Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I have co-signed Amendment 137. I do not need to repeat the arguments that have already been made by those who have spoken before me on it; they were well made, as usual. Again, it seems to expose a gap in where the Government are coming from in this area of activity, which should be at the forefront of all that they do but does not appear to be so.

As has just been said, this may be as simple as putting in an initial clause right up at the front of the Bill. Of course, that reminds me of the battle royal we had with the then Online Safety Bill in trying to get up front anything that made more sense of the Bill. It was another beast that was difficult to ingest, let alone understand, when we came to make amendments and bring forward discussions about it.

My frustration is that we are again talking about stuff that should have been well inside the thinking of those responsible for drafting the Bill. I do not understand why a lot of what has been said today has not already appeared in the planning for the Bill, and I do not think we will get very far by sending amendments back and forward that say the same thing again and again: we will only get the response that this is all dealt with and we should not be so trivial about it. Could we please have a meeting where we get around the table and try and hammer out exactly what it is that we see as deficient in the Bill, to set out very clearly for Ministers where we have red lines—that will make it very easy for them to understand whether they are going to meet them or not—and do it quickly?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the debate on this group emphasises how far behind the curve we are, whether it is by including new provisions in this Bill or by bringing forward an AI Bill—which, after all, was promised in the Government’s manifesto. It emphasises that we are not moving nearly fast enough in thinking about the implications of AI. While we are doing so, I need to declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AI and a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation.

I have followed the progress of AI since 2016 in the capacity of co-chair of the all-party group and chair of the AI Select Committee. We need to move much faster on a whole range of different issues. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, will be here on Wednesday, when we discuss our crawler amendments, because although the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has tabled Amendment 211A, which deals with personality rights, there is also extreme concern about the whole area of copyright. I was tipped off by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, so I was slightly surprised that he did not bring our attention to it: we are clearly due the consultation at any moment on intellectual property, but there seems to be some proposal within it for personality rights themselves. Whether that is a quid pro quo for a much-weakened situation on text and data mining, I do not know, but something appears to be moving out there which may become clear later this week. It seems a strange time to issue a consultation, but I recognise that it has been somewhat delayed.

In the meantime, we are forced to put forward amendments to this Bill trying to anticipate some of the issues that artificial intelligence is increasingly giving rise to. I strongly support Amendments 92, 93, 101 and 105 put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to prevent misuse of Clause 77 by generative AI developers; I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in wanting to see protection for image, likeness and personality; and I very much hope that we will get a positive response from the Minister in that respect.

We have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Stevenson, all of whom have made powerful speeches on previous Bills—the then Online Safety Bill and the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill—to say that children should have special protection in data protection law. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says, we need to move on from the AADC. That was a triumph she gained during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018, but six years later the world looks very different and young people need protection from AI models of the kind she has set out in Amendment 137. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that we need to talk these things through. If it produces an amendment to this Bill that is agreed, all well and good, but it could mean an amendment or part of a new AI Bill when that comes forward. Either way, we need to think constructively in this area because protection of children in the face of generative AI models, in particular, is extremely important.

This group, looking forward to further harms that could be caused by AI, is extremely important on how we can mitigate them in a number of different ways, despite the fact that these amendments appear to deal with quite a disparate group of issues.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name and to speak to my other amendments in this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for signing a number of those amendments, and I am also very grateful to Foxglove Legal and other bodies that have briefed me in preparation for this.

My amendments are in a separate group, and I make no apology for that because although some of these points have indeed been covered in other amendments, my focus is entirely on NHS patient data, partly because it is the subject of a wider debate going on elsewhere about whether value can be obtained for it to help finance the National Health Service and our health in future years. This changes the nature of the relationship between research and the data it is using, and I think it is important that we focus hard on this and get some of the points that have already been made into a form where we can get reasonable answers to the questions that it leaves.

If my amendments are accepted or agreed—a faint hope—they would make it clear beyond peradventure that the consent protections in the Bill apply to the processing of data for scientific research, that a consistent definition of consent is applied and that that consistent definition is the one with which researchers and the public are already familiar and can trust going forward.

The Minister said at the end of Second Reading, in response to concerns I and others raised about research data in general and NHS data in particular, that the provisions in this Bill

“do not alter the legal obligations that apply in relation to decisions about whether to share data”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 196.]

I accept that that may be the intention, and I have discussed this with officials, who make the same point very strongly. However, Clause 68 introduces a novel and, I suggest, significantly watered-down definition of consent in the case of scientific research. Clause 71 deploys this watered-down definition of consent to winnow down the “purpose limitation” where the processing is for the purposes of scientific research in the public interest. Taken together, this means that there has been a change in the legal obligations that apply to the need to obtain consent before data is shared.

Clause 68 amends the pivotal definition of consent in Article 4(11). Instead of consent requiring something express—freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous through clear affirmative action—consent can now be imputed. A data subject’s consent is deemed to meet these strict requirements even when it does not, as long as the consent is given to the processing of personal data for the purposes of an area of scientific research; at the time the consent is sought, it is not possible to identify fully the purposes for which the personal data is to be processed; seeking consent in relation to the area of scientific research is consistent with generally recognised ethical standards relevant to the area of research; and, so far as the intended purposes of the processing allow, the data subject is given the opportunity to consent to processing for only part of the research. These all sound very laudable, but I believe they cut down the very strict existing standards of consent.

Proposed new paragraph 7, in Clause 68, then extends the application of this definition across the regulation:

“References in this Regulation to consent given for a specific purpose (however expressed) include consent described in paragraph 6.”


Thus, wherever you read “consent” in the regulation you can also have imputed consent as set out in proposed new paragraph 6 of Article 4. This means that “consent” within the meaning of proposed new paragraph 6(a)—i.e. the basis for lawful processing—can be imputed consent in the new way introduced by the Bill, so there is a new type of lawful basis for processing.

The Minister is entitled to disagree, of course; I expect him to say that when he comes to respond. I hope that, when he does, he will agree that we share a concern on the importance of giving researchers a clear framework, as it is this uncertainty about the legal framework that could inadvertently act as a barrier to the good research we all need. So my first argument today is that, as drafted, the Bill leaves too much room for different interpretations, which will lead to exactly the kind of uncertainty that the Minister—indeed, all of us—wish to avoid.

As we have heard already, as well as the risk of uncertainty among researchers, there is also the risk of distrust among the general public. The public rightly want and expect to have a say in what uses their data is put to. Past efforts to modernise how the NHS uses data, such as care.data, have been expensive failures, in part because they have failed to win the public’s trust. More than 3.3 million people have already opted out of NHS data sharing under the national data opt-out; that is nearly 8% of the adults who could have been part of surveys. We have talked about the value of our data and being the gold standard or gold attractor for researchers but, if we do not have all the people who could contribute, we are definitely devaluing and debasing that research. Although we want to respect people’s choice as to whether to participate, of course, this enormous vote against research reflects a pretty spectacular failure to win public trust—one that undermines the value and quality of the data, as I said.

So my second point is that watering down the rights of those whose data is held by the NHS will not put that data for research purposes on a sustainable, long-term footing. Surely, we want a different outcome this time. We cannot afford more opt-outs; we want people opting back in. I argue that this requires a different approach—one that wins the public’s trust and gains public consent. The Secretary of State for Health is correct to say that most of the public want to see the better use of health data to help the NHS and to improve the health of the nation. I agree, but he must accept that the figures show that the general public also have concerns about privacy and about private companies exploiting their data without them having a say in the matter. The way forward must be to build trust by genuinely addressing those concerns. There must not be even a whiff of watering down legal protections, so that those concerns can instead be turned into support.

This is also important because NHS healthcare includes some of the most intimate personal data. It cannot make sense for that data to have a lower standard of consent protection going forward if it is being used for research. Having a different definition of consent and a lower standard of consent will inevitably lead to confusion, uncertainty and mistrust. Taken together, these amendments seek to avoid uncertainty and distrust, as well as the risk of backlash, by making it abundantly clear that Article 4 GDPR consent protections apply despite the new wording introduced by this Bill. Further, these are the same protections that apply to other uses of data; they are identical to the protections already understood by researchers and by the public.

I turn now to a couple of the amendments in this group. Amendment 71 seeks to address the question of consent, but in a rather narrow way. I have argued that Clause 68 introduces a novel and significantly watered-down definition of consent in the case of scientific research; proposed new paragraph 7 deploys this watered-down definition to winnow down the purpose limitation. There are broader questions about the wisdom of this, which Amendments 70, 79 and 81 seek to address, but Amendment 71 focuses on the important case of NHS health data.

If the public are worried that their health data might be shared with private companies without their consent, we need an answer to that. We see from the large number of opt-outs that there is already a problem; we have also seen it recently in NHS England’s research on public attitudes to health data. This amendment would ensure that the Bill does not increase uncertainty or fuel patient distrust of plans for NHS data. It would help to build the trust that data-enabled transformation of the NHS requires.

The Government may well retort that they are not planning to share NHS patient data with commercial bodies without patient consent. That is fine, but it would be helpful if, when he comes to respond, the Minister could say that clearly and unambiguously at the Dispatch Box. However, I put it to him that, if he could accept these amendments, the law would in fact reflect that assurance and ensure that any future Government would need to come back to Parliament if they wanted to take a different approach.

It is becoming obvious that whether research is in the public interest will be the key issue that we need to resolve in this Bill, and Amendment 72 provides a proposal. The Bill makes welcome references to health research being in the public interest, but it does not explain how on earth we decide or how that requirement would actually bite. Who makes the assessment? Do we trust a rogue operator to make its own assessment of how its research is in the public interest? What would be examples of the kind of research that the Government expect this requirement to prevent? I look forward to hearing the answer to that, but perhaps it would be more helpful if the Minister responded in a letter. In the interim, this amendment seeks to introduce some procedural clarity about how research will be certified as being in the public interest. This would provide clarity and reassurance, and I commend it to the Minister.

Finally, Amendment 131 seeks to improve the appropriate safeguards that would apply to processing for research, archiving and scientific purposes, including a requirement that the data subject has given consent. This has already been touched on in another amendment, but it is a way of seeking to address the issues that Amendments 70, 79 and 81 are also trying to address. Perhaps the Government will continue to insist that this is addressing a non-existent problem because nothing in Clauses 69 or 71 waters down the consent or purpose limitation protections and therefore the safeguards themselves add nothing. However, as I have said, informed readers of the Bill are interpreting it differently, so spelling out this safeguard would add clarity and avoid uncertainty. Surely such clarity on such an important matter is worth a couple of lines of additional length in a 250-page Bill. If the Government are going to argue that our Amendment 131 adds something objectionable, let them explain what is objectionable about consent protections applying to data processing for these purposes. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 70 to 72, which I signed, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I absolutely share his view about the impact of Clause 68 on the definition of consent and the potential and actual mistrust among the public about sharing of their data, particularly in the health service. It is highly significant that 3.3 million people have opted out of sharing their patient data.

I also very much share the noble Lord’s views about the need for public interest. In a sense, this takes us back to the discussion that we had on previous groups about whether we should add that in a broader sense so not purely for health data or whatever but for scientific research more broadly, as he specifies. I very much support what he had to say.

Broadly speaking, the common factor between my clause stand part and what he said is health data. Data subjects cannot make use of their data rights if they do not even know that their data is being processed. Clause 77 allows a controller reusing data under the auspices of scientific research to not notify a data subject in accordance with Article 13 and 14 rights if doing so

“is impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort”.

We on these Benches believe that Clause 77 should be removed from the Bill. The safeguards are easily circumvented. The newly articulated compatibility test in new Article 8A inserted by Clause 71 that specifies how related the new and existing purposes for data use need to be to permit reuse is essentially automatically passed if it is conducted

“for the purposes of scientific research or historical research”.

This makes it even more necessary for the definition of scientific research to be tightened to prevent abuse.

Currently, data controllers must provide individuals with information about the collection and use of their personal data. These transparency obligations generally do not require the controller to contact each data subject. Such obligations can usually be satisfied by providing privacy information using different techniques that can reach large numbers of individuals, such as relevant websites, social media, local newspapers and so on.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, of course I welcome the fact that the Bill will enable people to register a death in person and online, which was a key recommendation from the UK Commission on Bereavement. I have been asked to table this amendment by Marie Curie; it is designed to achieve improvements to UK bereavement support services, highlighting the significant administrative burden faced by bereaved individuals.

Marie Curie points to the need for a review of the existing Tell Us Once service and the creation of a universal priority service register to streamline death-related notifications across government and private sectors. It argued that the Bill presents an opportunity to address these issues through improved data-sharing and online death registration. Significant statistics illustrate the scale of the problem, showing a large percentage of bereaved people struggling with numerous administrative tasks. It urges the Government, as I do, to commit to implementing those changes to reduce the burden on bereaved families.

Bereaved people face many practical and administrative responsibilities and tasks after a death, which are often both complex and time sensitive. This Bill presents an opportunity to improve the way in which information is shared between different public and private service providers, reducing the burden of death administration.

When someone dies, the Tell Us Once service informs the various parts of national and local government that need to know. That means the local council stops charging council tax, the DVLA cancels the driving licence, the Passport Office cancels the passport, et cetera. Unfortunately, Tell Us Once is currently not working across all Government departments and does not apply to Northern Ireland. No updated equality impact assessment has ever been undertaken. While there are death notification services in the private sector, they are severely limited by not being a public service programme—and, as a result, there are user costs associated, adding to bereaved people’s financial burden and penalising the most struggling families. There is low public awareness and take-up among all these services, as well as variable and inconsistent provision by the different companies. The fact that there is not one service for all public and private sector notifications means that dealing with the deceased’s affairs is still a long and painful process.

The Bill should be amended to require Ministers to carry out a review into the current operation and effectiveness of the Tell Us Once service, to identify any gaps in its operation and provisions and make recommendations as to how the scope of the service could be expanded. Priority service registers are voluntary schemes which utility companies create to ensure that extra help is available to certain vulnerable customers. The previous Government recognised that the current PSRs are disjointed, resource intensive and duplicative for companies, carrying risks of inconsistencies and can be “burdensome for customers”.

That Government concluded that there is “significant opportunity to improve the efficiencies and delivery of these services”. The Bill is an opportunity for this Government to confirm their commitment to implementing a universal priority services register and delivering any legislative measures required to facilitate it. A universal PSR service must include the interests of bereaved people within its scope, and charitable voluntary organisations such as Marie Curie, which works to support bereaved people, should be consulted in its development.

I have some questions to the Minister. First, what measures does this Bill introduce that will reduce the administrative burden on bereaved people after the death of a loved one? Secondly, the Tell Us Once service was implemented in 2010 and the original equality impact assessment envisaged that its operation should be kept under review to reflect the changing nature of how people engage with public services, but no review has ever happened. Will the Minister therefore commit the Government to undertake a review of Tell Us Once? Thirdly, the previous Government’s Smarter Regulation White Paper committed to taking forward a plan to create a “shared once” support register, which would bring together priority service registers. Will the Minister commit this Government to taking that work forward? I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, it occurred to me when the noble Lord was speaking that we had lost a valuable member of our Committee. This could not be the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who was speaking to us just then. It must have been some form of miasma or technical imposition. Maybe his identity has been stolen and not been replaced. Normally, the noble Lord would have arrived with a short but punchy speech that set out in full how the new scheme was to be run, by whom, at what price, what its extent would be and the changes that would result. The Liberal future it may have been, but it was always delightful to listen to. I am sad that all the noble Lord has asked for here is a modest request, which I am sure the noble Baroness will want to jump to and accept, to carry out a review—as if we did not have enough of those.

Seriously, I once used the service that we have been talking about when my father-in-law died, and I found it amazing. It was also one that I stumbled on and did not know about before it happened. Deaths did not happen often enough in my family to make me aware of it. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I felt that it should have done much more than what it did, although it was valuable for what it did. It also occurred to me, as life moved on and we produced children, that there would be a good service when introducing a new person—a service to tell you once about that, because the number of tough issues one has to deal with when children are born is also extraordinary and can be annoying, if you miss out on one—particularly with the schooling issues, which are more common these days than they were when my children were being born.

I endorse what was said, and regret that the amendment perhaps did not go further, but I hope that the Minister when she responds will have good news for us.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage
Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is very good to see the full team back on the trading standards amendments. I congratulate all three noble Lords on their championing of trading standards. They need the powers that are being argued for in these amendments; they are the unsung champions of the consumer, and we should support them.

My main purpose in rising is to speak to Amendments 69, 91, 92 and 152. As regards Amendment 69, on misleadingly similar parasitic packaging, it was encouraging to hear the Minister confirm in Committee that the prohibition of misleading actions in Clause 224 and the banned practice in paragraph 14 of Schedule 19 will address the long-standing unaddressed practice of misleadingly similar packaging.

However, those provisions matter little if they are not enforced. During consultations and the debate on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the then Government stressed that public enforcement would be effective and efficient. This has not proved to be the case, with just one enforcement action by trading standards in 2008—albeit a successful one. If shoppers are to be protected from this misleading practice, there must be a realistic expectation that the Bill’s provisions will be enforced.

Historically, the Government have placed the duty on public enforcers. That is unrealistic, as trading standards face diminishing resources. The CMA stated clearly that misleadingly similar packaging is a consumer protection, not an IP, issue, following its investigation of the groceries market in 2008. Yet is has undertaken no hard or soft enforcement and did not include it in its recent scrutiny of the grocery sector; there is no sign that it will take a different approach in the future. There are no other realistic public enforcement options available. For the Bill to make a difference, it is essential that affected branded companies are granted powers to bring civil cases using the Bill’s provisions on the specific practice of misleadingly similar packaging alone. It has been ignored by public enforcers for the last 15 years, despite the many examples that appear year on year. Granting affected brand owners such powers would mean that shoppers would have the protection envisaged by the Bill, and affected brand owners would have more effective redress at no cost to the taxpayer.

Amendments 91 and 92 concern an area of concern for the retail industry, expressed by its representative body, the British Retail Consortium, in which I was an active participant more years ago than I care to remember. The well-established and well-used primary authority system enables a business to request assured advice from a primary authority that it has appointed. Provided that the business follows the advice, it cannot be prosecuted by any local authority for its actions. Under the Bill, the CMA will receive additional powers on consumer protection, whereby it will move to administrative fines that are potentially very high. I am informed that the CMA currently refuses either to provide assured advice of its own or to accept primary authority advice. It says that it may not agree with the advice and that it would be too costly, ignoring the fact that it is at a cost to the business. That undermines the primary authority system and will do so even further when the CMA receives its new fining powers because businesses will feel unable to rely totally on primary authority advice for what they are doing in the overlapping areas.

The amendments attempt to deal with that, either by requiring the CMA to provide assured advice itself, as set out in Amendment 91, or, perhaps more practically, by accepting primary authority advice as binding up to the point that it may be repealed if it is shown to be inaccurate, as set out in Amendment 92. That would mean that a business could rely on it for anything it does up to any repeal. It should also be remembered that the CMA can, if it wishes, act as a supporting regulator, whereby it can be called on to provide its view to a primary authority when that authority is looking at providing advice in an area of relevance and overlap to the CMA.

Finally, it should be noted that the CMA has decided to provide what is, in effect, assured advice on competition matters in the sustainability area; namely, it has agreed not to prosecute a business that seeks its advice and follows it in a small area on the competition side. This means that, in principle, the CMA does not seem to be opposed to such an approach. Green claims on the consumer side are a key area of uncertainty for business, an area where assured advice would in fact be most useful.

I turn to my final amendment, Amendment 152. As I explained in Committee, standard essential patents are patents that are necessary to implement an industry standard, such as wifi or 5G. Because the market is locked into a standard, and to prevent abuse of the market power that this situation conveys, SEP owners are required to license their SEPs on fair terms. Unfortunately, there is widespread abuse of this monopoly power by SEP holders. The principal issue raised with me by the Fair Standards Alliance is the threat of injunctions; the costs to many businesses can be ruinous. This tactic not only threatens innovation by UK businesses but represents a strategic risk for UK priorities, such as 5G infrastructure diversification and smart energy network security, by limiting the competing players. The availability of injunctions for SEPs gives foreign SEP holders the ability to prevent others in the UK from entering, succeeding and innovating in those markets.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, gave a somewhat encouraging response in Committee—I keep using the word “encouraging” about his responses, although I keep hoping for better—to the effect that the Government would set out their thinking in the very near future, and that that would include the question of injunctions.

After many months of consultation, the IPO has published its 2024 forward look on this issue. It has reported its findings to Ministers and has agreed key objectives concerning SEPs. Those are

“helping implementers, especially SMEs, navigate and better understand the SEPs ecosystem and Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing … improving transparency in the ecosystem, both pricing and essentiality; and … achieving greater efficiency in respect of dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation”.

Although the IPO has confirmed that SMEs are especially disadvantaged by the current SEP regulations, it states, disappointingly, on injunctions that

“we have concluded that we will not be consulting on making legislative changes to narrow the use of injunctions in SEPs disputes”,

with very limited justification for the decision, saying simply that it was taken after

“careful consideration of the evidence, operation of relevant legal frameworks and international obligations”.

The Coalition for App Fairness has pointed out to me that a day after the IPO announcement, the European Parliament voted by a large majority to approve its own SEP regulation. The EU framework will include the creation of an SEP register, database and essentiality checks; a defined maximum total royalty for an SEP; and an independent, expert-led conciliation process to establish the fair price for SEPs, which, crucially, will block the use of injunctions while the process is taking place. That seems entirely appropriate. The EU has proved that such a regulatory regime can be delivered; why cannot the UK Government, with all the freedom of Brexit? What is the basis for the IPO decision? What evidence, legal frameworks and international obligations prevent it from dealing with and legislating on injunctions? Why cannot the IPO likewise establish a truly fair SEP licensing ecosystem?

The least the Government can do is give more detail to the many SMEs affected by this decision. The forward look states, rather lamely:

“The IPO will continue engagement with relevant industry and institutions to continue to inform our ongoing policy development and implementation of those actions set out above”.


What on earth does that entail? That is pretty mealy-mouthed. What benefit will there be from that?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a wide-ranging group; there is good news hidden in the middle of it, and bad news—we will have to wait for the Minister to respond to get a full picture. Others have spoken in some depth and so I will not try to repeat what has been said. I certainly will not try to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whose expertise exceeds the combination of everybody’s in the Chamber at present. On SEPs, I can only stand back in amazement that he has been able to understand what is being recommended by the IPO, let alone to have come forward with a plan that might take us a bit further down the track that we clearly ought to have gone down.

I turn first to the questions the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised, which cut to the heart of what, is in some senses, the purpose of the Bill. I am afraid that she rather weakened her case at the end by saying that it was a much broader basis for debate and discussion than could be encompassed within this Bill; I think she saw it primarily as a way of continuing a much larger battle, and I wish her well with that. In that sense, we do not need to take this forward. However, I hope that the Government are taking note of the impacts that some of the provisions in the Bill are having, in the sense that it is not achieving the aims and objectives, which I think we all share, of making sure that we reduce carbon and try to meet targets which have been set for us in the long term on this. Therefore, greenwashing will continue, but we hope that it will be better in scope and that the focus will be more across the range of government activity.

On imitation packaging, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, said, we have also been discussing this for a number of years in various Bills as they have come forward, and it is good that the assertion now is that in Clause 224 and Schedule 19, there will be help. However, the question is, of course, enforcement. I would be grateful if, when the Minister comes to respond, he could give us a bit more information about how that might happen in practice.

The questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and supported by “the team”, as it was described, are a continuation of debates and discussions we have been having in this House for as long as I have been here—and I certainly have participated in them. It is good to see the government amendments in as far as they go, but the three remaining questions, as raised in Amendments 99, 100 and 101, need answers. I hope the Minister will expand on where the Government have taken us so far and give us some assurances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister has a full brief about the nature of the available enforcement. Will he write to me to provide a few more particulars and give more assurance in this respect?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, it is important that we unpick the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I think was touched on but not addressed by the Minister. If we rely on civil remedies, we are not really addressing the problem that there is, in effect, an opportunity, for those who wish to, to exercise criminality; this surely cannot be left to the civil courts.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

As some clarification is required, I am happy to write further on the matter.

Amendments 70, 71 and 93 to 98 are technical government amendments. The Bill empowers the courts to impose monetary penalties for a breach of consumer law and procedures. To accommodate the different processes by which court orders are served or enforced in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the amendments provide that prescribed penalty information may accompany an order in a separate notice, as well as being contained within it.

On government Amendments 72 to 90, on online interface and the powers of consumer law enforcers to tackle illegal content, I thank noble Lords who have contributed on this important issue. I am pleased to bring forward government Amendments 72 to 90 to give all public designated enforcers take-down powers to tackle infringing online content. The amendments enact the commitment made by the Government in their recent consultation response.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendments 91 and 92. Amendment 91 would require the CMA to provide advice on a business’s compliance with consumer law on request. It would also prevent enforcement action by any enforcer if the advice were complied with. The CMA already provides general guidance and advice on compliance. It is businesses’ responsibility to comply with the law, referring to guidance and seeking independent legal advice where necessary. It would not be appropriate to transform the CMA into a bespoke legal advice service. The amendment would also drain CMA resources from much-needed enforcement activity. Moreover, Amendment 92 compels the CMA to accept primary authority advice received by a business where that advice has been complied with. It is common practice for the CMA to consult the primary authority before taking action; this strikes the right balance and avoids binding the CMA to such advice, thus inappropriately neutering its discretion. I hope the noble Lord will agree that the purpose of a direct enforcement regime is for the CMA to enforce faster and more frequently; these amendments would diminish this objective and remove the deterrent effects of the regime.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

The Minister is very generous.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I think there is quite a lot of meat in what the Minister said just now, both in respect of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and my amendment.

I appreciate that we have a set of moving parts here, including the response to the consultation on smarter regulation, improving consumer price transparency and product information for consumers, which came out this morning.

The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was quite interesting. However, if what the Minister said about the conduct requirements in Clause 20 is to be put into effect, I suggest that he has to bring forward amendments on Report which reflect the response to the consultation. I do not think this can be done just as a sort of consumer protection at the back end of the Bill; it has to be about corporate conduct, and at the Clause 20 end of the Bill.

Obviously, we will all read the words of the Minister very carefully in Hansard. It is interesting. I have written down: “Why are we kicking the tyres on Clause 20?” As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, this is absolutely central to the Bill. Basically, it could not be more important; getting this clause right from the outset will be so important. This is why not only we but the CMA will be poring over this, to make sure that this wording absolutely gives it the powers that it needs.

I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. These are very important powers, and we have to make sure that they are used properly, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, that the powers are there. Otherwise, what are we spending our time here in Committee doing, if we are going to put forward a Bill that is not fit for purpose? We have to make sure that we have those powers. I like what the Minister had to say in reference to the Clause 20(3)(a) provision. Again, when people look at Pepper v Hart and so on, that will be an important statement at the end of the day.

We have certainly managed to elicit quite a useful response from the Minister, but we want more. We want amendments coming down the track on Report which reflect some of the undertakings in the response to the consultation on consumer price transparency and product information for consumers.

The only other thing to say—exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has said—is that comments about the consultation are that it was half a loaf. There is a whole lot more to be said on drip pricing. We have a discussion coming down the track on that, and we will reserve our fire until then.

Online Safety (List of Overseas Regulators) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. We all welcome the fact that the Bill is now an Act, of course. In a sense, these regulations are the first swallow of spring. We have many more affirmative SIs to come, I have no doubt, along with the codes of conduct that will eventually come to us in their final form. Like the Minister, I very much hope that we will proceed at speed in how we implement the terms of the Act.

Although this SI looks quite narrow in what it is about, it raises the whole question of co-operation between regulators. It is not just going to be about Ofcom helping overseas regulators, as set out in the regulations, in what they do; obviously, the Communications Act provisions will be important as well. It would be useful if the Minister could give us an idea of the areas of co-operation between the regulators that he thinks would be particularly fruitful. For instance, relationships with the Irish regulator will be extremely important in understanding how the DSA is working for it. How might its redress mechanism work? The DSA has explicit redress mechanisms under it whereas we are going to be working towards that in future; that is quite a long way away.

As the Minister will recall, other aspects are still somewhat inchoate under the Act. There is the question of research, which is an important area. How is that working? How are the other regulators seeing it operate? There is also the app store aspect, the other area of the Act that is not quite there in the way that its other parts are. It would be useful if the Minister could give us an idea of the areas that Ofcom will be working on.

I very much welcome the Minister’s assurances about the use of personal data and the kind of information that will be available. I assume that this will be of some importance, and that these case studies will involve some of the category 1 platforms to be discussed between the regulators. They will be helpful in making sure that, on an international basis, we see conformity by these large platforms to the kinds of regulation that are being installed. Does the Minister have an idea about the scale of the exchange of information that will be required? Clearly, it will require some resource by Ofcom in making security absolutely certain and being able to deliver on the assurances that the Minister has given.

Finally, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether other candidates will be coming down the track. Clearly, this instrument sets out the key regulators. Might others come along that are a speck in the eye, or does the Minister think that we have pretty much settled who the key regulators are and that, for the moment, they will be the ones with which we will co-operate under the terms of this SI?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in welcoming this SI, and I thank the Minister for his kind comments about the work that went into the Bill. I share with him our pleasure that it is now in force and up and running; this instrument is proof positive that it is indeed so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I have many questions about what is happening, but certainly no objections to what is proposed.

The helpful Explanatory Memorandum explains that the context for this instrument is

“the global nature of service providers”

and how they operate. In that sense, I recognise that there are some gaps as regards the areas from where difficulties and troubles might come. For instance, Poland and parts of the eastern European bloc are thought to be centres from which emanate quite a lot of damage and a certain amount of material that is almost certainly illegal, yet I see no reference to any organisation—maybe there is none—that might be able to help Ofcom explore what is happening there. I am also concerned about Canada, because it hosts the biggest—I think—pornography company in the world. Again, I would have thought it would be helpful to Ofcom to be able to contact a collaborative organisation in Canada to work with, but I do not see one in the list.

That leads me on to another, related point. There is, and has been for some time, a network of likeminded organisations with which Ofcom has worked well in the past. There is a list of them on its website. Not all of them are in the Government’s proposals before us, and I wonder whether that in any way reflects a clash of views by the Government. Perhaps the Minster will comment on why we do not see Korea or South Africa, for instance. I would have thought that at least those with which Ofcom has a good working relationship at the moment should have been close to appointment. Perhaps there is some sort of competition there or element that I am not aware of. Any light that could be shed on that would be helpful.

Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the SI very helpfully specifies that these regulations have certain minimum standards by which they are judged—a point picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I felt they were very appropriate to the ones that the Minister mentioned, including the bespoke regulatory framework itself,

“whether its autonomy is protected in law; and whether the … jurisdiction that empowers them, upholds international human rights”.

These are all good things, and I am pleased to see them mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum and referenced in his speech.

That raises the question: what happens if any of these organisations depart from these standards? Will another procedure or SI be required to remove them from the list, or would they just cease to be part of the group with which Ofcom discusses things? It would be helpful to have on the record some idea of what the procedure would be if that were required.

My last two points are relatively small. There is a hint that more regulators will be considered and brought forward. That is good; I think we are all in favour of more places, since, as has been said, this is a global issue. What is the timing of that, roughly? Perhaps we could have some speculative ideas about it.

Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, this is the first of many SIs coming forward for consideration by the House. In Committee on the Bill, we discussed at length how Parliament could be involved. This SI is probably not a very good example of that, but in the codes of practice considerable work will be required by Parliament to make sure that the affirmative resolutions are properly researched and discussed.

The proposal we made, which was accepted by the noble Viscount’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was the Parkinson rule: that the statutory instruments would, in fact, be offered to the standing committees. I do not think that would have been necessary for this instrument; I just wonder whether that is still in progress and whether it is the Government’s intention to honour the idea announced at the Dispatch Box that the legwork for many of the substantial SIs that will come forward could be done with advantage by the committees, which would inform the debates required in both Houses before these instruments can be approved. I look forward to hearing from the noble Viscount whether that is likely to happen.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

As ever, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. Needless to say, it is vital that we recognise the global nature of regulated service providers under the Online Safety Act. This SI will ensure that Ofcom can co-operate and share online safety information with specified overseas regulators where appropriate.

As set out, we will review on an ongoing basis whether it is desirable and appropriate to add further overseas regulators to the list. That is an ongoing activity. I anticipate that, as more and more jurisdictions enter the online safety regulation business, we will see an acceleration of the rate at which they can join on the lines we have set out.

I will now respond to some of the specific questions raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the types of information that Ofcom might share using this mechanism. The Government anticipate Ofcom being able to share information and co-operate with other regulators, which will lead to international regulatory co-operation, which is likely to reduce the regulatory burden on Ofcom, as well as international counterparts—for example, in relation to duties that are quite similar between regulators, such as duties to deal with illegal content. I anticipate that being a particular focus of their co-operative activities.

Positive benefits may also result from Ofcom supporting overseas regulators in carrying out their online safety regulatory functions and co-operating with relevant criminal investigations or proceedings. That co-operation might address a source of harm for UK users—for example, preventing malign actors disseminating suicide and self-harm content on regulated services.

Regarding the scale of the exchange, Ofcom itself would have discretion as to the scale of the information sharing that takes place through these provisions. However, it is likely to be beneficial to both Ofcom and its regulatory counterparts to engage in information exchange of this nature.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on why certain regulators have not been added, we will of course work closely with Ofcom and other stakeholders. He raised a number of interesting examples that would have been quite tempting to add to the list of criteria applied by us, which we, along with Ofcom, produced for the time being but on an ongoing basis. The intention is to review that to add other regulators that can add value in this way.

Design Right, Artist’s Resale Right and Copyright (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 20th November 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty; I wholeheartedly agree with everything that he said. I should say from the outset that we on these Benches support both sets of regulations, which will, I hope, gladden the Minister’s heart as we start debating them.

There are, however, a number of points to be made in relation to them. I very much support what the noble Earl had to say about DACS, the not-for-profit visual artists’ rights management organisation. It recently helpfully published a report that highlights the pivotal role that artists’ resale rights play in supporting artists and the wider art market. As the noble Earl said, they have been somewhat controversial in the past, but, now that they have been included in trade agreements, I feel confident that they are now bolted fully into our intellectual and moral property rights. They are an absolutely vital source of income for many artists. The noble Earl talked about more than £120 million in ARR royalties, directly benefiting more than 6,000 artists and their heirs. Artists selling at the lower end of the art market benefit in particular from ARR: two-thirds of ARR payments in 2021 were less than £500 and 10% of artists received ARR royalties for the first time that year.

I will not repeat most of the rest of what the noble Earl had to say, just that I very much agree with a great deal of what he said. More than 90 countries worldwide have implemented some form of ARR legislation so we are in good company as regards what I see as this moral right. We have heard about the trade agreements; it would be useful to get from the Minister an idea of which agreements we have included this in. Christian Zimmermann, the CEO of DACS is definitely worth quoting. He said:

“The Artist’s Resale Right is more than a legislative mandate—it is a commitment to fairness, a recognition of the value of artists’ contributions, and an indispensable support for artists and their estates.”


The Minister may notice that I have used pounds sterling in my figures throughout so, naturally, I support that aspect of these regulations and, of course, the other aspects that are provided for in the regulations.

The Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 are, in many senses, a much weightier aspect of the regulations we are considering today. I am grateful to the Alliance for Intellectual Property and the British Brands Group for providing briefings and, indeed, their strong views on these issues. I know that the Minister will have heard many of their arguments in person but I want to put on record those views, with which, I should say, I and the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Intellectual Property strongly agree.

Members of both groups strongly consider that the status quo will deliver the strongest overall outcomes for shoppers, business and the UK economy. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the UK Government now have control over the exhaustion regime. As the Alliance for Intellectual Property says, the importance of the decision on which exhaustion regime the Government choose cannot be underestimated. Although it seems a technical area of policy, it will have a real-life impact on businesses, consumers and regulatory authorities across the UK. Exhaustion regimes have the greatest impact on export-driven UK sectors as they underpin their ability to determine when, how and what goods to sell in international markets and at what price.

The noble Earl quoted the publishing sector. Industries of that kind are particularly successful at exporting; for example, the UK book sector derives 60% of its income from exports. We have heard that the Government have consulted on which regime the UK should select. In January 2022, the Government made an interim decision to select a UK+ regime that would maintain existing protections. As we have heard, this statutory instrument is being introduced by the Government relating to that interim decision. As the Minister said, though, the Government have not made a final decision on which regime to choose but are likely to announce their decision in the next few months. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of the time in which he expects that decision to be made.

The British Brands Group believes that advice from officials is to make the interim decision permanent—at least, that is its impression—which would be widely welcomed. I want to take this opportunity to voice support for the interim decision and express concerns regarding any shift to an international regime that might arise in future. I am not going to explain what the alternatives are; I do not think I need to. National exhaustion is one alternative and international exhaustion is another; neither is practical nor attractive.

The current regime is regional exhaustion, an approach that has been working well for 50 years. Rights are exhausted once goods are placed on the UK or EU market, although they can be used to prevent the distribution of goods placed on markets outside those countries. This status quo operates well, as we know; it strikes us on these Benches and those organisations as proportionate, hence our strong support. The SI rightly provides for an IP exhaustion regime meaning that the holders of trademarks would not be able to object to the further distribution of their goods once they are placed on the market in the UK and the EU. They would, however, be able to object to imports from other countries.

The Government’s decision on the UK’s future exhaustion regime will be among the most important taken in relation to intellectual property policy during this Parliament. Its impact will affect businesses, consumers and regulatory authorities across the UK; as I have said, it will particularly affect export-driven UK sectors as it underpins their ability to determine how and what goods to sell in international markets and at what price.

Any shift to an international regime would also affect many of the UK’s leading design and branded goods companies. This would make it significantly more difficult to launch new products in countries around the world as those firms would not be able to vary pricing at launch for fear of those products re-entering the UK. A move to an international regime would also lead to consumer confusion since product and regulatory standards differ across countries internationally. Any “free for all” in parallel imports to the UK would undermine the UK’s product standards regulatory framework and would create uncertainty and confusion for the public.

Opponents of maintaining the status quo and supporters of an international regime suggest that there would be a reduction in pricing for consumers from an increase in parallel imports. Where parallel imports occur currently, in contravention of our regime, prices are not lower. As an example, you occasionally see bottles of Coca-Cola with foreign language labelling in some small shops but at the same pricing as compliant products.

We believe that the retail supply chain, including wholesalers and parallel importers, would therefore be the major beneficiary, rather than the UK public. The cost-benefit equation is likely to be between established creative industry sectors that find their home in the UK market but could choose to move elsewhere against a parallel import sector that does not currently exist and would not even need to be located on UK shores, nor to create UK jobs.

In summary, an international exhaustion regime would represent a significant policy shift away from innovation and growth. It would weaken competition, harm consumers and not help lower consumer prices, in our view. The SI as drafted sustains the current exhaustion regime until the Government confirm their long-term policy approach. The most recent government consultation identified no evidence at all to support a change in regime, so this debate is important.

I hope that the Minister, IPO and others in government resist calls for any change that could reduce IP rights holders’ ability to influence the distribution of their products in markets outside the EU and weaken their IP rights. A change in the UK’s trademark exhaustion regime would be a significant policy shift negatively affecting consumers, brand owners, UK exporters and public enforcement agencies, while not reducing inflation. I hope the Minister has got my message that this would not be a welcome change away from the current exhaustion regime.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I apologise for my slightly late arrival at the Committee. I hope that it was not noted too carefully, but we are doing two SIs as one group and I was here for the whole second part. I hope that that qualifies me to speak.

Also, it would be a terrible shame not to recapture the spirit of a few years ago, when a little group of three of four colleagues, including the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, debated a number of issues to do with intellectual property that came up at that time. It was interesting that a group from within the confines of Parliament then was able to get together and become quite expert at some of these issues. We had some very enjoyable debates and some of these issues have played out again today. Those who benefited from going on that journey gained a lot of knowledge and expertise, so I am not able to stun the Committee with some new insights; they have largely been covered by those who have built up their expertise from the same route that I have been on, so what I would say would be otiose.

I will congratulate both the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for covering the points I would otherwise have made and piggyback on them to save the time of the Committee, which is a good thing.

However, it is interesting that we are still talking about issues that were live three or four years ago. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, remembers them with some interest. We are still not clear what distinguishes our particular configuration of design rights. I still worry about those and hope that the department is working on a way forward with some of them. We had some clarity when we were thinking, within the EU context, of a way of trying to balance the difference between those which operated within the UK only and those that were being developed in Europe but were not able to go back to that. I do not think we quite got over the variations that can occur between the triad of patent, trademark and intellectual property in other forms, because they bump into each other. Although they have been dealt with rather well within these statutory instruments, there are occasions when they point in different directions and it is very hard to get a sense of the Government’s policy on them. There is still a need to do more work on that.

In turning to the SIs before us today, I want to raise a very narrow point on design right, ARR and copyright, from the Explanatory Memorandum. Although the noble Viscount touched on this in his introduction, he did not spend a lot of time on it. It is a question of broadly taking forward the arrangements that existed before we left the EU and making them slightly up to date as we go forward. I have no problem with the Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations 1989, which were notably not mentioned by my two colleagues nor dealt with in any detail. That is a sensible move forward. We covered ARR and the copyright tribunal rules in some detail. That is a good change and an important way forward.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage
Wednesday 19th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State, when seeking to exercise certain powers in the Bill, to provide the relevant Select Committees of both Houses with draft regulations and impact assessments, among other things. I should admit up front that this is a blatant attempt to secure an Online Safety Bill version of what I have called the “Grimstone rule”, established in the international trade Bill a few years ago. Saving his blushes, if the ideas enshrined in the amendment are acceptable to the Government, I hope that the earlier precedent of the “Grimstone rule” would ensure that any arrangements agreed under this amendment would be known in future as the “Parkinson rule”. Flattery will get you many things.

