Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2024

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 9 and 12 September be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 28 October.

Motions agreed.

Social Media: Catfishing

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address ‘catfishing’ on social media platforms.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, the impact of catfishing can be devastating for victims, but the online world is not a lawless environment. Already, if you commit a crime online, you will face the consequences. Social media companies also have a clear responsibility to keep people safe on their platforms. The Online Safety Act will provide additional protections requiring platforms to take action to protect users from illegal content and activity that is harmful to children online.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Only last Friday in the High Court in Belfast, a man from Northern Ireland was sentenced for the manslaughter of a child from North America he had groomed and targeted. As a result of that, she took her own life. There were many other examples of his online bullying, amounting to over 3,000. Therefore, I would like some assurances from my noble friend. What steps are the Government taking to sanction social media platforms such as Meta, which fail properly to monitor contact and access to adult sites by children under 16, in the context of the Online Safety Act? Will any new legislation or statutory regulations be required to update the legislation in respect of last week’s legal matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I express my deepest sympathy to the family of the victims of this appalling case. In addition to the existing criminal laws, social media companies already have a duty to keep people safe from these abhorrent crimes on their platforms. The Government obviously share the noble Baroness’s commitment to keeping children safe. When the Online Safety Act is fully implemented, it will require user-to-user services to take steps to protect children from accessing that sort of harmful content. Ofcom will have robust enforcement powers to use against companies that fail to fulfil their duties, and responsibilities to introduce age-appropriate measures via the platforms. At the moment, our priority has to be to implement that Act so that those who use social media, particularly children, can feel safe. But, as I have said before at the Dispatch Box, we are keeping this under review in case any further legislation is required.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of the work of Jim Gamble, the founding CEO of CEOP. He has proposed an innovative five-point plan to deal with cases such as that mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. Will the Minister consider meeting Mr Gamble to discuss his innovative five-point plan? Can she also tell the House about the investment made in classrooms to engender digital proficiency among our young people?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am of course happy to meet the gentleman the noble Baroness mentioned. We are open to all suggestions about how we can improve this legislation. None of this is 100% secure—we absolutely know that—and we know that, as technology is moving forward, we need to move forward too. It seems that the criminals are always one step ahead of us, so we need to catch up and make sure that we take all the appropriate action we can with the new technology that is being used. The noble Baroness also made an important point about education. Ofcom already has an important media literacy strategy that it is rolling out, and that includes education in schools and with young people. But we all have a responsibility—every parent has a responsibility to say to their child, “What you see on your social media platform may not be what you think you’re seeing”. We need to make sure that they are made aware of those dangers.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, Naomi Long, the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, has said that Westminster’s legislation on online crimes, including catfishing, is not strong enough, particularly on unverified social media accounts. Worse, 87% of those who report online crime to the police get an immediate response of “no further action”. What will the Government do to ensure that police forces and the CPS have the right information to make sure that that appalling figure is reduced?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We are working closely with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice on the implementation of the existing legislation because, as I say, a number of pieces of legislation are already on the statute book. Some capture fraud offences —I note the Fraud Act—and others capture online frauds, including romance frauds on dating apps and so on, which, sadly, are all too widespread. Those actions are being taken. We are talking about this to the Home Office, which is also on a learning curve in relation to how it can tackle these issues more robustly. We are carrying on our dialogue with it.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned romance fraud and other frauds. Approximately 70% of fraud arises on social media platforms, particularly Meta, yet the reimbursement for fraud is all placed on the banks, and no liability applies to the social media platforms. What plans do the Government have to make social media platforms pay for their share of the frauds in order to incentivise them to do something to stop them?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We are acutely aware of this issue. We know that there is a live ongoing argument about it and we are talking to our colleagues across government to find a way through, but we have not come to a settled view yet.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, catfishing is, of course, one of the misuses of technology in respect of which AI is rapidly enhancing both the attack and the defence. Does the Minister agree that the most effective, adaptive and future-proof defence against catfishing is actually personal awareness and resilience? If so, can the Minister provide a bit more of an update on the progress made in implementing this crucial media literacy strategy, which will be such an important part of defending us all against these attacks in future?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Ofcom published its latest vision of the media literacy strategy just a couple of months ago, so its implementation is very much in its infancy. The Government very much support it and we will work with Ofcom very closely to roll it out. So Ofcom has a comprehensive media literacy strategy on these issues, but as we all know, schools have to play their part as well: it has to be part of the curriculum. We need to make sure that children are kept safe in that way.

The noble Viscount referred to AI. The rules we have—the Online Safety Act and so on—are tech-neutral in the sense that, even if an image is AI generated, it would still fall foul of that Act; it does not matter whether it is real or someone has created it. Also, action should be taken by the social media companies to take down those images.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, as a survivor of the seven-year long period during which the Online Safety Act was developed, I have to confess that I do not think we ever came across the word “catfishing”. In a quick moment, I looked it up on Google—and, of course, it has not even reached Google yet. It talks about those who wish to catch fish, rather than catfishing. I make a joke, but this is a serious issue and the Minister is trying to address it very fairly. The problem is that the technology is so efficient and quick that the offences are moving ahead of our ability as legislators to make the necessary laws. The key element of the Online Safety Act is that that which is illegal offline is also illegal online. When will we see the necessary offence on the statute book?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right about the expression “catfishing”. I had to check the definition before I came here today, and for anyone who wants that clarification, it is when someone sets up a fake online identity and uses it to trick and control others. It covers a whole range of offences, including scamming people out of money, blackmailing them or trying to harm them in another way.

On my noble friend’s general point, yes, we are of course looking at how we can match online safety with offline safety; that is part of ongoing work. But for the time being, as I have said several times from the Dispatch Box, rolling out the Online Safety Act is the crucial thing. We are within touching distance, and it will make a huge difference when it is fully implemented. That is our priority at this time.

Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 12 September this year. The Government stated in their manifesto that they would

“use every government tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence”

in order to achieve their

“landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade”.

Through this statutory instrument, we are broadening online platforms’ and search engines’ responsibilities for tackling intimate image abuse under the Online Safety Act. More than one in three women have experienced abuse online. The rise in intimate image abuse is not only devastating for victims but also spreads misogyny on social media that can develop into potentially dangerous relationships offline. One in 14 adults in England and Wales has experienced threats to share intimate images, rising to one in seven young women aged 18 to 34.

It is crucial that we tackle these crimes from every angle, including online, and ensure that tech companies step up and play their part. That is why we are laying this statutory instrument. Through it, we will widen online platforms’ and search engines’ obligations to tackle intimate image abuse under the Online Safety Act. As noble Lords will know, the Act received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. It places strong new duties on online user-to-user platforms and search services to protect their users from harm.

As part of this, the Act gives service providers new “illegal content duties”. Under these duties, online platforms need to assess the risk that their services will allow users to encounter illegal content or be

“used for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence”.

They then need to take steps to mitigate identified risks. These will include implementing safety-by-design measures to reduce risks and content moderation systems to remove illegal content where it appears.

The Online Safety Act sets out a list of priority offences for the purposes of providers’ illegal content duties. These offences reflect the most serious and prevalent online illegal content and activity. They are set out in schedules to the Act. Platforms will need to take additional steps to tackle these kinds of illegal activities under their illegal content duties.

