Digital Economy Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register and I would like to make it clear that while the House of Lords Communications Committee on which I serve is in the middle of an inquiry into “Children and the Internet”, I speak not on behalf of that committee but as an individual—albeit one who has spent a great deal of time over the past six years thinking about the relationship between children, young people and digital technologies.

I want to make some general observations about the Bill as a whole and then I will return to the question of children. Like others, I welcome the notion of broadband as a utility, and along with that the establishment of a universal service order providing for the introduction of a minimum speed. However, I am aware of the argument against regulation in all parts of the value chain of the tech industry, with one of the major points being the speed of technological change and the expectations of those using the technology. It races ahead of the pace of legislation. Rather than enshrining the suggested 10 megabits in the universal service order, which will shortly look paltry, perhaps we might look at enshrining the principle of a minimum speed with a mechanism to set it at appropriate levels at appropriate intervals.

The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, set out in great detail some of what I was going to talk about in the world of work, so suffice it to say that I was disappointed not to see much more ambitious intervention as regards skills and training in changing practices at work and measures to tackle the enormous deficit of skills that we anticipate. If we are to get the workforce we need and want for the future, I should mention in particular the need to take a more proactive look at supporting the acquisition by women and girls of digital skills.

I am also disappointed by Part 4, which provides new protection for intellectual copyright, but it seems to be a fairly undisguised battle between Google and major players from other areas of the media industry that make content. What I do not see in this part of the Bill is any attempt to protect user content. It is worth remembering that the vast majority of content on the internet is created by users, most of whom unwittingly transfer their pictures, words, behaviour patterns and intimate thoughts by way of those interminable terms and conditions to companies which sell the information to third parties for advertising. While I acknowledge the need for film studios, recording companies, media conglomerates and the like to be supported in this way, the poor user has not been served. I would have liked the Bill to tackle the question of terms and conditions head on.

The same attitude is evident in Part 5. Personal data are to be collated and shared across public departments. As other speakers have said, there are good reasons for doing so given some of the positive outcomes, but in a world where anything from the result of the American election to the records held by one’s bank or mobile phone company—or indeed the activities of the security services—are all rather insecure, the assurances that such data will be anonymised and individuals protected by the current status quo in the form of the Data Protection Act seem to be fairly absurd. I hope I will be forgiven if I am ignorant, but I could not find in the detail of the Bill a clause dealing with opt-out and how that might work. To allow data collection and sharing by services that one has no choice but to use seems to be setting out on a path that we will need to look at as the Bill goes through its stages in order to get a little more in the way of assurance. Given that we are in the middle of what is an unstoppable trend of outsourcing public services such as prisons, health and social services and even child protection to commercial companies, how does the compulsory sharing of data in the context of public/private partnerships protect the rights of citizens? I feel that we may need to look at this area more carefully.

I turn now to the BBC. I found it wryly amusing that one of the great travesties has been quietly laid out under the title of “Miscellaneous”; it is quite funny. The transfer of policy to the BBC for payment of the over-75s’ free licence is of course an essential piece of housekeeping: he or she who pays must indeed have their hands on the policy. However, as others have said, the BBC is a broadcaster, not a government department. While I am sure that others will join with me, and while I am equally sure that we will be collectively whistling in the wind, we have a new Prime Minister, a new Secretary of State and a new Chancellor. I urge them to distinguish themselves by reversing this unseemly raid on the coffers of the BBC by dropping both the policy and the effective funding cut.

Before I return to the subject of children, I agree with others who have outlined the prominence of the PSBs. The letter of the law is indeed set out in the Communications Act 2003, but it refers to a different technological time. If the commercial companies cannot deliver on the spirit of the law, then those of us in this House should find a way to change the letter of the law.

Part 3 fulfils the Government’s pledge to make commercial pornography sites subject to age verification. The right honourable Matt Hancock said in the other place that the Bill would give children,

“the same sorts of safeguards online as they have offline”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/16; col. 1274.]

I welcome this effort at age verification. I dismiss the previous Secretary of State’s assertion that this is in any way an,

“infringement of the civil liberties of individuals”,—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/16; col. 1301.]

who want to access this same material. However, I feel the Bill is too narrow. I have the dubious privilege in my life as a film-maker of having watched a significant amount of pornography over several decades. I have watched it change over that period. Whatever the pros and cons of watching pornography are as an adult, the one thing I am entirely certain of is that it is a really bad way of learning about sex. That is what is happening.

