—including, but not limited to, texts and emails—unless the recipient has previously consented to receiving the communication. Regulation 21A already bans live calling by claims management companies.
In the past year, the Information Commissioner has issued fines of more than £1.1 million to companies that have not adhered to the direct marketing rules. Clause 117 considerably increases the financial penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the rules, providing a further deterrent to rogue claims management and direct marketing organisations.
Amendments 211 and 215 relate to Clause 116 so I will address them together. Amendment 211 seeks to confirm that a provider of a public electronic communications service or network is not required to intercept or examine the content of any communication in order to comply with the new duty introduced by Clause 116. I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the duty is a duty to share information only. It merely requires providers to share any information that they already hold or gather through routine business activities and which may indicate suspicious unlawful direct marketing on their networks; it does not empower, authorise or compel a communications provider to intercept messages or listen to phone calls.
Should a communications provider become aware of information through its routine business activities that indicates that unlawful direct marketing activity may be taking place on its service or network, this duty simply requires it to share that information with the Information Commissioner. For example, a communications provider may receive complaints from its subscribers who have received numerous unsolicited direct marketing communications from a specific organisation. We know from the public consultation that people want action taken against nuisance calls and spam, and this duty will support that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 209, I will also speak to Amendment 210, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding his support.
These amendments return to the major debate that we had on day 2 in Committee regarding direct marketing for the use of democratic engagement. It is fair to say that no-one was convinced by the Minister’s arguments about why that relaxation of the rules for political parties was necessary. We will no doubt return to that issue on Report, so I shall not repeat the arguments here. Meanwhile, Clause 113 leads into the democratic engagement provisions in the Bill and provides a soft opt-in for the use of electronic mail for direct marketing for charitable, political or other non-commercial activities when the data has been collected for other purposes.
As we made clear in the previous debate, we have not asked for these more relaxed rules about political electronic marketing. We believe that these provisions take us fundamentally in the wrong direction, acting against the interests of the electorate and risking damaging the already fragile level of trust between politicians and voters. However, we support extending the soft opt-in for charities and other non-commercial organisations. This is a measure that many charities have supported.
Of course, we want to encourage campaigning by charitable organisations to raise awareness of the critical issues of the day and encourage healthy debate, so extending their opportunities to use electronic marketing for this purpose could produce a healthy boost for civic engagement. This is what our amendments are hoping to achieve.
Therefore, our Amendments 209 and 210 would amend the wording of Clause 113 to remove the relaxation of the rules specifically for political parties and close the loophole by which some political parties may try to negate the provisions by describing themselves as non-commercial entities. We believe that this is the right way forward. Ideally, these amendments would be combined with the removal of the democratic engagement provisions in Clause 114 that we have already debated.
I hope noble Lords will see the sense of these proposals and that the Minister will agree to take these amendments away and rethink the whole proposition of Clauses 113 and 114. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, tracking the provenance of Clause 113 has been a very interesting exercise. If we think that Clause 114 is pretty politically motivated, Clause 113 is likewise. These rules relating to the fact that political parties cannot avail themselves of the soft opt-in provision have been there since 2005. The Information Commissioner issued guidance on political campaigning, and it was brought within the rules. Subsequently, there has been a ruling in a tribunal case which confirmed that: the SNP was issued with an enforcement notice and the information tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Conservative Party was fined in 2021 for sending emails to people who did not ask for them. Then, lo and behold, there was a Conservative Party submission to the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee in 2020, and that submission has been repeated on a number of occasions. I have been trying to track how many times the submission has been made by the Conservative Party. The submission makes it quite clear that there is frustration in the Conservative Party. I have the written evidence here. It says:
“We have a number of concerns about the Information Commissioner’s draft code”—
as it then was: it is now a full code—
“on the use of data for political campaigning. In the interests of transparency, I enclose a copy of the response that the Conservative Party sent to the consultation. I … particularly flag the potential chilling effect on long-standing practices of MPs and councillors from engaging with their local constituents”.
Now, exactly as the noble Baroness has said, I do not think there is any call from other political parties to change the rules. I have not seen any submissions from any other political party, so I would very much like to know why the Government have decided to favour the Conservative Party in these circumstances by changing the rules. It seems rather peculiar.
The guidance for personal data in political campaigning, which I read while preparing for this debate, seems to be admirably clear. It is quite long, but it is admirably clear, and I congratulate the ICO on tiptoeing through the tulips rather successfully. However, the fact is that we have very clear guidance and a very clear situation, and I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that we are wholly in favour of charities being able to avail themselves of the new provisions, but allowing political parties to do so is a bridge too far and, on that basis, I very much support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for Amendments 209 and 210, which would amend Clause 113 by removing electronic communications sent by political parties from the scope of the soft opt-in direct marketing rule. A similar rule to this already exists for commercial organisations so that they can message customers who have previously purchased goods or services about similar products without their express consent. However, the rule does not apply if a customer has opted out of receiving direct marketing material.
The Government consider that similar rules should apply to non-commercial organisations. Clause 113 therefore allows political parties, charities and other non-commercial organisations that have collected contact details from people who have expressed an interest in their objectives to send them direct marketing material without their express consent. If people do not want to receive political messaging, we have included several privacy safeguards around the soft opt-in measure that allow people to easily opt out of receiving further communications.
