Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I have two observations, two pleas, one offer of help and four minutes to deliver all this, so here goes.

Observation one is that this Bill is our answer to the age-old question of “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” or, in the vernacular, “Who watches the watchmen?” With several thousand strokes of the pen, Parliament is granting to itself the power to tell tens of thousands of online services how they should manage their platforms if they wish to access the UK market. Parliament will give directions to Ofcom about the outcomes it wants to see and Ofcom will translate these into detailed instructions and ensure compliance through a team of several hundred people that the platforms will pay for. In-scope services will be given a choice—pay up and follow Ofcom’s instructions or get out of the UK market. We are awarding ourselves significant superpowers in this Bill, and with power comes great scrutiny as I am sure will happen in this House.

My second observation is that regulating online content is hard. It is hard because of scale. If regulating traditional media is like air traffic controllers managing a few thousand flights passing over the UK each day, then regulating social media is more like trying to control all the 30 million private cars that have access to UK roads. It is hard because it requires judgment. For many types of speech there is not a bright line between what is legal and illegal so you have to work on the basis of likelihoods and not certainties. It is hard because it requires trade-offs—processes designed to remove “bad” content will invariably catch some “good” content and you have to decide on the right balance between precision and recall for any particular system, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, has already referred to some of these challenges with specific examples.

I make this observation not to try and elicit any sympathy for online services, but rather some sympathy for Ofcom as we assign it the most challenging of tasks. This brings me to my first plea, which is that we allow Ofcom to make decisions about what constitutes compliance with the duties of care in the Bill without others second-guessing it. Because judgments and trade-offs are a necessary part of content moderation, there will always be people who take opposing views on where lines should have been drawn. These views may come from individuals, civil society or even Ministers and may form important and valuable input for Ofcom’s deliberations. But we should avoid creating mechanisms that would lead to competing and potentially conflicting definitions of compliance emerging. One chain of command—Parliament to Ofcom to the platforms—is best for accountability and effective regulation.

My second plea is for us to avoid cookie banner syndrome. The pop-ups that we all click on when visiting websites are not there for any technical reason but because of a regulatory requirement. Their origins lie in a last-minute amendment to the e-privacy directive from Members of the European Parliament who had concerns about online behavioural advertising. In practice, they have had little impact on advertising while costing many millions and leaving most users at best mildly irritated and at worst in greater risk as they learn to click through anything to close banners and get to websites.

There are several elements in this Bill that are at risk of cookie banner syndrome. Measures such as age and identity verification and content controls can be useful if done well but could also be expensive and ineffective if we mandate solutions that look good on paper but do not work in practice. If you see me mouthing “cookies” at you as we discuss the Bill, please do not see it as an offer of American biscuits but as a flag that we may be about to make an expensive mistake.

This brings to me to my final point, which is an offer of technical advice for any noble Lords trying to understand how the Bill will work in practice: my door and inbox are always open. I have spent 25 years working on internet regulation as poacher turned gamekeeper, turned poacher, turned gamekeeper. I may have a little more sympathy with the poachers than most politicians, but I am all gamekeeper now and keen to see this Bill become law. For those who like this kind of thing, I share more extensive thoughts on the Bill than I can get into four minutes in a blog and podcast called “Regulate Tech”.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, which I declared in full at Second Reading. It is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and, indeed, to have my name on this amendment, along with those of fellow members of the pre-legislative committee. It has been so long that it almost qualifies as a reunion tour.

This is a fortuitous amendment on which to start our deliberations, as it sets out the very purpose of the Bill—a North Star. I want to make three observations, each of which underlines its importance. First, as the pre-legislative committee took evidence, it was frequently remarked by both critics and supporters that it was a complicated Bill. We have had many technical briefings from DSIT and Ofcom, and they too refer to the Bill as “complicated”. As we took advice from colleagues in the other place, expert NGOs, the tech sector, academics and, in my own case, the 5Rights young advisory group, the word “complicated” repeatedly reared its head. This is a complex and ground-breaking area of policy, but there were other, simpler structures and approaches that have been discarded.

Over the five years with ever-changing leadership and political pressures, the Bill has ballooned with caveats and a series of very specific, and in some cases peculiar, clauses—so much so that today we start with a Bill that even those of us who are paying very close attention are often told that we do not understand. That should make the House very nervous.

It is a complicated Bill with intersecting and dependent clauses—grey areas from which loopholes emerge—and it is probably a big win for the deepest pockets. The more complicated the Bill is, the more it becomes a bonanza for the legal profession. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggests, the Minister is likely to argue that the contents of the amendment are already in the Bill, but the fact that the word “complicated” is firmly stuck to its reputation and structure is the very reason to set out its purpose at the outset, simply and unequivocally.

Secondly, the OSB is a framework Bill, with vast amounts of secondary legislation and a great deal of work to be implemented by the regulator. At a later date we will discuss whether the balance between the Executive, the regulator and Parliament is exactly as it should be, but as the Bill stands it envisages a very limited future role for Parliament. If I might borrow an analogy from my previous profession, Parliament’s role is little more than that of a background extra.

I have some experience of this. In my determination to follow all stages of the age-appropriate design code, I found myself earlier this week in the Public Gallery of the other place to hear DSIT Minister Paul Scully, at Second Reading of the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill, pledge to uphold the AADC and its provisions. I mention this in part to embed it on the record—that is true—but primarily to make this point: over six years, there have been two Information Commissioners and double figures of Secretaries of State and Ministers. There have been many moments at which the interpretation, status and purpose of the code has been put at risk, at least once to a degree that might have undermined it altogether. At these moments, each time the issue was resolved by establishing the intention of Parliament beyond doubt. Amendment 1 moves Parliament from background extra to star of the show. It puts the intention of Parliament front and centre for the days, weeks, months and years ahead in which the work will still be ongoing—and all of us will have moved on.

The Bill has been through a long and fractured process in which the pre-legislative committee had a unique role. Many attacks on the Bill have been made by people who have not read it. Child safety was incorrectly cast as the enemy of adult freedom. While some wanted to apply the existing and known concepts and terms of public interest, protecting the vulnerable, product safety and the established rights and freedoms of UK citizens, intense lobbying has seen them replaced by untested concepts and untried language over which the tech sector has once again emerged as judge and jury. This has further divided opinion.

In spite of all the controversy, when published, the recommendations of the committee report received almost universal support from all sides of the debate. So I ask the Minister not only to accept the committee’s view that the Bill needs a statement of purpose, the shadow of which will provide shelter for the Bill long into the future, but to undertake to look again at the committee report in full. In its pages lies a landing strip of agreement for many of the things that still divide us.

This is a sector that is 100% engineered and almost all privately owned, and within it lie solutions to some of the greatest problems of our age. It does not have to be as miserable, divisive and exploitative as this era of exceptionalism has allowed it to be. As the Minister is well aware, I have quite a lot to say about proposed new subsection (1)(b),

“to provide a higher level of protection for children than for adults”,

but today I ask the Minister to tell us which of these paragraphs (a) to (g) are not the purpose of the Bill and, if they are not, what is.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we are starting our Committee debate on this amendment. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

In this Bill, as has already been said, we are building a new and complex system and we can learn some lessons from designing information systems more generally. There are three classic mistakes that you can make. First, you can build systems to fit particular tools. Secondly, you can overcommit beyond what you can actually achieve. Thirdly, there is feature creep, through which you keep adding things on as you develop a new system. A key defence against these mistakes is to invest up front in producing a really good statement of requirements, which I see in Amendment 1.

On the first risk, as we go through the debate, there is a genuine risk that we get bogged down in the details of specific measures that the regulator might or might not include in its rules and guidance, and that we lose sight of our goals. Developing a computer system around a particular tool—for example, building everything with Excel macros or with Salesforce—invariably ends in disaster. If we can agree on the goals in Amendment 1 and on what we are trying to achieve, that will provide a sound framework for our later debates as we try to consider the right regulatory technologies that will deliver those goals.

The second cardinal error is overcommitting and underdelivering. Again, it is very tempting when building a new system to promise the customer that it will be all-singing, all-dancing and can be delivered in the blink of an eye. Of course, the reality is that in many cases, things prove to be more complex than anticipated, and features sometimes have to be removed while timescales for delivering what is left are extended. A wise developer will instead aim to undercommit and overdeliver, promising to produce a core set of realistic functions and hoping that, if things go well, they will be able to add in some extra features that will delight the customer as an unexpected bonus.

This lesson is also highly relevant to the Bill, as there is a risk of giving the impression to the public that more can be done quicker than may in fact be possible. Again, Amendment 1 helps us to stay grounded in a realistic set of goals once we put those core systems in place. The fundamental and revolutionary change here is that we will be insisting that platforms carry out risk assessments and share them with a regulator, who will then look to them to implement actions to mitigate those risks. That is fundamental. We must not lose sight of that core function and get distracted by some of the bells and whistles that are interesting, but which may take the regulator’s attention away from its core work.

We also need to consider what we mean by “safe” in the context of the Bill and the internet. An analogy that I have used in this context, which may be helpful, is to consider how we regulate travel by car and aeroplane. Our goal for air travel is zero accidents, and we regulate everything down to the nth degree: from the steps we need to take as passengers, such as passing through security and presenting identity documents, to detailed and exacting safety rules for the planes and pilots. With car travel, we have a much higher degree of freedom, being able to jump in our private vehicles and go where we want, when we want, pretty much without restrictions. Our goal for car travel is to make it incrementally safer over time; we can look back and see how regulation has evolved to make vehicles, roads and drivers safer year on year, and it continues to do so. Crucially, we do not expect car travel to be 100% safe, and we accept that there is a cost to this freedom to travel that, sadly, affects thousands of people each year, including my own family and, I am sure, many others in the House. There are lots of things we could do to make car travel even safer that we do not put into regulation, because we accept that the cost of restricting freedom to travel is too high.

Without over-labouring this analogy, I ask that we keep it in mind as we move through Committee—whether we are asking Ofcom to implement a car-like regime whereby it is expected to make continual improvements year on year as the state of online safety evolves, or we are advocating an aeroplane-like regime whereby any instance of harm will be seen as a failure by the regulator. The language in Amendment 1 points more towards a regime of incremental improvements, which I believe is the right one. It is in the public interest: people want to be safer online, but they also want the freedom to use a wide range of internet services without excessive government restriction, and they accept some risk in doing so.

I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the intent of Amendment 1 and that we can explore in this debate whether there is broad consensus on what we hope the Bill will achieve and how we expect Ofcom to go about its work. If there is not, then we should flush that out now to avoid later creating confused or contradictory rules based on different understandings of the Bill’s purpose. I will keep arguing throughout our proceedings for us to remain focused on giving the right goals to Ofcom and allowing it considerable discretion over the specific tools it needs, and for us to be realistic in our aims so that we do not overcommit and underdeliver.

Finally, the question of feature creep is very much up to us. There will be a temptation to add things into the Bill as it goes through. Some of those things are essential; I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has some measures that I would also support. This is the right time to do that, but there will be other things that would be “nice to have”, and the risk of putting them in might detract from those core mechanisms. I hope we are able to maintain our discipline as we go through these proceedings to ensure we deliver the right objectives, which are incredibly well set out in Amendment 1, which I support.

--- Later in debate ---

We need to be bravely dispassionate in our discussions on protecting children online, and to scrutinise the Bill carefully for unintended consequences for children. But we must also avoid allowing our concern for children to spill over into infantilising adults and treating adult British citizens as though they are children who need protection from speech. There is a lot to get through in the Bill but the amendment, despite its good intentions, does not resolve the dilemmas we are likely to face in the following weeks.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I have had a helpful reminder about declarations of interest. I once worked for Facebook; I divested myself of any financial interest back in 2020, but of course a person out there may think that what I say today is influenced by the fact that I previously took the Facebook shilling. I want that to be on record as we debate the Bill.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I have not engaged with this amendment in any particular detail—until the last 24 hours, in fact. I thought that I would come to listen to the debate today and see if there was anything that I could usefully contribute. I have been interested in the different points that have been raised so far. I find myself agreeing with some points that are perhaps in tension or conflict with each other. I emphasise from the start, though, my complete respect for the Joint Committee and the work that it did in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I cannot compare my knowledge and wisdom on the Bill with those who, as has already been said, have spent so much intensive time thinking about it in the way that they did at that stage.

Like my noble friend Lady Harding, I always have a desire for clarity of purpose. It is critical for the success of any organisation, or anything that we are trying to do. As a point of principle, I like the idea of setting out at the start of this Bill its purpose. When I looked through the Bill again over the last couple of weeks in preparation for Committee, it was striking just how complicated and disjointed a piece of work it is and so very difficult to follow.

There are many reasons why I am sympathetic towards the amendment. I can see why bringing together at the beginning of the Bill what are currently described as “Purposes” might be for it to meet its overall aims. But that brings me to some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has just made. The Joint Committee’s report recommends that the objectives of the Bill

“should be that Ofcom should aim to improve online safety for UK citizens by ensuring that service providers”—

it then set out objectives aimed at Ofcom rather than them actually being the purposes of the Bill.

I was also struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said about what we are looking for. Are we looking for regulation of the type that we would expect of airlines, or of the kind we would expect from the car industry? If we are still asking that question, that is very worrying. I think we are looking for something akin to the car industry model as opposed to the airline model. I would be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister was at least able to give us some assurance on that point.

If I were to set out a purpose of the Bill at the beginning of the document, I would limit myself to what is currently in proposed new subsection (1)(g), which is

“to secure that regulated internet services operate with transparency and accountability in respect of online safety”.

That is all I would say, because that, to me, is what this Bill is trying to do.

The other thing that struck me when I looked at this—I know that there has been an approach to this legislation that sought to adopt regulation that applies to the broadcasting world—was the thought, “Somebody’s looked at the BBC charter and thought, well, they’ve got purposes and we might adopt a similar sort of approach here.” The BBC charter and the purposes set out in it are important and give structure to the way the BBC operates, but they do not give the kind of clarity of purpose that my noble friend Lady Harding is seeking—which I too very much support and want to see—because there is almost too much there. That is my view on what the place to start would be when setting out a very simple statement of purpose for this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I hope I have not appeared to rush the proceedings, but I am conscious that there are three Statements after the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for tabling this amendment, speaking so cogently to it and inspiring so many interesting and thoughtful speeches today. He and I have worked on many Bills together over the years, and it has been a real pleasure to see him back in harness on the Opposition Front Bench, both in the Joint Committee and on this Bill. Long may that last.

It has been quite some journey to get to this stage of the Bill; I think we have had four Digital Ministers and five Prime Ministers since we started. It is pretty clear that Bismarck never said, “Laws are like sausages: it’s best not to see them being made”, but whoever did say it still made a very good point. The process leading to today’s Bill has been particularly messy, with Green and White Papers; a draft Bill; reports from the Joint Committee and Lords and Commons Select Committees; several versions of the Bill itself; and several government amendments anticipated to come. Obviously, the fact that the Government chose to inflict last-minute radical surgery on the Bill to satisfy what I believe are the rather unjustified concerns of a small number in the Government’s own party made it even messier.

It is extremely refreshing, therefore, to start at first principles, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has done. He has outlined them and the context in which we should see them—namely, we should focus essentially on the systems, what is readily enforceable and where safety by design and transparency are absolutely the essence of the purpose of the Bill. I share his confidence in Ofcom and its ability to interpret those purposes. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, that I am not going to dance on the heads of too many pins about the difference between “purpose” and “objective”. I think it is pretty clear what the amendment intends, but I do have a certain humility about drafting; the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, reminded us of that. Of course, one should always be open to change and condensation of wording if we need to do that. But we are only at Amendment 1 in Committee, so there is quite a lot of water to flow under the bridge.

It is very heartening that there is a great deal of cross-party agreement about how we must regulate social media going forward. These Benches—and others, I am sure—will examine the Bill extremely carefully and will do so in a cross-party spirit of constructive criticism, as we explained at Second Reading. Our Joint Committee on the draft Bill exemplified that cross-party spirit, and I am extremely pleased that all four signatories to this amendment served on the Joint Committee and readily signed up to its conclusions.

Right at the start of our report, we made a strong case for the Bill to set out these core objectives, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has explained, so as to provide clarity—that word has been used around the Committee this afternoon—for users and regulators about what the Bill is trying to achieve and to inform the detailed duties set out in the legislation. In fact, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has improved on that wording by including a duty on the Secretary of State, as well as Ofcom, to have regard to the purposes.

We have heard some very passionate speeches around the Committee for proper regulation of harms on social media. The case for that was made eloquently to the Joint Committee by Ian Russell and by witnesses such as Edleen John of the FA and Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower. A long line of reports by Select Committees and all-party groups have rightly concluded that regulation is absolutely necessary given the failure of the platforms even today to address the systemic issues inherent in their services and business models.

The introduction to our Joint Committee report makes it clear that without the original architecture of a duty of care, as the White Paper originally proposed, we need an explicit set of objectives to ensure clarity for Ofcom when drawing up the codes and when the provisions of the Bill are tested in court, as they inevitably will be. Indeed, in practice, the tests that many of us will use when judging whether to support amendments as the Bill passes through the House are inherently bound up with these purposes, several of which many of us mentioned at Second Reading. Decisions may need to be made on balancing some of these objectives and purposes, but that is the nature of regulation. I have considerable confidence, as I mentioned earlier, in Ofcom’s ability to do this, and those seven objectives—as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, the rule of seven is important in other contexts—set that out.

In their response to the report published more than a year ago, the Government repeated at least half of these objectives in stating their own intentions for the Bill. Indeed, they said:

“We are pleased to agree with the Joint Committee on the core objectives of the Bill”,


and, later:

“We agree with all of the objectives the Joint Committee has set out, and believe that the Bill already encapsulates and should achieve these objectives”.


That is exactly the point of dispute: we need this to be explicit, and the Government seem to believe that it is implicit. Despite agreeing with those objectives, at paragraph 21 of their response the Government say:

“In terms of the specific restructure that the Committee suggested, we believe that using these objectives as the basis for Ofcom’s regulation would delegate unprecedented power to a regulator. We do not believe that reformulating this regulatory framework in this way would be desirable or effective. In particular, the proposal would leave Ofcom with a series of high-level duties, which would likely create an uncertain and unclear operating environment”.


That is exactly the opposite of what most noble Lords have been saying today.

It has been an absolute pleasure to listen to so many noble Lords across the Committee set out their ambitions for the Bill and their support for this amendment. It started with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, talking about this set of purposes being the “North Star”. I pay tribute to her tireless work, which drove all of us in the Joint Committee on in an extremely positive way. I am not going to go through a summing-up process, but what my noble friend had to say about the nature of the risk we are undertaking and the fact that we need to be clear about it was very important. The whole question of clarity and certainty for business and the platforms, in terms of making sure that they understand the purpose of the Bill—as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and many other noble Lords mentioned—is utterly crucial.

If noble Lords look at the impact assessment, they will see that the Government seem to think the cost of compliance is a bagatelle—but, believe me, it will not be. It will be a pretty expensive undertaking to train people in those platforms, across social media start-ups and so on to understand the nature of their duties.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I was just refreshing myself on what the impact assessment says. It says that the cost of reading and understanding the regulations will range from £177 for a small business to £2,694 for a large category 1 service provider. To reinforce my noble friend’s point: it says it will cost £177 to read and understand the Bill. I am not sure that will be what happens in practice.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I thank my noble friend for having the impact assessment so close to hand; that is absolutely correct.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about unintended consequences—apart from bringing the people of Ukraine into the argument, which I thought was slightly extraneous. I think we need a certain degree of humility about the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, this may well be part 1; we may need to keep iterating to make sure that this is effective for child safety and for the various purposes set out in the Bill. The Government have stated that this amendment would create greater uncertainty, but that is exactly the opposite of what our committee concluded. I believe, as many of us do, that the Government are wrong in taking the view that they have; I certainly hope that they will reconsider.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made something that he probably would not want, given the antecedence of the phrase, to characterise as a big open offer to the Minister to work on a cross-party basis to improve the Bill. We on these Benches absolutely agree with that approach. We look forward to the debates in Committee in that spirit. We are all clearly working towards the same objective, so I hope the Government will respond in kind. Today is the first opportunity to do so—I set out that challenge to the Minister.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, it falls to me to inject some grit into what has so far been a very harmonious debate, as I will raise some concerns about Amendments 2 and 22.

I again declare my interest: I spent 10 years working for Facebook, doing the kind of work that we will regulate in this Bill. At this point noble Lords are probably thinking, “So it’s his fault”. I want to stress that, if I raise concerns about the way the regulation is going, it is not that I hold those views because I used to work for the industry; rather, I felt comfortable working in the industry because I always had those views, back to 2003 when we set up Ofcom. I checked the record, and I said things then that are remarkably consistent with how I feel today about how we need to strike the balance between the power of the state and the power of the citizen to use the internet.

I also should declare an interest in respect of Amendment 2, in that I run a blog called regulate.tech. I am not sure how many children are queueing up to read my thoughts about regulation of the tech industry, but they would be welcome to do so. The blog’s strap- line is:

“How to regulate the internet without breaking it”.


It is very much in that spirit that I raise concerns about these two amendments.

I certainly understand the challenges for content that is outside of the user-to-user or search spaces. I understand entirely why the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, feels that something needs to be done about that content. However, I am not sure that this Bill is the right vehicle to address that kind of content. There are principled and practical reasons why it might be a mistake to extend the remit here.

The principle is that the Bill’s fundamental purpose is to restrict access to speech by people in the United Kingdom. That is what legislation such as this does: it restricts speech. We have a framework in the Human Rights Act, which tells us that when we restrict speech we have to pass a rigorous test to show that those restrictions are necessary and proportionate to the objective we are trying to achieve. Clearly, when dealing with children, we weight very heavily in that test whether something is necessary and proportionate in favour of the interest of the welfare of the children, but we cannot do away with the test altogether.

It is clear that the Government have applied that test over the years that they have been preparing this Bill and determined that there is a rationale for intervention in the context of user-to-user services and search services. At the same time, we see in the Bill that the Government’s decision is that intervention is not justified in all sorts of other contexts. Email and SMS are excluded. First-party publisher content is excluded, so none of the media houses will be included. We have a Bill that is very tightly and specifically framed around dealing with intermediaries, whether that is user-to-user intermediaries who intermediate in user-generated content, or search as an intermediary, which scoops up content from across the internet and presents it to you.

This Bill is about regulating the regulators; it is not about regulating first-party speakers. A whole world of issues will come into play if we move into that space. It does not mean that it is not important, just that it is different. There is a common saying that people are now bandying around, which is that freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. To apply a twist to that, restrictions on reach are not the same as restrictions on speech. When we talk about restricting intermediaries, we are talking about restricting reach. If I have something I want to say and Facebook or Twitter will not let me say it, that is a problem and I will get upset, but it is not the same as being told that I cannot say it anywhere on the internet.

My concern about Amendment 2 is that it could lead us into a space where we are restricting speech across the internet. If we are going to do that—there may be a rationale for doing it—we will need to go back and look at our necessity and proportionality test. It may play out differently in that context from user-to-user or intermediary-based services.

From a practical point of view, we have a Bill that, we are told, will give Ofcom the responsibility of regulating 25,000 more or less different entities. They will all be asked to pay money to Ofcom and will all be given a bunch of guidance and duties that they have to fulfil. Again, those duties, as set out in painful length in the Bill, are very specifically about the kind of things that an intermediary should do to its users. If we were to be regulating blogs or people’s first-party speech, or publishers, or the Daily Telegraph, or whoever else, I think we would come up with a very different set of duties from the duties laid out in the Bill. I worry that, however well-motivated, Amendment 2 leads us into a space for which this Bill is not prepared.

I have a lot of sympathy with the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, around the app stores. They are absolutely more like intermediaries, or search, but again the tools in the Bill are not necessarily dedicated to how one would deal with app stores. I was interested in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on what will be happening to our competition authorities; a lot will be happening in that space. On app stores, I worry about what is in Amendment 22: we do not want app stores to think that it is their job to police the content of third-party services. That is Ofcom’s job. We do not want the app stores to get in the middle, not least because of these commercial considerations. We do not want Apple, for instance, thinking that, to comply with UK legislation, it might determine that WhatsApp is unsafe while iMessage is safe. We do not want Google, which operates Play Store, to think that it would have a legal rationale for determining that TikTok is unsafe while YouTube is safe. Again, I know that this is not the noble Baroness’s intention or aim, but clearly there is a risk that we open that up.

There is something to be done about app stores but I do not think that we can roll over the powers in the Bill. When we talk about intermediaries such as user-to-user services and search, we absolutely want them to block bad content. The whole thrust of the Bill is about forcing them to restrict bad content. When it comes to app stores, the noble Baroness set out some of her concerns, but I think we want something quite different. I hesitate to say this, as I know that my noble friend is supportive of it, but I think that it is important as we debate these issues that we hear some of those concerns.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

Could it not be argued that the noble Lord is making a case for regulation of app stores? Let us take the example of Apple’s dispute with “Fortnite”, where Apple is deciding how it wants to police things. Perhaps if this became a more regulated space Ofcom could help make sure that there was freedom of access to some of those different products, regardless of the commercial interests of the people who own the app stores.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I certainly think we are heading into a world where there will be more regulation of app stores. Google and Apple are commercial competitors with some of the people who are present in their stores. A lot of the people in their stores are in dispute with them over things such as the fees that they have to pay. It is precisely for that reason that I do not think we should be throwing online safety into the mix.

There is a role for regulating app stores, which primarily focuses on these commercial considerations and their position in the market. There may be something to be done around age-rating; the noble Baroness made a very good point about how age-rating works in app stores. However, if we look at the range of responsibilities that we are describing in this Bill and the tools that we are giving to intermediaries, we see that they are the wrong, or inappropriate, set of tools.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

Would the noble Lord acknowledge that app stores are already undertaking these age-rating and blocking decisions? Google has unilaterally decided that, if it assesses that you are under 18, it will not serve up over-18 apps. My concern is that this is already happening but it is happening indiscriminately. How would the noble Lord address that?

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point; they are making efforts. There is a role for app stores to play but I hope she would accept that it is qualitatively different from that played by a search engine or a user-to-user service. If we were to decide, in both instances, that we want app stores to have a greater role in online safety and a framework that allows us to look at blogs and other forms of content, we should go ahead and do that. All I am arguing is that we have a Bill that is carefully constructed around two particular concepts, a user-to-user service and a search engine, and I am not sure it will stretch that far.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I want to reassure the noble Lord: I have his blog in front of me and he was quite right—there were not a lot of children on that site. It is a very good blog, which I read frequently.

I want to make two points. First, age-rating and age-gating are two different things, and I think the noble Lord has conflated them. There is a lot of age- rating going on, and it is false information. We need good information, and we have not managed to get it by asking nicely. Secondly, I slightly dispute his idea that we have a very structured Bill regarding user-to-user and so on. We have a very structured Bill from a harms perspective that describes the harms that must be prevented—and then we got to commercial porn, and we can also get to these other things.

I agree with the noble Lord’s point about freedom of speech, but we are talking about a fixed set of harms that will, I hope, be in the Bill by the end. We can then say that if children are likely to be accessed by this test, and known harm is there, that is what we are looking at. We are certainly not looking at the noble Lord’s blog.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I appreciate the intervention by the noble Baroness; I hope through this grit we may conjure up a pearl of some sort. The original concept of the Bill, as championed by the noble Baroness, would have been a generalised set of duties of care which could have stretched much more broadly. It has evolved in a particular direction and become ever more specific and tailored to those three services: user-to-user, search, and pornography services. Having arrived at that point, it is difficult to then open it back up and stretch it to reach other forms of service.

My intention in intervening in this debate is to raise some of those concerns because I think they are legitimate. I may be at the more sceptical end of the political world, but I am at the more regulation-friendly end of the tech community. This is said in a spirit of trying to create a Bill that will actually work. I have done the work, and I know how hard Ofcom’s job will be. That sums up what I am trying to say: my concern is that we should not give Ofcom an impossible job. We have defined something quite tight—many people still object to it, think it is too loose and do not agree with it—but I think we have something reasonably workable. I am concerned that, however tempting it is, by re-opening Pandora’s box we may end up creating something less workable.

That does not mean we should forget about app stores and non-user-to-user content, but we need to think of a way of dealing with those which does not necessarily just roll over the mechanism we have created in the Online Safety Bill to other forms of application.

