Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Knight of Weymouth

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I just want to say very briefly that, having served alongside my noble friend Lord Stevenson on the Front Bench during the passage of this Act, I want to thoroughly endorse what he has said. I am very proud of the work that we did together—I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said—to try to create a piece of legislation that could work in a very complex area, and I think we did a good job.

My fear now is that, now that Ofcom, the regulator, has published its road map, it is like a juggernaut: it has just got on with delivering what it was always going to deliver and has ignored what we in this House amended the Bill to do. In that respect, it is treating us with contempt and it is important that we express our regret in one way or another this evening about the way that we have been treated. I came in wanting to be convinced by my noble friend the Minister; I am afraid that so far she has not done it.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for introducing the regulations and to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling his amendment and for moving it in the way that he did, because it has given us the opportunity to have this very important debate on this landmark Act of Parliament.

My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes was right to begin her remarks by reminding your Lordships that the passage of that Act was a shining example of this House doing its job very well indeed, giving careful, considered and non-partisan scrutiny to legislation before us. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, rightly recalls the cross-party spirit that he did so much to foster from Second Reading, and it was a pleasure working with noble Lords from across the House in that spirit to make sure that the Act found its way to the statute book in the improved way that it did.

We are here tonight because of a number of amendments made to the Bill as it went through this House. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House recommended in its report on the Bill that the first regulation for the category 1 thresholds should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I was glad to accept that recommendation when I was the Minister taking the Bill through, and I am glad to be here for the debate on it, albeit speaking from a different Dispatch Box.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, does indeed embarrass me by citing the Parkinson rule. I said at the time that Cyril Northcote Parkinson has the better reputation for Parkinson’s laws. But that undertaking was an important one that I was happy to make to ensure that Parliament had the ongoing scrutiny. We all recognised as we passed this law that this was a fast-moving area of technology, that legislatures across the world were struggling to keep up, and that it would be important for the post-legislative scrutiny to take place in the same agile and consensual way in which we sought to pass the Act.

We are also here because of an amendment made to the Bill on Report by my noble friend Lady Morgan. Both she and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were too gracious to recall that it took me a little longer to get there. That amendment was made despite my arguments to the contrary. My noble friend pressed her amendment, defeated me and the previous Government and changed the Bill. When the Bill was in another place, the Government accepted her point.

I was helped along the way in that legislative journey by clear exhortations from noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench who were then in opposition. In our debate on my noble friend Lady Morgan’s amendment on 19 July 2023, the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, who I am glad to see in his place, albeit now on the Back Benches, said that my noble friend’s amendment was a “no-brainer”. He pointed out that the Bill, as it stood,

“requires Ofcom to … be mindful of size”,

but argued that:

“We need to be more nuanced”.—[Official Report, 19/7/23; col. 2344.]


and that it was right to give Ofcom leeway or flexibility in the categorisation and to bring providers into the safety regime.

Those points were echoed in another place by Alex Davies-Jones, the Member of Parliament for Pontypridd, who is now a Minister at the Ministry of Justice with responsibility for tackling violence against women and girls, rape and serious sexual offences, child sexual abuse and many other very serious matters. In opposition, following that debate, she made the point that:

“Categorisation of services based on size rather than risk of harm will mean that the Bill will fail to address some of the most extreme harms on the internet”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/22; col. 168.]


I wonder what Ms Davies-Jones says now that she is at the Ministry of Justice.

I am very grateful to Ofcom. I had a helpful phone call last week with Robert Brown and Mark Bunting of Ofcom to understand its approach. My criticisms are directed at the Government, not at Ofcom. Without wanting to rehearse my old job, I will help the Minister by pointing out that many of the concerns raised are covered by the Bill.

The Bill is very clear that the duties to act on illegal content and to protect children apply to services of every size. Some of the points made, including the very moving and harrowing examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, may well be covered by the illegal duties and the protection of children duties, and the Minister was right to point that out. But there is a shift in approach from the commitments I made at the Dispatch Box when I was a Minister and the decision that Parliament took in backing my noble friend Lady Morgan’s amendment. I am interested in why the Government have changed their mind, particularly having been so strongly in favour of making those changes to the Bill when in opposition.

In her opening remarks, the Minister used the ubiquitous phrase “unintended consequences”. She mentioned that the Government did not want unintentionally to categorise hundreds of small and non-risky services, but would that necessarily be the case? Surely a granular case-by-case categorisation would not bring in so many hundreds. It seems that she and the Government are leaning rather heavily on other parts of the Act that talk about the quick, easy and wide dissemination of material online. I wonder whether the “and wide” part of that is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Is that what is making the Government make the connection to the size? Is the width of dissemination driving the policy decision here? And it is a policy decision. The Government are not bound to follow the advice that Ofcom has provided; they can disagree with it.