The Bill places a specific consultation requirement on the Government for the fee regime, which we were just talking about, categorisation thresholds, regulations about reports to the NCA, statements of strategic priorities, regulations for super-complaints, and a review of the Act after three years—so a wide range of issues need to be put out for consultation. My context here, which is all-important, is a growing feeling that Parliament’s resources are not being deployed to the full in scrutinising and reviewing the work of the Executive on the one hand and feeding knowledge and experience into future policy on the other. There is continuing concern about the effectiveness of the secondary legislation approval procedures, which this amendment would bear on.

Noble Lords have only to read the reports of the Select Committees of both Houses to realise what a fantastic resource they represent. One has only to have served on a Select Committee to realise what potential also exists there. In an area of rapid technical and policy development, such as the digital world, the need to be more aware of future trends and potential problems is absolutely crucial.

The pre-legislative scrutiny committee report is often quoted here, and it drew attention to this issue as well, recommending

“a Joint Committee of both Houses to oversee digital regulation with five primary functions: scrutinising digital regulators and overseeing the regulatory landscape … scrutinising the Secretary of State’s work into digital regulation; reviewing the codes of practice laid by Ofcom under any legislation relevant to digital regulation … considering any relevant new developments such as the creation of new technologies and the publication of independent research … and helping to generate solutions to ongoing issues in digital regulation”—

a pretty full quiver of issues to be looked at.

I hope that when he responds to this debate, the Minister will agree that ongoing parliamentary scrutiny would be helpful in providing reassurances that the implementation of the regime under the Bill is going as intended, and that the Government would also welcome a system under which Parliament, perhaps through the Select Committees, can contribute to the ways suggested by the Joint Committee. I say “perhaps”, because I accept that it is not appropriate for primary legislation to dictate how, or in what form, Parliament might offer advice in the manner that I have suggested; hence the suggestion embedded in the amendment—which I will not be pressing to a Division—which I call the “Parkinson rule”. Under this, the Minister would agree at the Dispatch Box a series of commitments which will provide an opportunity for enhanced cross-party scrutiny of the online safety regime and an opportunity to survey and report on future developments of interest.

The establishment of the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and its Select Committee means that there is a new dedicated Select Committee in the Commons. The Lords Communications and Digital Committee will continue, I hope, to play a vital role in the scrutiny of the digital world, as it has with the online safety regime to date. While it would be for the respective committees to decide their priorities, I hope the Government would encourage the committees in both Houses to respond to their required consultation processes and to look closely at the draft codes of practice, the uses of regulation-making powers and the powers of direction contained in the Bill ahead of the formal processes in both Houses. Of course, it could be a specialist committee if that is what the Houses decide, but there is an existing arrangement under which this “Parkinson rule” could be embedded. I have discussed the amendment with the Minister and with the Bill team. I look forward to hearing their response to the ideas behind the amendment. I beg to move the “Parkinson rule”.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to build a legislative monument. I hope he will take it. The reason I associate myself with it is because the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—who has been sparing in his quoting of the Joint Committee’s report, compared with mine—referred to it and it all made very good sense.

The amendment stumbles only in the opinion of the Government, it seems, on the basis that parliamentary committees need to be decided on by Parliament, rather than the Executive. But this is a very fine distinction, in my view, given that the Government, in a sense, control the legislature and therefore could will the means to do this, even if it was not by legislation. A nod from the Minister would ensure that this would indeed take place. It is very much needed. It was the Communications and Digital Committee, I think, that introduced the idea that we picked up in the Joint Committee, so it has a very good provenance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. My noble friend has spoken very cogently to Amendment 258ZA, and I say in answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness that I do not think this is designed to make big tech companies content. What it is designed to do is bring this out into the open and make it contestable; to see whether or not privacy is being invaded in these circumstances. To that extent it airs the issues and goes quite a long way towards allaying the concerns of those 80 organisations that we have heard from.

I am not going to repeat all the arguments of my noble friend, but many noble Lords, not least on the opposite Benches, have taken us through some of the potential security and privacy concerns which were also raised by my noble friends, and other reasons for us on these Benches putting forward these amendments. We recognise those concerns and indeed we recognise concerns on both sides. We have all received briefs from the NSPCC and the IWF, but I do not believe that essentially what is being proposed here in our amendments, or indeed by the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, are designed in any way to prevent Ofcom doing its duty in relation to child sexual abuse and exploitation material in private messaging. We believe that review by the ICO to ensure that there is no invasion of privacy is a very useful mechanism.

We have all tried to find solutions and the Minister has put forward his stab at this with the skilled persons report. The trouble is, that does not go far enough, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said. Effectively, Ofcom can choose the skilled person and what the skilled person is asked to advise on. It is not necessarily comprehensive and that is essentially the major flaw.

As regards the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, it is interesting that the Equality and Human Rights Commission itself said:

“We are concerned by the extent and seriousness of CSEA content being shared online. But these proposed measures may be a disproportionate infringement on millions of individuals’ right to privacy where those individuals are not suspected of any wrongdoing”.


It goes on to say:

“We recommend that Ofcom should be required to apply to an independent judicial commissioner—as is the case for mass surveillance under the Investigatory Powers Act”.


I am sure that is the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, put forward his amendments; if he put them to a vote, we would follow and support. Otherwise, we will put our own amendments to the House.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been—since we first got sight of the Bill and right the way through—one of the most difficult issues to try to find balance and a solution. I know that people have ridiculed my attempt to try and get people to speak less in earlier amendments. Actually, in part it was so we could have a longer debate here—so the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, should not be so cross with me, and I hope that we can continue to be friends, as we are outside the Chamber, on all points, not just this one.

Talk is not getting us to a solution on this, unfortunately. I say to the Minister: I wonder whether there is a case here for pausing a little bit longer on this, because I still do not think we have got to the bottom of where the balance lies. I want to explain why I say that, because, in a way, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, in worrying that there are some deeper questions here that we have not quite got the answers to. Nothing in the current amendments gets us to quite the right place.

I started by thinking that, if only because Ofcom was being seen to be placed in a position of both being a part of the regulatory process, but also having the rights to interpose itself into where this issue about encryption came up, Ofcom needed the safety of an external judicial review along the lines of the current RIPA system. That has led us to my Amendments 256, 257 and 259, which try to distil that sensibility into a workable frame for the Bill and these issues. I will not push it to a vote. It is there because I wanted to have in the discussion a proper look at what the RIPA proposal would look like in practice.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage
Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. Beyond peradventure my noble friend Lord Allan and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have demonstrated powerfully the perils of this clause. “Lawyers’ caution” is one of my noble friend’s messages to take away, as is the complexities in making these judgments. It was interesting when he mentioned the sharing for awareness’s sake of certain forms of content and the judgments that must be taken by platforms. His phrase “If in doubt, take it out” is pretty chilling in free speech terms—I think that will come back to haunt us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, the wrong message is being delivered by this clause. It is important to have some element of discretion here and not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, a cliff edge. We need a gentler landing. I very much hope that the Minister will land more gently.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a good debate. It is very hard to see where one would want to take it. If it proves anything, it is that the decision to drop the legal but harmful provisions in the Bill was probably taken for the wrong reasons but was the right decision, since this is where we end up—in an impossible moral quandary which no amount of writing, legalistic or otherwise, will get us out of. This should be a systems Bill, not a content Bill.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage
Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard some very well-rehearsed lines during the debate today, with the usual protagonists. Nevertheless, the truth of the matter is that the Press Recognition Panel is as frustrated as many of us on these Benches and other Benches at the failure to implement a post-Leveson scheme of press regulation. Despite many efforts, it has never been fully put into effect.

I do not think I need to repeat a great deal of what has been said today. For instance, the record of IPSO, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, talked about, has been very well tracked by Hacked Off. This is not a proposal for state regulation—which is so often, if you like, the canard placed on it.

If not this Bill, which Bill? The media Bill is not going to tackle issues such as this, as my noble friend Lord McNally said. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has pointed out, this Bill has been a series of conversations —extremely fruitful conversations—but in this particular direction it has borne no fruit at all.

I must admit that, throughout my looking at the draft Bill and continuing to look through its various versions, this opt-out for news publishers has remained a puzzle. The below-the-line opt-out for the mainstream news media always strikes me as strange, because there is no qualification that there should be any curation of that below-the-line, user-generated content. That is peculiar, and it is rather like somebody in the last chance saloon being rewarded with a bouquet. It seems a rather extraordinary provision.

My noble friend Lord Allan rightly pointed to some of the dangers in the new provisions, and indeed in the provisions generally, for these services. I hope the Minister has at least some answers to give to the questions he raised. Progress on this and the scheme that the PRP was set up to oversee, which is still not in place, remain a source of great division across the parties and within them. There is still hope; it may be that under a different Government we would see a different result.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I was unfortunately unable to attend round 1 of this debate—I had to leave. My noble friend Lord Knight has absented himself from hearing what I am going to say about his remarks, so he must fear that he had got his lines wrong. I apologised to him for leaving him a bit exposed, because we had not quite anticipated how the conversation would go, but I think he did as well as he could, and I repeat the lines he said: this is not the right Bill to rerun the arguments about the Leveson report. I still believe that. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, does not think the media Bill is; maybe it is not, but at least we can make sure that the debate is properly argued.

It is interesting that, although we clearly have well-defined positions and antipathies present in the debate, a number of things have been said today that will be helpful, if we manage to get a little closer, in trying to resolve some of the issues outstanding. If I am still around and involved in it, I will approach this by trying to see what we can do together rather than the rights and wrongs of positions we have adopted before. It has worked for this Bill: we have achieved huge changes to the Bill because we decided from the start that we would try to see what was the best that could come out of it. That is the instinct I have as we go forward to any future debate and discussion, whether or not it is on the media Bill.

The puzzling thing here is why this is such a continuing concern that it needs to be brought into to any opportunity we have to discuss these areas. The sense we had in the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, which discussed this to some extent but not in quite the same range as we have tonight, or even in Committee, was that the issues raised in this Bill were really about protecting freedom of expression. At that stage, the Bill still had the legal but harmful clauses in it so perhaps had had less exposure to those issues in the debate we had. I still think it is primarily about that. I still have real concerns about it, as have been raised by one or two people already in our discussion. I do not think the recognised news provider definition is a good one; I do not think the definition of a journalist is a good one. The pre-legislative scrutiny committee wanted an objective test of material based around public interest, but the Government would not accept that, so we are where we are. We must try to ensure that what works is what we have in the Bill in relation to the topics before it.

The primary purpose must be to ensure material that will inform and enhance our knowledge about democracy, current affairs and issues that need to be debated in the public space, so it is clearly right that that which is published by recognised journalists—quality journalists is another phrase that has been used—should be protected, perhaps more than other material, but at the fringes there are still doubts as to whether the Bill does that.

I had taken it that in the amendments I signed up to, government Amendments 158 and 161, the material we were talking about was from recognised news publishers, not material self-generated in social media. I am looking hard at the Minister hoping he will be able to come to my aid when he comes to respond. The issue here is about making sure that material that was not originally broadcast but is still provided by a recognised news publisher is protected from being taken down, and it would not have been if those amendments were not made. I hope that is the right interpretation. That was the basis on which I signed up for them; I do not know quite where it leaves me if that is wrong.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage
Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, we are dangerously on the same page this evening. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about demonstrating the need for an independent complaints mechanism. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, captured quite a lot of the need to keep the freedom of expression aspect under close review, as we go through the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, have raised an important and useful debate, and there are some crucial issues here. My noble friend captured it when he talked about the justifiable limitations and the context in which limitations are made. Some of the points made about the Public Order Act offences are extremely valuable.

I turn to one thing that surprised me. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which said it had reservations about the protection of freedom of expression in the Bill. As we go through the Bill, it is easy to keep our eyes on the ground and not to look too closely at the overall impact. In its briefing, which is pretty comprehensive, paragraph 2.14 says:

“In a few cases, it may be clear that the content breaches the law. However, in most cases decisions about illegality will be complex and far from clear. Guidance from Ofcom could never sufficiently capture the full range or complexity of these offences to support service providers comprehensively in such judgements, which are quasi-judicial”.


I am rather more optimistic than that, but we need further assurance on how that will operate. Its life would probably be easier if we did not have the Public Order Act offences in Schedule 7.

I am interested to hear what the Minister says. I am sure that there are pressures on him, from his own Benches, to look again at these issues to see whether more can be done. The EHRC says:

“Our recommendation is to create a duty to protect freedom of expression to provide an effective counterbalance to the duties”.


The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, cited this. There is a lot of reference in the Bill but not to the Ofcom duties. So this could be a late contender to settle the horses, so to speak.

This is a difficult Bill; we all know that so much nuance is involved. We really hope that there is not too much difficulty in interpretation when it is put into practice through the codes. That kind of clarity is what we are trying to achieve, and, if the Minister can help to deliver that, he will deserve a monument.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

It is always nice to be nice to the Minister.

I will reference, briefly, the introduction of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, which I signed. They were introduced extremely competently, as you would expect, by my noble and learned kinsman Lord Hope. It is important to get the right words in the right place in Bills such as this. He is absolutely right to point out the need to be sure that we are talking about the right thing when we say “freedom of expression”—that we do mean that and not “freedom of speech”; we should not get them mixed up—and, also, to have a consistent definition that can be referred to, because so much depends on it. Indeed, this group might have run better and more fluently if we had started with this amendment, which would have then led into the speeches from those who had the other amendments in the group.

The noble Baroness is not present today, but not for bad news: for good news. Her daughter is graduating and she wanted to be present at that; it is only right that she should do that. She will be back to pick up other aspects of the devolution issues she has been following very closely, and I will support her at that time.

The debate on freedom of expression was extremely interesting. It raised issues that, perhaps, could have featured more fully had this been timetabled differently, as both noble Lords who introduced amendments on this subject said. I will get my retaliation in first: a lot of what has been asked for will have been done. I am sure that the Minister will say that, if you look at the amendment to Clause 1, the requirement there is that freedom of expression is given priority in the overall approach to the Bill, and therefore, to a large extent, the requirement to replace that at various parts of the Bill may not be necessary. But I will leave him to expand on that; I am sure that he will.

Other than that, the tension I referred to in an earlier discussion, in relation to what we are made to believe about the internet and the social media companies, is that we are seeing a true public square, in which expressions and opinions can be exchanged as freely and openly as they would be in a public space in the real world. But, of course, neither of those places really exists, and no one can take the analogy further than has been done already.

The change, which was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, in relation to losing “legal but harmful”, has precipitated an issue which will be left to social media companies to organise and police—I should have put “policing” in quotation marks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, the remedy for much of this will be an appeals mechanism that works both at the company level and for the issues that need rebalancing in relation to complexity or because they are not being dealt with properly. We will not know that for a couple of years, but at least that has been provided for and we can look forward to it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I too must declare my interests on the register—I think that is the quickest way of doing it to save time. We still have time, and I very much hope that the Minister will listen to this debate and consider it. Although we are considering clauses that, by and large, come at the end of the Bill, there is still time procedurally—if the Minister so decides—to come forward with an amendment later on Report or at Third Reading.

We have heard some very convincing arguments today. My noble friend explained that the Minister did not like the DPP solution. I have looked back again at the Law Commission report, and I cannot for the life of me see the distinction between what was proposed for the offence in its report and what is proposed by the Government. There is a cigarette paper, if we are still allowed to use that analogy, between them, but the DPP is recommended—perhaps not on a personal basis, although I do not know quite what distinction is made there by the Law Commission, but certainly the Minister clearly did not like that. My noble friend has come back with some specifics, and I very much hope that the Minister will put on the record that, in those circumstances, there would not be a prosecution. As we heard in Committee, 130 different organisations had strong concerns, and I hope that the Minister will respond to those concerns.

As regards my other noble friend’s amendment, again creatively she has come back with a proposal for including reckless behaviour. The big problem here is that many people believe that, unless you include “reckless” or “consent”, the “for a laugh” defence operates. As the Minister knows, quite expert advice has been had on this subject. I hope the Minister continues his discussions. I very much support my noble friend in this respect. I hope he will respond to her in respect of timing and monitoring—the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned the need for the issue to be kept under review—even if at the end of the day he does not respond positively with an amendment.

Everybody believes that we need a change of culture—even the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, clearly recognises that—but the big difference is whether or not we believe that these particular amendments should be made. We very much welcome what the Law Commission proposed and what the Government have put into effect, but the question at the end of day is whether we truly are making illegal online what is illegal offline. That has always been the Government’s test. We must be mindful of that in trying to equate online behaviour with offline behaviour. I do not believe that we are there yet, however much moral leadership we are exhorted to display. I very much take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, about the violence against women and girls amendment that the Government are coming forward with. I hope that will have a cultural change impact as well.

As regards the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I very much take the point she made, both at Committee and on Report. She was very specific, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, and was very clear about the impact, which as men we severely underestimate if we do not listen to what she said. I was slightly surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, really underestimates the impact of that kind of abuse—particularly that kind of indirect abuse.

I was interested in what the Minister had to say in Committee:

“In relation to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 268, the intentional encouragement or assistance of a criminal offence is already captured under Sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007”.—[Official Report, 22/6/23; col. 424.]


Is that still the Government's position? Has that been explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who I would have thought was pretty expert in the 2007 Act? If she does not agree with the Minister, that is a matter of some concern.

Finally, I agree that we need to consider the points raised at the outset by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and I very much hope that the Government will keep that under review.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate that in a curious way moves us from the debate on the first group, which was about the high level of aspiration for this Bill, for the work of those involved in it and indeed for Parliament as a whole, down to some of the nitty-gritty points that emerge from some of the Bill’s proposals. I am very much looking forward to the Minister’s response.

In a sense, where the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, ends, I want to start. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, did a good job of introducing the points made previously by his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in relation to those unfortunate exercises of public comment on businesses, and indeed individuals, that have no reason to receive them. There does not seem to be a satisfactory sanction for that. In a sense he was drawn by the overarching nature of Clause 1, but I think we have established between us that Clause 1 does not have legal effect in the way that he would like, so we would probably need to move further forward. The Government probably need to pick up his points in relation to some of the issues that are raised further down, because they are in fact not dissimilar and could be dealt with.

The key issue is the one that my noble friend Lady Kennedy ended on, in the sense that the law online and the law offline, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seem to be at variance about what you can and cannot do in relation to threats issued, whether or not they are general, to a group or groups in society. This is a complex area that needs further thought of the nature that has been suggested, and may well refer back to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. There is something here that we are not tackling correctly. I look forward to the Government’s response. We would support movement in that area should that agreement be made.

Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, whom I am tempted to call my noble friend because he is a friend, has just moved out of his seat—I do not need to give him a namecheck any more—but he and I went to a meeting yesterday, I think, although I have lost track of time. It was called by Luke Pollard MP and related to the incel movement or, as the meeting concluded, what we should call the alleged incel movement, because by giving it a name we somehow give it a position. I wanted to make that point because a lot of what we are talking about here is in the same territory. It was an informal research-focused meeting to hear all the latest research being done on the group of activities going under the name of the alleged incel movement.

I mention that because it plays into a lot of the discussion here. The way in which those who organise it do so—the name Andrew Tate has already been mentioned—was drawn into the debate in a much broader context by that research, particularly because representatives from the Home Office made the interesting point that the process by which the young men who are involved in this type of activity are groomed to join groups and are told that by doing so they are establishing a position that has been denied to them by society in general, and allegedly by women in particular, is very similar to the methods used by those who are cultivating terrorism activity. That may seem to be a big stretch but it was convincing, and the argument and debate around that certainly said to me that there are things operating within the world of social media, with its ability to reach out to those who often feel alone, even if they are not, and who feel ignored, and to reach them in a way that causes them to overreact in the way they deal with the issues they face.

That point was picked up by others, including my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, in relation to the way in which the internet itself is in some way gendered against women. I do not in any sense want to apportion blame anywhere for that; it is a much more complex issue than single words can possibly address, but it needs to be addressed. As was said in the meeting and has been said today, there are cultural, educational and holistic aspects here. We really do not tackle the symptoms or the effects of it, but we should also look at what causes people to act in the way they have because of, or through the agency of, the internet.

Having said that, I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and I look forward to the Government’s response to them. Amendment 5B raises the issue that it will be detrimental to society if people stop posting and commenting on things because they fear that they will be prosecuted—or not even prosecuted but attacked. The messages that they want to share will be lost as a result, and that is a danger that we do not want to encourage. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, made powerful points about the way in which the offence of cyberflashing is going to be dealt with, and the differences between that and the intimate image abuse that we are coming on to in the next group. It may well be that this is the right way forward, and indeed we support the Government in the way that they are going, but it is important to recognise her point that we need a test of whether it is working. The Government may well review the impact of the Bill in the normal way of things, but this aspect needs particular attention; we need to know whether there are prosecutions and convictions and whether people understand the implication of the change in practice. We need publicity, as has been said, otherwise it will not be effective in any case. These issues, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, are important. We will have other opportunities to discuss them, but at this stage we should at least get a response to that.

If it is true that in Northern Ireland there is now a different standard for the way in which cyberflashing offences are to be undertaken—taking into account the points made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the worry about encouraging more offences for which crimes may not necessarily be appropriate at this stage, particularly the one about recklessness—do the Government not have a slight problem here? In the first case, do we really accept that we want differences between the various regions and nations of our country in these important issues? We support devolution but we also need to have a sense of what the United Kingdom as a whole stands for in its relationship with these types of criminal offence, if they are criminal. If that happens, do we need a better understanding of why one part of the country has moved in a particular way, and is that something that we are missing in picking up action that is perhaps necessary in other areas? As my noble friend Lady Kennedy has also said, some of the work she has been doing in Scotland is ahead of the work that we have been doing in this part of the United Kingdom, and we need to pick up the lessons from that as well.

As I said at the beginning, this is an interesting range of amendments. They are not as similar as the grouping might suggest, but they point in a direction that needs government attention, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments on them.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, as it is a real contrast. We have one set of amendments which say that the net is too wide and another which say that the net is not wide enough, and I agree with both of them. After all, we are trying to fine-tune the Bill to get it to deal with the proper risks—the word “risk” has come up quite a lot in this debate—that it should. Whether or not we make a specific exemption for public interest services, public information services, limited functionality services or non-commercial services, we need to find some way to deal with the issue raised by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in their amendments. All of us are Wikipedia users; we all value the service. I particularly appreciated what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron: Wikipedia does not push its content at us—it is not algorithmically based.

What the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, resonated with me, because I think he has found a thundering great hole in the Bill. This infinite scrolling and autoplay is where the addiction of so much of social media lies, and the Bill absolutely needs systemically and functionally to deal with it. So, on the one hand, we have a service which does not rely on that infinite scrolling and algorithmic type of pushing of content and, on the other hand, we are trying to identify services which have that quality.

I very much hope the Minister is taking all this on board, because on each side we have identified real issues. Whether or not, when we come to the light at the end of the tunnel of Amendment 245 from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, it will solve all our problems, I do not know. All I can say is that I very much hope that the Minister will consider both sets of amendments and find a way through this that is satisfactory to all sides.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, much like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I started off being quite certain I knew what to say about these amendments. I even had some notes—unusual for me, I know—but I had to throw them away, which I always do with my notes, because the arguments have been persuasive. That is exactly why we are here in Parliament discussing things: to try to reach common solutions to difficult problems.

We started with a challenge to the Minister to answer questions about scope, exemptions and discretion in relation to a named service—Wikipedia. However, as the debate went on, we came across the uncomfortable feeling that, having got so far into the Bill and agreed a lot of amendments today improving it, we are still coming up against quite stubborn issues that do not fit neatly into the categorisation and structures that we have. We do not seem to have the right tools to answer the difficult questions before us today, let alone the myriad questions that will come up as the technology advances and new services come in. Why have we not already got solutions to the problems raised by Amendments 281, 281A and 281B?

There is also the rather difficult idea we have from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, of dark patterns, which we need to filter into our thinking. Why does that not fit into what we have got? Why is it that we are still worried about Wikipedia, a service for public good, which clearly has risks in it and is sometimes capable of making terrible mistakes but is definitely a good thing that should not be threatened by having to conform with a structure and a system which we think is capable of dealing with some of the biggest and most egregious companies that are pushing stuff at us in the way that we have talked about?

I have a series of questions which I do not have the answers to. I am looking forward to the Minister riding to my aid on a white charger of enormous proportions and great skill which will take us out without having to fall over any fences.

If I may, I suggest to the Minister a couple of things. First, we are stuck on the word “content”. We will come back to that in the future, as we still have an outstanding problem about exactly where the Bill sets it. Time and again in discussions with the Bill team and with Ministers we have been led back to the question of where the content problem lies and where the harms relate to that, but this little debate has shown beyond doubt that harm can occur independent of and separate from content. We must have a solution to that, and I hope it will be quick.

Secondly, when approaching anybody or anything or any business or any charity that is being considered in scope for this Bill, we will not get there if we are looking only at the question of its size and its reach. We have to look at the risks it causes, and we have to drill down hard into what risks we are trying to deal with using our armoury as we approach these companies, because that is what matters to the children, vulnerable people and adults who would suffer otherwise, and not the question of whether or not these companies are big or small. I think there are solutions to that and we will get there, but, when he comes to respond, the Minister needs to demonstrate to us that he is still willing to listen and think again about one or two issues. I look forward to further discussions with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I shall be brief, my Lords, because I know we have a Statement to follow. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I certainly share his concern about the rise of incel culture, and this is a very appropriate point to raise it.

This is all about choices and the Minister, in putting forward his amendments, in response not only to the Joint Committee but the overwhelming view in Committee on the Bill that this was the right thing to do, has done the right thing. I thank him for that, with the qualification that we must make sure that the red and amber lights are used—just as my noble friend Lord Allan and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, qualified their support for what the Minister has done. At the same time, I make absolutely clear that I very much support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was a bit too late to get my name down to her amendment, but it would be there otherwise.

I very much took to what the right reverend Prelate had to say about the ethics of the online world and nowhere more should they apply than in respect of children and young people. That is the place where we should apply these ethics, as strongly as we can. With some knowledge of artificial intelligence, how it operates and how it is increasingly operating, I say that what the noble Baroness wants to add to the Minister’s amendment seems to be entirely appropriate. Given the way in which algorithms are operating and the amount of misinformation and disinformation that is pouring into our inboxes, our apps and our social media, this is a very proportionate addition. It is the future. It is already here, in fact. So I very strongly support Amendment 174 from the noble Baroness and I very much hope that after some discussion the Minister will accept it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I want to make it very clear that I think the House as a whole welcomes the change of heart by the Government to ensure that we have in the Bill the two sides of the question of content that will be harmful to children. We should not walk away from that. We made a big thing of this in Committee. The Government listened and we have now got it. The fact that we do not like it—or do not like bits of it—is the price we pay for having achieved something which is, probably on balance, good.

The shock comes from trying to work out why it is written the way it is, and how difficult it is to see what it will mean in practice when companies working to Ofcom’s instructions will take this and make this happen in practice. That lies behind, I think I am right in saying, the need for the addition to Amendment 172 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which I have signed, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Both of them have spoken well in support of it and I do not need to repeat those points.

Somehow, in getting the good of Amendments 171 and 172, we have lost the flexibility that we think we want as well to try to get that through. The flexibility does exist, because the Government have retained powers to amend and change both primary priority content that is harmful to children and the primary content. Therefore, subject to approval through the secondary legislation process, this House will continue to have a concern about that—indeed, both Houses will.

Somehow, however, that does not get to quite where the concern comes from. The concern should be both the good points made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell—I should have caught him up in the gap and said I had already mentioned the fact that we had been together at the meeting. He found some additional points to make which I hope will also be useful to future discussion. I am glad he has done that. He is making a very good point in relation to cultural context and the work that needs to go on—which we have talked about in earlier debates—in order to make this live: in other words, to make people who are responsible for delivering this through Ofcom, but also those who are delivering it through companies, to understand the wider context. In that sense, clearly we need the misinformation/disinformation side of that stuff. It is part and parcel of the problems we have got. But more important even than that is the need to see about the functionality issues. We have come back to that. This Bill is about risk. The process that we will be going through is about risk assessment and making sure that the risks are understood by those who deliver services, and the penalties that follow the failure of the risk assessment process delivering change that we want to see in society.

However, it is not just about content. We keep saying that, but we do not see the changes around it. The best thing that could happen today would be if the Minister in responding accepted that these clauses are good—“Tick, we like them”—but could we just not finalise them until we have seen the other half of that, which is: what are the other risks to which those users of services that we have referred to and discussed are receiving through the systemic design processes that are designed to take them in different directions? It is only when we see the two together that we will have a proper concern.

I may have got this wrong, but the only person who can tell us is the Minister because he is the only one who really understands what is going on in the Bill. Am I not right in saying—I am going to say I am right; he will say no, I am not, but I am, aren’t I?—that we will get to Clauses 208 and 209, or the clauses that used to be 208 and 209, one of which deals with harms from content and the other deals with functionality? We may need to look at the way in which those are framed in order to come back and understand better how these lie and how they interact with that. I may have got the numbers wrong—the Minister is looking a bit puzzled, so I probably have—but the sense is that this will probably not come up until day 4. While I do not want to hold back the Bill, we may need to look at some of the issues that are hidden in the interstices of this set of amendments in order to make sure that the totality is better for those who have to use it.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 25th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, alongside others, I very much welcome government Amendment 135A and how the Minister introduced it. But there is a big “but” as regards much of the rest of what he said. I very much welcome that this will be included as a priority offence, and I join other noble Lords in that—but there is still a view out there that women and girls are being short-changed by the Bill. The other day, we had a debate on the Violence Against Women and Girls Code of Practice, and the same feeling about the cyberflashing offence was very much there, which is why I strongly support Amendments 269 and 270, which would alter the nature of Clause 167.

The equivalence between online and offline was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Burt—I also regret that my noble friend Lady Featherstone has not been with us for some time—and she introduced extremely clearly and well that this kind of cyberflashing offence leads to other and worse offences in both the offline and the online worlds, as we have seen.

Like others, I am in debt to Professor McGlynn for her analysis of the proposed offence. We had evidence from UCL and the Bumble survey, and there is of course also the YouGov survey that shows that nearly half of young women aged 18 to 24 have been sent an unwanted penis image—that is an extraordinary figure. So all of the evidence of this offence is there.

We have heard differing views on the offence—the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Stowell, are on the side of the status quo on the nature of the offence. The fact is that the Government’s proposal covers only some cases of cyberflashing, where motivated by a desire to cause “distress” or for “sexual gratification” with recklessness about causing distress.

I am not a criminal lawyer, but, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, you have to show intent beyond reasonable doubt—that is where the onus on the victim arises. There is a very high barrier in a criminal offence. My noble friend made that point clearly, and the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, was absolutely right that, of course, if you make it a criminal offence, where the issue is about consent rather than intent, you can always be more lenient when an offence does not seem so egregious, where there is clear misunderstanding or where there are other mitigating factors—that is what happens under the criminal law.

This is all about proving the motive—that is the real problem; it is technically called mens rea or the intent—so we need a clear message, as my noble friend said. I believe that we are squandering an opportunity here; it could be a real opportunity for the Government to send a much more powerful signal that the Bill is about protecting women and girls, despite the very welcome addition of abuse under Amendment 135A.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, put her point extremely well. She made a very good case for another addition to the armoury of user-empowerment tools. Although I disagree with her about the ambit of the cyberflashing offence, she proposed something which would be extremely useful to add.

We ought to take heed from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, given her legal background. She referred to the Law Commission’s rather inconsistent approach. The very welcome proposal to extend the way that revenge porn events will apply seems to be extremely sensible. I am afraid that, in the battle of the professors, I prefer what Professor McGlynn is saying to what Professor Lewis is saying; that is the choice that I have made.

Following the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, talked about this issue, we need to call men to account. That is something that the Government need to pay heed to.

That is all I want to say on this subject. This is not just a technical aspect—it is not just a question of whether or not we accept the Law Commission’s advice in this particular case—it is about the difficulty that young women, in particular, will find in enforcing this offence, and we need to be very mindful of that.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very good and well-focused debate. We have focused deeply on the particular issue I will focus on in my speech about why there is a difference in the Government’s approach to what seem to be, on the surface, very similar instances of the evidence we have all been looking at, and are convinced by, that, in some way, the internet, as currently constructed, is gendered against women. Something must be done about that.

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this group. Amendment 135A is very well-drafted and appropriate for what we are doing. I have very little to comment on it. It is a difficult area, but I am glad that the Government are putting their money where their mouth was on this issue and that we are seeing some action coming forward.

My noble friend Lady Merron would have been speaking to our amendments in this group, but, unfortunately, she has been taken off for some treatment to her leg, which seems to have been slightly twisted. They follow on from the meeting that the Minister mentioned with Professor Lewis from the Law Commission, when she very expertly introduced this whole topic, explaining very carefully, and with great care and concern, the reasons why the Law Commission has proposed, and the Government have accepted, that the new law to be brought in on cyberflashing needs to be different. My problem with that was that it seemed, by the end of it, that the rationale for doing it differently from other offences of a similar nature and type was more to do with the fact that there were good reasons for having the ability to send dick pics—let us call them that, even though it is a horrible term to use.

It is sometimes necessary for pictures to be sent around, and examples of that were given. For example, in a medical situation in which a doctor, perhaps during the Covid epidemic, wanted to know about a patient’s particular problem in the genital area, a picture would be helpful in diagnosis. Sending that should not be made illegal. Other reasons were given. The argument was good, but not sufficient to trump the need to have in place a set of laws relating to the way in which the internet treats women and girls in this dimension that does not come from different directions and is not confusing but complementary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

It is a very narrow point, but it is important in terms of the overall approach that we are taking on this. The Minister very accurately described the reasons that the Law Commission came up with for moving back to an intent-based rather than content-based approach. I wanted to ask him to check whether the wording in the amendment that we signed up to, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone—ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and spoken to by many people around the Chamber—would cover off those points where there is legitimate reason for this material to be circulated. I used an unfortunate phrase that I will not repeat. Are the Government happy to accept that it is possible to get around that objection by the Law Commission by making legitimate those particular explicit reasons for those pictures being circulated? I make that point only to get an admission at the Dispatch Box that the Government could get round the issue that has been mentioned, but they are still deciding to go for an intent-based approach for other reasons, which the Minister has just adumbrated and which I accept are genuine.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

It may be helpful to the Minister to just repeat the terms of the amendment itself. If you reverse the point and do not have intent, you would still need to consider

“Whether a belief is reasonable”


which

“is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps that A has taken to ascertain whether B consents”.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has absolutely hit the mark on this. This would not lead to terrible consequences and injustices because of this particular qualification.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Thursday 25th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I absolutely take what the noble Lord is saying, and I am not saying that the platforms do not have responsibility. Of course they do: the whole Bill is about the platforms taking responsibility with risk assessment, adhering to their terms of service, transparency about how those terms are operating, et cetera. It is purely on the question of whether they need to be reporting that content when it occurs. They have takedown responsibilities for illegal content or content that may be seen by children and so on, but it is about whether they have the duty to report to the police. It may seem a relatively narrow point, but it is quite important that we go with the framework. Many of us have said many times that we regret the absence of “legal but harmful” but, given where we are, we basically have to go with that architecture.

I very much enjoyed listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. There is no opportunity lost in the course of the Bill to talk about ChatGPT or GPT-4, and that was no exception. It means that we need to listen to how young people are responding to the way that this legislation operates. I am fully in favour of whatever mechanism it may be. It does not need to be statutory, but I very much hope that we do not treat this just as the end of the process but will see how the Bill works out and will listen and learn from experience, and particularly from young people who are particularly vulnerable to much of the content, and the way that the algorithms on social media work.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I am so sorry. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded me that his Amendments 202ZA and 210A, late entrants into the miscellaneous group, go very much with the grain that we are trying to get in within the area of encryption. We had quite a long debate about encryption on Clause 110. As ever, the noble Lord has rather cunningly produced something that I think will get us through the eye of the free speech needle. They are two very cunning amendments.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. Free expression, my Lords, not free speech.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Freedom of expression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to be extremely brief given the extremely compelling way that these amendments have been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and contributed to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I thank her for her comments about my noble friend Lady Parminter. I am sure she would have wanted to be here and would have made a very valuable contribution as she did the other day on exactly this subject.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has illustrated, we have a very different view of risk across this Committee and we are back, in a sense, into that whole area of risk. I just wanted to say that I think we are again being brought back to the very wise words of the Joint Committee. It may sound like special pleading. We keep coming back to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I are the last people standing on a Thursday afternoon.

We took a lot of evidence in this particular area. We took the trouble to go to Brussels and had a very useful discussion with the Centre on Regulation in Europe and Dr Sally Broughton Micova. We heard a lot about interconnectedness between some of these smaller services and the impact in terms of amplification across other social media sites.

We heard in the UK from some of the larger services about their concerns about the activities of smaller services. You might say “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” but they were pretty convincing. We heard from HOPE not Hate, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and Stonewall, stressing the role of alternative services.

Of course, we know that these amendments today—some of them sponsored by the Mental Health Foundation, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said, and Samaritans—have a very important provenance. They recognise that these are big problems. I hope that the Minister will think strongly about this. The injunction from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, to consider how all this is going to work in practice is very important. I very much hope that when we come to consider how this works in practical terms that the Minister will think very seriously about the way in which risk is to the fore— the more nuanced approach that we suggested—and the whole way that profiling by Ofcom will apply. I think that is going to be extremely important as well. I do not think we have yet got to the right place in the Bill which deals with these risky sites. I very much hope that the Minister will consider this in the quite long period between now and when we next get together.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a good little debate with some excellent speeches, which I acknowledge. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I was looking at the Joint Committee’s report. I concluded that one of the first big issues we discussed was how complicated the categorisation seemed in relation to the task that was being set for Ofcom. We comforted ourselves with the thought that if you believe that this is basically a risk-assessment exercise and that all the work Ofcom will subsequently do is driven by its risk assessments and its constant reviewing of them, then the categorisation is bound to fall down because the risks will reveal the things that need to happen.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this is unfamiliar territory for me, but the comprehensive introduction of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, has clarified the issue. I am only disappointed that we had such a short speech from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—uncharacteristic, perhaps I could say—but it was good to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on this subject as well. The noble Baroness’s phrase “devolution deficit” is very useful shorthand for some of these issues. She has raised a number of questions about the Secretary of State’s powers under Clause 53(5)(c): the process, the method of consultation and whether there is a role for Ofcom’s national advisory committees. Greater transparency in order to understand which offences overlap in all this would be very useful. She deliberately did not go for one solution or another, but issues clearly arise where the thresholds are different. It would be good to hear how the Government are going to resolve this issue.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pity that we have not had the benefit of hearing from the Minister, because a lot of his amendments in this group seem to bear on some of the more generic points made in the very good speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. I assume he will cover them, but I wonder whether he would at least be prepared to answer any questions people might come back with—not in any aggressive sense; we are not trying to scare the pants off him before he starts. For example, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, intrigue me.

I used to have responsibility for devolved issues when I worked at No. 10 for a short period. It was a bit of a joke, really. Whenever anything Welsh happened, I was immediately summoned down to Cardiff and hauled over the coals. You knew when you were in trouble when they all stopped speaking English and started speaking Welsh; then, you knew there really was an issue, whereas before I just had to listen, go back and report. In Scotland, nobody came to me anyway, because they knew that the then Prime Minister was a much more interesting person to talk to about these things. They just went to him instead, so I did not really learn very much.

I noticed some issues in the Marshalled List that I had not picked up on when I worked on this before. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to address this—I do not want to delay the Committee too much—but are we saying that to apply a provision in the Bill to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man, an Order in Council is required to bypass Parliament? Is that a common way of proceeding in these places? I suspect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, knows much more about this than I do—he shakes his head—but this is a new one on me. Does it mean that this Parliament has no responsibility for how its laws are applied in those territories, or are there other procedures of which we are unaware?

My second point again picks up what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was saying. Could the Minister go through in some detail the process by which a devolved authority would apply to the Secretary of State—presumably for DSIT—to seek consent for a devolved offence to be included in the Online Safety Bill regime? If this is correct, who grants to what? Does this come to the House as a statutory instrument? Is just the Secretary of State involved, or does it go to the Privy Council? Are there other ways that we are yet to know about? It would be interesting to know.

To echo the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we probably do need a letter from the Minister, if he ever gets this cleared, setting out exactly how the variation in powers would operate across the four territories. If there are variations, we would like to know about them.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Thursday 11th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

It is the simple requests that always seem to evade the easy solutions. I will not go back over the very good introductory speech from the noble Baroness, which said it all; the figures are appalling and the range of fraud-inspired criminality is extraordinary. It plays back to a point we have been hammering today: if this Bill is about anything, it is the way the internet amplifies that which would be unpleasant anyway but will now reach epidemic proportions.

I wonder whether that is the clue to the problem the noble Baroness was commenting on—I think more in hope than in having any way to resolve it. It is great news that three Bills are doing all the stuff we want. We have talked a bit about three-legged stools; this is another one that might crash over. If we are not careful, it will slip through the cracks. I am mixing my metaphors again.

If the Minister would not mind a bit of advice, it seems to me that this Bill could do certain things and do them well. It should not hold back and wait for the others to catch up or do things differently. The noble Baroness made the point about the extraordinarily difficult to understand gap, in that what is happening to priority illegal content elsewhere in the Bill does not apply to this, even though it is clearly illegal activity. I understand that there is a logical line that it is not quite the same thing—that the Bill is primarily about certain restricted types of activity on social media and not the generality of fraud—but surely the scale of the problem and our difficulty in cracking down on it, by whatever routes and whatever size of stool we choose, suggest that we should do what we can in this Bill and do it hard, deeply and properly.

Secondly, we have amendments later in Committee on the role of the regulators and the possibility recommended by the Communications and Digital Committee that we should seek statutory backing for regulation in this area. Here is a classic example of more than two regulators working to achieve the same end that will probably bump into each other on the way. There is no doubt that the FCA has primary responsibility in this area, but the reality is that the damage is being done by the amplification effect within the social media companies.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have been part of this debate and to have heard how much we are on common ground. I very much hope that, in particular, the Minister will have listened to the voices on the Conservative Benches that have very powerfully put forward a number of amendments that I think have gained general acceptance across the Committee.