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, because I want to see this Bill implemented but strengthened in order to fulfil the admirable intention that children must be safe wherever they are online. This will not be the case unless child safety duties are applicable in all digital environments likely to be accessed by children. This is not overly ambitious or unrealistic; the platforms need clarity as to these new responsibilities and Ofcom must be properly empowered to enforce the rules without worrying about endless legal challenges. These amendments will give that much-needed clarity in this complex area.

As the Joint Committee recommended, this regulatory alignment would simplify compliance with businesses while giving greater clarity to people who use the service and greater protection for children. It would give confidence to parents and children that they need not work out if they are in a regulated or unregulated service while online. The Government promised that the onus for keeping young people safe online would sit squarely on the tech companies’ shoulders.

Without these amendments, there is a real danger that a loophole will remain whereby some services, even those that are known to harm, are exempt, leaving thousands of children exposed to harm. They would also help to future-proof the Bill. For example, some parts of the metaverse as yet undeveloped may be out of scope, but already specialist police units have raised concerns that abuse rooms, limited to one user, are being used to practise violence and sexual violence against women and girls.

We can and must make this good Bill even better and support all the amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Services already have to comply with their duties to keep children safe. If they do not comply, Ofcom has powers of enforcement set out, which require app stores to remove applications that are harmful to children. We think this already addresses the point, but I am happy to continue discussing it offline with the noble Lord, my noble friend and others who want to explore how. As I say, we think this is already covered. A more general duty here would risk distracting from Ofcom’s existing priorities.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, on that point, my reading of Clauses 131 to 135, where the Bill sets out the business disruption measures, is that they could be used precisely in that way. It would be helpful for the Minister responding later to clarify that Ofcom would use those business disruption measures, as the Government explicitly anticipate, were an app store, in a rogue way, to continue to list a service that Ofcom has said should not be made available to people in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will be very happy to set that out in more detail.

Amendments 33A and 217A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would place a new duty on user-to-user services that predominantly enable online gaming. Specifically, they would require them to have a classification certificate stating the age group for which they are suitable. We do not think that is necessary, given that there is already widespread, voluntary uptake of approval classification systems in online gaming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 9, which I will be able to do fairly briefly because a great deal of the material on which my case rests has already been given to the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I will make the more general and reflective point that there are two different views in the Committee that somehow need to be reconciled over the next few weeks. There is a group of noble Lords who are understandably and passionately concerned about child safety. In fact, we all share that concern. There are others of us who believe that this Bill, its approach and the measures being inserted into it will have massive ramifications outside the field of child safety, for adults, of course, but also for businesses, as the noble Baroness explained. The noble Baroness and I, and others like us, believe that these are not sufficiently taken into account either by the Bill or by those pressing for measures to be harsher and more restrictive.

Some sort of balance needs to be found. At Second Reading my noble friend the Minister said that the balance had been struck in the right place. It is quite clear that nobody really agrees with that, except on the principle, which I think is always a cop-out, that if everyone disagrees with you, you must be right, which I have never logically understood in any sense at all. I hope my noble friend will not resort to claiming that he has got it right simply because everyone disagrees with him in different ways.

My amendment is motivated by the considerations set out by the noble Baroness, which I therefore do not need to repeat. It is the Government’s own assessment that between 20,000 and 25,000 businesses will be affected by the measures in this Bill. A great number of those—some four-fifths—are small businesses or micro-businesses. The Government appear to think in their assessment that only 120 of those are high risk. The reason they think they are high risk is not that they are engaged in unpleasant activities but simply that they are engaged in livestreaming and contacting new people. That might be for nefarious purposes but equally, it might not, so the 120 we need to worry about could actually be a very small number. We handle this already through our own laws; all these businesses would still be subject to existing data protection laws and complying with the law generally on what they are allowed to publish and broadcast. It would not be a free-for-all or a wild west, even among that very small number of businesses.

My Amendment 9 takes a slightly different approach to dealing with this. I do not in any way disagree with or denigrate the approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but my approach would be to add two categories to the list of exemptions in the schedules. The first of these is services provided by small and medium-sized enterprises. We do not have to define those because there is already a law that helps define them for us: Section 33 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. My proposal is that we take that definition, and that those businesses that comply with it be outside the scope of the Bill.

The second area that I would propose exempting was also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley: community-based services. The largest of these, and the one that frequently annoys us because it gets things wrong, is Wikipedia. I am a great user of Wikipedia but I acknowledge that it does make errors. Of course, most of the errors it makes, such as saying, “Lord Moylan has a wart on the end of his nose”, would not be covered by the Bill anyway. Nothing in the Bill will force people to correct factual statements that have been got wrong—my year of birth or country of birth, or whatever. That is not covered. Those are the things they usually get wrong and that normally annoy us when we see them.

However, I do think that these services are extremely valuable. Wikipedia is an immense achievement and a tremendous source of knowledge and information for people. The fact that it has been put together in this organic, community-led way over a number of years, in so many languages, is a tremendous advantage and a great human advance. Yet, under the proposed changes, Wikipedia would not be able to operate its existing model of people posting their comments.

Currently, you go on Wikipedia and you can edit it. Now, I know this would not apply to any noble Lords but, in the other place, it has been suggested that MPs have discovered how to do this. They illicitly and secretly go on to and edit their own pages, usually in a flattering way, so it is possible to do this. There is no prior restraint, and no checking in advance. There are moderators at Wikipedia—I do not know whether they are employed—who review what has been done over a period, but they do not do what this Bill requires, which is checking in advance.

It is not simply about Wikipedia; there are other community sites. Is it sensible that Facebook should be responsible if a little old lady alters the information on a community Facebook page about what is happening in the local parish? Why should Facebook be held responsible for that? Why would we want it to be responsible for it—and how could it do it without effectively censoring ordinary activities that people want to carry out, using the advantages of the internet that have been so very great?

What I am asking is not dramatic. We have many laws in which we very sensibly create exemptions for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am simply asking that this law be considered under that heading as well, and similarly for Wikipedia and community-based sites. It is slightly unusual that we have had to consider that; it is not normal, but it is very relevant to this Bill and I very much hope the Government will agree to it.

The answer that I would not find satisfactory—I say this in advance for the benefit of my noble friend the Minister, in relation to this and a number of other amendments I shall be moving in Committee—is that it will all be dealt with by Ofcom. That would not be good enough. We are the legislators and we want to know how these issues will be dealt with, so that the legitimate objectives of the Bill can be achieved without causing massive disruption, cost and disbenefit to adults.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and in particular the proposed new paragraph 10A to Schedule 1. I hope I will find myself more in tune with the mood of the Committee on this amendment than on previous ones. I would be interested to know whether any noble Lords believe that Ofcom should be spending its limited resources supervising a site like Wikipedia under the new regime, as it seems to me patently obvious that that is not what we intend; it is not the purpose of the legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is right to remind us that one of the joys of the internet is that you buy an internet connection, plug it in and there is a vast array of free-to-use services which are a community benefit, produced by the community for the community, with no harm within them. What we do not want to do is interfere with or somehow disrupt that ecosystem. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is right to remind us that there is a genuine risk of people withdrawing from the UK market. We should not sidestep that. People who try to be law-abiding will look at these requirements and ask themselves, “Can I meet them?” If the Wikimedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia does not think it can offer its service in a lawful way, it will have to withdraw from the UK market. That would be to the detriment of children in the United Kingdom, and certainly not to their benefit.

There are principle-based and practical reasons why we do not want Ofcom to be operating in this space. The principle-based one is that it makes me uncomfortable that a Government would effectively tell their regulator how to manage neutral information sites such as Wikipedia. There are Governments around the world who seek to do that; we do not want to be one of those.

The amendment attempts to define this public interest, neutral, informational service. It happens to be user-to-user but it is not like Facebook, Instagram or anything similar. I would feel much more comfortable making it clear in law that we are not asking Ofcom to interfere with those kinds of services. The practical reason is the limited time Ofcom will have available. We do not want it to be spending time on things that are not important.

Definitions are another example of how, with the internet, it can often be extremely hard to draw bright lines. Functionalities bleed into each other. That is not necessarily a problem, until you try to write something into law; then, you find that your definition unintentionally captures a service that you did not intend to capture, or unintentionally misses out a service that you did intend to be in scope. I am sure the Minister will reject the amendment because that is what Ministers do; but I hope that, if he is not willing to accept it, he will at least look at whether there is scope within the Bill to make it clear that Wikipedia is intended to be outside it.

Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 refers to “limited functionality services”. That is a rich vein to mine. It is clear that the intention is to exclude mainstream media, for example. It refers to “provider content”. In this context, Encyclopaedia Britannica is not in scope but Wikipedia is, the difference being that Wikipedia is constructed by users, while Encyclopaedia Britannica is regarded as being constructed by a provider. The Daily Mail is outside scope; indeed, all mainstream media are outside scope. Anyone who declares themselves to be media—we will debate this later on—is likely to be outside scope.

Such provider exemption should be offered to other, similar services, even if they happen to be constructed from the good will of users as opposed to a single professional author. I hope the Minister will be able to indicate that the political intent is not that we should ask Ofcom to spend time and energy regulating Wikipedia-like services. If so, can he point to where in the legislation we might get that helpful interpretation, in order to ensure that Ofcom is focused on what we want it to be focused on and not on much lower priority issues?

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I will speak to a couple of the amendments in this group. First, small is not safe, and you cannot necessarily see these platforms in isolation. For example, there is an incel group that has only 4,000 active users, but it posts a great deal on YouTube and has 24.2 million users in that context. So we have to be clear that small and safe are not the same thing.

However, I am sympathetic to the risk-based approach. I should probably have declared an interest as someone who has given money to Wikipedia on several occasions to keep it going. I ask the Minister for some clarity on the systems and processes of the Bill, and whether the risk profile of Wikipedia—which does not entice you in and then follow you for the next six months once you have looked at something—is far lower than something very small that gets hold of you and keeps on going. I say that particularly in relation to children, but I feel it for myself also.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. If one is permitted to say this in the digital age, I am on exactly the same page as she is.

There are two elements to the debate on this group. It is partly about compliance, and I absolutely understand the point about the costs of that, but I also take comfort from some of the things that the noble Lord. Lord Vaizey, said about the way that Ofcom is going to deliver the regulation and the very fact that this is going to be largely not a question of interpretation of the Act, when it comes down to it, but is going to be about working with the codes of practice. That will be a lot more user-friendly than simply having to go to expensive expert lawyers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—not that I have anything against expensive expert lawyers.

I am absolutely in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that small is not safe. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, described, small can become big. We looked at this in our Joint Committee and recommended to the Government that they should take a more nuanced approach to regulation, based not just on size and high-level functionality but on factors such as risk, reach, user base, safety performance and business model. All those are extremely relevant but risk is the key, right at the beginning. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, also said that Reddit should potentially be outside, but Reddit has had its own problems, as we know. On that front, I am on absolutely the same page as those who have spoken about keeping us where we are.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has been very cunning in the way that he has drawn up his Amendment 9. I am delighted to be on the same page as my noble friend —we are making progress—but I agree only with the first half of the amendment because, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I am a financial contributor to Wikipedia. A lot of us depend on Wikipedia; we look up the ages of various Members of this House when we see them in full flight and think, “Good heavens!” Biographies are an important part of this area. We have all had Jimmy Wales saying, as soon as we get on to Wikipedia, “You’ve already looked at Wikipedia 50 times this month. Make a contribution”, and that is irresistible. There is quite a strong case there. It is risk-based so it is not inconsistent with the line taken by a number of noble Lords in all this. I very much hope that we can get something out of the Minister—maybe some sort of sympathetic noises for a change—at this stage so that we can work up something.

I must admit that the briefing from Wikimedia, which many of us have had, was quite alarming. If the Bill means that we do not have users in high-risk places then we will find that adults get their information from other sources that are not as accurate as Wikipedia —maybe from ChatGPT or GPT-4, which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is clearly very much an expert in—and that marginalised websites are shut down.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

For me, one of the features of the schedule’s list of exempted sites is foreign state entities. Therefore, we could end up in the absurd situation where you could not read about the Ukraine war on Wikipedia, but you would be able to read about the Ukraine war on the Russian Government website.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, if we needed an example of something that gave us cause for concern, that would be it; but a very good case has been made, certainly for the first half of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and we on these Benches support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have to start with a slightly unprofessional confession. I accepted the Bill team’s suggestion on how my amendments might be grouped after I had grouped them rather differently. The result is that I am not entirely clear why some of these groupings are quite as they are. As my noble friend the Minister said, my original idea of having Amendments 9, 10 and 11 together would perhaps have been better, as it would have allowed him to give a single response on Wikipedia. Amendments 10 and 11 in this group relate to Wikipedia and services like it.

I am, I hope, going to cause the Committee some relief as I do not intend to repeat remarks made in the previous group. The extent to which my noble friend wishes to amplify his comments in response to the previous group is entirely a matter for him, since he said he was reserving matter that he would like to bring forward but did not when commenting on the previous group. If I do not speak further on Amendments 10 and 11, it is not because I am not interested in what my noble friend the Minister might have to say on the topic of Wikipedia.

To keep this fairly brief, I turn to Amendment 26 on age verification. I think we have all agreed in the Chamber that we are united in wanting to see children kept safe. On page 10 of the Bill, in Clause 11(3), it states that there will be a duty to

“prevent children of any age from encountering”

this content—“prevent” them “encountering” is extremely strong. We do not prevent children encountering the possibility of buying cigarettes or encountering the possibility of being injured crossing the road, but we are to prevent children from these encounters. It is strongly urged in the clause—it is given as an example—that age verification will be required for that purpose.

Of course, age verification works only if it applies to everybody: one does not ask just the children to prove their age; one has to ask everybody online. Unlike when I go to the bar in a pub, my grey hair cannot be seen online. So this provision will almost certainly have to extend to the entire population. In Clause 11(3)(b), we have an obligation to protect. Clearly, the Government intend a difference between “prevent” and “protect”, or they would not have used two different verbs, so can my noble friend the Minister explain what is meant by the distinction between “prevent” and “protect”?

My amendment would remove Clause 11(3) completely. But it is, in essence, a probing amendment and what I want to hear from the Government, apart from how they interpret the difference between “prevent” and “protect”, is how they expect this duty to be carried out without having astonishingly annoying and deterring features built into every user-to-user platform and website, so that every time one goes on Wikipedia—in addition to dealing with the GDPR, accepting cookies and all the other nonsense we have to go through quite pointlessly—we then have to provide age verification of some sort.

What mechanism that might be, I do not know. I am sure that there are many mechanisms available for age verification. I do not wish to get into a technical discussion about what particular techniques might be used—I accept that there will be a range and that they will respond and adapt in the light of demand and technological advance—but I would like to know what my noble friend the Minister expects and how wide he thinks the obligation will be. Will it be on the entire population, as I suspect? Focusing on that amendment—and leaving the others to my noble friend the Minister to respond to as he sees fit—and raising those questions, I think that the Committee would like to know how the Government imagine that this provision will work. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on moderation, which I think are more important than he has given himself credit for—they go more broadly than just Wikipedia.

There is a lot of emphasis on platform moderation, but the reality is that most moderation of online content is done by users, either individually or in groups, acting as groups in the space where they operate. The typical example, which many Members of this House have experienced, is when you post something and somebody asks, “Did you mean to post that?”, and you say, “Oh gosh, no”, and then delete it. A Member in the other place has recently experienced a rather high-profile example of that through the medium of the newspaper. On a much smaller scale, it is absolutely typical that people take down content every day, either because they regret it or, quite often, because their friends, families or communities tell them that it was unwise. That is the most effective form of moderation, because it is the way that people learn to change their behaviour online, as opposed to the experience of a platform removing content, which is often experienced as the big bad hand of the platform. The person does not learn to change their behaviour, so, in some cases, it can reinforce bad behaviour.

Community moderation, not just on Wikipedia but across the internet, is an enormous public good, and the last thing that we want to do in this legislation is to discourage people from doing it. In online spaces, that is often a volunteer activity: people give up their time to try to keep a space safe and within the guidelines they have set for that space. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has touched on a really important area: in the Bill, we must be absolutely clear to those volunteers that we will not create all kinds of new legal operations and liabilities on them. These are responsible people, so, if they are advised that they will incur all kinds of legal risk when trying to comply with the Online Safety Bill, they will stop doing the moderation—and then we will all suffer.

On age-gating, we will move to a series of amendments where we will discuss age assurance, but I will say at the outset, as a teaser to those longer debates, that I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. He mentioned pubs—we often talk about real-world analogies. In most of the public spaces we enter in the real world, nobody does any ID checking or age checking; we take it on trust, unless and until you carry out an action, such as buying alcohol, which requires an age check.

It is legitimate to raise this question, because where we fall in this debate will depend on how we see public spaces. I see a general-purpose social network as equivalent to walking into a pub or a town square, so I do not expect to have my age and ID checked at the point at which I enter that public space. I might accept that my ID is checked at a certain point where I carry out various actions. Others will disagree and will say that the space should be checked as soon as you go into it—that is the boundary of the debate we will have across a few groups. As a liberal, I am certainly on the side that says that it is incumbent on the person wanting to impose the extra checks to justify them. We should not just assume that extra checks are cost-free and beneficial; they have a cost for us all, and it should be imposed only where there is a reasonable justification.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Far be it for me to suggest that all the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, are in the wrong place, but I think that Amendment 26 might have been better debated with the other amendments on age assurance.

On community moderation, I underscore the point that Ofcom must have a risk profile as part of its operations. When we get to that subject, let us understand what Ofcom intends to do with it—maybe we should instruct Ofcom a little about what we would like it to do with it for community moderation. I have a lot of sympathy—but do not think it is a get-out clause—with seeing some spaces as less risky, or, at least, for determining what risky looks like in online spaces, which is a different question. This issue belongs in the risk profile: it is not about taking things out; we have to build it into the Bill we have.

On age assurance and AV, I do not think that today is the day to discuss it in full. I disagree with the point that, because we are checking kids, we have to check ourselves—that is not where the technology is. Without descending into technical arguments, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked us not to, we will bring some of those issues forward.

The noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Stevenson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford have a package of amendments which are very widely supported across the Committee. They have put forward a schedule of age assurance that says what the rules of the road are. We must stop pretending that age assurance is something that is being invented now in this Bill. If you log into a website with your Facebook login, it shares your age—and that is used by 42% of people online. However, if you use an Apple login, it does not share your age, so I recommend using Apple—but, interestingly, it is harder to find that option on websites, because websites want to know your age.

So, first, we must not treat age assurance as if it has just been invented. Secondly, we need to start to have rules of the road, and ask what is acceptable, what is proportionate, and when we will have zero tolerance. Watching faces around the Committee, I say that I will accept zero tolerance for pornography and some other major subjects, but, for the most part, age assurance is something that we need to have regulated. Currently, it is being done to us rather than in any way that is transparent or agreed, and that is very problematic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this group of government amendments relates to risk assessments; it may be helpful if I speak to them now as the final group before the dinner break.

Risk management is at the heart of the Bill’s regulatory framework. Ofcom and services’ risk assessments will form the foundation for protecting users from illegal content and content which is harmful to children. They will ensure that providers thoroughly identify the risks on their own websites, enabling them to manage and mitigate the potential harms arising from them. Ofcom will set out the risks across the sector and issue guidance to companies on how to conduct their assessments effectively. All providers will be required to carry out risk assessments, keep them up-to-date and update them before making a significant change to the design or operation of their service which could put their users at risk. Providers will then need to put in place measures to manage and mitigate the risks they identify in their risk assessments, including any emerging risks.

Given how crucial the risk assessments are to this framework, it is essential that we enable them to be properly scrutinised by the public. The government amendments in this group will place new duties on providers of the largest services—that is, category 1 and 2A services—to publish summaries of their illegal and child safety risk assessments. Through these amendments, providers of these services will also have a new duty to send full records of their risk assessments to Ofcom. This will increase transparency about the risk of harm on the largest platforms, clearly showing how risk is affected by factors such as the design, user base or functionality of their services. These amendments will further ensure that the risk assessments can be properly assessed by internet users, including by children and their parents and guardians, by ensuring that summaries of the assessments are publicly available. This will empower users to make informed decisions when choosing whether and how to use these services.

It is also important that Ofcom is fully appraised of the risks identified by service providers. That is why these amendments introduce duties for both category 1 and 2A services to send their records of these risk assessments, in full, to Ofcom. This will make it easier for Ofcom to supervise compliance with the risk assessment duties, as well as other duties linked to the findings of the risk assessments, rather than having to request the assessments from companies under its information-gathering powers.

These amendments also clarify that companies must keep a record of all aspects of their risk assessments, which strengthens the existing record-keeping duties on services. I hope that noble Lords will welcome these amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, it is risky to stand between people and their dinner, but I rise very briefly to welcome these amendments. We should celebrate the good stuff that happens in Committee as well as the challenging stuff. The risk assessments are, I think, the single most positive part of this legislation. Online platforms already do a lot of work trying to understand what risks are taking place on their platforms, which never sees the light of day except when it is leaked by a whistleblower and we then have a very imperfect debate around it.

The fact that platforms will have to do a formal risk assessment and share it with a third-party regulator is huge progress; it will create a very positive dynamic. The fact that the public will be able to see those risk assessments and make their own judgments about which services to use—according to how well they have done them—is, again, a massive public benefit. We should welcome the fact that risk assessments are there and the improvements that this group of amendments makes to them. I hope that was short enough.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I also welcome these amendments, but I have two very brief questions for the Minister. First, in Amendment 27A, it seems that the child risk assessment is limited only to category 1 services and will be published only in the terms of service. As he probably knows, 98% of people do not read terms of service, so I wondered where else we might find this, or whether there is a better way of dealing with it.

My second question is to do with Amendments 64A and 88A. It seems to me—forgive me if I am wrong—that the Bill previously stipulated that all regulated search and user services had to make and keep a written record of any measure taken in compliance with a relevant duty, but now it seems to have rowed back to only category 1 and 2A services. I may be wrong on that, but I would like to check it for the record.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I want to inject into the debate some counterarguments, which I hope will be received in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. Primarily, I want to argue that a level playing field is not the right solution here and that there is a strong logic for a graduated response. It is often tempting to dial everything up to 11 when you have a problem, and we clearly do have an issue around child access to pornography. But from a practical point of view, the tools we are giving our regulator are better served by being able to treat different kinds of services differently.

I think there are three classes of service that we are thinking about here. The first is a service with the primary purpose and explicit intent to provide pornography and nothing else. A regime dedicated to those sites is quite appropriate. Such a service might have not just the strongest levels of age verification but a whole other set of requirements, which I know we will debate later, around content verification and all sorts of other things that kick into play. The second category is made up of services that are primarily designed for social interaction which prohibit pornography and make quite strenuous efforts to keep it off. Facebook is such a service. I worked there, and we worked hard to try to keep pornography off. We could not guarantee that it was never present, but that was our intent: we explicitly wanted to be a non-pornographic site. Then there are—as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, pointed out—other services, such as Twitter, where the primary purpose is social but a significant proportion of adult content is allowed.

I suggest that one of the reasons for having a graduated response is that, from our point of view, we would like services to move towards porn reduction, and for those general-purpose services to prohibit porn as far as possible. That is our intent. If we have a regulatory system that says, “Look, we’re just going to treat you all the same anyway”, we may provide a perverse incentive for services not to move up the stack, as it were, towards a regime where by having less pornographic or sexualised content, they are able to see some benefit in terms of their relationship with the regulator. That is the primary concern I have around this: that by treating everybody the same, we do not create any incentive for people to deal with porn more effectively and thereby get some relief from the regulator.

From a practical point of view, the relationship that the regulator has is going to be critical to making all these things work. Look at what has been happening in continental Europe. There have been some real issues around enforcing laws that have been passed in places such as France and Germany because there has not been the kind of relationship that the regulator needs with the providers. I think we would all like to see Ofcom in a better position, and one of the ways it can do that is precisely by having different sets of rules. When it is talking to a pure pornography site, it is a different kind of conversation from the one it is going to have with a Twitter or a Facebook. Again, they need to have different rules and guidance that are applied separately.

The intent is right: we want to stop under-18s getting on to those pure porn sites, and we need one set of tools to do that. When under-18s get on to a social network that has porn on it, we want the under-18s, if they meet the age requirement, to have access—that is perfectly legitimate—but once they get there, we want them kept out of the section that is adult. For a general-purpose service that prohibits porn, I think we can be much more relaxed, at least in respect of pornography but not in respect of other forms of harmful content—but we want the regulator to be focused on that and not on imposing porn controls. That graduated response would be helpful to the regulator.

Some of the other amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has proposed will help us to talk about those kinds of measures—what Twitter should do inside Twitter, and so on—but the amendments we have in front of us today are more about dialling it all up to 11 and not allowing for that graduation. That is the intent I heard from the amendments’ proposers. As I say, that is the bit that, respectfully, may end up being counterproductive.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

Could the noble Lord advise us on how he would categorise a site such as Twitter, on which it is estimated that 13% of the page deliveries are to do with pornography? Does it qualify as a pornography site? To me, it is ambiguous. Such a large amount of its financial revenue comes from pages connected with pornography that it seems it has a very big foot in the pornography industry. How would he stop sites gaming definitions to benefit from one schedule or another? Does he think that puts great pressure on the regulator to be constantly moving the goalposts in order to capture who it thinks might be gaming the system, instead of focusing on content definition, which has a 50-year pedigree, is very well defined in law and is an altogether easier status to analyse and be sure about?

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

The Twitter scenario, and other scenarios of mixed sites, are some of the most challenging that we have to deal with. But I would say, straightforwardly, “Look, 13% is a big chunk, but the primary purpose of Twitter is not the delivery of pornography”. I use Twitter on a daily basis and I have never seen pornography on it. I understand that it is there and that people can go for it, and that is an issue, but I think people out there would say that for most people, most of the time, the primary purpose of Twitter is not pornography.

What we want to do—in answer to the noble Lord’s second point—is create an incentive for people to be recategorised in the right direction. There is an assumption here that it is all going to be about gaming the system. I actually think that there is an opportunity here for genuine changes. There will be a conversation with Twitter. It will be interesting, given Twitter’s current management—apparently it is run by a dog, so there will be a conversation with the dog that runs Twitter. In that conversation, the regulator, Ofcom, on our behalf, will be saying, “You could change your terms of service and get rid of pornography”. Twitter will say yes or no. If it says no, Ofcom will say, “Well, here are all the things we expect you to do in order to wall off that part of the site”.

That is a really healthy and helpful conversation to have with Twitter. I expect it is listening now and already thinking about how it will respond. But it would expect that kind of treatment and conversation to be different; and I think the public would expect that conversation to be a different and better conversation than just saying “Twitter, you’re Pornhub. We’re just going to treat you like Pornhub”.

That is the distinction. As I say, we have an opportunity to get people to be more robust about either limiting or removing pornography, and I fear that the amendments we have in front of us would actually undermine rather than enhance that effort.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

At the centre of this is the question of whether we are trying to block the entire service or block at the level of porn content. It is the purpose of a set of amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, myself and a number of other noble Lords to do exactly the latter. But I have to say to the noble Baroness that I am very much in sympathy with, first, putting porn behind an age gate; secondly, having a commencement clause; and, thirdly and very importantly—this has not quite come up in the conversation—saying that harms must be on the face of the Bill and that porn is not the only harm. I say, as a major supporter of the Bereaved Families for Online Safety, that “Porn is the only harm children face” would be a horrendous message to come from this House. But there is nothing in the noble Baroness’s amendments, apart from where the action happens, that I disagree with.

I also felt that the noble Baroness made an incredibly important point when she went into detail on Amendment 125A. I will have to read her speech in order to follow it, because it was so detailed, but the main point she made is salient and relates to an earlier conversation: the reason we have Part 5 is that the Government have insisted on this ridiculous thing about user-to-user and search, instead of doing it where harm is. The idea that you have Part 5, which is to stop the loophole of sites that do not have user-to-user, only to find that they can add user-to-user functionality and be another type of site, is quite ludicrous. I say to the Committee and the Minister, who I am sure does not want me to say it, “If you accept Amendment 2, you’d be out of that problem”—because, if a site was likely to be accessed by children and it had harm and we could see the harm, it would be in scope. That is the very common-sense approach. We are where we are, but let us be sensible about making sure the system cannot be gamed, because that would be ludicrous and would undermine everybody’s efforts—those of the Government and of all the campaigners here.