The accessibility and ubiquity of violent sexual content is transforming young people’s attitudes towards sex. Some of this material is deliberately sought out, but much of it is accidentally thrust upon children, causing distress and confusion—another noble Lord used that word. It is important to remember that young people are not fully formed. They do not know the rights and wrongs and cannot make these fine judgments for themselves. I find it horrifying that a third of 13 to 14 year-olds say that they want to act out the scenes they have viewed. If, like me, noble Lords have seen those scenes they would not wish children at the age of 13 or 14—indeed, possibly at any age—to act them out. There is a statistic from the NSPCC that 53% of boys said that pornography they had seen had depicted a realistic view of sex between two people.

I am going to labour this point. When I was making a film part of which dealt with the relationship between online pornography and teenagers, I came across some emerging trends: increasing and large numbers of young men with erectile dysfunction, desensitised by the constant viewing of extreme pornography; rising numbers of young women presenting at health centres with anal injuries, sustained in sexual relationships with hazy notions of consent and mutuality; and quite ghastly tales of very young children coming across graphic pornography that they could not unsee. Most of all, I was struck by the overwhelming sadness at the number of very young people, boys and girls, who articulated the way that watching pornography was intruding on their ability to form intimate relationships in the real world.

In Committee we will have to look very carefully at what constitutes pornography and exactly how the mechanism of age verification will be applied to preserve the privacy of individuals, because there is not quite enough clarity on either of these things. We will have to do that in the context of realising that a vast amount of porn is user-generated, not from commercial sites. Where does that sit in this picture? We have to recognise that this will not work 100%, but part of what is important about this measure is the adult world suggesting what a social norm might be. For a young child, transgressing and breaking the boundary is an important act in accessing this material. People who say that this is not important because it will not work have the wrong end of the stick.

Others have said but I must say also that, although it obviously will not form part of the Bill, the Government must undertake to take seriously the desire of parents, teachers and young people themselves to have statutory, age-appropriate, well-funded and well-designed SRE in all schools, whatever their status. It must be SRE that takes account of the multitude of good resources that exist for young people online, but which offers a robust and sophisticated alternative to learning about sex from online pornography. Blocking violent sexual content without putting in place positive and uninflected SRE will not serve the nation’s children. It is a developmental imperative to find out about sex; we need to find a safe and secure environment in which to do so.

I return to the Minister’s statement that this is a Bill that will harmonise children’s experiences online and offline. If that was the intention, the Bill as it stands is severely lacking. Children enjoy many more rights. A noble Lord already mentioned the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. There are rights that protect them from commercial exploitation, give them privacy and demand that we take their best interests as paramount. There are rights to the highest goals in education, as well as protection from violence and harm. Those rights and our laws—EU laws and national laws—are consistently thwarted in online and digital settings. We allow profiling and wholesale data gathering. We tolerate hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of underage children using social media sites that have an age limit of 13 years old. As I mentioned, terms and conditions for almost every online business—educational, business or social—are designed to obscure the commercial relationship that a minor is unlawfully entering into.

We have failed to conduct any meaningful conversation, let alone take action, on false news, transparency of search algorithms, gender disparity in the online experience and, most importantly for the young, the constant alerts, interruptions and encouragement to share personal information that are deliberately designed to keep the user using. The evidence is out there and growing. It is becoming very clear that young people are finding it harder and harder to put down their devices. They are tethered to the flashing of the latest alert. This is not an unintended consequence but a deliberate design feature, mirroring the very same design as casino slot machines, with their random rewards setting off dopamine in the brain. There are measurable outcomes that include anxiety and mental health issues at epidemic proportions.

We have to consider this, because this is an opportunity. For young people, the digital world is the world. Our young people will be the workforce, the parents, the teachers, the leaders and the entrepreneurs in this new world. When we consider anything at this level we have to consider how we want to bring them into this world and how that world is designed to treat them.

The Bill was an opportunity to deliver the commitment that Matt Hancock made: to harmonise the online and offline worlds; to make digital services conform to the standards we uphold offline; and to recognise children’s special status as minors, with some measures to protect their data, to have high privacy settings by default, to put digital literacy at the heart of our school system and to take a broader view of the challenges they face. The digital world offers us an unparalleled opportunity for a new and improved world, but we have more than a duty to protect. We have a duty to design the digital world in a way that benefits and empowers our young people.