The priority offences list currently includes certain intimate image abuse offences. Through this statutory instrument, we are adding new intimate image abuse offences to the priority list. This replaces an old intimate image abuse offence, which has now been repealed. These new offences are in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. They took effect earlier this year. The older offence was in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The repealed offence covered sharing intimate images where the intent was to cause distress. The new offences are broader; they criminalise sharing intimate images without having a reasonable belief that the subject would consent to sharing the images. These offences include the sharing of manufactured or manipulated images, including so-called deepfakes.

Since these new offences are more expansive, adding them as priority offences means online platforms will be required to tackle more intimate image abuse on their services. This means that we are broadening the scope of what constitutes illegal intimate image content in the Online Safety Act. It also makes it clear that platforms’ priority illegal content duties extend to AI-generated deepfakes and other manufactured intimate images. This is because the new offences that we are adding explicitly cover this content.

As I have set out above, these changes affect the illegal content duties in the Online Safety Act. They will ensure that tech companies play their part in kicking this content off social media. These are just part of a range of wider protections coming into force next spring through the Online Safety Act that will mean that social media companies have to remove the most harmful illegal content, a lot of which disproportionately affects women and girls, such as through harassment and controlling or coercive behaviour.

Ofcom will set out the specific steps that providers can take to fulfil their illegal content duties for intimate image abuse and other illegal content in codes of practice and guidance documentation. It is currently producing this documentation. We anticipate that the new duties will start to be enforced from spring next year once Ofcom has issued these codes of practice and they have come into force. Providers will also need to have done their risk assessment for illegal content by then. We anticipate that Ofcom will recommend that providers should take action in a number of areas. These include content moderation, reporting and complaints procedures, and safety-by-design steps, such as testing their algorithm systems to see whether illegal content is being recommended to users. We are committed to working with Ofcom to get these protections in place as quickly as possible. We are focused on delivering.

Where companies are not removing and proactively stopping this vile material appearing on their platforms, Ofcom will have robust powers to take enforcement action against them. This includes imposing fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is highest.

In conclusion, through this statutory instrument we are broadening providers’ duties for intimate image abuse content. Service providers will need to take proactive steps to search for, remove and limit people’s exposure to this harmful kind of illegal content, including where it has been manufactured or manipulated. I hope noble Lords will commend these further steps that we have taken that take the provisions in the Online Safety Act a useful further step forward. I commend these regulations to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I endorse everything she said about intimate image abuse and the importance of legislation to make sure that the perpetrators are penalised and that social media outlets have additional duties under Schedule 7 for priority offences. I am absolutely on the same page as the Minister on this, and I very much welcome what she said. It is interesting that we are dealing with another 2003 Act that, again, is showing itself fit for purpose and able to be amended; perhaps there is some cause to take comfort from our legislative process.

I was interested to hear what the Minister said about the coverage of the offences introduced by the Online Safety Act. She considered that the sharing of sexually explicit material included deepfakes. There was a promise—the noble Viscount will remember it—that the Criminal Justice Bill, which was not passed in the end, would cover that element. It included intent, like the current offence—the one that has been incorporated into Schedule 7. The Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen—I have it in my hand—explicitly introduces an offence that does not require intent, and I very much support that.

I do not believe that this is the last word to be said on the kinds of IIA offence that need to be incorporated as priority offences under Schedule 7. I would very much like to hear what the noble Baroness has to say about why we require intent when, quite frankly, the creation of these deepfakes requires activity that is clearly harmful. We clearly should make sure that the perpetrators are caught. Given the history of this, I am slightly surprised that the Government’s current interpretation of the new offence in the Online Safety Act includes deepfakes. It is gratifying, but the Government nevertheless need to go further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also start on a positive note and welcome the ongoing focus on online safety. We all aim to make this the safest country in the world in which to be online. The Online Safety Act is the cornerstone of how all of us will continue to pursue this crucial goal. The Act imposed clear legal responsibilities on social media platforms and tech companies, requiring them actively to monitor and manage the content they host. They are required swiftly to remove illegal content and to take proactive measures to prevent harmful material reaching minors. This reflects the deep commitment that we all share to safeguarding children from the dangers of cyberbullying, explicit content and other online threats.

We must also take particular account of the disproportionate harm that women and girls face online. The trends regarding the online abuse and exploitation that disproportionately affect female users are deeply concerning. Addressing these specific challenges is essential if we are to create a truly safe online environment for everyone.

With respect to the Government’s proposed approach to making sharing intimate images without consent a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, this initiative will require social media companies promptly to remove such content from their platforms. This aims to curb the rise in abuse that has been described as “intolerable”—I think rightly—by the Secretary of State. The intent behind this measure is to prevent generations becoming “desensitised” to the devastating effects of online abuse.

Although this appears to signal a strong stance against online harm, it raises the question of what this designation truly accomplishes in practical terms. I am grateful to the Minister for setting this out so clearly. I am not entirely sure that I altogether followed the differences between the old offences and the new ones. Sharing intimate images without consent is already illegal under current laws. Therefore, can we not say that the real issue lies in the absence not of legal provision but of effective enforcement of existing regulation? We have to ensure that any changes we make do not merely add layers of complexity but genuinely strengthen the protections available to victims and improve the responsiveness of platforms in removing harmful content.

With these thoughts in mind, I offer five questions. I apologise; the Minister is welcome to write as necessary, but I welcome her views whether now or in writing. First, why is it necessary to add the sharing of intimate images to the list of priority offences if such acts are already illegal under existing legislation and, specifically, what additional protections or outcomes are expected? The Minister gave some explanation of this, but I would welcome digging a little deeper into that.

Secondly, where consent is used as a defence against the charge of sharing intimate images, what are the Government’s thoughts on how to protect victims from intrusive cross-examination over details of their sexual history?

Thirdly, with respect to nudification technology, the previous Government argued that any photoreal image was covered by “intimate image abuse”—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, touched on this issue well. Is there any merit in looking at that again?

Fourthly, I am keen to hear the Government’s views on my noble friend Lady Owen’s Private Member’s Bill on nudification. We look forward to debating that in December.

Fifthly, and lastly, what role can or should parents and educators play in supporting the Act’s objectives? How will the Government engage these groups to promote online safety awareness?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. This is, as I think all noble Lords who have spoken recognise, a really important issue. It is important that we get this legislation right. We believe that updating the priority offences list with a new intimate image abuse offence is the correct, proportionate and evidence-led approach to tackle this type of content, and that it will provide stronger protections for online users. This update will bring us closer to achieving the commitment made in the Government’s manifesto to strengthening the protection for women and girls online.

I will try to cover all the questions asked. My noble friend Lord Stevenson and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked whether we will review the Act and whether the Act is enough. Our immediate focus is on getting the Online Safety Act implemented quickly and effectively. It was designed to tackle illegal content and protect children; we want those protections in place as soon as possible. Having said that, it is right that the Government continually assess the law’s ability to keep up, especially when technology is moving so fast. We will of course look at how effective the protections are and build on the Online Safety Act, based on the evidence. However, our message to social media companies remains clear: “There is no need to wait. You can and should take immediate action to protect your users from these harms”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked what further action we are taking against intimate abuse and about the taking, rather than sharing, of intimate images. We are committed to tackling the threat of violence against women and girls in all forms. We are considering what further legislative measures may be needed to strengthen the law on taking intimate images without consent and image abuse. This matter is very much on the Government’s agenda at the moment; I hope that we will be able to report some progress to the noble Baroness soon.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked whether creating and making intimate image deepfakes will be an offence. The Government’s manifesto included a commitment to banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. This is a priority for the Government. DSIT is working with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to identify the most appropriate legislative vehicle for ensuring that those who create these images without consent face the appropriate punishment. The Government are considering options in this space to protect women and girls from malicious uses of these technologies. The new sharing intimate images offence, which will be added to the OSA priority list through this SI, explicitly includes—for the first time—wholly synthetic manufactured images, such as deepfakes, so they will be tackled under the Online Safety Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked about the material that is already there and the ability to have a hash database to prevent those intimate images continually being circulated. We are aware that the technology exists. Strengthening the intimate image abuse priorities under the Act is a necessary first step to tackling this, but we expect Ofcom to consider this in its final draft illegal content codes and guidance and to give more information about both the codes of practice and the further measures that would need to be developed to address this issue.