Support for a political party’s objectives could be demonstrated, for example, through a person’s attendance at a party conference or other event, or via a donation made to the party. In these circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable for the party to reach out to that person again with direct marketing material, provided that the individual has not objected to receiving it. I reassure the Committee that no partisan advantage is intended via these measures.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, perhaps the Minister could elucidate exactly what is meant by “supporting the party’s objectives”. For instance, if we had a high street petition, would that be sufficient to grab their email address and start communicating with them?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I suppose it would depend on the petition and who was raising it. If it were a petition raised or an activity supported by a particular party, that would indicate grounds for a soft opt-in, but of course anyone choosing not to receive these things could opt out either at the time or later, on receipt of the first item of material.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
So what the Minister is saying is that the solicitor, if you like, who is asking you to sign this petition does not have to say, “Do you mind if I use your email address or if we communicate with you in future?” The person who is signing has to say, “By the way, I may support this local campaign or petition, but you’re not going to send me any emails”. People need to beware, do they not?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Indeed. Many such petitions are of course initiated by charitable organisations or other not-for-profits and they would equally benefit from the soft opt-in rule, but anyone under any of those circumstances who wished not to receive those communications could opt out either at the time or on receipt of the first communication on becoming aware that they were due to receive these. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments in relation to these provisions.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
It is important that my noble friend answers that question. The point is that if we find—I am sorry, I still speak as if I am involved with it, which I am not, but I promise noble Lords that I have spent so much time in this area. If the DWP finds that there is a link that needs pursuing then that obviously has to be opened up to some degree to find what is going on. Remember, the most important thing about this is that the right people get the right benefits. That is what the Government are trying to achieve.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I note that the DWP has been passed a parcel by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—and I am not at all surprised. I am sure it will be extremely grateful to have the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, riding to its defence today as well. Also, attendance at this debate demonstrates the sheer importance of this clause.
We on these Benches have made no secret that this is a bad Bill—but this is the worst clause in it, and that is saying something. It has caused civil society organisations and disability and welfare charities to rise as one against it, including organisations as disparate as UK Finance, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the ICO itself. They have gone into print to say that, for this measure to be deemed a necessary and proportionate interference in people’s private lives, to be in accordance with the law and to satisfy relevant data protection requirements, legislative measures must be drafted sufficiently tightly—et cetera. They have issued a number of warnings about this. For a regulator to go into print is extremely unusual.
Of course, we also have Big Brother Watch and the Child Poverty Action Group—I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—the National Survivor User Network, Disability Rights UK, the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have all received a huge number of briefings on this. This demonstrates the strong feelings, and the speeches today have demonstrated the strong feelings on this subject as well.
There have been a number of memorable phrases that noble Lords have used during their speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, referred to a “government fishing expedition”. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, called it “breathtaking in its scope”. I particularly appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who said, “What happened to innocence?” In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, this is not “nuanced”: this is “Do you require suspicion or do you not?” That seems to me to be the essence of this.
I was in two minds about what the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said. I absolutely agree with him that we need to attack the fat cats as much as we attack those who are much less advantaged. He said, more or less, “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”. The trouble is that I do not like the sauce. That was the problem with that particular argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about stigma. I absolutely agree. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, more or less apologised for using the word “draconian” at Second Reading, but I thought the word “overreach” was extremely appropriate.
We have heard some powerful speeches against Clause 128. It is absolutely clear that it was slipped into the Bill alongside 239 other amendments on Report in the Commons. I apologise to the Committee, but clearly I need to add a number of points as well, simply to put on record what these Benches feel about this particular clause. It would introduce new powers, as we have heard, to force banks to monitor all bank accounts to find welfare recipients and people linked to those payments. We have heard that that potentially includes landlords and anyone who triggers potential fraud indicators, such as frequent travel or savings over a certain amount. We have seen that the impact assessment indicates that the Government’s intention is to “initially”—that is a weasel word—use the power in relation to universal credit, pension credit and employment support allowance. We have also heard that it could be applied to a much wider range of benefits, including pensions. The Government’s stated intent is to use the power in relation to bank accounts in the first instance, but the drafting is not limited to those organisations.
Of course, everyone shares the intent to make sure that fraudulent uses of public money are dealt with, but the point made throughout this debate is that the Government already have power to review the bank statements of welfare fraud suspects. Under current rules, the DWP is able to request bank account holders’ bank transaction details on a case-by-case basis if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud. That is the whole point. There are already multiple powers for this purpose, but I will not go through them because they were mentioned by other noble Lords.
This power would obviously amend the Social Security Administration Act to allow the DWP to access the personal data of welfare recipients by requiring the third party served with a notice, such as a bank or building society, to conduct mass monitoring without suspicion of fraudulent activity, as noble Lords have pointed out. Once issued, an account information notice requires the receiver to give the Secretary of State the names of the holders of the accounts. In order to do this, the bank would have to process the data of all bank account holders and run automated surveillance scanning for benefit recipients, as we have heard.