Digital Economy Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

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

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not taking part in Second Reading. Having led on the Investigatory Powers Bill and the Policing and Crime Bill I was hoping for some time off for good behaviour, but apparently a policeman’s lot is not a happy one, even when he has retired.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and I have Amendment 55B in this group. The first thing to say is that we on these Benches believe everything that can be demonstrated to be effective should be done to restrict children’s access to adult material online. We also believe that everything should be done to ensure that adults can access websites that contain material that it is legal for them to view. That is why Amendment 55B would require the age-verification regulator to produce an annual report on how effective the measures in the Bill have been in general in reducing the number of children accessing adult material online and how effective each enforcement mechanism has been. We also share the concerns expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Howe of Idlicote, on these provisions having been made somewhat at the last minute, and that they may not have been completely thought through.

The aims of the Bill and the other amendments in the group are laudable. The ideal that there should be equal protection for children online as there is offline is a good one, but it is almost impossible to achieve through enforcement alone. We have to be realistic about how relatively easy it is to prevent children accessing physical material sold in geographic locations and how relatively difficult, if not impossible, it is to prevent determined children accessing online material on the internet, much of which is free. An increasing proportion of adult material is not commercially produced.

That is not to say that we should not do all we can to prevent underage access to adult material, but we must not mislead by suggesting that doing all we can to prevent access is both necessary and sufficient to prevent children accessing adult material online, the detail of which I will come to in subsequent amendments. Of course internet service providers and ancillary service providers should do all they can to protect children, but there are also issues around freedom of expression that need to be taken into account.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, in light of these and some later amendments, I want to raise the matter of ancillary service providers. My understanding is that social media platforms continue to argue that they do not fall within the definition of ancillary service providers and are seeking confirmation from government that they have no role to play in preventing children accessing pornography online.

I am aware that the Minister stated at Second Reading:

“The Government believe that services, including Twitter, can be classified by regulators as ancillary service providers where they are enabling or facilitating the making available of pornographic or prohibited material”.—[Official Report, 13/12/16; col. 1228.]


I was pleased to hear him say that, but I would like confirmation that it remains the Government’s position. Unless such platforms are included, I simply do not understand what Part 3 of the Bill hopes to achieve.

I am unconvinced that it is possible to remove all adult content from the purview of children, but it is imperative to make it clear to young people that viewing adult sexual content is a transgressive act and not a cultural norm, so, at a minimum, it should be as difficult as reaching the top shelf in a newsagent or being underage in a pub. That is imperative for reasons I set out in great detail at Second Reading, so I will not repeat them here but simply say that children and young people are turning in large numbers to pornography to learn about sex, with unhappy consequences. Often violent, mainly misogynistic, unrealistic adult male fantasy is not a good starting point for a healthy, happy, consensual sex life.

I would have preferred for the age verification system to be fully thought out, prototyped and beta-tested before it came to the House in the form of legislation. None the less, I agree that Part 3 is a valiant attempt to stem the flow of adult material into the hands and lives of children. In the absence of a better, more thought out plan, I support it. But if this is the path we are taking, we must be clear in our message: this material is unsuitable for those under the age of 18.

The BBFC says that it intends to take a proportionate approach to its new role and will target the top 50 adult websites as accessed by viewers in the UK. Its research shows that 70% of all those who access such sites in the UK visit the top 50. Among children, concentration among those top sites is even higher. In that respect, I understand that age-verifying 70% of adult material websites sends a clear message.

However, a brief search on Twitter, which has a joining age of 13, shows that commercial pornography is readily available, with popular accounts attracting hundreds of thousands of followers. Many of those who access pornographic social media accounts do not publicly follow them, so it is more than likely that the follower figures are dwarfed by the number of actual viewers. In the case of younger viewers, such platforms if accessed via an app leave no browser footprint that might be discovered by parents—a very attractive proposition.

If social media companies provide alternative access to the same or similar pornographic material with no restriction, surely the regulator should be entitled to take the same proportionate approach and target pornographic social media accounts with similar viewer numbers to those for adult websites. For most young people, social media platforms are the gateway to the internet. Unless they are to be included within the definition of ASPs, neither the problem of young people accessing pornography nor the ambition of setting a social norm that puts adult sexual material beyond the easy reach of children and young people will be achieved. It will simply migrate.