Several noble Lords—the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Stevenson—asked for more details on the new offences. As I tried to set out in my opening statement, the Online Safety Act repeals the offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films with the intent to cause distress—this comes under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and is commonly known as the revenge porn offence—and replaces it with four new offences.

First, there is a base offence of sharing an intimate image without consent, which carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. Secondly, there are two specific-intent offences—the first is sharing an intimate image with intent to cause alarm, humiliation or distress; the second is sharing an intimate image for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification—each of which carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment to reflect the more serious culpability of someone who acts without consent and with an additional malign intent. Lastly, there is an offence of threatening to share an intimate image, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. This offence applies regardless of whether the image is shared.

These offences capture images that show, or appear to show, a person who is nude, partially nude, engaged in toileting or doing something sexual. These offences include the sharing of manufactured or manipulated images, which are referred to as deepfakes. This recognises that sharing intimate images without the consent of the person they show or appear to show is sufficiently wrongful or harmful to warrant criminalisation.

The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked what is so different about these new offences compared to those in the Act. I stress that it is because they are being given priority status, which does not sound much but gives considerable extra powers under the Act. There will be new powers and new obligations on platforms. The key thing is that all those offences that already exist are being given priority status under the Online Safety Act. There are thousands of things that Ofcom could address, but this is now in the much smaller list of things that will place very specific obligations on the platforms. Ofcom will monitor this and, as I said earlier, companies can be fined huge sums of money if they do not act, so there is a huge obligation on them to follow through on the priority list.

I hope that I have answered all the questions and that noble Lords agree with me on the importance of updating the priority offences in the Online Safety Act. The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked about parents and made an important point. This is not just about an Act, it is about everybody highlighting the fact that these activities are intolerable and offensive not just to the individuals concerned but to everybody in society, and parents have a responsibility, as we all do, to ensure that media literacy is at the height of the education we carry out formally in schools and informally within the home. The noble Viscount is absolutely right on that, and there is more that we could all do. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2024

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 9 September this year. The Online Safety Act lays the foundations of strong protection for children and adults online. I am grateful to noble Lords for their continued interest in the Online Safety Act and its implementation. It is critical that the Act is made fully operational as soon as possible, and the Government are committed to ensuring that its protections are delivered as soon as possible. This statutory instrument will further support the implementation of the Act by Ofcom.

This statutory instrument concerns Ofcom’s ability to share business information with Ministers for the purpose of fulfilling functions under the Online Safety Act 2023, under Section 393 of the Communications Act 2003. This corrects an oversight in the original Online Safety Act that was identified following its passage.

Section 393 of the Communications Act 2003 contains a general restriction on Ofcom disclosing information about particular businesses without consent from the affected businesses, but with exemptions, including where this facilitates Ofcom in carrying out its regulatory functions and facilitates other specified persons in carrying out specific functions. However, this section does not currently enable Ofcom to share information with Ministers for the purpose of fulfilling functions under the Online Safety Act. This means that, were Ofcom to disclose information about businesses to the Secretary of State, it may be in breach of the law.

It is important that a gateway exists for sharing information for these purposes so that the Secretary of State can carry out functions under the Online Safety Act, such as setting the fee threshold for the online safety regime in 2025 or carrying out post-implementation reviews of the Act required under Section 178. This statutory instrument will therefore amend the Communications Act 2003 to allow Ofcom to share information with the Secretary of State and other Ministers, strictly for the purpose of fulfilling functions under the Online Safety Act 2023.

There are strong legislative safeguards and limitations on the disclosure of this information, and Ofcom is experienced in handling confidential and sensitive information obtained from the services it regulates. Ofcom must comply with UK data protection law and would need to show that the processing of any personal data was necessary for a lawful purpose. As a public body, Ofcom is also required to act compatibly with the Article 8 right of privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.

We will therefore continue to review the Online Safety Act, so that Ofcom is able to support the delivery of functions under the Act where it is appropriate. That is a brief but detailed summary of why this instrument is necessary. I should stress that it contains a technical amendment to deal with a very small legal aspect. Nevertheless, I will be interested to hear noble Lords’ comments on the SI. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and for explaining the essence of the SI. We all have a bit of pride of creation in the Online Safety Act; there are one or two of us around today who clearly have a continuing interest in it. This is one of the smaller outcomes of the Act and, as the Minister says, it is an essentially an oversight. I would say that a tidying-up operation is involved here. It is rather gratifying to see that the Communications Act still has such importance, 21 years after it was passed. It is somewhat extraordinary for legislation to be invoked after that period of time in an area such as communications, which is so fast-moving.

My question for the Minister is whether the examples that she gave or which were contained in the Explanatory Memorandum, regarding the need for information to be obtained by the Secretary of State in respect of Section 178, on reviewing the regulatory framework, and Section 86, on the threshold for payment of fees, are exclusive. Are there other aspects of the Online Safety Act where the Secretary of State requires that legislation?

We are always wary of the powers given to Secretaries of State, as the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, will probably remember to his cost. But at every point, the tyres on legislation need to be kicked to make sure that the Secretary of State has just the powers that they need—and that we do not go further than we need to or have a skeleton Bill, et cetera—so the usual mantra will apply: we want to make sure that the Secretary of State’s powers are proportionate.

It would be very useful to hear from the Minister what other powers are involved. Is it quite a number, were these two just the most plausible or are there six other sets of powers which might not be so attractive? That is the only caveat I would make in this respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out this instrument so clearly. It certainly seems to make the necessary relatively simple adjustments to fill an important gap that has been identified. Although I have some questions, I will keep my remarks fairly brief.

I will reflect on the growing importance of both the Online Safety Act and the duty we have placed on Ofcom’s shoulders. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the long-standing consequential nature of the creation of Ofcom and the Communications Act were well made in this respect. The necessary complexity and scope of the work of Ofcom, as our online regulator, has far outgrown what I imagine was foreseeable at the time of its creation. We have given it the tasks of developing and enforcing safety standards, as well as issuing guidance and codes of practice that digital services must follow to comply with the Act. Its role includes risk assessment, compliance, monitoring and enforcement, which can of course include issuing fines or mandating changes to how services operate. Its regulatory powers now allow it to respond to emerging online risks, helping to ensure that user-protection measures keep pace with changes in the digital landscape.

In recognising the daily growing risk of online dangers and the consequent burdens on Ofcom, we of course support any measures that bring clarity and simplicity. If left unaddressed, the identified gap here clearly could lead to regulatory inefficiencies and delays in crucial processes that depend on accurate and up-to-date information. For example, setting appropriate fee thresholds for regulated entities requires detailed knowledge of platform compliance and associated risks, which would be challenging to achieve without full data access. During post-implementation reviews, a lack of access to necessary business information could hamper the ability to assess whether the Act is effectively achieving its safety objectives or whether adjustments are needed.