I just want to say one more thing because I see that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is back in his place. I want to put on the record that age assurance and identity are two very separate things. I hope that, when we come to debate the package of harms—unfortunately, we are not debating them all together; we are debating harms first, then AV—we get to the bottom of that issue because I am very much in the corner of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on this. Identity and age assurance must not be considered the same thing by the House, and definitely not by the legislation.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I will build on my noble friend’s comments. We have what I call the Andrew Tate problem. That famous pornographer and disreputable character started a business in a shed in Romania with a dozen employees. By most people’s assessment, it would have been considered a small business but, through his content of pornography and the physical assault of women, he extremely quickly built something that served an estimated 3 billion pages, and it has had a huge impact on the children of the English-speaking world. A small business became a big, nasty business very quickly. That anecdote reinforces the point that small does not mean safe, and, although I agree with many of my noble friend’s points, the lens of size is perhaps not the right one to look through.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in full flow as he introduced the amendments, but I believe he made an error in terms of the categorisation. The error is entirely rational, because he took the logical position rather than the one in the Bill. It is a helpful error because it allows us to quiz the Minister on the rationale for the categorisation scheme.

As I read it, in Clause 86, the categories are: category 1, which is large user-to-user services; category 2A, which is search or combined services; and category 2B, which is small user-to-user services. To my boring and logical binary brain, I would expect it to be: “1A: large user-to-user”; “1B: small user-to-user”; “2A: large search”; and “2B: small search”. I am curious about why a scheme like that was not adopted and we have ended up with something quite complicated. It is not only that: we now have this Part 3/Part 5 thing. I feel that we will be confused for years to come: we will be deciding whether something is a Part 3 2B service or a Part 5 service, and we will end up with a soup of numbers and letters that do not conform to any normal, rational approach to the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, I must first apologise for my slightly dishevelled appearance as I managed to spill coffee down my shirt on my way to the Chamber. I apologise for that—as the fumes from the dried coffee suffuse the air around me. It will certainly keep me caffeinated for the day ahead.

Search services play a critical role in users’ online experience, allowing them easily to find and access a broad range of information online. Their gateway function, as we have discussed previously, means that they also play an important role in keeping users safe online because they have significant influence over the content people encounter. The Bill therefore imposes stringent requirements on search services to tackle the risks from illegal content and to protect children.

Amendments 13, 15, 66 to 69 and 73 tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan seek to narrow the scope of the Bill so that its safety search duties apply only to the largest search services—categorised in the Bill as category 2A services—rather than to all search services. Narrowing the scope in this way would have an adverse impact on the safety of people using search services, including children. Search services, including combined services, below the category 2A threshold would no longer have a duty to minimise the risk of users encountering illegal content or children encountering harmful content in or via search results. This would increase the likelihood of users, including children, accessing illegal content and children accessing harmful content through these services.

The Bill already takes a targeted approach and the duties on search services will be proportionate to the risk of harm and the capacity of companies. This means that services which are smaller and lower-risk will have a lighter regulatory burden than those which are larger and higher-risk. All search services will be required to conduct regular illegal content risk assessments and, where relevant, children’s risk assessments, and then implement proportionate mitigations to protect users, including children. Ofcom will set out in its codes of practice specific steps search services can take to ensure compliance and must ensure that these are proportionate to the size and capacity of the service.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe asked how search services should conduct their risk assessments. Regulated search services will have a duty to conduct regular illegal content risk assessments, and where a service is likely to be accessed by children it will have a duty to conduct regular children’s risk assessments, as I say. They will be required to assess the level and nature of the risk of individuals encountering illegal content on their service, to implement proportionate mitigations to protect people from illegal content, and to monitor them for effectiveness. Services likely to be accessed by children will also be required to assess the nature and level of risk of their service specifically for children to identify and implement proportionate mitigations to keep children safe, and to monitor them for effectiveness as well.

Companies will also need to assess how the design and operation of the service may increase or reduce the risks identified and Ofcom will have a duty to issue guidance to assist providers in carrying out their risk assessments. That will ensure that providers have, for instance, sufficient clarity about what an appropriate risk assessment looks like for their type of service.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, and others asked about definitions and I congratulate noble Lords on avoiding the obvious

“To be, or not to be”


pun in the debate we have just had. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, is right in the definition he set out. On the rationale for it, it is simply that we have designated as category 1 the largest and riskiest services and as category 2 the smaller and less risky ones, splitting them between 2A, search services, and 2B, user-to-user services. We think that is a clear framework. The definitions are set out a bit more in the Explanatory Notes but that is the rationale.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I take it then that the Government’s working assumption is that all search services, including the biggest ones, are by definition less risky than the larger user-to-user services. It is just a clarification that that is their thinking that has informed this.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

As I said, the largest and riskiest sites may involve some which have search functions, so the test of large and most risky applies. Smaller and less risky search services are captured in category 2A.

Amendment 157 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pickles, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, seeks to apply new duties on the largest search services. I agree with the objectives in my noble friend’s amendment of increasing transparency about the search services’ operations and enabling users to hold them to account. It is not, however, an amendment I can accept because it would duplicate existing duties while imposing new duties which we do not think are appropriate for search services.

As I say, the Bill will already require search services to set out how they are fulfilling their illegal content and child safety duties in publicly available statements. The largest search services—category 2A—will also be obliged to publish a summary of their risk assessments and to share this with Ofcom. That will ensure that users know what to expect on those search services. In addition, they will be subject to the Bill’s requirements relating to user reporting and redress. These will ensure that search services put in place effective and accessible mechanisms for users to report illegal content and content which is harmful to children.

My noble friend’s amendment would ensure that the requirements to comply with its publicly available statements applied to all actions taken by a search service to prevent harm, not just those relating to illegal content and child safety. This would be a significant expansion of the duties, resulting in Ofcom overseeing how search services treat legal content which is accessed by adults. That runs counter to the Government’s stated desire to avoid labelling legal content which is accessed by adults as harmful. It is for adult users themselves to determine what legal content they consider harmful. It is not for us to put in place measures which could limit their access to legal content, however distasteful. That is not to say, of course, that where material becomes illegal in its nature that we do not share the determination of the noble Baroness, my noble friend and others to make sure that it is properly tackled. The Secretary of State and Ministers have had extensive meetings with groups making representations on this point and I am very happy to continue speaking to my noble friend, the noble Baroness and others if they would welcome it.

I hope that that provides enough reassurance for the amendment to be withdrawn at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

14: Clause 6, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(6A) Providers of regulated user-to-user services are required to comply with duties under subsections (2) to (6) for each such service which they provide to the extent that is proportionate and technically feasible without making fundamental changes to the nature of the service (for example, by removing or weakening end-to-end encryption on an end-to-end encrypted service).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is part of a series of amendments by Lord Clement-Jones intended to ensure risk assessments are not used as a tool to undermine users’ privacy and security.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I propose Amendment 14 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who are not able to be present today due to prior commitments. I notice that the amendment has been signed also by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who I am sure will speak to it herself. I shall speak to the group of amendments as a whole.

I shall need to speak at some length to this group, as it covers some quite complex issues, even for this Bill, but I hope that the Committee will agree that this is appropriate given the amendments’ importance. I also expect that this is one area where noble Lords are receiving the most lobbying from different directions, so we should do it justice in our Committee.

We should start with a short summary of the concern that lies behind the amendments: that the Bill, as drafted, particularly under Clause 110, grants Ofcom the power to issue technical notices to online services that could, either explicitly or implicitly, require them to remove privacy protections—and, in particular, that this could undermine a technology that is increasingly being deployed on private messaging services called end-to-end encryption. The amendments in this group use various mechanisms to reduce the likelihood of that being an outcome. Amendments 14 and 108 seek to make it clear in the Bill that end-to-end encryption would be out of scope—and, as I understand it, Amendment 205, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to do something similar.

A second set of amendments would add in extra controls over the issuing of technical notices. While not explicitly saying that these could not target E2EE—if noble Lords will excuse the double negative—they would make it less likely by ensuring that there is more scrutiny. They include a whole series of amendments—Amendments 202 and 206, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and Amendment 207—that have the effect of ensuring that there is more scrutiny and input into issuing such a notice.

The third set of amendments aim to ensure that Ofcom gives weight more generally to privacy and to all the actions it takes in relation to it. In particular, Amendment 190 talks about a broader privacy duty, and Amendment 285—which I think noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will be excited about—seeks to restrict general monitoring.

I will now dig into why this is important. Put simply, there is a risk that under the Bill a range of internet services will feel that they are unable to offer their products in the UK. This speaks to a larger question as we debate the measures in the Bill, as it can sometimes feel as though we are comfortable ratcheting up the requirements in the Bill under the assumption that services will have no choice but to meet them and carry on. While online services will not have a choice about complying if they wish to be lawfully present in the UK, they will be free to exit the market altogether if they believe that the requirements are excessively onerous or impossible to meet.

In the Bill, we are constructing, in effect, a de facto licensing mechanism, where Ofcom will contact in-scope services—the category 2A, category 2B, Part 3 and Part 5 services we discussed in relation to the previous group of amendments—will order them to follow all the relevant regulation and guidance and will instruct them to pay a fee for that supervision. We have to consider that some services, on receipt of that notice, will take steps to restrict access by people in the UK rather than agree to such a licence. Where those are rogue services, this reaction is consistent with the aims of the Bill. We do not want services which are careless about online safety to be present in the UK market. But I do not believe that it is our aim to force mainstream services out of the UK market and, if there is a chance of that happening, it should give us pause for thought.

As a general rule, I am not given to apocalyptic warnings, but I believe there is a real risk that some of the concerns that noble Lords will be receiving in their inboxes are genuine, so I want to unpick why that may be the case. We should reflect for a moment on the assumptions we may have about the people involved in this debate and their motivations. We often see tech people characterised as oblivious to harms, and security services people as uncaring about human rights. In my experience, both caricatures are off the mark, as tech people hate to see their services abused and security service representatives understand that they need to be careful about how they exercise the great powers we have given them. We should note that, much of the time, those two communities work well together in spaces such the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism.

If this characterisation is accurate, why do I think we may have a breakdown over the specific technology of end-to-end encryption? To understand this subject, we need to spend a few moments looking at trends in technology and regulation over recent years. First, we can look at the growth of content-scanning tools, which I think may have been in the Government’s mind when they framed and drafted the new Clause 110 notices. As social media services developed, they had to consider the risks of hosting content on the services that users had uploaded. That content could be illegal in all sorts of ways, including serious forms, such as child sexual abuse material and terrorist threats, as well as things such as copyright infringement, defamatory remarks and so on. Platforms have strong incentives to keep that material off their servers for both moral and legal reasons, so they began to develop and deploy a range of tools to identify and remove it. As a minimum, most large platforms now deploy systems to capture child sexual abuse material and copyright-infringing material, using technologies such as PhotoDNA and Audible Magic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I point out that one of the benefits of end-to-end encryption is that it precisely stops companies doing things such as targeted advertising based on the content of people’s communications. Again, I think there is a very strong and correct trend to push companies in that direction.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for the intervention. For those noble Lords who are not following the numbers, Amendment 285, which I support, would prevent general monitoring. Apart from anything else, I am worried about equivalence and other issues in relation to general monitoring. Apart from a principled position against it, I think to be explicit is helpful.

Ofcom needs to be very careful, and that is what Amendment 190 sets out. It asks whether the alternatives have been thought about, whether the conditions have been thought about, and whether the potential impact has been thought about. That series of questions is essential. I am probably closer to the community that wants to see more powers and more interventions, but I would like that to be in a very monitored and regulated form.

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. Some of these amendments must be supported because it is worrying for us as a country to have—what did the noble Lord call it?—ambiguity about whether something is possible. I do not think that is a useful ambiguity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I agree with the noble Baroness, which is precisely why I am suggesting that we need to consider whether privacy should be sacrificed totally in relation to the argument around encryption. It is difficult, and I feel awkward saying it. When I mentioned a silver bullet I was not talking about the noble Baroness or any other noble Lords present, but I have heard people say that we need this Bill because it will deal with child abuse. In this group of amendments, I am raising the fact that when I have talked about encryption with people outside of the House they have said that we need to do something to tackle the fact that these messages are being sent around. It is not just child abuse; it is also terrorism. There is a range of difficult situations.

Things can go wrong with this, and that is what I was trying to raise. For example, we have a situation where some companies are considering using, or are being asked to use, machine learning to detect nudity. Just last year, a father lost his Google account and was reported to the police for sending a naked photo of their child to the doctor for medical reasons. I am raising these as examples of the problems that we have to consider.

Child abuse is so abhorrent that we will do anything to protect children, but let me say this to the Committee, as it is where the point on privacy lies: children are largely abused in their homes, but as far as I understand it we are not as yet arguing that the state should put CCTV cameras in every home for 24/7 surveillance to stop child abuse. That does not mean that we are glib or that we do not understand the importance of child abuse; it means that we understand the privacy of your home. There are specialist services that can intervene when they think there is a problem. I am worried about the possibility of putting a CCTV camera in everyone’s phone, which is the danger of going down this route.

My final point is that these services, such as WhatsApp, will potentially leave the UK. It is important to note that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan: this is not like threatening to storm off. It is not done in any kind of pique in that way. In putting enormous pressure on these platforms to scan communications, we must remember that they are global platforms. They have a system that works for billions of people all around the world. A relatively small market such as the UK is not something for which they would compromise their billions of users around the world. As I have explained, they would not put up with it if the Chinese state said, “We have to see people’s messages”. They would just say, “We are encrypted services”. They would walk out of China and we would all say, “Well done”. There is a real, strong possibility of these services leaving the UK so we must be very careful.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I just want to add to the exchange between the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Fox. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to WhatsApp’s position. Again, it is important for the public out there also to understand that if someone sends them illegal material—in particular child sexual abuse material; I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that this is a real problem—and they report it to WhatsApp, which has a reporting system, that material is no longer encrypted. It is sent in clear text and WhatsApp will give it to the police. One of the things I am suggesting is that, rather than driving WhatsApp out of the country, because it is at the more responsible end of the spectrum, we should work with it to improve these kinds of reporting systems and put the fear of God into people so that they know that this issue is not cost-free.

As a coda to that, if you ever receive something like that, you should report it to the police straightaway because, once it is on your phone, you are liable and you have a problem. The message from here should be: if you receive it, report it and, if it is reported, make sure that it gets to the police. We should be encouraging services to put those systems in place.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord has concluded with my conclusion, which was to say that those services will be driven out, but not because they are irresponsible around horrible, dangerous messages. They do not read our messages because they are private. However, if we ever receive anything that makes us feel uncomfortable, they should be put under pressure to act. Many of them already do and are actually very responsible, but that is different from demanding that they scan our messages and we breach that privacy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, I think it is right. The investigatory powers Act is a tool for law enforcement and intelligence agencies, whereas the Bill is designed to regulate technology companies—an important high-level distinction. As such, the Bill does not grant investigatory powers to state bodies. It does not allow the Government or the regulator to access private messages. Instead, it requires companies to implement proportionate systems and processes to tackle illegal content on their platforms. I will come on to say a little about legal redress and the role of the courts in looking at Ofcom’s decisions so, if I may, I will respond to that in a moment.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

The investigatory powers Act includes a different form of technical notice, which is to put in place surveillance equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has a good point: we need to ensure that we do not have two regimes, both requiring companies to put in place technical equipment but with quite different standards applying.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will certainly take that point away and I understand, of course, that different Acts require different duties of the same platforms. I will take that away and discuss it with colleagues in other departments who lead on investigatory powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am about to talk about the safeguards for journalists in the context of the Bill and the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. However, I take my noble friend’s point about the implications of other Acts that are already on the statute book in that context as well.

Just to finish the train of thought of what I was saying on Amendment 202, making a reference to encryption, as it suggests, would be out of step with the wider approach of the Bill, which is to remain technology-neutral.

I come to the safeguards for journalistic protections, as touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The Government are fully committed to protecting the integrity of journalistic sources, and there is no intention or expectation that the tools required to be used under this power would result in a compromising of those sources. Any tools required on private communications must be accredited by Ofcom as highly accurate only in detecting child sexual abuse and exploitation content. These minimum standards of accuracy will be approved and published by the Secretary of State, following advice from Ofcom. We therefore expect it to be very unlikely that journalistic content will be falsely detected by the tools being required.

Under Clause 59, companies are obliged to report child sexual abuse material which is detected on their service to the National Crime Agency; this echoes a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, in an earlier contribution. That would include child sexual abuse and exploitation material identified through tools required by a notice and, even in this event, the appropriate protections in relation to journalistic sources would be applied by the National Crime Agency if it were necessary to identify individuals involved in sharing illegal material.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I want to flag that in the context of terrorist content, this is quite high risk for journalists. It is quite common for them, for example, to be circulating a horrific ISIS video not because they support ISIS but because it is part of a news article they are putting together. We should flag that terrorist content in particular is commonly distributed by journalists and it could be picked up by any system that is not sufficiently sophisticated.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I see that my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth has joined the Front Bench in anticipation of the lunch-break business for the Home Office. That gives me the opportunity to say that I will discuss some of these points with him, my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and others at the Home Office.

Amendment 246 aims to ensure that there is no requirement for a provider to comply with a notice until the High Court has determined the appeal. The Government have ensured that, in addition to judicial review through the High Court, there is an accessible and relatively affordable alternative means of appealing Ofcom’s decisions via the Upper Tribunal. We cannot accept amendments such as this, which could unacceptably delay Ofcom’s ability to issue a notice, because that would leave children vulnerable.

To ensure that Ofcom’s use of its powers under Clause 110, and the technology that underpins it, are transparent, Ofcom will produce an annual report about the exercise of its functions using these powers. This must be submitted to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament. The report must also provide the details of technology that has been assessed as meeting minimum standards of accuracy, and Ofcom may also consider other factors, including the impact of technologies on privacy. That will be separate to Ofcom’s annual report to allow for full scrutiny of this power.

The legislation also places a statutory requirement on Ofcom to publish guidance before its functions with regard to Clause 110 come into force. This will be after Royal Assent, given that the legislation is subject to change until that point. Before producing the guidance, Ofcom must consult the Information Commissioner. As I said, there are already strong safeguards regarding Ofcom’s use of these powers, so we think that this additional oversight is unnecessary.

Amendments 203 and 204, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seek to probe the privacy implications of Ofcom’s powers to require technology under Clause 110. I reiterate that the Bill will not ban or weaken any design, including end-to-end encryption. But, given the scale of child sexual abuse and exploitation taking place on private communications, it is important that Ofcom has effective powers to require companies to tackle this abhorrent activity. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that in nearly three-quarters of cases where children are contacted online by someone they do not know, this takes place by private message. This highlights the scale of the threat and the importance of technology providers taking steps to safeguard children in private spaces online.

As already set out, there are already strong safeguards regarding the use of this power, and these will prevent Ofcom from requiring the use of any technology that would undermine a platform’s security and put users’ privacy at risk. These safeguards will also ensure that platforms will not be required to conduct mass scanning of private communications by default.

Until the regime comes into force, it is of course not possible to say with certainty which tools would be accredited. However, some illustrative examples of the kinds of current tools we might expect to be used—providing that they are highly accurate and compatible with a service’s design—are machine learning or artificial intelligence, which assess content to determine whether it is illegal, and hashing technology, which works by assigning a unique number to an image that has been identified as illegal.

Given the particularly abhorrent nature of the crimes we are discussing, it is important that services giving rise to a risk of child sexual abuse and exploitation in the UK are covered, wherever they are based. The Bill, including Ofcom’s ability to issue notices in relation to this or to terrorism, will therefore have extraterritorial effect. The Bill will apply to any relevant service that is linked to the UK. A service is linked to the UK if it has a significant number of UK users, if UK users form a target market or if the service is capable of being used in the UK and there is a material risk of significant harm to individuals in the UK arising from the service. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, on behalf of his noble friend, about why that amendment is not needed.

Amendments 209 to 214 seek to place additional requirements on Ofcom to consider the effect on user privacy when using its powers under Clause 110. I agree that tackling online harm needs to take place while protecting privacy and security online, which is why Ofcom already has to consider user privacy before issuing notices under Section 110, among the other stringent safeguards I have set out. Amendment 202A would impose a duty on Ofcom to issue a notice under Clause 110, where it is satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to do so—this will have involved ensuring that the safeguards have been met.

Ofcom will have access to a wide range of information and must have the discretion to decide the most appropriate course of action in any particular scenario, including where this action lies outside the powers and procedures conferred by Clause 110; for instance, an initial period of voluntary engagement. This is an in extremis power. It is essential that we balance users’ rights with the need to enable a strong response, so Ofcom must be able to assess whether any alternative, less intrusive measures would effectively reduce the level of child sexual exploitation and abuse or terrorist content occurring on a service before issuing a notice.

I hope that that provides reassurance to noble Lords on the amendments in this group, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 14.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very useful debate and serves as a good appetite builder for lunch, which I understand we will be able to take shortly.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, gave us a balanced view of digital rights—the right to privacy and to security—and the fact that we should be trying to advance these two things simultaneously. She was right again to remind us that this is a real problem and there is a lot we can do. I know she has worked on this through things such as metadata—understanding who is communicating with whom—which might strike that nice balance where we are not infringing on people’s privacy too grossly but are still able to identify those who wish harm on our society and in particular on our children.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was right to pick up this tension between everything, everywhere, all at once and targeted surveillance. Again, that is really interesting to tease out. I am personally quite comfortable with quite intrusive targeted surveillance. I do not know whether noble Lords have been reading the Pegasus spyware stories: I am not comfortable with some Governments placing such spyware on the phones of human rights defenders but I would be much more relaxed about the British authorities placing something similar on the phones of people who are going to plant bombs in Manchester. We need to be really honest about where we are drawing our red lines if we want to go in the direction of targeted surveillance.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was right again to remind us about the importance of private conversations. I cited the example of police officers whose conversations have been exposed. Although it is hard, we should remember that if ordinary citizens want to exchange horrible racist jokes with each other and so on in private groups that is not a matter for the state, but it is when it is somebody in a position of public authority; we have a right to intervene there. Again, we have to remember that as long as it is not illegal people can say horrible things in private, and we should not encourage any situation where we suggest that the state would interfere unless there are legitimate grounds—for example, it is a police officer or somebody is doing something that crosses the line of legality.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, reminded us that it is either encrypted or it is not. That is really helpful, as things cannot be half encrypted. If a service provider makes a commitment it is critical that it is truthful. That is what our privacy law tells us. If I say, “This service is encrypted between you and the person you send the message to”, and I know that there is somebody in between who could access it, I am lying. I cannot say it is a private service unless it is truly private. We have to bear that in mind. Historically, people might have been more comfortable with fudging it, but not in 2023, when have this raft of privacy legislation.

The noble Baroness is also right to remind us that privacy can be safety. There is almost nothing more devastating than the leaking of intimate images. When services such as iCloud move to encrypted storage that dramatically reduces the risk that somebody will get access to your intimate images if you store them there, which you are legally entitled to do. Privacy can be a critical part of an individual maintaining their own security and we should not lose that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, was right again to talk about general monitoring. I am pleased that she found the WhatsApp briefing useful. I was unable to attend but I know from previous contact that there are people doing good work and it is sad that that often does not come out. We end up with this very polarised debate, which my noble friend Lord McNally was right to remind us is unhelpful. The people south of the river are often working very closely in the public interest with people in tech companies. Public rhetoric tends to focus on why more is not being done; there are very few thanks for what is being done. I would like to see the debate move a little more in that direction.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, opened up a whole new world of pain with VPNs, which I am sure we will come back to. I say simply that if we get the regulatory frameworks right, most people in Britain will continue to use mainstream services as long as they are allowed to be offered. If those services are regulated by the European Union under its Digital Services Act and pertain to the UK and the US in a similar way, they will in effect have global standards, so it will not matter where you VPN from. The scenario the noble Lord painted, which I worry about, is where those mainstream services are not available and we drive people into small, new services that are not regulated by anyone. We would then end up inadvertently driving people back to the wild west that we complain about, when most of them would prefer to use mainstream services that are properly regulated by Ofcom, the European Commission and the US authorities.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I support these amendments, which were set out wonderfully by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I want to raise a point made on Tuesday when the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said that only 3% of people read terms of service and I said that 98% of people do not read them, so one of us is wrong, but I think the direction of travel is clear. She also used a very interesting phrase about prominence, and I want to use this opportunity to ask the Minister whether there is some lever whereby Ofcom can insist on prominence for certain sorts of material—a hierarchy of information, if you like—because these are really important pieces of information, buried in the wrong place so that even 2% or 3% of people may not find them.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has given us the opportunity to talk about terms of service, and I will make three points again, in a shorter intervention than on the previous group.

First, terms of service are critical as the impact of terms of service will generally be much greater in terms of the amount of intervention that occurs on content than it will ever be under the law. Terms of service create, in effect, a body of private law for a community, and they are nearly always a superset of the public law—indeed, it is very common for the first items of a terms of service to say, “You must not do anything illegal”. This raises the interesting question of “illegal where?”—what it generally means is that you must not do anything illegal in the jurisdiction in which the service provider is established. The terms of service will say, “Do not do anything illegal”, and then they will give a whole list of other things, as well as illegality, that you cannot do on the platform, and I think this is right because they have different characteristics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very large and wide-ranging group of amendments. Within it, I have a number of amendments that, on their own, span three separate subjects. I propose to address these one after the other in my opening remarks, but other subjects will be brought in as the debate continues and other noble Lords speak to their own amendments.

If I split the amendments that I am speaking to into three groups, the first is Amendments 17 and 18. These relate to Clause 9, on page 7, where safety duties about illegal content are set out. The first of those amendments addresses the obligation to prevent individuals encountering priority illegal content by means of the service.

Earlier this week in Committee, I asked the Minister whether the Government understood “prevent” and “protect”, both of which they use in the legislation, to have different weight. I did not expect my noble friend to give an answer at that point, but I know that he will have reflected on it. We need clarity about this at some point, because courts will be looking at, listening to and reading what the Government say at the Dispatch Box about the weight to be given to these words. To my mind, to prevent something happening requires active measures in advance that ensure as far as reasonably and humanly possible that it does not actually happen, but one could be talking about something more reactive to protect someone from something happening.

This distinction is of great importance to internet companies—I am not talking about the big platforms—which will be placed, as I say repeatedly, under very heavy burdens by the Bill. It is possible that they simply will not be able to discharge them and will have to go out of business.

Let us take Wikipedia, which was mentioned earlier in Committee. It operates in 300 languages but employs 700 moderators globally to check what is happening. If it is required by Clause 9 to

“prevent individuals from encountering priority illegal content by means of the service”,

it will have to scrutinise what is put up on this community-driven website as or before it appears. Quite clearly, something such as Welsh Wikipedia—there is Wikipedia in Welsh—simply would not get off the ground if it had to meet that standard, because the number of people who would have to be employed to do that would be far more than the service could sustain. However, if we had something closer to the wording I suggest in my amendment, where services have to take steps to “protect” people—so they could react to something and take it down when they become aware of it—it all becomes a great deal more tolerable.

Similarly, Amendment 18 addresses subsection (3) of the same clause, where there is a

“duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes … to … minimise the length of time”

for which content is present. How do you know whether you are minimising the length of time? How is that to be judged? What is the standard by which that is to be measured? Would it not be a great deal better and more achievable if the wording I propose, which is that you simply are under an obligation to take it down, were inserted? That is my first group of amendments. I put that to my noble friend and say that all these amendments are probing to some extent at this stage. I would like to hear how he thinks that this can actually be operated.

My second group is quite small, because it contains only Amendment 135. Here I am grateful to the charity JUSTICE for its help in drawing attention to this issue. This amendment deals with Schedule 7, on page 202, where the priority offences are set out. Paragraph 4 of the schedule says that a priority offence includes:

“An offence under any of the following provisions of the Public Order Act 1986”.


One of those is Section 5 of that Act, “Harassment, alarm or distress”. Here I make a very different point and return to territory I have been familiar with in the past. We debated this only yesterday in Grand Committee, although I personally was unable to be there: the whole territory of hate crimes, harmful and upsetting words, and how they are to be judged and dealt with. In this case, my amendment would remove Section 5 of the Public Order Act from the list of priority offences.