New paragraph 2(1)(b) states that an account information notice requires,
“other specified information relating to the holders of those accounts”,
and new paragraph 2(1)(c) refers to other connected information, “as may be specified”. This vague definition would allow an incredibly broad scope of information to be requested. The point is that the Government already have the power to investigate where there is suspicion of fraud. Indeed, the recently trumpeted prosecution of a number of individuals in respect of fraud amounting to £53.9 million demonstrates that. The headlines are in the Government’s own press release:
“Fraudsters behind £53.9 million benefits scam brought to justice in country’s largest benefit fraud case”.
So what is the DWP doing? It is not saying, “We’ve got the powers. We’ve found this amount of fraud”. No, it is saying, “We need far more power”. Why? There is absolutely no justification for that. No explanation is provided for how these new surveillance powers will be able to differentiate between different kinds of intentional fraud and accidental error.
We have heard about the possibility and probability of automated decision-making being needed here. I do not know what the Minister will say about that, but, if there will not be automated decision-making—that is concerning enough—if the DWP chooses to make these decisions through human intervention the scale of the operation will require a team so large that this will be an incredibly expensive endeavour, defeating the money-saving mandate underpinning this proposed new power, although, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we do not know from any impact assessment what the Government expect to gain from this power.
It is wholly inappropriate for the Government to order private banks, building societies and other societies and financial services to conduct mass algorithmic suspicionless surveillance and reporting of their account holders on behalf of the state in pursuit of these policy aims. It would be dangerous for everyone if the Government reversed the presumption of innocence. This level of financial intrusion and monitoring affecting millions of people is highly likely to result in serious mistakes and sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.
This level of auditing and insight into people’s private lives is a frightening level of government overreach, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, more so for some of the most marginalised in society. This will allow disproportionate and intrusive surveillance of people in the welfare system. In its impact statement, the DWP says it will ensure that data will be
“transferred, received and stored safely”.
That is in contrast to the department’s track record of data security, particularly considering that it was recently reprimanded by the ICO for data leaks so serious that they were reported to risk the lives of survivors of domestic abuse. With no limitations set around the type of data the DWP can access, the impact could be even more obscure.
We have heard about the legal advice obtained by Big Brother Watch. It is clear that, on the basis that,
“the purpose of the new proposed powers is to carry out monitoring of bank accounts”
and that an account information notice can be issued
“where there are no ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing a particular individual has engaged in benefit fraud or has made any mistake in claiming benefits”,
this clause is defective. It also says that
“financial institutions would need to subject most if not all of their accountholders to algorithmic surveillance”;
that this measure
“will be used not just in relation to detection of fraud but also error”;
and that this measure
“would not be anchored in or constrained by anything like the same legal and regulatory framework”
as the Investigatory Powers Act. It concludes:
“The exercise of the financial surveillance/monitoring powers contained in the DPDIB, as currently envisaged, is likely to breach the Article 8 rights of the holders of bank accounts subject to such monitoring”
in order to comply. It is clear that we should scrap this clause in its entirety.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is a fair challenge and I will certainly be coming on to that. I have in my speech some remarks and a much more limited reassurance for the noble Lord.
It is only when there is a signal of potential fraud or error that the DWP may undertake a further review, using our business-as-usual processes and existing powers—an important point. DWP will not share any personal information with third parties under this power, and only very limited data on accounts that indicate a potential risk of fraud or error will be shared with DWP in order to identify a claimant on our system. As I said earlier, I will say more about the limited aspects of this later in my remarks.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but will he be coming on to explain what these signals are? He is almost coming to a mid-point between innocence and suspicion called “signals”—is this a new concept in law? What are we talking about and where in all of Schedule 11 is the word “signal”?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
If the noble Lord will allow me, I would like to make some progress and I hope that this will come out in terms of what we may be seeking on a limited basis.
The first third parties that we will designate will be banks and other financial institutions, as the Committee is aware. We know that they hold existing data that will help to independently verify key eligibility factors for benefits.
This clause does not give DWP access to any bank accounts—a very important point—nor will it allow DWP to monitor how people spend their money or to receive sensitive information, such as medical records or data on opinions or beliefs.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned—I want to try to answer one of her questions—this power cannot be used to suspend someone’s benefit. Cases that are flagged must be reviewed under existing processes and powers—business as usual, which I mentioned earlier—to determine whether incorrect payments are being made.
Our approach is not new. HMRC has long been using powers to request data at scale from banks on all taxpayers under Schedule 23 to the Finance Act 2011. Our approach carries similar safeguards. Tax fraud is no different from welfare fraud and should be treated similarly. This was a key point that the Prime Minister made only on Friday when he committed to bring DWP’s fraud and error powers more in line with those of HMRC. This is one clear area where we are seeking to do this.
This allows me to go on to very important points about safeguards. Not all the cases found through this power will be fraud. Some will be errors which the power will help to correct, preventing overpayment debt building up. Some cases may also have legitimate reasons for seemingly not meeting eligibility requirements, for example where claimants have certain compensation payments that are disregarded for benefit eligibility rules. In those cases, no further action will be taken. Our robust business-as-usual processes will ensure that all cases are dealt with appropriately.