I fully understand the points that the noble Lord, Lord Black, made and why he defends Clause 14. I hope we can have a more granular discussion about the contents of that clause rather than wrap it up on this group of amendments. I do not know whether we will be able to have that on the next group.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for putting forward her amendment. It is very interesting, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Fraser, said, that we are trying to get to the same sort of mechanisms of risk assessment, perhaps out of different motives, but we are broadly along the same lines and want to see them for adult services. We want to know from the Minister why we cannot achieve that, basically. I am sure we could come to some agreement between us as to whether user empowerment tools or terms of service are the most appropriate way of doing it.

We need to thank the committee that the noble Baroness chairs for having followed up on the letter to the Secretary of State for DCMS, as was, on 30 January. It is good to see a Select Committee using its influence to go forward in this way.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and supported by my noble friend Lady Featherstone—I am sorry she is unable to be here today, as he said—are important. They would broaden out consideration in exactly the right kind of way.

However, dare I say it, probably the most important amendment in this group is Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Apart from the Clause 14 stand part notice, it is pretty much bang on where the Joint Committee got to. He was remarkably tactful in not going into any detail on the Government’s response to that committee. I will not read it out because of the lateness of the hour, but the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, got pretty close to puncturing the Government’s case that there is no proper definition of public interest. It is quite clear that there is a perfectly respectable definition in the Human Rights Act 1998 and, as the noble Viscount said, in the Defamation Act 2013, which would be quite fit for purpose. I do not quite know why the Government responded as they did at paragraph 251. I very much hope that the Minister will have another look at that.

The amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which has the very respectable support of Justice, is also entirely apposite. I very much hope that the Government will take a good look at that.

Finally, and extraordinarily, I have quite a lot of sympathy with the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It was all going so well until we got to Amendment 294; up to that point I think he had support from across the House, because placing that kind of duty on Ofcom would be a positive way forward.

As I say, getting a clause of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has put forward, with that public interest content point and with an umbrella duty on freedom of expression, allied to the definition from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, would really get us somewhere.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Lawyers—don’t you love them? How on earth are we supposed to unscramble that at this time of night? It was good to have my kinsman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, back in our debates. We were remarking only a few days ago that we had not seen enough lawyers in the House in these debates. One appears, and light appears. It is a marvellous experience.

I thank the Committee for listening to my earlier introductory remarks; I hope they helped to untangle some of the issues. The noble Lord, Lord Black, made it clear that the press are happy with what is in the current draft. There could be some changes, and we have heard a number of examples of ways in which one might either top or tail what there is.

There was one question that perhaps he could have come back on, and maybe he will, as I have raised it separately with the department before. I agree with a lot of what he said, but it applies to a lot more than just news publishers. Quality journalism more generally enhances and restores our faith in public services in so many ways. Why is it only the news? Is there a way in which we could broaden that? If there is not this time round, perhaps that is something we need to pick up later.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a very strong and clear case for trying to think again about what journalism does in the public realm and making sure that the Bill at least carries that forward, even if it does not deal with some of the issues that he raised.

We have had a number of other good contributions about how to capture some of the good ideas that were flying around in this debate and keep them in the foreground so that the Bill is enhanced. But I think it is time that the Minister gave us his answers.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very strange debate. It has been the tail end of the last session and a trailer for a much bigger debate coming down the track. It was very odd.

We do not want to see everything behind an age-gating barrier, so I agree with my noble friend. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, reminded us, it is all about the risk profile, and that then leads to the kind of risk assessment that a platform is going to be required to carry out. There is a logic to the way that the Bill is going to operate.

When you look at Clause 11(3), you see that it is not disproportionate. It deals with “primary priority content”. This is not specified in the Bill but it is self-harm and pornography—major content that needs age-gating. Of course we need to have the principles for age assurance inserted into the Bill as well, and of course it will be subject to debate as we go forward.

There is technology to carry out age verification which is far more sophisticated than it ever was, so I very much look forward to that debate. We started that process in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. I was described as an internet villain for believing in age verification. I have not changed my view, but the debate will be very interesting. As regards the tail-end of the previous debate, of course we are sympathetic on these Benches to the Wikipedia case. As we said on the last group, I very much hope that we will find a way, whether it is in Schedule 1 or in another way, of making sure that Wikipedia is not affected overly by this—maybe the risk profile that is drawn up by Ofcom will make sure that Wikipedia is not unduly impacted.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Like others, I had prepared quite extensive notes to respond to what I thought the noble Lord was going to say about his amendments in this group, and I have not been able to find anything left that I can use, so I am going to have to extemporise slightly. I think it is very helpful to have a little non-focused discussion about what we are about to talk about in terms of age, because there is a snare and a delusion in quite a lot of it. I was put in mind of that in the discussions on the Digital Economy Act, which of course precedes the Minister but is certainly still alive in our thinking: in fact, we were talking about it earlier today.

The problem I see is that we have to find a way of squaring two quite different approaches. One is to prevent those who should not be able to see material, because it is illegal for them to see it. The other is to find a way of ensuring that we do not end up with an age-gated internet, which I am grateful to find that we are all, I think, agreed about: that is very good to know.

Age is very tricky, as we have heard, and it is not the only consideration we have to bear in mind in wondering whether people should be able to gain access to areas of the internet which we know will be bad and difficult for them. That leads us, of course, to the question about legal but harmful, now resolved—or is it? We are going to have this debate about age assurance and what it is. What is age verification? How do they differ? How does it matter? Is 18 a fixed and final point at which we are going to say that childhood ends and adulthood begins, and therefore one is open for everything? It is exactly the point made earlier about how to care for those who should not be exposed to material which, although legal for them by a number called age, is not appropriate for them in any of the circumstances which, clinically, we might want to bring to bear.

I do not think we are going to resolve these issues today—I hope not. We are going to talk about them for ever, but at this stage I think we still need a bit of thinking outside a box which says that age is the answer to a lot of the problems we have. I do not think it is, but whether the Bill is going to carry that forward I have my doubts. How we get that to the next stage, I do not know, but I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on it.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Thursday 4th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction. I agree with her emphasis on the importance of internet services and the need to eliminate digital exclusion. It is hard to think what the consequences would have been if we had suffered this pandemic just 10 years ago, when our broadband services were less extensive and much slower than now.

In the name of inclusivity, I welcome the first part of today’s business, Motion A. Throughout the course of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Liddle, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others have been arguing for as inclusive a definition as possible of those who could be regarded as tenants, without straying into the territory of licensees or licences. It includes those with assured shorthold tenancies or assured tenancy agreements, as well as students living in short-term lets, where a tenant has, or tenants have, exclusive possession of the let property.

We have been concerned throughout to ensure that all tenancies such as renewable tenancies are included, even if they are not, strictly speaking, leases and that there should not be any grey areas that need to be interpreted by the courts. I am pleased that the Government have now produced an even more inclusive definition than the one that I argued for on Report. My sincere thanks go to the Minister and the Bill team for their care and consideration on what we have always regarded as an important issue.

However, I do not welcome Motion B. The original purpose of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which was strongly supported on these Benches—I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that it was introduced not at ping-pong but on Report—was to ensure that the code is fit for the purpose of delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment of broadband capable of 1 gigabit per second to every home by 2025. The need for this has become even more important, particularly since the Covid-19 lockdown has demonstrated our increasing dependence on good broadband connectivity for remote working, education and many other aspects of life, as the Minister mentioned.

Sadly, it is clear that the Government are backtracking in their ambitions—the 2025 1 gigabit per second target has been watered down and the budget for rollout expenditure slashed by two-thirds. Even so, it is clear that the Electronic Communications Code needs regular review to ensure that the Government’s objective, however watered down, is met and that operators have all the rights under the code that they need.

My noble friend Lord Fox rightly commented on a universal service obligation of a miserable 10 megabits per second and I completely agree with him. However, looking to the future, I am glad that during the course of the Bill we have started a genuine debate around whether we can describe broadband as a utility and what the appropriate rights of entry are.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for answering what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, described as a blizzard of questions on telecoms supply chain diversification in her extremely informative letter last month. Some of the work being carried out on open RAN, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fox, is ground- breaking for the interoperability and competitiveness of our 5G networks. It is good to see that international collaboration is regarded as essential and is ongoing.

However, at the end of the day I am left with a sense of bafflement. This has been a ridiculously modest Bill, given the challenges of the broadband and 5G rollout ahead. Of course, as the Minister has mentioned, we now have Access to Land: Consultation on Changes to the Electronic Communications Code, which was issued in January. Notwithstanding this Bill, it seems clear the Government think that further changes are needed to clarify the position on rights to upgrade and share. Why not an earlier consultation? Why were these issues not considered before this piece of legislation? Are these long-standing questions or are they thoughts that have arisen during the course of the Bill? Is there another Bill on the way? We know from the representations made that the operators are calling for other changes that are not included in the Bill or the consultation.

I have another quote from Matt Warman. In his introduction to the consultation he says:

“The government is committed to ensuring that the Code is fit for purpose in order to deliver our digital connectivity targets.”


That is excellent. A review of the kind envisaged in our amendment would have been perfect for that purpose. The Bill has taken an inordinate time to get through, but it is clear that more reforms are in the pipeline. The question remains: could we have been spending our time better and enacting a more comprehensive Bill with a wider range of revisions, instead of this piecemeal approach?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, like others, I start by joining the Minister in thanking all our digital providers for the work that they have been doing during the pandemic, which, of course, will continue for some time to come. I hope that it will provide the basis for a learning experience about what it means to live in the digital economy that we all share hopes for.

As the Minister said when she introduced the Motions, this Bill is a modest one. However, when she says that it affects some 10 million people, that means that it has important implications. We never objected to the ideas behind the Bill and, indeed, wanted to help as much as we could to make sure that it became law as quickly as possible and allowed access to the digital economy that is so necessary in the modern world to people who otherwise would not have had it because of problems with their freeholder. We must accept that broadband is a utility.

I welcome the Government’s amendment. I think that the right word has been used, in that it “improves” the amendment originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on Report, which we also supported, to try to make sense of the definitions in terms of who was to be affected, whether it was leaseholders, renters or whatever. The language is much better as a result and that is good.

Unfortunately, the removal of the amendment just discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seems to have a bit of a downside. I talked with the Minister before we got to this stage in proceedings and made it clear that we would not insist on our amendment being retained within the Bill. I think that we did that more in sadness than in a spirit of support, because it relates to important issues that have been raised in today’s debate.

The Minister was kind enough to praise our aspirations for the Bill, but she was also rather devastating in demolishing all the points that I thought that we had broadly agreed were important. She pointed out how inept our drafting was and how problematic it would have been had the amendment stayed within the Bill. Such are the joys of opposition. We are never going to achieve the skills of the draftsmen available to the Government. I wish that sometimes more credit would be given to the ideas that we have put forward, rather than worrying about their expression.

At the end of the day, I suppose that the consultation on the Electronic Communications Code announced by the Government in January does the trick on some of the issues underlying our amendment. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, said, it also exposes that fact that a large number of wider issues, often led by other departments in government, still have not been resolved. I urge the Government to push forward on the permitted development issues and on the street works, including the need for the antennae and cabinets that will be required if the 5G support for the 1 gigabit-enabled economy is ever to see the light of day.

I could delay the House with a further discussion of the need for much more ambitious targets, a better USO and more investment, but these have been covered and this Bill is not really the right place for them. I leave my comments with a question for the Minister: does she have in her mind a route map for how we are to achieve the 1 gigabit per second-enabled infrastructure? I am confident that, since this issue will not go away, we will be resuming discussion of it in the not-too-distant future.

Finally, I share the Minister’s concern that the telecoms operators, which we have praised already for the work that they have done during this pandemic, should continue to get the best tools and the best access so that they can continue to innovate and provide superfast quality broadband to as many people as possible. Unfortunately, I harbour a niggling concern, rather like the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, that one problem that will get in the way of this delivery is the scope and scale of the current Electronic Communications Code. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, said, is not the real question how we are to get beyond that to think again about how a utility as important as the internet can be allowed to be installed without the current plethora of planning and other restrictions, and control of the streetscape and the environment in which it has to be inserted, being in the hands of other departments? It seems to suggest that more work is required, but that is for another day.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and to welcome him to the select band of broadband and telecoms legislation aficionados in this House. As my noble friend Lord Fox said, on Report we welcomed the principle of the previous amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in respect of Part 4A code rights. Likewise, we welcome the Government’s Amendment 2 today.

Strangely enough, however, I do not think that the Government’s amendment is as good as the original, in terms of what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was trying to achieve. It substitutes an arguably unclear negative injunction for a positive duty, where it is clear what is intended. On these Benches, however, as my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, we understand the intention behind the amendment, but how it is interpreted when put into practice will be the test. As he also said, we have throughout been encouraged to hear of the development of open radio access networks and strongly support them.

As the noble Baroness mentioned in her letter to us, in the period between Report and today, we have seen the publication of the Government’s 5G diversification strategy. I see that now NEC acting as the systems integrator will be building a testbed for O-RAN funded by the DDCMS, the new O-RAN project. Will the Minister say when this will be up and running and is this the promised Smart RAN interoperability centre—SONIC—or a precursor to it?

What is the current status of the telecoms diversification task force and the National Telecoms Lab, and what is the status of international collaborations? When developed, these open RAN standards will provide operators with the flexibility to use different vendors and obviate the need to take out existing networks on a change of operator. By the same token, for the consumer it would mean likewise that they are not captive to any particular operator with their equipment. That is a development that we wholly welcome.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Government for their amendment. As other noble Lords have said, this was originally raised in the other place by the Labour Party and withdrawn. A similar amendment was tabled by myself and others, supported by the Liberal Democrats, and we had a good debate in Committee. It is important for the progress of the Bill as a whole that these points were picked up. It is very good that the Government have come back with a proposal. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the language is slightly different, the intention is clear and similar to what I wanted, because it deals with a real-life issue which could affect consumer choice. Despite the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I would argue that it is pro-competition and will benefit to those involved in this process.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised some interesting points of detail and I look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, raised some important wider points about the Bill’s narrow focus, which, of course, it cannot be blamed for, in the sense that it is what it is. It is about a particular issue which will unblock the current arrangements, in which non-responsive freeholders can hold back developments wished for by their tenants.

He also made some good points, which I hope we will not lose sight of as we look forward to further work from the Government on this issue: planning issues relating to the access required for new-generation technology; shared freeholders; questions about street works—how we synchronise them and make sure that they are effective; and the use of masts, particularly for 5G and other superstructure, which is not covered by this Bill but obviously needs wider consideration, perhaps in the next round of legislation.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, although a blizzard of other issues were raised in his short introduction, it is very good to have the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, with his extraordinary experience in this area, contributing to this debate. I hope he will keep on with his very focused questions. I am happy to support the amendment and look forward to the Government’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind words. We have enjoyed working with her over this period. The Bill has been an exemplary one in terms of making sure that the House is able to do its job and that the processes necessary to make it fit for legislation once it leaves Parliament are carried out in the best way. That can be done only if there is a spirit of mutual support and trust, and we certainly had that.

I actually took this Bill over at a relatively late stage. Most of the heavy lifting was done initially by my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and the show was kept on the road by Dan Stevens, our legislative assistant, whose skills and expertise I have drawn on mercilessly. I join the Minister in thanking members of the Bill team, who made themselves very much available and answered our detailed questions in the private meetings that we had.

This is a small but important Bill. As the Minister said, it will affect a lot of people; it will make their lives better and give them access to what has become a utility necessary for modern living. It has been scrutinised carefully in this House, and I am confident that it will play a part in helping to achieve a gigabit-enabled economy across the whole country—something that we need as soon as possible. There remains a lot to do, as we picked up today, but it is good to hear that the consultations on the remaining issues are taking place, particularly on the rollout of 5G and the development of fibre to the home. I urge the department to up its game on this and on a number of other issues that we talked about, and I will be watching from the sidelines.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I doubt very much whether the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, could ever possibly watch from the sidelines—but that is an aside.

After an unusually long gap between Report and Third Reading, we are sending the Bill back to the Commons in much better shape than when it arrived. It is still, however, a modest Bill with much to be modest about, to coin a phrase. We on these Benches have never thought that it was adequate in itself to deliver the ambition of one-gigabit-per-second broadband capability by 2025, and of course the goalposts themselves have now been moved by the Government. However, we now have the consultation on changes to the Electronic Communications Code, which is a step forward. I do hope that the Government will see the wisdom of retaining the review mechanism of the code in Clause 3, which the House inserted on Report, which can assess after that what other measures might be needed. We on these Benches will continue to press the Government on their electoral promises.

We also stressed during the passage of the Bill that we would like to see broadband treated as a utility, as with gas, water and electricity, with all the necessary and equivalent rights of entry. The last year could not have demonstrated more graphically the essential nature of good broadband to all our lives, alongside, if not ahead of, all those other utilities. We on these Benches advocate strongly for the universal service obligation to be raised to 25 or 30 megabits per second—that is, superfast levels—which should be treated as the minimum for these rural areas.

That said, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, together with her Bill team, as ever, for their very good nature. I also thank her for her kind words, good nature and patience with us all throughout the Bill and for her willingness to listen, even if she did not always accept our arguments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his collaboration and co-operation during the course of the Bill, which showed how we always achieve better results by cross-party working.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising some extremely important questions with reference to human rights abuses and modern slavery. His campaigning has clearly changed the Government’s approach and, despite what the Minister has said, it might become even more relevant in the context of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, which, as we have heard, will come to this House shortly. Of course, the acid test will come next Tuesday on the Trade Bill ping-pong. This is of great significance in terms of the relationship between human rights and trade as a whole. Like him and many other noble Lords, I urge the Government to reconsider their position ahead of that vote.

Lastly, I thank Sarah Pughe in our whips’ office for her valuable help, and my noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Northover, who have contributed so knowledgeably throughout on different aspects of the Bill that they have given me a very easy run when leading on it.

Online Harms Consultation

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we welcome moves to protect children and the vulnerable online. We have been calling on the Government to introduce legislation in this area for several years. Their recent record, particularly on age verification, has been—let us call it—patchy. The Statement says that the UK will lead the way with online harms legislation, and we agree that this is a once-in-a-generation chance to legislate for the kind of internet that we all want to see—one that allows access to information, entertainment and knowledge on an unparalleled scale but at the same time keeps children and vulnerable adult citizens safe, and allows people to control the kind of content that they and those for whom they are responsible see online. Social media platforms have failed for years to self-regulate and we must not miss the opportunity afforded by the forthcoming legislation.

We welcome the announcement that Ofcom will be the regulator in this area. The duties to be allocated to it play to its founding principles, which require it to have regard to users of the services that it regulates as both consumers and citizens. We endorse the duty of care approach to regulation, which, if properly legislated for, has the potential to transform the way in which companies relate to their users. The excellent work done on that approach by the Carnegie UK Trust—in particular, Professor Lorna Woods and William Perrin—should be recognised. We support the measures announced in the Statement that seek to protect and enhance freedom of expression. In general, in so far as we can judge the Government’s current legislative intentions, there appears to be a workable and effective scheme of regulations here—but they should get on with it.

As to our concerns, does the Minister agree that the essential principle in play is that what is illegal in the real world must be illegal in the virtual world? However, the corollary is that we need to be clear that our existing laws are fit for purpose and up to date. What plans do the Government have in this complex area? The test for regulatory or criminal actions is to be “reasonably foreseeable harm” to individuals, and criminal acts. What happens to concerns about systems? If we lose focus on social networks, harms to society arising from disinformation or other threats to the integrity of the electoral process, for example, may not be in scope. That simply does not make sense. Does she agree that limiting the regulator to cases where individual harm has to be proven seems unduly restrictive?

Only the largest and riskier companies will fall into category 1. If they do, they will need to reduce the chance of harm to adults which, though not illegal, will presumably involve working with the regulator to reduce such harms as hate speech and self-harm. However, many of the most egregious examples of such activity have come from small companies. Why is size selected as a basis for this categorisation?

The financial and other penalties are welcome but there must be concerns about reach and scope, as many of the companies likely to be affected are based outwith the UK. Also, can the noble Baroness explain why the Government are not insisting on primary legislation to ensure that criminal liability will attach to senior executives for serious and repeated breaches of the law? Can she explain precisely what is meant by the move to the novel concept of “age assurance”? Age verification was the preferred option until recently. Has that now been dropped? Can we be assured that some means will be found to include fraud and financial scamming, possibly through joint action between regulators such as the FSA?

Finally, it is proposed that Ofcom will be empowered to accept “super-complaints”. That is welcome but it references the recent failure of the department to review in time the need for a similar power in the Data Protection Act. Can the noble Baroness update me on progress on that situation and confirm that this legislation could be used to redress it?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, over three years have elapsed and three Secretaries of State have come and gone since the Green Paper, in the face of a rising tide of online harms, not least during the Covid period, as Ofcom has charted. On these Benches, therefore, we welcome the set of concrete proposals we finally have to tackle online harms through a duty of care. We welcome the proposal for pre-legislative scrutiny, but I hope that there is a clear and early timetable for this to take place.

As regards the ambit of the duty of care, children are of course the first priority in prevention of harm, but it is clear that social media companies have failed to tackle the spread of fake news and misinformation on their platforms. I hope that the eventual definition in the secondary legislation includes a wide range of harmful content such as deep fakes, Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, and misinformation such as anti-vax and QAnon conspiracy theories.

I am heartened too by the Government’s plans to consider criminalising the encouragement of self-harm. I welcome the commitment to keeping a balance with freedom of expression, but surely the below-the-line exemption proposed should depend on the news publisher being Leveson-compliant in how it is regulated. I think I welcome the way that the major impact of the duty of care will fall on big-tech platforms with the greatest reach, but we on these Benches will want to kick the tyres hard on the definition, threshold and duties of category 2 to make sure that this does not become a licence to propagate serious misinformation by some smaller platforms and networks.

I welcome the confirmation that Ofcom will be the regulator, but the key to success in preventing online harms will be whether Ofcom has teeth. Platforms will need to demonstrate how they have reduced the “reasonably foreseeable” risk of harm occurring from the design of their services. In mitigating the risk of “legal but harmful content”, this comes down to the way in which platforms facilitate and even encourage the sharing of extreme or sensationalist content designed to cause harm. As many excellent bodies such as Reset, Avaaz and Carnegie UK have pointed out—as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, the latter is the begetter of the duty of care proposal—this means having the power of compulsory audit. Inspection of the algorithms that drive traffic on social media is crucial.

Will Ofcom be able to make a direction to amend a recommender algorithm, how a “like” function operates and how content is promoted? Will it be able to inspect the data by which the algorithm trains and operates? Will Ofcom be able to insist that platforms can establish the identity of a user and address the issue of fake accounts, or that paid content is labelled? Will it be able to require platforms to issue fact-checked corrections to scientifically inaccurate posts? Will Ofcom work hand in hand with the Internet Watch Foundation? International co-ordination will be vital.

Ofcom will also need to work closely with the CMA if the Government are to protect vulnerable victims of online scams, fraud, and fake and misleading online reviews, if they are explicitly excluded from this legislation. Ofcom will need to work with the ASA to regulate harmful online advertising, as well. It will also need to work with the Gambling Commission on the harms of online black-market gambling, as was highlighted yesterday by my noble friend Lord Foster.

How will this new duty of care mesh with compliance with the age-appropriate design code, regulated by the ICO? As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has mentioned, the one major fudge in the response is on age verification. The proposals do not meet the objectives of the original Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. We were promised action when the response arrived, but we have a much watered-down proposal. Pornography is increasingly available and accessible to young people on more sites than just those with user-generated content. How do the Government propose to tackle this ever more pressing problem? There are many other areas that we will want to examine in the pre-legislative process and when the Bill comes to this House.

As my honourable friend Jamie Stone pointed out in the Commons yesterday, a crucial component of minimising risk online is education. Schools need to educate children about how to use social media responsibly. What commitment do the Government have to online media education? When will the strategy appear and what resources will be devoted to it?

These are some of the yet unanswered questions before the draft legislation arrives, but I hope that the Government commit to a full debate early in the new year so that some of these issues can be unpacked at the same time as the pre-legislative scrutiny process starts.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, Amendment 52, which I have signed and strongly support, is similar but different, in a crucial respect, to the one which the noble Baroness and I tabled in Committee. I am delighted that we are joined by even heavier artillery on Report. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said:

“At present it is not possible to use a digital ID as proof of age for the purchase of alcohol in the UK because there is no industry standard for digital ID… Until such a standard is agreed, the current restrictions should be upheld. I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment. I shall finish there.”—[Official Report, 13/7/20, col. 1435.]


I am not going to repeat what I said in Committee—for which I am sure the Minister is grateful—but I know she is always open to sound argument. I want to show why her brief in Committee was not entirely accurate.

It is rather misleading to say baldly that there is no industry standard for digital ID. Back in 2016, the age verification group of the Digital Policy Alliance—which has some distinguished and knowledgeable present and former parliamentarians among its members—sponsored a publicly available specification, PAS, code of practice standard number 1296 on online age checking. This was adopted by the British Standards Institution and the independent regulator, the Age Check Certification Scheme. It is now PAS 1296:2018.

A publicly available specification is a voluntary standard intended to assist providers of age-restricted products and services online with a means to adopt and demonstrate best practice and compliance. There are easily available audit processes and services to check conformity with the PAS, involving policy, quality and technical evaluation, and an enormous number of reputable companies provide age-verification services through digital ID systems. As the noble Baroness said, in many ways the UK is leading the way in digital ID. It is active across the range of age-restricted products and services, such as DVDs, gambling, lottery tickets and scratchcards, knives, air weapons, fireworks, petrol, solvents and cigarettes, but not—perversely and uniquely—alcohol.

This is the digital ID marketplace that the Government said they wanted to build, in their call for evidence last year. Most of these companies are UK-based and many are global. Nearly all work to the standard set by PAS 1296:2018. Many of them have other forms of certification and security standards in place, such as ISO 27001. There is an active trade body, the Age Verification Providers Association, whose members—as the Minister probably knows—have just had good news from the High Court in an important judicial review case involving non-implementation of the age-verification provisions of the Digital Economy Act.

Another government department, BEIS, through its Office for Product Safety and Standards, together with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, provides training that

“will enable participants to confidently apply the PAS 1296:2018”.

Not only is there a form of auditable standard in place, but reputable training in compliance with PAS 1296.

As we pointed out in Committee, this is a strongly deregulatory measure. Retailers have noted that almost 24% of supermarket baskets contain an age-restricted item. As a result of current rules, many customers are waiting longer than necessary. This would ease any congestion, mitigate the risks of queuing, reduce the need for continual sanitisation by staff—as the noble Baroness said—and be for the benefit of all in infection control. Rather than being the last ship in the convoy, can the Home Office not steam ahead on this? The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, explained that it is essentially a pilot period only. I urge the Government to accept our amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 52. I very much hope that the Government welcome the spirit of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, even if they cannot accept the amendment today—although I hope they can. There are a number of areas in public life where we urgently need a proper age-verification system that deals directly with what an individual can and, on occasion, cannot do. Gambling and access to legal pornography are two that come to mind, but access to alcohol, whether consumed on or off the premises, is under direct consideration today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke convincingly in Committee and again this evening on the benefits that a digital ID system would bring. This was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who also explained what is happening in the digital marketplace. If, as the noble Baroness says, this boils down simply to putting ID cards, passports or driving licences on mobile phones, it is hard to see why the Government do not grab this initiative. It is already widely used, particularly for verifying age for knife sales.

There may be other work going on in the Home Office on digital ID, but I would be satisfied if the Government today confirmed that they are aware of the benefits of digital ID, supportive of the technology in principle and prepared to work with the industry to resolve any outstanding issues in the near future.

Designs and International Trademarks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 4th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as with the last SI, the noble Baroness has put her finger on a large number of issues. Although this SI does not compete with the 600-page one that is still to come, I am afraid that, even at 60 pages, its length demonstrates the number of rights that sadly are going to be lost and which are extremely valuable to designers, particularly fashion designers and particularly at events such as London Fashion Week.

I start by asking whether the Minister could expound the situation as far as the exhaustion of design rights of this nature is concerned. The situation was wonderfully simple for those who wished to exhibit new designs at London Fashion Week, for example, knowing that their designs would be protected on the continent—those who exhibited in Paris had them protected here, and those who exhibited on the catwalk here had them protected all over the EU. Perhaps the Minister will explain what the actual exhaustion situation will be, particularly with the new SUDRs.

The mechanisms are relatively straightforward. These are similar to those adopted for the equivalent of the EU trademark. As I read it, there is a level of automaticity about the registration of the new right. It would be churlish not to welcome the fact it will include the features that are characteristic of the European design right, in terms of lines, contours, colours, shapes, textures and so on. That is an extremely important aspect.

I assume that, although there is a level of automaticity—entirely as the noble Baroness said—the sting will come in the renewal at the end of the three years, or whenever it occurs. The Explanatory Memorandum talks about this costing a total of £500,000. It would be useful to know where that estimate derives from.

Again, we are told that relevant stakeholders were consulted. Can the Minister again unpack whatever round table it was that took place? It is rather like Colonel Mustard in the drawing room: where was the deed done on consultation? It is important that we know when examining these statutory instruments that the right people were consulted and are happy, as far as it is possible to be happy with a no-deal Brexit SI, with the proposals set out. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which have covered much of the ground that I was going to raise, so I shall not go back over it. As both of them have said, this is a complicated area. My feeling from the comments made is that it is likely to become more complicated after a no-deal exit, not least because of an additional design right.

On that point, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, it has taken this rather odd set of circumstances to persuade the Government that there is a problem with our whole range of design rights. We have raised in the House before the question of why there is such a focus in the UK on registered design rights, as against the very much larger number of unregistered design rights used in fast-moving industries such as fashion and why those industries do not use the registration system at all. Bringing in another model just to try to fill a gap seems to overcomplicate the whole structure, although it provides additional cover, as the noble Lord said, and I welcome that.

Does the Minister recognise that an issue is looming here? Do we need another in-depth look at this whole area to try to unbottle some of the problems that we have caused in the past few years by bringing in additional layers of legislation and regulation and consider whether we need a new approach, because the industry has moved away from the current regulatory structures?

Having said that, a number of points raised need answers, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say. I have only a couple to mention. The noble Baroness mentioned paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I have two points on that. At paragraph 12.11, there is a rather odd piece of typography. It states:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because [].”


There are just two square brackets, so we do not know why it was not prepared, although we can guess. Can the Minister confirm why we have not had an impact assessment and not leave us hanging? It is a bit like a missing third act.

I have a point about cost recovery, which was well argued by the noble Baroness. The resourcing issues of this are not small: they may be £500,000, they may be £375,000, but they are still substantial. On a cost-recovery model, who pays? Are we saying that designers currently registering designs—which is about 10% of the total design component of industry—are carrying the costs not only of the existing arrangements but the additional burden of having to produce another registered design system introduced because of the possibility of defects in the relationship of those registered on the European basis? It is all very well saying that this is a benefit to the designers, but it is at a cost. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm my reading of the situation.

I asked this question on the previous statutory instrument, but I did not get a full answer. We seem again to be engaging in asymmetry. There would be an argument for saying that if we have to have a no-deal exit, when that happens, the arrangements for design protection must be limited to the UK because no reciprocity is promised from the EU, yet here we are saying that we in the UK will continue to recognise the registration process which takes place in EU countries after we leave but are unable to offer that right to those who register designs with the UK, even with the additional right. Why are we doing that? Is that an asymmetric approach, or is there something we do not know about the arrangements that have been made for that? I am not against what has been going on. However, if I am right, I think the consequences are that, while overseas or European designers may benefit from having their designs copyrighted—the catwalk example is a good one, in that you can have a fashion show in Paris and be confident that your designs will be covered in Britain—in Britain, we will not be able to do that because there is no necessary reciprocity. That seems unreasonable and I would be grateful to know who benefits from it when we hear from the Minister.

Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has expressed the impact on the life sciences industry extremely effectively and eloquently, and I do not wish to repeat anything of what he said. Quite apart from the damning quote from the chief executive, Mike Thompson, the key sentence that I saw in the ABPI’s briefing was:

“The signal the Government has sent to global pharmaceutical companies large and small is that the UK will be less committed to IP protection after Brexit than it has been to date”.


For a major industry to consider that seems extremely damning.

As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out, the Minister said that it is correct to raise these issues and he is keen to start exploring them, so there is some intention now to have some consultation post the SI rather than proper consultation before it. I think we are looking forward to hearing a bit more of a concrete proposal from the Minister with regard to what precisely is planned.

The Minister’s six and a half-page letter, as we must now call it, dealt with the question of participation in the unified patent court, as set out in the White Paper last autumn. I made the point in Committee that if the UP convention is ratified by Germany and comes into force ahead of our exit date, the UK will need to work out how to remain a member of the UPC or withdraw from the systems, which could have significant impacts on business. In that context, I questioned in Committee whether the UK will have to acknowledge the supremacy of EU law and the ECJ as part of the signing up process. In his letter, the Minister advises that,

“when ruling on domestic cases, UK courts will not be bound to follow decisions of the UPC, or rulings of the European Court of Justice applied by the UPC”.

The last time we discussed this SI, I brandished a 39-page opinion on the subject, so I am rather baffled by the advice that the IPO and the Minister have received in those circumstances, if we have signed up to the unified patent court agreement. I would very much like to hear a bit more clarification on that subject from the Minister.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this is another good debate on these issues. I will not fall out with the Minister about the length of his letter—we can brag about size elsewhere if we wish to—but it came out of my printer at eight pages. I leave that curious intellectual puzzle to him to sort out. Maybe there were other issues that had to be added in.

The Minister could well have dealt with other matters, including various aspects of whether the Silhouette case would apply in this area of the law; one of the points raised in the correspondence was the question of whether Silhouette, which applies to one aspect of our intellectual property, in fact has resonance through its relationship to the other aspects of the IP world and will also be applied. However, that may be for the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is right to raise questions about the unified patent court, which could change the game here. If the Minister is minded to confirm any of the points raised by the noble Lord, can he also confirm that premises for the unified patent court have been acquired in London? Are they fully available and ready to be moved into? We are expecting the courts to be operational very shortly, but it would be useful to have confirmation that this is still the case.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fox has introduced his amendment extremely eloquently and convincingly. In supporting it, I highlight the fact that without the right deal on movement of talent and skills, our creative industries will face major challenges. Some 5.7% of the UK workforce is made up of EU 27 nationals. However, 6.1% of the creative industries workforce is made up of EU 27 nationals. More than that, 10% of the design, publishing and advertising workforce are EU 27 nationals. Some 25% of our visual effects in film—VFX—workforce is from the EU, and that rises to 30% in gaming. We are highly dependent, in those areas of the creative industries, on EU 27 nationals.

Take the music industry, for example. Some £2.5 billion was generated by music in export revenue. Germany, France and Sweden are among our top export markets, and are major destinations for our musicians. In the recent ISM survey of musicians, 39% said that they travel to the EU more than five times a year; 12% travel to the EU more than 20 times a year. More than one in eight performers had fewer than seven days’ notice between being offered work and having to take it, and more than a third of musicians said they received at least half their income from working in the EU 27. There are warnings from these musicians from their experience with the rest of the world. More than a third of musicians had experienced difficulties with visas when travelling outside the EU. In fact, of those experiencing difficulties, 79% identified visas as the source of those difficulties. Musicians in particular rely on being able to work and tour in Europe freely, easily and often with little notice.

It is equally important that the other people vital to touring, such as roadies and technical staff, are able to travel on the same basis. It is also vital that instruments and equipment can be moved around easily, and this must be a reciprocal arrangement. On touring, the Government have said that the UK will look to reach an agreement allowing musicians and museums to tour major events with their equipment and goods. What is considered a major event is not clarified and there are few details on what an agreement would look like.

The Government propose that the new immigration system will preserve the current rules for employing non-visa nationals for short-term work to join a UK production. This allows them to work for up to three months without a visa, requiring only a certificate of sponsorship from their employer, which is cheaper and easier to obtain. For periods longer than three months, the Government are reaffirming that the current tier 5 creative and sporting route, which caters for creative workers such as musicians, actors or artists who are working and touring in the UK, will continue. This is welcome but, again, without the right reciprocal provisions, Brexit is likely to make touring much more difficult for musicians and crews to move across Europe. Increased red tape will make it harder to promote music overseas.

Then, if the withdrawal agreement is agreed, from January 2021 non-visa nationals looking to take up permanent employment in the UK, such as VFX workers, will need to obtain a tier 2 visa. This requires sponsorship from an employer, which must pay a skills charge to make the recruitment. Workers must meet a minimum salary requirement to be eligible for a tier 2 visa. Like my noble friend, I welcome that the Government now plan to consult on the appropriate level for this requirement in the coming year, but the Migration Advisory Committee—MAC—has recommended that it stays at £30,000. There will need to be considerable changes to these proposals if the Government are to ensure that sectors such as the creative industries continue to thrive post Brexit. As the Creative Industries Federation has said,

“high skills do not always command a high salary”.

There is still a huge lack of clarity. The UK Screen Alliance has criticised the plans for a post-Brexit visa system. It says the Bill’s proposed visa system will “severely limit” the VFX and animation industries’ access to international talent. It also says that expensive new EU visas will add significantly to operating costs and impact on the sector’s competitiveness in the global market. Alan Bishop, the chief executive of the Creative Industries Federation, said about the White Paper:

“Unfortunately there is very little in this white paper which will give creative businesses and freelancers in the UK any confidence for the future … government has failed to recognise the challenges freelancers face within the current immigration system—a significant challenge for the Creative Industries Federation where 35% of creative workers are self-employed. Freedom of movement has given British businesses access to the best and brightest freelancers from the EU, presenting those businesses with opportunities to grow and contribute to the continuing health of the UK economy. For international non-EEA freelancers however, the current immigration system provides no long-term route. This is why the Federation has called for the introduction of a freelance visa”.


Those are the words of two significant organisations in this field.

The Government have had plenty of time to consider all these issues and have had plenty of sound advice, not least from quarters such as the July report of the House of Lords European Union Committee, Brexit: Movement of People in the Cultural Sector. That is why this amendment is so important, and I very much hope that the Minister will reflect in his response that the Government fully understand the needs of the creative sector.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, a powerful case has been made by the party to my left. My sadness is that the framing of the amendment before us deals largely with how any future trade agreement with the EU should have a relaxed approach to the mobility framework and, picking up the point of our earlier debate, tries to insert in some measure the fourth pillar of the GATS process, which allows for individuals to travel in support of goods and services.

The case we heard, and the emotion it raises, are about the much broader ideas of freedom of movement and the ability to transfer skills, particularly in the creative industries. Although it was not specifically mentioned, presumably it seeks to try to loosen the way in which the Government currently treat overseas students. There is a wider, richer, deeper and more important argument about the need for mobility, its importance for any modern nation state and the contribution it can make to our economy and our culture. That needs to be answered, but it is not picked up particularly by this amendment.

We too discovered this problem when tabling amendments. The title of the Bill means that we can not have as broad a discussion as we would wish. However, there is an immigration Bill coming, and others in your Lordships’ House will want to pick up many of the points made here and raise them in the context of a much wider and more appropriate set of immigration conditions and arrangements, which will satisfy much of the discussions we have heard this afternoon.

On the narrow question of where we move, it would be wrong to try to seek a broader solution to the problems identified through a generic approach. There is no doubt that what appeared to be—and it was appearance rather than reality—unbridled immigration was a factor in the referendum that led to the formation of the Brexit arrangements. We would be stupid to ignore that. There are probably answers and solutions that would be satisfactory to all concerned, but not in this amendment. Nevertheless, I will listen carefully to what the Minister says in response to this point. This issue will not go away and we look forward to returning to it at a future stage.

Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 14th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention because that is exactly the impression that I had got.

To add to the Minister’s woes, I want to go off into a completely different subject that he himself raised at the very beginning: the issue of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the unified patent. The unified patent has come up; the Minister has mentioned it and it was included in the technical note in September. There is a big issue surrounding the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the unified patent. If the agreement is ratified by Germany and comes into force ahead of any exit date, the UK will need to work out how to remain a member of the UPC or withdraw from the system, which could have a significant impact on business. Of course, at this stage it is not clear if the agreement will come into effect at all, but if it does and if, as a third-party country, the UK then wants to take part, is it not clear—I have a 39-page legal opinion on this subject—that we, the UK, will have to acknowledge the supremacy of EU law and the ECJ as part of signing up to the UPC agreement? What kind of “taking back control” for Brexiters will that be?

What advice have the Government received on this matter? I heard what the Minister had to say: he made the very positive statement that we were going to sign up. Have the Government had any further observations on the UPC agreement and the unified patent? How do they envisage UK legislation dovetailing with both systems, assuming that it is ratified?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a good debate that has raised lots of issues. I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is right that there are real questions to be asked here, although I feel that we are experiencing a bit of a split focus here. It is like being part of the film “The Matrix” because there seem to be two different levels of debate going on. There are the particularly narrow questions about the statutory instrument as presented, with which I think there are some substantial difficulties, but there are also the wider issues about why we are doing all this and the way that we are doing it. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others have focused on the absurdity of a situation where we are trying to persuade ourselves that, despite our best instincts, despite all the training that we have had here and despite everything that we do every other day of our lives, we are quite happy to sit here and wave this through just because it might not happen. That seems to be Alice in Wonderland rather than “The Matrix”, but perhaps they come together in a curious way which I have yet to experience.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, commented on the Unified Patent Court, which is an intriguing area of public policy which has yet to have its full ramifications explained. He is absolutely right that the UK has committed itself to ratifying the UPC and intends to join up. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that when he comes to respond. Of course, with that comes the continuing role of the ECJ, because all judgments of the UPC—although there will be a platform of it operating here in London in property which has already been bought and refurbished in premises on a lavish scale which may not have been seen by the press yet, but I am sure that when they are there will be a bit of a scandal—will be absolutely redolent of the way in which the European continuing engagement will have to operate. That is because so many people hold unified patents and will need to have them defended in ways which are important not only here but in the six other areas where the court will be operating. But that is part of the further discussion and debate along with the consultation issues which I agree need to be bottomed out at some stage, but perhaps not today.