That said, I have some questions, and I hope that, when she rises, the Minister will set out the Government’s thinking on them. My first question very much picks up on the point made—much better than I did—by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. It is important to ensure that this instrument does not grant unrestricted access to business information but, rather, limits sharing to specific instances where it is genuinely necessary for the Secretary of State to fulfil their duties under the Act. How will the Government ensure this?

Secondly, safeguards, such as data protection laws and confidentiality obligations under the Communications Act 2003, must be in place to guarantee that any shared information is handled responsibly and securely. Do the Government believe that sufficient safeguards are already in place?

Thirdly, in an environment of rapid technology change, how do the Government plan to keep online safety regulation resilient and adaptive? I look forward to hearing the Government’s views on these questions, but, as I say, we completely welcome any measure that increases clarity and simplicity and makes it easier for Ofcom to be effective.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. It goes without saying that the Government are committed to the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act. It is critical that we remove any barriers to that, as we are doing with this statutory instrument.

As noble Lords said—the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, stressed this—the Online Safety Act has taken on a growing significance in the breadth and depth of its reach. It is very much seen as an important vehicle for delivering the change that the whole of society wants now. It is important that we get this piece of legislation right. For that purpose, this statutory instrument will ensure that Ofcom can co-operate and share online safety information with the Secretary of State where it is appropriate to do so, as was intended during the Act’s development.

On specific questions, all three noble Lords who spoke asked whether the examples given were exclusive or whether there are other areas where powers might be given to the Secretary of State. The examples given are the two areas that are integral to implementation. We have not at this stage identified any further areas. The instrument would change to allow sharing only for the purposes of fulfilling the Secretary of State’s functions under the Online Safety Act—it does not go any broader than that. I think that answers the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, about whether this meant unlimited access—I assure him that that is not the purpose of this SI.

My noble friend Lord Stevenson asked whether this relates only to the powers under the OSA. Yes, the instrument allows Ofcom to share information it has collected from businesses only for the purposes of fulfilling the Secretary of State’s functions under the Act.

On the question of devolution, the powers of Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh Ministers primarily relate to the power to define the educational establishments for the purpose of Schedule 1 exemptions. There are also some consultation provisions where these Ministers must be consulted, but that is the limit of the powers that those Ministers would have.

I am conscious that I have not answered all the questions asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, because I could not write that quickly—but I assure him that my officials have made a note of them and, if I have not covered those issues, I will write to him.

I hope that noble Lords agree with me on the importance of implementing the Online Safety Act and ensuring that it can become fully operational as soon as possible. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Whistleblowers

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current capacity and efficacy of the law to provide confidentiality for whistleblowers and to protect them from retaliation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, whistleblowers play an important role in shining a light on wrongdoing in public life. They need confidence that they will be taken seriously and will have legal recourse if subjected to detriment or dismissal for making a protected disclosure. There are already day-one rights for workers, but we intend to strengthen whistleblowers’ protections.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, whistleblowers who are defined as workers, and therefore protected by the existing law, still fail to win 96% of their cases in employment tribunals because of evidentiary requirements. They are financially ruined by cases that can drag on for years and, even if they win, their careers are destroyed because the tribunal does not acknowledge blacklisting. Will the Minister commit to an office of the whistleblower to ensure genuine protection for whistleblowers and proper investigation of tip-offs—to avoid a repeat of Horizon Post Office, Grenfell, financial mis-selling, Letby and Al Fayed, to name but a few?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise those cases. We all take those issues very seriously, and we have debated them here in the Chamber on many occasions. There should not be a need for anybody to whistleblow; people should have their concerns taken seriously in the first place. This Government are absolutely determined, from the top, to make sure that people who have concerns at the workplace are able to raise them without the detriment to which the noble Baroness refers. With regard to an office for the whistleblower, there are a number of ideas around this. We are looking at the role and remit that such a body could have. There will be a need to look at the cost, role and function of a potential new body, but we are looking at all the ways we can ensure that whistleblowers are protected at the workplace, as they should be.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, alongside the essential statutory protection of whistleblowers, the current director of the Serious Fraud Office has repeatedly emphasised the importance of offering incentives to the whistleblowers. My noble friend will be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in May, when he was talking about a crackdown on money laundering and corruption, stated that a Labour Government would

“launch a new whistleblower reward scheme to incentivise and encourage sources to step forward”.

Can my noble friend the Minister outline where the Government’s thinking is on balancing the need for these incentives, as well as the existing legal protection?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we are continuing to look at the whistleblowing regulations. We understand that there may be a need to review them further; a review was carried out by the previous Government. But I reiterate the point I made earlier: there should not be a need for whistleblowers to come forward; they should be protected in the workplace to come forward with their concerns. This requires leadership from the top in every department to make sure that those concerns are heard and acted upon properly. That is what we intend to do across government—make sure that people do not have to resort to whistleblowing to make sure the terrible incidents they are shining a light on finally come to light.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, non-disclosure agreements are protective of the confidentiality of wrongdoers. They are frequently employed against whistleblowers. Is the Minister confident that non-disclosure agreements that are not consistent with the public interest, including those concealing criminal activity, are and will be non-enforceable in our courts? If she is not confident of that, will the Government bring forward appropriate legislation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right, but we have already noted the concerns about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. We share his concern, because they are being used to silence whistleblowers and cover up sexual harassment and discrimination. I stress that there are existing legal limits to how NDAs can be used in an employment context, which means they are void and unenforceable in certain circumstances. The use of NDAs is not something we would support and, if there were ways of limiting it, we would do so.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is it possible to ensure with legislation that any company that victimises whistleblowers or trade union members could be banned from taking any public sector work in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We are looking at the way we give future government contracts; that is a huge piece of work that is taking place. I will certainly take the noble Baroness’s point on board and see whether that has a role. We want to make sure that the allocation of public funding to organisations is done on a fair and transparent basis.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, this is not just a situation facing the private sector; the public sector also has significant issues of whistleblowing. This year the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care pledged before the election—I am aware that plenty of pledges were made before the election, so the Minister may be confused about this—that NHS managers who silence and scapegoat

“will never work in the NHS again”.

Has that goal been achieved? If not, when do the Government intend to achieve it?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I say, we are absolutely committed to lead from the top on this issue. That includes in the health service where, as the noble Lord said, there have been some terrible examples of professional staff being discriminated against and losing their jobs. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health is working on this issue, and I hope to be able to come back to the House in due course and update noble Lords on the progress being made.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, last week I chaired a meeting upstairs with about two dozen whistleblowers, who each spoke about their experiences in the public sector and the private sector and their appalling treatment from their employers. Many of them lost their homes, partners and jobs, and there was no fair trial or hearing. Does my noble friend not agree that more needs to be done? Will she look carefully at the Bill promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to set up a whistleblowing office so that everybody knows where to go? Otherwise, we are never going to have a one-stop shop that is safe for whistleblowers, which is surely what we need.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I say, we are looking at the calls for an office for the whistleblower. It is a proposal that I know attracts a great deal of support. We are considering other ideas as well, but we want to make sure that all the individuals my noble friend talks about have somewhere they can go and have their complaints taken seriously. We understand that. That requires changes in process and in procedure, but ultimately in culture so that these individuals are taken seriously. We will drive that forward and we will require employers to take these issues seriously, but for the moment we are still working on whether we need a specific office for the whistleblower.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, on 29 July I submitted a Written Question to His Majesty’s Government to ask

“what payments they have made to whistleblowers in the NHS in each of the last five years (1) as part of non-disclosure agreements reached through out-of-court settlements, and (2) as the result of a decision by an employment tribunal”.