If society has enough problems tolerating the police going round and telling us when we have done or said harmful and hurtful things and upbraiding us for it, is it really possible to consider—without the widest form of censorship—that it is appropriate for internet platforms to judge us, shut us down and shut down our communications on the basis of their judgment of what we should be allowed to say? We already know that there is widespread suspicion that some internet platforms are too quick to close down, for example, gender critical speech. We seem to be giving them something close to a legislative mandate to be very trigger-happy when it comes to closing down speech by saying that it engages, or could engage, Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I will come to the question of how they judge it in my third group, in a moment—but the noble Lord might be able to help me.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

Just to reinforce the point the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made on that, I certainly had experience of where the police became the complainants. They would request, for example, that you take down an English Defence League event, claiming that it would be likely to cause a public order problem. I have no sympathy whatever with the English Defence League, but I am very concerned about the police saying “You must remove a political demonstration” to a platform and citing the legal grounds for doing that. The noble Lord is on to a very valid point to be concerned about that.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I really wonder whether the Government realise what they are walking into here. On the one hand, yesterday the Grand Committee was debating the statutory instrument putting in place new statutory guidance for the police on how to enforce, much more sensitively than in the past, non-crime hate incidents. However, on the other hand, the next day in this Chamber we are putting an obligation on a set of mostly foreign private companies to act as a police force to go around bullying us and closing us down if we say something that engages Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I think this is something the Government are going to regret, and I would very much like to hear what my noble friend has to say about that.

Finally, I come to my third group of amendments: Amendments 274, 278, 279 and 283. They are all related and on one topic. These relate to the text of the Bill on page 145, in Clause 170. Here we are discussing what judgments providers have to make when they come to decide what material to take down. Inevitably, they will have to make judgments. That is one of the unfortunate things about this Bill. A great deal of what we do in our lives is going to have to be based on judgments made by private companies, many of which are based abroad but which we are trying to legislate for.

It makes a certain sense that the law should say what they should take account of in making those judgments. But the guidance—or rather, the mandate—given to those companies by Clause 170 is, again, very hair-trigger. Clause 170(5), which I am proposing we amend, states:

“In making such judgements, the approach to be followed is whether a provider has reasonable grounds to infer that content is … of the kind in question”.


I am suggesting that “reasonable grounds to infer” should be replaced with “sufficient evidence to infer”, so that they have to be able to produce some evidence that they are justified in taking content down. The test should be higher than simply having “reasonable grounds”, which may rest on a suspicion and little evidence at all. So one of those amendments relates to strengthening that bar so that they must have real evidence before they can take censorship action.

I add only two words to subsection (6), which talks about reasonable grounds for the inference—it defines what the reasonable grounds are—that

“exist in relation to content and an offence if, following the approach in subsection (2)”

and so on. I am saying “if and only if”—in other words, I make it clear that this is the only basis on which material can be censored using the provisions in this section, so as to limit it from going more widely. The third amendment in my group is essentially consequential to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 128, 130 and 132, as well as Amendments 143 to 153 in this grouping. They were tabled in the name of my right reverend colleague the Bishop of Derby, who is sorry that she cannot be here today.

The Church of England is the biggest provider of youth provision in our communities and educates around 1 million of our nation’s children. My colleague’s commitment to the principles behind these amendments also springs from her experience as vice chair of the Children’s Society. The amendments in this grouping are intended to strengthen legislation on online grooming for the purpose of child criminal exploitation, addressing existing gaps and ensuring that children are properly protected. They are also intended to make it easier for evidence of children being groomed online for criminal exploitation to be reported by online platforms to the police and the National Crime Agency.

Research from 2017 shows that one in four young people reported seeing illicit drugs advertised for sale on social media—a percentage that is likely to be considerably higher six years on. According to the Youth Endowment Fund in 2022, 20% of young people reported having seen online content promoting gang membership in the preceding 12 months, with 24% reporting content involving the carrying, use or promotion of weapons.

In relation to drugs, that later research noted that these platforms provide opportunities for dealers to build trust with potential customers, with young people reporting that they are more likely to see a groomer advertising drugs as a friend than as a dealer. This leaves young people vulnerable to exploitation, thereby reducing the scruples or trepidation they might feel about buying drugs in the first place. Meanwhile, it is also clear that social media is changing the operation of the county lines model. There is no longer the need to transport children from cities into the countryside to sell drugs, given that children who live in less populated areas can be groomed online as easily as in person. A range of digital platforms is therefore being used to target potential recruits among children and young people, with digital technologies also being deployed—for example, to monitor their whereabouts on a drugs run.

More research is being carried out by the Children’s Society, whose practitioners reported a notable increase in the number of perpetrators grooming children through social media and gaming sites during the first and second waves of the pandemic. Young people were being contacted with promotional material about lifestyles they could lead and the advantages of working within a gang, and were then asked to do jobs in exchange for money or status within this new group. It is true that some such offences could be prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but there remains a huge disparity between the scale of exploitation and the number of those being charged under the Act. Without a definition of child exploitation for criminal purposes, large numbers of children are being groomed online and paying the price for crimes committed by some of their most dangerous and unscrupulous elders.

It is vital that we protect our children from online content which facilitates that criminal exploitation, in the same way that we are looking to protect them from sexual exploitation. Platforms must be required to monitor for illegal content related to child criminal exploitation on their sites and to have mechanisms in place for users to flag it with those platforms so it can be removed. This can be achieved by including modern slavery and trafficking, of which child criminal exploitation is a form, into the scope of illegal content within the Bill, which is what these amendments seek to do. It is also vital that the law sets out clear expectations on platforms to report evidence of child criminal exploitation to the National Crime Agency in the same way as they are expected to report content involving child sexual exploitation and abuse to enable child victims to be identified and to receive support. Such evidence may enable action against the perpetrators without the need of a disclosure from child victims. I therefore fully support and endorse the amendments standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, this is again a very helpful set of amendments. I want to share some experience that shows that legality tests are really hard. Often from the outside there is an assumption that it is easy to understand what is legal and illegal in terms of speech, but in practice that is very rarely the case. There is almost never a bright line, except in a small class of child sexual abuse material where it is always illegal and, as soon as you see the material, you know it is illegal and you can act on it. In pretty much every other case, you have to look at what is in front of you.

I will take a very specific example. Something we had to deal with was images of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK in Turkey. If somebody shared a picture of Abdullah Öcalan, were they committing a very serious offence, which is the promotion of terrorism? Were they indicating support for the peace process that was taking place in Turkey? Were they showing that they support his socialist and feminist ideals? Were they supporting the YPG, a group in Syria to which we were sending arms, that venerates him? This is one example of many I could give where the content in front of you does not tell you very clearly whether or not the speech is illegal or speech that should be permitted. Indeed, we would take speech like that down and I would get complaints, including from Members of Parliament, saying, “Why have you removed that speech? I’m entitled to talk about Abdullah Öcalan”, and we would enter into an argument with them.

We would often ask lawyers in different countries whether they could tell us whether a speech was legal or illegal. The answer would come back as probably illegal, likely illegal, maybe illegal and, occasionally, definitely not illegal, but it was nearly always on the spectrum. The amendments we are proposing today are to try to understand where the Government intend people to draw that line when they get that advice. Let us assume the company wants to do the right thing and follow the instructions of the Bill and remove illegal content. At what level do they say it has met the test sufficiently, given that in the vast majority of cases, apart from the small class of illegal content, they are going to be given only a likelihood or a probability? As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, we have to try to insert this notion of sufficient evidence with Amendments 273, 275, 277, 280 and 281 in the names of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who is unable to be in his place today. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, may also have signed them. We are trying to flesh out the point at which that illegality standard should kick in.

Just to understand again how this often works when the law gets involved, I say that there is a law in Germany; the short version is NetzDG. If there are any German speakers who can pronounce the compound noun that is its full title, there will be a prize. It is a long compound word that means “network enforcement Act”. It has been in place for a few years and it tells companies to do something similar—to remove content that is illegal in Germany. There would be cases where we would get a report from somebody saying, “This is illegal”, and we would take action; then it went into the German system and three months later we would finally get told whether it was actually illegal in a 12-page judgment that a German court had figured out. In the meantime, all we could do was work on our best guess while that process was going on. I think we need to be very clear that illegality is hard.

Cross-jurisdictional issues present us with another set of challenges. If both the speaker and the audience are in the United Kingdom, it is fairly clear. But in many cases, when we are talking about online platforms, one or other, or even both the speaker and the audience, may be outside the United Kingdom. Again, when does the speech become illegal? It may be entirely legal speech between two people in the United States. I think—and I would appreciate clarification from the Minister—that the working assumption is that if the speech was reported by someone not in the United State but in the UK, the platform would be required to restrict access to it from the UK, even though the speech is entirely legal in the jurisdiction in which it took place. Because the person in the UK encountered it, there would be a duty to restrict it. Again, it has been clarified that there is certainly not a duty to take the speech down, because it is entirely legal speech outside the UK. These cross-jurisdictional issues are interesting; I hope the Minister can clarify that.

The amendments also try to think about how this would work in practice. Amendment 287 talks about how guidance should be drawn up in consultation with UK lawyers. That is to avoid a situation where platforms are guessing too much at what UK lawyers want; they should at least have sought UK legal advice. That advice will then be fed into the guidance given to their human reviewers and their algorithms. That is the way, in practice, in which people will carry out the review. There is a really interesting practical question—which, again, comes up under NetzDG—about the extent to which platforms should be investing in legal review of content that is clearly against their terms of service.

There will be two kinds of platform. There will be some platforms that see themselves as champions of freedom of expression and say they will only remove stuff that is illegal in the UK, and everything else can stay up. I think that is a minority of platforms—they tend to be on the fringes. As soon as a platform gets a mainstream audience, it has to go further. Most platforms will have terms of service that go way beyond UK law. In that case, they will be removing the hate speech, and they will be confident that they will remove UK-illegal hate speech within that. They will remove the terrorist content. They will be confident and will not need to do a second test of the legality in order to be able to remove that content. There is a practical question about the extent to which platforms should be required to do a second test if something is already illegal under their terms.

There will be, broadly speaking again, four buckets of content. There will be content that is clearly against a platform’s terms, which it will want to get rid of immediately. It will not want to test it again for legality; it will just get rid of it.

There will be a second bucket of content that is not apparently against a platform’s terms but clearly illegal in the UK. That is a very small subset of content: in Germany, that is Holocaust denial content; in the United Kingdom, this Parliament has looked at Holocaust denial and chosen not to criminalise it, so that will not be there, but an equivalent for us would be migration advice. Migration advice will not be against the terms of service of most platforms, but in the Government’s intention, the Illegal Migration Bill is to make it illegal and require it to be removed, and the consequent effect will be that it will have to be removed under the terms of this Bill. So there will be that small set of content that is illegal in the UK but not against terms of service.

There will be a third bucket of content that is not apparently against the terms or the law, and that actually accounts for most of the complaints that a platform gets. I will choose my language delicately: complaint systems are easy, and people complain to make a point. They use complaint systems such as dislike buttons. The reality is that one of the most common sets of complaints you get is when there is a football match and the two opposing teams report the content on each other’s pages as illegal. They will do that every time, and you get used to it, and that is why you learn to discount mass-volume complaints. But again, we should be clear that there are a great many complaints that are merely vexatious.

The final bucket is of content that is unclear and legal review will be needed. Our amendment is intended to deal with those. A platform will go out and get advice. It is trying to understand at what point something like migration advice tips over into the illegal as opposed to being advice about going on holiday, and it is trying to understand that based on what it can immediately see. Once it has sought that advice, it will feed that back into the guidance to reviewers and the algorithms to try and remove content more effectively and be compliant with the Bill as a whole and not get into trouble with Ofcom.

Some areas are harder than others. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, already highlighted one: public order offences, which are extremely hard. If somebody says something offensive or holds an offensive political view—I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, may have something to say on this—people may well make contact and claim that it is in breach of public order law. On the face of it, they may have a reasonably arguable case but again, as a platform, you are left to make a decision.

--- Later in debate ---

I noted earlier that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, made a passionate intervention about, of all things, Andrew Tate and his illegality in relation to this Bill. That prompted me to think a number of things. Andrew Tate is an influencer who I despise, as I do the kind of things he says. But, as far as I know, the criminal allegations he faces are not yet resolved, so he has to be seen as innocent until proven guilty. Most of what he has online that is egregious might well be in bad taste, as people say—I would say that it is usually misogynist—but it is not against the law. If we get to a situation where that is described as illegality, that is the kind of thing that I worry about. As we have heard from other noble Lords, removing so-called illegal content for the purpose of complying with this regulatory system will mean facing such dilemmas.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

In talking about individuals and investigations, the noble Baroness reminded me of one class of content where we do have clarity, and that is contempt of court. That is a frequent request. We know that it is illegal in that case because a judge writes to the company and says, “You must not allow this to be said because it is in contempt of court”, but that really is the exception. In most other cases, someone is saying, “I think it is illegal”. In live proceedings, in most cases it is absolutely clear because a judge has told you.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

That is very helpful.

I am concerned that removing so-called illegal content for the purpose of complying with the regulatory system covers not only that which reaches conviction in a criminal court but possibly anything that a platform determines could be illegal, and therefore it undermines our own legal system. As I have said, that marks a significant departure from the rule of law. It seems that the state is asking or mandating private companies to make determinations about what constitutes illegality.

The obligations on a platform to determine what constitutes illegality could obviously become a real problem, particularly in relation to limitations on free expression. As we have already heard, the Public Order Act 1986 criminalises, for example, those who stir up hatred through the use of words, behaviour or written material. That is contentious in the law offline. By “contentious”, I mean that it is a matter of difficulty that requires the full rigour of the criminal justice system, understanding the whole history of established case law. That is all necessary to make a conviction under that law for offences of this nature.

Now we appear to be saying that, without any of that, social media companies should make the decision, which is a nerve-racking situation to be in. We have already heard the slippery phrase “reasonable grounds to infer”. If that was the basis on which you were sent to prison—if they did not have to prove that you were guilty but they had reasonable grounds to infer that you might be, without any evidence—I would be worried, yet reasonable grounds to infer that the content could be illegal is the basis on which we are asking for those decisions to be made. That is significantly below the ordinary burden of proof required to determine that an illegal act has been committed. Under this definition, I fear that platforms will be forced to overremove and censor what ultimately will be entirely lawful speech.

Can the Minister consider what competency social media companies have to determine what is lawful? We have heard some of the dilemmas from somebody who was in that position—let alone the international complications, as was indicated. Will all these big tech companies have to employ lots of ex-policemen and criminal lawyers? How will it work? It seems to me that there is a real lack of qualifications in that sphere— that is not a criticism, because those people decided to work in big tech, not in criminal law, and yet we are asking them to pursue this. That is a concern.

I will also make reference to what I think are the controversies around government Amendments 136A and 136B to indicate the difficulties of these provisions. They concern illegal activity—such as “assisting unlawful immigration”, illegal entry, human trafficking and similar offences—but I am unsure as to how this would operate. While it is the case that certain entrances to the UK are illegal, I suddenly envisage a situation where a perfectly legitimate political debate—for example, about the small boats controversy—would be taken down, and that people advocating for a position against the Government’s new Illegal Migration Bill could be accused of supporting illegality. What exactly will be made illegal in those amendments to the Online Safety Bill?

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a fascinating speech about an interesting group of amendments. Because of the way the amendments are grouped, I feel that we have moved to a completely different debate, so I will not go into any detail on this subject. Anonymous trolling, Twitter storms and spreading false information are incredibly unpleasant. I am often the recipient of them—at least once a week—so I know personally that you feel frustrated that people tell lies and your reputation is sullied. However, I do not think that these amendments offer the basis on which that activity should be censored, and I will definitely argue against removing anonymity clauses—but that will be in another group. It is a real problem, but I do not think that the solution is contained in these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I defer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on speech crime. That is not the area of my expertise, and it is not the purpose of my points. My points were to do with the kinds of crime that affect children in particular. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services is very specific about that point. It says that “unacceptable delays are commonplace” and it gives a very large number of case studies. I will not go through them now because it is Thursday afternoon, but I think noble Lords can probably imagine the kinds of things we are talking about. They include years of delay, cases not taken seriously or overlooked, evidence lost, and so forth. The report found that too often children were put at risk because of this, and offenders were allowed to escape justice, and it gave 17 recommendations for how the police force should adapt in order to meet this challenge.

So my questions to the Minister are these. When we talk about things such as age verification for hardcore porn, we are quite often told that we do not need to worry about some of this because it is covered by illegal content provisions, and we should just leave it to the police to sort out. His Majesty’s Inspectorate gives clear evidence—this is a recent report from last month—that this is simply not happening in the way it should be. I therefore wondered what, if anything, is in the Bill to try to close down this particular gap. That would be very helpful indeed.

If it is really not for the purposes of this Bill at all—if this is actually to do with other laws and procedures, other departments and the way in which the resources for the police are allocated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, alluded to—what can the Government do outside the boundaries of this legislation to mobilise the police and the prosecution services to address what I might term “digital crimes”: that is, crimes that would be followed up with energy if they occurred in the real world but, because they are in the digital world, are sometimes overlooked or forgotten?

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to mention one issue that I forgot to mention, and I think it would be more efficient to pose the question now to the Minister rather than interject when he is speaking.

On the Government’s Amendments 136A, 136B and 136C on the immigration offences, the point I want to make is that online services can be literal life-savers for people who are engaged in very dangerous journeys, including journeys across the Channel. I hope the Minister will be clear that the intention here is to require platforms to deal only with content, for example, from criminals who are offering trafficking services, and that there is no intention to require platforms somehow to withdraw services from the victims of those traffickers when they are using those services in the interest of saving their own lives or seeking advice that is essential to preserving their own safety.

That would create—as I know he can imagine—real ethical and moral dilemmas, and we should not be giving any signal that we intend to require platforms to withdraw services from people who are in desperate need of help, whatever the circumstances.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, we seem to have done it again—a very long list of amendments in a rather ill-conceived group has generated a very interesting discussion. We are getting quite good at this, exchanging views across the table, across the Committee, even within the Benches—Members who perhaps have not often talked together are sharing ideas and thoughts, and that is a wonderful feeling.

I want to start with an apology. I think I may be the person who got the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, shopped by the former leader—once a leader, always a leader. What I thought I was being asked was whether the Committee would be interested in hearing the views of the noble Viscount who could not be present, and I was very keen, because when he does speak it is from a point of view that we do not often hear. I did not know that it was a transgression of the rules—but of course it is not, really, because we got round it. Nevertheless, I apologise for anything that might have upset the noble Baroness’s blood pressure—it did not stop her making a very good contribution later.

We have covered so much ground that I do not want to try and summarise it in one piece, because you cannot do that. The problem with the group as it stands is that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and myself must have some secret connection, because we managed to put down almost the same amendments. They were on issues that then got overtaken by the Minister, who finally got round to—I mean, who put down a nice series of amendments which exactly covered the points we made, so we can lose all those. But this did not stop the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford making some very good additional points which I think we all benefited from.

I welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, after her illness; she gave us a glimpse of what is to come from her and her colleagues, but I will leave the particular issue that she raised for the Minister to respond to. It raises an issue that I am not competent on, but it is a very important one—we need to get the right balance between what is causing the alarm and difficulty outside in relation to what is happening on the internet, and I think we all agree with her that we should not put any barrier in the way of dealing with that.

Indeed, that was the theme of a number of the points that have been raised on the question of what is or can constitute illegal content, and how we judge it. It is useful to hear again from the master about how you do it in practice. I cannot imagine being in a room of French lawyers and experts and retaining my sanity, let alone making decisions that affect the ability of people to carry on, but the noble Lord did it; he is still here and lives to tell the tale—bearded or otherwise.

The later amendments, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are taking us round in a circle towards the process by which Ofcom will exercise the powers that it is going to get in this area. These are probably worth another debate on their own, and maybe it will come up in a different form, because—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made this point as well—there is a problem in having an independent regulator that is also the go-to function for getting advice on how others have to make decisions that are theirs to rule on at the end if they go wrong. That is a complicated way of saying that we may be overloading Ofcom if we also expect it to provide a reservoir of advice on how you deal with the issues that the Bill puts firmly on the companies—I agree that this is a problem that we do not really have an answer to.

My amendments were largely overtaken by the Government’s amendments, but the main one I want to talk about was Amendment 272. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is not here, because her expertise is in an area that I want to talk about, which is fraud—cyber fraud in particular—and how that is going to be brought into the Bill. The issue, which I think has been raised by Which?, but a number of other people have also written to us about it, is that the Bill in Clauses 170 and 171 is trying to establish how a platform should identify illegal content in relation to fraud—but it is quite prescriptive. In particular, it goes into some detail which I will leave for the Minister to respond to, but uniquely it sets out a specific way for gathering information to determine whether content is illegal in this area, although it may have applicability in other areas.

One of the points that have to be taken into account is whether the platform is using human moderators, automated systems or a combination of the two. I am not quite sure why that is there in the Bill; that is really the basis for the tabling of our amendments. Clearly, one would hope that the end result is whether or not illegality has taken place, not how that information has been gathered. If one must make concessions to the process of law because a judgment is made that, because it is automated, it is in some way not as valid as if it had been done by a human moderator, there seems to be a whole world there that we should not be going into. I certainly hope that that is not going to be the case if we are talking about illegality concerning children or other vulnerable people, but that is how the Bill reads at present; I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that.

There is a risk of consumers being harmed here. The figures on fraud in the United Kingdom are extraordinary; the fact that it is not the top priority for everybody, let alone the Government, is extraordinary. It is something like the equivalent of consumers being scammed at the rate of around £7.5 billion per year. A number of awful types of scamming have emerged only because of the internet and social media. They create huge problems of anxiety and emotional distress, with lots of medical care and other things tied in if you want to work out the total bill. So we have a real problem here that we need to settle. It is great that it is in the Bill, but it would be a pity if the movement towards trying to resolve it is in any way infringed on by there being imperfect instructions in the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to respond to that; I would be happy to discuss it with him later, if that is possible.

As a whole, this is an interesting question as we move away from what a crime is towards how people judge how to deal with what they think is a crime but may not be. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, commented on how to do it in practice but one hopes that any initial problems will be overcome as we move forward and people become more experienced with this.

When the Joint Committee considered this issue, we spent a long time talking about why we were concerned about having certainty on the legal prescription in the Bill; that is why we were very much against the idea of “legal but harmful” because it seemed too subjective and too subject to difficulties. Out of that came another thought, which answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell: so much of this is about fine judgments on certain things that are there in stone and that you can work to but you then have to interpret them.

There is a role for Parliament here, I think; we will come on to this in later amendments but, if there is a debate to be had on this, let us not forget the points that have been made here today. If we are going to think again about Ofcom’s activity in practice, that is the sort of thing that either a Joint Committee or Select Committees of the two Houses could easily take on board as an issue that needs to be reflected on, with advice given to Parliament about how it might be taken forward. This might be the answer in the medium term.

In the short term, let us work to the Bill and make sure that it works. Let us learn from the experience but let us then take time out to reflect on it; that would be my recommendation but, obviously, that will be subject to the situation after we finish the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, that would be welcome.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

Can I suggest one of mine?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord.

I was pleased to hear about Wicipedia Cymraeg—there being no “k” in Welsh. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, there has been a very good conversational discussion in this debate, as befits Committee and a self-regulating House. My noble friend Lady Stowell is right to point out matters of procedure, although we were grateful to know why the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, supports the amendments in question.

--- Later in debate ---

Companies will need to ensure that they have effective systems to enable them to check the broader context relating to content when deciding whether or not to remove it. This will provide greater certainty about the standard to be applied by providers when assessing content, including judgments about whether or not content is illegal. We think that protects against over-removal by making it clear that platforms are not required to remove content merely on the suspicion of it being illegal. Beyond that, the framework also contains provisions about how companies’ systems and processes should approach questions of mental states and defences when considering whether or not content is an offence in the scope of the Bill.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I am struggling a little to understand why the Minister thinks that sufficient evidence is subjective, and therefore, I assume, reasonable grounds to infer is objective. Certainly, in my lexicon, evidence is more objective than inference, which is more subjective. I was reacting to that word. I am not sure that he has fully made the case as to why his wording is better.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Or indeed any evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

Again, I think that that is clear. I understood from the Bill that, if an American says something that would be illegal were they to be in the United Kingdom, we would still want to exclude that content. But that still leaves it open, and I just ask the question again, for confirmation. If all of the activities are outside the United Kingdom—Americans talking to each other, as it were—and a British person objects, at what point would the platform be required to restrict the content of the Americans talking to each other? Is it pre-emptively or only as and when somebody in the United Kingdom objects to it? We should flesh out that kind of practical detail before this becomes law.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

If it has been committed in the UK and is viewed by a UK user, it can be treated as illegal. I will follow up on the noble Lord’s further points ahead of the next stage.

Amendment 272 explicitly provides that relevant information that is reasonably available to a provider includes information submitted by users in complaints. Providers will already need to do this when making judgments about content, as it will be both relevant and reasonably available.

My noble friend Lord Moylan returned to the question that arose on day 2 in Committee, querying the distinction between “protect” and “prevent”, and suggesting that a duty to protect would or could lead to the excessive removal of content. To be clear, the duty requires platforms to put in place proportionate systems and processes designed to prevent users encountering content. I draw my noble friend’s attention to the focus on systems and processes in that. This requires platforms to design their services to achieve the outcome of preventing users encountering such content. That could include upstream design measures, as well as content identification measures, once content appears on a service. By contrast, a duty to protect is a less stringent duty and would undermine the proactive nature of the illegal content duties for priority offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments, so ably introduced by my noble friend and other noble Lords this afternoon.

I am not a lawyer and I would not say that I am particularly experienced in this business of legislating. I found this issue incredibly confusing. I hugely appreciate the briefings and discussions—I feel very privileged to have been included in them—with my noble friend the Minister, officials and the Secretary of State herself in their attempt to explain to a group of us why these amendments are not necessary. I was so determined to try to understand this properly that, yesterday, when I was due to travel to Surrey, I took all my papers with me. I got on the train at Waterloo and started to work my way through the main challenges that officials had presented.

The first challenge was that, fundamentally, these amendments cut across the Bill’s definitions of “primary priority content” and “priority content”. I tried to find them in the Bill. Unfortunately, in Clause 54, there is a definition of primary priority content. It says that, basically, primary priority content is what the Secretary of State says it is, and that content that is harmful to children is primary priority content. So I was none the wiser on Clause 54.

One of the further challenges that officials have given us is that apparently we, as a group of noble Lords, were confusing the difference between harm and risk. I then turned to Clause 205, which comes out with the priceless statement that a risk of harm should be read as a reference to harm—so maybe they are the same thing. I am still none the wiser.

Yesterday morning, I found myself playing what I can only describe as a parliamentary game of Mornington Crescent, as I went round and round in circles. Unfortunately, it was such a confusing game of Mornington Crescent that I forgot that I needed to change trains, ended up in Richmond instead of Redhill, and missed my meeting entirely. I am telling the Committee this story because, as the debate has shown, it is so important that we put in the Bill a definition of the harms that we are intending to legislate for.

I want to address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. She said that we might not all agree on what harms are genuinely harmful for children. That is precisely why Parliament needs to decide this, rather than abdicate it to a regulator who, as other noble Lords said earlier today, is then put into a political space. It is the job of Parliament to decide what is dangerous for our children and what is not. That is the approach that we take in the physical world, and it should be the approach that we take in the online world. We should do that in broad categories, which is why the four Cs is such a powerful framework. I know that we are all attempting to predict the known unknowns, which is impossible, but this framework, which gives categories of harm, is clear that it can be updated, developed and, as my noble friend Lord Bethell, said, properly consulted on. We as parliamentarians should decide; that is the purpose of voting in Parliament.

I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister. Does he agree that Parliament needs to decide what the categories of online harms are that the Bill is attempting to protect our children from? If he does, why is it not the four Cs? If he really thinks it is not the four Cs, will he bring back an alternative schedule of harms?

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, in my contribution to another very useful debate, which has brought to mind the good debate that we had on the first day in Committee, in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in which we were seeking to get into the Bill what we are actually trying to do.

I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was also welcoming additional clarity, specifically in the area of psychological harm, which I agree with. Certainly in its earlier incarnations, the Bill was scattered throughout with references, some of which have been removed, but they are very much open to interpretation. I hope that we will come back to that.

I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, around what took place in that coroner’s hearing. You had two different platforms with different interpretations of what they thought that their duty of care would be. That is very much the point. In my experience, platforms will follow what they are told to follow. The challenge is when each of them comes to their own individual view around what are often complex areas. There we saw platforms presenting different views about their risk assessments. If we clarify that for them through amendments such as these, we are doing everyone a favour.