I may just stunt the time taken up by other speakers by looking at the other four SIs which are due to be discussed shortly by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and others. I am sure that he will have read through and inwardly memorised the rather clever phrasing used by HM Treasury which I recommend to the department as it might wish to use it in the future and thus avoid some of the confusion. It states:

“HM Treasury has not undertaken a consultation on the instrument, but has engaged with relevant stakeholders on its approach to Financial Services legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, including on this instrument, in order to familiarise them with the legislation ahead of laying … The instrument was also published in draft, along with an explanatory policy note, on 31 October 2018, in order to maximise transparency ahead of laying”.


That is wonderful phrasing and I congratulate the Treasury on having found a way out of an apparently insoluble problem. If it can defeat the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and his assembled minions, obviously it will be well ahead of the game.

Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made elsewhere. He was present for part of the debate on artificial intelligence on Monday. On reflection, it is a bit surprising that the Government were not able to accelerate the announcement of this new body. It would have helped a lot in that debate. No doubt the tyranny of the grid is to blame again, but many of us would have felt the benefit had we known, not least, that the membership of the board had been enhanced by those Members of your Lordships’ House already referred to.

To go back in history a bit, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation came out of amendments we proposed during the passage of the Data Protection Bill, but it was built on excellent work by the Royal Society and others. We should pay tribute to the groundwork that led to today’s announcement. Those amendments had a lot of support from around the House and would have gone into the Bill had we been able to push them further, but we could not get them within the bounds of the Bill’s framing. We should say clearly that the model we had in mind then was the independent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. In preparing the thinking in this new area of advanced technology and data processing and protection, one needed a carefully balanced body that could regulate in the context of difficult ethical issues raised by research and development.

I will now ask a number of questions about the body itself, and I hope that the Minister will respond, in writing later if not now. The body was originally intended to be an independent statutory body, but it is not because no powers have yet been established. What is the progress on that? The reports I have read suggest that that is still an objective of the Government, although they are making a virtue of the fact that it is an advisory committee in the interim period. In some senses, they will probably be judging its success, which is a bit worrying given that the whole benefit would be that it was independent of government, long-term and able to look without fear or favour at the big issues. If it is an advisory committee of the department, how independent will it be in practice? Is funding secured? Can it spend what it needs to get the research and advice it needs? How much of the original thinking about the HFEA remains? As an advisory committee, can it request information? One problem is the difficulty of extracting information from the behemoths that populate the international information society.

The press release rightly describes the membership as “stellar”. Given the names already mentioned here, I think we should recognise that. I confess that my application was weeded out very early in the game. This was unfortunate, because I would have been delighted to be part of that. Having seen the full list and heard why they were chosen, it is clear that the right decisions have been reached and I bear no malice to those responsible—honest. If the membership question comes up later, I am still around.

In the absence of the new centre starting up, we have only two or three areas of activity. We have a statement as a result of the consultations that took place. It talks about the focuses being to provide clear guidance and regulation and to lead debate about how data can be used in the future. But there are still some problems that need to be resolved, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments. The AI report we discussed at length in a very good debate on Monday, when there were notable speeches from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Browne, shows the range of issues that are going to be up for discussion. These are very abstruse areas of intellectual activity such as ethics and the nature of machines—whether they are responsible for their actions and, if so, how any redress can be obtained. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, posed questions about intelligent weapons and what controls must be placed on them. It is a very stretching agenda. All we know is that issues currently in the list include data trusts, algorithms and consumer experiences. I do not think there will be a shortage of those. Can the Minister explain what the process will be? I gather an overall strategy document will be revealed.

There are some concerns about the balance between advice and regulatory action. I think the plan would be for advice to be offered to government and regulatory action to be taken by existing or other bodies. Could we have confirmation of that? There is a question about the balance between ethics and innovation. Clearly, innovations are difficult to support if they raise big ethical issues too quickly; they often need to be tested over time and analysed. It would be useful if there were a way forward on that. Of course, there is the whole question of how the Government intend to treat public data, its use and value for money, and the extent to which it will be available.

Lastly, the new centre, which I wish extremely well, enters a rather crowded space with the Information Commissioner’s Officer, Ofcom and the CMA, all of which have statutory functions in this area, but perhaps I may counsel that also to come are the Alan Turing Institute, which is now up and running, and the Open Data Institute. Therefore, there will be a need for some time for this whole process to settle down and for leadership from the Government on how it will work.

The responses to the consultation showed a clear public wish for consistency and coherence, and I hope that in that process there will be room for consultation. I do not wish the new body to be a proselytiser for data or indeed for artificial intelligence, but there is a difference between proselytising and being in an explanatory mode, reassuring people and explaining to them the benefits as well as the risks of this new technology. The centre needs to be public facing and fully engaged in that process, and I wish it well.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. He was missed in the debate on Monday. I have had the benefit of reading the Government’s response to the consultation on the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. I share the enthusiasm for the centre’s creation, as did the Select Committee, and, now, for the clarification of the centre’s role, which will be very important in ensuring public trust in artificial intelligence. I am also enthusiastic about the appointments—described, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, as “stellar” in the Government’s own press release. In particular, I congratulate Members of this House and especially the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who contributed so much to our AI Select Committee. I am sure that both will keep the flame of our conclusions alive. I am delighted that we will also see a full strategy for the centre emerging early next year.

I too have a few questions for the Minister and I suspect that, in view of the number asked by me and by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, he will much prefer to write. Essentially, many of them relate to the relations between the very crowded landscape of regulatory bodies and the government departments involved.

Of course¸ the centre is an interim body. It will eventually be statutory but, as an independent body, where will the accountability lie? To which government department or body will it be accountable? Will it produce its own ethics framework for adoption across a wide range of sectors? Will it advocate such a framework internationally, and through what channels and institutions? Who will advise the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS on the use of health data in AI applications? Will it be the centre or the ICO, or indeed both? Will the study of bias, which has been announced by the centre, explore the development of audit mechanisms to identify and minimise bias in algorithms?

How will the centre carry out its function of advising the private sector on best practice, such as ethics codes and advisory boards? What links will there be with the Competition and Markets Authority over the question of data monopolies, which I know the Government and the CMA are both conscious of? In their consideration of data trust, will the government Office for Artificial Intelligence, which I see will be the responsible body, also look at the benefits of and incentives for hubs of all things? These are beginning to emerge as a very important way of protecting private data.

What links will there be with other government departments in giving advice on the application of AI and the use of datasets? The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to lethal autonomous weapons, which emerged as a major issue in our debate on Monday. What kind of regular contact will there be with government departments—in particular, with the Ministry of Defence? One of the big concerns of the Select Committee was: what formal mechanisms for co-ordinating policy and action between the Office for Artificial Intelligence, the AI Council, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation and the ICO will there be? That needs to be resolved.

Finally, the centre will have a major role in all the above in its new studies of bias and micro-targeting, and therefore the big question is: will it be adequately resourced? What will its budget be? In the debate on Monday, I said that we need to ensure that we maintain the momentum in developing our national strategy, and this requires government to will the means.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 14th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. In many ways, when these clauses came to the House we missed a trick; I do not think we quite understood at the time that the Information Commissioner did not have adequate powers. It was rather a sorry sight to see the Information Commissioner hanging around for several days outside Cambridge Analytica waiting to be allowed to enter and inspect, so these amendments are extremely welcome—as, of course, is the new criminal offence the Minister mentioned.

I will say one thing: it is not entirely clear whether these powers are on all fours with, for instance, the Competitions and Markets Authority, Ofcom, Ofgem, and so on, in terms of the ability to make a dawn raid. I have looked at it but it is not entirely clear that that is possible. Clearly, in the current circumstances, the misuse of data is an extremely important aspect. It would be very interesting to hear from the Minister whether at the end of the day these are modelled on the other regulators. Does the Information Commissioner have very similar powers, and is a dawn raid available to her? Given that there are safeguards in the Bill—a warrant from the High Court and so on—that would be desirable. We have discovered that it is important for the Information Commissioner, as a result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, to have all the powers necessary.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I associate myself with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I agree with the Minister that this is a welcome step forward. I have three minor points to put to him and I shall ask a question about the powers at the end. He said several times that he had had conversations with and was in agreement with the ICO about the powers that were taken. Following up on what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, has the ICO agreed that these powers are what she asked for and will achieve what she aims to do in cases such as that of Cambridge Analytica?

Secondly, what are they modelled on? I have had the benefit of a conversation with the Bill team and the Minister on this and I think the answer to the question of whether they are modelled on the Competition and Markets Authority’s powers is that they are coming from slightly different directions. It is not necessary that the powers should be exactly the same, but I think the answer is that they were broadly what was envisaged for the CMA when it was set up and therefore appropriate for the powers required by the ICO. Can the Minister confirm that is the case?

My third question is one that we have explored at length in Committee and on Report. Given these new duties and responsibilities, which are substantial and will have to be exercised with great care but will add a burden to its existing work—as was laid out in the Bill when we saw it in this House some time ago—will the resources be available to the ICO to carry out that work? If not, what will the Government do about that? This bears particularly on the question of staff and staff capacity because, as the Minister says, we are talking about the cutting edge of technology.

My final point is that we are legislating in haste. There is no reason why we should be suspicious of that but it was done very quickly and there was not as much scrutiny as one would have wished, in either this House or the other place. I was not able to find this in the Bill itself, but can the Minister confirm whether, should it turn out that these powers are not as well drafted or well expressed as they could be, he has the powers to go back and amend them through the appropriate procedures in due course, should that be necessary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we are very sympathetic to Amendments 53A and 53B. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, we find it difficult to understand why it has been impossible to come to some sort of agreement. I hear what the Minister said: that he is sympathetic, but not so sympathetic that he agrees with the amendments. This disagreement about whether a statutory code, guidance or whatever is the right way forward seems to be dancing on the head of a pin.

I pray in aid the intervening report of the AI Select Committee on precisely this matter, which supports the contentions of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. In our report, we stated:

“Increasingly, public sector data has value. It is important that public organisations are aware of the commercial potential of such data. We recommend that the Information Commissioner’s Office work closely with the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation in the establishment of data trusts, and help to prepare advice and guidance for data controllers in the public sector to enable them to estimate the value of the data they hold, in order to make best use of it and negotiate fair and evidence-based agreements with private-sector partners”.


That seems fair and square along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.

In the course of our inquiry, we also looked carefully at the sorts of arrangements made by DeepMind—not only the benefits, which he very fairly outlined, but the issues with how sharing that data was organised, which of course led to an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Of course, NHS data is particularly important in this context. In our report, we stated:

“The data held by the NHS could be considered a unique source of value for the nation. It should not be shared lightly, but when it is, it should be done in a manner which allows for that value to be recouped”.


So, fair and square, we are with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.

It would be somewhat ironic if the Secretary of State, in his response to our Select Committee in three or four weeks, said, “Yes, we agree: there should be something along these lines”, but we had missed the opportunity in this Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we supported the amendments that my noble friend Lord Mitchell tabled in Committee and on Report, and we support him in his journey through this process. The issue is probably complicated by the fact that, had this Bill been delayed by a matter of months from now, we would probably find that this issue was bobbing up all over our public realm, where people are beginning to realise the value of the assets that they hold. To the extent of being a first mover, I think that my noble friend has probably suffered from that, but I hope that the Minister will show some sympathy and support for him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, very briefly, we had considerable debate while the Bill was going through the House on whether we should incorporate Article 18(2) and we obviously did not prevail while the Bill was going through this House. Although this does not go as far as incorporating Article 18(2), which I regret—I would clearly like to see the whole loaf, so to speak—at least this gives the possibility of Article 18(2) being incorporated through a review. Will the Minister say when he thinks the review will be laid, in the form of a report? I am assuming that,

“within 30 months of commencement of the Bill”,

means within 30 months from 25 May this year. I am making that assumption so that we can all count the days to when the report will come back for debate in Parliament.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in joining the dots, as it were, between the original proposal and having a proper approach to children using the internet and all the other things they use, and the way they would get redress if there is a problem, has been a joy to watch. She has stuck at it like a terrier, she has not let Ministers off the hook, she has been firing off emails and phone calls from faraway places and causing their lives to be an absolute misery, but it is a good thing because we have got to where we need to be.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, it was always a surprise that the Government did not want to include Article 18(2) as well as Article 18(1), because it completes the support for consumers of internet services, which the Bill sets out to do but for which there is a derogation and they have chosen not to exercise it. I am very glad about that, but perhaps the Minister can explain one thing that I did not quite get right in my mind as I was listening to him. The review is to check whether Article 18(2) would make it a more effective consumer measure than it is currently under the Bill as drafted—the Act, as it will be. It is not restricted to vulnerable people. The way it was expressed seemed to suggest that it would cover only other vulnerable people. In any case, children are not vulnerable: they are extremely interested, very wise and often sagacious about the internet but they are not vulnerable to it. They may well get themselves into vulnerable situations, in which case they need redress, through bodies such as child-specific agencies, but I do not think that was the intention. I would be grateful if that could be addressed.

Secondly, a moment of levity flashed through my mind when the Minister was talking about the need for the Inland Revenue to track down where reservists had got to. I cannot believe that is the only way the Ministry of Defence keeps in touch with its reserve, but I do not dissent from this being a very good measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as the Minister made clear in his lucid introduction, this is a really significant group of amendments. It is very good to see that some of the work that was done in this House has come back in the form of amendments. In particular, the Minister will remember that it was my noble friend Lord McNally who raised issues around Thomson Reuters in the first place. However, I know that there will be considerable pleasure in the financial services industry, which is very concerned about such things as money laundering, anti-corruption measures and so on, and making sure that it can process data in pursuance of achieving those important goals.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, on her campaign, which has clearly borne fruit here. I had not heard what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, had said but there seems to be a bit of a hole in the Bill if that is the case. I can certainly testify to the fact that arbitrators are an incredibly important part of our judicial system. Indeed, within it they are one of our global competitive advantages; therefore if anything is done that is to the detriment of our arbitration system, it would be really quite serious.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I too congratulate the Government on bringing forward these amendments. They cover a wide range but, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, they are an important part of the actual mechanics and workings of the system once it is going. We will certainly need a few successes where people believe that something has been done to make sure that their lives are easier, rather than more difficult, as a result of this legislation. Even your Lordships’ House will suffer quite considerably in the processing tasks that it will have to carry. I seem to remember that, after an informal chat with the Minister, we were going to get a statement from him about how he felt about that and how things might progress. Maybe I am pushing him a little too far; perhaps we will get a letter or something about it later.

I echo the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, who fought an understated but effective campaign on an important area, which I am glad to see was picked up. I thought the diversity amendments were the sort of thing that could easily have been dropped off for being too complicated and difficult. This is possibly not the right Bill but it is really important that we got them in here. There could have been use made of some provisions by employers and others who did not want to face up to the reality of the world today, saying that they would not be able to process data in a way that would allow us to see whether progress has been made on this.

We on the Labour Benches were also consulted by Thomson Reuters, which felt that there was a bit of a lacuna in some things it was asked to do about money laundering. I am glad that the Bill team finally came round on that and agreed that there was something there. It brought forward a measure.

I am particularly pleased about safeguarding, which was quite a late addition to Committee. We brought it back on Report. It was obviously something that needed much wider consideration. Again, I wondered whether there would be time to bring it through. It has been possible to do so. We now have a very satisfactory approach to this. It covers not just sports, which was the area we raised, but the wider consideration of vulnerable people in clubs and in health and welfare situations where there needs to be consideration of what process and steps could be taken if suspicions were raised. We do not have to read the papers today to realise how damaging that can be if it is not caught quickly. We welcome the amendments.

Artificial Intelligence

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 26th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place. We welcome it in its generality, although I have some comments about individual points. The most striking thing is that there is no reference in the Statement or the papers that accompany it to the excellent report recently published by your Lordships’ Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence. It may just be a case of the Government getting their retaliation in first. I hope not; I hope that in time they will respond positively and carefully to the various recommendations made by that excellent report and look forward to returning to the topic then.

AI clearly presents huge opportunities for the UK, and it is important that the Government are taking it seriously, as I think they are in the Statement. Responsibilities go with that initiative, as is evident in some of the points made, but I shall probe further on them.

On R&D spend, which is at the heart of the Statement, as reflected in the press statement issued jointly by DCMS and BEIS, the ambition is to get to 2.5% of GDP, with an eventual target, although it is not quantified, of more than 3%. Sweden, Austria, Germany, Belgium and Finland all have R&D expenditure of more than 2.5%, and South Korea spends more than 4% of GDP on R&D. If the UK really seeks to be a leader in AI and technology innovation, as we hope it does, why is the target so modest?

My second point is about the link back to young people and the school curriculum. It was suggested that the Government discouraged the independent review led by Professor Wendy Hall and Jérôme Pesenti from looking at the curriculum in primary and secondary schools, which you would think would be part of the process of trying to get our country as a whole geared up to do more across AI. If they were told that they could not go there because looking at the curriculum is very thorny and difficult, what on earth are the Government going to do about it? There is good news in the extra funding for teachers, but teachers do not create curricula; curricula have to be created in the wider context of education. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on whether there is to be movement on that.

Also in education, there is the rather curious phrase that the Government are going to “create” 200 PhDs, as if they are something that you just print or issue, like coinage. Further reading and looking in more detail at other parts of the Statement should reveal that this will be funding for a welcome increase in the number of people taking PhD programmes. Presumably they will be independently offered by universities, not simply created by government diktat. However, are we not in the middle of a crisis of funding for higher education? Where in the Statement—I could not find it—is any reference to how the students will live on the additional PhDs that are being created? To narrow my question down, will the PhDs mentioned be part of the independent review of higher education, which is looking primarily at undergraduate courses but needs to look also at masters and PhD students?

We have looked at digital infrastructure time and again in this House, and each time the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box and talked about what progress has been made he has been met by a torrent of scepticism and concern that the reality is rather different from what the Government think. At the heart of this must be a commitment from the Government to get ahead of the rather unaspirational USO that they are about to introduce and go to fibre to the premises. FTTP broadband is the only way we can take the benefit of the technology, invest and get the returns that we will need as a country. We are so far behind the EU average on FTTP, which is 24% penetration. We are at about 2.7% penetration. Countries such as Portugal, Latvia and Lithuania have coverages of 86%, 85% and 81% respectively. What are the Government going to do about that? This will not get us to where we need to be.

On visas, there is a welcome suggestion that tier 1 numbers will be doubled, although that takes us to only 2,000—presumably per year. Will the Government reflect on whether that will be sufficient to reach the ambitions set out in the Statement?

I have two final points. In the Data Protection Bill, we have been concerned about whether sufficient resources and powers are available for the Information Commissioner to carry out her very responsible job of trying to ensure that we have a proper data regulatory structure. I understand that amendments are to be tabled that will increase the powers of the ICO, and look forward to discussing them when they reach the House—perhaps next week or the week after—but the question of resources is still open-ended. It seems that the Government will back and expand our AI activity. If that is the case, can they assure us that the additional resources required by the Information Commissioner’s Office will be provided at the appropriate time and that she will have the powers she needs?

Finally, on the very welcome news that the centre for data ethics and innovation is beginning to take shape and apparently has a budget of £9 million, what exactly is its current status? As I understand it, no legislative process has taken place, and I would be interested to know the timetable for that. Will the funding be limited to £9 million, or will other funds be available? More importantly, will it have a statutory position? The Government rightly pick up the need to ensure that all the work that is going on and is foreshadowed in the Statement will be effective for our economy, but it will be effective only if people trust that their data will not be abused and that there is appropriate understanding and a proper regulatory processes in place which engage with the ethical issues. We need a little more information on that. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond on when that will happen.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, having immersed myself in the subject of AI for the past year, I am absolutely clear that there is complete cross-party consensus on the potential for AI in the UK. I welcome today’s sector deal, particularly the evidence of cross-departmental working, which underlies quite a lot of the work that is beginning to take place. I very much hope that today’s sector deal is simply the tip of the iceberg of the Government’s AI policy and ambition. I note that the Minister used the word “ambition”, and I very much hope that this is but the first in a number of steps that need to be taken.

I hope we will have a much more extensive debate when the Government’s response to our Select Committee report is issued in due course, because it covers so many aspects. As I see it, today’s sector deal is essentially a nailing down of the commitments made in the industrial strategy, the proposals in the Hall-Pesenti review and the commitments made in the last Budget. I should be very interested if the Minister could unpack how much actual new money is involved in today’s sector deal, because I see it essentially as a packaging up for the sector rather than a new, dramatic development.

There are many aspects of the sector deal to welcome, not least the role of the British Business Bank in helping finance AI developers, growth companies, and so on. I hope they will be given an even more important role in the future, and I hope they will not go the way of the Green Investment Bank, which is an absolute object lesson for the Government in this respect.

The Select Committee thought that the fundamentals of government policy were right but it was a question of scale, ambition, co-ordination and drive behind the policies of the new bodies involved. There are many examples of this. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, rightly mentioned infrastructure investment. When only 3% of the country is covered by ultra-fast broadband, a £1 billion investment is neither here nor there. It is a bit of encouragement but it will not move us very fast up the curve compared to our international competitors. Then again, the scale of the skills gap is absolutely huge. I know that there was some negotiation as part of the Hall-Pesenti review, but 200 new PhDs in AI, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—off-the-shelf or not—being initially financed is the absolute bare minimum required.

Then again, we are heavily dependent on skilled EU workers. A Brexit brain drain is already threatening the UK tech sector, which relies heavily on foreign talent from the EU. DeepMind is already setting up a laboratory in Paris because of that. We need overseas students to stay. Will the Government reinstate post-study work visas for graduates in STEM subjects who find suitable employment within six months of graduating? The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned a doubling of tier 1 visas. That is very welcome but why do not the Government declare, as the Select Committee suggested, a shortage occupation in tier 2 for machine learning and computer skills? That might make a huge difference. Collaborative research with EU countries is at risk as well. How will we fill the gap post 2020?

As virtually every Select Committee witness told us, creative skills will be crucial in the mix as well. What are the Government doing to emphasise not just STEM but STEAM in our schools? There is a dangerous dropping off of arts and creative subjects already. But, of course, it is not simply about the opportunities, of which there are many, but mitigating the risks as well, and making sure that we retain and build public trust in the new technologies involved. Inclusion is of crucial importance in this context. A strong inclusion and diversity agenda ran through our Select Committee report, which has been welcomed. In particular, we need more women in digital roles to help fill the skills gap. What are the Government doing to develop a culture that is inclusive, respectful and encourages women to pursue careers in AI?

Ethics must likewise be moved forward. I hope that the Government move forward quickly with this via the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation by convening an international conference and other forms of international collaboration. I include the EU in this. Yesterday it published its report, Artificial Intelligence for Europe. In that, the role of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is highlighted as being the instrument by which one could incorporate a code of ethics. This makes the vote on Monday doubly valuable and I hope the Government will take due note. That is a very helpful way of making sure that we have an ethical framework that could cover most European countries.

I could raise many issues, not least data, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned. I hope the Government will be talking to the Competition and Markets Authority about issues such as data monopolies. I hope that, as the Data Protection Bill goes through the Commons, they will look at whether we have real strength, and whether Article 22 of the GDPR really gives us sufficient rights of explainability for autonomous decision-making, as I raised in this House.

Finally, it is about ambition. If the UK wants to be seen as a world leader in any aspect of AI development, it needs to move as quickly as other countries, such as Canada and France. It must set its ambitions high to be a global player. It must welcome talent in growing its AI industry from start-ups to the next level.

Data Protection (Charges and Information) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction. We all accept the need for a well-resourced Information Commissioner’s Office. On Report, we welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, who was the Minister at the time, had to say in response to an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about the commitment to ensuring that the commissioner has adequate resources to fulfil her role as a world-class regulator and to take on the extra regulatory responsibilities set out in the Bill. There is no argument between us about the principles of funding the Information Commissioner’s Office. The pledges made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, were very welcome. We wish the Information Commissioner well with her extended role and her extended £33 million budget.

That does not come without a cost to data controllers. It is not simply a question of deciding the budget and then deciding what people pay, without considering affordability. Local authorities have put to me that they are very concerned at the lack of consultation offered to all affected parties, including the LGA, ahead of the new charging model. Apparently, approximately 40,000 data controllers were written to, inviting them to respond to the consultation: I understand that about 2,000 did so. However, not all affected parties were offered the opportunity to contribute. The consultation, and responses to it, are not publicly available, which differs from most government consultation. Will the Minister commit to publishing the outcome of the consultations?

Local authorities are concerned by what appears to be a rather arbitrary increase in the charges that they will have to pay to the ICO as data controllers. I also understand that it is proposed that elected representatives will be subject to a small increase in their charge. Under the new charging model, councils with 250 or more employees are defined as large data controllers and are subject to the highest fees under the SI. In practice, most councils that would have been paying £500 to register with the ICO will now have to pay £2,900. This is an increase of 480%; an inflationary increase would have seen the fees rise from £500 to £623.61. This comes at a time when local government is under significant financial pressure and local councils are receiving no additional government funding to help implement the GDPR.

It seems from the Explanatory Memorandum that the Government are considering an exemption for elected representatives, subject to a full review of exemptions in general. In the current process, there are exemptions from the requirement to register with the ICO. These include exemptions for those maintaining a public register, for staff administration purposes, for advertising and for accounting. I refer the Minister to paragraph 7.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, where the Government state their intentions about the review.

On these Benches, we would definitely support an exemption for elected representatives. Councillors should not have to pay a charge to the Information Commissioner to correspond with their residents and should not incur a cost associated with their duties in representing their constituents. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the review which is heralded in the Explanatory Memorandum.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with just about everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, particularly on the comments—they have been passed to me as well—from the Local Government Association, which seems to have been badly hit by the changes. He will remember, although I think this predates the Minister, that we went through some of the thinking behind the charges in what is now the Digital Economy Act. He will recall the debate and discussion at that time; it is good to see it coming through now in a form that we can look at.

I will not repeat some of the issues that have been raised because I come at this with a slightly different argument, although we arrive at roughly the same place. First, noble Lords could not have gone through the Data Protection Bill without recognising, as the Minister did, the huge amount of extra work and responsibility that will lie with the ICO after it went through. It is an astonishing step change. Yes, it is true that that is reflected in the additional resources, which will be calculated to flow from these changes and increases in the fee structure, but two questions arise. We are relying for the arithmetic on work that was done, as I understand it, by working through the new charge structure; the department has modelled the anticipated income generated to try to come up with something. Two things occur to me from that.

First, what happens if the calculations are wrong? As we speak, we are living through a situation in which a huge additional workload has suddenly landed on the ICO’s desk. Cambridge Analytica was not a household name before this week’s revelations but if the matter goes to court to get submissions, the ICO will have to prosecute and defend itself. I cannot quite see where that was built into things. I am not looking for a specific response but I want to sharpen the question. It is all very well being on a cost-recovery basis when the funds exceeds the expenses, but what happens when they do not? Who will carry the cost? Can the Minister comment on that? Secondly, would it be possible to get a bit more detail about how this plays out in real terms, given the reserves that are allowed to be carried forward and the implication for what work would have to be cut if it is not possible to carry forward deficits from year to year? We are talking about government accounting so, presumably, the NAO will be watching very carefully. I worry a bit about what will happen in the short term. I do not want a detailed response now but I would be happy to get a letter on that.

My second point is about the assertion made that somehow the structure we have here is a way of responding to what was described in paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum as building,

“regulatory risk into the charge level”.

I do not understand what risk is being assessed here. Again, this may need a more considered response. Is it the numbers? It is clear that there will be a lot more tier 1 organisations and therefore a lot of detailed administration and housekeeping, but does that equate to risk? I think not. I therefore wonder why the charge, relatively speaking, is being kept at roughly what it was before—it is still £40—and has been extended.

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made this point today but I am sure that he raised it in discussion in Committee and on Report. We are talking about a situation where it did not matter whether you registered with the system under the Data Protection Act 1998, despite the fact that the noble Lord did not get his amendment through on having a statutory register for these things. I am sorry about that. There will effectively be a register for all those who use data, which will be policed to some extent. Therefore, the chances are that anyone who was not paying before will certainly be caught now. There is a huge additional element here that has not been previously caught or considered. I am intrigued by that. Therefore, the comment made about not wanting micro-organisations to pay for their activities further up the scale struck me as a little odd. Perhaps we might come back to that.

Tier 2 includes the mid-range of the organisations. A lot of companies are in this area; in fact, the bulk of activity in the industry. Yes, they should pay for services received but I would hazard that they are extremely low-risk. I cannot believe that major breaches of personal data are happening in a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises. That bears comparison with the new third tier that has been introduced to look at large organisations; we are talking about Facebook and other organisations which I do not need to name. We are asking them only to pay a modest proportion more than small and medium-sized organisations. I do not know how that equates to risk. It seems that the evidence of this week is that 50 million Facebook accounts could have been picked up and used in some alleged way of trying to influence elections. We are talking about damage on a substantial scale, which is not the same, in any sense, as that which might occur to citizens—the local joiner, plumber or building firm mislaying their accounting records for a short period. However, I am prepared to listen to the arguments on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

Yet their resources are shrinking on a daily basis.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It is not so much whether they should be paying—we probably accept that they should, though how much is in question—it is the fact that they were not consulted. The consultation exercise did not reach that far and the Minister was going to try to give some information about why that could have been.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, we should all thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, together with officials of the House, for having prompted these amendments. In thanking the Minister I want also to mention in dispatches my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She highlighted this point early on in Committee, I think to the incredulity of the House at the time because it was thought that it was only Members of Parliament who should have the exemptions in the Bill. These elegant solutions demonstrate that parliamentary privilege covers both Houses.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for his stalwart work in bringing forward these important amendments. What he did not say but we should also recognise is that on a couple of occasions he had to stay late in order to do that, I am sure far beyond his normal bedtime.

Unfortunately, squeezed out in the second group of amendments which I also supported but which did not find favour with the Government, was an effort to try to retain the current arrangements under which noble Lords of this House who wish to speak about individual cases would be able to do so on the basis that they would be treated as elected representatives. That did not win the support of the Government and therefore will be left to the other place, which I am sure will immediately seize on it and see the injustice reversed. In due course it will come back to us. With that, I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on the assiduous way in which he has pursued these issues on behalf of the insurance industry, and thank the Minister for his close engagement on them. We very much welcome these amendments but I have a couple of clarificatory questions for the Minister, the answers to which would be helpful in making sure that we all understand the exact position of the insurance industry relative to these new provisions.

The proposed derogation to paragraph 13A of Part 2 of Schedule 1 does not specifically address the processing of data relating to criminal convictions or offences. First, can the Minister confirm that paragraph 28 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 may be read in conjunction with paragraph 13A of Part 2 to permit the processing of data relating to criminal convictions or offences where it is necessary for an insurer to process this data for policy underwriting and claims management or related money laundering and anti-fraud activities? The reference in paragraph 13A to,

“racial or ethnic origin, religious or philosophical beliefs or trade union membership, genetic data or data concerning health”,

would appear to preclude this, but we assume that this is not the intent.

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the processing of special category data or data relating to criminal convictions or offences by insurance companies and related intermediaries, such as reinsurers and brokers, for the purposes of conducting insurance-related business and managing claims will be regarded by the Government as purposes that are in the “substantial public interest”?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I welcome these amendments and it is nice to hear the story that has come through of a listening Bill team and a listening Minister, and the way in which the industry has organised itself to make sure that the perceived faults were remedied.

If it is of interest to the House, a lot of us have been doing events with professional bodies and others interested in this whole area since the Bill started. I was reflecting just before this Third Reading debate that there were really only three things that came up time and again at these sessions, after the presentations by the experts and others such as us who were trying to keep up with what they were saying. The first was Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights—that came up time and again. People did not understand the basis on which their rights would be retained, but we have dealt with that.

The second was the—unpronounceable—re-identification of previously anonymised data. I suspect that was because there are one or two very active persons going around all these groups—I seemed to recognise their faces every time it came up—who were anxious to make sure that this point was drilled back to Ministers. We have found a way forward on that, which is good.

The third item was the insurance industry time and time again raising points similar to those raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, by suggesting that there was a problem with efficient markets and the operation of customer good, and that the Government had to look again. We are very glad that the Government have done so. I have now ticked off all my list and it is done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I will just slip in for a couple of minutes in the light of the Minister’s very shrewd appraisal of the progress on the Bill. I had not quite realised that the Bill team were treating the Digital Economy Bill as a dress rehearsal for the Data Protection Bill, but that is really why this has gone so smoothly, with very much the same cast on the Front Benches.

We on these Benches welcomed many aspects of the Bill on its introduction last October and continue to do so. Indeed, it has improved on the way through, as the Minister pointed out. I thank my noble friends Lord Paddick, Lady Hamwee, Lord McNally, Lady Ludford and Lord Storey for helping to kick the tyres on this Bill so effectively over the last four months. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and all his colleagues for a generally harmonious collaboration in so many areas of common interest.

I very much thank the Minister and all his colleagues on the Front Bench and the excellent Bill team for all their responses over time to our particular issues. The Minister mentioned a number of areas that have been significant additions to the Bill. I thank the Minister for his good humour throughout, even at late hours and on many complicated areas. We are hugely pleased with the outcome obtained by the campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for age-appropriate design, which many of us on these Benches think is a real game-changer.

There is just a slight sting in the tale. We are less happy with a number of aspects of the Bill, such as, first, the continuing presence of exemptions in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 for immigration control. Solicitors need the facts to be able to represent their clients, and I am afraid these immigration exceptions will deny access to justice.

Secondly, the Minister made a pretty good fist of explaining the way the new framework for government use of personal data will operate, but I am afraid, in the light of examples given, for instance by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in relation to the Department for Education’s approach to the national pupil database, and now concerns over Public Health England’s release of data on 180,000 patients to a tobacco firm, that there will be continuing concerns about that framework.

Finally, one of the triumphs of debate in this House was the passing of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, calling for, in effect, Leveson 2. The response of the Secretary of State, whose appointment I very much welcomed at the time, was rather churlish:

“This vote will undermine high quality journalism, fail to resolve challenges the media face and is a hammer blow to local press”.


On Sunday he did even better, saying it could be the “death knell” of democracy, which is pretty strong and unnecessary language. I very much hope that a sensible agreement to proceed is reached before we start having to play ping-pong. I am sorry to have to end on that slightly sour note, but it is an important amendment and I very much hope that it stands.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, from this side of the House, I also thank the Bill team, as I think I can call them. What we faced when we first came across the Bill was a beast—a beast dressed up as legislation but a beast in many ways. As the Minister said, we got round most of it but then discovered there were another 250 amendments coming down the track from the Government. Although they were dressed up as being small, trivial things, you have to read them and understand them, and they add a little to one’s workload.

If we did not learn to love the Bill, we certainly at least respect it. It is a good Bill, now much better than it was before. I hope it will have the longevity of its predecessor, the 1998 Act. It has the same aspirations and aims but, because of the inclusivity of the age-appropriate design and other matters that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned, it also begins to shape the debate that we still need to have about how and under what conditions we as a mature democratic society wish to engage with those who provide information, data, statistics, facts, communications and other things in relation to the electronic world in a way that is, if not comparable to, at least as effective as what is applied in the current non-virtual world. That is not the subject of the Bill, I am afraid, but it is something that will trouble this House now and in the future. We should not shy away from it because at its heart lies the future of our society. Morality and ethics are dimensions that we have not yet touched on in the Bill; they are still to come. They may well be foreshadowed for us by the creation of a data ethics commissioner of some kind. I welcome that and hope it will come forward quickly. Without it, we really are not in a very good place, despite the strength of the Bill.

For my part I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennedy and to my apprentice—if I can call someone of such distinguished age and experience that—my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, who is going to take over my responsibility here in the main, although, as the Minister said, I am not leaving the Front Bench; I am simply moving sideways to accommodate those with greater skills and abilities than I have myself.

I have enjoyed the Bill tremendously. It is the sixth Bill that I have done with DCMS, and five of those have been with the current team. With familiarity comes a certain ability both to see through the artifices as they come at you but also to recognise a true offer when it comes, and both sides have benefited from that. We understand some of the pressures a bit more, particularly the difficult time that any Bill team has when it is agreed to move forward but the processes and procedures in Whitehall are so slow that they cannot keep pace with our aspirations for doing it. That is very frustrating for all concerned.

On that point, but not related to the mechanics, there is a question that the House must address at some point in the near future. What happens when it is agreed around the House, through Second Reading and Committee and approaching Report, that a desired amendment would bring public good but it cannot be moved because it falls outwith the narrow scope of the Bill, is a frustration that we have all encountered on this Bill and the previous Bill that I was involved with. There is a solution to that which should be discussed by the Procedure Committee. I hope it will do so in the near future, and I will be writing to it to that effect.

The Bill team have been absolutely fantastic. I gave them a rousing welcome when they first arrived because they have a trick at DCMS, which I recommend to all departments, of bringing together in one place at the very beginning of the process all the documents that you need to work out what you are talking about. If only every Bill team did that, we would all have much easier lives. They did it again this time, and it was fantastic. I have enjoyed working with them; their professionalism and efficiency were wonderful and a great help to us. Our support is minuscule in comparison; effective and efficient though Nicola Jayawickreme and Dan Stevens are, there are only two of them to support all our work. I wish to ensure that our sincere appreciation is on the record.

This has been an enjoyable ride. I have had a great time, waxing lyrical on things I did not think I would ever want to talk about. I hope that the Bill passes, and that when it comes back we will be able to deal with it expeditiously and appropriately.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. We on these Benches had considerable activity from the academic community, security researchers and so on. I am delighted that the Minister has reflected those concerns with the new amendments.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the noble Lord’s words. We also welcome these amendments. As has been said, this issue was raised by the academic community, whose primary concern was that the way the Bill had originally been phrased would make important security research illegal and weaken data protection for everyone by that process. It would also mean that good and valid research going on in our high-quality institutions might be at risk.

I do not in any sense want to question the amendments’ approach, but I have been in further correspondence with academics who have asked us to make a few points. I am looking for a sense that the issues raised are being dealt with. Either a letter or a confirmation that these will be picked up later in the process of the Bill is all that is necessary.

First, it is fairly common-sense to say that companies probably would not be very happy if a researcher picks up that they are not doing what they say on the tin—in other words, if their claim that their data has been anonymised turns out not to be the case. Therefore, proposed new subsection (2)(b) may well be used against researchers to threaten or shut down their work. The wording refers to “distress” that might be caused, but,

“without intending to cause, or threaten to cause, damage or distress to a person”,

seems a particularly weak formulation. If it is only a question of distress, I could be distressed by something quite different from what might distress the noble Lord, who may be more robust about such matters. I think that is a point to take away.

Secondly, we still do not have, despite the way the Minister introduced the amendment, definitions in the Bill that will work in law. “Re-identification”, which is used in the description and is part of the argument around it, is still not defined. Therefore, in proposed new Clause 161A(3), as mentioned by the noble Lord who introduced the amendment, the person who,

“notified the Commissioner or the controller responsible for de-identifying the personal data about the re-identification”,

has to do this,

“without undue delay, and … where feasible, not later than 72 hours after becoming aware of it”.

That is a very tight timetable. Again, I wonder if there might be a bit more elasticity around that. It does say “where feasible”, but it puts rather tight cordon around that.

We are trying to make it safe for researchers and data scientists to report improperly de-identified data, but in the present arrangements the responsibility for doing all this lies with the researcher. We are asking a researcher to go to court, perhaps, and defend themselves, including arguing that they have satisfied Clause 162(2)(a) and (b) and Clause 162(3)(a), (b) and (c), which is a fairly high burden. All in all, we just wonder whether how this has been framed does the trick satisfactorily. I would be grateful for further correspondence with the Minister on this point.

Finally, there is nothing in this amendment about industry. It may not be necessary but it raises a question that has been picked up by a couple of people who have corresponded with us. The burden, again, is on the researcher. Is there not also a need to try to inculcate a culture of transparency in the anonymisation processes which are being carried out in industry? In other words, if there is a duty on researchers to behave properly and do certain things at a certain time, should there not also be a parallel responsibility, for example, on companies to properly and transparently anonymise the data? If there is no duty for them to do it properly, what is in it for them? It may well be that that is just a natural aspect of the work they are doing, but maybe the Government should reflect on whether they are leaving this a little one-sided. I put that to the Minister and hope to get a response in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as a result of the vagaries of grouping, redrafting and so on, I am in danger of being the tail that wags the dog on this group of amendments, especially as Amendment 175 deals with the processing of personal data to which the GDPR does not apply. Amendment 175A is a much broader amendment, dealing with the implementation of not only article 82 but other aspects that are extremely desirable.

I know that the Minister will be fairly brief in response, so I will not rehearse all the arguments we put forward in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, led on this group of amendments and put forward many of the arguments made by a great number of organisations, such as Which?, Age UK, Privacy International and the Open Rights Group, for this kind of group representation, along the lines of the super-complaints in the Consumer Rights Act, which are highly desirable. I recommend—which shortens the job I have of introducing this amendment—that the Minister reads the blog on the Privacy International site written by the chair emeritus of PI’s board of trustees, Anna Fielder. She puts the arguments extremely well and wrestles with some of the points that the Minister made in Committee, which is extremely useful. I am certainly not going to go through all that, let alone the polling data, which I think refutes quite a lot of what the Minister said. This is extremely desirable. I support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has tabled. It is quite comprehensive in many ways. I look forward to his introduction of his amendment.

Finally, a very important factor in all of this is the support of the Information Commissioner. She has come to the conclusion, as she wrote very convincingly in her second memorandum, that we need to have this kind of right of representation where consent has not necessarily been obtained. I think we should listen very carefully to what she has to say. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his introduction and for paving the way to the comments I want to make. He suggested further reading but I might be able to shorten the reading list for the Minister, because I am going to cite a bit of what has been sent as part of that package. We went through most of the main issues and had a full response from Ministers the last time this was raised, in Committee. But since then we have of course amended the Bill substantially to provide for a significant amount of age-appropriate design work to be done to protect children who, either lawfully or unlawfully as it might be, come into contract arrangements with processors of their data.