Another question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on safeguards was to do with the legislation. A key safeguard is that we cannot approach any third party either; there must be a three-way relationship with the department, the claimant and the third party. This safeguard will narrow the use of this power substantially and ensure that it is used proportionately, as these three-way relationships are limited, meaning that data cannot be gathered at scale from just any source for any purpose. Any third party we will want to get data from will need to be designated in affirmative regulations that noble Lords will have an opportunity to scrutinise. These regulations will be accompanied by a code of practice. We will be bringing that forward, and we will consult on the code before presenting it to Parliament—which answers a question raised by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
The power also ensures that we can request only very limited data on benefit recipients. I think this addresses a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. We must work with key third parties to define what is shared, but our expectation is that this would be a name and date of birth or a unique payment number, along with the eligibility criteria someone has matched against: for example, a benefit claimant who has more savings than the benefit rules would normally allow.
Outside controls will apply here, too. DWP already handles vast amounts of data, including personal data, and must adhere to the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
On the point, which again was raised during this debate, about the remarks made by the Information Commissioner’s Office and its updated report on this measure, published as Committee started and which the Committee may be aware of, I was pleased to see that the commissioner now acknowledges that the third-party data measure is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, stating:
“I understand and recognise the scale of the problem with benefit fraud and error that government is seeking to address and accept that the measure is in pursuit of a legitimate aim. I am not aware of any alternative, less intrusive, means of achieving the government’s stated policy intent based on their analysis”.
I think that is a significant point to make, and it is a point with which I very strongly agree.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It is also worth pointing out that the paragraph I quoted follows immediately on that. That is the qualification that I quoted.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, I am aware of that. I think the noble Lord was alluding to the point about proportionality. I listened carefully and took note of that, but do not entirely agree with it. I hope that I can provide further reassurances, if not now then in the coming days and weeks. The point is that there is no other reasonable way to independently verify claimants’ eligibility for the payment that they are receiving.
I turn to the amendments raised, starting with the stand part notice from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who is not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. They and my noble friend Lord Kamall, who is not in his place, interestingly, all made their case for removing the clause, of which I am well aware. However, for the reasons that I just set out, this clause should stand part of the Bill.
In raising her questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made some comparisons with HMRC. There are appropriate safeguards in place for this data-gathering power, which will be included in the code of practice. The safeguards for this measure will be equivalent to those in place for the similar HMRC power which Parliament approved in the Finance Act 2011.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord has set me quite a challenge at the Dispatch Box. It is out of scope of today’s session but, having said that, I will reflect on his question afterwards.
I am aware that time is marching on. My noble friend Lord Kamall asked about burdens on banks. We believe that the burdens on banks will be relatively low.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, made a number of points; I may have to write to her to expand on what I am about to say. Removing the requirement for third parties to provide legible copies of information means that DWP could receive the information but there is a risk that the information is not usable; that is my answer to her points. This could limit the data that DWP receives and prevent us utilising the power in full, which could in turn impact the savings due to be realised from this important measure.
I turn to the final amendments in this group, which were raised by the noble Baroness. They would place requirements on the Secretary of State to issue statements in the House and consult on the code of practice. We will talk more about the code of practice later on in this debate, and I have already made clear my firm opinions on it: we will take it forward and are already working on it. There will be a consultation that will, of course, allow anybody with an interest in this to give their views.
I turn to the number of statements that must be made in the House regarding the practical use of the measures before powers can commence, such as the role that artificial intelligence will play or assurances on any outsourcing of subsequent investigations. This is an important point to make and was raised by other Peers. I want to make it clear that this measure will be rolled out carefully and slowly through a “test and learn” approach from 2025, in conjunction with key third parties. To make these statements in the House would pre-empt the crucial “test and learn” period. I say again that discussions with the third parties are deep and detailed and we are already making progress; this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the link with banks and third parties.
Importantly, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that we will not make any automated decisions off the back of this power; this was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The final decision must and will always involve a human being—a human agent in these cases—and any signals of potential fraud or error will be looked at comprehensively. I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lady Buscombe on this matter.
I know that I have not answered a number of questions. Perhaps I can do so in our debate on another group; otherwise, I certainly wish to answer them fully in a letter. I hope that I have explained clearly, from our perspective, why this power is so important; why it is the right power to take; and how we have carefully designed it, and continue to design it, with the key safeguards in mind. I strongly value the input from all those who have contributed today but I remain unconvinced that the proposed amendments are necessary and strengthen the power beyond the clear safeguards I have set out. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her opposition to Clause 128.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I may have missed something, but can I just check that the Minister will deal with the matter of signals, which he mentioned at the beginning of his response? Will he deal with where that phrase comes from, what they are, whether they will be in the code, et cetera? There are a lot of questions around that. Does it amount to actual suspicion?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Absolutely; I am keen to make sure that I answer on that. It may be possible to do so in the next group but, if not, I will certainly do so in the form of a precise letter—added to the larger letter that I suspect is coming the noble Lord’s way.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak on this group, but another question occurs to me. We have been assuming throughout this that we are talking about requests of information to banks, but the Bill actually says that:
“The Secretary of State may give an account information notice to a person of a prescribed description”.