I note that social media platforms are not homogenous and that some, including Facebook and Instagram, already take steps to prevent pornography being posted and act quickly to take it down when it does go up. It is disappointing that not all platforms take this approach. I do not want to focus on Twitter, but noble Lords might like go to the account, @gspot1177, with its 750,000 public followers, which has been publishing pornography with impunity since 2009. Surely it is necessary to bring this into scope of the regulator. Nobody is claiming that the measures set out in the Bill will prevent 100% of pornography being seen by children and I understand Ministers’ arguments that doing something is better than doing nothing, but I am concerned that in the lack of clarity about what does and does not fall within the definition of ASP there may lie a lack of political will about holding certain stakeholders to account.

I would love to hear from the Minister whether major social media platforms including Tumblr and Twitter have confirmed to the Government how they would respond to requests from the BBFC to withdraw services from a non-compliant site—and whether his statement at Second Reading that social media platforms may be considered ASPs by the regulator still stands.

Digital Economy Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

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

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment. I find it bizarre that we have spoken for a couple of hours now about the dangers of internet pornography, and we have rightly worried about sexting, the harm that inappropriate images would cause to children, and about possible dating sites, but when it comes to educating children and young people we wring our hands and walk away from it. I do not understand that. Any parent would want their children to know what is going on. As the noble Baroness said, any child would want to have professionals talking these issues over with them and educating them about them.

Children need to be taught about the dangers of meeting people online, the risks of dating apps, the consequences of sexting and the problem that young girls feel they have to look and appear in a certain way. No wonder the levels of anxiety and depression among teenage girls are, as we have heard, the highest ever. Research by the DfE—not some distant organisation, but the Government’s own department—found that 37% of girls feel miserable and worthless. That should not be happening in 2017. What on earth is going on? There are frightening levels of self-harm, with a 52% increase in the number of admissions of self-harming children under the age of 16.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on putting down this amendment. He and many Members of this Chamber—on the Government Benches, on the Opposition Benches and on the Cross Benches—know that we have raised this issue over and again. During all the time that we have pressed for such a measure to be introduced, the Government have shrugged their shoulders and said, “Well, you can do it”. Yes, it is compulsory in maintained schools, but it is not compulsory in academies or free schools. As academies now make up more than 70% of our secondary schools, there is real concern about what is happening with sex and relationship education.

It is interesting that Ofsted found in 2013 that 40% of schools that offered sex and relationship education required improvement or were inadequate in their provision of it. Even though schools provide the subject, there is real doubt about the quality of that provision. The noble Baroness was right that it has to be properly taught and that we have to ensure that the syllabus is of the highest possible level.

I want to cite a couple of other figures which highlight how worrying this whole issue is. In 2016, a parliamentary report found that almost a third of 16 to 18 year-old girls had experienced touching at school, while 70% of 11 to 15 year-olds in England said that they believed sex education should be compulsory, and a whopping 94% said that they wanted to learn about the risks and consequences of sharing pictures with people online or on social media. Our own children want us to make this subject available at school. Will we not listen to them? Barnardo’s research shows that three-quarters of young people believe that sex and relationship education would make them feel safer.

What are the arguments against? It used to be, “Well, this is for the parents to do”. The argument that I now hear raised from time to time is, “Well, we couldn’t really force faith schools to teach sex and relationship education, because some aspects of it might go against their own religious belief”. Really? I just do not accept that. Faith schools do a hugely important job in our society, but part of that job must also be protecting our young children. I and my party wholeheartedly support this amendment.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, since the Bill introduces age verification, it follows that children must be informed users. Not only does that make it more likely that they observe it but it would give teachers the necessary opportunity to discuss what they might find a difficult subject. Like others, I believe that this is a tiny part of a broader picture.