I was very surprised by this part of the reply on 6 August:

“The Department does not hold the information requested. National Health Service organisations are independent employers and have their own policies and procedures in resolving workplace disputes, which should be aligned to current employment law and good human resources practice”.


Does the Minister agree that such an approach does not meet the need for public accountability and public audit, and that the Government and the public should know what sums are being spent, including legal costs?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I will take that back to the Secretary of State and discuss it with him further.

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, if we go down the road of an office of the whistleblower, which is an excellent idea, could the Minister take back that we need to put something in legislation to protect whistleblowers who are attacked in a vile way on social media, to the point of almost committing suicide? We need really strong protections.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. I cannot emphasise enough how important these things are. We need to protect whistleblowers and make sure that their concerns are taken seriously, and we need to create a culture in which their views are respected rather than denigrated.

Medical Product Liability

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to raise the statutory limitation period for bringing a claim for medical product liability from 10 years to 20.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, our sympathies remain with those affected by faulty medical devices, and I pay tribute to the campaigners on these issues. The UK product liability legislation has been in place since 1987. My department is undertaking a review of this legislation and we will set out next steps in due course. Following this review, should we believe that changes are necessary, we will bring forward the necessary primary legislation to ensure that it remains up to date and fit for purpose.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, tens of thousands of women have been impacted by defective medical devices, such as certain contraceptive or breast implants or vaginal mesh. Men are impacted too through hernia mesh and hip replacements. The current 10-year statutory limit starts from the moment of manufacture, not use. Symptoms may take many years to become known, and that can be compounded by frequent misdiagnosis. Of course, we need to ensure that new and innovative products reach market, but the current limit means that many people are simply timed out of making claims for often life-changing impacts from faulty products. I am really pleased to hear the Minister confirm that this will be reviewed. As part of the review, can the Minister agree to meet campaigners from the Raise the Limit campaign to discuss this further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lady Merron is planning to engage with those groups representing the patients who have been affected and to follow up on The Hughes Report and listen to their experiences. We will be contacting those groups in due course.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, do my noble friend the Minister and ministerial colleagues in her department and the Department of Health intend to meet the Patient Safety Commissioner in the interim, while these issues are being discussed? As the noble Baroness has said, these particular issues to do with breast implants and other medical devices have, in some areas, been found to be deficient.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we very much welcome the appointment of Dr Henrietta Hughes as the Patient Safety Commissioner. We have been looking at the details of her work and hope to come back in due course, particularly on the report that she produced in February. I understand that my noble friend Lady Merron has already met the Patient Safety Commissioner; she has been on a joint visit with her and plans to meet her again in the future.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, there are over 600,000 medical devices used in the United Kingdom. Worldwide, there are probably over 2 million medical devices being used. People obviously want the devices as soon as they are available on the market without having been tested medically first. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government intend to review the legislation, particularly as it applies to class 3 devices; they are mostly implant devices and cause most of the damage, including the mesh and other implanted devices. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will look in a stratified way as to where the legislation should apply and to what category of device?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have already done considerable work on this, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her original work on this, as well as now to the Patient Safety Commissioner. We are looking in detail at these issues and will continue to do so. I should make it clear, however, that should we make any changes to the legislation, it will require—as I understand it—primary legislation. It will not in any case be retrospective, so all we can do is look at products going forward. Obviously, patient safety is our primary concern and is absolutely at the forefront of our mind in taking these issues forward.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, in discussing patient safety, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for all her work on patient safety and medical devices over the years. I think noble Lords were very reassured to hear from the Minister that the Government are going to review the timeframe on medical product liability. Is she able to give us a bit more detail about that process, perhaps including timeframes, and what the process will entail, including consultation and who will be consulted?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The Government are reviewing our product liability law but, as I say, making those changes requires primary legislation. Before we do that, we will consult all the appropriate parties to ensure that any updates we make to our product liability legislation continue to give the best protection to consumers and patients. It is of course important that we liaise with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that any specific concerns about medical products are taken into account. That review is ongoing and will be underlined by full consultation.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, the review mentioned by the Minister is very welcome. One major element will be that, on many occasions, women who make complaints in medical settings are not listened to in the way we would want. We have seen many reviews of maternity and other services where women’s fears, concerns and complaints have been ignored. This is a very important element because, since that will take time, it makes the time for complaints even longer. I hope that will be taken on board.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point: women’s voices have often not been heard in the past and we are absolutely determined to make sure that they are in the future. We will take steps to reach out, to make sure that everybody feels that if they have a concern or complaint, it is taken seriously. I know my colleagues in the Department of Health will absolutely follow that up.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in other areas of the law of limitation of actions, courts do not necessarily have a hard and fast line: the court is given a discretion to disapply the limitation period depending on the particular circumstances. Does the Minister think that that would be a helpful way of dealing with what can be a real injustice?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I bow to the noble Lord’s greater knowledge of this issue. My understanding is that any changes we want to make will require primary legislation, and that claims under the current legislation cannot be made more than 10 years after the product which caused the damage was supplied. There may be exceptions to that and perhaps the noble Lord and I could discuss that outside.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, does this cover generic medicines too?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The product liability legislation covers all types of products, not just medical products, so I am sure generic medicines will be covered by it as well.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister makes the important point that primary legislation will be needed and that it cannot be retrospective. Can she give a commitment to those people who will be suffering from a possible product defect or failure that the primary legislation will be brought forward in this Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I say, this is a matter for our colleagues in the Department of Health and I know that they will be taking these concerns into account. For the time being, all I can say is that they will be looking at the issues and coming forward with legislation that they think is most appropriate to address these issues.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to add unnecessarily to the list of concerns, but only last week the EU, after many years, amended its product liability directive, and there is now a 25-year limit for latent personal injuries from products. We are in a position where, if you are going to market, you will potentially go to market in the UK rather than in the EU because, as the Minister said, it is not retrospective. I impress on her the urgency of this, because we are completely out of step with our EU neighbours.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness rightly says, the EU is proposing to extend the limit for claims to 25 years in cases where the latency of a personal injury prevented the claim being brought within 10 years. As I say, this will apply only to products placed on the market following the introduction of the necessary legislation by member states. Again, I say that, sadly, it will not be retrospective, but we are of course looking at what is happening in the EU and talking to our EU partners.

Biocidal Products: Hand and Body Washes

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what restrictions they are considering placing on the use of biocidal products in over-the-counter hand and body washes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, biocides are a broad group of chemicals that include preservatives vital for ensuring the shelf life of cosmetic products. Preservatives proposed for use in cosmetics must be approved by the Secretary of State, following consideration by the independent scientific advisory group on chemical safety, before being added to the permitted list in the cosmetics regulation. Cosmetic products with a secondary biocidal function are permitted only if they are safe for human health.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. She and other noble Lords will have received a briefing on this matter from Dr Paul-Enguerrand Fady at the Centre for Long-Term Resilience. The Minister referred to preservatives, but many products are advertised as being biocidal. That briefing refers to a British Medical Journal article, which talks about biocide resistance as

“a new scourge of the infectious disease world”.