In the debate in another place on these regulations, my right honourable friend Sir Jeremy Wright, a former law officer, said it would not be right to ask the Government to provide the legal advice they have had on these matters, but like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I would be very interested in seeing that. I wonder whether the Minister is able to say a bit more about the legal basis on which they have decided that they are unable to disagree, or are not inclined to disagree, with Ofcom on this. I hope she will be able to give a very clear answer to the very clear question posed by my noble friend Lady Penn, who put very well the question about legal advice and the Government’s room for manoeuvre here.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Knight of Weymouth

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to my Amendment 9. Amendment 26 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, also touches on many of the issues that concern me and motivated me in bringing my amendments; I look forward to hearing him set out the case for it later in the debate.

My amendments in this group probe the Government’s definition of a football fan. In any other context, the exact definition would perhaps be academic, but fans have had an important role in the process that has led to this Bill. As the Minister and many others have said, the Bill seeks to put fans’ interests at the heart of this legislation. It was, after all, the fan-led review chaired—refereed, if you like—by my former honourable friend Dame Tracey Crouch which led to the Bill in its former iteration under the previous Government and which continues to inform the work that the new Government have taken forward in the Bill that they have brought before your Lordships. It was the fans’ voices in that process that were so important, and which began the path to where we now find ourselves.

We on these Benches agree with the Government that fans must be consulted and that they will have an important and ongoing role to play not just in the future of English football but in the operation of this new regulatory regime, but we cannot empower fans, or listen to their views, if we cannot say who they are. Through Amendment 8, I put it to the Government that both clubs and the new independent football regulator should seek to serve the interests of both “current and prospective” football fans. This expands the point that we have made about growth and making sure that the Bill is not simply seeking to preserve football in aspic.

In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, published in November 1790, Edmund Burke wrote:

“Society is indeed a contract … it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”.


That may be a high-falutin’ way of putting it, but it is the principle that underlies my Amendment 8. Football must not be governed as a game merely for the fans of today, nor should it simply seek to preserve the game in a form that fans of the past have enjoyed; it must also continue to be a game for the future. That is surely what the Government mean by the sustainability of football which, as the noble Baroness said in the debate on the previous group, is the key concern of this Bill.

We on these Benches feel that prospective fans—whether they be literally unborn, as Burke would point out, or those who are not yet alive to the joys of the game—should always have their interests served by clubs and the new regulator as well. Only if we are seeking to serve the interests of prospective fans as well as existing ones will we truly secure a sustainable future for English football.

My Amendment 9 similarly seeks to expand the definition of the communities whose interests are served by the Bill. The purpose clause in the Bill seeks to serve only “local communities” with which regulated clubs are associated. I was keen that the Committee should probe the inclusion of that word, “local”. We had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester with us for earlier deliberations in this Committee. I am taken to understand that not everybody who is a fan of Manchester United or Manchester City lives in the city of Manchester. If a large group of people from London or another part of the country were to follow Manchester United or Manchester City during a period of success for one of those clubs, would it be right for those clubs or the new regulator merely to serve the interests of local communities in Manchester, or should they consider the interests of fans who follow those teams and who have a stake in them no matter where in the country they are based?

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

One reason why I have been interested in this Bill is the European Super League proposals that previously happened—the possibility of clubs’ owners deciding that they are going to play two or three games in the United States or two or three games in the Middle East. By defining “local”, are we not ensuring that there is some protection against the aspiration that some owners may have to meet the needs of fans who might be numerous in the Middle East or the United States, but we want regulated clubs to be looked after here in Britain?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

That is the question I am trying to probe with this amendment. Are the interests of fans of, say, Manchester United or Manchester City really served only if, as the Bill currently defines it, English football is contributing to the economic or social well-being of the “local communities” with which regulated clubs are associated? Surely Manchester United is associated also with Weymouth, for instance, or other parts of the country where people might choose to be a fan of that club, even if they have never lived in Manchester.

As I set out at Second Reading, I am not the world’s biggest football afficionado, but I know that people do not have to be born in a specific town or city to feel an affinity to, pride in or excitement from certain regulated clubs. I am interested in whether the sustainability of those clubs should also serve people in Weymouth and people across the country. The noble Lord makes an important point about the growing tension with growing the international following of football, but, as we have heard in previous debates, that, too, is a good thing. It is an important part of the soft power of the United Kingdom. It brings inward investment and greater glory to the UK. That is a separate point from the amendments, which look at the work of the sustainability—