As some noble Lords know, I regularly speak in schools about pornography but more broadly about young people and their relationship to the internet. I have to report to the Committee that they have a palpable appetite for better digital education, not only SRE but a much broader digital education. By that, they mean a comprehensive understanding of the purposes and methods by which platforms and businesses interact with them, their rights as consumers and citizens and their urgent desire for some code of conduct. Interestingly, they want a code of conduct that covers their behaviour to each other. They also want a code of conduct that would determine the behaviour of businesses and platforms towards them. Above all else, you find what they want is a single moral landscape that recognises that the distinction between online and offline is completely immaterial to them.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with a single issue and this amendment deals with a narrow piece of learning. But the young people I speak to yearn for more. They repeatedly complain that e-safety is narrow, repetitive, badly delivered, and comes in the wrong lessons and from the wrong teachers. Although they themselves have fast fingers, many if not most have little idea of the workings of the technology they are using, let alone the full gamut of risk, from fake news to fake friends. A young person who can spot spam without clicking, is one less likely to see the unwanted adult sexual content that is our subject today. A young person who is knowledgeable about the way their personal data are collected is less likely to make bad decisions about what, where and when to give them up.

Children are not simply the objects of our concern; they are participants in their own good outcomes. We must learn to listen to their stated needs, not relentlessly pursue an adult agenda. I direct the Minister to the recent report of the Children’s Commissioner, Growing up Digital; to the report published this week, The Internet on our Own Terms, which captures the policy recommendations of young people; and to the evidence collected by the Communication Committee’s inquiry “Children and the Internet”, all of which has a great deal to say about the value, nature and scope of the education that children need.

In supporting this amendment I ask the Minister not only to recommend it to colleagues, but to listen very carefully to young people about the scope of the learning and the manner of teaching that they feel makes them secure and able users of the internet, which ultimately will help them to be contributors to the cultural shift that must accompany the legislation that is in front of us.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, as my name is on this amendment, to support what other noble Lords have said and echo the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in that we also tried to table a broader compulsory sex and relationship education amendment to the Bill but were told it was out of scope.

We have to address the fact that despite our best efforts young people, and indeed very young children, will be confronted with inappropriate images and inappropriate adult material on the internet, and they need to be taught how to respond. They need to be taught to turn it off immediately and to tell their parents about what is happening. Older children need to be told that the way in which actors in pornographic films treat each other is not the way that we expect our young people to treat each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Kidron]

I too support Amendments 71B and 79A. It is perhaps worth reiterating my interests as a film maker and, therefore, often a rights holder. I share the concerns of broadcasters about the challenges of piracy and the implications for future financing of original content. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has done justice to that point.

This is also a generational issue, as 11 to 15 year-olds are the biggest users of these devices, which are plugged directly into television sets. Technical studies of IPTV use recently conducted by the Industry Trust revealed that they often include unauthorised apps, add-ons and advertising, and totally bypass the current systems of parental control, age rating and BBFC guidance. They are not subject to the usual protections that apply to content that we normally view on our television screens. If they can be bought from legitimate retailers and paid for through legitimate payment providers, we can hardly blame people for not really understanding that they are illegal.

Contrary to the Minister’s previous suggestion that I might like to shut down Twitter—far from it. By what other means would I know what the American President was thinking day and night? I am not a huge fan of blocking or censorship.

I beg noble Lords’ patience, as I want to go back to something that we may have gone through. It is about consistency. My argument is all about consistency. I was disappointed by what the Minister said about social media companies, which seem to have picked up very few responsibilities this afternoon.

I wonder whether we have done the maths right. Surely, even a small slice of these huge companies with their billions of daily interactions is comparable with the large sites entirely dedicated to pornography. I have listened very carefully to the debate and wonder whether, if we had been using the word monetise rather than commercial, we might have got a little closer to where we need to go. I hope I will be forgiven for going back to Part 3, but I have risen to speak about consistency.

Given the ambition of Part 3 of the Bill, it seems inappropriate that unregulated content is being delivered to TV screens outside of Ofcom or BBFC oversight. I feel that every child, parent or carer should have access to the technical and regulatory protections while streaming content on their TV screens, should they elect to use them. The current legislative framework is out of date and does not make it sufficiently clear that devices adapted for digital TV piracy should not be sold by legitimate online retailers. As a result, children are watching content in an unregulated context. That should be a factor when considering the merits of these amendments.

Digital Economy Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. There is a huge amount of power in the hands of search engines regarding the way they influence how people think. This could be used as a form of propaganda, as we have seen with the recent rows about fake news. From the point of view of protecting Britain, there could even be some security implications because of the way they could affect how people think. So it is quite a sensible power to have, just in case.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the amendment. I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of what an algorithm is. I always found BBC Bitesize’s explanation rather helpful—a set of rules to solve a problem—along with its corresponding explanation of how an algorithm can go wrong: a set of rules designed for getting dressed that insists on your coat going on before your jumper. This would lead to a great many children arriving at school in sartorial disarray. It helpfully indicates that a set of rules is not benign—it has a purpose and a process, both of which are man or woman-made.