There is a lot of focus on antimicrobial and antifungal resistance, but does the Minister agree on the need to focus on biocide resistance as well? Will she direct the department to look at biocide resistance and see what can be done to tackle what that article describes as a “scourge”?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about the impact on antimicrobial resistance that could result from these products. The Government are already focusing the second of our five-year national plans on this, and we support the 20-year vision established by the previous Government to ensure that antimicrobial resistance will be controlled and contained by 2040. This is an important issue that crosses over into human health in the wider sphere, so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, the outer layer of skin acts as a barrier and has a lot of naturally occurring bacteria on it all the time. Pathogenic, harmful bacteria also accumulate there, and there are secretions on the skin that act as natural biocides. The problem with some of these products is that they attempt to knock out all the bacteria, so they knock out the ones that are protective of you as well as harmful ones. The other problem is that there are reactions to some of the chemicals—quite nasty, local, allergic skin reactions. Therefore, will the Government seriously consider whether it is not much safer for us simply to advocate using old-fashioned soap and water frequently to wash hands and all our skin so that we do not transfer harmful bacteria from one person to another?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness obviously has given us very good advice on this issue. There is no need for many of these products to be on the market. There is a challenge that they are increasingly on the market, particularly after Covid. The Government are continuing to keep the new products under review and the opinions of the scientific advisory group on chemical safety will continue to drive our view—but the noble Baroness has given very good advice about soap and water.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we are bombarded with television adverts for products to ensure that our homes smell floral and that every germ is wiped from kitchen surfaces, including the trays of babies’ high chairs. While it is important that bacteria and viruses are kept at bay, a little dirt is often a good thing. Little is known of the effects of antimicrobial products in toxic biocidal products. In October 2022, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee warned of the danger of these substances. Will the Government support the PMB on this subject when it comes forward?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about the marketing of some of these products. There are requirements, under the cosmetic regulation requirements, to make sure that such products are advertised appropriately, and there is enforcement by local trading standards offices to make sure that that is the case. We are looking at the Private Member’s Bill in detail and will come to a view on it in due course.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there might be some challenges for members of the public in understanding what is actually meant by biocidal products? Given the number of categories and the different types of chemicals that could be classified as such, it is a bit of a nightmare for people wanting to understand what they are purchasing. Is it possible for the Government to work with stakeholders to look at whether there needs to be more transparency about what is in these products?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about education. We have already established that we need to keep the regulatory framework on these products under review, particularly with regard to new threats and hazards that might occur from them. That is why we have introduced the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will give the Government much more flexibility to look at these new products in future. But, yes, there is a huge job of education to be done about such products, and I thank the noble Baroness for her point.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is it worth the Minister checking with advisers whether they have actually read Dr Fady’s research and are taking that into account?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I hope that they have, because I asked them to look at it—so let us assume that they have done. This is a fast-moving area. We have a Private Member’s Bill coming up, and we will obviously look again at the science behind all this. With any new science coming forward, obviously we want to welcome any new evidence. We are very aware that we need to keep people safe. As I said originally, not only is it about the safety of the individual but if we allow antimicrobial resistance to develop, everybody will be affected—and it will have an adverse effect on all human beings.

Independent Pornography Review

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what stage the Independent Pornography Review has reached and what are its findings to date.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, the work of the independent pornography review is an important area of interest to this Government. The review, commissioned in December 2023, will assess the effectiveness of current pornography legislation, regulation and enforcement. I met with the leader of the review, the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, to express our support for this work to tackle issues that I know are important to everybody in this Chamber, particularly that of tackling violence against women. The Government are looking forward to seeing the review’s final report later this year. Given its independence, I am unable to share the review’s findings so far.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that positive response. The rules on how pornographic content is regulated are different online compared with offline. Because of the impact this harmful and violent content is having on women and children, I, along with other noble Lords, called during the passage of the Online Safety Act for it to be regulated online the same as it is offline. Does the Minister agree that regulating online pornography would aid the Government’s mission to dramatically reduce violence against women and girls within the next decade? What plans do they have to ensure that online pornography is regulated the same way as offline?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the review is looking at this important area of work within its terms of reference, and obviously, we are very interested in its recommendations. I say to the noble Baroness, though, that alignment between the online and offline world is not as straightforward as it might seem, given the volume and spread of content online. Nevertheless, it is an important aspiration and we look forward to hearing what the review will say in guiding us forward on this issue.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response so far. In a previous debate on this issue, I raised the need for robustness from Ofcom. Therefore, will she outline what action the Government will take to ensure that Ofcom acts in a more robust form and, if it does not, what action the Government will then take?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. We are absolutely determined to keep children safe online and to use the Online Safety Act to provide protection across all the categories under its jurisdiction. Ofcom’s draft guidance lays out which technologies could constitute, for example, highly effective age assurance to protect children, and it will have a full range of enforcement powers to take action against companies that do not follow the duties, including substantial fines. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that robustness is key here. I think some people are frustrated that some of the duties in the Online Safety Act are taking time to be rolled out, but it was a feature of the Act that it would be done on that basis. We are very keen, as everybody in the House is, to see it enacted in full as soon as it can be.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, the Revenge Porn Helpline has a removal rate of 90% of non-consensually shared intimate content, including deepfake. However, in 10% of cases, the host site will not comply with its removal, even where there has been a successful conviction. These sites are often hosted in Russia and Latin America, and are unlikely to come under Ofcom’s scope, even with the changes that make sharing a priority offence. Can the Minister inform the House what action the Government are taking to address non-compliance, and does she agree that it would be better adopt a rapid and wide-ranging approach—favoured by victims—to deem NCII content illegal, thus giving internet service providers the power to block it?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her continuing interest in this issue and her campaigning work. The Government have already put forward secondary legislation to ensure that the new intimate image abuse offence is made a priority under the Online Safety Act, and all other acts of deepfake portrayal will come under the Act if they are illegal. Going back to the earlier question about robustness, we absolutely expect Ofcom to implement those protections in a robust way.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that every effort must be made to protect children who feature in pornography? It is just dreadful.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The scale of violent images featuring women and girls in our country is intolerable, and this Government will treat it as the national emergency it is. The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the Government have set out an unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. We are using every government tool we have to target the perpetrators and address the root cause of violence. That involves many legislative and non-legislative measures, as the noble Lord will appreciate, including tackling the education issue. However, ultimately, we have to make sure that the legislation is robust and that we take action, which we intend to do.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister and others have mentioned, there is considerable and increasing concern about deepfake pornographic material, particularly the so-called nudification apps, which can be easily accessed by users of any age. What action will the Government be taking against this unacceptable technology, and will an offence be included in the forthcoming crime and policing Bill?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. Where nudification apps and other material do not come under the remit of the Online Safety Act, we will look at other legislative tools to make sure that all new forms of technology—including AI and its implications for online images —are included in robust legislation, in whatever form it takes. Our priority is to implement the Online Safety Act, but we are also looking at what other tools might be necessary going forward. As the Secretary of State has said, this is an iterative process; the Online Safety Act is not the end of the game. We are looking at what further steps we need to take, and I hope the noble Lord will bear with us.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

What is the Government’s assessment of the technical difficulties behind requiring pornography sites and others to implement age-verification services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We are working with Ofcom on the requirement to introduce age-appropriate protections. A number of businesses are already beginning to do that, as I am sure the noble Lord knows. Our task is not to find the technology, which I believe is already out there; it is to make sure we have a standardised system that runs across all businesses and social media sites, so that people can be assured the same rules are being applied across the piece, rather than individual companies introducing their own age-assurance and age-protection requirements. I would like to think that it is not a technological bar we are confronting.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, a great deal of the efforts of those of us involved in the passage of the Online Safety Act were focused on safeguarding children. Given that primary school children onwards can easily access the internet and online pornography, and given that research shows that one in eight pieces of pornography is actively violent, and eight and nine year-olds are seeing that, will the Government please recognise this issue and take action? I do not want to be asking this question again in a year’s time.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right about that. However, I reassure him that Ofcom has robust enforcement powers that will be available to use against companies that do not fulfil their duties to take action against these sites. The frustration is, in part, because not all aspects of the Online Safety Act have been introduced yet; some are not coming onstream until next year. But I like to think that once all the elements of the Act are introduced, we will have a robust system. As I have said, if gaps appear we will take action to try to fill them. It is not our intention to have an incomplete range of legislative tools to tackle what, as the noble Lord says, is a very important threat to our country.