Could the Minister explain what that is?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I would of course much prefer Clause 128 not to stand part, but we were just privileged by a master class from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. She talked about these being probing amendments, but I do not think that I have seen a schedule so expertly sliced and diced before. If those are probing, they are pretty lethal. I agree with so many of those elements. If we are to have provisions, those are the kinds of additions that we would want and the questions that we would want to ask about them. I very much hope that the Minister has lots of answers, especially for the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, but also for the other noble lords who have spoken.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the debate on this group has focused largely on the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, regarding using powers only where there is a suspicion of fraud, making provisions so that information collected can be used only for the narrow purpose of determining overpayment, removing pension-age benefits from the scope of the powers and requiring approval from Parliament before the power can be used on specific working-age benefits.
I was going to go over the reason behind these measures once again, but I will not delay the Committee on why we are bringing them forward. I believe I did that at some length in the previous group, so I am going to turn to the amendments raised.
Narrowing these powers as suggested by the noble Baroness, with Amendments 220, 221, 222 and 222A, will leave us exposed to those who are deliberately aiming to defraud the welfare system and undermine the policy intent of this measure. In fact, taken together, these amendments would render the power unworkable and ineffective.
To restrict the power to cases where DWP already has a suspicion of fraud, as suggested by the noble Baroness, would defeat the purpose of this measure. The intent is to enable us to use data from third parties to independently check that benefit eligibility rules are being complied with. We use data from other sources to do this already. For example, we use data from HMRC to verify earnings in UC and check that the benefit eligibility rules are being complied with. Parliament has determined that, to be eligible for a benefit, certain rules and requirements must be met, and the Government have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly. Therefore, the DWP should be able to utilise information from third parties to discharge that duty. This is an appropriate and proportionate response to a significant fraud and error challenge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also proposed that the power should be restricted such that it would not apply to persons who hold an account into which a benefit is paid on behalf of someone who cannot manage their own financial affairs—such persons are referred to as “appointees”. An appointee is a person who may be appointed by the Secretary of State to act on behalf of the benefit customer. Usually, the appointee becomes legally responsible for acting on the customer’s behalf in all matters related to the claim. It is also made clear to the appointee, in the documents that they sign, that we may get information about them or the person they are acting for from other parties, or for any other purposes that the law allows, to check the information they provide.
Under our proposed legislation, it is right to say that there may be some people who are not themselves benefit claimants but who have given a person permission to pay benefits into their bank account, who may be picked up in the data returned by third parties. Under the noble Baroness’s amendment, we would not be able to gather data on appointees, which would make the power unworkable, because third parties would not be able to distinguish between an individual managing their own benefit and an appointee. It also assumes that no fraud or error can occur in these cases, which is definitely wrong. I assure the noble Baroness that we handle such cases regularly and have robust existing processes for identifying appointees on our own database and for carefully handling cases of this nature.
The noble Baroness would also like to see the power—
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I clearly cannot go far enough today, but, because this is important and we are in Committee, I need to give some further reassurances on where we are in the process in terms of filtering. If I may conclude my remarks, I will finish this particular point. This is all part of the test and learn, and I give some reassurance that we are working through these important issues in relation to appointees and landlords.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It is precisely as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said on the last group—this is a massive net. It feels as though this is so experimental that there is no certainty about how it will operate, and the powers are so broad that anything could be subject to it. It sounds extremely dangerous, and it is no wonder that everybody is so concerned.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not agree with that. We have done quite a lot of business together across the Chamber. That is a slightly sweeping issue, because I have given some reassurance that we are already working with the third parties to make sure that we have robust processes in place. For instance, when we are talking about landlords, while it is possible that a landlord’s account may be matched under the measure, only minimum information will be provided by the third parties to enable my department to identify an individual within our own database. With all the data received, we will make further inquiries only where appropriate and where the information is relevant to the benefit claim. This is already part of our business-as-usual processes.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but, throughout these two groups, he has, in a sense, introduced wholly new concepts. We have “test and learn”, “filtering”—which sounds extraordinary—and “signals” but none seem to be in the black letter of the schedule, nor in the rest of the Bill. We have a set of intentions and we are meant to trust what the DWP is doing with these powers. Does the Minister not recognise that the Committee is clearly concerned about this? It needs tying down, whether we need to start from scratch and get rid of the clause or take on board the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. The uncertainty around this is massive.
Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2020
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 2 March 2020. Subject to approval, the Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2020 reflects the conclusions of this year’s annual review of the automatic enrolment earnings thresholds required by the Pensions Act 2008. The review considered the earnings trigger and the qualifying earnings band for the tax year 2020-2021.
The earnings trigger determines the point at which a qualifying worker becomes eligible to be automatically enrolled into a qualifying workplace pension. The qualifying earnings band determines the earnings upon which workers and employers pay contributions into a workplace pension. This order sets a new lower limit for the qualifying earnings band and is effective from 6 April 2020.
The earnings trigger is not changed within this order and remains at the level set in the automatic enrolment threshold review order of 2014-15, so no further provision is required. Similarly, the upper earnings limit is not changed within the order and remains at the level set in the automatic enrolment threshold review order of 2019-20, so no further provision is required. I am satisfied that the Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2020 is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Today’s debate relates to a technical element of the automatic enrolment framework, which as a legal necessity we need to have in place for 6 April 2020. However, we are all too aware of the wider environment at this time impacting on automatic enrolment. There may be questions and concerns about the current and future position of automatic enrolment and pensions saving more generally, but noble Lords will understand that there is little I can tell them at this point on some of these matters.