I again compliment my noble friend Lady Benjamin for her work in this area. Her speech was also a model of clarity. If we can bring some of that clarity to the legislation and to explaining what we want, that will be an enormous service.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made some interesting points around how this would add value to the Bill, teasing out some of the specific gaps that we have there. I look forward to hearing the response on that.

I was interested in the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on mobile phone penetration. We should all hold in common that we are not going back to a time BC—before connection. Our children will be connected, which creates the imperative for us to get this right. There has perhaps been a tendency for us to bury our heads in the sand, and occasionally you hear that still—it is almost as if we would wish this world away. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is at the other end of the spectrum; she has come alive on this subject, precisely because she recognises that that will not happen. We are in a world where our children will be connected, so it is on us to figure out how we want those connections to work and to instruct the people who provide those connective services on what they should do. It is certainly not for us to imagine that somehow they will all go away. We will come to that in later groups when we talk about minimum ages; if younger children are online, there is a real issue around how we are going to deal with that.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford highlighted some really important challenges based on real experiences that families today are suffering—let us use the word as it should be—and made the case for clarity. I do not know how much we are allowed to talk in praise of EU legislation, but I am looking at the Digital Services Act—I have looked at a lot of EU legislation—and this Bill, and there is a certain clarity to EU regulation, particularly the process of adding recitals, which are attached to the law and explain what it is meant to do. That is sometimes missing here. I know that there are different legal traditions, but you can sometimes look at an EU regulation and the UK law and the former appears to be much clearer in its intent.

That brings me to the substance of my comments in response to this group, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I hope that the Government heed and recognise that, at present, no ordinary person can know what is happening in the Bill—other than, perhaps, the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who will read it for fun—and what we intend to do.

I was thinking back to the “2B or not 2B” debate we had earlier about the lack of clarity around something even as simple as the classification of services. I was also thinking that, if you ask what the Online Safety Bill does to restrict self-harm content, the answer would be this: if it is a small social media platform, it will probably be categorised as a 2B service, then we can look at Schedule 7, where it is prohibited from assisting suicide, but we might want to come back to some of the earlier clauses with the specific duties—and it will go on and on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, described, you are leaping backwards and forwards in the Bill to try to understand what we are trying to do with the legislation. I think that is a genuine problem.

In effect, the Bill is Parliament setting out the terms of service for how we want Ofcom to regulate online services. We debated terms of service earlier. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We are currently failing our own tests of simplicity and clarity on the terms of service that we will give to Ofcom.

As well as platforms, if ordinary people want to find out what is happening, then, just like those platforms with the terms of service, we are going to make them read hundreds of pages before they find out what this legislation is intended to do. We can and should make this simpler for children and parents. I was able to meet Ian Russell briefly at the end of our Second Reading debate. He has been an incredibly powerful and pragmatic voice on this. He is asking for reasonable things. I would love to be able to give a Bill to Ian Russell, and the other families that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred to, that they can read and that tells them very clearly how Parliament has responded to their concerns. I think we are a long way short of that simple clarity today.

It would be extraordinarily important for service providers, as I already mentioned in response to the noble Lord, Lord Russell. They need that clarity, and we want to make sure that they have no reason to say, “I did not understand what I was being asked to do”. That should be from the biggest to the smallest, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, keeps rightly raising with us. Any small service provider should be able to very clearly and simply understand what we are intending to do, and putting more text into the Bill that does that would actually improve it. This is not about adding a whole load of new complications and the bells and whistles we have described but about providing clarity on our intention. Small service providers would benefit from that clarity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, rightly raised the issue of the speed of the development of technology. Again, we do not want the small service provider in particular to think it has to go back and do a whole new legal review every time the technology changes. If we have a clear set of principles, it is much quicker and simpler for it to say, “I have developed a new feature. How does it match up against this list?”, rather than having to go to Clause 12, Clause 86, Clause 94 and backwards and forwards within the Bill.

It will be extraordinarily helpful for enforcement bodies such as Ofcom to have a yardstick—again, this takes us back to our debate on the first day—for its prioritisation, because it will have to prioritise. It will not be able to do everything, everywhere, all at once. If we put that prioritisation into the legislation, it will, frankly, save potential arguments between Parliament, the Government and Ofcom later on, when they have decided to prioritise X and we wanted them to prioritise Y. Let us all get aligned on what we are asking them to do up front.

Dare I say—the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, reminded me of this—that it may also be extraordinarily helpful for us as politicians so that we can understand the state of the law. I mean not just the people who are existing specialists or are becoming specialists in this area and taking part in this debate but the other hundreds of Members of both Houses, because this is interesting to everyone. I have experience of being in the other place, and every Member of the other place will have constituents coming to them, often with very tragic circumstances, and asking what Parliament has done. Again, if they have the Online Safety Bill as currently drafted, I think it is hard for any Member of Parliament to be able to say clearly, “This is what we have done”. With those words and that encouraging wind, I hope the Government are able to explain, if not in this way, that they have a commitment to ensuring that we have that clarity for everybody involved in this process.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I had to miss a few sessions of the Committee but I am now back until the end. I remind fellow Members of my interests: I worked for one of the largest platforms for a decade, but I have no current interests. It is all in the register if people care to look. I want to contribute to this debate on the basis of that experience of having worked inside the platforms.

I start by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. The thrust of their amendments—the idea that something will be needed here—is entirely correct. We have created in the Online Safety Bill a mechanism that we in this Committee know is intended primarily to focus on systems and how Ofcom regulates them, but what the public out there hear is that we are creating a mechanism that will meet their concerns—and their concerns will not end with systems. As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, eloquently described, their concerns in some instances will be about specific cases and the question will be: who will take those up?

If there is no other mechanism and no way to signpost people to a place where they can seek redress, they will come to Ofcom. That is something we do not want. We want Ofcom to be focused on the big-ticket items of dealing with systems, not bogged down in dealing with thousands of individual complaints. So we can anticipate a situation in which we will need someone to be able to deal with those individual complaints.

I want to focus on making that workable, because the volume challenge might not be as people expect. I have seen from having worked on the inside that there is a vast funnel of reports, where people report content to platforms. Most of those reports are spurious or vexatious; that is the reality. Platforms have made their reporting systems easy, as we want them to do —indeed, in the Bill we say, “Make sure you have really easy-to-use reporting systems”—but one feature of that is that people will use them simply to express a view. Over the last couple of weeks, all the platforms will have been inundated with literally millions of reports about Turkish politicians. These will come from the supporters of either side, reporting people on the other side—claiming that they are engaged in hate speech or pornography or whatever. They will use whatever tool they can. That is what we used to see day in, day out: football teams or political groups that report each other. The challenge is to separate out the signal—the genuinely serious reports of where something is going wrong—from the vast amount of noise, of people simply using the reporting system because they can. For the ombudsman, the challenge will be that signal question.

Breaking that down, from the vast funnel of complaints coming in, we have a smaller subset that are actionable. Some of those will be substantive, real complaints, where the individual simply disagrees with the decision. That could be primarily for two reasons. The first is that the platform has made a bad decision and failed to enforce its own policies. For example, you reported something as being pornographic, and it obviously was, but the operator was having a bad day—they were tired, it was late in the day and they pressed “Leave up” instead of “Take down”. That happens on a regular basis, and 1% of errors like that across a huge volume means a lot of mistakes being made. Those kinds of issues, where there is a simple operator error, should get picked up by the platforms’ own appeal mechanisms. That is what they are there for, and the Bill rightly points to that. A second reviewer should look at it. Hopefully they are a bit fresher, understand that a mistake was made and can simply reverse it. Those operator error reports can be dealt with internally.

The second type would be where the platform enforces policies correctly but, from the complainant’s point of view, the policies are wrong. It may be a more pro-free speech platform where the person says, “This is hate speech”, but the platform says, “Well, according to our rules, it is not. Under our terms of service, we permit robust speech of this kind. Another platform might not, but we do”. In that case, the complainant is still unhappy but the platform has done nothing wrong—unless the policies the platform is enforcing are out of step with the requirements under the Online Safety Bill, in which case the complaint should properly come to Ofcom. Based on the individual complaint, a complainant may have something material for Ofcom. They are saying that they believe the platform’s policies and systems are not in line with the guidance issued by Ofcom—whether on hate speech, pornography or anything else. That second category of complaint would come to Ofcom.

The third class concerns the kind of complaint that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, described. In some ways, this is the hardest. The platform has correctly enforced its policies but, in a particular case, the effect is deeply unfair, problematic and harmful for an individual. The platform simply says, “Look, we enforced the policies. They are there. This piece of content did not violate them”. Any outsider looking at it would say, “There is an injustice here. We can clearly see that an individual is being harmed. A similar piece of content might not be harmful to another individual, but to this individual it is”. In those circumstances, groups such as the South West Grid for Learning, with which I work frequently, perform an invaluable task. We should recognise that there is a network of non-governmental organisations in the United Kingdom that do this day in, day out. Groups such as the Internet Watch Foundation and many others have fantastic relations and connections with the platforms and regularly bring exceptional cases to them.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

We are glad to have the noble Lord back. I want also to put on the record that the South West Grid for Learning is very supportive of this amendment.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

It has let me know as well. In a way, the amendment seeks to formalise what is already an informal mechanism. I was minded initially to support Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

This landscape is quite varied. We have to create some kind of outlet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly said. That parent or individual will want to go somewhere, so we have to send them somewhere. We want that somewhere to be effective, not to get bogged down in spurious and vexatious complaints. We want it to have a high signal-to-noise ratio—to pull out the important complaints and get them to the platforms. That will vary from platform to platform. In some ways, we want to empower Ofcom to look at what is and is not working and to be able to say, “Platform A has built up an incredible set of mechanisms. It’s doing a good job. We’re not seeing things falling through the cracks in the same way as we are seeing with platform B. We are going to have to be more directive with platform B”. That very much depends on the information coming in and on how well the platforms are doing their job already.

I hope that the Government are thinking about how these individual complaints will be dealt with and about the demand that will be created by the Bill. How can we have effective mechanisms for people in the United Kingdom who genuinely have hard cases and have tried, but where there is no intermediary for the platform they are worried about? In many cases, I suspect that these will be newer or smaller platforms that have arrived on the scene and do not have established relationships. Where are these people to go? Who will help them, particularly in cases where the platform may not systemically be doing anything wrong? Its policies are correct and it is enforcing them correctly, but any jury of peers would say that an injustice is being done. Either an exception needs to be made or there needs to be a second look at that specific case. We are not asking Ofcom to do this in the rest of the legislation.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, it is always somewhat intimidating to follow the noble Lord, Lord Allan, though it is wonderful to have him back from his travels. I too will speak in favour of Amendments 250A and 250B in the name of my noble friend, from not direct experience in the social media world but tangentially, from telecoms regulation.

I have lived, as the chief executive of a business, in a world where my customers could complain to me but also to an ombudsman and to Ofcom. I say this with some hesitation, as my dear old friends at TalkTalk will be horrified to hear me quoting this example, but 13 years ago, when I took over as chief executive, TalkTalk accounted for more complaints to Ofcom than pretty much all the other telcos put altogether. We were not trying to be bad—quite the opposite, actually. We were a business born out of very rapid growth, both organic and acquisitive, and we did not have control of our business at the time. We had an internal complaints process and were trying our hardest to listen to it and to individual customers who were telling us that we were letting them down, but we were not doing that very well.

While my noble friend has spoken so eloquently about the importance of complaints mechanisms for individual citizens, I am actually in favour of them for companies. I felt the consequences of having an independent complaints system that made my business listen. It was a genuine failsafe system. For someone to have got as far as complaining to the telecoms ombudsman and to Ofcom, they had really lost the will to live with my own business. That forced my company to change. It has forced telecoms companies to change so much that they now advertise where they stand in the rankings of complaints per thousand customers. Even in the course of the last week, Sky was proclaiming in its print advertising that it was the least complained-about to the independent complaints mechanism.

So this is not about thinking that companies are bad and are trying to let their customers down. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, has described, managing these processes is really hard and you really need the third line of defence of an independent complaints mechanism to help you deliver on your best intentions. I think most companies with very large customer bases are trying to meet those customers’ needs.

For very practical reasons, I have experienced the power of these sorts of systems. There is one difference with the example I have given of telecoms: it was Ofcom itself that received most of those complaints about TalkTalk 13 years ago, and I have tremendous sympathy with the idea that we might unleash on poor Ofcom all the social media complaints that are not currently being resolved by the companies. That is exactly why, as Dame Maria Miller said, we need to set up an independent ombudsman to deal with this issue.

From a very different perspective from that of my noble friend, I struggle to understand why the Government do not want to do what they have just announced they want to do in other sectors such as gambling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

As I said, we are happy to consider individual complaints and super-complaints further.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

Again, I am just pulling this together—I am curious to understand this. We have been given a specific case—South West Grid for Learning raising a case based on an individual but that had more generic concerns—so could the noble Viscount clarify, now or in writing, whether that is the kind of thing that he imagines would constitute a super-complaint? If South West Grid for Learning went to a platform with a complaint like that—one based on an individual but brought by an organisation—would Ofcom find that complaint admissible under its super-complaints procedure, as imagined in the Bill?

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

Overall, the super-complaints mechanism is more for groupings of complaints and has a broader range than the individual complaints process, but I will consider that point going forward.

Many UK regulators have successful super-complaints mechanisms which allow them to identify and target emerging issues and effectively utilise resources. Alongside the Bill’s research functions, super-complaints will perform a vital role in ensuring that Ofcom is aware of the issues users are facing, helping them to target resources and to take action against systemic failings.

On the steps required after super-complaints, the regulator will be required to respond publicly to the super-complaint. Issues raised in the super-complaint may lead Ofcom to take steps to mitigate the issues raised in the complaint, where the issues raised can be addressed via the Bill’s duties and powers. In this way, they perform a vital role in Ofcom’s horizon-scanning powers, ensuring that it is aware of issues as they emerge. However, super-complaints are not linked to any specific enforcement process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)]

My Lords, I particularly support Amendment 96, to which I have added my name; it is a privilege to do so. I also support Amendment 296 and I cannot quite work out why I have not added my name to it, because I wholeheartedly agree with it, but I declare my support now.

I want to talk again about an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out so well and that we also touched on last week, about the regulation of suicide and self-harm content. We have all heard of the tragic case of Molly Russell, but a name that is often forgotten in this discussion is Frankie Thomas. Frankie was a vulnerable teenager with childhood trauma, functioning autism and impulsivity. After reading a story about self-harm on the app Wattpad, according to the coroner’s inquest, she went home and undertook

“a similar act, resulting in her death”.

I do not need to repeat the many tragic examples that have already been shared in this House, but I want to reiterate the point already made by the BMA in its very helpful briefing on these amendments: viewing self-harm and suicide content online can severely harm the user offline. As I said last week when we were debating the user empowerment tools, this type of content literally has life or death repercussions. It is therefore essential that the Bill takes this sort of content more seriously and creates specific duties for services to adhere to.

We will, at some point this evening—I hope—come on to debate the next group of amendments. The question for Ministers to answer on this group, the next one and others that we will be debating is, where we know that content is harmful to society—to individuals but also to broader society—why the Government do not want to take the step of setting out how that content should be properly regulated. I think it all comes from their desire to draw a distinction between content that is illegal and content that is not illegal but is undoubtedly, in the eyes of pretty well every citizen, deeply harmful. As we have already heard from the noble Baroness, and as we heard last week, adults do not become immune to suicide and self-harm content the minute they turn 18. In fact, I would argue that no adult is immune to the negative effects of viewing this type of content online.

This amendment, therefore, is very important, as it would create a duty for providers of regulated user-to-user services and search engines to manage harmful suicide or self-harm content applicable to both children and adults, recognising this cliff edge otherwise in the Bill, which we have already talked about. I strongly urge noble Lords, particularly the Minister, to agree that protecting users from this content is one of the most important things that the Bill can do. People outside this House are looking to us to do this, so I urge the Government to support this amendment today.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have an opportunity, in this group of amendments, to talk about suicide and self-harm content, given the importance of it. It is important to set out what we expect to happen with this legislation. I rise particularly to support Amendment 225, to which my noble friend Lady Parminter added her name. I am doing this more because the way in which this kind of content is shared is incredibly complex, rather than simply because of the question of whether it is legal or illegal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

From experience, I think it is true that companies get defensive and seek to defend the indefensible on occasion. I agree with the noble Baroness on that, but I will balance it a little as I also work with people who were agonising over not wanting to make a bad situation worse. They were genuinely struggling and seeking to do the right thing. That is where the experts come in. If someone would say to them, “Look, take this stuff down; that is always better”, it would make their lives easier. If they said, “Please leave it up”, they could follow that advice. Again, that would make their lives easier. On the excuses, I agree that sometimes they are defending the indefensible, but also there are people agonising over the right thing to do and we should help them.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I absolutely agree. Of course, good law is a good system, not a good person.

I turn to the comments that I was going to make. Uncharacteristically, I am a little confused about this issue and I would love the Minister’s help. My understanding on reading the Bill very closely is that self-harm and suicide content that meets a legal definition will be subject to the priority illegal content duties. In the case of children, we can safely anticipate that content of this kind will be named primary priority content. Additionally, if such content is against the terms of service of a regulated company, it can be held responsible to those terms. It will have to provide a user empowerment tool on category 1 services so that it can be toggled out if an adult user wishes. That is my understanding of where this content has already been dealt with in the Bill. To my mind, this leaves the following ways in which suicide and self-harm material, which is the subject of this group of amendments, is not covered by the Bill. That is what I would like the Minister to confirm, and I absolutely stand by to be corrected.

In the case of adults, if self-harm and suicide material does not meet a bar of illegal content and the service is not category 1, there is no mechanism to toggle it out. Ofcom has no power to require a service to ensure tools to toggle self-harm and suicide material out by default. This means that self-harm and suicide material can be as prevalent as they like—pushed, promoted and recommended, as I have just explained—if it is not contrary to the terms of service, so long as it does not reach the bar of illegal content.

Search services are not subject to these clauses— I am unsure about that. In the case of both children and adults, if self-harm and suicide material is on blogs or services with limited functionality, it is out of scope of the Bill and there is absolutely nothing Ofcom can do. For non-category 1 services—the majority of services which claim that an insignificant number of children access their site and thus that they do not have to comply with the child safety duties—there are no protections for a child against this content.

I put it like that because I believe that each of the statements I just made could have been fixed by amendments already discussed during the past six days in Committee. We are currently planning to leave many children without the protection of the safety duties, to leave vulnerable adults without even the cover of default protections against material that has absolutely no public interest and to leave companies to decide whether to promote or use this material to fuel user engagement—even if it costs well-being and lives.

I ask the Minister to let me know if I have misunderstood, but I think it is really quite useful to see what is left once the protections are in place, rather than always concentrating on the protections themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like everyone who spoke, I and the Government recognise the tragic consequences of suicide and self-harm, and how so many lives and families have been devastated by it. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and all noble Lords, as well as the bereaved families who campaigned so bravely and for so long to spare others that heartache and to create a safer online environment for everyone. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who raised these issues in her Private Member’s Bill, on which we had exchanges. My noble friend Lady Morgan is right to raise the case of Frankie Thomas and her parents, and to call that to mind as we debate these issues.

Amendments 96 and 296, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would, in effect, reintroduce the former adult safety duties whereby category 1 companies were required to assess the risk of harm associated with legal content accessed by adults, and to set and enforce terms of service in relation to it. As noble Lords will know, those duties were removed in another place after extensive consideration. Those provisions risked creating incentives for the excessive removal of legal content, which would unduly interfere with adults’ free expression.

However, the new transparency, accountability and freedom of expression duties in Part 4, combined with the illegal and child safety duties in Part 3, will provide a robust approach that will hold companies to account for the way they deal with this content. Under the Part 4 duties, category 1 services will need to have appropriate systems and processes in place to deal with content or activity that is banned or restricted by their terms of service.

Many platforms—such as Twitter, Facebook and TikTok, which the noble Baroness raised—say in their terms of service that they restrict suicide and self-harm content, but they do not always enforce these policies effectively. The Bill will require category 1 companies—the largest platforms—fully to enforce their terms of service for this content, which will be a significant improvement for users’ safety. Where companies allow this content, the user-empowerment duties will give adults tools to limit their exposure to it, if they wish to do so.

The noble Baroness is right to raise the issue of algorithms. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, amplification lies at the heart of many cases. The Bill will require providers specifically to consider as part of their risk assessments how algorithms could affect children’s and adults’ exposure to illegal content, and content that is harmful to children, on their services. Providers will need to take steps to mitigate and effectively manage any risks, and to consider the design of functionalities, algorithms and other features to meet the illegal content and child safety duties in the Bill.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

Following our earlier discussion, we were going to have a response on super-complaints. I am curious to understand whether we had a pattern of complaints—such as those the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others received—about a platform saying, under its terms of service, that it would remove suicide and self-harm content but failing to do so. Does the Minister think that is precisely the kind of thing that could be substantive material for an organisation to bring as a super-complaint to Ofcom?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My initial response is, yes, I think so, but it is the role of Ofcom to look at whether those terms of service are enforced and to act on behalf of internet users. The noble Lord is right to point to the complexity of some marginal cases with which companies have to deal, but the whole framework of the Bill is to make sure that terms of service are being enforced. If they are not, people can turn to Ofcom.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness asked about the metaverse, which is in scope of the Bill as a user-to-user service. The approach of the Bill is to try to remain technology neutral.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I will plant a flag in reference to the new offences, which I know we will come back to again. It is always helpful to look at real-world examples. There is a lot of meme-based self-harm content. Two examples are the Tide Pods challenge—the eating of detergent capsules—and choking games, both of which have been very common and widespread. It would be helpful, ahead of our debate on the new offences, to understand whether they are below or above the threshold of serious self-harm and what the Government’s intention is. There are arguments both ways: obviously, criminalising children for being foolish carries certain consequences, but we also want to stop the spread of the content. So, when we come to that offence, it would be helpful if the Minister could use specific examples, such as the meme-based self-harm content, which is quite common.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for the advance notice to think about that; it is helpful. It is difficult to talk in general terms about this issue, so, if I can, I will give examples that do, and do not, meet the threshold.

The Bill goes even further for children than it does for adults. In addition to the protections from illegal material, the Government have indicated, as I said, that we plan to designate content promoting suicide, self-harm or eating disorders as categories of primary priority content. That means that providers will need to put in place systems designed to prevent children of any age encountering this type of content. Providers will also need specifically to assess the risk of children encountering it. Platforms will no longer be able to recommend such material to children through harmful algorithms. If they do, Ofcom will hold them accountable and will take enforcement action if they break their promises.

It is right that the Bill takes a different approach for children than for adults, but it does not mean that the Bill does not recognise that young adults are at risk or that it does not have protections for them. My noble friend Lady Morgan was right to raise the issue of young adults once they turn 18. The triple shield of protection in the Bill will significantly improve the status quo by protecting adults, including young adults, from illegal suicide content and legal suicide or self-harm content that is prohibited in major platforms’ terms and conditions. Platforms also have strong commercial incentives, as we discussed in previous groups, to address harmful content that the majority of their users do not want to see, such as legal suicide, eating disorder or self-harm content. That is why they currently claim to prohibit it in their terms and conditions, and why we want to make sure that those terms and conditions are transparently and accountably enforced. So, while I sympathise with the intention from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, her amendments raise some wider concerns about mandating how providers should deal with legal material, which would interfere with the careful balance the Bill seeks to strike in ensuring that users are safer online without compromising their right to free expression.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 240, alongside Amendment 225 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would place new duties on Ofcom in relation to suicide and self-harm content. The Bill already has provisions to provide Ofcom with broad and effective information-gathering powers to understand how this content affects users and how providers are dealing with it. For example, under Clause 147, Ofcom can already publish reports about suicide and self-harm content, and Clauses 68 and 69 empower Ofcom to require the largest providers to publish annual transparency reports.

Ofcom may require those reports to include information on the systems and processes that providers use to deal with illegal suicide or self-harm content, with content that is harmful to children, or with content which providers’ own terms of service prohibit. Those measures sit alongside Ofcom’s extensive information-gathering powers. It will have the ability to access the information it needs to understand how companies are fulfilling their duties, particularly in taking action against this type of content. Furthermore, the Bill is designed to provide Ofcom with the flexibility it needs to respond to harms—including in the areas of suicide, self-harm and eating disorders—as they develop over time, in the way that the noble Baroness envisaged in her remarks about the metaverse and new emerging threats. So we are confident that these provisions will enable Ofcom to assess this type of content and ensure that platforms deal with it appropriately. I hope that this has provided the sufficient reassurance to the noble Baroness for her not to move her amendment.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Like other speakers, I put on record my support for the regulator being offered independence and Parliament having a role.

However, I want to say one very brief and minor thing about timing—I feel somewhat embarrassed after the big vision of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. Having had quite a lot of experience of code making over the last three years, I experienced the amount of time that the department was able to take in responding to the regulator as being a point of power, a point of lobbying, as others have said, and a point of huge distraction. For those of us who have followed the Bill for five years and as many Secretaries of State, we should be concerned that none of the amendments has quite tackled the question of time.

The idea of acting within a timeframe is not without precedent; the National Security and Investment Act 2021 is just one recent example. What was interesting about that Act was that the reason given for the Secretary of State’s powers being necessary was as a matter of national security—that is, they were okay and what we all agree should happen—but the reason for the time restriction was for business stability. I put it to the Committee that the real prospect of children and other users being harmed requires the same consideration as business stability. Without a time limit, it is possible that inaction can be used to control or simply fritter away.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a short contribution on this substantive question of whether concerns about ministerial overreach are legitimate. Based on a decade of being on the receiving end of representations from Ministers, the short answer is yes. I want to expand on that with some examples.

My experience of working on the other side, inside a company, was that you often got what I call the cycle of outrage: something is shared on social media that upsets people; the media write a front-page story about it; government Ministers and other politicians get involved; that then feeds back into the media and the cycle spins up to a point where something must be done. The “something” is typically that the Minister summons people, such as me in my old job, and brings them into an office. That itself often becomes a major TV moment, where you are brought in, browbeaten and sent out again with your tail between your legs, and the Minister has instructed you to do something. That entire process takes place in the political rather than the regulatory domain.

I readily concede that, in many cases, something of substance needed to be addressed and there was a genuine problem. It is not that this was illegitimate, but these amendments are talking about the process for what we should do when that outrage is happening. I agree entirely with the tablers of the amendments that, to the extent that that process can be encapsulated within the regulator rather than a Minister acting on an ad hoc basis, it would be a significant improvement.

I also note that this is certainly not UK-specific, and it would happen in many countries with varying degrees of threat. I remember being summoned to the Ministry of the Interior in Italy to meet a gentleman who has now sadly passed. He brought me into his office, sat me down, pointed to his desk and said “You see that desk? That was Mussolini’s desk”. He was a nice guy and I left with a CD of his rhythm and blues band, but it was clear that I was not supposed to say no to him. He made a very clear and explicit political direction about content that was on the platform.

One big advantage of this Bill is that it has the potential to move beyond that world. It could move from individual people in companies—the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, made this point very powerfully—to changing the accountability model away from either platforms being entirely accountable themselves or platforms and others, including Ministers, somehow doing deals that will have an impact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, on the freedom of expression of people across the country. We do not want that.

We want to move on in the Bill and I think we have a model which could work. The regulator will take on the outrage and go as far as it can under the powers granted in the Bill. If the regulator believes that it has insufficient powers, it will come back to Parliament and ask for more. That is the way in which the system can and should work. I think I referred to this at Second Reading; we have an opportunity to create clear accountability. Parliament instructs Ofcom, which instructs the platforms. The platforms do what Ofcom says, or Ofcom can sanction them. If Ofcom feels that its powers are deficient, it comes back to Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others made the point about scrutiny and us continually testing whether Ofcom has the powers and is exercising them correctly. Again, that is entirely beneficial and the Government should certainly be minded to accept those amendments.

With the Secretary of State powers, as drafted in the Bill and without the amendments we are considering today, we are effectively taking two steps forward and one step back on transparency and accountability. We have to ask: why take that step back when we are able to rely on Ofcom to do the job without these directions?