It is not possible to exaggerate the importance of an algorithm. I recently read Weapons of Math Destruction, by Cathy O’Neil, a Harvard PhD and Wall Street quantitative analyst. It goes step by step through the ways in which algorithms—apparently neutral and benign—have the capacity to change lives in huge ways and in an ever-increasing list of scenarios. If wrongly attributed or designed, they can have devastating effects on job prospects, education, financial outcomes or the reputation of an individual, with very little possibility of appeal, correction or compensation.

Digital Economy Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, there is equal enthusiasm on these Benches for this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has, as ever, put his finger on the issue. I plead guilty to the same constitutionally improper thoughts as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I cannot see why the Government should not take the powers that are needed in advance simply because this vehicle happens to be passing through and there may not be another suitable vehicle very soon.

On the balance of probabilities, at the very least it seems to us that these powers are needed. Those who have spoken to us have universally said that a new offence is needed and that the existing powers are not adequate. Certainly the Motion Picture Association, Sky and others made the point that enforcement agencies, such as trading standards and PIPCU, are unable to pursue strong cases due to the lack of an appropriate offence. This is all about creating an appropriate offence.

I very much hope that the Government, whether at this stage or the next stage, will take heed of the points being made and will give themselves this enabling power in order to introduce a more specific regulation at a future date. The Government should also consider a point that was strongly made by those organisations and think about the enforcement aspects as well in the call for evidence. I hope they will consider the issue which I will be raising next week in an Oral Question on PIPCU funding, which is an important aspect of this. If a power is created and there is no proper enforcement mechanism, it is not a particularly useful creation. I hope the Government will take heed of the fact that this is thundering down the track at great speed and could, as both these Benches described in Committee, have an extremely harmful impact on the audio-visual industries in future.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I want to reiterate a point I made in Committee about the context in which young people receive this material. Almost 50% of 16 to 17 year-olds are streaming, and along with the streaming comes advertising, pop-ups and adult material. This is a subject that is close to the Government’s heart, as shown by Part 3. This seems a wonderful opportunity to deal with it again in this part. It is not just 16 and 17 year-olds; whole swathes of younger children are getting the habit. As a maker of original IP and as someone who cares very much about the context in which children have their digital diet, this is a very small thing and I support the noble Lords in their amendment.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the extent of what is happening is such that it is a genuine mischief. It is important that the Government are in a position to deal with it because of the damage that is taking place.

From my perspective, it does not really matter how it is done, provided that it is done, and that “when ‘tis done, ‘tis done quickly”. That is the way we will deal with this. Whatever response the Government may have to the particular amendment being put forward, I hope that they will be able to assure us that they are in a position to deal with the problem and intend to do so, rather than letting it drift on.

Digital Economy Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, my name has been mentioned in connection with something that I said on this issue. I had understood that the Government’s reason for widening the scope of permissible pornography from prohibited material to exceptional pornography was to do with standing CPS guidance, which is supposed to be out of date. I said that it certainly does not require an Act of Parliament to bring prosecutorial directions up to date: if the judges have changed the rules, the prescription should be changed immediately. When I was told about this matter, I raised it with the Minister, from whom I understood that that was not the reason for this change, so my point about bringing the guidelines up to date does not really matter. There is a different reason for making this change, but I am not sure that I understand it and it will be for the Minister to explain it now. When he introduced these amendments, I did not understand him to say exactly what the reason was for wanting to make the change, but it is clear that there is a substantial change allowing pornography which is not permitted as prohibited material to be allowed now. I am not sure what the basis for that is and why it is being done.

I am extremely sorry that I have an appointment in connection with another Bill with which I am involved, so I will have to leave. However, as my name was mentioned, I thought that I should say exactly what my position is. I do not understand the justification for this change and it is for your Lordships to say whether it is justified.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself very much in the same school as the right reverend Prelate in not understanding how we can justify a form of sexual violence by one group towards another. It is very upsetting. However, I want to raise a slightly different issue that I tried to raise in Committee. I suppose that it is covered by government Amendment 25B in that it refers to commercial providers. I keep feeling that we are missing the point here—missing the business model that is fuelling all this pornography. If the amendment were to refer to those who monetise pornography—that is, those who receive money from pornography—we could make a much cleaner sweep of this issue. I think that many noble Lords will have noticed this morning—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, would it help the noble Baroness if I mentioned that later in the debate we will be talking about the definition of commercial providers?