As noble Lords will know, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that the Government will do whatever it takes to support people affected by Covid-19. We have been clear in our intention that no one should be penalised for doing the right thing. These are rapidly developing circumstances; we continue to keep the situation under review and will keep Parliament updated accordingly.
In terms of the substance of this order, as signalled by the Minister’s Written Statement of 13 February 2020, this order will, as previously, align the lower and upper limits of the qualifying earnings band with the national insurance lower and upper earnings limits for the 2020-2021 tax year. The lower and upper limits are £6,240 and £50,000 respectively.
By continuing to align the qualifying earnings band limits with the national insurance thresholds, the changes relating to payroll systems are kept to a minimum. The purpose of this framework is to balance the need to encourage individuals to take personal responsibility for pensions saving with a sustainable compulsory minimum contribution level for all employers, mindful of the economic environment within which these changes are taking place. Setting the thresholds at these levels will also ensure that contribution levels continue to be meaningful for savers.
The order does not change the earnings trigger, which remains at £10,000 this year, in order to strike a balance between bringing in those for whom it makes economic sense to be saving into a pension with affordability for employers on the one hand and workers on the other. Individuals earning below the £10,000 earnings trigger but above the lower earnings threshold will still have the option to opt into a workplace pension and benefit from employer contributions, should they wish. Those earning below the lower earnings limit also have the option of being enrolled by their employers in a pension scheme.
The decisions to maintain the earnings trigger at £10,000 and maintain the alignment of the qualifying earnings band with those for national insurance contributions maintain simplicity and consistency. I commend this instrument to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I have always admired the versatility of the Deputy Chief Whip, and today is no exception. I thank him for his introduction. This is a rather important statutory instrument and there are a number of policy issues surrounding it. My heart sank when the Minister said that there is little he will be able tell us, I assume partly because he has no support from officials. I would be very happy for him to write in due course. The other thing he said that made my heart sink was that this is all about technical elements, which, as an understudy, I am not in a position to contest with him in any event.
The real essence of this is what the ABI has raised, because all of us support the scheme but want to see it go further. Both the ABI and the Women’s Budget Group said that we should look at the Wealth in Great Britain 2019 figures produced by the ONS, which show that among 65 to 70 year-olds, median private pension wealth is £164,700 for men and £17,300 for women. That is just over 10% of the private pension wealth of men. There is a considerable imbalance, to which I will return.
The success of auto-enrolment is clear, as the ABI points out, and the number of participating employees continues to increase. However, according to the ABI, if the lower age limit were reduced to 18 and the lower earnings limit removed, people could save another £2.6 billion annually. The change would demonstrate the importance of starting a savings habit early, given the powerful impact that early career contributions can have on the size of retirement savings. It points out that the Government committed to implementing these recommendations by the mid-2020s in the 2017 automatic enrolment review.
Furthermore, extending the coverage of auto-enrolment by reducing the earnings threshold to the NI primary would bring 480,000 people, mostly women, into pension saving, helping improve the gender pensions gap. As I have explained, the ONS figures on that gap are pretty dramatic. All else being equal, this deficit is set to continue, closing by only 3% by 2060. The suggestion of bringing forward that undertaking in the automatic enrolment review seems entirely apposite. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give that commitment in the letter I know he will have to write after this debate.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Again, I will raise a number of issues so if the Minister would like to write a letter following this debate I would be more than happy to receive one.
The success of auto-enrolment is testament to the previous Labour Government, with tens of millions of workers saving for a pension under the scheme. In a recent report, the Pensions Regulator found that the overall proportion of eligible staff saving into a workplace pension was 87% in 2018. This has massively increased over recent years and decades. It also found that the largest increase in participation was from the youngest age groups. In the private sector, the largest increase was seen among 22 to 29 year-olds, increasing from 24% in 2012 to 84% in 2018.
We welcome the Government’s continued commitment to auto-enrolment but acknowledge that it is not perfect. Average contributions remain too low and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the threshold too high. Department for Work and Pensions statistics show that, as a result of pensions inequality, 37% of female workers and 28% of black and minority ethnic workers are still not eligible for the scheme.
The exclusion of the self-employed from auto-enrolment also needs to be addressed. Some 15% of the workforce is now self-employed, but the numbers of such workers saving into a personal pension fell by a third between 2014 and 2018. With the current coronavirus crisis, the pressure on the self-employed will only increase, as we are seeing. I know that discussions are taking place around a number of possible changes to the Bill in the other place to try to protect the self-employed.
Today’s statutory instrument keeps the current earnings trigger of £10,000, and that is to remain into 2020-21. However, The People’s Pension found that, by reducing the trigger to £6,240, an additional 1.2 million people would be helped to save for their retirement. Why have the Government decided to keep the trigger at £10,000, given that it excludes some of the most vulnerable from saving into a pension scheme? The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The Secretary of State decided not to consult on the amounts of the qualifying earnings band and earnings trigger for 2020/21”.
I understand that the Minister will need to write to me, but I ask: why not? Did the Secretary of State not want to take on board the concerns that the unions and others involved in this area were raising?