That data processing will almost certainly be done properly under the procedures here. We hope that, within a year of Royal Assent, we will see the fruits of that coming through. But after that, we will be in uncharted territory as far as younger persons and the internet are concerned. They will obviously be on there and using substantial quantities of data—a huge amount, as is picked up when one sees one’s bills and how much time they spend on downloading material from the internet and has to find the wherewithal to provide for them. But I am pretty certain there will also be occasions where things do not work out as planned. They may well find that their data has been misused or sold in a way they do not like, or processed in a way which is not appropriate for them. In those circumstances, what is the child to do? This is why I want to argue that the current arrangements, and the decision by the Government not to allow for the derogation provided for in the GDPR under article 82 to apply, may have unforeseen consequences.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for supporting Amendment 175A, and I look forward to her comments later on, particularly in relation to children’s use. It is important to recognise that, if there is a derogation and it is not taken up, there has to be a good reason for that. The arguments brought up last time were largely along the lines that it would be overcomplicated to have two types of approach and that, in any case, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that individual consumers would prefer to be represented when they do so—of course, that falls away when we talk about children.

In Amendment 175A, we are trying to recognise two things: first, the right of adults to seek collective redress on issues taken up on their behalf by bodies that have a particular skill or knowledge in that area and, secondly, to do this without the need to form an association with an individual or group, or a particular body that has a responsibility for it. The two parts of the amendment will provide a comprehensive regime to allow victims of data breaches to bring proceedings to vindicate rights to proper protection of their personal data, always bearing in mind that children will have the additional cover provided by theirs being a third-party involvement. We hope that there will not be serious breaches of data protection. We think that the Bill is well constructed and that in most cases it will be fine, but the possibility that it will happen cannot be ignored. This parallels other arrangements, including those in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which apply to infringements of competition law—not a million miles away from where we are here—and for which there is a procedure in place.

To anticipate where the Government will come from on this, first, I think they will say that there is a lot going on here and no evidence to suggest that it should work. I suggest to them that we would be happy with a recognition that this issue is being applied elsewhere in Europe and that there is a discrepancy if it is not in Britain. Secondly, there may be a good case for waiting some time until we understand how the main provisions work out. But a commitment to keep this under review, perhaps within a reasonable time after the commencement of the procedures—particularly in relation to children and age-appropriate design—to carry out a formal assessment of the process and to consider its results would, I think, satisfy us. I accept the argument that doing too much too soon might make this difficult, but the principle is important and I look forward to the responses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we can be quite brief on this matter. It is an open secret that both the Government and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, joined by others who have signed Amendment 181, were keen to try to move ahead with the idea of setting up a data ethics board or panel and giving it powers and teeth, particularly in light of the recent Budget, in which it was clear that there was money available for it to be established and start spending. We felt that it would be nice to get that going. Unfortunately, the rules of the House are so tight that it has not been possible to find a form of words for the powers that would be used to set up this advisory board which would be sufficiently broad to give a proper basis for the ambitions that we all share for it. On the basis that I think the Government may have something to say about this, I will not extend the discussion on this, because there is so much common ground. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but to get the debate going I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, we are at the last knockings on most of the Bill. It is rather ironic that one of the most important concepts that we need to establish is a new data ethics body—a new stewardship body—called for by the Government in their manifesto, by the Royal Society, by the British Academy and by many others. Many of those who gave evidence to our Select Committee want to see an overarching body of the kind that is set out, and with a code of ethics to go with it. We all heard what the Minister had to say last time; we hope that he can perhaps give us more of an update on the work being carried out in this area.

This should not be and I do not think it will be a matter of party contention; I think there will be a great deal of consensus on the need to have this kind of body, not just for the narrow field of data protection and the use of data but generally, for the wider application in the whole field, whether it is the internet of things or artificial intelligence, and so on. There is therefore a desire to see progress in fairly short order in this kind of area. One of the reasons for that is precisely because of the power of the tech majors. We want to see a much more muscular approach to the use of data by those tech majors. It is coming down the track in all sorts of different varieties. We have seen it in debates in this House; no doubt there will be a discussion tomorrow about social media platforms and their use of news and content and so on. This is therefore a live issue, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the new Secretary of State is dynamically taking this forward as one of the top items on his agenda.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government must be quaking in their shoes whenever a Back-Bencher offers to come to their help. I looked across at the Dispatch Box when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, make that offer and I saw a definite quiver come over the Minister’s face. Clearly, we are in for something rather interesting. We were entertained by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, with his worries about the BHA, but he said he thought that it is really quite simple at the end of the day—we need to keep the money out and sort out the betting influences that are affecting all our sports. He is absolutely right. The public have come to the end of their tether and it is time that we got this sorted: we have to keep sport clean and eliminate cheating. The data is key to this, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said.

We expect a great deal of our athletes in terms of their whereabouts and their strict liability, so we have to make sure that the systems under which they operate are fair, properly organised and regulated. In short, we have such high stakes in this that we have to be sure that we up our game—I am sorry about the puns. We should be clearer than we are at the moment about who has responsibility for what and how it is operated, and that is what this amendment is about. DCMS needs a stronger NDPB, in the form of UKAD or a successor body, and there needs to be an authority exercised with care and consideration as to how the rules will apply and to whom they apply. All these definitional points, all the concern about where it goes, are tied up in that set of constructs, which is what this amendment deals with. I think it is very powerful.

If noble Lords look back at the way in which a state was able to influence the way that the drug-testing system operated in the winter Olympic Games in Russia, they will understand how this thing has got to a new level of concern. We must have appropriate safeguards and ways of operating in place to insulate those who are trying to do the right thing from the charge that they are involved too closely. The public will stand for no less. I recommend this amendment very strongly and we will support it should it be necessary to take it to a vote. I hope that that will not be necessary, because as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, this is an area of such importance that the right thing to do would surely be for the Government to accept this amendment today and bring it back at Third Reading with a proper wording and proper consideration that will reassure any who still doubt it. In the interim, we will support it if necessary.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as ever the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made his case extremely well. We on these Benches share his objectives and, indeed, most of the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, around clean sport, particularly putting UKAD on a statutory footing and having a proper framework around the powers in the Bill.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, feels that these need a proper definition and control. However, despite the noble Lord’s best efforts this amendment is not the finished article. Sadly, there are still discussions taking place. Noble Lords have had a great deal of material from governing bodies, including the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Rugby Football Union, the British Horseracing Authority and the Sport and Recreation Alliance, which by itself represents some 320 organisations.

Further discussions need to take place so that we get to an agreed position. I feel very uncomfortable at this point. All those governing bodies may be speaking with different voices, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, suggests, and he has entered discussion with them in good faith, but other voices have come to us saying that they are not yet able to accept what he has put forward. There is still work to be done. I very much hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that many of us around the House, particularly on these Benches, want those conversations to continue and an agreed amendment to be brought forth at Third Reading.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a relatively narrow point and affects only a very small part of the Bill, but is still quite important. The amendments in the group mainly cover the question of how the Bill can reach out to the question about anonymisation and how, or not, it plays against de-identification. There are two amendments and a clause stand part Motion which relate to other slightly different issues, which we will get to in turn.

Amendment 170CA would insert into the Bill the term “anonymisation”, as there is no definition of de-identification in the Bill. I will come back to explain what that means in practice. Amendment 170CB provides an important exemption for data scientists and information security specialists dealing with a particular area, because there is a fear that the introduction of criminal sanctions might mean that they would be caught when they are trying to consider the issue for scientific and other reasons. Amendment 170CC adds a definition of identified data—after all, if it is to be criminalised, there needs to be a definition. This definition will cover cases which involve names of individuals, but will also cover those where fingerprints, for instance, are used to identify people.

The clause creates a new offence of knowingly or recklessly re-identifying information that has been de-identified without the consent of the controller. Amendment 170F asks for guidance relating to this offence. It is at the request of the Royal Society, because it wants clarity on the legal basis for processing.

Amendment 170G concerns transparency. If we are going to go into this area, it is very important that we know more about what is happening. The amendment suggests that the Information Commissioner,

“must set standards by which a data controller is required to anonymise personal data”.

There may be lots of new technologies soon to be invented or already available, and it is important that the way in which this important work goes forward can be flexed as and when new technologies come forward. We think that the Information Commissioner is in the strongest position to do that.

The other set of amendments to which our names are attached, Amendments 170E and 170H, relate to particular problems that can arise in large databases within health. There is a worry that where re-identification occurs by accident or just through the process of using the data, an offence will be created. MedConfidential suggests that some form of academic peer reviewing might be useful in trying to assess whether this was a deliberate act or just an unfortunate consequence of the work being done by those looking at the dataset concerned. The further amendment, Amendment 170H, clarifies whether an offence actually occurs when the re-identification work applies to disseminated NHS data —which of course, by its very nature, is often rather scattered and difficult to bring together. There is a particular reason for that, which we could go into.

At the heart of what I just said is a worry that certain academics have communicated to us: that the Bill is attempting to address what is in fact a fundamental mathematical problem—that there is no real way of making re-identification illegal—with a legal solution, and that this approach will have limited impact on the main privacy risks for UK citizens. If you do not define de-identification, the problem is compounded. The reference I have already made suggests that there might be advantage to the Bill if it used the terms used in the GDPR, which are anonymisation and pseudonymisation.

The irony which underlies the passion with which we have received submissions on this is that the people likely to be most affected by this part of the Bill are UK information security researchers, one of our academic strengths. It seems ironic that we should be putting into the Bill a specific criminal penalty which would stop them doing their work. Their appeal to us, which I hope will not fall on stony ground, is that we should look at this again. This is not to say in any sense that it is not an important issue, given the subsequent pain and worry that happens when datasets certified as anonymised are suddenly revealed as capable of being cracked, so people can pick up not just details of information about dates of birth or addresses but much more important stuff to do with medical health. So it is very important—and others may want to speak to the risk that it poses also to children, in particular. I hope that that is something that we might pick up.

There needs to be a proper definition in the Bill, whatever else we do about it, and that would be right in a sense. But we would like transparency about what is happening in this area, so that there is more certainty than at present about what exactly is meant by anonymous data and whether it can be achieved. That could be solved if the Information Commissioner is given responsibility for doing it. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

We are in the thickets here at the interface between technology, techno-speak and legality. Picking our way through Clause 162 is going to be rather important.

There are two schools of thought. The first is that we can amend this clause in fairly radical ways—and I support many of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Of course, I am speaking to Amendment 170E as well, which tries to simplify the language and make it much more straightforward in terms of retroactive approval for actions taken in this respect, and I very much hope that parliamentary draftsmen will approve of our efforts to simplify the language. However, another more drastic school of thought is represented by many researchers—and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has put the case very well that they have put to us, that the cause of security research will be considerably hampered. But it is not just the research community that is concerned, although it is extremely concerned by the lack of definition, the sanctions and the restrictions that the provisions appear to place on their activities. Business is also concerned, as numerous industry practices might be considered illegal and a criminal offence, including browser fingerprinting, data linkage in medicine, what they call device reconciliation or offline purchases tracking. So there is a lot of uncertainty for business as well as for the academic research community.

This is where we get into the techno-language. We are advised that modern, privacy-enhancing technologies such as differential privacy, homomorphic encryption—I am sure that the Minister is highly familiar with that—and question and answer systems are being used and further developed. There is nothing worse than putting a chill on the kind of research that we want to see by not acknowledging that there is the technology to make sure that we can do what we need to do and can keep our consumers safe in the circumstances. The fact is that quite often anonymisation, as we are advised, can never be complete. It is only by using this new technology that we can do that. I very much hope that the Minister is taking the very best legal and technology advice in the drafting and purposes of this clause. I am sure that he is fully aware that there is a great deal of concern about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, at earlier stages of the Bill, the Minister and others have been at pains to stress the need to ensure that, whatever we finally do, the Bill should help to build trust between those who operate and accept data and those who provide it—the data subjects. It is important that we look at all aspects of that trust relationship and think about what we can do to make sure that it fructifies. Amendment 184 tries to add to the Bill something that could be there, because it is provided for in the GDPR, but is not there. Will the Minister explain when he responds why article 80(2) of the GDPR is not translated into UK legislation, as could happen? The proposed new clause would provide that,

“a body or other organisation which meets the conditions set out in that Article has the right to lodge a complaint, or exercise the rights, independently of a data subject’s mandate”.

I will largely leave the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to introduce Amendment 185 because he has a new and brief style of introduction, which we like a lot.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

It is not a new style.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It is certainly new to me. He may have been here a lot longer than I have and there have been other occasions where he has been less than fulsome in his contributions. But I am not in any sense criticising him because everything he says has fantastic precision and clarity, as befits a mere solicitor. It is important that we give him the chance to shine on this particular issue as well.

I mentioned what a pleasure it is to have the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, here today, particularly because she will speak very well to the fact that only a few happy months ago we worked on the Consumer Rights Bill, which is now an Act, in which a power was given to private enforcers to take civil action in courts to protect collective consumer rights via an enforcement order. The campaigning consumer body Which? is the designated private enforcer.

Also, in the financial sector, Which?, Citizens Advice, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland have the power to present super-complaints to the FCA. The super-complainant system is working very well; one reason why the PPI mis-selling scandal was discovered was as a result of the work of Citizens Advice. These independent enforcers of consumer rights in the traditional consumer sector and in the consumer finance sector exist. Why is there no equivalent status for digital consumer enforcers? That is the question raised by the amendment.

The powers for independent action here are important in themselves and I am sure other noble Lords will speak to that point, but they are also really important at the start of this new regime we are bringing in. With the new Data Protection Bill we have a different arrangement. Far more people are involved and a lot more people are having to think harder about how their data is being used. It makes absolute sense to have a system that does not require too much knowledge or detail, which was aided and abetted by experts who had experience in this, such as Which? and others, and would allow those who are a little fazed by the whole process of trying to raise an action and get things going to have a steady hand that they know will take it on behind them.

The Government will probably argue that by implementing article 80(1) of the GDPR they are providing effectively the same service. That is a system under which an individual can have their case taken up by much the same bodies as would be available under article 80(2). However, when an individual complainant is working with a body such as Which?, we are probably talking about redress of the individual whose rights have been breached in some way and exacting from the company or companies concerned a penalty or some sort of remuneration. One can see in that sense that the linking between the individual and the body that might take that on is important and would be very helpful.

However, there are cases—recent ones come to mind such as TalkTalk, Equifax, Cash Converters and Uber—where data has gone missing and there has been a real worry about what information has escaped and is available out there. I do not think that in those cases we are talking about people wanting redress. What they want is action, such as making sure that their credit ratings are not affected by their data having come out and that they could perhaps get out of contracts. One of the issues that was raised with EE and TalkTalk was that people had lost confidence in the companies and wanted to be able to get out of their contracts. That is not a monetary penalty but a different form of arrangement. In some senses, just ongoing monitoring of the company with which one’s data is lodged might be a process. All that plays to a need to have in law in Britain the article 80(2) version of what is in the GDPR. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 184. The Minister will have noticed that Amendment 185 would simply import the same provisions into applied GDPR for this purpose. The rationale, which has been very well put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is precisely the same.

I do not know whether the Minister was choking over his breakfast this morning, but if he was reading the Daily Telegraph—he shakes his head. I am encouraged that he was not reading the Daily Telegraph, but he would have seen that a letter was written to his right honourable friend Matt Hancock, the Digital Minister, demanding that the legislation can and should contain the second limb that is contained in the GDPR but is not brought into the Bill. The letter was signed by Which?, Age UK, Privacy International and the Open Rights Group for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, put forward. The noble Lord mentioned a number of data breach cases, but the Uber breach came to light only last night. It was particularly egregious because Uber did not tell anybody about it for months and, as far as one can make out from the press reports, it was a pay-off. There is a very important role for such organisations to play on behalf of vulnerable consumers.

The Which? survey was particularly important in that respect because it showed that consumers have little understanding of the kind of redress that they may have following a data breach. A recent survey shows that almost one in five consumers say that they would not know how to claim redress for a data breach, and the same proportion do not know who would be responsible for helping them when data is lost. Therefore the equivalent of a super-complaint in these circumstances is very important. To add to that point, young people are often the target of advertising and analysis using their personal data. I think they would benefit particularly from having this kind of super-complaint process for a data breach.

I hope very much that the Government, who I believe are conducting some kind of review, although it is not entirely clear, will think about this again because it is definitely something we will need to bring back on Report.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, with so many codes of practice flying around it would not be hard to lose one in the crowd, but this one stands out. With this amendment, we are suggesting to the Government that there is a need at the top of the pyramid for a code of practice which looks at the whole question of data ethics and morality. We discussed this topic in earlier sittings of the Committee and I think we were of one mind that there was a gap in the overall architecture of the organisations supporting data processing, which concerned us, in the sense that there was a need for an expert body.

The body could be some sort of combination along the lines of the HFEA or the Committee on Climate Change. It would have a duty to look at the moral and ethical issues affecting data collection and use, and be able to do some blue-sky thinking and to provide a supervisory approach to the way in which thinking on these matters would have to go. We are all aware, as has been mentioned many times, that this is a fast-moving technology in an area full of change where people feel a bit concerned about where their data is and how it is being looked at. They are worried that they do not have sufficient control or understanding of the processes involved.

The amendment suggests to the Government a data ethics code of practice which I hope they will look at with some care. It would begin to provide a hand of support to individuals who are concerned about their data and how it has been processed. Under this code of practice the commissioner could set out the moral and ethical issues, rather than the practical day-to-day stuff. It would focus on duties of care and need to provide examples of where best practice can be found. It would increase the security of personal data and ensure that the access to its use and sharing were transparent, and that the purposes of data processing were communicated to data subjects.

Some codes of this type already exist. I think that the Royal Statistical Society has been behind a number of codes on the use of our overall statistics, such as that operated within the OSS. Having read that code, I was struck by how apposite it was to some of the issues faced in the data-processing community. Some of the wording of this amendment comes from that, while other wording comes from think tanks and others who are working in this field. It will also come as no surprise to the Committee that some of the detail in the code’s latter subsections about privacy settings, minimisation standards and the language of terms and conditions also featured in the proposed code recommended to the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in relation to children’s use of the internet and how their data is treated. The amendment meets other interests and examples of activity. It seems to fulfil a need, which is becoming more pressing every day, and is ambitious in its attempt to try to make sure that whatever regulatory and statutory provisions are in place, there will also be a wider dimension employed, which I think we will increasingly be part of.

I do not expect the Government to accept the amendment tout court, because it needs a lot more work. I fully accept that the drafting is a bit rough at the edges, despite the fact that we spent a lot of time in the Public Bill Office trying to get it right. I have already explained that I am not very good at synthesising in the way that the Bill team obviously is. I have no doubt that when he responds the Minister will be able to encapsulate in a few choice words what I have been struggling to say over the past three or four sentences—he nods, so it is clearly going to hit me again. I hope that he will take away from this short debate that this is an issue that will not go away. It is an issue that we need to address, and it may be that the new body, which was, I think, generally accepted by the Committee as something that we should move to in short order, might take on this as its first task. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is too modest about his drafting—I think that this is one of the most important amendments to the Bill that we have seen to date. I am just sorry that we were not quick enough off the mark to put our name to it. I do not know which hand the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is using—there seem to be a certain number of hands involved in this—but anybody who has read Jonathan Taplin’s Move Fast and Break Things, as I did over the weekend, would be utterly convinced of the need for a code of ethics in these circumstances. The increasing use of data in artificial intelligence and algorithms means that we need to be absolutely clear about the ethics involved in that application. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned a number of codes that he has based this amendment on, but what I like about it is that it does not predicate any particular code at this stage. It just talks about the desirable architecture of the code. That makes it a very robust amendment.

Like the noble Lord, I have looked at various other codes of ethics. For instance, the IEEE has rather a good code of ethics. This is all of a piece with the stewardship council, the data ethics body that we debated in the previous day in Committee. As the Royal Society said, the two go together. A code of ethics goes together with a stewardship council, data ethics committee or whatever one calls it. You cannot have one without the other. Going forward, whether or not we agree today on this amendment, it is very clear that we need to keep coming back to this issue because this is the future. We have to get it right, and we cannot prejudice the future by not having the right ethical framework.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has clearly and knowledgeably introduced the amendment, which I strongly support. He made clear through his case studies the Bill’s potential impact on the insurance industry, and I very much hope that the Minister has taken them to heart. Processing special category data, including health data, is fundamental to calculating levels of risk, as the noble Earl explained, and to underwriting most retail insurance products. Such data is also needed for the administration of insurance policies, particularly claims handling.

The insurance industry has made the convincing case that if the implementation of the Bill does not provide a workable basis for insurers to process that data, it will interrupt the provision to UK consumers of retail insurance products such as health, life and travel insurance, and especially products with health-related consumer benefits, such as enhanced annuities. The noble Earl mentioned a number of impacts, but estimates suggest that, in the motor market alone, if this issue is not resolved, it could impact on about 27 million policies and see premiums rise by about 3% to 5%.

There is a need to process criminal conviction data for the purposes of underwriting insurance in, for instance, the motor insurance market. Insurers need to process data to assess risk and set the prices and terms for mainstream products such as motor, health and travel insurance.

The key issue of concern is that new GDPR standards for consent for special category data, including health, such as the right to withdraw consent without experiencing detriment, are incompatible with the uninterrupted provision of these products. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has clearly stated, there is scope for a UK derogation represented by these amendments, which would be in the public interest, to allow processing of criminal conviction and special category data when it is necessary for arranging, underwriting and administering insurance and reinsurance policies and insurance and reinsurance policy claims. I very much hope that the Minister will take those arguments on board.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has done us a great favour in introducing with great skill these amendments, which get to the heart of problems with some of the language used in the Bill. We are grateful to him for going through and picking out the choices that were before the Government and the way their particular choices seem to roll back some of the advances made in the insurance industry in recent years. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Our probing Amendment 47 in this group is on a slightly higher level. It is not quite as detailed—nor was it intended to be—as the one moved by the noble Earl. We were hoping to raise a more general question, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. Our concern, which meets the concerns raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is where the Government want to get to on this. It must be true that insurance is one of the key problems facing many people in our country. It is the topic that will be discussed in the QSD in today’s dinner break as it bears heavily on financial inclusion issues. So many people in this country do not take out insurance, personal or otherwise, and suffer as a result. We have to be very careful as we take this forward as a social issue.

However, an open-ended derogation to allow those who wish to gather information to make a better insurance market surely also raises risks. If we are talking about highly personal profiling—we may not be because there are constraints in the noble Earl’s amendment—it would lead to a more efficient and cheaper insurance industry, but at what personal cost? For instance, if it is possible to pick up data from those who perhaps unadvisedly put on Facebook or Twitter how many times they get drunk—I am sure that is not unusual, particularly among the younger generation—information could be gathered for a profile that ought to be taken into account for their life, health or car insurance. I am not sure that we would be very happy with that.

Underlying our probing amendment is to ask the Minister to respond—it may be possible by letter rather than today—on protections the Government have in mind. What sort of stock points are there that we can rely on as we move forward in this area? As processing becomes more powerful and more data is available, pooled risks are beginning to look a little old-fashioned. The old traditional model under which insurance is gathered is that the more the pool is expanded, the risks are spread out more appropriately across everybody. The trouble is that the more we know, we will be including people who are perhaps more reckless and therefore skewing the pooling arrangements. We have to be careful about that.

There is obviously a social objective in having a more efficient and effective insurance market but this ought to be counterbalanced to make sure that those people who are vulnerable are not excluded or uninsurable as a result. The state could step in, obviously, and has done so, as we have been reminded already in our Committee discussions about the difficulty of getting insurance for those who build on flood plains. However that is not the point here. This is about general insurance across the range of current market opportunities being affected by the fact that we are not ensuring that the data gathered is both proportionate and correct in terms of what it provides for the individual data subjects concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I must say how delighted I am that on this occasion we had the noble Lord advocating his own amendment. I was nearly in the hot seat last week, but we have just avoided it. I was delighted at his powerful advocacy because of course the noble Lord is extraordinarily well informed on all matters to do with sport, and this goes to the heart of sport in terms of preventing cheats who prevent the rest of us enjoying what should be clean sport, however that may be defined. All I have to do is pick out one or two of the elements of what the noble Lord said in my supportive comments.

There is the fact that neither “doping” nor “sport” is defined in the Bill, as the noble Lord pointed out. There is no definition of the bodies to be covered by paragraph 21, which is extremely important. He also made an extraordinarily important point about UKAD. Naming UKAD in the Bill, as the amendment seeks to do, would add to its authority and allow it to carry out all the various functions that he outlined in his speech. If it is necessary to add other bodies, as he suggested, that should of course be considered.

The noble Lord’s reference to performance-enhancing substances, which again are mentioned in the amendment and included in the World Anti-Doping Code, ties the Bill together with that code and was very important as well. Finally, the point that he made about gender and the substances used in connection with gender change was bang up to the minute. That, too, must be covered by provisions such as this. So if the Minister is not already discussing these issues with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I very much hope that he is about to and will certainly do so before Report.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, once again your Lordships’ House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for raising this issue and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, for doing so in such a comprehensive way. It is in the context of the much wider range of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has been pursuing regarding how sport, gambling and fairness are issues that all need to be taken together. We have been supporting him on those issues, which need legislation behind them.

Noble Lords may not be aware that we have been slightly accused of taking our time over the Bill. I resist that entirely because we are doing exactly what we should be doing in your Lordships’ House: going through line-by-line scrutiny and making sure that the Bill is as good as it can be before it leaves this House. We saw the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, at the very beginning of Committee and he then dashed off to Australia to do various things, no doubt not unrelated to sport. He has had time to come back and introduce these amendments—but, meanwhile, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I were debating who was going to pick the straw that would require us to introduce them. We were very lucky not to have to do so because they were introduced so well on this occasion.

Our amendment in this group is a probing amendment that picks up on some of the points already made. It raises the issue of why we are restricting this section of the Bill to “sport”—whatever that is. If we are concerned about performance enhancement, we have to look at other competitive arrangements where people gain an advantage because of a performance-enhancing activity such as taking drugs. For instance, in musical competitions, for which the prizes can be quite substantial, it is apparently possible to enhance one’s performance—perhaps in high trills on the violin or playing the piano more brilliantly—if you take performance-enhancing drugs. Is that not somehow seeking to subvert these arrangements? Since that is clearly not sport, is it not something that we ought to be thinking about having in the Bill as well? I say that because, although the narrow sections of the Bill that relate to sport are moving in the right direction, they do not go far enough. As a society, we are going to have to think more widely about this as we go forward.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 13th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, it always used to be said that reaching the end of your Lordships’ day was the graveyard slot. This is a bit of a vice slot. You are tempted by the growing number of people coming in to do a bit of grandstanding and to tell them what they are missing in this wonderful Bill that we are discussing. You are also conscious that the dinner hour approaches—and I blame the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for that. All her talk of dining in L’Algorithme, where she almost certainly had a soup, a main course and a pudding, means that it is almost impossible to concentrate for the six minutes that we will be allowed—with perhaps a few minutes more if we can be indulged—to finish this very important group. It has only one amendment in it. If noble Lords did not know that, I bet that has cheered them up. I am happy to say that it is also a réchauffage, because we have already discussed most of the main issues, so I will be very brief in moving it.

It is quite clear from our discussion on the previous group that we need an ethics body to look at the issues that we were talking about either explicitly or implicitly in our debates on the previous three or four groups and to look also at moral and other issues relating to the work on data, data protection, automatics and robotics, and everything else that is going forward in this exciting field. The proposal in Amendment 78A comes with a terrific pedigree. It has been brought together by members of the Royal Society, the British Academy, the Royal Statistical Society and the Nuffield Trust. It is therefore untouchable in terms of its aspirations and its attempt to get to the heart of what should be in the contextual area around the new Bill.

I shall not go through the various points that we made in relation to people’s fears, but the key issue is trust. As I said on the previous group, if there is no trust in what is set up under the Bill, there will not be a buy-in by the general public. People will be concerned about it. The computer will be blamed for ills that are not down to it, in much the same way that earlier generations always blamed issues external to themselves for the way that their lives were being lived. Shakespeare’s Globe was built outside the city walls because it was felt that the terribly dangerous plays that were being put on there would upset the lieges. It is why penny dreadfuls were banned in the early part of the last century and why we had a fight about video nasties. It is that sort of approach and mentality that we want to get round to.

There is good—substantial good—to be found in the work on automation and robotics that we are now seeing. We want to protect that but in the Bill we are missing a place and a space within which the big issues of the day can be looked at. Some of the issues that we have already talked about could easily fit with the idea of an independent data ethics advisory board to monitor further technical advances in the use and management of personal data and the implications of that. I recommend this proposal to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has been admirably brief in the pre-dinner minutes before us and I will be brief as well. This is a very important aspect of the debate and, despite the fact that we will be taking only a few minutes over it, I hope that we will return to it at a future date.

I note that the Conservative manifesto talked about a data ethics body, and this is not that far away from that concept. I think that the political world is coalescing around the idea of an ethics stewardship body of the kind recommended by the Royal Society and the British Academy. Whatever we call it—a rose by any other name—it will be of huge importance for the future, perhaps not as a regulator but certainly as a setter of principles and of an ethical context in which AI in particular moves forward.

The only sad thing about having to speed up the process today is that I am not able to take full advantage of the briefing put forward by the Royal Society. Crucially, it recommends two things. The first is:

“A set of high-level principles to help visibly shape all forms of data governance and ensure trustworthiness and trust in the management and use of data as a whole”.


The second is:

“A body to steward the evolution of the governance landscape as a whole. Such a stewardship body would be expected to conduct expert investigation into novel questions and issues, and enable new ways to anticipate the future consequences of today’s decisions”.


This is an idea whose time has come and I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Kennedy, on having tabled the amendment. I certainly think that this is the way forward.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 13th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, we will see if the EU withdrawal Bill gets passed, but that is a matter for another day.

I thank the Minister for his remarks. There are many aspects of his reply which Members around the House will wish to unpick.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Perhaps I may pursue this for a second. It is late in the evening and I am not moving fast enough in my brain, but the recitals have been discussed time and again and it is great that we are now getting a narrow understanding of where they go. I thought we were transposing the GDPR, after 20 May and after Brexit, through Schedule 6. However, Schedule 6 does not mention the recitals, so if the Minister can explain how this magic translation will happen I will be very grateful.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I knew I was slow. We are moving to applied GDPR; that is correct. The applied GDPR, as I read it in the book—that great wonderful dossier that I have forgotten to table; I am sure the box can supply it when we need it—does not contain the recitals.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, just to heap Pelion on Ossa, I assume that until 29 March the recitals are not part of UK law.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 30th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, right from the outset, I had better declare that this is a probing amendment. I shudder to think of another chastisement from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton —that would be too terrible to contemplate. Chastisement from the noble Baroness? Even better.

The amendment is about whether we should put the Bill on all fours with the Data Protection Act 1998. Personal data is defined in Clause 2(2), and then Clause 2(4) goes on to talk about “processing” of data, in terms of requiring the personal data to be recorded in order that it can be subject to,

“an operation … performed on personal data”.

It follows that, if the information is not recorded, it is not capable of being processed under the Bill as it cannot be subject to an operation.

Where I am slightly confused is looking at article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR, which talks about personal data being,

“processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security”,

which means that security obligations apply to recorded information about an individual and perhaps not to unrecorded information, which may be, for instance, disclosed in a conversation. If a controller fails to control his staff and a staff member discloses information in an unrecorded form, is that controller in breach of the security principle?

It would have been crystal clear in the Data Protection Act 1998 because Section 1(2) of the DPA closes that kind of loophole. That is exactly the wording that has been adopted in the amendment. Perhaps the Minister can explain whether we are incapable of using that definition because it is the GDPR or simply because we have failed to incorporate and bring forward equivalent provisions from the 1998 Act. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord McNally. I will speak also to Amendments 3 and 9 in this group. This is a wide-ranging, rather stretching group covering a lot of detail, and I am sure the noble Baroness the Minister, who is making her first appearance on this Bill, will be able to cope with it with ease and will not have to resort to having meetings outside or anything; it will be a straight answer. I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord the Minister who spoke earlier.

Amendment 3 is a probing amendment. I make that absolutely clear, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, did. It is about the rather disputed issue, as I understand it, of the status that many of the big tech companies that operate in the United Kingdom have in relation to the Act. Are they, as I think I have heard in other meetings, data controllers in the sense that the Bill sets out to achieve; in other words, are they responsible for all the elements that will be raised in the Bill and in the GDPR in relation to that issue? I am looking for a clear and straightforward answer on that, because it seems to me that there has been too much evasion and difficulty in pinning down some of the definitional points that this issue raises.

Having established that they are data controllers and that the material and data that they go through are subject to the Bill in its entirety—and, by implication, the GDPR—in which territory will this power exist? Obviously, that has relevance both pre and post Brexit. For instance, I asked the representatives of a large company who came in to brief us about their concerns about the Bill the very same question and received the answer that they regarded themselves as being European data controllers, which was a strange combination of thinking, and that they had selected, because it seemed appropriate at the time—again, I would be interested in having more information on that if it is available—that the Irish Information Commissioner would be responsible for any activities that were regulated under the Act and they would look to that body. Irrespective of whether or not that is true, and I suspect it is, that leads to a question about the role the Information Commissioner in the United Kingdom has in relation to companies which choose a European domicile and have a responsible information commissioner who is not in this country and therefore not subject to any regulatory or statutory provisions provided by this Parliament. There is no particular reason why this should be wrong. I am not in any sense making accusations that would arise from that, but it is important that we have on the record a very clear narrative on this point because it will raise a lot of questions if we do not.

Amendment 9 has already been referred to in the debate on Amendment 1, in relation to where the recitals that accompany the GDPR are going to end up. Reflecting on what was said by the Minister in that debate, I found that very helpful in answering the questions that Amendment 4A raised. Therefore, it poses another question about why the Government decided—well, they have no choice—to have an arrangement under which the GDPR comes into play, as required, on 25 May 2018. However, at that point the recitals will not be brought into effect. I understand that the recitals do not have statutory power in the GDPR, but it is quite clear, from reading around on this subject and hearing of cases already raised in relation to data processing, that they are helpful to those who have side issues arising from the GDPR. The recitals help them to understand what the legislation actually means and, without them, there may well be a problem, at the least, in getting a consistency of approach across the EU. It is therefore important that we should know where the recitals are going to end up. If they are not being brought in, to what extent can they be relied on and, if so, by whom?

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 30th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, I will also speak to Amendment 6. Both are in my name. I will respond later to Amendment 115, which is in the same group but was tabled by other noble Lords. Amendments 5 and 6 are probing amendments to try to tease out what appears to be a change of definition between various parts of the Act.

Amendment 5 relates to page 3 and Clause 3(1), (2) and (3) in Chapter 1, which raise concerns about what exactly is happening with the arrangements. It is easier if I read out the two subsections concerned. Clause 3(2) states that:

“Chapter 2 of this Part … applies to the types of processing of personal data to which the GDPR applies by virtue of Article 2 of the GDPR”.


That is the question I want to peruse, because later in the Bill, on page 11, Clause 19(1)(a) refers to activities which operate. This amendment is a probing one to try to tease out an answer that we can read in Hansard so as to know what exactly we are talking about. It may appear to be a narrow difference or nitpicking, but “an activity” is a very broad term for anything in relation to data processing and contrasts with the narrow way in which Clause 3(2)(a) talks about “types of processing”. Are these the same? If they are not, what differentiates the two? If they are different, why have we got different parts in different areas of the Bill?

Amendment 6 relates to page 3, line 31. This question of definition has come up in relation to Chapter 3 of the part. I understand this to be more of a recital, if I may use that word, than a particular piece of statute and it may not have normative effect, if that is the correct terminology. Clause 3(3)(b) says that the part to which this applies,

“makes provision for a regime broadly equivalent to the GDPR to apply to such processing”.

What is “broadly” in this context? Maybe I am obsessed with the use of English words that have common meanings, but again it would be helpful to have a bit more information on the definition from the Minister when he responds.

Perhaps more than the “quite” used in response to an earlier amendment, this has not got transatlantic resonances, but it is important in questions of adequacy in any agreement we might seek with the EU in the future. “Broadly equivalent” carries echoes of an adequacy agreement, which would assert that the arrangements in the two countries concerned—the EU on the one hand and the third country on the other—were sufficiently equivalent to allow for future reliance on the processes in the third country to be treated as appropriate for the transfer of data into and from, in relation to future industrial processes.

We are aware that an element of legal decision-making arises, which might change that “broadly equivalent” to a higher bar of requirement in the sense that the court is beginning to think in terms of “essentially equivalent”, which is very different from “broadly equivalent”. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I will speak to Amendment 115 in this splendidly and creatively grouped set of amendments. The Government appear to have removed some of the extraterritorial elements in the GDPR in applying derogations in the Bill. Paragraph 9(d) of Schedule 6 removes all mention of “representative” from the Bill. This could have major consequences for data subjects.

Article 3 of the GDPR extends its provisions to the processing of personal data of data subjects in the European Union by a controller not established in the European Union. This happens when a controller is offering goods or services into the European Union. In such circumstances, article 27 requires a representative to be appointed in a member state, if a controller is not in the Union. This article is removed by paragraph 23 of Schedule 6.

Recital 80 of the GDPR explains the role of the representative:

“The representative should act on behalf of the controller or the processor and may be addressed by any supervisory authority … including cooperating with the competent supervisory authorities … to any action taken to ensure compliance with this Regulation. The designated representative should be subject to enforcement proceedings in the event of non-compliance by the controller or processor”.


Supposing that a company incorporated in the USA does not have a place of permanent establishment in the UK but still falls within article 3, such a company could be established in the USA and use its USA website to offer services to UK citizens without being caught by the Bill. Can the Minister reassure us that there is a solution to this problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting exposition, which ranged from now into the future. He has given a vision of the post-Brexit shape of our data protection legislation. Extraterritoriality will apply even though the language used may be that of the applied GDPR as opposed to the GDPR itself—just to be confusing, perhaps as much as the Minister confused us.

I want to be absolutely clear that we are not derogating from the GDPR in extraterritoriality. That seems to be the nub of it. The Bill makes changes to the applied GDPR—I would like to read in Hansard exactly what the Minister said about the applied GDPR because I did not quite get the full logic of it—but there is no derogation in the GDPR on extraterritoriality. It would be helpful if he could be absolutely clear on that point.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Perhaps the Minister will respond to that because I, too, am troubled about the same point. If I am right, and I will read Hansard to make sure I am not misreading or mishearing what was said, the situation until such time as we leave through Brexit is covered by the GDPR. The extraterritorial—I cannot say it but you know what I am going to say—is still in place. Therefore, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, a company operating out of a foreign country which was selling goods and services within the UK would have to have a representative, and that representative could be attached should there be a requirement to do so. It is strange that we are not doing that in the applied GDPR because, despite the great improvement that will come from better language, the issue is still the same. If there is someone that our laws cannot attack, there is obviously an issue. Perhaps the Minister would like to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing these amendments in not too heavy a style, but this is an opportunity to ask a couple of questions in relation to them. We may have had since 20 October to digest them; nevertheless, that does not make them any more digestible. We will be able to see how they really operate only once they are incorporated into the Bill. Perhaps we might have a look at how they operate on Report.

The Bill is clearly a work in progress, and this is an extraordinary number of amendments even at this stage. It begs the question as to whether the Government are still engaged in discussions with outside bodies. Personally, I welcome that there has been dialogue with the insurance industry—a very important industry for us. We obviously have to make sure that the consumer is protected while it carries out an important part of its business. I know that the industry has raised other matters relating to third parties and so on. There have also been matters raised by those in the financial services industry who are keen to ensure that fraud is prevented. Even though they are private organisations, they are also keen to ensure that they are caught under the umbrella of the exemptions in the Bill. Can the noble Baroness tell us a little about what further discussions are taking place? It is important that we make sure that when the Bill finally hits the deck, so to speak, it is right for all the different sectors that will be subject to it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Knight and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising points that I would otherwise have made. I endorse the points they made. It is important that those points are picked up, and I look forward to having the responses.

I had picked up that the Clause 4(2) definition of terms is probably a recital rather than a normative issue, and therefore my noble friend Lord Knight’s point is probably not as worrying as it might otherwise have been. But like him, I found that it was tending towards the Alice in Wonderland side. Subsection (1) says:

“Terms used in Chapter 2 and in the GDPR have the same meaning in Chapter 2 as they have in the GDPR”.


I sort of get that, but it seems slightly unnecessary to say that, unless there is something that we are not picking up. I may be asking a negative: “There’s nothing in here that we ought to be alerted to, is there?”. I do not expect a response, but that is what we are left with at the end of this debate.

I have one substantial point relating to government Amendment 8. In the descriptions we had—this was taken from the letter—this is a technical amendment to ensure that there is clarity and that the definition of health professional in Clause 183 applies to Part 2 of the Bill. I do not think that many noble Lords will have followed this through, but it happens to pick up on a point which we will come back to on a later amendment: the question of certain responsibilities and exceptions applying to health professionals. There was therefore a concern in the back of my mind about how these would have been defined.

My point is that the definition that appears in the Bill, and which is signposted by the way that this amendment lies, points us to a list of professionals but does not go back into what those professionals do. I had understood from the context within which this part of the Bill is framed that the purpose of having health professionals in that position was that they were the people of whom it could be said that they had a duty of care to their patients. They could therefore by definition, and by the fact of the posts they occupied, have an additional responsibility attached to them through the nature of their qualifications and work. We are not getting that out of this government amendment. Can the Minister explain why polishing that amendment does or does not affect how that approach might be taken?

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 27th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I very much hope that the Minister will take the threat from my noble friend Lord Lester extremely seriously and will rise to the challenges that he put to the Minister on the questions of funding, independence and carrying out the activities of the BBC.