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, made the point very clearly that there are other ways of doing this. The Secretary of State can express their view. I am sure that the Minister will be arguing that the Secretary of State’s powers in the Bill are better than the status quo because at least what the Secretary of State says will be visible; it will not be a back-room deal. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, has proposed a very good alternative, where the Secretary of State makes visible their intentions, but not in the form of an order—rather in the form of advice. The public—it is their speech we are talking about—then have the ability to see whether they agree with Ofcom, the companies or the Secretary of State if there is any dispute about what should happen.

It is certainly the case that visible instructions from the Secretary of State would be better, but the powers as they are still leave room for arm-twisting. I can imagine a future scenario in which future employees of these platforms are summoned to the Secretary of State. But now the Secretary of State would have a draft order sitting there. The draft order is Mussolini’s desk. They say to the people from the platforms, “Look, you can do what I say, or I am going to send an order to Ofcom”. That takes us back to this world in which the public are not seeing the kind of instructions being given.

I hope that the Government will accept that some amendment is needed here. All the ones that have been proposed suggest different ways of achieving the same objective. We are trying to protect future Secretaries of State from an unhealthy temptation to intervene in ways that they should not.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, on day eight of Committee, I feel that we have all found our role. Each of us has spoken in a similar vein on a number of amendments, so I will try to be brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, has spoken from his experience, I will once again reference my experience as the chief executive, for seven years, of a business regulated by Ofcom; as the chair of a regulator; and as someone who sat on the court of, arguably, the most independent of independent regulators, the Bank of England, for eight years.

I speak in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Stowell, because, as a member of the Communications and Digital Committee, my experience, both of being regulated and as a regulator, is that independent regulators might be independent in name—they might even be independent in statute—but they exist in the political soup. It is tempting to think that they are a sort of granite island, completely immovable in the political soup, but they are more like a boat bobbing along in the turbulence of politics.

As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, has just described, they are influenced both overtly and subtly by the regulated companies themselves—I am sure we have both played that game—by politicians on all sides, and by the Government. We have played these roles a number of times in the last eight days; however, this is one of the most important groups of amendments, if we are to send the Bill back in a shape that will really make the difference that we want it to. This group of amendments challenges whether we have the right assignment of responsibility between Parliament, the regulator, government, the regulated and citizens.

It is interesting that we—every speaker so far—are all united that the Bill, as it currently stands, does not get that right. To explain why I think that, I will dwell on Amendment 114 in the name of my noble friend Lady Stowell. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to direct Ofcom to modify a draft of the code of practice “for reasons of public policy”. It leaves open the ability to direct in the cases of terrorism, child sexual abuse, national security or public safety, but it stops the Secretary of State directing with regard to public policy. The reason I think that is so important is that, while tech companies are not wicked and evil, they have singularly failed to put internet safety, particularly child internet safety, high enough up their pecking order compared with delivering for their customers and shareholders. I do not see how a Secretary of State will be any better at that.

Arguably, the pressures on a Secretary of State are much greater than the pressures on the chief executives of tech companies. Secretaries of State will feel those pressures from the tech companies and their constituents lobbying them, and they will want to intervene and feel that they should. They will then push that bobbing boat of the independent regulator towards whichever shore they feel they need to in the moment—but that is not the way you protect people. That is not the way that we treat health and safety in the physical world. We do not say, “Well, maybe economics is more important than building a building that’s not going to fall down if we have a hurricane”. We say that we need to build safe buildings. Some 200 years ago, we were having the same debates about the physical world in this place; we were debating whether you needed to protect children working in factories, and the consequences for the economics. Well, how awful it is to say that today. That is the reality of what we are saying in the Bill now: that we are giving the Secretary of State the power to claim that the economic priority is greater than protecting children online.

I am starting to sound very emotional because at the heart of this is the suggestion that we are not taking the harms seriously enough. If we really think that we should be giving the Secretary of State the freedom to direct the regulator in such a broad way, we are diminishing the seriousness of the Bill. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the remark from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that he intends to bring this back with the full force of all of us across all sides of the Committee, if we do not hear some encouraging words from my noble friend the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, in bringing the need for consistent regulation of pornographic content to your Lordships’ attention and have added my name in support of Amendment 185. I also support Amendments 123A, 142, 161, 183, 184 and 306 in this group.

There should not be separate regimes for how pornographic content is regulated in this country. I remember discussions about this on Report of the Digital Economy Bill around six years ago. The argument for not making rules for the online world consistent with those for the offline world was that the CPS was no longer enforcing laws on offline use anyway. Then as now, this seems simply to be geared towards letting adults continue to have unrestricted access to an internet awash with pornographic material that depicts and/or promotes child sexual abuse, incest, trafficking, torture, and violent or otherwise harmful sexual acts: adult freedoms trumping all else, including the integrity of the legal process. In the offline world, this material is illegal or prohibited for very good reason.

The reason I am back here, arguing again for parity, is that, since 2017, an even deeper seam of academic research has developed which fatally undermines the case for untrammelled cyber-libertarianism. It has laid bare the far-reaching negative impacts that online pornography has had on individuals and relationships. One obvious area is the sharp rise in mental ill-health, especially among teenagers. Research from CEASE, the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation, found that over 80% of the public would support new laws to limit free and easy access.

Before they get ensnared—and some patients of the Laurel Centre, a private pornography addiction clinic, watch up to 14 hours of pornography a day—few would have been aware that sexual arousal chained to pornography can make intimate physical sex impossible to achieve. Many experience pornography-induced erectile dysfunction and Psychology Today reports that

“anywhere from 17% to 58% of men who self-identify as heavy/compulsive/addicted users of porn struggle with some form of sexual dysfunction”.

As vice-chair of the APPG on Issues Affecting Men and Boys, I am profoundly concerned that very many men and boys are brutalised by depictions of rape, incest, violence and coercion, which are not niche footage on the dark web but mainstream content freely available on every pornography platform that can be accessed online with just a few clicks.

The harms to their growing sons, which include an inability to relate respectfully to girls, should concern all parents enough to dial down drastically their own appetite for porn. There is enormous peer pressure on teenage boys and young men to consume it, and its addictive nature means that children and young people, with their developing brains, are particularly susceptible. One survey of 14 to 18 year-olds found almost a third of boys who used porn said it had become a habit or addiction and a third had enacted it. Another found that the more boys watched porn and were sexually coercive, the less respect they had for girls.

Today’s headlines exposed the neurotoxins in some vaping products used by underage young people. There are neurotoxins in all the porn that would be caught by subsection 368E(2) of the Communications Act 2003, if it was offline—hence the need for parity and, just like the vapes, children as well as adults will continue to be exposed. Trustworthy age verification will stop children stumbling across it or finding it in searches, but adults who are negligent, or determined to despoil children’s innocence, will facilitate their viewing it if it remains available online. This Bill will not make the UK the safest place in the world for children online if we continue to allow content that should be prohibited, for good reason, to flood into our homes.

Helen Rumbelow, writing in the Times earlier this month, said the public debate—the backdrop to our own discussions in this Bill—is “spectacularly ill-informed” because we only talk about porn’s side-effects and not what is enacted. So here goes. Looking at the most popular pages of the day on Pornhub, she found that 12 out of 32 showed men physically abusing women. One-third of these showed what is known as “facial abuse”, where a woman’s airway is blocked by a penis: a porn version of waterboarding torture. She described how

“in one a woman is immobilised and bound by four straps and a collar tightened around her neck. She ends up looking like a dead body found in the boot of a car. In another a young girl, dressed to look even younger in a pair of bunny ears and pastel socks, is held down by an enormous man pushing his hand on her neck while she is penetrated. The sounds that came from my computer were those you might expect from a battle hospital: cries of pain, suction and “no, no, no”. I won’t tell you the worst video I saw as you may want to stop reading now. I started to have to take breaks to go outside and look at the sky and remember kindness”.

Turning briefly to the other amendments, I thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for his persistence in raising the need for the highest standard of age verification for pornography. I also commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her continued commitment to protecting children from harmful online content and for representing so well the parents who have lost children, in the most awful of circumstances, because of online harms. I therefore fully support the package of amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Bethell.

This Bill should be an inflection point in history and future generations will judge us on the decisions we make now. It is highly like they will say “Shame on them”. To argue that we cannot put the genie back in the bottle is defeatist and condemns many of our children and grandchildren to the certainty of a dystopic relational future. I say “certain” because it is the current reality of so many addicted adults who wish they could turn back the clock. Therefore, it is humane and responsible, not quaint or retrogressive, to insist that this Government act decisively to make online and offline laws consistent and reset the dial.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 232, as well as addressing issues raised more broadly by this group of amendments. I want to indicate support from these Benches for the broader package of amendments spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I see my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has returned to check that I am following instructions during my temporary occupation of the Front Bench.

The comments I will make are going to focus on an aspect which I think we have not talked about so much in the debate, which is age assurance in the context of general purpose, user-to-user and search services, so-called Part 3, because we like to use confusing language in this Bill, rather than the dedicated pornography sites about which other noble Lords have spoken so powerfully. We have heard a number of contributions on that, and we have real expertise in this House, not least from my noble friend Lady Benjamin.

In the context of age assurance more generally, I start with a pair of propositions that I hope will be agreed to by all participants in the debate and build on what I thought was a very balanced and highly informative introduction from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The first proposition is that knowledge about the age of users can help all online platforms develop safer services than they could absent that information—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford earlier. The second is that there are always some costs to establishing age, including to the privacy of users and through some of the friction they encounter when they wish to use a service. The task before us is to create mechanisms for establishing age that maximise the safety benefits to users while minimising the privacy and other costs. That is what I see laid out in the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has put before us.

My proposed new clause seeks to inform the way that we construct that balance by tasking Ofcom with carrying out regular studies into a broad range of approaches to age assurance. This is exactly the type of thinking that is complementary to that in Amendment 142; it is not an alternative but complementary to it. We may end up with varying views on exactly where that balance should be struck. Again, I am talking about general purpose services, many of which seek to prohibit pornography—whether they do so 100%, it is a different set of arguments from those that apply to services which are explicitly dedicated to pornography. We may come to different views about where we eventually strike the balance but I think we probably have a good, shared understanding of the factors that should be in play. I certainly appreciate the conversations I have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others about that, and think we have a common understanding of what we should be considering.

If we can get this formulation right, age assurance may be one of the most significant measures in the Bill in advancing online safety, but if we get it wrong, I fear we may create a cookie banner scenario, such as the one I warned about at Second Reading. This is my shorthand for a regulatory measure that brings significant costs without delivering its intended benefits. However keen we are to press ahead, we must always keep in mind that we do not want to create legislation that is well-intended but does not have the beneficial effect that we all in this Committee want.

Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, talked about the different roles that we play. I think mine is to try to think about what will actually work, and whether the Bill will work as intended, and to try to tease out any grit in it that may get in the way. I want in these remarks to flag what I think are four key considerations that may help us to deliver something that is actually useful and avoid that cookie banner outcome, in the context of these general purpose, Part 3 services.

First, we need to recognise that age assurance is useful for enabling as well as disabling access to content—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly made. We rightly focus on blocking access to bad content, but other things are also really important. For example, knowing that a user is very young might mean that the protocol for the reporting system gets to that user report within one hour, rather than 24 hours for a regular report. Knowing that a user is young and is being contacted by an older user may trigger what is known as a grooming protocol. Certainly at Facebook we had that: if we understood that an older user was regularly contacting younger users, that enabled us to trigger a review of those accounts to understand whether something problematic was happening—something that the then child exploitation and online protection unit in the UK encouraged us to implement. A range of different things can then be enabled. The provision of information in terms that a 13 year-old would understand can be triggered if you know the age of that user.

Equally, perfectly legitimate businesses, such as alcohol and online gambling businesses, can use age assurance to make sure that they exclude people who should not be part of that. We in this House are considering measures such as junk food advertising restrictions, which again depend on age being known to ensure that junk food which can be legitimately marketed to older people is not marketed to young people. In a sense, that enables those businesses to be online because, absent the age-gating, they would struggle to meet their regulatory obligations.

Secondly, we need to focus on outcomes, using the risk assessment and transparency measures that the Bill creates for the first time. We should not lose sight of those. User-to-user and search services will have to do risk assessments and share them with Ofcom, and Ofcom now has incredible powers to demand information from them. Rather than asking, “Have you put in an age assurance system?”, we can ask, “Can you tell us how many 11 year-olds or 15 year-olds you estimate access the wrong kind of content?”, and, “How much pornography do you think there is on your service despite the fact that you have banned it?” If the executives of those companies mislead Ofcom or refuse to answer, there are criminal sanctions in the Bill.

The package for user-to-user and search services enables us to really focus on those outcomes and drill down. In many cases, that will be more effective. I do not care whether they have age-assurance type A or type B; I care whether they are stopping 99.9% of 11 year-olds accessing the wrong kind of content. Now, using the framework in the Bill, Ofcom will be able to ask those questions and demand the answers, for the first time ever. I think that a focus on outcomes rather than inputs—the tools that they put in place—is going to be incredibly powerful.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Therefore, using big business money, in this instance, as a weapon to dictate editorial content shows that press freedom is on the line in a variety of ways. Women arguing for protecting single-sex sport, and then being subject to vile misogyny, themselves being described as using transphobic hate speech shows me, at least, that in the name of fighting hate we should not have any attempts to assault press freedom. I will oppose all three of these amendments.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 227 in particular. I am pleased to contribute, as someone who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry, explaining why social media should not be in scope for any new press regulation scheme. It is entertaining for me now to come through the looking glass and listen to the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Faulks, in particular making the kinds of argument I made then, as we discuss whether the press should be in scope for a new social media regulatory scheme.

These amendments are a helpful way to test how the Government expect their decision to afford certain privileges for online activity by journalists and news publishers to work. That is what the regime does, in effect, with the rationale, which was explained to us, that this is why certain bodies can be privileged when using user-to-user services and search engines in a way that, if they were not afforded that status, they would not be given those privileges. Again, it is noteworthy that there has often been criticism of social media precisely for giving special treatment to some users, including in stories in some of the press that we are talking about, and here we are creating not just a state sanction but a state-ordered two-tier system that all the social media companies will now have to adopt. That creates some interesting questions in itself.

I want to press the Minister primarily on definitions. It is certainly my experience that definitions of who is a journalist or a news media publisher are challenging and can be highly political. There have been several pressure points, pushing social media companies to try to define journalists and news publishers for themselves, outside of any regulatory scheme—notably following the disputes about misinformation and disinformation in the United States. The European Union also has a code of practice on misinformation and disinformation. Every time someone approaches this subject, they ask social media companies to try to distinguish journalists and news media from other publishers. So these efforts have been going on for some time, and many of them have run into disputes because there is no consistent agreement about who should be in or outside those regimes. This is one of those problems that seems clear and obvious when you stand back from it, but the more that you zoom in, the more complex and messy it becomes. We all say, “Oh yes, journalists and news publishers—that is fine”, and we write that in the legislation, but, in practice, it will be really hard when people have to make decisions about individuals.

Some news organisations are certainly highly problematic. Most terrorist organisations have news outlets and news agencies. They do not advertise themselves as such but, if you work in a social media platform, you have to learn to distinguish them. They are often presented entirely legitimately, and some of the information that you use to understand why they are problematic may be private, which creates all sorts of problems. Arguably, this is the Russia Today situation: it presented itself as legitimate and was registered with Ofcom for a period of time; we accepted that it was a legitimate news publisher, but we changed our view because we regard the Russian Government as a terrorist regime, in some senses. That is happening all of the time, with all sorts of bodies across the world that have created these news organisations. In the Middle East in particular, you have to be extraordinarily careful—you think that something is a news organisation but you then find that it has a Hezbollah connection and, there you go, you have to try to get rid of it. News organisations tied to extremist organisations is one area that is problematic, and my noble friend referred to it already.

There is also an issue with our domestic media environment. Certainly, most people would regard Gary Lineker as a journalist who works for a recognised news publisher—the BBC—but not everyone will agree with that definition. Equally, most people regard the gentleman who calls himself Tommy Robinson as not being a journalist; however much he protests that he is in front of judges and others, and however much support he has from recognised news publishers in the United States, most people would say that he is not a journalist. The community of people who agree that Gary Lineker is not a journalist and that of people who think that Tommy Robinson is not a journalist do not overlap much, but I make the point that there is continually this contention about individuals, and people have views about who should be in or out of any category that we create.

This is extraordinarily difficult, as in the Bill we are tasking online services with a very hard job. In a few lines of it, we say: “Create these special privileges for these people we call journalists and news publishers”. That is going to be really difficult for them to do in practice and they are going to make mistakes, either exclusionary or inclusionary. We are giving Ofcom an incredibly difficult role, which is why this debate is important, because it is going to have to adjudicate when that journalist or news publisher says to Ofcom: “I think this online platform is breaching the Online Safety Act because of the way it treated me”. Ofcom is going to have to take a view about whether that organisation or individual is legitimate. Given the individuals I named, you can bet your bottom dollar that someone is going to go to Ofcom and say, “I don’t think that Gary Lineker or the BBC are legitimate”. That one should be quite easy; others across the spectrum will be much more difficult for it to deal with.

That is the primary logic underlying Amendment 227: we have known unknowns. There will be unanticipated effects of this legislation and, until it is in place and those decisions are being made, we do not know how it will work. Frankly, we do not know whether, as a result of legal trickery and regulatory decisions, we have inadvertently created a loophole where some people will be able to go and win court cases by claiming protections that we did not intend them to have. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Black: I do not think Amendment 227 undermines press freedom in any sense at all. All it does is to say: “We have created an Online Safety Bill. We expect it to enhance people’s safety and within it we have some known unknowns. We do not know how this exemption is going to work. Why not ask Ofcom to see if any of those unintended consequences happen?”

I know that we are labouring our way through the Online Safety Bill version 1, so we do not want to think about an online safety Bill version 2, but there will at some point have to be a revision. It is entirely rational and sensible that, having put this meaningful exemption in there—it has been defended, so I am sure that the Government will not want to give it up—the least we can do is to take a long, hard look, without interfering with press freedom, and get Ofcom to ask, “Did we see those unintended consequences? Do we need to look at the definitions again?”

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, has clearly and comprehensively painted a picture of the complex world in which we now live, and I do not think that anybody can disagree with that or deny it. We are in a world which is going to keep evolving; we have talked in lots of other contexts about the pace of change, and so on. However, in recognising all that, what the noble Lord has just described—the need for constant evaluation of whether this regime is working effectively—is a job for Parliament, not for Ofcom. That is where I come back to in starting my response to this group of amendments.

Briefly—in order that we can get to the wind-ups and conclude business for the day—ensuring that recognised news publishers and organisations are not subject to Ofcom or any form of state regulation is a vital principle. I am pleased that the Government have included the safeguards which they have in the legislation, while also making it much harder for the tech platforms to restrict the freedom of recognised news publishers and users’ access to them.

I reiterate that I understand that this is becoming increasingly complicated, but these are important principles. We have to start in the world that we currently understand and know, ensure that we protect those publications which we recognise as trusted news providers now, and do not give way on those principles. As my noble friend Lord Black said, regarding debates about Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, there will be an opportunity to re-evaluate that in due course when we come to the media Bill. For what it is worth, my personal view is that I support the Government’s intention to remove it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I think it is actually quite important that there is—to use the language of the Bill—a risk assessment around the notion that people might game it. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, made a very good point. People are very inventive and, if you have ever engaged with the people who run some of those big US misinformation sites—let us just call them that—you will know that they have very inventive, very clever people. They will be looking at this legislation and if they figure out that by opening a UK office and ticking all the boxes they will now get some sorts of privileges in terms of distributing their misinformation around the world, they will do it. They will try it, so I certainly think it is worth there being at least some kind of risk assessment against that happening.

In two years’ time we will be able to see whether the bad thing happened, but whether or not it is the Minister having a conversation with Ofcom now, I just think that forewarned is forearmed. We know that that is a possibility and it would be helpful for some work to be done now to make sure that that is not a loophole that none of us want, I think.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am mindful of the examples the noble Lord gave in his speech. Looking at some of the provisions set out in subsection (2) about a body being

“subject to a standards code”

or having

“policies and procedures for handling and resolving complaints”,

I think on first response that those examples he gave would be covered. But I will certainly take on board the comments he made and those the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, made as well and reflect on them. I hope—

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, I will speak in support of Amendments 195, 239, 263 and 286, to which he added his name. He wants me to thank the Carnegie Trust and the Institution of Engineering and Technology, which have been very helpful in flagging relevant issues for the debate.

Some of the issues in this group of amendments will range much more widely than simply the content we have before us in the Online Safety Bill. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford is right to flag the question of a risk assessment. People are flagging to us known risks. Once we have a known risk, it is incumbent on us to challenge the Minister to see whether the Government are thinking about those risks, regardless of whether the answer is something in the Online Safety Bill or that there needs to be amendments to wider criminal law and other pieces of legislation to deal with it.

Some of these issues have been dealt with for a long time. If you go back and look at the Guardian for 9 May 2007, you will see the headline,

“Second Life in virtual child sex scandal”.


That case was reported in Germany about child role-playing in Second Life, which is very similar to the kind of scenarios described by various noble Lords in this debate. If Second Life was the dog that barked but did not bite, we are in quite a different scenario today, not least because of the dramatic expansion in broadband technology, for which we can thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, in her previous role. Pretty much everybody in this country now has incredible access, at huge scale, to high-speed broadband, which allows those kinds of real life, metaverse-type environments to be available to far more people than was possible with Second Life, which tended to be confined to a smaller group.

The amendments raise three significant groups of questions: first, on scope, and whether the scope of the Online Safety Bill will stretch to what we need; secondly, on behaviour, including the kinds of new behaviours, which we have heard described, that could arise as these technologies develop; and, finally, on agency, which speaks to some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on AIs, including the novel questions about who is responsible when something happens through the medium of artificial intelligence.

On scope, the key question is whether the definition of “user-to-user”, which is at the heart of the Bill, covers everything that we would like to see covered by the Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I look forward to the Minister’s response; I am sure that he has very strongly prepared arguments on that. We should take a moment to give credit to the Bill’s drafters for coming up with these definitions for user-to-user behaviours, rather than using phrases such as, “We are regulating social media or specific technology”. It is worth giving credit, because a lot of thought has gone into this, over many years, with organisations such as the Carnegie Trust. Our starting point is a better starting point than many other legislative frameworks which list a set of types of services; we at least have something about user-to-user behaviours that we can work with. Having said that, it is important that we stress-test that definition. That is what we are doing today: we are stress-testing, with the Minister, whether the definition of “user-to-user” will still apply in some of the novel environments.

It certainly seems likely—and I am sure that the Minister will say this—that a lot of metaverse activity would be in scope. But we need detailed responses from the Minister to explain why the kinds of scenario that have been described—if he believes that this is the case; I expect him to say so—would mean that Ofcom would be able to demand things of a metaverse provider under the framework of the user-to-user requirements. Those are things we all want to see, including the risk assessments, the requirement to keep people away from illegal content, and any other measures that Ofcom deems necessary to mitigate the risks on those platforms.

It will certainly be useful for the Minister to clarify one particular area. Again, we are fortunate in the UK that pseudo-images of child sexual abuse are illegal and have been illegal for a long time. That is not the case in every country around the world, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is quite right to say that this an area where we need international co-operation. Having dealt with it on the platforms, some countries have actively chosen not to criminalise pseudo-images; others just have not considered it.

In the UK, we were ahead of the game in saying, “If it looks like a photo of child abuse, we don’t care whether you created it on Photoshop, or whatever—it is illegal”. I hope that the Minister can confirm that avatars in metaverse-type environments would fall under that definition. My understanding is that the legislation refers to photographs and videos. I would interpret an avatar or activity in a metaverse as a photo or video, and I hope that is what the Government’s legal officers are doing.

Again, it is important in the context of this debate and the exchange that we have just had between the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Fox, that people out there understand that they do not get away with it. If you are in the UK and you create a child sexual abuse image, you can be taken to court and go to prison. People should not think that, if they do it in the metaverse, it is okay—it is not okay, and it is really important that that message gets out there.

This brings us to the second area of behaviours. Again, some of the behaviours that we see online will be extensions of existing harms, but some will be novel, based on technical capabilities. Some of them we should just call by their common or garden term, which is sexual harassment. I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on this. If people go online and start approaching other people in sexual terms, that is sexual harassment. It does not matter whether it is happening in a physical office, on public transport, on traditional social media or in the metaverse—sexual harassment is wrong and, particularly when directed at minors, a really serious offence. Again, I hope that all the platforms recognise that and take steps to prevent sexual harassment on their platforms.

That is quite a lot of the activity that people are concerned about, but others are much more complex and may require updates to legislation. Those are particularly activities such as role-playing online, where people play roles and carry out activities that would be illegal if done in the real world. That is particularly difficult when it is done between consenting adults, when they choose to carry out a role-playing activity that replicates an illegal activity were it to take place in the real world. That is hard—and those with long memories may remember a group of cases around Operation Spanner in the 1990s, whereby a group of men was prosecuted for consensual sadomasochistic behaviour. The case went backwards and forwards, but it talked to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, may be sympathetic to—the point at which the state should intervene on sexual activities that many people find abhorrent but which take place between consenting adults.

In the context of the metaverse, I see those questions coming front and centre again. There are all sorts of things that people could role-play in the metaverse, and we will need to take a decision on whether the current legislation is adequate or needs to be extended to cater for the fact that it now becomes a common activity. Also important is the nature of it. The fact that it is so realistic changes the nature of an activity; you get a gut feeling about it. The role-playing could happen today outside the metaverse, but once you move it in there, something changes. Particularly when children are involved, it becomes something that should be a priority for legislators—and it needs to be informed by what actually happens. A lot of what the amendments seek to do is to make sure that Ofcom collects the information that we need to understand how serious these problems are becoming and whether they are, again, something that is marginal or something that is becoming mainstream and leading to more harm.

The third and final question that I wanted to cover is the hardest one—the one around agency. That brings us to thinking about artificial intelligence. When we try to assign responsibility for inappropriate or illegal behaviour, we are normally looking for a controlling mind. In many cases, that will hold true online as well. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, is looking at bots—and with a classic bot, you have a controlling mind. When the bots were distributing information in the US election on behalf of Russia, that was happening on behalf of individuals in Russia who had created those bots and sent them out there. We still had a controlling mind, in that instance, and a controlling mind can be prosecuted. We have that in many instances, and we can expect platforms to control them and expect to go after the individuals who created the bots in the same way that we would go after things that they do as a first party. There is a lot of experience in the fields of spam and misinformation, where “bashing the bots” is the daily bread and butter of a lot of online platforms. They have to do it just to keep their platforms safe.

We can also foresee a scenario with artificial intelligence whereby it is less obvious that there is a controlling mind or who the controlling mind should be. I can imagine a situation whereby an artificial intelligence has created illegal content, whether that is child sexual abuse material or something else that is in the schedule of illegal content in the Bill, without the user having expected it to happen or the developer having believed or contemplated that it could happen. Let us say that the artificial intelligence goes off and creates something illegal, and that both the user and the developer can show the question that they asked of the artificial intelligence and show how they coded it, showing that neither of them intended for that thing to happen. In the definition of artificial intelligence, it has its own agency in that scenario. The artificial intelligence cannot be fined or sent to prison. There are some things that we can do: we can try to retrain it, or we can kill it. There is always a kill switch; we should never forget that with artificial intelligence. Sam Altman at OpenAI can turn off ChatGPT if it is behaving in an illegal way.

There are some really important questions around that issue. There is the liability for the specific instance of the illegality happening. Who do we hold liable? Even if everyone says that it was not their intention, is there someone that we can hold liable? What should the threshold be at which we can execute that death sentence on the AI? If an AI is being used by millions of people and on a small number of occasions it does something illegal, is that sufficient? At what point do we say that the AI is rogue and that, effectively, it needs to be taken out of operation? Those are much wider questions than we are dealing with immediately with in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister can at least point to what the Government are thinking about these kind of legal questions, as we move from a world of user-to-user engagement to user-to-user-to-machine engagement, when that machine is no longer a creature of the user.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I have had time just to double-check the offences. The problem that exists—and it would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm this—is that the criminal law is defined in terms of person. It is not automatic that sexual harassment, particularly if you do not have a haptic suit on, would actually fall within the criminal law, as far as I understand it, which is why I am asking the Minister to clarify. That was the point that I was making. Harassment per se also needs a course of conduct, so if it was not a touch of your avatar in a sexual nature, it clearly falls outside criminal law. That is the point of clarification that we might need on how the criminal law is framed at the moment.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. That is very helpful.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

That is exactly the same issue with child sexual abuse images—it is about the way in which criminal law is written. Not surprisingly, it is not up to date with evolution of technology.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I am grateful for that intervention as well. That summarises the core questions that we have for the Minister. Of the three areas that we have for him, the first is the question of scope and the extent to which he can assure us that the Bill as drafted will be robust in covering the metaverse and bots, which are the issues that have been raised today. The second is on behaviours and to the two interventions that we have just had. We have been asking whether, with the behaviours that are criminal today, that criminality will stretch to new, similar forms of behaviour taking place in new environments—let us put it that way. The behaviour, the intent and the harm are the same, but the environment is different. We want to understand the extent to which the Government are thinking about that, where that thinking is happening and how confident they are that they can deal with that.