The Government have said that they will address issues with auto-enrolment, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, by the mid-2020s, once it has bedded down. We would prefer that to be brought forward, especially given the many issues that will arise out of the current crisis. We see no reason for delay.
It is impossible to ignore the current national crisis of coronavirus. Are the Government looking into support for people who will be affected by a drop in their income over the coming months and years? That drop in income will have an effect on their pension. Are the Government also looking to develop long-term support for the defined benefit schemes, which will be massively affected by the market turmoil?
Video Recordings Act 1984 (Exempted Video Works) Regulations 2014
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his introduction to the regulations. Over the past 30 years, the Video Recordings Act 1984 has certainly attracted parliamentary debate on a number of occasions. As noble Lords will recall, the Act had to be revived by a special Act in 2010 because of the then Government failing to notify the European Commission of the classification and labelling requirements of the Act.
I welcome these regulations but want to reflect briefly on the process by which they came about. Many of us present today were assured during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill that the situation of exempted works which contained unsuitable material would be dealt with by amendments to the Act. Indeed, we withdrew amendments on the basis that that would happen. Then the coalition Government came in and I asked an Oral Question about progress in March 2011, but it was made clear that the consultation had still not begun. Lack of an evidence base was cited as the reason.
In June 2013, my noble friend Lord Storey pursued the matter further in an Oral Question. The consultation had, it seemed, been completed and the intention to legislate had been recently announced but my noble friend Lord Gardiner said that definitions were still being formulated for violent sexual behaviour and swearing,
“so as to ensure that they identify all products that are unsuitable for younger children”.—[Official Report, 12/06/13; col. 1596.]
Finally, four and a half years after the passing of the Digital Economy Act, these regulations, which amend the 1984 Act, see the light of day. As I say, I warmly welcome the regulations, and the fact that they will fall within the BBFC classification regime, but how can we account for this snail’s pace of legislation when faced with such an important issue? How can we learn the lessons? Moreover, where are we with the original Digital Economy Act changes to the VRA regarding video games? Is it the case that certain sections still remain to be activated and amendments made? That certainly seems to be the case. If that is so, why?
My noble friend mentioned the online situation but, of course, that is on a voluntary basis. Will my noble friend explain the corresponding regimes that apply to videos and video games on the internet? I asked my noble friend Lord Gardiner a Question on this in March this year. Surely, is it not as important that online content is addressed, as physical product is under the VRA? Under voluntary arrangements, mobile operators are offering better protection and filtering against unsuitable content than wi-fi service providers. Is the DCMS capable of addressing this issue at any speed? How long must we wait before the Government review the situation? Can we not speed up the process and learn the lessons of the past?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting and important debate, although a relatively brief one. Many important points have been made to which I am sure the Minister will respond.
I broadly welcome the direction of travel represented by these regulations but have some questions and reservations which I am afraid are slightly at variance to those we have heard already. I worry a lot about restrictions being introduced on another creative activity even though I understand the dangers that may be exposed by that, but it is important that we bear that in mind.
First, we are exercising censorship of what may appear in front of people who wish to buy it, albeit it is obviously a restricted class, through a private company—the BBFC. I am not sure that we quite understand what the relationship between the BBFC and the Government is at the moment. It has changed a lot in the last 20 or 30 years since I was last involved in it. If the Minister has the information to hand, will he reflect on such matters as whether there is a formal memorandum between the Government and the BBFC in terms of their operations? Will the Government exercise control over the appointment of its board and other related matters? It is important to have that in context so that we understand the impact that these regulations may have. I have a general concern that the Government should not expropriate functions and responsibilities which should be exercised through Parliament to private corporations without providing serious reasons and explanations.
Of course, noble Lords will recollect that the 1984 Act was passed at a time of particular concern about videos. I think that the term “video nasty” was widely used. The regulations that were brought out were perhaps a reaction and, in some senses, account for why the BBFC is in its present form. However, times have moved on. As I will come to in a few minutes—and as referred to by other speakers—we have to be sure that what is being proposed now has a fitness and longevity that will be appropriate for the fast-changing nature of the technology which it is attempting to arrange.
I was glad to hear that the Government will be reviewing these regulations within three years. As the Minister said, that is a good thing, although a number of the points and questions raised by noble Lords already suggest that some of the issues are more important and might need more attention before then.
My first point, therefore, is about the status of the body that is being entrusted with the regulations that we are considering. My second point concerns the question of format. We are talking about video material in physical form. The impact, perversely, is largely on the purchasing decisions of people who are under 12, given that that, to a large extent, is the focus of the regulations. My personal view is that a very small number of citizens of this country who are 12 or under are going to be purchasing the videos we are talking about. I am interested to know whether the Minister has any figures relating to the likely impact on the market. If it is anything like what happens in my household, these children are much more adept at the virtual world and will be seeking out the information they wish and the material they want to watch in a non-physical form. We have talked about that issue; we still lack any real, credible strategy in relation to it. This particular set of regulations, although long promised and arriving at an interesting time, is in fact missing the boat in relation to where the majority of the viewing public are going to be—certainly those under 12.