I agree in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Best, in his disappointment with the Minister’s Motion today. As the noble Lord mentioned, my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter added her name to what we saw as a very important amendment in this House. That was the product of the report of the Communications Select Committee, Reith Not Revolution, which urged a much greater level of transparency and independent oversight in the setting of the licence fee. Of course, the Minister pushed back in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading by talking about the licence fee being a tax. However, it is a rather exceptional one: a hypothecated tax paid by the public to fund the BBC. So it is entirely correct that there should be a different mechanism for the setting of that licence fee. This arises because of the midnight raids—the hijacking—by the Treasury of the licence fee process on at least two occasions recently. One of the worrying phrases that the Minister used was that the Government want a free hand following negotiations with the BBC. That is exactly what the original amendment was designed to prevent.

The nub of the concern is about assurances. The Minister gave assurances and used new language on this. However, we have seen what assurances given by the Government are worth when it comes to snap elections. Assurances can be given by government one minute and broken the next. However carefully we scrutinise the Minister’s wording today, if his Government are in a position in future to negotiate the licence fee, we have no absolute assurance that those words will be followed. I share the deep disappointment that I am sure is felt all around the House.

In many ways, Motion E is even more disappointing. It was perfectly valid for the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to express some support for the Ofcom review, but given that the Government could say that whether or not to have a BBC licence fee commission is a political decision, this is much more a question of the facts and perception. On at least two occasions we have had Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport—Jeremy Hunt and Maria Miller—saying that the position of the public service broadcasters is very important and EPG position is a very important way of safeguarding it. The Minister has said that a review will be undertaken by Ofcom, but Ofcom already knows that there is a problem. It recommended in its 2015 PSB review that policymakers should reform the rules for on-demand. Why are we asking Ofcom to do the work all over again? That does not seem a particularly constructive way forward, despite appearances.

A number of questions arise from Motion E. Can the Minister confirm that statutory change will be necessary to bring on-demand PSB content and the connected EPGs, where they are found, into the scope of Ofcom’s EPG code? In conversations, the Minister has claimed that it is not possible to have a Henry VIII power that would implement Ofcom’s recommendations for on-demand, so I assume that there is no current statutory power and that therefore we would be talking about primary legislation in that respect, but it would be helpful to have that confirmation.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will act on those Ofcom recommendations? We would not have tabled amendments on EPGs unless we thought that this was a real and present issue that needed to be tackled. This was not a frivolous amendment, but the Government seem to have a completely different view. The earnest of their intentions on this provision is rather important. The amendment sets a 1 December 2020 statutory deadline for the review and the revision of the EPG code, but does the Minister not agree that actually it would be desirable to commence work rather earlier, given the need for statutory changes beforehand, probably, to bring on-demand content into scope?

Finally, it appears that there is a statutory power to ensure the prominence of PSB children’s channels on EPGs. Does the Minister agree with that? Does he agree that if Ofcom so recommends, that could be brought in at a much earlier date than the on-demand provision? I very much hope that the Minister can answer those questions.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, taken together, these two amendments were traps for the Government and, with predictable certainty, they have fallen into both of them.

The amendment that has just been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the need for Ofcom to have powers to make sure there is a proper rule about prominence that applies not only to the linear but to the offline world of iPlayer and others, was a test of whether or not the Government believed in public sector broadcasting, in that if they believed in public sector broadcasting they needed to come forward with proposals that allowed the channels that were funded by the public or in a not-for-profit way to have access on a fair and equal basis to commercial channels. By tabling an amendment that is for just a report, without the requirement that there should be legislation in three primary legislative areas, which I think we agree needs to happen, I think they have failed this test.

However, we welcome where they have got to. I support the idea of a further review. I hope it will bring out the complexity of this issue—the changing technology and the difficulties of assessing this—in a way that will make it easier for the Government to honour their commitment given in the other place and repeated here today that if the report does make it clear that there is a problem in this area and it can be fixed only by legislation, the Government will bring that legislation forward as soon as possible. I give the commitment from this side of the House that, if elected, we will do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in welcoming the government amendment. I want to make only a very brief intervention to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and Sharon Hodgson on their persistence in achieving what we have achieved so far, which is considerable. A great deal of progress has been made in restricting the activities of secondary ticketing sites. We all look forward to the Competition and Market Authority’s report, which may well suggest further changes to legislation and will certainly give us a very good idea of whether the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act are being properly enforced. That will be extremely illuminating. I hope the Minister will be able to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about whether it is really duplication or whether we have thrown something out with the Commons amendment.

Let me end by saying that in the Digital Economy Bill we have not, in the words of my noble friend, taken up the floorboards today, but we have certainly given it a decent lick of paint in the process. It is not a very ambitious Bill, and many of us could argue at length about what other aspects it should have covered, but I thank the Minister for his unfailing helpfulness throughout the course of the Bill and I thank the Bill team. I very much welcome not only the movement today, which is perceptible—that is not always the case with wash-up or ping-pong—but some of the movement that was made in the course of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about the outlawing of mass online purchasing with bots, which is a very significant change, as are the site-blocking appeals, the new Ofcom powers in respect of children’s programmes, which are particularly welcome to my noble friend Lady Benjamin, remote e-book lending and the amendment on listed events. There has been movement in this House as a result of amendments in this House and the discussions we have had. I am grateful, and I look forward to a new digital economy Bill before too long.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this marks another stage in the campaign led by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. It was led until her death by Lady Heyhoe Flint whom we all want to recognise because she played a huge part in this and her memory is still fresh today. Wherever she is playing cricket, I am sure she is scoring a hundred as we speak.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Minister mentioned bots. We should not ignore the fact that that will make a huge change to the secondary ticketing market. The solution the Bill team came up with is very creative, and I hope it works as well as they intend it to. A first step has been taken, and this will crack down on the worst excesses of secondary ticketing.

I hope the Minister will answer directly the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about whether the conditions apply because they are not drafted quite like that in the original legislation.

In its original formulation, Amendment 246 simply inserted the words,

“and any unique ticket number”.

The final version before us states,

“any unique ticket number that may help the buyer to identify the seat or standing area or its location”.

That raises the question of what “may” means. Does it in some sense imply a voluntary obligation? If it does, it would be very unfortunate. Could somebody argue that they did not include the unique ticket number specified because in their view it did not help the buyer identify a seat or a standing area or its location? Or is it a variation on the word “must” so that it is a requirement that a ticket number that could help a buyer identify seats or standing areas or their location must be included? I will be grateful if when the Minister responds he will mention that.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure that they would have been mentioned fulsomely by other Benches as well. I have not laboured in the vineyard quite as much as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I have not had multiple Bills simultaneously to deal with—and one can only admire that kind of stamina—but, still, the passing of this Bill carries a sense of relief given the variety of subject matter that we have had to deal with during the past few months. The Minister said that it was from Christmas to Easter; these Bills are seasonal in their nature.

We certainly have not achieved everything that we wanted, but I believe that the Bill is leaving this House in much better shape than that in which it arrived. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, implied, it is certainly a very meaty Bill. It is also a disparate Bill, covering a huge range of issues most of which are unified only by the word “digital”. That was quite a challenge for all those who were trying to cover the whole subject matter of the Bill.

I want to thank my own colleagues, particularly my noble friends Lord Paddick, Lord Fox, Lord Foster, Lord Lester, Lord Storey, Lord Addington, Lady Bonham-Carter, Lady Hamwee, Lady Janke, Lady Benjamin and Lady Grender. I thank our adviser team, particularly Elizabeth Plummer, Rosie Shimell and Vinous Ali. I want also to thank the Opposition Front Bench—the indefatigable noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Wood and Lord Grantchester—for their collaborative approach. Of course, I thank many others on the Cross Benches, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, with his successful amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—indefatigable is too small a word for her.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Indestructible.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

“Indestructible” is suggested to me by the Opposition Front Bench.

Finally and very sincerely, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the Bill team. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, had to say about the Bill team for their willingness to engage constructively, explain, amend and give what assurances they could throughout the passage of the Bill. We welcomed considerable movement during that time: changes in definition of “extreme pornographic material”, appeals on site blocking, the incorporation of many of the DPRRC amendments and new Ofcom powers—my noble friend Lady Benjamin is not in her place; she is probably celebrating somewhere the fact that Ofcom has new powers in respect of children’s programmes. There were amendments on remote e-book lending and listed events—the list goes on, which demonstrates that the Government were listening.

Of course, we anticipate ping-pong with great delight. I think that some six amendments to the Bill were passed. I hope that the Government will give consideration to them and not just bat them back to this House. They were all carefully thought through. I hope that we will see some changes as a result of those amendments in this House.

Of course, we did not get everything on our shopping list as the Bill went through. On Ofcom appeals, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, stood fast on Clause 85. I hope that in the future we might find some change on compulsory anonymisation for age verification, and I think that IPTV is something that may come back to haunt us. I hope that the consultation will demonstrate the absolute need for amendments in the future. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lester will also be returning by popular demand to the question of the statutory underpinning of the BBC charter. In the meantime, I thank the Minister and look forward to the passing of the Bill.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I would not expect the Minister to make commitments at this stage, just to listen to the arguments that we have already made and will no doubt make again in the meeting. I am very grateful to the Minister. We have Third Reading where we can—

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am abusing the system. I apologise for interrupting. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My question is directed at the Minister through the noble Lord, to maintain some semblance of protocol. I think the question my noble friend was trying to ask was, given that the Minister has committed to bringing back an amendment which covers much of the ground that has been discussed today, because there are issues he wishes to solidify, the assumption is that the points that have been raised may be raised again at Third Reading. He is not asking him to concede any additional work. I make it absolutely clear, because of the need for the clerks to be sure about this, that there will be a discussion at Third Reading on the substantive points that have been made so far.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

What the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked me to do was to meet to discuss these issues before Third Reading. I agreed to meet him and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, if he wants to do that. I said that we were going to bring forward two amendments and we will continue to do that. I think it is the other one, where we have agreed not to do that, that he wants to talk about, but I am happy to talk about all of them. We will bring forward the two amendments at Third Reading. Obviously, I can make no commitment about any extra amendments but I am happy to talk about it.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Thursday 2nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this moves us into Part 4 and intellectual property. We start with rather a narrow but quite important point about the way technology is moving forward in this area and the need to make sure that the statutory basis under which we look at issues relating to broadcasting and television is kept up to speed. I am joined in Amendment 71B by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Foster, for which I am very grateful. I am sure they will give more examples of and more detail on the topic that we are discussing in this group, about devices and services that infringe copyright.

These amendments look at digital TV piracy, which is a relatively new phenomenon but has come about because of the growing amount of close-to-live retransmission of broadcasts—and indeed of live broadcasts themselves—and the services that provide on-demand access to films, television series and other audio-visual content, including music. The categories are slightly different, but they are both very damaging to rights holders. Devices normally feature a mixture of both categories of services, and you can buy them readily on the open market and install them yourself, so it is a growing problem for those who control content and wish to make sure that rights holders earn from it.

These amendments suggest changing two sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. Amendment 79A relates to Section 297A and transmissions, while Amendment 71B relates to Section 107 and on-demand services. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has said, we strongly support this amendment and I am grateful to him for having tabled it. I shall go into a little more detail than he was able to do in order to illustrate some aspects that very much concern the creative industries. A substantial and growing threat is posed to the creative industries by a combination of faster broadband speeds and the widespread availability of cheap plug-and-play devices offering access to infringing software. These devices can be simply plugged into TV sets, offering viewers increasingly easy access to pirated digital content. The Government’s IP enforcement strategy recognises this threat.

The creative industries are deeply concerned about the growing scale of digital TV piracy and have noted a significant increase in the levels of illegal streaming, which inevitably undermines business models within these industries and threatens investment in new content creation. Clearly, the challenge needs to be met on multiple levels, including education campaigns, use of technology, increased enforcement activity and, crucially, clearer laws which are simpler to enforce.

There are a variety of ways that users access infringing content. Typically, this involves a device such as a USB stick or small android box which is plugged into a TV set using a standard connection. The device can be “fully loaded”, meaning it has software and add-ons preconfigured, giving access to thousands of streams, or users can purchase boxes with software such as Kodi installed—an open-source software platform—and then source and configure their own illegal add-ons. The Government’s own statistics highlight the significant growth in the use of this technology, and research by the Industry Trust for IP Awareness shows worrying signs that such behaviour is becoming normalised and socially acceptable.

The scale of the problem is very significant. Listings on Amazon give the boxes a legitimacy—the Industry Trust study revealed that 44% of people assume that if they buy a box or stick from a retailer such as Amazon, it must be legal. An Amazon search for “Kodi” just yesterday auto-completed with “Kodi box fully loaded” and “Kodi fully loaded TV box with Sky Sports and Movies”. That “Kodi” search produces 4,554 results. The first listing is highlighted as an Amazon best-seller and is on offer through Amazon Prime, despite the Q&A under it saying rather different things. IPTV boxes, as they are called, are widely available, with more than 14,000 listings across 511 online marketplaces, equating to more than 4 million items in stock globally. There are more than 200,000 videos on YouTube providing a step-by-step guide on how to install and use Kodi add-ons in order to stream free TV.

Given the rapid growth of such devices, it is not unreasonable to suggest that illegal IPTV boxes could become the second largest pay-TV operator in the UK within 18 months. Despite the IP enforcement strategy identifying the problem, there appears to be a reluctance to make the law simpler and more effective. At present, law enforcement has to rely on general provisions, such as aiding and abetting offences under the Fraud Act, or encouraging offences under the Serious Crime Act. This is because the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act does not address today’s or future issues, and the various offences in it do not include what is by far the most prevalent offence today: the supply of devices intended to commit digital piracy. A specific offence is much needed and was proposed in the other place as an amendment to the Bill.

There are examples of law enforcement agencies such as trading standards and PIPCU being unable to pursue strong cases due to the lack of an appropriate offence. As a result, despite the industry dedicating considerable resources over a long period to protecting its intellectual property through existing enforcement mechanisms, there has been insufficient success and what limited progress has been made has taken far too long. Now, a fit-for-purpose enforcement regime is needed which is kept up to date with technological advancements and new risks posed. This requires the creation in the CDPA of a specific offence relating to devices used for IP infringement.

We have been told that over the past year, the Sky security team has identified more than 100 cases involving digital TV piracy, but they have been extremely difficult to pursue through trading standards or, indeed, through PIPCU. The industry has gone to the extent of seeking counsel’s advice on whether anything in existing law adequately covers the offences involved. It is clear that, while there has been a recent successful five-week private prosecution of a complex case involving pan-European organised crime, this is not the most efficient way to deal with a new challenge. The CDPA, originally written in 1988, needs to be updated to reflect new technology and the subsequent risks posed. New legislation would help trading standards to prosecute those preloading and distributing IP devices.

I very much hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to support this important amendment.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like briefly to echo the words of the Minister. This Bill has been a good experience and a novel and, for me, different way of doing Bills—something we might learn from, in fact, as we go forward. The Minister said that there were families of amendments, which was certainly true; and we became a little family as we tried to deal with the rather odd way in which the Bill is organised. That was because, every time we looked at one area, we discovered that we would have to amend the Bill in every other clause as well. We were in some danger of extending the small coterie of your Lordships who actually like IP matters, but that is a danger which I think not many would survive.

Like the Minister, I thank all those who gave evidence both in writing and in person. It was a rich and interesting experience. The Special Public Bill Committee worked very hard, and I would particularly like to thank, in addition to our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, the representatives from the Labour side, my noble friends Lord Plant of Highfield and Lord Hanworth, who served a noble part on the Committee. I also echo the Minister’s thanks to the Intellectual Property Office and the Law Commission. Lastly, I thank the Minister. She has been rather modest in saying that we had improved the Bill; actually, it was she who took on the burden of heavy lifting not only by daring to go back to her own department and other departments to get clearance for various things, but also by taking on, in full measure, the Law Commission itself—and winning.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to intervene only briefly in the absence of my noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. From the updates she has given me regularly and from reading Hansard, she certainly proved more than a match for the Law Commission in many respects, and indeed she helped to inform the Government as the Bill went through. I know she feels that the Bill is now in a much more satisfactory form than it was when it arrived, and I thank the Minister for the amendments that were made in the course of its passage.

Contracting Out (Functions relating to the Royal Parks) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the rather slim rationale for the proposal to contract out the management of the Royal Parks, replacing the Royal Parks Agency, by setting up a company limited by the guarantee of the Secretary of State. The 8th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is the proximate reason for this evening’s debate, although I think we would have had some questions to ask had this gone through the normal process.

I have four main areas of concern. The first of these is the company. The DCMS proposes to contract with a new organisation which will be a company limited by guarantee of the Secretary of State, and which will apply for charitable status. All the parks are in London. Was consideration not given to whether it would be more appropriate to transfer responsibility to the Mayor of London on this occasion? If not, why not? There is very little information in the statutory instrument or the Explanatory Memorandum about the company itself, although we gathered a little bit more when the Minister was speaking. What type of company is it? Was consideration given to setting it up as a community interest company, because this would have been one area which would have avoided some of the problems it is likely to have with the Charity Commission?·

There was mention of the board, but we do not have any details of its size, whether there will be a good gender balance, or diversity issues. There was talk of statutory appointments being made from local authorities and the mayor’s office. This is good, but it would be interesting to know who the chair is to be and whether any other appointments have been announced. I note that it is a company limited by guarantee. In this case, there must be formal documentation and I would be grateful if the Minister could make that available, perhaps through the Library.

The Minister said that it is hoped to start the arrangements on 1 March, although the statutory instrument states that the order comes into force on the day after the day on which it is made. I note, in passing, that that is not one of the common commencement dates, which is to be regretted. More seriously, what happens if there is a delay in the establishment of the charity? After all, the company is not just applying for charitable status, albeit that can take time; it is merging with an existing charity as well, which is often rather a tricky operation, as I am sure the Minister is aware. If there is a delay, will the transfer happen on 1 March? If not, what are the standby arrangements? What are the tax implications of the change? No mention was made of this. In particular, what is the VAT position after the transfer? As a government agency, the Royal Parks Agency is not liable for VAT, but surely as an independent company it will be? Who is going to compensate the new organisation for that considerable loss?

The Minister tried to give a very full account of what has happened on consultation, but there has not been a formal consultation exercise and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was quite scathing about that. It is true that DCMS has responded that,

“engagement with key stakeholders and the wider public has shown broad support for the proposal”.

This apparently involved the proposal being discussed “over many months” at a series of meetings attended by friends’ groups of the Royal Parks and other visitor representatives, concessionaires, elected representatives and the police. The DCMS also says that local authorities bordering the estate that are represented on the Royal Parks advisory board, and the Greater London Authority, “are fully supportive”. I think I heard the Minister say that local MPs had been invited to attend these meetings. Given that large numbers of London residents and visitors from elsewhere use the Royal Parks, does the Minster not agree that failure to consult properly on this rather radical proposal does not match the high standards we should expect on such matters from all government departments? The lack of a proper public consultation process also means that an opportunity to spread the word about this change has been missed, with the result that there can be no certainty that these major changes will be welcomed by many current and future users of the parks.

I turn to commercial pressures. In the Explanatory Memorandum, the DCMS says that it is not the intention to permit the Royal Parks to become “overly commercialised”. Can the Minister explain what those words mean? For instance, will Parliament see the contract, so that we can properly assess whether the new organisation will have the obligation to maintain and enhance the quality of the parks? Can he assure us that the new organisation will continue to be subject to all the existing statutory designations relating to environmental protection and management?· Will the by-laws and charging regime continue to be approved through secondary legislation? If that is the case, has he considered that, given that we are losing direct control through the Secretary of State of the Royal Parks, it might be appropriate to change this from negative approval to affirmative approval in future.

In the Explanatory Memorandum, the DCMS states that the Royal Parks Agency currently generates almost 70% of its own income—most of which is from Winter Wonderland, which the Minister talked about—with the balance covered by grant-in-aid from HM Treasury. It says that, under the proposed contracting-out arrangements, the Government will provide resource funding and capital investment to the new organisation—that will be welcome—but it will also be able to raise funds, perhaps through sponsorship and commercial activities. It expects that, in the longer term, this will reduce the burden on the public purse—no surprises there. So what capital and revenue commitments have been made and over what period? What are the targets that have been set? Are we expecting these bodies to move to 100% self-funding within a reasonable time? If so, will Parliament be consulted about that?

Finally, I turn to staff. It is very good that there have been no compulsory redundancies in the transfer. I gather that all but a few staff will be transferred under the TUPE regulations and will retain their pension arrangements and pay scales. What will happen to new joiners after the transfer? It is not always the case that the existing arrangements are offered to them and that would be unfortunate. The staff work in a very high-security area. We are all aware of the incidents that have taken place in the Royal Parks. In some cases, such as the garden of Downing Street, which is serviced by the current arrangements, there will need to be high-security clearance. How will this be arranged in future when the company is independent? Will we be given some details on that?

In introducing the order, the Minister asked what I am sure was a rhetorical question—namely, if all was going so well, why change it? In my view, he comprehensively failed to answer that question. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing the new proposals. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate them. We on these Benches are not opposed in principle to contracting out to a new charity formed for the purpose, rather in the way that the creation of English Heritage seems to have become a success. I think we are all pleased that Loyd Grossman, with his profile and experience, has been appointed as its first chair. That is considerable cause for pleasure. Moreover, I understand that, broadly, friends’ groups across the Royal Parks support the change and see it as bringing the following benefits—greater financial freedom and escape from government restriction, for example, on the carrying over of end-of-year surpluses, and on procurement rules, both of which can lead to higher costs. It also gives them rather more flexibility on pay rates—upwards, as it happens—in order to attract staff. The change means that it is easier to raise money, especially through local philanthropy, and the new objectives provide—they say—more focus on protection and conservation and less on government objectives for higher visitor numbers.

I understand that the new draft objectives submitted to the Charity Commission are principally to promote the use and enjoyment of the Royal Parks, to protect, conserve, maintain and care for them, to maintain and develop the biodiversity of the Royal Parks and to support the advancement of education and promote the national heritage. All those objectives have considerable importance and benefit. However, it would be good to see the entire draft constitution of the new charity. There is remarkably little information available about the new structure, especially given that it is to be merged with the Royal Parks Foundation. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about how the board will be appointed. I understand that there will be 14 board members, half of whom will be appointed by government. It is not clear whom the other half will be appointed by. We need a much more plural form of appointment and there needs to be considerable local input into those appointments. An ability for the Government to appoint 50% of the trustees of the new charity seems well over the top. In the way that the Government retreated over the BBC, I hope that they will likewise retreat over the appointment of trustees to this charity.

I hope that these new arrangements will also mean that detailed plans are drawn up for each of the individual Royal Parks. I think we all know which Royal Parks we are referring to but it is not so well known that other open spaces such as Brompton Cemetery, Victoria Tower Gardens, just along the way, and the gardens at Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street are all currently managed by the Royal Parks Agency. I assume that they will continue to be managed by the new charity.

I was only partially reassured by the Minister’s statements about consultations that have taken place. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out, they were very local consultations. The Royal Parks are an asset to not only the whole of London but also the nation. Therefore, it sounds to me as if the consultations have been extremely limited. On what basis were the consultations held? Was a draft constitution of the new charity available? Is there a new draft corporate plan? That kind of detail is very important when one is consulting on a dramatically new way of managing the Royal Parks.

Where is the draft contract? As a lawyer, I always like to see a draft contract, lots of red ink and so on, but we have not seen anything to do with the future management of the Royal Parks. That was referred to by the Minister. What are the key performance indicators in terms of the management of the parks? What specific targets are to be set for the management? On future strategy, will there be a new corporate plan? The Royal Parks Agency has carried on a very detailed way of planning for some considerable time, which includes separate management and operating plans for each Royal Park and, in addition, a sustainability strategy. In the light of the new objectives of the charity, that is extremely important.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, rightly referred to finances. The parks are now expected to make nearly 70% of their own income, but more than 30% still comes from government grant. All the statements coming out of government in this regard seem rather ominous. The stated aim in the Explanatory Notes is to reduce the burden on the public purse in the longer-term. Will that level of finance continue? After all, the latest annual report of the Royal Parks Agency states:

“The new charity will be increasingly self-sustaining”.

The advertisement for the new chairman states that the new body will apparently seek to,

“generate substantial annual revenue from more events, concessions and licences”.

I heard what the Minister said about events, and that seems to contradict it. What does all this mean for government support and over what period? In the way that the finances for English Heritage have tapered, do the Government plan a tapering of the finance for the new charitable body? Or will they essentially oblige the new body—as the Royal Parks tried to do previously—to impose fees for use of its football pitches? I have another very large question: who will pay for the £56 million maintenance backlog detailed in the most recent annual accounts?

The Minister gave several assurances about events. I suppose we should be pleased that there is no Summertime Wonderland but it seems that even the existing events—Winter Wonderland and the British Summer Time Concerts alone, including the time for setting up and reinstating the grass—put 13% of Hyde Park out of bounds for much of the year. Therefore, frankly, I do not think there is much leeway for more events. Will there be more open-air cinema screenings? I know that that causes problems for local wildlife in Richmond Park. What will the financial pressures be if the Government taper their support?

There are many questions and not enough transparency about these proposals. I hope that the Minister has all the answers.

Legislative Reform (Exempt Lotteries) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 18th January 2016 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Courtown]

It is probably best if I write to the noble Lord and give him the exact details of what is planned. Obviously, as I said from this position, there are some points that we will take back to the Gambling Commission. Once I have checked with the department, I will write to the noble Lord with exact details of any review. I will ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is also included in that.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I think we are slightly mixing up two issues here. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was about this order and the effect it will have on those small lotteries and events run for residents. The question was whether there would be a review of that and I think the Minister will write to him about it. My point was about society lotteries and I did not refer to the House of Commons Select Committee. I could have done but chose not to because I wished to let the Minister know that the outcome of the debate we had in the House just before Christmas was a number of letters, including ones from those responsible for operating society lotteries. I wondered whether there was any progress there. I think the Minister was in the process of explaining that that is also being progressed.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, that is precisely why I asked the question: there seems to have been a conflation of the two points.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I will not recap at length the points I made in Committee. Suffice it to say that tourism contributes 9% of all UK GDP and 9% of all jobs: 3 million people rely on it for work. Domestic tourism spending is a significant portion of this—79% of tourism spending across the UK. I made the point in Committee that domestic changes in school term times have a potentially massive knock-on effect for the UK tourism industry as a whole. In the US, there are numerous examples of states changing term times and the huge effect that has had, costing state economies hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

DCMS has admitted that there has been no evaluation of the policy’s effect on tourism. Tourism is heavily reliant on the weather, and it is not uncommon for summer trading to be ruined, for example, by two weeks of bad weather. Decreasing the length of the summer holiday to, say, four weeks would be far more devastating than a simple one-third reduction of the peak period. Diversifying the dates of holidays does not lengthen the peak period but simply spreads out the same trade while increasing operating costs.

Assurances have been given to the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions—BALPPA—by the Department for Education, and indeed by my noble friend in Committee on 6 November, that the needs of businesses will be considered. However, does this actually amount to an assurance that consultation will take place before changes are made? Surely, at the very least, the duty to do so should be contained in guidance or, much better, enshrined in the Bill.

By their nature, tourism attractions bring people in from beyond the immediate locality. Often, they attract people into towns from the region and beyond. Changing school times throughout the whole of Manchester would, for example, affect attractions across the north-west, including those in Blackpool and Liverpool. There is concern that when schools want to use these powers, they will not have the concerns of local businesses in mind. We need to give the tourism industry more confidence in this legislation, which is viewed with a great deal of concern at the moment. The effect of changes to school terms and holidays is potentially huge for the industry. We should therefore make sure that school governing bodies consult when they propose to make any such changes. I urge my noble friend to accept the principle of this amendment and I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord has just said. Indeed, we discussed this at some length in Committee. I have only one point and when the Minister responds I would be grateful if he could expand on the comments that he made in Committee. He said:

“I am happy to assure the noble Lord that the Government have agreed that their advice to schools will make clear that: schools should be considerate of the needs of parents and impacts on others by working with each other and the local authority to co-ordinate term dates as far as possible; and that all schools must act reasonably when setting term dates, including considering the impact of changes to term dates on small businesses that rely on tourism from families with school-age children”.—[Official Report, 6/11/2014; col. GC771.]

That is a very targeted comment and seems in many ways to answer everything that the noble Lord was saying, but I wonder what force this advice will have? Will it be in the form of a circular of some type? Can he expand on that? Will there be any sanctions for those who do not behave to the letter of the law, as so well expressed by the noble Lord the last time round? Particularly, would Ofsted be inspecting such offers made by schools?

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, Amendment 16 stands in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. Digital sales are booming and the digital music, video and games market now accounts for 43% of the total UK entertainment sector. Recent research puts the UK as the leading European country for total digital spent per capita. This is indeed the future.

The main focus of Amendment 16 is the question of whether, when digital content is provided in an intangible form and does not meet quality standards, the consumer should, as the Government propose, be restricted simply to a right of repair or replacement. We believe very strongly that, in addition, the consumer should in such cases have both a short-term and a long-term right to reject the digital content. The Government’s argument is that where digital content is downloaded or streamed, it is not provided on a tangible medium and therefore cannot be returned in any meaningful sense. Passing over the obvious metaphysical absurdity of believing that only physical objects can be meaningful, that is inconsistent—not least because consumers will have a short-term and a long-term right to reject the identical digital content if it is bought on a tangible medium, such as a DVD or CD.

As the BIS Select Committee commented when it was reviewing the draft Bill:

“The different remedies available for tangible and intangible digital content in the bill would … embed inconsistency into consumer law. Consumers experience intangible digital content in the same way as tangible digital content, as a good, and therefore would expect to be able to reject it and receive a refund if the statutory rights are not met”.

Well, they can get a refund, but they cannot reject it. It cannot be sensible for the Government to be sanctioning two different regimes for tangible and intangible goods and services, and I very much doubt that the courts will support that.

The department has produced and circulated a useful note on this whole issue, for which I am very grateful. I am also grateful to the Minister, who wrote to me after the debate we had on this issue in Committee. That was also extremely helpful and informative. However, it is a question of consistency and equity not whether we can analyse this or parse it to the last extent. The right thing to do here is to provide the same rights for all faulty purchases, tangible or intangible, while recognising that any short-term or long-term right to reject needs to be matched by a requirement placed on the consumer to delete the content and, if that is impracticable, to desist from use or copying. There are already remedies in law that would match this issue.

The BIS adviser on this issue, Professor Robert Bradgate, who sadly, I recently learnt, died before he could see his recommendations implemented, recognised that problem in his initial report and suggested that it should be tackled by,

“an extension of the definition of goods to apply provisions of the Act both to goods, and to digital products … and to include power in the … legislation for Her Majesty’s Secretary of State to apply the Act by Statutory Instrument to new developments as they arise”.

That remains good advice. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will thank me for making an even shorter speech than I made in the previous debate. I must say that my breath is somewhat taken away by the sweeping nature of the amendment, which tries to sweep all digital content into the clauses on the sale of goods. The software industry may have some difficulty with some areas of Chapter 3 on digital content, but if what the noble Lord wants happened, it would be horrified. The dialogue between the software industry and the Government may not have produced everything that the software industry wants, but it has recognised that digital content is very different. I forewarned the noble Baroness, Lady King, that I would cite her. Like me, she said:

“I will not speak at length on this amendment or the other amendments … but it seems worth reiterating the peculiar nature of digital content”. [Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 183.]

Although I do not have the exact reference, I entirely agree with her. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made similar points about the peculiar nature of digital content. It would be an extremely retrograde step to sweep up the additional content in this. If the noble Lord had come with individual amendments to the clauses to bring digital content in, I might have been more sympathetic, because one then could have seen the exact consequences of the amendments, but the consequences of this amendment could be quite unforeseen and extremely contrary to the interests of the strong and vibrant software industry that we have in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to quote me in her previous response, so I hope that she will go even further than that and accept an amendment from me. One lives in hope. I am indeed returning to the fray on the subject of software. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, reads Hansard he will realise how accurate my quote from the noble Baroness, Lady King, was.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I did not say it was inaccurate; I just said that it was not the complete phrase as recorded. The reference that my noble friend showed me was to bug fixes; it was not about the particularity of the need for a separate regime for returning material to digital suppliers because it was defective in some way.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

Logically, one thing follows another. That is exactly the purpose of this amendment. Indeed, I shall refer again to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady King, on 20 October, as recorded at column GC 183 of Hansard. It has been extraordinarily helpful in formulating the terms of this amendment.

Let me explain. Amendment 34, tabled in Grand Committee, sought to amend Clause 34 to include a provision stating that it is common for computer software to include defects due to its dynamic nature and the complex environment in which it operates. In response to that amendment my noble friend Lady Jolly asserted that,

“the Bill is flexible enough to cope with”,

the differences between complex software and simpler forms of digital content such as music. She said that “reasonable consumers” understood that complex content contains bugs, and that,

“freedom from minor defects is an aspect of satisfactory quality only ‘in appropriate cases’”.—Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 184.]

The Minister was clear about this in Grand Committee, but, as the Federation Against Copyright Theft has said, it is far from the case that a district court or a county court would be clear about it.

In the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, suggested that,

“it seems reasonable to say that where minor defects in software do not affect the overall functionality of the product, that digital content should not be deemed unsatisfactory”.—[Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 183.]

I agree—and the software industry agrees, and very much supports this approach, as it is much more outcome based. We have reformulated the amendment as a result, and it now says that as long as the defect does not affect the main functionality of the digital content, it should not be regarded as rendering it unsatisfactory.

My noble friend Lady Jolly questioned in Grand Committee what the driver for industry would be to improve the software if the legislation stated that some types of software contain bugs and, as such, this would not mean that the digital content was faulty. However, it is in industry’s commercial interest constantly to improve its products. In fact, to the contrary, the clause as formulated might have an adverse effect in encouraging industry not to make changes or improvements to its digital content. The consequences of strict compliance are likely to be increased costs to consumers and slower product evolution, arising from the increased time and resource required for testing. It is preferable for consumers and businesses to require that minor defects or malfunctions that may surface as a product or service is used be fixed as promptly as possible.

Amendments 18 and 19 aim to remove the risk of claims in relation to minor software glitches. Such claims are potentially expensive and time-consuming for software providers to resolve and would not benefit consumers. In Grand Committee, Amendments 37 and 38 sought to amend Clause 36 to clarify that the presence of bugs in complex types of digital content does not mean that the content is not as described. My noble friend Lady Jolly responded by commenting that,

“digital content either meets the description or … not”,

and that the amendments would undermine,

“the requirement that the digital content should be as described”.—[Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 186.]

My noble friend provided a simple example of a defect in software where the spellchecker no longer worked yet the software was described as having this function. With all due respect, the spellchecker example is very simplistic. It is a different situation with regard to complex software such as security software, which has to evolve over time and needs to be updated to address the myriad situations to enable the software to continue to interface with other third-party software and platforms, to continue to function or to address new vulnerabilities.

These issues were discussed during the debate in Grand Committee on Amendment 40A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. His amendment would have amended Clause 40 to enable suppliers to make modifications to the software if they are of benefit to the consumer, remedy risks or improve functionality, irrespective of whether the modification would mean that the digital content no longer meets that description. I am pleased that the Government have partially relented on that and that, as a result, we now have government Amendment 20 to Clause 40. The supplier can now add functionality but software suppliers will still not be able to remove features. Neither Clause 36 nor Clause 40 takes into consideration that certain features may have to be removed or disabled from security software. Suppliers of security software may have to remove a function as it is in the very interest of a consumer to do so, as the function could be vulnerable to attack and this specific vulnerability could leave the consumer open to a range of threats—from a virus that will steal personal information or credit card details to malware that will infect a user’s machine, rendering it unusable and/or wiping data such as precious family photos.

Functions of security software are not removed without good reason. If suppliers do not remove a function, there are many circumstances where this will be to the detriment of consumers. I hope that my noble friend will recognise the particular circumstances of software and give her approval at least to the tenor of these amendments. I beg to move.

Legislative Reform (Entertainment Licensing) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that exposition, which brings back happy memories of my Second Reading Speech on the Live Music Bill back in 2011. I wholly support the rationale for the deregulation of live music. It may have taken some time, and I must be a collector of consultations in one way or another since 2011, but it has been a very careful and stately progress towards building on the Live Music Act exemption for venues with an audience capacity of 200, which will be extended to 500 if this order goes through. It is as if, between 2012 and now, Christmas has arrived after many years of waiting under the previous Government. I remember first raising the deregulation of live music performances in 2007. I kept being told that reviews would take place. I think that a consultation paper was issued in early 2010 and thereafter, of course, a new Government took office, so I am extremely pleased to see this on foot. I thought that the original 5,000 figure was rather extravagant. I do not know whether it was aversion therapy or whatever, but certainly I expect that local authorities made their views known about the idea of deregulating an audience of up to 5,000 for live music.

There are still areas of live music which could be improved, but I was very pleased to see stated in the LRO consultation of July 2014:

“The coming into force of the Live Music Act 2012 has not negatively impacted the licensing objectives and the Government considers that having an audience limit of not more than 500 people for music entertainment in relevant premises strikes the right balance between those who welcome it, and those who have concerns about noise nuisance”.

That is a very fair and balanced approach.

I am often critical of the Government’s impact assessments, but the impact assessment that assesses the administrative savings from the reduced need to apply for licences and TENs for business and third-sector organisations states the figures at £5.9 million and £3.8 million. Over the appraisal period, that may sound slightly spuriously precise, but I am sure that there will be considerable administrative savings as a result of this order.

Again, I welcome the order, but there are further steps that we should take to free up live music. We had some sensible proposals on how leafleting for live events and small social and cultural events is going to be treated, on which DCLG is consulting at the moment, and I welcome them. I have spoken on busking, and I promoted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill, but had somebody else speak to it. The way in which the planning law operates is still a problem for some small venues, as many people know, and there are petitions on changing the law, which I hope will make progress.

My only question for the Minister at this stage is about the guidance. Chapter 15 of the current guidance deals with regulated entertainment. Of course, it took a little bit of time to consult over exactly how the guidance needed to be changed last time around. Does the Minister consider that it will take an equivalent time this time or can the process be speeded up? I hope that it will come into effect as quickly as possible.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the order. I have no particular objection to it as it stands, and I agree with many points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his current mainstream form, although I have welcomed him in surrogate packaging form on a couple of other recent occasions.

First, I want to say how nice it is that this order will come into force on 6 April 2015, which is one of the common commencement dates, and that the department has been able to find a way in which to make that happen this time. However, I do not quite follow the argument that I heard the Minister make about how the four principal objectives of public licensing come through in the specifics of some of the issues raised by this order. The one on which I want to concentrate particularly is children. I understand that crime, public safety and public nuisance issues are well dealt with because there are other ways in which they can be addressed. The choice of low-risk venues and the experience over a reasonable period with deregulated live music gives us all confidence that there are ways in which this will come through. However, I put one caveat on that, in that I worry slightly about the size of some of these venues.

In preparing for the debate that we had last week on the deregulation of community cinema, we were told by a number of expert witnesses that the size specified of 500 people was very large in proportion to existing community premises, which tend to be much smaller, and to the licensed exhibition of films. Sadly, these days there are very few cinemas; there used to be cinemas that could hold up to 2,000, particularly in London, whereas most cinemas now hold something of the order of between 300 and 500 people. So we talking about deregulating what is admittedly a low-risk environment—venues that are probably not in existence and are unlikely to be built. I wonder slightly about that, but it is not my main concern, which is that in crime, public safety and public nuisance we have reasonable experience of what has happened in the deregulatory phases of the past two years, and we understand how the regulations will apply.

Let me just take two issues. It may be a good thing to ensure that the licensing treatment for peripatetic circuses is evened up across the country. Removing regulations is a novel way of doing this—although I understand the reasoning—since it avoids the possibility of different approaches in different areas. However, circuses are aimed at children and in my experience, although I have not been to a circus for many years, most of the performances include bringing children on stage, or certainly engaging them through the clowns and various other aspects. There must a priori be an interest in ensuring that the child protection aspects of that are well considered. Will the Minister point out where that appears in the order, as I could not see it in relation to circuses? As I read the order, there is nothing specific addressing children. There is a lacuna there that we might wish to reflect on.

Secondly, there is the addition, for reasons that I do not quite understand and would like an explanation about, of Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling. I am not a wrestling aficionado and am certainly not an expert, but I do not quite get why they have been picked out in preference to many other styles of wrestling. I do not really understand how it can be said that they are by some definition freer from concerns about public order issues than might apparently apply to Cumbrian wrestling or indeed, if we were talking about Scotland, which sadly we are not, Scottish wrestling, which is, as far as I understand it, certainly not public nuisance-free. It seems to take place in Scottish highland games, at which there are very large amounts of alcohol copiously available. Apparently for Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling you have to be not only an aficionado but under the auspices of British Wrestling, an organisation I am not familiar with, but which is apparently the one specified. By some miraculous arrangement—perhaps the Greco-Roman gods are looking over this—there is no alcohol present because that just does not happen. That may be true, but it seems rather odd to have picked out Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling for this, particularly as the order makes provision for this to take place in venues for up to 1,000. Not 200, not 500, but 1,000 people can gather together for an alcohol-free festival of Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling. That is good news. Again, I worry a bit about that, but I worry also about the child protection aspects. This is an area where, presumably, young people are being brought to encourage them. It is very physical and very direct exercise—it was pretty good in the Olympic Games, and it was interesting that in the audience, there were quite a lot of children watching. My concerns are therefore obvious and I will be grateful if the Minister will respond to them.

Other than that, we think that the order is well presented. Like the noble Lord, I thought the Explanatory Memorandum was very good. I enjoyed reading it and felt it answered many of the questions I had.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, responds, I want to make just a couple of comments. I, of course, also will read Hansard carefully. I am somewhat disappointed because I am not sure that the voices in the debate have been heard clearly. I feel that somewhat of the straw man or Aunt Sally is being erected here as if the proponents of these amendments are trying to restrict the secondary market and prevent resale. My noble friend Lord Stoneham talked about restraint of trade. I thought that that was quite extraordinary and that we were almost in the realms of the EU or something. That is not the intention; nor is it the intention to drive people away from the event organisers to the secondary market. I do not believe that that would be the impact of what we are talking about here; that is, to get the benefit of a guarantee delivered by a secondary market in the possible event that a ticket is invalid or fraudulent. Surely, when you buy it from the event organiser, you know that it jolly well is not fraudulent or invalid. I am not really sure about that argument.