Finally, on the question of agency, how do the Government expect to deal with the fact that we will have machines operating in a user-to-user environment when the connection between the machine and another individual user is qualitatively different from anything that we have seen before? Those are just some small questions for the Minister on this Thursday afternoon.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, the debate on this group has been a little longer, deeper and more important than I had anticipated. It requires all of us to reflect before Report on some of the implications of the things we have been talking about. It was introduced masterfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and her comments—and those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Berridge—were difficult to listen to at times. I also congratulate the Government Whip on the way he handled the situation so that innocent ears were not subject to some of that difficult listening. But the questions around the implications of virtual reality, augmented reality and haptic technology are really important, and I hope the Minister will agree to meet with the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the people she referenced to reflect on some of that.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 159 requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review into the operation of the regulatory framework between two and five years after the provisions come into effect. This review will consider any new emerging trends or technologies, such as AI, which could have the potential to compromise the efficacy of the Bill in achieving its objectives. I am happy to assure the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that the review will cover all content and activity being regulated by the Bill, including legal content that is harmful to children and content covered by user-empowerment tools. The Secretary of State must consult Ofcom when she carries out this review.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

Will the review also cover an understanding of what has been happening in criminal cases where, in some of the examples that have been described, people have tried to take online activity to court? We will at that point understand whether the judges believe that existing offences cover some of these novel forms of activity. I hope the review will also extend not just to what Ofcom does as a regulator but to understand what the courts are doing in terms of the definitions of criminal activity and whether they are being effective in the new online spaces.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I believe it will. Certainly, both government and Parliament will take into account judgments in the court on this Bill and in related areas of law, and will, I am sure, want to respond.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have said many times, this is a complex Bill. As we reflect on the priorities for Report, we can be more relaxed about some of the specifics on how Ofcom may operate, thereby giving it more flexibility—the flexibility it needs to be agile in the online world—if we as a Parliament trust Ofcom. Building trust, I believe, is a triangulation. First, there is independence from government—as discussed in respect of Secretary of State powers. Secondly, we need proper scrutiny by Parliament. Earlier today I talked about my desire for there to be proper post-legislative scrutiny and a permanent Joint Committee to do that. The third leg of the stool is the transparency to assist that scrutiny.

Clause 68 contains the provisions which would require category 1, 2A and 2B services to produce an annual transparency report containing information described by Ofcom in a notice given to the service. Under these provisions, Ofcom would be able to require these services to report on, among other things: information about the incidence of illegal content and content that is harmful to children; how many users are assumed to have encountered this content by means of the service; the steps and processes for users to report this content; and the steps and processes which a provider uses for dealing with this content.

We welcome the introduction of transparency reporting in relation to illegal content and content that is harmful to children. We agree with the Government that effective transparency reporting plays a crucial role in building Ofcom’s understanding of online harms and empowering users to make a more informed choice about the services they use.

However, despite the inclusion of transparency reporting in the Bill representing a step in the right direction, we consider that these requirements could and should be strengthened to do the trust building we think is important. First, the Bill should make clear that, subject to appropriate redactions, companies will be required to make their transparency reports publicly available—to make them transparent—hence Amendment 160A.

Although it is not clear from the Bill whether companies will be required to make these reports publicly available, we consider that, in most instances, such a requirement would be appropriate. As noted, one of the stated purposes of transparency reporting is that it would enable service users to make more informed choices about their own and their children’s internet use—but they can only do so if the reports are published. Moreover, in so far as transparency reporting would facilitate public accountability, it could also act as a powerful incentive for service providers to do more to protect their users.

We also recognise that requiring companies to publish the incidences of CSEA content on their platforms, for instance, may have the effect of encouraging individuals seeking such material towards platforms on which there are high incidences of that content—that must be avoided. I recognise that simply having a high incidence of CSEA content on a platform does not necessarily mean that that platform is problematic; it could just mean that it is better at reporting it. So, as ever with the Bill, there is a balance to be struck.

Therefore, we consider that the Bill should make it explicit that, once provided to Ofcom, transparency reports are to be made publicly available, subject to redactions. To support this, Ofcom should be required to produce guidance on the publication of transparency reports and the redactions that companies should make before making reports publicly accessible. Ofcom should also retain the power to stop a company from publishing a particular transparency report if it considers that the risk of directing individuals to illegal materials outweighs the benefit of making a report public—hence Amendments 160B and 181A.

Amendments 165 and 229 are in my noble friend Lord Stevenson’s name. Amendment 165 would broaden the transparency requirements around user-to-user services’ terms of service, ensuring that information can be sought on the scope of these terms, not just their application. As I understand it, scope is important to understand, as it is significant in informing Ofcom’s regulatory approach. We are trying to guard against minimal terms of service where detail is needed for users and Ofcom.

The proposed clause in Amendment 229 probes how Ofcom will review the effectiveness of the transparency requirements in the Bill. It would require Ofcom to undertake a review of the effectiveness of transparency reports within three years and every five years thereafter, and it would give the Secretary of State powers to implement any recommendations made by the regulator. The Committee should note that we also include a requirement that a Select Committee, charged by the relevant House, must consider and report on the regulations, with an opportunity for Parliament to debate them. So we link the three corners of the triangle rather neatly there.

If we agree that transparency is an important part of building trust in Ofcom in doing this difficult and innovative regulatory job—it is always good to see the noble Lord, Lord Grade, in his place; I know he is looking forward to getting on with this—then this proposed clause is sensible. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, has given us an opportunity to talk about transparency reports with these amendments, which are potentially a helpful addition to the Bill. Transparency is one of the huge benefits that the legislation may bring. One of the concerns that the public have and that politicians have always had with online platforms is that they appear to be a black box—you cannot see what is going on in them.

In the entire edifice that we are constructing in the Online Safety Bill, there are huge opportunities to change that. The platforms will have to do risk assessments —there are measures in the Bill to make sure that information about these is put out—and they will have to take active steps to mitigate any risks they find. Again, we may get directions and guidance from Ofcom that will explain to the public exactly what is expected of them. The final piece of the jigsaw is the transparency reports that show the outcomes—how a platform has performed and what it has done to meet its obligations in dealing with content and behaviour on its services.

For the record, I previously worked for one of the platforms, and I would have said that I was on the pro-transparency wing of the transparency party inside the company. I believed that it was in the platform’s interest: if you do not tell people what you are doing, they will make things up about you, and what they make up will generally be worse than what you are actually doing. So there are huge advantages to the platforms from being transparent.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, has picked up on some important points in his Amendment 160B, which talks about making sure that the transparency report is not counterproductive by giving the bad guys information that they could use to ill effect. That is a valid point; it is often debated inside the platforms. Sometimes, I argued furiously with my colleagues in the platforms about why we should disclose information. They would ask, “What about the bad guys?” Sometimes I challenged that, but other times it would have been a genuine and accurate concern. The noble Lord mentioned things such as child sexual abuse material, and we have to recognise that the bad guys are incredibly devious and creative, and if you show them anything that they can use against you to get around your systems, they will try to do that. That is a genuine and valid concern.

The sort of thing that you might put into a transparency report is, for example, whether you have banned particular organisations. I would be in favour of indicating to the public that an organisation is banned, but you can see that the potential impact of that is that all the people you are concerned about would create another organisation with a different name and then get back on to your platform. We need to be alive to those kinds of concerns.

It is also relevant to Amendment 165 and the terms of service that the more granular and detailed your terms of service are, the better they are for public information, but there are opportunities to get around them. Again, we would have that argument internally. I would say, “If we are prohibiting specific hate speech terms, tell people that, and then they won’t use them”. For me, that would be a success, as they are not using those hate speech terms anymore, but, of course, they may then find alternative hate speech terms that they can use instead. You are facing that battle all the time. That is a genuine concern that I hope we will be able to debate. I hope that Ofcom will be able to mitigate that risk by discussing with platforms what these transparency reports should look like. In a sense, we are doing a risk assessment of the transparency report process.

Amendment 229 on effectiveness is really interesting. My experience was that if you did not have a transparency report, you were under huge pressure to produce one and that once you produced one, nobody was interested. For fear of embarrassing anyone in the Committee, I would be curious to know how many noble Lords participating in this debate have read the transparency reports already produced by Meta Platforms, Google and others. If they have not read them, they should not be embarrassed, because my experience was that I would talk to regulators and politicians about something they had asked me to come in to talk about, such as hate speech or child sexual abuse material, and I learned to print off the transparency report. I would go in and say, “Well, you know what we are doing; it’s in our transparency report”. They would ask, “What transparency report?”, and I would have to show them. So, having produced a transparency report, every time we published it, we would expect there to be public interest, but little use was made of it. That is not a reason not to do them—as I said, I am very much in favour of doing them—but, on their own, they may not be effective, and Amendment 229 touches on that.

I was trying to think of a collective noun for transparency reports and, seeing as they shed light, I think it may be a “chandelier”. Where we may get the real benefit is if Ofcom can produce a chandelier of transparency reports, taking all the information it gets from the different platforms, processing it and selecting the most relevant information—the reports are often too long for people to work their way through—so that it can enable comparisons. That is really good and it is quite good for the industry that people know that platform A did this, platform B did that, and platform C did something else. They will take note of that, compare with each other and want to get into the best category. It is also critical that Ofcom puts this into user-friendly language, and Ofcom has quite a good record of producing intelligible reports. In the context of Amendment 229, a review process is good. One of the things that might come out of that, thinking ahead, would be Ofcom’s role in producing meta transparency reports, the chandelier that will shed light on what the whole sector is doing.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, for once I want to be really positive. I am actually very positive about this whole group of amendments because more transparency is essential in what we are discussing. I especially like Amendment 165 from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, because it is around terms of service for user-to-user services and ensures that information can be sought on the scope as well as the application. This is important because so much has been put on user-to-user services as well as on terms of service. You need to know what is going on.

I want particularly to compliment Amendment 229 that says that transparency reports should be

“of sufficient quality to enable service users and researchers to make informed judgements”,

et cetera. That is a very elegant way in which to say that they should not be gobbledegook. If we are going to have them, they should be clear and of a quality that we can read. Obviously, we do not want them to be unreadable and full of jargon and legalistic language. I am hoping that that is the requirement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 185A and 268AA in this group. They are on different subjects, but I will deal with them in the same contribution.

Amendment 185A is a new clause that would introduce duties on online marketplaces to limit child access to listings of knives and take proactive steps to identify and remove any listings of knives or products such as ornamental zombie knives that are suggestive of acts of violence or self-harm. I am sure the Minister will be familiar with the Ronan Kanda case that has given rise to our bringing this amendment forward. The case is particularly horrible; as I understand it, sentencing is still outstanding. Two young boys bought ninja blades and machetes online and ultimately killed another younger boy with them. It has been widely featured in news outlets and is particularly distressing. We have had some debate on this in another place.

As I understand it, the Government have announced a consultation on this, among other things, looking at banning the sale of machetes and knives that appear to have no practical use other than being designed to look menacing or suitable for combat. We support the consultation and the steps set out in it, but the amendment provides a chance to probe the extent to which this Bill will apply to the dark web, where a lot of these products are available for purchase. The explanatory statement contains a reference to this, so I hope the Minister is briefed on the point. It would be very helpful to know exactly what the Government’s intention is on this, because we clearly need to look at the sites and try to regulate them much better than they are currently regulated online. I am especially concerned about the dark web.

The second amendment relates to racist abuse; I have brought the subject before the House before, but this is rather different. It is a bit of a carbon copy of Amendment 271, which noble Lords have already debated. It is there for probing purposes, designed to tease out exactly how the Government see public figures, particularly sports stars such as Marcus Rashford and Bukayo Saka, and how they think they are supposed to deal with the torrents of racist abuse that they receive. I know that there have been convictions for racist content online, but most of the abuse goes unpunished. It is not 100% clear that much of it will be identified and removed under the priority offence provisions. For instance, does posting banana emojis in response to a black footballer’s Instagram post constitute an offence, or is it just a horrible thing that people do? We need to understand better how the law will act in this field.

There has been a lot of debate about this issue, it is a very sensitive matter and we need to get to the bottom of it. A year and a half ago, the Government responded to my amendment bringing online racist abuse into the scope of what is dealt with as an offence, which we very much welcomed, but we need to understand better how these provisions will work. I look forward to the Minister setting that out in his response. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak primarily to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, but I will also touch on Amendment 268AA at the same time. The amendments that I am particularly interested in are Amendments 200 and 201 on regulatory co-operation. I strongly support the need for this, and I will illustrate that with some concrete examples of why this is essential to bring to life the kinds of challenges that need to be dealt with.

The first example relates to trying to deal with the sexual grooming of children online, where platforms are able to develop techniques to do that. They can do that by analysing the behaviour of users and trying to detect whether older users are consistently trying to approach younger users, and the kind of content of the messages they may be sending to them where that is visible. These are clearly highly intrusive techniques. If a platform is subject to the general data protection regulation, or the UK version of that, it needs to be very mindful of privacy rights. We clearly have, there, two potentially interested bodies in the UK environment. We have the child protection agencies, and we will have, in future, Ofcom seeking to ensure that the platform has met its duty of care, and we will have the Information Commission’s Office.

A platform, in a sense, can be neutral as to what it is instructed to do by the regulator. Certainly, my experience was that the platforms wanted to do those kinds of activities, but they are neutral in the sense that they will do what they are told is legal. There, you need clarity from the regulators together to say, “Yes, we have looked at this and you are not going to do something on the instruction of the child safety agency and then get criticised, and potentially fined, by the Data Protection Agency for doing the thing you have been instructed to do”—so we need those agencies to work together.

The second example is in the area of co-operation around antiterrorism, another key issue. The platforms have created something called the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. Within that forum, they share tools and techniques—things such as databases of information about terrorist content and systems that you can use to detect them—and you are encouraged within that platform to share those tools and techniques with smaller platforms and competitors. Clearly, again, there is a very significant set of questions, and if you are in a discussion around that, the lawyers will say, “Have the competition lawyers cleared this?” Again, therefore, something that is in the public interest—that all the platforms should be using similar kinds of technology to detect terrorist content—is something where you need a view not just from the counterterrorism people but also, in our case, from the Competition and Markets Authority. So, again, you need those regulators to work together.

The final example is one which I know is dear to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, which is fraudsters, which we have dealt with, where you might have patterns of behaviour where you have information that comes from the telecoms companies regulated by Ofcom, the internet service providers, regulated by Ofcom, and financial institutions, regulated by their own family of regulators—and they may want to share data with each other, which is something that is subject to the Information Commission’s Office again. So, again, if we are going to give platforms instructions, which we rightly do in this legislation, and say, “Look, we want you to get tougher on online fraudsters; we want you to demonstrate a duty of care there”, the platforms will need—certainly those regulators: financial regulators, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office—to sort those things out.

Having a forum such as the one proposed in Amendment 201, where these really difficult issues can be thrashed out and clear guidance can be given to online services, will be much more efficient than what sometimes happened in the past, where you had the left hand and the right hand of the regulatory world pulling you in different directions. I know that we have the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum. If we can build on those institutions, it is essential and ideal that they have their input before the guidance is issued, rather than have a platform comply with guidance from regulator A and then get dinged by regulator B for doing the thing that they have been instructed to do.

That leads to the very sensible Amendment 201 on skilled persons. Again, Ofcom is going to be able to call in skilled persons. In an area such as data protection, that might be a data protection lawyer, but, equally, it might be that somebody who works at the Information Commissioner’s Office is actually best placed to give advice. Amendment 200—the first of the two that talks about skilled persons being able to come from regulators—makes sense.

Finally, I will touch on the issues raised in Amendment 268AA—I listened carefully and understand that it is a probing amendment. It raises some quite fundamental questions of principle—I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, might want to come in on these—and it has been dealt with in the context of Germany and its network enforcement Act: I know the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, can say that in the original German. That Act went in the same direction, motivated by similar concerns around hate speech.

--- Later in debate ---

We have heard the term “rabbit hole”; there is a rabbit hole, where people intent on self-harm or indeed those who suffer from eating disorders go from larger platforms to smaller and niche ones where they encounter the very content that feeds their addiction, or which fuels and enables their desire to self-harm. As I said in a previous grouping, this cannot be the intention of the Bill, I do not believe it is the intention of the Government, and I hope that the Minister will listen to the arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, set out so effectively.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am a poor substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in terms of the substance of the issues covered by these amendments, but I am pleased that we have been able to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on that. I will make a short contribution on the technology and the challenges of classification, because there are some important issues here that the amendments bring out.

We will be creating rules for categorising platforms. As I understand it, the rules will have a heavy emphasis on user numbers but will not be exclusively linked to user numbers. It would be helpful if the Minister could tease out a little more about how that will work. However, it is right even at this stage to consider the possibility that there will need to be exceptions to those rules and to have a mechanism in place for that.

We need to recognise that services can grow very quickly these days, and some of the highest-risk moments may be those when services have high growth but still very little revenue and infrastructure in place to look after their users. This is a problem generally with stepped models, where you have these great jumps; in a sense, a sliding scale would be more rational, so that responsibilities increase over time, but clearly from a practical view it is hard to do that, so we are going to end up with some kind of step model.

We also need to recognise that, from a technical point of view, it is becoming cheaper and easier to build new user-to-user services all the time. That has been the trend for years, but it is certainly the case now. If someone wants to create a service, they can rent the infrastructure from a number of providers rather than buying it, they can use a lot of code that is freely available—they do not need to write as much code as they used to—and they can promote their new service using all the existing social networks, so you can go from zero to significant user numbers in very quick time, and that is getting quicker all the time. I am interested to hear how the Minister expects such services to be regulated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, referred to niche platforms. There will be some that have no intention to comply, even if we categorise them as a 2B service. The letter will arrive from Ofcom and go in the bin. They will have no interest whatever. Some of the worst services will be like that. The advantage of us ensuring that we bring them into scope is that we can move through the enforcement process quickly and get to business disruption, blocking, or whatever we need to do to get them out of the UK market. Other niche services will be willing to come into line if they are told they are categorised as 2B but given a reasonable set of requirements. Some of Ofcom’s most valuable work might be precisely to work with them: services that are borderline but recognise that they want to have a viable business, and they do not have a viable business by breaking the law. We need to get hold of them and bring them into the net to be able to work with them.

Finally, there is another group which is very mainstream but in the growing phase and busy growing and not worrying about regulation. For that category of company, we need to work with them as they grow, and the critical thing is to get them early. I think the amendments would help Ofcom to be able get to them early—ideally, in partnership with other regulators, including the European Union, which is now regulating in a similar way under the Digital Services Act. If we can work with those companies as they come into 2B, then into category 1—in European speak, that is a VLOP, a very large online platform—and get them used to the idea that they will have VLOP and category 1 responsibilities before they get there, we can make a lot more progress. Then we can deliver what we are all trying to, which is a safer internet for people in the UK

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I shall speak very briefly at this hour, just to clarify as much as anything. It seems important to me that there is a distinction between small platforms and large platforms, but my view has never been that if you are small, you have no potential harms, any more than if you are large, you are harmful. The exception should be the rule. We have to be careful of arbitrary categorisation of “small”. We have to decide who is going to be treated as though they are a large category 1 platform. I keep saying but stress again: do not assume that everybody agrees what significant risk of harm or hateful content is. It is such highly disputed political territory outside the online world and this House that we must recognise that it is not so straightforward.

I am very sympathetic, by the way, to the speeches made about eating disorders and other issues. I see that very clearly, but other categories of speech are disputed and argued over—I have given loads of examples. We end up where it is assumed that the manifestoes of mass shooters appear on these sites, but if you read any of those manifestoes of mass shooters, they will often be quoting from mainstream journalists in mainstream newspapers, the Bible and a whole range of things. Just because they are on 4Chan, or wherever, is not necessarily the problem; it is much more complicated.

I ask the Minister, and the proposers of the amendment, to some extent: would it not be straightforwardly the case that if there is a worry about a particular small platform, it might be treated differently—

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I just want to react to the manifestos of mass shooters. While source material such the Bible is not in scope, I think the manifesto of a shooter is clear incitement to terrorism and any platform that is comfortable carrying that is problematic in my view, and I hope it would be in the noble Baroness’s view as well.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I was suggesting that we have a bigger problem than it appearing on a small site. It quotes from mainstream media, but it ends up being broadly disseminated and not because it is on a small site. I am not advocating that we all go round carrying the manifestos of mass shooters and legitimising them. I was more making the point that it can be complicated. Would not the solution be that you can make appeals that a small site is treated differently? That is the way we deal with harmful material in general and the way we have dealt with, for example, RT as press without compromising on press freedom. That is the kind of point I am trying to make.

I understand lots of concerns but I do not want us to get into a situation where we destroy the potential of all smaller platforms—many of them doing huge amounts of social good, part of civil society and all the rest of it—by treating them as though they are large platforms. They just will not have the resources to survive, that is all my point is.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, first, I want to recognise the bravery of the families of Olly, Breck, Molly, Frankie and Sophie in campaigning for the amendments we are about to discuss. I also pay tribute to Mia, Archie, Isaac, Maia and Aime, whose families I met this morning on their way to the House. It is a great privilege to stand alongside them and witness their courage and dignity in the face of unimaginable grief. On behalf of myself, my co-signatories—the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—and the huge number of Peers and MPs who have supported these amendments, I thank them for their work and the selflessness they have shown in their determination to ensure that other families do not suffer as they have.

This group includes Amendments 198, 199, 215 and 216, which, together, would create a pathway for coroners and, by extension, families to get access to information relevant to the death of a child from technology services. The amendments would put an end to the inhumane situation whereby coroners and families in crisis are forced to battle faceless corporations to determine whether a child’s engagement with a digital service contributed to their death. Bereaved families have a right to know what happened to their children, and coroners have a duty to ensure that lessons are learned and that those who have failed in their responsibilities are held accountable.

Since the Minister is going to be the bearer of good news this afternoon, I will take the time to make arguments for the amendments as they stand. I simply say that, while parents have been fighting for access to information, those same companies have continued to suggest friends, material and behaviours that drive children into places and spaces in which they are undermined, radicalised into despair and come to harm. In no other circumstance would it be acceptable to withhold relevant information from a court procedure. It is both immoral and a failure of justice if coroners cannot access and review all relevant evidence. For the families, it adds pain to heartbreak as they are unable to come to terms with what has happened because there is still so much that they do not know.

I am grateful to the Government for agreeing to bring forward on Report amendments that will go a very long way towards closing the loopholes that allow companies to refuse coroners’ demands and ignore parents’ entreaties. The Government’s approach is somewhat different from that in front of us, but it covers the same ground. These amendments are the result of the considerable efforts of Ministers and officials from DSIT and the Ministry of Justice, with the invaluable support of the right honourable Sajid Javid MP. I wish to note on the record the leadership of the Secretary of State, who is currently on leave, and the Minister here, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.

The Government’s amendments will create an express power for Ofcom to require information from services about a deceased child user’s online activity following the receipt of a Schedule 5 request from a coroner. This will vastly increase the reach and power of that coroner. Information that Ofcom can request from regulated companies under the Online Safety Bill is extremely wide and includes detailed data on what is recommended; the amount of time the child spent on the service when they accessed it; their user journey; what content they liked, shared, rewatched, paused and reported; and whether other users raised red flags about the child’s safety or well-being before their death.

Information notices prompted by a Schedule 5 request from a coroner will be backed by Ofcom’s full enforcement powers and will apply to all regulated companies. If a service fails to comply, it may be subject to enforcement action, including senior management liability and fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover—vastly different from the maximum fine of £1,000 under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Moreover, these amendments will give coroners access to Ofcom’s expertise and understanding of how online services work and of online services’ safety duties to children. Also, there will be provisions empowering Ofcom to share information freely to assist coroners in their inquiries. Companies must provide a dedicated means of communication to manage requests for information from bereaved parents and provide written responses to those requests. I look forward to the Minister setting out that these will be operated by a team of experts and backed up by Ofcom in ensuring that the communication is adequate, timely and not obstructive. Importantly, if the communication is not adequate, bereaved families will be able to notify Ofcom.

There are a small number of outstanding questions. We remain concerned that only larger companies will be required to set out their policies on disclosure. Sadly, children are often coerced and nudged into smaller sites that have less robust safety mechanisms. Small is not safe. A further issue is to ensure that a coroner is able, via a Schedule 5 notice given to Ofcom, to compel senior management to appear at an inquest. This is a crucial ask of the legal community, who battled and failed to get companies to attend inquests, notably Wattpad at the Frankie Thomas inquest and Snap Inc at Molly Russell’s inquest. Can the Minister undertake to close these gaps before Report?

A number of matters sit outside the scope of the Online Safety Bill. I am particularly grateful to the Secretary of State for committing in writing to further work beyond the Bill to ensure that the UK’s approach is comprehensive and watertight. The Government will be exploring ways in which the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill can support and complement these provisions, including the potential for a code that requires data preservation if a parent or enforcement officer contacts a helpline or if there is constructive knowledge, such as when a death has been widely reported, even before a Schedule 5 notice has been delivered.

The Government are engaging with the Chief Coroner to provide training in order to ensure that coroners have the knowledge they need to carry out inquests where children’s engagement with online services is a possible factor in their death. I am concerned about the funding of this element of the Government’s plans and urge the Minister to indicate whether this could be part of Ofcom’s literacy duties and therefore benefit from the levy. Possibly most importantly, the Secretary of State has undertaken to approach the US Government to ensure that coroners can review private messages that fall outside the scope of this Bill in cases where a child’s death is being investigated. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for his support in articulating the issue, and accept the invitation to work alongside the department to achieve this.

There are only two further things to say. First, delivery is in the drafting, and I hope that when he responds, the Minister will assure the House that we will see the proposed amendments well before Report so that we can ensure that this works as we have all agreed. Secondly, the Government are now looking very carefully at other amendments which deal with prevention of harm in one way or another. I share the gratitude of Bereaved Parents for Online Safety for the work that has gone into this set of amendments. However, we want to see safety by design; a comprehensive list of harms to children in the Bill, including harms caused or amplified by the design of service; principles for age assurance which ensure that the systems put in place by regulated services are measurable, secure and fit for purpose; and a proper complaints service, so that children have somewhere to turn when things go wrong. What we have been promised is a radical change of status for the coroner and for the bereaved families. What we want is fewer dead children. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, some of the issues that we have been dealing with in this Bill are more abstract or generic harms, but here we are responding to a specific need of families in the UK who are facing the most awful of circumstances.

I want to recognise the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her direct support for many of those families, and for her persistent efforts to use policy and the tools we have available to us here to improve the situation for families who, sadly, will face similar tragedies in future. I appreciate the time that she has spent with me in the spirit of finding workable solutions. It is an alliance that might seem improbable, given our respective responsibilities, which have sometimes placed us in publicly adversarial roles. However, one of the strengths of this Committee process is that it has allowed us to focus on what is important and to find that we have more in common than separates us. Nothing could be more important than the issue we are dealing with now.

I am pleased that it looks like we will be able to use this Bill to make some significant improvements in this area to address the challenges faced by those families, some of whom are here today, challenges which add to their already heart-wrenching distress. The first challenge these families face is to find someone at an online service who is willing and able to answer their questions about their loved one’s use of that platform. This question about contacts at online platforms is not limited to these cases but comes up in other areas.

As noble Lords will know, I used to work for Facebook, where I was often contacted by all sorts of Governments asking me to find people in companies, often smaller companies, concerning very serious issues such as terrorism. Even when they were dealing with the distribution of terrorist content, they would find it very challenging. There is a generic problem around getting hold of people at platforms. A real strength of the Online Safety Bill is that it will necessarily require Ofcom to develop contacts at all online services that offer user-to-user and search services to people in the UK. The Government estimate that 25,000 entities are involved. We are talking about Ofcom building a comprehensive database of pretty much any service that matters to people in the UK.