My third point concerns the question that has been raised to some extent by the problem of the wording of the regulations, which seek in a curious way to specify the carve-out, not by putting down a simple principle about what would and would not be considered, but by listing in exhaustive detail the sort of things that would create a break across the various guidelines.
In its briefing for this meeting, the BBFC made it very clear that it was concerned that there was no blanket requirement that all video in physical form should be subject to BBFC review. It has a point and I would be interested to know on what basis the Minister has decided—I think I am right, but, again, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm it—that the onus for submitting material to be classified will still lie with the producers of the material. Therefore it is possible that those who are producing material that perhaps is veering towards the boundary of the 12 certificate may take a view that the material does not fall within the new, enlarged carve-out. Would that constitute a defence in any court proceedings that might be brought forward as a result? The guidelines are only guidelines. The discrepancy between what the BBFC is saying and doing in practice and what is now going to be in the regulations in paragraphs (a) to (o) is going be a problem, not least because the BBFC—rightly so, although the timescale is slower than I would have liked—tries to keep in touch with the views of the public it is serving by carrying out triennial surveys and consultation with people about whether the guidelines it is currently using need to change and, if so, to what extent.
The regulations contain a set of statements, some of which, as has been said, seem to be rather loosely drafted. The noble Baroness raised the question of religion, but some of the drafting concerning sex and violence is equally culpable. Yet we will also have, by the time these regulations are in mid-flow, a new set of guidelines from the BBFC about where it thinks the boundaries of the 12 certificate are going to be. Can the Minister explain how we are going to reconcile that change?
It is perhaps not as important an issue in reducing the threshold from 18 and R18 to 12, but it is well known in the world of classification that, in Britain, we have an obsession with language, which is in stark contrast with, for example, the Nordic countries, which have a very different view of these matters. We are relatively relaxed about physical violence and a bit squeamish about explicit sexual activity, including sexual violence. It is almost the reverse situation in the Nordic countries. A lot of this will lie in education. The real remedy to this issue is making sure that parents take responsibility for what their children see and understand, and talk to them about what they do. To take examples from the list (a) to (o), how on earth are people to judge whether something includes,
“words or images intended or likely to convey a sexual message (ignoring words or images depicting any mild sexual behaviour)”—
a point picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe? How are they to judge whether it affects,
“an animal that exists or has existed in real life”?
How far back do we want to go? The same goes for whether a human is being represented in proper description or in matchstick format. These can be very trivial or very difficult matters and should not take us away from the importance of making sure that children are not unreasonably exposed to images that they should not receive. On the other hand, I think that there are ways of doing it. It might have been better if the approach taken had been to try to work with what the BBFC has published as its principal guidelines without attempting to define them in a way that is bound to cause trouble.
Those were my three points, but as I said at the start of my speech, I am not against the direction of travel. I shall look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
25th Anniversary of the World Wide Web
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, not only on opening this debate in such an inspiring way but on so successfully carrying out her role as the Government’s UK digital champion.
The use of the internet in the UK climbs inexorably. We celebrated the universality of the web at the Olympic opening ceremony with Sir Tim Berners-Lee tweeting, “This is for everyone”—a phrase mentioned by the noble Baroness—which was instantly spelled out in lights attached to the tablets on the seats of the 80,000 people in the audience. I absolutely share the noble Baroness’s concern to ensure that no one is excluded.
Having come to the web myself some 20 years ago, and now standing here with my iPad with all its apps, I still find the speed of developments since I first used the Netscape browser quite extraordinary. Sir Tim and the early pioneers of the web deserve huge recognition for setting the open and neutral standards that ensured the growth of the world wide web. However, the development of ethical safeguards and standards now needs to evolve at the same pace as the range of applications. The web is not some kind of foreign country where ordinary rules of conduct do not apply. We need an alignment of online and offline rights and protections. Freedom of expression is a vital principle that needs to be upheld both online and offline but it needs to be balanced with rights of privacy.
One commentator has said that Silicon Valley appears to regard privacy as a “marketable commodity”. The Government, through what we now know about their access to the Prism programme, appear to have a similar view. It is vital that we have maximum control over our own metadata. The UK’s ranking in the World Wide Web Foundation’s Web Index is reduced by concerns over the UK Government’s attitude to privacy rights. I hope that Communications Data Bill will not resurface in its previous form. Therefore, I welcome the campaign, the Web We Want, and the statement of 19 December co-ordinated by the foundation.
I also welcome the recognition by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport of the need for adequate filtering to protect young people from online abuse. However, as was discussed in this House only recently with the Online Safety Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, should we not be making filtering compulsory? Is it enough simply to leave it up to parents to make the choice about appropriate safety features?
There is concern about the content of online music videos, highlighted among others by Reg Bailey in his review into the commercialisation and sexualisation of children. The proposed amendment to the Video Recordings Act is designed to ensure that content presently exempt from classification but unsuitable and potentially harmful for younger children will in future require BBFC classification. However, it covers only hard copy video works. Should not online music videos containing sexual or explicit content be subject to the same age ratings and regulations? As my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has advocated, we also need better guidance for young people about the dangers of online pornography.
I also ask my perennial question to my noble friend the Minister. When can we expect full implementation of the Digital Economy Act 2010 or at least an alternative effective remedy to combat online copyright piracy? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.