I could say many other things. As to the whole notion of the secondary market being entrepreneurial, if you know that a major sporting event is coming down the track, I do not know how entrepreneurial you have to be to reckon that a ticket for the World Cup is worth money and will be worth a great deal more money the nearer the time. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, is a great friend of entrepreneurs but there is entrepreneurialism and entrepreneurialism, in my view, in all of this. I think that a little bit of a splendid smokescreen is being erected around this issue. However, I take it from what my noble friend has said that there is an issue about the information given about an ordinary seller who is an ordinary consumer who has bought a ticket and wants to resell it, and the whole of their history is revealed for all to see on the secondary market. That is a perfectly valid objection and it may be a bridge too far. But there are many other aspects of these amendments which are extremely important.

My noble friend prayed in aid the regulations. The fact is that they are there but they are not adequate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for using the word “forensic”. If you look at the impact of these consumer regulations, you see that they are not sufficient to drive good behaviour, which is all that we are talking about in these circumstances. The main four resellers in the secondary market may well do what they can. They do not always publicise exactly what the tickets relate to. There may be merit in considering some sort of regulation where consumers do not have to pay for their tickets until the identity is known. It may be that you need a condition precedent: for example, having made the reservation, the consumer perhaps should not have to pay until the seat number can be stated. It is perfectly possible to think of a situation where that would be a valid way of behaving.

I will chew over what my noble friend has said but we have quite a bit more discussion to take place. Clearly, she recognises the strength of feeling in Committee. I think that this is a matter that we will take further during the course of the Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I share the disappointment that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, expressed at the response to the debate. It was a very high-quality debate with some very important and influential speakers with track records and experience. It is not so much that their points were rebutted—that is what Governments do—but to have them rebutted in such an inventive way seems to me to trivialise what is an important point. We need to think very hard about what the next steps in this should be. For example, the Government do not seem to have a view on my genuine question of what a ticket is, yet they are regulating out of their ears—or that is what they say they are doing. To do so on the basis of not knowing what the central point is seems to be specious in the extreme. If they do not know what a ticket is, is it any wonder that the regulations do not do the trick?

It is absolutely clear from what has been said today and from the evidence that we have received that the current regulatory structure is a bit of a joke. It does not do what it is required to do: to make an efficient market for those who are trying to sell tickets for events they are running and for those who wish to attend them in a genuine capacity. It is not catching all the activity that is going through. The Government say that it is designed for traders, but somehow consumers are in a different category. I do not think that distinction stands up in what we are doing.

The guidance that has been issued has been tried and tested already and is clearly failing. It does not work. We need to do something about that. Under the regulations that have been in force since June 2014, I have been told by several sports bodies that no tickets that they can find on sale have the seat numbers or seller details provided. Are we to believe that no tickets at all are being sold by these traders? I do not think so.

Also, what exactly is a trader? During her response the Minister seemed to imply that there would be a case for arguing that people who bought tickets in excess of their personal demand could be treated as traders. If that is the situation, why do we not say that in regulatory form so that it is clear? It is currently up to the seller to define whether they are a trader or a consumer. In the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, the BA pilot who was caught selling several hundred Ashes tickets would definitely have been a trader by any definition yet was not prosecuted in that way. This is largely about consumer protection. Consumers are not going to be concerned about whether their ticket is coming from a trader or a consumer. They should have the right to know what they are buying. That is the basis of all the consumer discussions we have had on the Bill so far. It seems odd to carve this out in a different way.

I take the view that, if the Government are not going to outlaw secondary ticketing—I do not think they should—they must regulate properly for what they want: the desirable things, the things that will help the sports and help consumers. That will help to create a proper and open arrangement that is not susceptible to criminal activity of the type that we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, but which seemed to be rebutted by the Minister when she responded. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said that there were about 1,000 people involved in criminal activity from known facts as a result of the Government’s investigations into the Olympic and Paralympic Games. What exactly is she saying if she says that some economists say that there is not any criminal activity because it was consumers who were buying the tickets? Of course it was consumers who were buying them, but if they were arriving through some form of criminal gang activity, that is not a very satisfactory situation.

As was made very clear in the debates, the amendments taken together give a range of options for the Government to look at. That is a rich opportunity for the Government to come back with something sensible at later stages in the Bill. We are not saying that there is a particular solution to this; there is a range of things that the Government could do. We are tending not to be draconian. We are not insisting on banning secondary ticketing; we are trying to say that there is a gap here in expectation. The genuine fan, the keen person who wishes to go to an activity but cannot access tickets at the beginning of the process and has to pay over the odds for them, is not well served by the information requirements. This simply is not working well. It could be changed through very minor regulatory change. It should be in the Bill because it is clear that the secondary legislation is not working. I really cannot understand why the Government are happy to be accused of standing by while consumers are being exploited.

We will undoubtedly return to this. I hope that between now and when this matter comes back on Report there may be an opportunity to have a further, more in-depth discussion with the Minister where we might get further down the line on this. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Video Recordings Act 1984 (Exempted Video Works) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 28th July 2014 Grand Committee

[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.

Copyright and Rights in Performances (Extended Collective Licensing) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 21st July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome my noble friend the Minister to her new role. I have known her in a number of previous incarnations and have no doubt that she will be extremely effective in her role as IP Minister. She will soon realise that these debates on copyright involve the usual suspects on most occasions.

I certainly hope that the Minister will continue the good work of her predecessor, our mutual noble friend Lord Younger, who was so assiduous in his work, variously in this House during the passage of the then ERR and IP Bills and otherwise in his briefing to colleagues and enthusiasm in building relations with rights holders and the creative industries, to the point where some of the bad taste left by the Hargreaves review has to a considerable degree been dispelled.

We had extensive debate on ECL during the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. We have also, in the mean time, seen the passage of the Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations 2014, to which my noble friend referred, relating to collecting societies.

The Government’s explanations always described ECL as “voluntary extended collective licensing”, but the fact is that ECL allows the licensing body to license rights without the prior authorisation of the rights holder. So ECL, as I emphasised during the passage of the Act, is potentially dangerous to rights holders. However, the fact remains that—as the Minister told us today, and as we were informed in very timely fashion in correspondence last week from the chief executive of the IPO, which I very much welcomed—the assurances about safeguards given during the passage of the ERR Act have been delivered in these regulations.

The suggestions that a number of us made on Report and otherwise during the passage of the ERR Act were essentially translations of the Nordic statutory provisions adapted to our own copyright regime. I am pleased to see that we have incorporated many of those as a result of the careful consultation process. These safeguards, taken together with the previous collecting society regulations, usefully include, as my noble friend outlined, matters such as the need to explain the type of licence being granted in terms of the types of works and uses in scope, and the need for the authorised body to be representative and acting with the approval of the membership. I agree that an absolute threshold for either is not practical and applaud the provision requiring informed consent. The safeguards also include the adoption of a code of conduct and the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to codes of conduct, especially where non-members are concerned; the ability to refer to the Copyright Tribunal where a claim is being made that the body is not representative or that licences go beyond the scope of existing copyright licences; the requirement to give details of opt-out arrangements and to publicise ECL schemes to non-members; a limitation on the term of initial authorisation to five years, with schemes being subject to renewal; a 28-day period, also referred to by my noble friend, in which representations can be made before the Secretary of State grants authorisation; and clear provisions about the ability to give notice of exclusion of a work. Although I would have preferred them in the primary legislation, I welcome the Government’s adoption of those safeguards in the regulations.

At Report stage on the Act, however, I raised a number of issues that are not, I think, covered by the regulations. There are a number of other issues involved as well. The first is the ability for rights owners to opt out in a manageable way. In Grand Committee my noble friend Lord Younger made a commitment that the working group on extended collective licensing would be asked to consider whether the right to opt out should be extended to exclusive licensees and their representatives. I am pleased to see that under the regulations they can indeed opt out. But as I said on Report:

“It will be unworkable to have an opt-out which is exercisable only by the copyright owner or exclusive licensee”.

Can we assume that authorised representatives can do this on behalf of rights holders?

As I also said on Report:

“In Hungary, one reason for the failure of being able to rely on the opt-out came from the requirement of Artisjus that the rights owner—not any representative—provide due diligence evidencing ownership of each title in question”.—[Official Report, 11/3/13; col. 35.]

In the context of ECL, the burden of challenging any opt-out must sit with the entity operating the scheme and not with the individual right owner. My noble friend Lord Younger said on Report that,

“the Government’s intention is that the burden of proof should favour the party seeking to opt out … It will be the responsibility of the collecting society to operate opt-out schemes which meet the needs of effective rights holders. They will need to demonstrate how they intend to do this when they apply to operate an ECL scheme”.—[Official Report, 11/3/13; col. 39.]

Will my noble friend give assurances that this has been translated into practice in the regulations? Will collecting societies be asked specifically about the burden of due diligence when authorisations are being considered by the IPO?

Secondly, as regards the possibility of an independent body to consider applications, I cannot discern in any of the regulations that any third party is tasked with evaluating the data emanating from collecting societies when authorisations are sought. This would help to prevent disputes with non-members. Will the IPO be doing this? Will it have the resources? Will it have the expertise? Is this the appropriate way to proceed?

Thirdly, since we first debated ECL we have seen the approval of the EU directive on collective rights management, which will not come into effect until 2016. I welcome EU regulation that moves us towards a common European digital economy but, specifically, how do these regulations and the directive potentially impact on each other? Does this mean that collecting societies can eventually go beyond the UK in their ECL schemes? Will they incorporate the same safeguards if they do? Should we not be incorporating the ability to choose collecting society that is contained within the directive? I certainly know that organisations such as the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies would be very keen to see the incorporation of that choice in these regulations and not to have to wait until 2016.

Finally, there is the question of the five-year initial authorisation. After discussion in the consultation and the Government’s response, it is clear that the initial authorisation period is five years, but what is the intention regarding subsequent periods? Do the Government envisage that the periods after that initial period will in fact be longer, which may meet some of the requirements that have already been debated?

At the end of the day, it will be necessary for collecting societies to demonstrate to member and non-member alike that they provide value for money in operating ECL. Given the emergence of the Copyright Hub and new technology, the question for the creator or right holder will be: what are the advantages of not opting out of an ECL scheme? I hope that all the time and effort expended on establishing an ECL regime proves worth while.

I remain an ECL sceptic, I am afraid to say, not least when I see the original 2012 impact assessment appended to the Explanatory Memorandum. It contains some magnificently speculative language on the prospective benefits, especially economic activity and growth in the form of unspecified,

“further value creation and cumulative innovation”.

However, there will be great swathes of creative content that will not be covered: film, television, photographs, news footage, footage on YouTube and so on. So rather like the Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance—although perhaps for rather different reasons—which says in its briefing that it would like potentially perpetual licences, which I thoroughly oppose, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for ECL to have a dramatic impact. Far more significant to the successful and effective exploitation and licensing of copyright works is the Copyright Hub and its successful rollout.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I join others in welcoming the Minister to her first outing. I have rarely seen a smoother and more effective transition from Back-Bencher to Front-Bencher. She seemed to take to it as though she had been doing it all her life—indeed, so much so that the government Chief Whip, who crept in at the start of the Minister’s remarks, presumably just to make sure that she had made the right decision, left almost immediately, smirking widely. The Minister seems to have passed whatever test that was, and I congratulate her.

I also play tribute to the noble Baroness’s predecessor, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, who, as has already been said, has been very good on this issue: patient, courteous—yes, all that—but also a fantastically good letter writer. I hope that the Minister might pick up from him his ability to find one or two issues that came up during these debates and discussions which required him to write us letters which served as a good way of catching up on what had been talked about and picking up on the points that occasionally get missed. That is not mandatory, but it was something that we all welcomed and enjoyed.

As others have done, I also thank officials for their work on this SI. It is the first time that I have ever had a briefing from no less than the chief executive of the IPO—which made me tremble slightly as I opened it up and realised what it was. It was good to have. Maybe it is not a change of view, but one of the concerns that we have had over the plethora of activity that has come out of the Hargreaves review has been a slightly defensive attitude on the IPO’s part, which I felt was manifested in meetings and correspondence. If this is the new IPO under the new Minister, she has effected change in a remarkably short time. It very welcome and long may it continue.

The Minister will already have realised that she is entering an area of deep expertise from a very small number of people in your Lordships’ House. There are usually one or two more of us than there are today—we are feeling a bit bereft of other noble Lords and Baronesses. However, we geeks like nothing better than to get our teeth into a bit of IP and feel that a day in Parliament is wasted if we have not had some meaty issue to chew over. I am delighted that we are back on track and look forward to more of these debates.

This instrument has a long pedigree, as has already been mentioned. We have been talking about the passage of the ERR Act of famous memory, during which some of the debates around the Government’s approach were rehearsed over a long period of time. Out of that has come some good, however, because I am sure that the thoughts that informed those debates have been reflected in some of the outturns that we have seen today. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was right to point out, this area is not free of others who might wish to make regulations. We have a European directive on this and a number of similar areas that is still to come through within a couple of years. There is also the ongoing work of the non-statutory but important Copyright Hub, which will in time prove very capable of dealing with so many of the issues that we have been looking at.

In looking at collecting societies, we should have at the front of our minds the fact that this is a process of dealing with a regulated monopoly. As such, it is important that Parliament should exercise as much scrutiny as possible in these areas. We are broadly disposed not to accept monopolies, even though they often occur and exist in many parts of the economy. However, in this area we are permitting them to exist and, indeed, encouraging them to take their work further. It is therefore important that we spend time on thinking through the implications, certainly those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Howarth.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this group of amendments and, indeed, for his oral and written briefings while the Bill was going through the Commons. It was most helpful to have a blow-by-blow account of the amendments as they were put forward by the Government.

I do not want to appear churlish, and I will not be pressing the matter to a vote, but the amendments cause some considerable concern. The inclusion of the phrase,

“features that differ only in immaterial details from that design”,

as inserted by Amendments 5, 7 and others, give me particular cause for concern. I and organisations such as ACID, which represents smaller designers, are concerned that this change drastically narrows the offence to such an extent that it will apply only to the production of counterfeits. Given wider consultation, a much better form of words would have been achieved—something on the lines of “to make a product exactly to that design or to a design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression”. In the circumstances, that would have been far preferable.

The provision will put in place a deterrent to protect registered designs against absolutely slavish copying, but the new wording, as it stands, will allow someone to make sufficient small changes which are not “material” changes to avoid the offence. The intent to copy is still there whether they are immaterial or material changes, and I have grave doubts about whether the newly amended provision will be effective in protecting designers, particularly small designers.

At this point, I want to quote from the noble Viscount’s letter of 5 March, which was very heavily directed towards explaining why these amendments had been adopted in the way that he has described. However, it goes into rather greater detail. In his last paragraph dealing with Clause 13, he says:

“Some have inferred that because the term ‘substantial’ is used in copyright legislation, and therefore in the context of criminal sanctions for copyright offences, that this provides a suitable precedent for using it in registered design sanction”.

Truer words were never spake. That is exactly the case that many of us have been making. However, I do not believe that the remainder of that paragraph holds water in the context of copyright law and the ability to enforce it in relation to substantial copying in these circumstances. The term works for the criminal offence in copyright and I see no reason why it should not also work for registered design criminal liability.

I also regret that unregistered designs have not been given greater protection under the Bill. BIS figures, which were very recently welcomed by the Minister, demonstrate that UK investment in intangible assets now totals some £137.5 billion. Of that, some 46% is protected by copyright, 21% by unregistered design rights and 21% by trademarks. That demonstrates why throughout the passage of the Bill I have supported the case for extending criminal sanctions for registered design infringement to unregistered designs. Those are vital matters of national investment. If anything, the addition of the word “intentionally” by the Government in the Commons, as reflected in Amendments 4, 6 and others, has strengthened the case for that protection under the criminal law.

I believe that the amendments relating to intentionality introduce unnecessary additional mens rea to the offence. It is a belt-and-braces approach to what I believe was already there. However, I do not see how, given its inclusion, the Government can still refuse to extend criminal penalties to unregistered designs. If someone has “intentionally”—that is, deliberately—set out to copy someone else’s work for their own commercial gain, it should not matter whether that work is protected by a registered design right or an unregistered design right. It has still been deliberately stolen. I repeat that these rights are extremely important for our national investment. I still live in hope that sense will prevail at some stage in the future and that our designers will be properly protected by the criminal law, as are trademark and copyright owners.

The one bit of good news for designers is the European Court of Justice Advocate-General’s decision today on the Karen Millen v Dunnes case. As we know, the majority of the UK’s designers rely on unregistered rights, so this has provided clarity and will strengthen the unregistered design right in that it is the totality of the design one holds which the law protects, not by eliminating individual parts of a design. There is some good news coming out of the ECJ but not out of the House today.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, in Committee, we opposed the criminalisation of the unauthorised copying of a registered design and the dealing with unauthorised copies. We also opposed any possibility that that might be extended to unregistered designs. To that extent, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has just spoken at length and with passion about these issues, as he has throughout the passage of the Bill. I understand where he is coming from but we simply do not agree on this point.

On Report, although we lost in Committee in terms of these discussions, we decided that the best thing to do was to come back with a series of amendments which would try to moderate where the Government were trying to get to. When I introduced the first of these, I quoted the noted British designer, Sir James Dyson, who had written to many noble Lords on that occasion. He said:

“In the law relating to copyright, acts of unintentional infringement are excluded from criminal sanctions. In the proposed clause of the Intellectual Property Bill relating to registered design … the same is not true. If this Bill is passed unamended, innocent designers will be threatened with criminal proceedings. It is wholly wrong that a designer should go to prison for unintentional infringement. The current wording of the Bill does not exclude that possibility”.

He continued:

“I have spent decades fighting to protect my ideas; taking on competitors who have flagrantly copied my patents and designs. I abhor intellectual property infringement. It is something I feel passionately about. But the Intellectual Property Bill’s inclusion of proposals to criminalise infringement of registered designs is a serious mistake”.

Our argument on this issue is, in essence, that the legislation would open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences, potentially discouraging the very kind of legitimate, competitive risk-taking that policymakers have been very keen to encourage as a driver of growth. In particular, I said that this could be a deterrent to inward investment in UK design, which may not only result in an innovation drought but threaten the future employability of UK designers. I thought then, and I still believe, that the Government had failed to make their case.

However, notwithstanding the reservations, we also argued that if criminal sanctions were to be introduced we wanted to raise the bar to criminal proceedings by making it clear that they would be commenced only if it was clear beyond reasonable doubt that the action taken had been persistent, calculated and motivated by evidence of an intention to exploit the original registered design.

In that debate, the Minister said he would give serious consideration to the concerns that we expressed, and he brought forward an amendment at Third Reading which would introduce a defence of reasonable belief that the design in question was not infringed. While we were happy to sign up to that amendment, which raised the bar as we wished, we said that it did not go far enough.

We are therefore very pleased that with these new Commons amendments the Government have returned to what is in effect the original IPO consultation document, which for example promised that the criminal offence would contain defences,

“against unintentional infringement of registered design rights”.

We are therefore pleased to agree with the new amendments to Clause 13, which specify intentionality—that the act of copying must be a considered act—and define how close to the original the copied design would need to be by reference to terms currently used in the relevant legislation. We continue to oppose the introduction of criminal sanctions for registered design infringement as a matter of principle. However, we will support the changes to the Bill.

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, the case that has been made is very powerful. We need consumer measures to make a reality of some of the aspirations in this Bill, and it is wrong for government to will the ends of policy without also willing the means.

If the Government’s intention is to rely on a prosecutorial approach to this, they are bound to be frustrated. We are talking about a black market emerging which will be located offshore—very much offshore in some cases—in territories that will not recognise British prosecutorial intentions and in which the possibility of bringing people to justice will be very remote indeed. What will provide the stick to ensure that these measures are effective and to root out those who would operate in a way that is counterproductive to UK interests?

The two suggestions in our amendments, which shadow closely those put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, reflect the two possibilities that are realistic. They are to try to find a financial way of squeezing out those who are operating out there—if they cannot make money out of it, they certainly will not continue; it is also possible to think in terms of IP.

There is a sense in which the fact that these powers exist will probably be more effective than the use of them. I say this in full understanding of the wider context—that shutting down people’s access to operating in an open economy is generally a bad thing—but there will be cases where it is necessary to do that, and we would support that if it were required.

These proposals have wide agreement. There is obviously going to be a considerable issue here, which needs to be addressed by the Government. It is up to the Government, via the Minister, to respond to the powerful case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, a strong case has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. It is rather nice to see the rebirth of Section 17 of the Digital Economy Act, which I had the honour of being instrumental in inserting into that Act during its passage through this House. As a result, I was nominated as the “internet villain of the year”.

As it happens, I need to correct the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey: it is not that particular section that is used in order to block ISPs where copyright infringement is being demonstrated; it is actually Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which has proved extremely effective. In a way, it demonstrates that you do not need such a complicated clause. That is neither here nor there, but it does show that site-blocking is perfectly effective. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, demonstrated, the BPI has been very successful in defending copyright owners in that respect, contrary to the views of Ofcom, which were expressed in 2010 and are the reason why Section 17 of the Digital Economy Act has not been brought into effect.

When I read the evidence of the Gambling Commission to the DCMS Select Committee, I really do not know what kind of universe it is living in. Its conclusions seem rather extraordinary. It is worth reading out the paragraph that deals with its rationale for why it did not recommend to the Government the introduction of site-blocking or financial measures of the kind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, deal with. It says:

“We have also followed carefully the experience of gambling regulators in other parts of the world with site and payment blocking, which suggests in the gambling market such measures have achieved only limited disruption and deterrent effects”.

Actually, a lot of jurisdictions have adopted those, as we have heard today. The commission goes on to say:

“However this may be because they were tried primarily in markets where the legal offering was severely constrained and the tax rates high”.

I am not sure about that. It continues:

“In the case of UK gambling there is no equivalent to the copyright owners to seek injunctions nor any statutory power for the Commission at the moment to seek such injunctions. We came to the conclusion that, given all the other measures at our disposal and the very open and attractive legal opportunities for those licensed by the Commission, seeking additional powers in the Bill to enable the Commission to seek injunctions blocking illegal operators’ sites or use of payment processors would not be proportionate to the likely risks and would, if obtained, risk consuming disproportionate Commission resources to achieve limited disruption and deterrent effect”.

That argument seems to me to be saying, “The carrots are absolutely fantastic and that will mean that there will not be too much of an illegal market”. There are going to be illegal markets; there are going to be unlicensed operators; and the commission is more or less saying that the only stick of some kind at its disposal, and we have heard about the flaws in that, are on the advertising front.

The commission did say, however, that,

“we did not rule out the option of seeking such powers at a later date if our assessment of the small size of the illegal market proved wrong and of course there are continuing discussions on the wider government front and in the European Commission in relation to combating misuse of the internet and illegal remote gambling provision”.

It is very odd for a regulator of this kind not to be looking at the precautionary aspects of all this. At the very least, taking reserve powers for site blocking in these circumstances would make great sense. I hope that, even if the Government cannot bring themselves to say that they will introduce and implement this kind of measure, they will at least take a reasonably pessimistic view that a number of unlicensed operators will still be knocking around who need a considerable amount of stick to make them comply with the new regime after the passing of this Act.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, the arguments for and against criminal sanctions for designs have been extensively aired over our discussions on this Bill. Proponents feel that current civil enforcement is expensive for small innovators and that current civil sanctions are not dissuasive to large infringers. Opponents are concerned that unexamined IP rights are a dangerous basis for taking criminal sanctions and that there is a risk of stifling competition in useful products.

We understand the Government’s aim in this Bill. As the Minister said, we were anxious to see if we could move towards a common position. However, we are still concerned about whether it is appropriate and proportionate, whether it would really deter those pirates and counterfeiters whose behaviour the public would consider criminal and whether it may turn out to have a stifling effect on innovation and competition.

One concern, which we have expressed previously, is that the proposed provision could turn into a tool to be used by unscrupulous companies to the detriment of UK designers. It is reasonably inexpensive to register a design, especially as there is no effective examination involved. An unscrupulous company could apply to register designs it copied from a UK designer, then threaten that designer with criminal sanctions for producing his or her own designs. The prospect of defending a criminal action might be enough to make the designer give in. What sort of fairness does that speak to?

As the Minister says, the Government’s intention is that blatant, deliberate copying of designs for commercial gain, safe in the knowledge that many of the victims will be unlikely to have the resources to respond, is an act worthy of punishment, and they believe that the UK needs a coherent approach to the protection of intellectual property rights. On the other hand, the measure is opposed by the IP Federation, the Intellectual Property Bar Association, the City of London Law Society, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and a number of IP lawyers and specialists. I put it to the Minister that it may not turn out to be a brilliant career move for the IP Minister to cross swords, as he has done, with Sir James Dyson and, indeed, the Ministry of Defence on this point.

As Roger Burt, president of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, says,

“the Intellectual Property Bill could result in people being charged with criminal offences and locked up for up to 10 years, just for producing a design that looks ‘substantially’ like an existing design”.

We tried to find a compromise position with the Government on this point. We wanted the Government to raise the bar for criminality so that criminal penalties could be considered only in cases, using the words used by the Minister, of “blatant, deliberate copying of designs, for commercial gain”, but we failed. However, we are glad that the Minister listened to one part of our argument, which is that the legislation as drafted might open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences, potentially discouraging the very kind of legitimate, competitive risk-taking that policy makers have been keen to encourage as a driver of growth.

We therefore welcome the government amendments tabled today, which propose a defence for anyone who reasonably or in good faith believes that their actions were non-infringing. We will continue to oppose the introduction of criminal sanctions for registered design infringement as a matter of principle. However, we are pleased that there will now at least be a defence for any person who reasonably believes that they are not infringing. The objective test of reasonableness should cover situations such as where someone has taken legal advice on the issue, or where an opinion of non-infringement is secured from the IPO opinion service.

They should also extend more broadly to cover competent self-analysis and explanation by a defendant as to why he or she believed that an informed user would perceive the product as creating a different overall impression to the registered design. This is an important amendment and we are happy to support it.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, I have always been a supporter Clause 13. I know that many small designers will be delighted to see it contained in the Bill and I hope that it survives its passage through the Commons.

Although I did not feel that the clause needed a huge amount of amendment or that it will be the blunt instrument that some people have predicted, if the addition of the amendment makes it more acceptable, it must be welcomed. I welcome the fine tuning that the Minister has carried out.

In welcoming the amendment, and given the restrictions on speeches at Third Reading, I want to thank the Minister for the accessible and receptive approach that he has taken throughout the Bill. I hope that as the Bill goes through the Commons the further discussions that he has promised on lookalikes—and, in particular, on the comparative advertising issues which may be applicable to lookalikes—and on the kind of penalties that might be appropriate to digital copyright infringement will bear fruit.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 23rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, this amendment was tabled in Grand Committee and I am certainly not going to repeat everything I said in relation to it.

Criminal offences for online copyright theft have maximum penalties of two years’ imprisonment. Criminal offences for physical copyright theft have maximum penalties of 10 years’ imprisonment. This discrepancy came about because the new offences were introduced by secondary legislation using the European Communities Act as part of the UK’s implementation of the copyright directive in 2003. Penalties for new criminal offences introduced by secondary legislation via the ECA are limited to two years’ imprisonment.

In addition, my right honourable friend Vince Cable’s Private Member’s Bill, which became the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002, increased penalties for criminal copyright offences to harmonise them with those available for trade mark offences at 10 years.

Criminal sanctions should not be dependent on whether the offence is taking place in an online or physical environment. Intellectual property is being stolen, whichever format is being used. This amendment is essentially about addressing an anomaly that arose simply because of timing. These are exactly the same offences—they are just being committed online—and therefore should have the same maximum penalties.

Having a maximum penalty of only two years for online offences can be used by defendants to argue that these are not serious offences. Prosecutors have on occasion managed to work around this anomaly by using charges of conspiracy to defraud but it will certainly not always be appropriate to use fraud legislation. The circumstances of the Vickerman case—which we discussed in Committee; he got four years in prison—will not always be repeated. In other cases there may not be a conspiracy or the Fraud Act may not be applicable. Some cases are copyright cases pure and simple but we cannot currently risk using the CDPA in serious cases because of the reasons given above.

In his response in Grand Committee, the Minister said:

“With existing legislation already providing the necessary penalties and prosecutors having a range of options already at their disposal, at the present time I see no reason to increase sanctions under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, despite there being a slight discrepancy”—

I would have thought that eight years was rather more than a slight discrepancy. He went on to say:

“In particular, changes should not be made without carrying out the appropriate consultation to gather evidence of the impact”.—[Official Report, 18/6/13; col. GC 98.]

Existing legislation does not provide the necessary penalties. Rather, they are different. Why would it be necessary to consult in these circumstances? I remind the Minister of comments made by my right honourable friend Vince Cable when he was steering his Private Member’s Bill through Parliament. He said:

“There is no logical reason for two sets of intellectual property law to impose different criminal sanctions … it is important that we have legislation that makes criminal sanctions effective deterrents … There are some who have argued that we do not need to change the law because it is possible to find some existing power under which sanctions can be imposed. That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed. The approach is cumbersome and costly, and often it does not work. There is an enormous inherent advantage in having a law that is clear, open and completely honest in what it is designed to achieve”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/01; cols. 628-30.]

All these points are apposite today as regards physical versus digital online copyright infringement. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position on that amendment.

On Amendment 19, in responding to the Hargreaves review, the Government committed to introducing a limited private copy exception to allow copying of content lawfully owned by an individual for their own personal use. The Intellectual Property Office has recently issued the draft private copy statutory instrument, which can be summarised as follows. First, an individual who has lawfully acquired a work on a permanent basis can make a private copy for his or her own personal, non-commercial use. Secondly, the individual cannot circumvent technological protection measures but—interestingly—will be able to appeal to the Secretary of State to intervene to obtain a private copy if the work is protected by technological protection measures. Thirdly, it does not allow contract terms to override the exception.

Amendment 19 inserts a new clause in anticipation of this draft statutory instrument. The draft SI has provoked considerable concern among the audiovisual sector—indeed, across all the creative industries. I strongly believe that copyright exceptions should be adopted only in response to a well defined public policy objective and market failure. In this regard, the Government’s draft statutory instrument disregards altogether consumers’ ever-widening choice of commercial offerings facilitated by a rapidly evolving technological landscape, and risks jeopardising these market-led developments altogether. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a private copy exception should not apply where a commercially available alternative already exists. This principle is entirely consistent with European and international copyright norms and, indeed, is an existing principle in UK law.

Historically, private copy exceptions were established in an analogue environment where business models and technology could not accommodate consumer offerings that provide secure copies. With the rapid conversion to digital business models in recent years, the technological and therefore the commercial landscape has changed considerably. The audiovisual sector has recognised the growing consumer demand for additional copies and portable content, and already provides many avenues for consumers to obtain legal digital copies of content they buy for their own use. Most commonly, the purchase of a DVD or Blu-ray Disc includes access to a digital copy. In addition, products such as UltraViolet allow legal and secure access to that content through the cloud among six family members for up to 12 personal devices such as laptops, tablets, smart phones and televisions, thereby enabling format shifting. Additional multicopy offerings are being brought to the market, and none requires the consumer to pay twice for the same content. At the same time, an explosion of new digital audiovisual services—currently there are more than 30 in the UK—has occurred under the existing legal framework. There are an increasing variety of means which put increased choice and control in the hands of the consumer, and are made possible only through industry-led investment and innovation.

The UK already leads Europe in its range of audiovisual services and technologies, without any change being required to the current legal framework. In proposing the introduction of any copyright exception in the absence of a clear public interest, surely the burden of proof should rest firmly with the Government to define and quantify the extent of the market’s failure to meet consumer needs. It is very questionable whether the Government have made a convincing argument in support of a private copying exception. Indeed, far from incentivising the market to continue innovating in the interest of the consumer, it may be that the private copy exception proposed will fundamentally undermine the technologies and services that the market is developing.

There are numerous other concerns expressed about the draft copying statutory instrument, not least its apparent conflict on a number of points with EU law. It needs to be strengthened to ensure that the exception applies only for the sole personal use of an individual and is not to be used by commercial operators. It should not authorise the making of a further copy by another person or entity, such as an electronic storage provider, in relation to a further copy. Without such clarification, the exception could seriously impact on the ability of the music industry to license innovative value-added services, such as “scan and match” services in the cloud.

Given the widespread concerns about the latest wording of the exception, I hope the Minister can assure us that a further draft will be presented before the formal publication of the SI. I had a letter today from the Minister saying that the SI may be tabled later on in the year but that it is not intended to bring it into force until 2014. So there is no rush; there is ample time for another draft before proceeding with implementation. However the purpose of the present amendment is to ensure that, where private copying is permitted under the terms of the original product purchase, the exception is not invocable. There is no doubt in my mind that the absence of any commercial availability test when applying a private copying exception would be incredibly damaging for the health of our audiovisual sector. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this group is in two quite separate halves. Amendment 18—to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke first —is the continuation of a debate that was held in Committee. It will be interesting to hear how the Minister wishes to respond to it. There is a good case here for trying to unpick some of the discrepancies between the various regimes, and in particular to try to anticipate the way in which technology is moving forward.

In Amendment 19, which has been linked in this group, we are hearing a different debate, which is about the Hargreaves exceptions which are currently in consultation. As the noble Lord obviously anticipated, some changes may well occur as that debate goes forward. However, I do not think that it fits well into this Bill and confidently expect the Minister to say that it is a matter for another time. The question, of course, is when.

At the conclusion of the Committee stage the Minister offered—and we gratefully accepted his invitation—to have a broader-based debate around the sort of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has been raising. We felt that the recourse to secondary legislation for this important issue in itself makes it difficult for the House to exercise a broader view on these matters. In particular, as there are so many of these exceptions, there is a need for what might be considered a more general debate around the overall balance and overall approach which the Government could have taken in this matter. The noble Lord made that offer and we look forward to hearing whether he has had any success in finding time for that debate. It would be helpful, for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has given, to have a broader-based discussion around some of the more far-reaching ends of these 11 different exceptions so that when the time comes for both Houses of Parliament to consider these matters—as they will in the secondary legislation process—we are better informed and can make better decisions about how to respond to them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am afraid I have three amendments in a row. I do not know whether it will be “three strikes and you’re out”, but Amendment 30 is the second. I will first explain that Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act is a provision in UK copyright law that permits the immediate retransmission of the main PSB free-to-air services by “cable” in the area where the original PSB channel was broadcast. Crucially, Section 73 provides that the copyright in the broadcast, and in any work included in the broadcast, is not infringed by such retransmission. The effect of the section is to permit “cable” operators to retransmit PSB services without agreement or consent.

What was the original purpose of the provision? The policy justification for Section 73 in its current form was to encourage cable rollout in the 1980s and 1990s as a competing platform to terrestrial television. How have the courts interpreted the provision today? In the recent TVCatchup litigation in the UK and CJEU, TVCatchup, an online TV service provider, argued that its retransmission and commercial exploitation of the PSB services via the internet was lawful under Section 73 on the basis that “cable” ought to be given its natural meaning. The judge in the High Court litigation agreed, and stated:

“I see no reason why the cabling system inherent in the internet should not be regarded as ‘cable’ for the purposes of the Section 73 defence”.

This is not an interpretation that can ever have been intended by Parliament—nor, based on correspondence with the IPO, is it one that the Government believe is correct. In that correspondence in 2008-09 the IPO stated that,

“‘cable’ in section 73 as amended must mean the same thing as ‘cable’ in the Information Society Directive, the relevant requirements of which were implemented by the section 73 amendments in question. In the Information Society Directive ‘cable’ is not synonymous with ‘wire’ and is confined (as therefore, is section 73 CDPA) to the retransmission of broadcasts by conventional cable programme providers. The foregoing supports this Office’s view that the activities of IPTV providers such as ‘Zattoo’ who purport to rely on section 73, are in fact wholly outside the scope of that provision and that there are grounds for challenging them on that basis”.

The IPO also stated in the correspondence that the interpretation of Section 73 by the IPTV providers, and confirmed by the UK courts in the TVCatchup case,

“cannot have been Parliament’s intention”.

What are the problems with Section 73 now, in the light of that case? First, economic loss for PSBs and the UK creative economy. Section 73 is now being relied on by a series of service providers, most notably TVCatchup and FilmOn, to make money from PSB channels by retransmitting them via their own online services and placing advertising in and around the channels, which include BBC channels. Not only are the PSB services being exploited without agreement or payment to anyone, including contributors, but, perversely, Section 73 effectively permits these illegitimate online services to stream a small amount of content on the PSB channels, such as a number of old series for which online rights were not obtained and some sports coverage, that the PSB services themselves cannot stream online for rights reasons. This perverse consequence of Section 73 has attracted significant attention from underlying rights holders, including UK producers and foreign providers such as US studios, as well as from other industry bodies.

Services such as TVCatchup undermine the legitimate online streaming services and on-demand catch-up services provided by PSBs which, in the case of commercial PSBs, are a core part of ongoing efforts to make a financial return on the PSB investment in original UK content.

It is increasingly clear that TVCatchup in particular is operating at scale in the UK and has many millions of users. Indeed, it claims that it has close to 12 million registered users on its site. The key losses from this exploitation for the PSBs are loss of audience from legitimate PSB online streaming services, linear broadcast viewing and on-demand services, and, for the commercial PSBs, loss of advertising and sponsorship revenue from their own channels. By contrast with PSB exploitation of channels and content online, none of the TVCatchup revenue flows back into original UK content production or to underlying talent and rights holders. The scale and problem of this free riding is likely to increase substantially over the coming years as more and more households adopt connected TV—that is, IPTV.

Secondly, the original policy rationale for Section 73 has gone. Significant cable roll-out is now a thing of the past and the TV distribution market is now highly competitive. Cable is a highly effective and well resourced competitor to Sky and Freeview/digital terrestrial television. There is no reason to continue to grant a primary legislative advantage from the 1980s to one particular platform operator in the current competitive market. Moreover, the Communications Act 2003 introduced a “must offer” obligation on the PSBs under Section 272, requiring broadcasters to offer the main PSB services for carriage on the cable, as well as satellite, platform. In addition, Virgin Media contracts with the PSBs for the supply of all the other channels offered by the PSBs that are not covered by Section 73.

Thirdly, the provision is almost certainly in breach of European law and exposes the UK Government to damages actions. In its submissions to the CJEU on the TVCatchup case, the European Commission made clear that it had grave doubts about the compatibility of Section 73 with the 2001 copyright directive. I will not go into the detail of that. The Commission went on to observe that it was “very doubtful” that the UK court’s ruling that TVCatchup could make use of Section 73 for that part of its service transmitted over the internet “could stand”. Notwithstanding the Commission’s clear position, however, the CJEU could not deal with the compatibility of Section 73 in its judgment in the TVCatchup case because the UK court had declined the request of the broadcasters to refer the question of the compatibility of Section 73 to the CJEU in the first place. What should the Government do in the face of this?

In broadcasters’ meetings with the Government to date it has been very hard to understand the remaining policy rationale for Section 73, particularly given the “must offer” obligation that applies to the PSB channels. Broadcasters believe that repeal of Section 73 would be a sensible deregulatory measure that would end the unjustifiable damage which is being suffered by the PSBs, and would ensure that the UK continues to meet its Community law obligations. They believe that the forthcoming legislative programme, including this Bill, provides the Government with an opportunity urgently to consider repealing Section 73, assuming this cannot be achieved by secondary legislation following the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. Repeal of Section 73 would not only assist broadcasters in their fight against parasitic websites—we have used that term earlier today—but would also ensure that UK legislation complies with the EU acquis and therefore reduces the risk of any potential infringement proceedings against the UK.

The negative commercial impact of retaining Section 73 is significant for UK public service broadcasters, and ultimately, as a result, the producers of the audio-visual content they broadcast. This impact will continue to increase if no action is taken by the Government to repeal these provisions. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I declare no current interest in this matter, although I was director of the British Film Institute when the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act was enacted. I was also author of a minor monograph that is still in print.

The amendment troubles me. Section 73 of that Act is only one component of a complex web of regulation that provides equilibrium in the UK broadcast market. It ensures that consumers who have already paid for PSB content through the licence fee or indirect taxation can get access to publicly funded content through a cable platform at no additional cost. It is true that Section 73 is a relatively old provision created when the cable industry was in its infancy. It is also true that the cable industry is in a different position than when Section 73 was conceived. However, the age of something should not determine value. Attempts to delete old things from existence can surely give no Member of your Lordships’ House much comfort.

However, the amendment gives the Government a chance to look again at the objective of Section 73 and to ask themselves whether the outcomes it delivers today are still relevant to their public policy objectives. I acknowledge that the recent TVCatchup case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raises legitimate concerns about the use of Section 73 as a defence for the retransmission of free-to-air PSB channels online.

I understand that the Government are currently looking at how Section 73 might be amended and tightened to ensure that the beneficiaries of the clause are the intended platforms that are acting within the law. Perhaps when he responds the Minister will again put on his DCMS hat and let us know what progress is being made in that review, and indeed what progress is being made on the communications White Paper—another of the vanishing opportunities for the Government to intervene in these areas, which has been promised since 2010. It seems that we are no nearer to a publication date.

However, apart from the TVCatchup issue, I understand that Section 73 continues to provide PSBs and consumers with the most efficient route to access the PSB channels that most cable subscribers want and who equally do not want to have to pay twice for. Some noble Lords may be aware of the ongoing row between the PSB community and the Sky platform about the level of fees paid to broadcast on the commercial satellite platform. Indeed, one of the major gripes that PSBs have at the moment—and I understand that they been lobbying for this through the communications review process—is that they want to see an end to fees that they have to pay to platform providers to carry their content.