[Baroness Kidron]

It certainly would. I beg the Minister’s pardon.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 25YD, tabled in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It would have the effect of requiring a review of the use of the term “extreme pornography” after two years and provide the opportunity to replace it after three years with a broader standard of protection enforced offline. I shall also speak against the Government’s amendments to Clauses 22 and 23. They would water down the Bill by deeming only the narrow category of “extreme pornographic material” unacceptable and not the wider category of prohibited material.

I understand that Part 3 of the Bill is primarily about protecting children and that the Opposition Front Benches do not want to provoke a discussion about adult access to porn. However, by asserting that adults should have online access to what is prohibited offline, it is they who have opened up this debate.

I also understand that the Government have legally founded reasons for their amendments. As we have heard, they are concerned, for example, about the mismatch between the Crown Prosecution Service guidance and what is actually prosecutable following developments in case law. Amendment 25YD would create a window of time in which to deal with this.

Standing back for a minute, it seems incomprehensible to a non-lawyer like myself that juries can determine that henceforth something is now acceptable that would, until fairly recently, have been considered obscene under law, and yet they bear no responsibility for meeting the societal costs that accrue when such lines of acceptability are moved.

Digital Economy Bill

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I have added my name to Amendment 32E from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I agree with all the speeches that have been made in this debate. The process for setting the licence fee is manifestly inadequate; it lacks transparency, fails to identify—far less promote—any coherent principle, and allows and indeed encourages a last-minute political fix. Does the Minister really think that this is a satisfactory means of promoting the independence and efficacy of the BBC?

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I am also a member of the Communications Committee. My noble friend Lord Best set out our position so well that I shall not repeat it, but I wanted to add one thing. I could not possibly exaggerate the feeling of those who came before us giving evidence that the BBC must not only be independent from the Government of the day but must be seen to be independent. That is really what these amendments are struggling to insist on—that it is truly seen by all parties as independent.

On a secondary point, while we did our review I was struck by the huge number of duties that the BBC was given, many of which were very right-minded, about regions and nations and the types of programming that it must do, as well as about training. Those are all things with a cost, and a subset of the amendments is the suggestion that somebody independent gets to look at the duties of the BBC and set them against the cost of doing those duties. Perhaps we will have more reasonable conversations about what those duties ultimately are when we understand what they cost.

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

Can I just be marginally controversial? I accept the first amendment, which would establish a BBC licence fee commission, but the time has come when we have to look at the licence fee itself. We should remember that the licence fee was established way back in the days of Lord Reith—an awful man, but that is beside the point—based on the fact that you had one broadcasting unit in your house. The licence fee is for the house, not the individual, yet I stand here today with at least three devices in my pockets which allow me to view or listen to broadcasts by the BBC or, in fact, by any other organisation that cares to broadcast.

The time has really come when we must look at whether or not we have one licence fee for one household, which could include the very poorest single woman or man living alone in their house with one television or one radio to listen to. They pay exactly the same sum of money as another household with five people in it, all of whom have different devices. There are now four of us living in my household and each room has a television in it and a radio, we have radio in the cars, television on iPads and phones, radio on this, television on that—we have too many, maybe. But the same licence fee covers everything. It is the same licence fee for everybody, whatever—and I am not even talking about hotels or boarding houses or whatever else we can include with them. It is interesting to note that the Government themselves, when they looked at the licence fee, changed it to a live or nearly live licence fee. It is nearly live of course because if you watch television on your iPad, it is about 30 seconds behind, so it is not directly live. So this is the first thing that has to be said: it is time that this commission looked at the whole of the licence fee, not just the level of it.

Secondly, and lastly, this is a tax imposed upon everybody and we are entitled to know exactly how that money is spent by the BBC. I notice that an ex-director of the BBC is hoping to get into this debate —we know what his salary is and we know the salaries of every member of staff on the managerial side, but we do not know how much is paid to Mr John Humphrys, for instance, or to anybody else on the news side of it. I think that the BBC ought to be completely covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which is something that the commission could look at.