Electronic Media: False Information

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Online Safety Act will be our key tool in combating online misinformation and disinformation. It sets out a regulatory framework to tackle misinformation and disinformation where they constitute illegal content or harmful content to children. In addition, we are educating and empowering users through our work on media literacy, to increase society’s resilience to misinformation and disinformation. Officials are also regularly engaged with major platforms about disinformation activity, emerging risks and platform responses.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, the threat posed by electronic media manifests itself in at least two ways. As we saw during the recent riots, electronic media was used to spread lies and misinformation about refugees and asylum seekers, and urged people to use violence. It is also being used to try to undermine our democracy, again through lies and misinformation. Does the Minister agree that our electronic media poses a threat to both our democracy and our social cohesion? Is she satisfied that the Government have enough powers to deal with these threats, bearing in mind that we probably will need effective international co-operation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we must protect the UK’s democratic integrity. Our Defending Democracy Taskforce safeguards our democratic institutions and processes from threats, including misinformation and disinformation. Sharing best practice and strategic insights with international partners helps industry and Government to protect our democracy from media threats. Under the Online Safety Act, companies must act against illegal content, including the incitement of violence, hate speech and state-backed disinformation, and remove it. Where hateful content or misinformation and disinformation are prohibited in the largest platforms’ terms of service, they must remove it.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)]

My Lords, false information is as likely to be spread through online platforms with smaller numbers of users as those with many users. We have heard about the role of Telegram in spreading disinformation about this summer’s disorder, as well as the terrible suicide forums. I was very pleased to see the Secretary of State’s letter to Ofcom this week on “small but risky” online services. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue of platform categorisation, given the amendment I proposed to the then Online Safety Bill, which this House passed in July 2023?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss this further, and I pay tribute to the work she has done on this issue in the past. On “small but risky” services, as she knows, the Secretary of State has written to Melanie Dawes, the CEO of Ofcom, and a very detailed reply was received today from Ofcom. We are still absorbing everything that it is proposing, but it is clear that it is taking this issue very seriously. That will give us the focus for our discussion when we meet.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, we have seen the first charge under the Online Safety Act’s false communications offence. To facilitate further prosecutions for false communications, can the Minister support statutory guidance to further define the term “non-trivial psychological harm” on a likely audience caused by disinformation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, all this information will be detailed in the Ofcom guidance to be published in due course. This includes not only illegal harms but all the other issues under the category that the noble Viscount mentioned, all of which will be covered by the Ofcom codes to be published in due course.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, part of the challenge of addressing the proliferation of misinformation is the large volume of accounts created solely to spread information that is not verifiable and is fake. Often, these accounts are bots, as we call them. Have the Government considered introducing mandatory verification of identity on social media, so that platforms know the identity of all their users without removing their anonymity?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. This will depend very much on the terms of service of those individual platforms, the whole basis of which, as she knows, is to provide that anonymity. We would need a much more detailed discussion about them and about whether individuals should be identified. However, she is right that the proliferation of bots is a dangerous issue, and we need to be aware of it, not only in the UK but in state-sponsored attacks on our democracy.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that tech billionaires are richer, more powerful and sometimes more arrogant than whole countries? With hindsight, fawning before them at Bletchley Park was not a good idea for any British Government. Will the Foreign Office explore treaty-making to examine the kind of future co-operation that my noble friend Lady Kennedy suggested?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have engagement with the large platforms at every level, including of course on the aspects of business and trade to which they contribute. I reassure my noble friend that, however big those companies are, they must comply with UK laws. We will ensure, throughout the rollout of the Online Safety Act, that everybody, however big and rich the individual, must comply with the Act.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, is not the reality that there has been a huge shift of global power in favour of the giant electronic platforms? I see that, for instance, the French have gone so far as to arrest the chairman of one of the biggest platforms in the world. Is that the kind of remedy that we will consider here?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I reiterate to the noble Lord that we have very high expectations of companies that have access to the British economy and society. If they do not adhere to the law or act in any way that contributes positively to our society, we will be increasingly assertive in our response, including by making full use of the powers brought in by the Online Safety Act. They are not above the law, and we will monitor their activities carefully.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister acknowledge that there is some concern that the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” are being weaponised to justify partisan censorship, although free speech is vital for democracy. Can she comment on the seeming immunity for some misinformation? An example is when high-profile anti-hate NGOs terrified local communities by announcing that 100 far-right protests were planned. When they did not materialise, the NGOs admitted that it was probably a hoax, but they were congratulated because it led to positive “stand up to racism” headlines. It seems like double standards.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Where people are instigating violence, hatred, misogyny and so on, we will take action against them, however we define it. This is a very difficult area, because we have to balance free speech with the regulations we will introduce, but people have to comply with the law.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I will follow on from the questions on international co-operation raised by my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Chakrabarti. By chance it was only on Monday that I chaired a meeting in Edinburgh of the Council of Europe Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society. We discussed fake news and all the aspects raised today. Can the Minister make sure that her department is in close touch with the Council of Europe in Strasburg and that there is co-operation between its 46 member countries?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend makes the important point that international co-operation is absolutely vital. We continue to talk to all our friends across the globe, exchanging information and making sure that best practice arises from those discussions.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, research by Vodafone found that algorithms are pushing content to boys related to misogyny and violence following innocent and unrelated searches. Can the Minister say whether the Government are looking into how these algorithms have been used not only to push misinformation and disinformation but to push people towards and reinforce more extreme views?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, deepfakes and other forms of manipulated media are captured by the Online Safety Act where they constitute illegal content or harmful content to children in scope of the regulatory framework. Under the Act, all companies will be forced to take action against illegal content online, including illegal misinformation and disinformation, and they will be required to remove in-scope content. These duties will also apply to in-scope AI-generated content and AI-powered features.

Post Office Horizon: Redress

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, about the Government’s Statement being very welcome and the attempt to try to unscramble some of the complexities of the scheme, but from these Benches too we are concerned about the low level of conclusion of cases, despite the process. I echo his questions about how this is being managed. Mindful that there are other inquiry redress processes that have hit problems and have had to repeatedly be redesigned, my first question to the Minister is to ask whether she is absolutely convinced that she has addressed all of them. I shall come on to a couple of specific points.

Chris Head, a former sub-postmaster who lost everything when he was wrongly accused of theft, has spoken up since the publication of the statements with some concerns, saying:

“The remit of the appeal process cannot be restricted to only those that produce new evidence. Many people have been materially disadvantaged by not having access to legal advice and interim payments that were only introduced in November 2022. This appeals mechanism must be available to everyone that has settled claims since the scheme launched in 2020 to ensure they are properly compensated back to a position they would have been in had the scandal not happened”.