However, when setting out the Government position in his speech to the Oxford Media Convention in January 2013, the Culture Minister said:

“I welcome the steps Sky have taken so far to reduce retransmission fees to a much lower level. But we want them to go further, taking into account the undoubted value that PSBs offer to satellite platforms and their viewers, so that there’s a level playing field: zero fees either way”.

This would, indeed be a good outcome for consumers. However, the question remains of how to draft a clause to ensure that there is a level playing field between all platforms, with zero fees either way.

Unlike publicly funded platforms and unlike BSkyB, cable has never charged PSB channels to carry their content. Given that this zero charge/zero pay policy is the policy outcome required by the Government, and we understand that this issue will be considered in some detail by the Government when their communications White Paper is eventually published in the summer, the amendment seems somewhat previous, as well as contrary to consumer interests.

While the recent TVCatchup case may indeed require an adjustment to the current law, abolishing the clause entirely, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones proposes, seems entirely contrary to the interests of 4 million cable customers who access public service content, at no cost to those broadcasters, through the cable platforms. I hope that the Government will firmly resist the amendment.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 13th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 23, I shall speak also to Amendment 24. Amendment 23 is very straightforward. Really, it is a question for the Minister: as regards the new criminal penalties that apply to registered design rights, why has Section 110 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, “Offence by body corporate: liability of officers”, which ensures that company officers are liable if conniving or consenting, not been replicated here for registered designs? I could read out the relevant offence under the CDPA but I am sure my noble friend is familiar with it. However, it seems odd that everything else replicates what is contained in the CDPA for copyright but not the application concerning the liability of company officers. Considering that so much business is conducted through companies, it seems extraordinary that that provision is not included in the Bill.

I see that there will now be a clause stand part debate. I am not surprised because this is clearly a subject that needs airing. Rather more controversially, Amendment 24 is an attempt to advocate the extension of criminal offences for infringement of unregistered designs. As we know, Clause 13 introduces a new criminal offence of deliberate infringement of a registered design right. While this is a welcome move, to be of any benefit to the vast majority of designers in this country, the Bill needs amending so that criminal sanctions also apply to the deliberate infringement of unregistered designs.

Design is of key importance to the UK economy. There are around 350,000 designers in the UK and UK businesses spend around £35.5 billion on design each year. The majority of the UK’s design community are lone, micro and SMEs, with 87% having fewer than 10 employees and 60% having fewer than four. Approximately 4,000 designs are registered annually in the UK and approximately 5,000 are registered in the EU. However, the great majority of designers rely on unregistered rights.

Each year, between 18,000 and 25,000 unregistered designs are lodged with ACID—which represents designers and was mentioned at Second Reading and in these proceedings—by its some 1,100 members. ACID’s design data bank does not add to any intellectual property rights but provides evidence of the date on which it received a design. It encourages designers to keep an IP audit trail from the seed of an idea to market reality, which provides essential evidence if designs are copied. Extrapolating from that figure of 1,100, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the majority of the UK’s designers rely on unregistered design rights, and on copyright of course.

Why, then, is the new criminal offence limited to infringement of only registered designs? Surely criminal sanctions need to apply to unregistered design rights as they apply to copyright, in order to have any real and lasting benefit for UK designers. The introduction of criminal sanctions for deliberate infringement of registered designs is a progressive step. This is the first time that criminal sanctions have mirrored copyright. While I accept that registration offers designers a longer-term and stronger right, unlike trade marks and patents, there is no extensive examination for registration, so design registration is a very different type of protection.

To register a design costs £60 per design. Regrettably for most lone and micro designers, the cost of registering every iteration of a design would be prohibitive. ACID receives between 18,000 and 25,000 designs annually, so it is clear that informed designers take their design audit trail seriously. However, to ask them to pay £60 would be a real barrier. The majority of ACID settlements have been based on unregistered design rights and the ability to provide a design audit trail held on the ACID design data bank. In its 2010 survey, 89.7% believed that design infringement was deliberate and blatant. In a further survey in 2012, 97% believed design infringement was deliberate and blatant. Given the cost, time and scale of opponents in the majority of these cases, deterrence against copying is critical. Extension of criminal sanctions to unregistered design rights for the majority of the UK designers would be a deterrent to persistent copying in much the same way as it is for copyright and trade mark infringement.

Criminal sanctions have been available for copyright infringement since 1862 and for trade mark infringement since 1994. Criminal prosecutions have been used sparingly, sensibly and appropriately. Copyright is a property right. A trade mark and an unregistered design right are property rights, as is registered design. Whereas persistent copying of the first two constitutes a serious criminal offence, punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, which exceeds the longest sentence for ordinary theft, currently persistently copying designs is not a criminal offence at all. This is completely anomalous. Persistently copying a 2D drawing of a design or a design document can give rise to criminal liability under Section 107 of the CDPA, but when this 2D work is converted into a 3D design, unless it is protected as a work of artistic craftsmanship, which we have previously discussed, copying that 3D version would not be a criminal offence.

I fail to understand the policy decision behind this. Nearly all designs are copied from the 3D original, not the 2D drawing. How do the Government justify giving a higher level of protection to a 2D design brought than they to the 3D manifestation of that design? A telling point was made by designers when they gave an example of the scale of opponent in the three latest cases involving members of ACID. This demonstrates the inequality of arms between infringers and designers. For instance, one ACID member had a turnover of £50,000 and two employees, and its opponent in this infringement case a turnover of £8.7 billion and 78,000 employees. How on earth can a lone designer gain justice in those circumstances?

In a second case, an ACID member with a turnover of £500,000 and 15 employees was opposed by a major retailer with a turnover of £20.5 billion and 145,000 employees. I will not try the Minister’s patience much further—these are difficult cases, where members are seriously prejudiced—but in a third case, an ACID member with a turnover of £250,000 and 10 employees was opposed by, again, a major retailer with £3.4 billion turnover and 52,000 employees.

If anything, in these circumstances, there are quite honestly stronger reasons for imposing criminal offences for unregistered design right infringement than there are for infringing a registered design. I hope that the Minister can elucidate why this is not being done and perhaps give us some assurance that this is under consideration. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his lucid introduction of these two amendments. As he says, the first seems to deal with an error. We shall wait to see what the Minister says about it, but we would support it if he chose to take it further.

Amendment 24 picks up the debate where we left it on Tuesday. For most of the time we reflected on why the Government have adopted a two-track approach, although unfortunately in this case the tracks lead in opposite directions. In one there is no attempt to simplify the design rights field. The points made by Ian Hargreaves in his report, and picked up by many commentators, seem to have been ignored. I know that it is difficult to eliminate unregistered design rights; nevertheless the fact that we have five different ways of classifying or approaching these designs is still an irritant and source of confusion for the industry. It cannot be effective in terms of building up the creative industries more generally. It is something that will have to be addressed at some point, if it is not dealt with in this Bill.

The second track is this: why should one penalise on the registered design side but not on the unregistered design side? We will be opposing the question that Clause 13 should stand part in the next group, so my position on this is somewhat complex because I would not want to see criminal penalties brought into this area at all. That is not the right direction of travel and I will expand on that when I speak in the clause stand part debate. Parking that for a moment, I accept absolutely the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. There is no substantive difference in how unregistered and registered designs are treated. The fact that they are registered does not in any sense imply approval or otherwise of them, or give them any status that is different from unregistered ones. The figures are exactly what they are. Most of the people who operate in these fast-moving areas, particularly fashion, tend to use unregistered designs, and those who do so have no real protection when there is a problem.

I was particularly struck by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the way in which the design copying process might happen. Most people would take the 3D representation of a design, not the 2D design. As he pointed out, the discrepancy in how such malfeasance is then approached by the courts is obviously a stark example of how the process is not working.

The noble Lord’s final point about parity of arms is one that we will return to. It is clear that there is a real danger in the creative industries these days that those with the resources can use the system to obtain advantage in the knowledge that people will not be able to defend their designs. Yet we rely on these individuals and small companies to provide the design initiative that is necessary to grow our creative industries. For all these reasons, I support the noble Lord in his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, that was a very interesting debate and prefigured what I am about to say about the question of criminality in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has made the arguments and is correct about them, and it is up to the Minister to make the best of if. If the industry is voting with its feet and adopting the unregistered design right as its mode of operation, and if it is true that there is a sense that having criminalisation in this area will improve the quality and quantity of our economic activity in it, it must follow logically that criminal sanctions should apply. However, I shall devote the next few minutes to arguing against exactly that proposition, but then, this is Committee.

Clause 13 introduces a new section into the Registered Designs Act, creating a criminal offence of unauthorised copying of design in course of business. It would apply in respect of UK-registered designs and registered Community designs. As I have said, we are concerned about the fact that this is being introduced as a criminal sanction.

There are two categories of offence, and I shall refer to that as I carry on with my remarks. One is about the making of a product by copying a registered design,

“so as to make a product exactly or substantially to that design”,

and the second offence is dealing in products that have been copied. Both will carry sentences of up to 10 years, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned, is very high on the list of tariffs. The arguments for and against criminal sanctions for designs have been extensively aired over recent years, and we should bear in mind that levels of piracy have risen.

To recap briefly, proponents of this move feel that the current civil enforcement is expensive for small innovators and that current civil sanctions are not dissuasive enough for large infringers. Opponents are concerned that unexamined IP rights are a dangerous basis for taking criminal sanctions and that there is a risk of stifling competition in useful products.

We understand the Government’s aim—I have just referred to it—but we worry about whether the proposal for criminal offences in general is the right tool for the job and, in particular, whether it is appropriate and proportionate and would deter those pirates and counterfeiters whose behaviour the public would, I accept, consider to be criminal. There is rather an important discrepancy here. Those who champion criminal sanctions are largely talking about unregistered design rights, which we have been talking about, and, of course, the huge preponderance of design rights are in that category, but the Bill is about only registered design rights and registered Community designs.

Registered design rights are better defined and have a much longer lifetime but, as we discovered, they are not in any sense better examined, so the proposed introduction of criminal sanctions may not work, and I would like to bring some particular problems to the attention of the Committee. The penumbra around a design, which is to be found in the uncertainties about how “exactly or substantially” is defined, makes it unclear what is or is not a criminal act. Unlike parallel trade mark or copyright offences, mere use, whatever that is, of an infringing product, even if no copying is involved, will become a criminal offence. Furthermore, the maximum sentence is very high for what, in fact, could be just a mere business misjudgment without deceptive intent.

The Bill introduces a defence as it states:

“It is also a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the person did not infringe the right in the design”.

However, the inclusion of the new section contributes to the bizarrely complex nature of the offence. For example, if the prosecution shows that D copies the design, and produces something exactly or substantially to that design, D can attempt to show that the product would not produce, for an informed user, the same overall impression as the registered design. These distinctions are hard for specialist lawyers to comprehend, let alone lay people such as jurors or magistrates. I will return to this point in relation to a recent case. Implied in what I have just said, of course, is the major concern that the courts that will deal with these cases will be criminal courts, which have no real experience at all in design law.

The defence that the registered design was not in fact copied raises difficult questions, as many of the cases on copyright infringements have shown. As already mentioned, there is a concern that the proposed provision could turn into a tool to be used by unscrupulous companies, to the detriment of UK designers. It is reasonably inexpensive to register a design, especially as there is no effective examination, and an unscrupulous company could apply to register designs it copied from a UK designer and then threaten that designer with criminal sanctions for producing his or her own design. The prospect of defending a criminal action might be enough to make the designer give in. What sort of fairness does that speak to?

I have some questions for the Minister on the thinking behind this move. Why does the Bill not state a requirement as to where the act occurs? On the face of it, there seems to be no reason why it should not cover making unauthorised copies elsewhere in the EU, where the acts would infringe an RCD, so the defence that it did not infringe the right in the design would not apply.

Secondly, why does new Section 35ZA define “registered” designs as including “registered Community” designs? Does this not leave open whether the offence might not be committed by copying, or dealing in copies of, a foreign-registered design, for example those with a Benelux registration?

Thirdly, following the implementation of the designs directive, the scope of registered design protection has been broadened. This gives rise to the situation where registered design right is now infringed by use of the same design in different products. Can the Minister confirm that, if a design is registered in relation to one type of product—for example, an image of Bugs Bunny on a mug—that design would be infringed if the person featured it on another product such as a pillowcase? If so, in the latter case, would criminal sanctions be applied?

New Section 35ZA(3) applies to dealers infringing products—both importers and traders. One might wonder how stockists of, for example, Samsung Galaxy phones might have behaved towards what were initially allegations made by Apple in respect of infringement. At that point, if the Bill had been enacted, dealers in those products would have faced criminal liability, and up to 10 years’ imprisonment, if they had made an incorrect judgment call as to whether the Samsung products they were attempting to sell would infringe Apple’s registered design. One can only imagine that this would have done serious—and, as it turned out, unnecessary—harm to Samsung.

New Section 35ZA(3) includes as a criminal act the use of a product in the course of a business and the stocking of the product for use. Does the Minister accept that the word “uses” is an unacceptably vague notion for criminal prosecution? What is the Government’s reason for removing the defence of reasonably believing that the defendant’s design was not an infringement—that the designs were different and would not produce in the informed user the same overall impression? This is often the crux of design infringement cases between competitors. It is worth thinking about what Judge Birss said in the Apple v Samsung case in holding that Samsung products did not infringe Apple’s registered designs:

“This case illustrates the importance of properly taking into account the informed user’s knowledge and experience of the design corpus. When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent”.

If Section 35ZA had been in force, would not Samsung have escaped criminal liability only because it got the judgment call as to infringement—the views of the informed user—right? Had Samsung got that wrong, there would be no defence. Is this what the Government really intend?

Absent either a positive requirement of dishonesty or some sort of broader defence, where a person reasonably believes that they are not infringing, this law could have a significant chilling effect on competition—so much for a Government who trumpet themselves as supporters of competition and opponents of unnecessary regulation.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. The beauty of Committee is that entirely opposing propositions can be put forward by the same person. It is only when we get to Report that we have to get serious by being absolutely clear about the propositions being put forward. I therefore do not intend to respond in great detail to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who, I believe, was taking an argument out for a trot. Earlier in Committee, I previously talked about frightening the horses and I am afraid that we are back to horse analogies. It has been an entertaining trot in many respects.

The way that the argument was put together misunderstood what happens in court. It is about the adducing of evidence. It was reassuring that the judge listened to the arguments and evidence and felt as a result that he understood far more about the genesis of the design right. Of course, in a criminal court you add mitigation to all that. It is not worth suddenly locking up people as a result of being prosecuted for design infringement. If you do something reasonable in the eyes of a criminal court in such circumstances, you will be able to mitigate the offence, even though technically you may be guilty of it.

I am afraid that I do not accept the noble Lord’s argument. However, I have wanted to use the expression “a fortiori” for many years in Committee; if you have the ability to prosecute in a criminal court for an infringement of registered design, you should have that ability for unregistered design. If you have it for copyright, you should be able to prosecute for unregistered design. If you have it for trade marks, you should have it for unregistered design. All these intellectual property rights may be complex but they are a vital underpinning for our creators and our creative industries. I am unashamed in my wish for those creative industries to thrive in this country and for their intellectual property protection to be as solid as we can make it, without falling unduly into a monopoly situation, about which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is ever vigilant, I am glad to say.

Intellectual Property Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, with his usual incisiveness, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, immediately spotted what I was up to. Far from frightening the horses, which is not in my nature—it may be the first time that that appellation has ever been suggested, as it is usually the other way around, with me running away from the horses—my point was to try to get up a debate about some of the underlying themes. We have just had that, so there has been success.

I would cavil at only a couple of the points made in the initial response. I did not entirely rely on professors, wonderful though they are in supplying us with information. I quoted extensively from the Bench. I would not want in any sense to choose between the two contributions, but I think that their sum was rather powerful. I simply lay that on the table.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, ended on an interesting point, which is that it is true that, when analysed back, the unregistered design right is in essence copyright by another name. However, it provides in the design production capacity the same sort of protections that we were debating on the ERR Bill in relation to 3-D objects, which the Government have taken powers to turn away from. I think that, under that design regime, copying more than 50 of an artistic design that was turned into a 3-D object and manufactured gave protection for 25 years. I might be getting mixed up between the rights. Yet that 25-year period has been replaced by the life of the designer plus 70 years. One could ask, but one would immediately run up against the points made by my noble friend Lord Howarth, why they have chosen to retain the design approach—a limited period of five years then five years, plus a further five—for unregistered designs and not taken what might be the logical step of saying, “If it is copyright by another name, why did we not move that way for the whole of this area?”.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. Your Lordships may remember that the Section 52 debate during consideration of the ERR Bill was about works of artistic craftsmanship. There is a difference between the generality of design rights and those particular works covered by the items that the noble Lord is discussing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this concerns a relatively minor point and it is certainly a probing amendment, to which I am sure the Minister will have no difficulty in making a response.

When reading the consultation process, we were intrigued to discover that the Government had consulted widely on whether appeal routes could be considered within existing systems largely through the patents county court or whether there was some value in transferring appeals to the High Court. This amendment is intended to probe that decision and to ask the Minister to respond a little more on it.

With the welcome news that a small but important part of the unified patent court will, it is hoped, be located in the United Kingdom and perhaps in more than one location, it would be to the public benefit if those who practised at this Bar or who were judges in the Bar were able to gain the maximum exposure to the issues that are likely to arise during consideration of the various points that will be routed through this legal process. My first point is simply a general feeling that more expertise should be spread around and that more people should be engaged, and that therefore cutting out the patents county court seems a rather odd decision.

Secondly, there is also a need to raise more public understanding on this matter. When court cases that involve these issues are picked up, they sometimes, as we discussed in relation to an earlier amendment, catch the public eye. That can sometimes help to get people interested in this whole area and stimulate them to become more involved. That is another reason for tabling the amendment.

Thirdly, we heard in earlier discussions, and when we were discussing this matter with the Minister, that the Bar is currently quite small and the court’s activities quite narrow. Therefore, the more court cases in which it is involved will gradually make this more of a sustainable option.

All those things suggest that perhaps ruling out, de facto, the available route for taking appeals through to the PCC system is a little short-sighted. We may not have the correct process or procedure here—we are not legal experts in this department—but we wonder whether there is an issue here that might need further consideration. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is of considerable interest. The very welcome aim and objective of Clause 10 is clearly to provide the most cost-effective and quick alternative for appealing against a registrar’s opinion and for distinguishing between matters of law and fact and so on. It is very interesting to suggest that it is the patents county court that would specifically deal with that, because that would meet the need for a point of law to be referred to the court in a cost-effective way. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I do not know what the practicality of that is, but I certainly hope that the Minister will explore the suggestion because it seems to be consistent with the aims of the rest of Clause 10.

It is certainly interesting that Clause 10 has been constructed, as I understand it, very much in the way that current trade marks appeals against the registrar’s decisions are made, and that seems to commend it. What I do not know is whether the trade marks legislation refers to the High Court or whether there is some other route for a legal point to be determined on appeal in trade mark cases.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 31st January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I shall say just a few words on the Minister’s very welcome amendments in response to the 10th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It is very interesting. The committee demonstrated the value of a collective memory, as it took us all back to the Digital Economy Act and the comments that it made at the time; it has been entirely consistent. It is good to see that the Government have responded. However, I wonder, especially in light of the fact that the Minister has confirmed that the affirmative process will be used for Clause 68, whether he will also confirm that the affirmative process will be used when the Hargreaves exceptions are introduced under the European Communities Act. The Minister has clearly stated that the Government will not be using Clause 66 when those exceptions are introduced; it will be purely for penalties. We very much welcome the assurance that the Minister gave on Monday. However, will he take the opportunity to confirm that the scrutiny process will be by the affirmative procedure of both Houses when those draft statutory instruments come under the ECA procedure?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we on this side will also be interested to hear the answer to that question, although I think I gathered from remarks made previously in Committee that that is the case. We will look forward to hearing about that. Other than that, we are very grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments, which, as he says, go a step further than the DPRR Committee recommended, but are none the less welcome for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

Amendment 33 is inspired by the Creators’ Rights Alliance which feels that the contractual scales are very much weighted against it. I do not often make common cause with Consumer Focus but I am delighted that it supports the amendment. Its brief on the amendment puts the position rather well. It states that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes creators the first owners of copyright, and that creators’ ability to assign or license their copyright to others is central to the overriding aim of copyright: that is, ensuring that creators benefit financially from their works. However, in the UK, creators frequently assign all their copyright for a one-off payment to intermediaries, such as publishers or record companies. Individual creators are frequently at a disadvantage when negotiating contracts with intermediaries, and some creators complain that they are unfairly pressured into assigning all their rights for a one-off payment.

The 2012 research of Consumer Focus found that 77% of British consumers expect that a fair share of the money they pay for music, films and e-books goes to the artists who created the work. The ability of the copyright system to ensure that creators receive a fair remuneration is central to public support for the principle of copyright. I agree with Consumer Focus that removing the copyright exclusion from the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 should be central to the Government’s efforts to build a fairer copyright system that supports economic growth and innovation. How about that, my Lords? Many creators work as freelancers or microbusinesses. They are the bedrock of the creative industries and deserve the protection provided by the Unfair Contract Terms Act. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, extended collective licensing requires fair contracts. People who work in the creative industries are already seeing intensified efforts by many publishers and other intermediaries to coerce individuals who are sole traders into signing away all rights to their work. Those who succumb to this blandishment would be deprived of the income that the ECL provisions in the Bill are supposed to offer. Therefore, the failure of the Bill to include measures to level the playing field for negotiation of contracts undermines the purposes of copyright in promoting fresh creativity. These are not just matters of concern to professional creators, vital though it is to the creative economy that the possibility of making a living as a professional creator is defended. Every citizen has an interest in enforceable creators’ rights and fair contracts now that so many people are publishing and broadcasting their own works through social media.

There is a well known example of the problems that this can cause. In late 2012, the Instagram online photo-hosting service attempted to impose a contract of terms of service that would allow the company to sell users’ photographs to advertisers. This was defeated only after alert users boycotted the service. Legislation will be required to ensure that the price of creativity is not an eternal vigilance which distracts from the work of creation.

The issue of unfair contracts typically arises in two circumstances: “take it or leave it” contracts presented by large businesses to sole-trader professional creators, who are informed that no negotiation will be contemplated; and “click-wrap” contracts offered to those, professional or amateur, who use online hosting services to store or share their creations in words, music or images.

Amendment 33 would bring contracts dealing with copyright works within the terms of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. This would remove an inexplicable exemption and allow at least some challenge to the contracts being foisted on many creative members. I support the amendment.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 28th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I shall speak also to the other two amendments in the group which are in effect variations on a theme. Article 17 of the Designs Directive (98/71) and Article 96(2) of the EU Design Regulation (6/2002) leave to member states the freedom to regulate the extent of protection offered by copyright to designs. The amendments in this group seek to pre-empt what the Government intend to do in this complex area, which is to repeal Section 52 of the CDPA, by means of a general fair use provision and a narrower images exemption.

Amendment 28DZB seeks to protect the interests of many of the third parties affected by the Government’s proposal: those who have created images of existing designed articles. This includes publishers who have included images of old designs in their works, museums, individuals using images of design on websites, educators wanting to use images in teaching, photographers, picture libraries and so on. Many of these people will have invested in the production of images and films of designed articles when it was lawful to do so. Their interests are not likely to be protected by a transitional rule allowing stocks to be sold off; every time the images are shown in public, or reproduced, there will be an infringement.

This images exemption seeks to protect these third parties by allowing the making and exploitation of two-dimensional images and films of designed articles which have been placed on the market. In fact, it goes a little further than protecting these third parties during a transitional period, as it will permit such images to be created and sold in the future. This is a narrow derogation from the serious expansion of rights of design proprietors by the repeal of Section 52 and, in my view, does not prejudice the normal exploitation or the legitimate interests of the copyright holder. I think there is a major issue here, and I hope very much that the Minister will have further thoughts on this issue as he listens to this debate.

Amendment 28DZC builds on the breadth offered by the directive and the regulation. As drafted, the provision seeks to minimise the uncertainty inherent in a fair-use defence, such as that available generally for copyright under US law, with its white list and black list of deemed fair and unfair uses, leaving other uses to be judged in the individual case by reference to relevant factors.

One goal of this amendment is to protect follow-on designers: those who incorporate parts of old designs but transform the totality. It is well known that designers build with and on the design ideas of their predecessors. I believe the extension of copyright term to life plus 70 will make this much more difficult because of the sheer length of the term and because copyright protection is stronger in many ways than design protection. In my view, this issue has not been given sufficient weight, as we need to give careful consideration to the needs of future generations of designers.

Under existing design law, copying a part of an old design and incorporating it in a new, transformed design would not infringe any of the 25-year registered design rights unless the overall design produces on the informed user the same overall impression. However the copyright test is different. Copyright prohibits reproduction of any part of a protected work. One of the proposed white list of fair uses ensures that no use of a copyright-protected design infringes unless it would produce the same impression on an informed user. In short, it harmonises the copyright test with the EU design test.

Another goal is to protect educators, publishers, film-makers and website operators who use images of designed articles in their teaching, in their books, in their films and on their websites. These uses would be white listed as automatically fair. The black list deems unfair any use of a design in making an article which does not credit the original designer. It may be fair to start making old designs which are no longer being marketed—for example, fabric or wallpaper designs—particularly where the designer or design owner cannot be found. This clause indicates that it would not be fair to do so without indicating the origin of the original design.

However, the debate on this issue revolves primarily on whether the Government are right to delete Section 52 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, whether by so doing and ending the current regime of registered designs they have fully considered all the issues which flow from that decision, and the implications that arise for products which are or are about to be out of rights protection under the present registered design period of 25 years, which will in future be in copyright for a period of 70 years after the death of the designer.

There is, of course, a very good case to be made for letting industrial designers have the same protection for their efforts as is available to composers, writers and the like, but I think there are some real questions about this issue, which might suggest to the Government that a pause for reflection before implementing this major change might be sensible.

One practical effect of this repeal will be to make replica versions of classic designs, such as Jacobsen’s egg chair, unaffordable to many consumers. Additionally, the creative freedom of future designers will be constrained because of the need to avoid breaching the copyrights of older predecessors, which cuts across the very essence of much industrial design.

Why was this proposal not preceded by a full consultation with stakeholders? Why has the impact assessment that has been published in fact got very little detail about the impact? Moreover, the assessment seems to have failed to acknowledge the impact on anyone other than designers, those who make and sell replica designs, consumers and the Government themselves. Would the Minister not agree that this initiative has not been handled properly?

The Minister may well argue that the Government had no option but to legislate. If that is the case, can he confirm that the Government are rushing to legislate on the basis of one recent European case, Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA, which has been reported recently? The case concerned the design of the famous Arco lamp, consisting of a long, curved, metal arm supported by a marble block and finishing with a silver globe-shaped lampshade. I should declare an interest since I have one of the original design, fully paid for, at home. The design was created in 1962 by the Italians Achille and Pier Castiglioni, and any industrial design protection the design had once possessed has lapsed. Flos nevertheless claimed copyright in the lamp and that it had been infringed when Semeraro imported its Fluica lamp into Italy from China.

I am no lawyer, but I think we need to be sure that the UK response to Flos is appropriate and proportionate. The Government have decided on the basis of this single and recent case that we should abandon the whole of our registered design margin of appreciation. Surely the better approach would be to try to maintain Section 52, as that was explicitly agreed between the UK Government and the Commission during the process of adoption of the design directive. For the avoidance of doubt, as I have already said, there clearly is a good case for giving industrial designers the same copyright protection as applies to other creative industries, but the fact is that we currently have a different regime, and harmonisation of design and copyright should not be an end in itself or be driven by one isolated case.

The impact assessment is far from complete, but it admits that the reform of Section 52 will harm consumer welfare as classic designs—those that are more than 25 years old—will be re-monopolised. Replicas, currently available at some 15% to 20% of the price of the original, will no longer be available. No opportunity has been taken for consumers to be consulted. Moreover, there are those who argue that the impact assessment significantly underestimates the other costs that will arise, particularly because of its focus on furniture and three-dimensional design.

The Government believe that the change would encourage innovation and investment in design, but this is supported by the flimsiest of arguments in the impact assessment and no new evidence is offered to explain why the balance of interests between designer and owner, competitors and consumers, should be drawn differently today than in 1988 or indeed in 1994-95 when the Government successfully negotiated to retain Section 52 of the CDPA.

I am also concerned—and here I echo the comments made recently by my noble friend Lord Howarth—that as yet we have no idea what the traditional arrangements will be when Section 52 is repealed. Will it be on existing stocks and on articles which are out of copyright and which will now gain further periods of protection? Surely we need to see the draft proposals in this area as soon as possible and certainly before Report.

In conclusion, I should like to return to the question of the impact that this change will have on firms whose registered designs have come out of protection but which may now regain copyright protection to the detriment of consumers but to the benefit of rights holders.

I mentioned the egg chair, but it has been suggested to me that another area which will be affected is wallpaper. Wallpaper is within the current scope of Section 52 and is not in the exclusion for matters of a “primarily literary and artistic character”, so the change may well benefit companies in this field. The Minister will be aware of the firm Osborne and Little, which is primarily a wallpaper maker, founded in 1968. As I understand it, designs that were first produced and sold by that company between 1968 and 1987 will, if this clause goes forward, come back into copyright. It might therefore be for the benefit of the Committee if the Minister could confirm whether his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been alerted to this change, as it may be of some considerable interest to him. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 28DZB, and I shall also speak to Amendment 28EB. More particularly, in view of the very cogent introduction to Amendment 28DZB given by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—it was a tour de force, in my view—the fact is that Clause 65 looks more problematic the more one looks at it. The problems are exacerbated as there was no prior consultation by the Government on these provisions, nor is any cost or benefit set out in the impact assessment. Indeed, there has been no really authoritative review of the impact of the ECJ case mentioned by the noble Lord—Flos v Semeraro—and on whether it really does oblige the UK to repeal Section 52.

On the one hand, the design industry says that it has limited benefit, covering only works of artistic craftsmanship and only then pre-1989 designs and the introduction of the unregistered design right regime. The industry also says that works of art produced before 1957 would not benefit from the full copyright protection. On the other hand, many, including the publishing industry and the art and museum world, are very concerned about the impact of the clause on their ability to produce two-dimensional images of these kinds of artistic works, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has explained.

The proposed new clause is intended to apply the same term of copyright protection to artistic works as the term enjoyed by other copyright works—that is, the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years following their death. Currently, where more than 50 copies of an artistic work are manufactured, the term of copyright is only 25 years.

Publishers are rightly concerned about the impact that this clause may have on the publishers of books that include images and descriptions of artistic works which will now be subject to extended copyright. Such publications would be likely to find themselves retrospectively in breach of copyright. Without this kind of amendment, the clause could, as the British Screen Advisory Council has emphasised—I think that my noble friend Lady Brinton will be extremely interested in this—even include props used in a film and articles in a location where filming has taken place so that this is deemed to be copying of an artistic work which would otherwise have been permitted by Section 52. The position of websites, so important for public access and education, would also be uncertain. It would be even more disastrous if retrospective clearance were required.

I strongly support Amendment 28DZB, which would put this matter beyond doubt. I was delighted to see that it is also supported by the V&A, which is as good a judge as anyone on these matters and is able to take a balanced view—again, we have the word “balance”. However, I do not support the introduction of the novel concept of fair use in Amendment 28DZC, although I understand the motive behind it.

As a preferable alternative, Amendment 28EB, suggested by a group of professors of design and others, tries to meet the needs of follow-on designers—the designers of today and tomorrow that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about. There are two concerns that underpin this amendment, particularly from those who have a great deal to do with up and coming designers. Copyright, as they explain, is in important respects more restrictive on follow-on designers than the protection given by community and national registered and community unregistered design rights, which limit protection for the making of articles which do not produce on the informed user a different overall impression. So if a designer uses part of an existing designed article but incorporates it in something that overall appears different, under the community registered and UK registered design, there is no infringement. In contrast—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, put this in other words—copyright has been interpreted to prohibit the reproduction of any part which is itself original in the copyright sense of involving creative choices. So if a motif from a textile or wallpaper—we are back to wallpaper—is copied but put in a very different context, there will be infringement of copyright, but not design rights. These professors say that the difference is not widely appreciated, as it depends on a detailed understanding of each legal regime, added to which we are only starting to get court decisions on the interpretation of the community design test and the EU copyright notion of reproduction in part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, as originally drafted and debated in another place, this clause equipped the Government with wide-ranging and far-reaching powers to amend, remove or introduce exceptions to copyright via secondary legislation. It caused a fair amount of alarm and a lot of correspondence from those who were following the debate in another place. Many noble Lords present today will have received correspondence about this.

The amendments made during Report in the House of Commons clarified that the regulations,

“may make only such provision as may be made under subsection (2) of section 2 of European Communities Act 1972 or such provision as could be made under that subsection if paragraph 1(1)(d) of a Schedule 2 did not apply”.

I think that means that the Government’s stated aim is to,

“make it clear that [the clause] offers no further power than Parliament already has to make changes to copyright exceptions”.

However, we are disappointed that the language and scope of the clause continues to focus on exceptions to copyright, rather than criminal penalties, which ostensibly is its purpose.

If the Government’s intention is to safeguard criminal penalties for copyright infringement—which is absolutely necessary—we cannot apprehend why there continues to be such a resistance to making that intention unequivocally clear on the face of the Bill. Many of our correspondents would like to see this clause deleted in its entirety. Indeed, a number of proposals have been made in that respect. We have, however, proposed that amendments that seek to narrow and clarify the intentions of the clause in line with the Government’s stated aims, by stipulating that each proposed exception to copyright is subject to an individual statutory instrument and has its own associated economic impact assessment would be the right way forward. Reform of exceptions must not be bundled into a single SI.

Seemingly minor amendments related to changes in the scope of copyright exceptions can have significant commercial consequences for organisations that invest heavily in content creation and preservation. Each individual exception requires careful consideration. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The stated aim of Clause 66 is to ensure that where secondary legislation is used to amend copyright exceptions, the existing penalties for copyright infringement would remain unchanged. This is stated in paragraph 506 of the Explanatory Notes. This stated aim by itself is unobjectionable. However, throughout the Bill’s passage through the Commons, MPs and outside organisations expressed serious concerns regarding the wide drafting of the clause—then Clause 56 and 57. The drafting was too broad and potentially involved the Government having significantly greater powers to alter copyright exceptions by secondary legislation than they currently enjoy. The Government amended this clause on Report. An amendment introduced on Report in the Commons permits the Secretary of State by order to change copyright exceptions within the scope permitted under subsection (2) of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972—implementing European directives—and repeals paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the EC Act in respect of such changes.

The new wording to Clause 66 gives some but not enough reassurance or certainty that the clause will be limited in application to penalties. The Government’s explanation of Clause 66 refers to penalties. Clause 66,

“arose as a specific consequence of our wanting to keep the strong penalties needed to remove exceptions.”—[Official Report, Commons, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Committee, 12/7/12; col. 628.]

However, Clause 66 is headed “Power to change exceptions: copyright and rights in performances”. The clauses as added to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which they are intended to amend, will be headed “Power to add or remove exceptions to copyright” and “rights in performances” and the clause itself refers to copyright exceptions.

Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, there is no impact assessment and there has been no consultation on the clause. These amendments limit the clause to penalties—it removes the references to copyright exceptions. The Government have explicitly stated that they will not use Clause 66 to introduce exceptions. The Government stated that:

“Clause 56 is not part of the wider Hargreaves work but arose as a specific consequence of our wanting to keep the strong penalties needed to remove exceptions.”—[Official Report, Commons, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Committee, 12/7/2012; col. 628.]

Clause 69 is in many ways admirably concise in relation to penalties relating to copyright protection under the term directive. Clause 69 refers explicitly to penalties and is unambiguous. Why can Clause 66 not be drafted similarly?

I understand that officials have said that Clause 66 may be used to amend two sections, Sections 72 and 73 of the CDPA, but those issues are the subject of court proceedings and it is doubtful whether Clause 66 as amended would be able to address the issues adequately, because they lie outside the European acquis communautaire and further primary legislation would be needed in any event.

It is not surprising that in a recent meeting with stakeholders, an official of the IPO said that all are agreed that the current wording of Clause 66 is confusing. Why do we not make everything clear and take on board these amendments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I always get up when there is something to object to, but in this case I will thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will make a very positive response.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, he does not give me much leeway, does he? I thank him very much, and I withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I realise that I failed to speak to Amendment 30, so if I may I will just finish this group.

An orphan works license must provide remuneration for relevant rights holders, specifically the holding of money in escrow to remunerate rights holders who come forward within a certain time period. New Section 116C(4) of the Bill states:

“The regulations must provide for the treatment of any royalties or other sums paid in respect of a licence”.

That is welcome, but could be much clearer using the more broadly recognised term of “remuneration”. While royalties are common in the music industry, in the publishing industry royalties are used to describe payment made solely to authors. The word “remuneration” is also preferable for the avoidance of doubt as distinct from compensation, which would suggest a need for rights holders to prove harm before being able to receive their monies.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I want to make it clear that we on this side support the ECL approach in general. The reason for supporting these particular amendments is to make sure that the issues that they raise are probed. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

However, it is worth putting on the record that there are still a lot of reservations from individual authors and photographers about the potential impact of an ECL scheme, particularly where there is not a collecting society—

[Lord Clement-Jones]

No.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I beg your pardon?

[Lord Clement-Jones]

If I can clarify, we are still on orphan works amendments, which are designed to improve the orphan works provisions in the clause.

Live Music Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Friday 15th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

Dancing is often spontaneous. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, engages in spontaneous dancing on frequent occasions, perhaps even when he is playing a musical instrument at the same time. However, technically speaking dancing in those venues, in licensed premises, requires a licence. The Bill is not designed to impact on the existing law. Future consultation may suggest that we can deregulate that—I firmly hope that we can, especially in small venues—so that the noble Lord will be freer to stand up and spontaneously dance in future, but that is not the intention behind the Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I do not want to engage in the question of whether we will spontaneously join in any activity this morning, because it is still early, but I reassure the House that we support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, under Section 172 of the 2003 Act, the Secretary of State may make an order providing for the relaxation of opening hours to mark an occasion of exceptional international, national or local significance. Such an order was made in respect of the recent royal wedding and I hope that there will be many more to come.

The current Section 177 of the Act, so far as it relates to premises licensed to supply alcohol for consumption on the premises, provides that conditions relating to live music do not have effect at any time when the premises are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises. Therefore, with regard to the licensing hours extension in respect of the royal wedding, the effect was that the disapplication of conditions relating to music would have been extended because Section 177(2) is linked to the time at which the premises are open for the supply of alcohol.

However, new Section 177(1) and (2) contained in the Live Music Bill provide that, so far as alcohol-licensed premises are concerned, conditions relating to live music will not have effect only if the music takes place between 8 am and midnight, or 11 pm as a result of other amendments. Although Section 172 of the 2003 Act allows for the relaxation of licensing hours for special occasions, as drafted the Bill would not allow the disapplication of conditions on live music to run in tandem with any licensing hours extension.

Amendment 10 allows the disapplication of conditions relating to live music to apply where extended licensing hours are granted as a result of a licensing hours order. In so doing, it preserves the benefit afforded to alcohol-licensed premises under the existing Section 177. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we support the amendment. It makes sense in terms of how current licensing operations work and I think that it would add to the general jollity.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 16th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long. It would be easy to spend time talking about some of the schemes that would justify an appropriate discount. However, I shall first move Amendment 241T. By a strange quirk of grouping, the Minister has already partly responded on the concept of a discount for these community-type schemes. The effect of these amendments would be to require the levy to be reduced by 50 per cent per premises participating in well established, recognised corporate responsibility initiatives—specifically, Best Bar None, business improvement districts, Purple Flag, Pubwatch, community alcohol partnerships and other similar watch initiatives, all of which demonstrably reduce the incidence of crime and disorder in town centres. These could be undermined if participating businesses were required to fund all these bespoke schemes and a more general levy. To acknowledge the contribution and investment that industry has made to improving standards and addressing challenges in the night-time economy, particularly in town and city centres, it is therefore appropriate that these high-profile initiatives are identified in the Bill as requiring a reduced levy. This will also safeguard the initiatives themselves and encourage further take-up in areas where such partnership approaches do not yet exist.

I dare say that many of us have received correspondence from some of the projects, particularly the business improvement districts. I have received several of those. The Nottinghamshire Leisure business improvement district experience is extremely interesting. Some of the correspondence relates to the community alcohol partnerships, which have also been very successful. I understand that the Government plan to recognise in guidance, and perhaps in regulation, the nature of these schemes and the fact that they will receive discounts. However, I hope that they can be a little more forward in the Bill by recognising that that will definitely be provided for. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I support the previous speech and the amendments that it introduced. On this side of the House, we believe that premises that work with the police and local authorities to minimise crime and disorder should qualify for a reduction in the late night levy. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it would be helpful if this could be put in the Bill, not just because we like to see things in legislation but because it is so important that we recognise what they are doing.

In many cases, for example, these venues are safe havens for young people. If you put young people in a protected environment rather than having them out on the streets you are doing some public good. In a sense, that is something that we want to encourage and we would be grateful if it could be considered in that way. Well run and responsible venues already participate in voluntary schemes to combat anti-social behaviour, and if they are forced to close at midnight to avoid the levy then they will effectively be throwing their young clientele out of a safe venue onto the streets.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, licensing authorities will have the discretion to decide which of the exemption and reduction categories they will apply in their application of the levy. Although I am unable to accept these amendments, I welcome their overall intention. It is precisely these types of premises and the schemes that they run that we want to consider for reductions from the levy charge. However, the amendments would prejudge our public consultation on exemptions and reductions, which we will introduce through regulations.

We have already begun the design of that consultation through a number of working groups, with representatives of the trade, licensing authorities and the police. I would urge noble Lords to await this consultation so that we might have the opportunity fully to consider the views of our partners. There are many schemes, such as the ones mentioned this afternoon, that allow the business community to work together to address some of the negative effects of the sale of alcohol in the night-time economy. I support the principle that drives these local initiatives. However, there is a range of such initiatives and we need to consider the breadth of these schemes and how we might define workable categories for reductions. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.