Members of your Lordships’ House, including the Minister, I think, have repeatedly raised concerns about the difference between these various schemes for different sub-postmasters and staff. While it is good that the Government want to have an independent appeals process for the HSS, I remind her that the complex redress schemes arising out of other tragic scandals have had to be adapted. It took the work done on the Victims and Prisoners Act to create the infected blood compensation scheme earlier this year—with an enormous amount of energy—to untangle all the different parts of that redress scheme. Does the Minister recognise that Mr Head and others have valid concerns about inconsistencies between the schemes, and that trying to sort all this out now, at pace, as was done with the infected blood scheme, must be a priority?

I want to raise two other issues briefly. First, on the predecessor package to Horizon, known as Capture, I raised the issue of the postmasters and staff who lost their jobs because of Capture, some of whom were also prosecuted but many of whom were sacked. The Independent newspaper and ITN have given voice to these victims. When will the Government’s own investigation into Capture be published and when will they update your Lordships’ House on its findings? Should redress be due, will it be incorporated into the existing postmasters’ scheme, or will there have to be a brand-new one?

Finally, in July, my noble friend Lord Fox raised again the issue of those not included in the overturning of convictions because they had appealed their cases and lost in the Appeal Court. Both he and I had helpful discussions with the previous Minister. The concern was expressed that the judiciary, in particular, had felt it was wrong for this group of victims to have their cases overturned under the legislation in the summer, because there was some merit to other parts of the cases brought against them. Yet, that question was not asked of any other case whatever, only those that went to appeal. Are the Government prepared to reconsider that? What now exists in the redress scheme is a small group of people who have to have an exceptionally high bar of going to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, hoping that it will refer their cases back to the Court of Appeal. This seems unfair and particularly long term, which means these victims will not get resolution for a long time to come.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lords for raising these points on what is clearly a very important issue. I have to say that it upsets me greatly to hear of the harrowing experiences postmasters faced over so many years. I understand and have the utmost respect for their wish for full, fair, speedy redress, for answers from the inquiry about what went wrong and for people to be properly held to account for what has happened. This scandal represents one of the biggest miscarriages of justice of our time, and it is crucial that we get redress for those affected as quickly as possible. This is what we are focusing on as a Government—fair and timely redress for postmasters—and we will continue to work with and support the Post Office Horizon inquiry as it carries out its vital work in establishing the facts about what went wrong in this scandal.

Before I turn to the specific questions raised, I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, to all the many postmasters who have championed this cause and to Sir Alan Bates and Lady Suzanne, whom I congratulate on their recent wedding. I also thank members of the advisory board, including the noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot, who are members of the Horizon advisory board. I thank them for their advocacy for postmasters affected by the scandal over many years and for their hard work in helping the Government improve the delivery of redress. We shall continue to listen to their advice.

Turning to the subject in hand and the questions the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked, we will look to establish the new Horizon shortfall scheme appeal process announced yesterday as quickly as possible. Postmasters’ stories are harrowing, but their resilience and steadfastness in seeking justice are inspiring. The Government’s priority is ensuring that the victims of the scandal receive the redress they deserve. We want to help bring some closure to postmasters as soon as we can. I cannot give an exact timeline today, but it is likely that it will be launched in the new year. We will keep postmasters updated on its development.

I can reassure noble Lords that legal advice will be available from the outset for those who enter the appeals process. We want the appeals process to be available to all those who are not satisfied that they received the correct amount of compensation. As in the case of the broader design of the process, we will engage with postmasters and the advisory board on the detailed approach before agreeing and setting out in due course details on eligibility criteria.

The appeals process is intended to support, in particular, those who have settled their claim but feel that they were unable to set it out in full in their initial application. There are a variety of reasons why postmasters may have been unable to do so, and these will be considered when designing the process and its eligibility criteria. It will also be open to more recent applicants who have not yet settled and are unhappy with the offer they have received from the Post Office. However, on the specific question from the noble Lord, those who have accepted £75,000 are not eligible for an appeal. They were told this at the outset, when they accepted the payment.

The Government are committed to ensuring that we support postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal to get the redress they deserve. We plan to continue to work in a cross-party way on this important national priority, which of course was highlighted so well by the ITV drama “Mr Bates vs. The Post Office” earlier this year, and in last night’s follow-up documentary.

The noble Baroness asked about the investigation into the Capture software. We expect to receive this report shortly, and the conclusion of this exercise will support the Government in determining whether postmasters faced detriment due to the Capture system and what steps should be taken based on the conclusions of the investigation.

The noble Lord asked how many payments have been made for the Horizon convictions redress scheme. As of 30 August, we have made six interim payments totalling £1.2 million. As of 6 September, 178 letters have been issued by the MoJ. On the issue of the MoJ letters, as the Secretary of the State said yesterday, the state of the records has, sadly, delayed the process. This is a real frustration, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that, after everything people have been through, we should not take the risk of sending out a letter incorrectly. The Government are grateful for the support of the HSS appeals mechanism.

To all those who think that this is not moving fast enough, I can reassure them that we are moving at speed on this issue. There are a huge number of technical and legal issues that we are still ironing out, but we understand the need to move and resolve these issues at speed.

In response to the noble Lord’s point about cultural issues, I agree they are important, and I hope they will come out in the final phase of Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry. Hopefully, we can follow it up and act on it.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I served on the Select Committee on the Inquiries Act, and, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, it is clear that there are a number of schemes set up in a number of ways. Although, as in court cases, the compensation arises from very different circumstances, there could be standard tariffs or set amounts in certain instances. Can the Minister assure us that there are meetings between the departments running these schemes, and that we are not going to see headlines about the care of someone in a home, saying they got this amount from one scheme and that amount from another? We need to make sure that every avenue is sealed off, so that the compensation is fair.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. We do have a number of schemes with different eligibility criteria. We are doing everything we can to standardise them and to make sure that people are treated fairly. Of course, people are at different stages in the process. Some have already started their applications, while others have yet to do so. We are doing everything we can to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and in the way they should be, following this terrible scandal.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her very detailed Statement in relation to this egregious issue that goes back so many years. So many sub-postmasters were wrongly convicted and wrongly maligned.

Will sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland be eligible to apply to this appeals system? They were similarly affected and some of them were similarly prosecuted. Also, some sub-postmasters have said to me that the original compensation scheme has been too slow in reaching them. So I would like assurances that the appeals system, where it applies, is acted on expeditiously.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Again, my noble friend makes a very important point about speed. I think I have reiterated that we absolutely get and understand that message. I hope that, when people come to look back on the actions we have taken, further delays will not be one of the criticisms that come to mind, because I really feel that we are acting at the absolute top rate that we possibly can.

With regard to where there are specific arrangements in Northern Ireland, I apologise that I do not know the answer to that. I will write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, in my capacity as an MP in the other place, I came across a number of cases of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who were investigated and subject to the most enormous amount of stress and financial hardship, but then simply handed in their lease because they had had enough. They have since been completely vindicated. Many of this particular cohort appear to be falling by the wayside in terms of compensation. What do HMG plan to do about them?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that the individuals to which the noble Lord refers will be picked up by one of the number of schemes we now have. We now have what I hope is a comprehensive set of schemes that apply to all circumstances, so my understanding is that people who left because they were suffering hardship while not necessarily having a conviction should be covered by the scheme.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I beg to move that the House be adjourned for a period of five minutes.