Primarily, these contacts will be safety focused, as their main responsibility will be to provide Ofcom with evidence that the service is meeting its duties of care under the Bill, so again, they will have the right people in the right companies on their database in future. Importantly, Ofcom will have a team of several hundred people, paid for by a levy on these regulated services, to manage the contacts at the right level. We can expect that, certainly for the larger services, there may be a team of several people at Ofcom dedicated to working with them, whereas for the smaller services it may be a pooled arrangement whereby one Ofcom staff member deals with a group. However, in all cases there will be someone at the regulator with a responsibility for liaising with those companies. We do not expect Ofcom to use those contacts to resolve questions raised by individuals in the UK as a matter of course, but it makes sense to make this channel available where there is a relatively small number of highly impactful cases such as we are dealing with here.

--- Later in debate ---

If a provider outside the UK ignores letters and fines, these measures may well be the only possibility. Many pornography providers probably have absolutely no intention of even trying to comply with the kinds of regulations that are envisaged in the Bill. They are probably not based in the UK, are never going to pay a fine and are probably incorporated in some obscure offshore jurisdiction. Ofcom will need to use these powers in such circumstances, and on a bulk scale. We should not put that enforcement activity at risk of the legal stalling games that these sites will undoubtedly play. For that reason, I ask the Minister to commit to these changes by government amendment before Report next month.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment 218JA in this group, in my name, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, has added her name. This is really trying to understand what the Government’s intentions are in respect of access restriction orders.

Just to take a step back, in the Online Safety Bill regime we are creating, in effect, a licensing regime for in-scope services and saying that, if you want to operate in the United Kingdom and you are covered by the Bill—whether that is the pornography services that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to or a user-to-user or search service—here are the conditions to which you must adhere. That includes paying a fee to Ofcom for your supervision, and then following the many thousands of pages of guidance that I suspect we will end up producing and issuing to those companies. So what we are exploring here is what happens if a particular organisation does not decide to take up the offer of a licence.

Again, to go back to the previous debate, success for the Bill would be that it has a sufficient deterrent effect that the problems that we are seeking to fix are addressed. I do not think we are looking to block services or for them to fail—we are looking for them to succeed, so stage one is that Ofcom asks them nicely. It says, “You want to operate in the UK, here is what you need to do—it’s a reasonable set of requests we are making”, and the services say, “Fine”. If not, they choose to self-limit—and it is quite trivial for any online service to say, “I’m going to check incoming traffic, and if this person looks like they are coming from the UK, I’m not going to serve them”. That is self-limiting, which is an option that would be preferable if a service chose not to accept the licence condition. But let us assume that it has accepted the licence condition, and Ofcom is going to be monitoring it on a routine basis—and if Ofcom thinks it is not meeting its requirements, whether that is to produce a risk assessment or to fulfil its duty of care, Ofcom will then instruct it to do something. If it fails to follow that instruction, we are in the territory of the amendments that we are considering here: either it has refused to accept the licence conditions and to self-limit, or it has accepted them but has failed to do what we expect it to do. It has signed up and thought that it is not serious, and it is not doing the things that we expect it to do.

At that point, Ofcom has to consider what it can do. The first stage is quite right, in the group of clauses that we are looking at—Ofcom can bring in these business disruption measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, rightly pointed out, in many instances that will be effective. Any commercial service—not just pornography services, but an online service that depends on advertising—that is told that it can no longer take credit card payments from UK businesses to advertise on the service, will, one hopes, come into line and say, “That’s the end of my business in the UK—I may as well cut myself off”. But if it wants to operate, it will come into line, because that way it gets its payment services restored. But there will be others for which that is insufficient—perhaps that is not their business model—and they will carry on regardless. At that point, we may want to consider the access restrictions.

In a free society, none of us should take pleasure in the idea that we are going to instruct the internet services or block them. That is not our first instinct, but something that is rather potentially a necessary evil. At some point, there may be services that are so harmful and so oblivious to the regime that we put in place that we need to block them. Here we are trying to explore what would happen in those circumstances. The first kind of block is one that we are used to doing, and we do it today for copyright-infringing sites and a small number of other sites that break the law. We instruct service providers such as BT and TalkTalk to implement a network-level block. There are ways you can do that—various technical ways that we do not need to go into in this debate—whereby we can seek to make it so that an ordinary UK user, when they type in www.whatever, will not get to the website. But increasingly people are using technology that will work around that. Browsers, for example, may create traffic between your web browser and the online service such that TalkTalk or BT or the access provider has no visibility as to where you are going and no capability of blocking it. BT has rightly raised that. There will be different views about where we should go with this, but the question is absolutely legitimate as to what the Government’s intentions are, which is what we want to try to tease out with this amendment.

Again, we should be really candid. Somebody who is determined to bypass all the access controls will do so. There is no world in which we can say that we can guarantee that somebody with a UK internet connection can never get to a particular website. What we are seeking to do is to make violating services unavailable for most of the people most of the time. We would be unhappy if it was only some of the people some of the time, but it is not going to be all of the people all of the time. So the question is: what constitutes a sufficient access restriction to either bring them to heel or to ensure that, over the longer term, the harm is not propagated, because these services are generally not made available? It would be really helpful if the Minister was able to tease that out.

Certainly, in my view, there are services such as TOR—the Onion Router—where there is no entity that you can ask to block stuff, so if someone was using that, there is nothing that you can reasonably do. At the other end of the spectrum, there are services such as BT and TalkTalk, where it is relatively straightforward to say to them that they should block. Then there are people in between, such as browser owners that are putting in place these encrypted tunnels for very good reasons, for privacy, but which can also add value-added stuff—helping to manage bandwidth better, and so on. Is it the Government’s intention that they are going to be served with access restriction orders? That is a valid question. We might have different views about what is the right solution, but it is really important for the sector that it understands and is able to prepare if that is the Government’s intention. So we need to tease that out; that is the area in which we are looking for answers from the Government.

The second piece is to think about the long term. If our prediction—or our hope and expectation—is that most companies will come into line, that is fine; the internet will carry on as it does today but in a safer way. However, if we have misjudged the mood, and a significant numbers of services just stick their thumb up at Ofcom and say, “We are not going to play—block us if you dare”, that potentially has significant consequences for the internet as it will operate in the United Kingdom. It would be helpful to understand from the Minister whether the Government have any projections or predictions as to which way we are going to go. Are we talking about the vast majority of the internet continuing as it is today within the new regime, with the odd player that will be outside that, or is it the Government’s expectation that there may need to be blocking of significant numbers of services, essentially for the foreseeable future?

Other countries such as France and Germany have been dealing with this recently, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is probably aware of. They have sought to restrict access to pornography services, and there have been all sorts of consequent knock-on effects and challenges at a technical level. It would be helpful to understand whether our expectation is that we will see the same in the United Kingdom or that something else is going to happen. If the Government do not have that information today, or if they have not made those projections, it would be helpful to know their thinking on where that might happen. Who will be able to inform us as to what that the future landscape is likely to look like as it evolves, and as Ofcom gains these powers and starts to instruct companies that they must obtain licences, and then seeks to take enforcement action against those that choose not to play the game?

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 217 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and very much support the comments that he has made. I will speak to Amendments 218C, 218E, 218H and 218K in my name within this group. I also support the intent of the other amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.

I appreciate the process helpfully outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Allan. However, when looking at Ofcom’s implementation of existing provisions on video-sharing platforms, the overwhelming impression is of a very drawn-out process, with Ofcom failing to hold providers to account. Despite being told by Ofcom that a simple tick-box declaration by the user confirming that they are over 18 is not sufficient age verification, some providers are still using only that system. Concerningly, Ofcom has not taken decisive action.

When children are at severe risk, it is not appropriate to wait. Why, for example, should we allow porn sites to continue to host 10 million child sexual abuse videos while Ofcom simply reports that it is continuing to partner with these platforms to get a road map of action together? As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, Visa and Mastercard did not think it was appropriate to wait in such circumstances—they just acted.

Similarly, when systems are not in place to protect children from accessing pornography, we cannot just sit by and allow all the egregious associated harms to continue. Just as in Formula 1, when a red flag is raised and the cars must stop and go into the pits until the dangerous debris is cleared, sometimes it is too dangerous to allow platforms to operate until the problems are fixed. It seems to me that platforms would act very swiftly to put effective systems and processes in place if they could not operate in the interim.

The Bill already contains this emergency handbrake; the question is when it should be used. My answer is that it should be used when the evidence of severe harm presents itself, and not only when the regulator has a moment of self-doubt that its “road maps”, which it is normally so optimistic about, will eventually fix the problem. Ofcom should not be allowed to sit on the evidence hoping, with a wing and a prayer, that things will fix themselves in the end.

--- Later in debate ---

Introducing mandatory requirements would undermine Ofcom’s independence and discretion to manage enforcement on a case-by-case basis. This would also frustrate Ofcom’s ability to regulate in a proportionate way and could make its enforcement processes unnecessarily punitive or inflexible. It could also overwhelm the courts if Ofcom is strictly forced to apply for business disruption measures where any grounds apply, even where the breach may be minor. Instead, Ofcom will act proportionately in performing its regulatory functions, targeting action where it is needed and adjusting timeframes as necessary. I am mindful that on the final day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, continues to be in his place, following the Committee’s deliberations very closely on behalf of the regulator.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I am reminded by my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath, particularly relating to the gambling sector, that some of these issues may run across various regulators that are all seeking business disruption. He reminded me that if you type into a search engine, which would be regulated and subject to business disruption measures here, “Casinos not regulated by GAMSTOP”, you will get a bunch of people who are evading GAMSTOP’s regulation. Noble Lords can imagine similar for financial services—something that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, is also very interested in. It may not be for answer now, but I would be interested to understand what thinking the Government have on how all the different business disruption regimes—financial, gambling, Ofcom-regulated search services, et cetera—will all mesh together. They could all come before the courts under slightly different legal regimes.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

When I saw the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, in their places, I wondered whether they were intending to raise these points. I will certainly take on board what the noble Lord says and, if there is further information I can furnish your Lordships with, I certainly will.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked whether the powers can be used on out-of-scope services. “No” is the direct answer to her direct question. The powers can be used only in relation to regulated services, but if sites not regulated by the Bill are publishing illegal content, existing law enforcement powers—such as those frequently deployed in cases of copyright infringement—can be used. I could set out a bit more in writing if that would be helpful.

My noble friend Lord Bethell’s amendments seek to set out in the Bill that Ofcom will be able to make a single application to the courts for an order enabling business disruption measures that apply against multiple platforms and operators. I must repeat, as he anticipated, the point made by my right honourable friend Chris Philp that the civil procedure rules allow for a multi-party claim to be made. These rules permit any number of claimants or defendants and any number of claims to be covered by one claim form. The overriding objective of the civil procedure rules is that cases are dealt with justly and proportionately. I want to reassure my noble friend that the Government are confident that the civil procedure rules will provide the necessary flexibility to ensure that services can be blocked or restricted.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, seeks to clarify what services might be subject to access restriction orders by removing the two examples provided in the Bill: internet access services and application stores. I would like to reassure him that these are simply indicative examples, highlighting two kinds of service on which access restriction requirements may be imposed. It is not an exhaustive list. Orders could be imposed on any services that meet the definition—that is, a person who provides a facility that is able to withdraw, adapt or manipulate it in such a way as to impede access to the regulated service in question. This provides Ofcom with the flexibility to identify where business disruption measures should be targeted, and it future-proofs the Bill by ensuring that the power remains functional and effective as technologies develop.

As the noble Lord highlighted, these are significant powers that can require that services be blocked in the UK. Clearly, limiting access to services in this way substantially affects the business interests of the service in question and the interests of the relevant third-party service, and it could affect users’ freedom of expression. It is therefore essential that appropriate safeguards are included and that due process is followed. That is why Ofcom will be required to seek a court order to be able to use these powers, ensuring that the courts have proper oversight.

To ensure that due process is upheld, an application by the regulator for a court order will have to specify the non-compliant provider, the grounds of the order and the steps that Ofcom considers should be imposed on the third parties in order to withdraw services and block users’ access. These requirements will ensure that the need to act quickly to tackle harm is appropriately balanced against upholding fundamental rights.

It might be useful to say a little about how blocking works—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes; he made a helpful point, and I will come back on it.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

We share a common interest in understanding whether it would be used against VPNs, but we may not necessarily have the same view about whether it should be. Do not take that as an encouragement—take it as a request for information.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, I must advise the Committee that if Amendment 230 is agreed to then I cannot call Amendment 231 because of pre-emption.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, we are reaching the end of our Committee debates, but I am pleased that we have some time to explore these important questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth.

I have an academic friend who studies the internet. When asked to produce definitive answers about how the internet is impacting on politics, he politely suggests that it may be a little too soon to say, as the community is still trying to understand the full impact of television on politics. We are rightly impatient for more immediate answers to questions around how the services regulated by this Bill affect people. For that to happen, we need research to be carried out.

A significant amount of research is already being done within the companies themselves—both more formal research, often done in partnership with academics, and more quick-fix commercial analyses where the companies do their own studies of the data. These studies sometimes see the light of day through publication or quite often through leaks; as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has referred to, it is not uncommon for employees to decide to put research into the public domain. However, I suggest that this is a very uneven and suboptimal way for us to get to grips with the impact on services. The public interest lies in there being a much more rigorous and independent body of research work, which, rightly, these amendments collectively seek to promote.

The key issues that we need to address head-on, if we are actively to promote more research, lie within the data protection area. That has motivated my Amendment 233A—I will explain the logic of it shortly—and is the reason why I strongly support Amendment 234.

A certain amount of research can be done without any access to personal data, bringing together aggregated statistics of what is happening on platforms, but the reality is that many of the most interesting research questions inevitably bring us into areas where data protection must be considered. For example, looking at how certain forms of content might radicalise people will involve looking at what individual users are producing and consuming and the relationships between them. There is no way of doing without it for most of the interesting questions around the harms we are looking at. If you want to know whether exposure to content A or content B led to a harm, there is no way to do that research without looking at the individual and the specifics.

There is a broad literature on how anonymisation and pseudonymisation techniques can be used to try to make those datasets a little safer. However, even if the data can be made safe from a technical point of view, that still leaves us with significant ethical questions about carrying out research on people who would not necessarily consent to it and may well disagree with the motivation behind the sorts of questions we may ask. We may want to see how misinformation affects people and steers them in a bad direction; that is our judgment, but the judgment of the people who use those services and consume that information may well be that they are entirely happy and there is no way on earth that they would consent to be studied by us for something that they perceive to be against their interests.

Those are real ethical questions that have to be asked by any researcher looking at this area. That is what we are trying to get to in the amendments—whether we can create an environment with that balance of equity between the individual, who would normally be required to give consent to any use of their data, and the public interest. We may determine that, for example, understanding vaccine misinformation is sufficiently important that we will override that individual’s normal right to choose whether to participate in the research programme.

My Amendment 233A is to Amendment 233, which rightly says that Ofcom may be in a position to say that, for example, vaccine misinformation is in the overriding public interest and we need research into it. If it decides to do that and the platforms transfer data to those independent researchers, because we have said in the amendment that they must, the last thing we want is for the platforms to feel that, if there is any problem further down the track, there will be comeback on them. That would be against the principle of natural justice, given that they have been instructed to hand the data over, and could also act as a barrier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We are very aware that we are not the only jurisdiction looking at the important issues the Bill addresses. The Government and, I am sure, academic researchers will observe the implementation of the European Union’s Digital Services Act with interest, including the provisions about researchers’ access. We will carefully consider any implications of our own online safety regime. As noble Lords know, the Secretary of State will be required to undertake a review of the framework between two and five years after the Bill comes into force. We expect that to include an assessment of how the Bill’s existing transparency provisions facilitate researcher access.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I do not expect the Minister to have an answer to this today, but it will be useful to get this on the record as it is quite important. Can he let us know the Government’s thinking on the other piece of the equation? We are getting the platforms to disclose the data, and an important regulatory element is the research organisations that receive it. In the EU, that is being addressed with a code of conduct, which is a mechanism enabled by the general data protection regulation that has been approved by the European Data Protection Board and creates this legal framework. I am not aware of equivalent work having been done in the UK, but that is an essential element. We do not want to find that we have the teeth to persuade the companies to disclose the data, but not the other piece we need—probably overseen by the Information Commissioner’s Office rather than Ofcom—which is a mechanism for approving researchers to receive and then use the data.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We are watching with interest what is happening in other jurisdictions. If I can furnish the Committee with any information in the area the noble Lord mentions, I will certainly follow up in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I did not say that it would be impossible for a court to do this; I said it was likely to lead to high levels of inconsistency. We are dealing with what is likely to be very specialist cases. You can imagine this in the context of people feeling non-trivially psychologically harmed by statements about gender, climate, veganism, and so forth. These are the things where you see this happening. The idea that there is going to be consistency across the courts in dealing with these issues is, I think, very unlikely. It will indeed have a chilling effect on people being able to express views that may be controversial but are still valid in an open society.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I want to reflect on the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just put to us. I also have two amendments in the group; they are amendments to the government amendment, and I am looking to the Minister to indicate whether it is helpful for me to explain the rationale of my amendments now or to wait until he has introduced his. I will do them collectively.

First, the point the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised is really important. We have reached the end of our consideration of the Bill; we have spent a lot of time on a lot of different issues, but we have not spent very much time on these new criminal offences, and there may be other Members of your Lordships’ House who were also present when we discussed the Communications Act back in 2003, when I was a Member at the other end. At that point, we approved something called Section 127, which we were told was essentially a rollover of the dirty phone call legislation we had had previously, which had been in telecoms legislation for ever to prevent that deep-breathing phone call thing.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 268AZB aims to apply business disruption enforcement measures to any internet service that “persistently fails to prevent”, or indeed allows, the illegal encouragement of self-harm. As I mentioned earlier in Committee, the Bill significantly reduces the likelihood of users encountering this material on internet sites. It requires all user-to-user services to remove this content and search services to minimise users’ access to it. I hope that that reassures the noble Lords in relation to their amendments to my amendment.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I completely accept that, yes, by requiring the regulated services to prevent access to this kind of content, we will make a significant difference, but it is still the case that there will be—we know there will be, because they exist today—these individual websites, blogs or whatever you want to call them which are not regulated user-to-user services and which are promoting self-harm content. It would be really helpful to know what the Government think should happen to a service such as that, given that it is outside the regulation; it may be persistently breaking the law but be outside our jurisdiction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for laying out the amendment and recognise that there was a very thoughtful debate on the subject of machine-generated content on Amendment 125 in my name on a previous day of Committee.

I appreciate that the concept of labelling or watermarking machine-generated material is central to recent EU legislation, but I am equally aware that there is more than one school of thought on the efficacy of that approach among AI experts. On the one hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, beautifully set out—with the help of his artificial friend—there are those who believe that visibly marking the division of real and altered material is a clue for the public to look more carefully at what they are seeing and that labelling it might provide an opportunity for both creators and digital companies to give greater weight to “human-created material”. For example, it could be that the new BBC Verify brand is given greater validity by the public, or that Google’s search results promote it above material labelled as machine-generated as a more authentic source. There are others who feel that the scale of machine-generated material will be so vast that this labelling will be impossible or that labelling will downgrade the value of very important machine-generated material in the public imagination, when in the very near future it is likely that most human activity will be a blend of generated material and human interaction.

I spent the first part of this week locked in a room with others at the Institute for Ethics in AI in Oxford debating some of these issues. While this is a very live discussion, one thing is clear: if we are to learn from history, we must act now before all is certain, and we should act with pragmatism and a level of humility. It may be that either or both sets of experts are correct.

Industry has clearly indicated that there is an AI arms race, and many companies are launching services that they do not understand the implications of. This is not my view but one told to me by a company leader, who said that the speed of distribution was so great that the testing was confined to whether deploying large language models crashed the platforms; there was no testing for safety.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, says in his explanatory statement that this is a probing amendment. I therefore ask the Minister whether we might meet before Report and look once again at the gaps that might be covered by some combination of Amendment 125 and the amendment in front of us, to make certain that the Bill adequately reflects the concerns raised by the enforcement community and reflects the advice of those who best understand the latest iterations of the digital world.

The Communications Act 2003 made a horrible mistake in not incorporating digital within it; let us not do the same here. Adding explicit safety duties to AI and machine learning would not slow down innovation but would ensure that innovation is not short-sighted and dangerous for humanity. It is a small amendment for what may turn out to be an unimaginably important purpose.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will try to keep my remarks brief.

It is extremely helpful that we have the opportunity to talk about this labelling question. I see it more as a kind of aperitif for our later discussion of AI regulation writ large. Given that it is literally aperitif hour, I shall just offer a small snifter as to why I think there may be some challenges around labelling—again, perhaps that is not a surprise to the noble Baroness.

When we make rules, as a general matter we tend to assume that people are going to read them and respond in a rationalist, conformist way. In reality, particularly in the internet space, we often see that there is a mixed environment and there will be three groups. There are the people who will look at the rules and respond in that rational way to them; a large group of people will just ignore them—they will simply be unaware and not at all focused on the rules; and another group will look for opportunities to subvert them and use them to their own advantage. I want to comment particularly on that last group by reference to cutlery and call centres, two historic examples of where rules have been subverted.

On the cutlery example, I am a Sheffielder, and “Made in Sheffield” used to mean that you had made the entire knife in Sheffield. Then we had this long period when we went from knives being made in Sheffield to bringing them to Sheffield and silver-plating them, to eventually just sharpening them and putting them in boxes. That is relevant in the context of AI. Increasingly, if there is an advantage to be gained by appearing to be human, people will look at what kind of finishing you need, so: “The content may have been generated by AI but the button to post it was pushed by a human, therefore we do not think it is AI because we looked at it and posted it”. On the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, does the fact that my noble friend intervened on him and the noble Lord had to use some of his own words now mean that his speech in Hansard would not have to be labelled “AI-generated” because we have now departed from it? Therefore, there is that question of individuals who will want something to appear human-made even if it was largely AI-generated, and whether they will find the “Made in Sheffield” way of bypassing it.

Interestingly, we may see the phenomenon flipping the other way, and this is where my call centres come in. If people go to a popular search engine and type in “SpinVox”, they will see the story of a tech company that promised to transcribe voicemails into written text. This was a wonderful use of technology, and it was valued on the basis that it had developed that fantastic technology. However, it turned out—or at least there were claims, which I can repeat here under privilege—that it was using call centres in low-cost, low-wage environments to type those messages out. Therefore, again, we may see, curiously, some people seeing an advantage to presenting content as AI-generated when it is actually made by humans. That is just to flag that up—as I say, it is a much bigger debate that we are going to have. It is really important that we are having it, and labelling has a role to play. However, as we think about it, I urge that we remember those communities of people who will look at whatever rules we come up with and say, “Aha! Where can I get advantage?”, either by claiming that something is human when it is generated by AI or claiming that it is generated by AI if it suits them when it was actually produced by humans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone for that interesting and quick debate. It is occasionally one’s lot that somebody else tables an amendment but is unavoidably detained in Jerez, drinking sherry, and monitoring things in Hansard while I move the amendment. I am perhaps more persuaded than my noble friend might have been by the arguments that have been made.

We will return to this in other fora in response to the need to regulate AI. However, in the meantime, I enjoyed in particular the John Booth quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. In respect of this Bill and any of the potential harms around generative AI, if we have a Minister who is mindful of the need for safety by design when we have concluded this Bill then we will have dealt with the bits that we needed to deal with as far as this Bill is concerned.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

Can the noble Lord confirm whether he generated those comments himself, or was he on his phone while we were speaking?

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I do not have an invisible earpiece feeding me my lines—that was all human-generated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Lords Chamber

That, in essence, is the long and the short of it. I look forward to the Government coming forward in short order with some positive proposals about what they want to do, and how they propose to do it, to protect this group of people who have had their lives and their businesses damaged and who will continue to be at risk until Parliament does something about it. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I am reminded that this is a new stage of the Bill, so I should declare my interests. I have no current financial interests in the tech sector, but until 2019 I worked for one of the large technology companies that will be regulated, doing the kind of censorship job that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is concerned about. We clearly did not do it very well or we would not be here today replacing people like me with Ofcom.

Amendment 5B concerns an issue that we raised in Committee: the offence of encouragement of self-harm. That new offence was broadly welcomed, including on these Benches. We believe that there is scope, in some circumstances, to seek criminal prosecution of individuals who, online or otherwise, maliciously seek to encourage other people to harm themselves. The concern we raised in Committee, which we come back to today, is that we want the offence to be used in a way that we would all agree is sensible. We do not want people who are trying to help individuals at risk of self-harm to become concerned about and afraid of it, and to feel that they need to limit activities that would otherwise be positive and helpful.

In Committee we suggested that one way to do this would be to have a filter where the Director of Public Prosecutions looked at potential prosecutions under the new offence. We take a different approach with the amendment, which would in some senses be more effective, which is to explicitly list in the Bill the three categories of activity that would not render an individual liable to prosecution.

The first is people who provide an educational resource. We should be clear that some educational resources that are intended to help people recognise self-harm and turn away from it can contain quite explicit material. Those people are concerned that they might, in publishing that material with good intent, accidentally fall foul of the offence.

The second category is those who provide support—individuals providing peer support networks, such as an online forum where people discuss their experience of self-harm and seek to turn away from it. They should not be inadvertently caught up in the offence.

The third category is people posting information about their own experience of self-harm. Again, that could be people sharing quite graphic material about what they have been doing to themselves. I hope that there would be general agreement that we would not interpret, for example, a distressed teenager sharing material about their own self-harm, with the intent of seeking advice and support from others, as in some way encouraging or assisting others to commit self-harm themselves.

There is a genuine effort here to try to find a way through so that we can provide assurances to others. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment as it is, I hope he will reaffirm that the categories of people that I described are not the target of the offence and that he will be able to offer some kind of assurance as to how they can feel confident that they would not fall foul of prosecution.

Additionally, some of these groups feel with some conviction that their voices have not been as prominent in the debate as those of other organisations. The work they do is quite sensitive, and they are often quite small organisations. Between Report and the Bill becoming law, I hope that those who will be responsible for doing the detailed work around guidance on prosecutions will meet with those people on the front line—again, specificity is all—and that those who are trying to work out how to make this legislation work will meet with the people doing that work, running those fora and engaging with the young people who seek help around self-harm to look in detail at what they are doing. That would be extraordinarily helpful.

Those are my two asks. Ideally, the Government would accept the amendment that we have tabled, but if not I hope that they can give the assurance that the three groups I listed are not the target and that they will commit to having relevant officials meet with individuals working on the front line, so that we can make sure that we do not end up prosecuting individuals without intending to.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. However, what I have to say on my own amendments will take up enough time without straying on to the territory of others. I ask noble colleagues to please accept my support as read. I thank the Minister for meeting me and giving context and explanation regarding all the amendments standing in my name. I also welcome the government amendments on intimate image abuse in another group and on digitally altered images, which impinge directly on the cyberflashing amendments.

It is clear that the Government’s heart is in the right place, even if their acceptance of a consent-based law is not. I also thank the Law Commission for meeting me and explaining the thinking behind and practicalities of how the new law in relation to cyberflashing will work, and how the existing court system can help, such as juries deciding whether or not they believe the defendant. Last but definitely not least, I acknowledge the help that I have received from Professor Clare McGlynn, and Morgane Taylor from Bumble—both immensely knowledgeable and practical people who have inspired, informed and helped throughout.

I start with Amendments 5C and 7A in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I understand that the Government are following the advice of the Law Commission in refusing to accept consent-based defence, but I point out gently that this is something that the Government choose, and sometimes choose not, to do. Although the Law Commission consulted widely, that consultation did not show support for its proposals from victims and victims’ organisations. I am still of the view that a consent-based requirement would have prevented many unsolicited images being received by women and girls. I still worry that young girls may be socialised and sexualised by their peers who say that they are sending these images for a laugh. These girls do not have the maturity to say that they do not find it funny, but pretend it is okay while cringing with humiliation inside. Consent-based legislation would afford them the best protection and educate young girls and men that not only are women and girls frequently not interested in seeing a picture of a man’s willy, but girls think differently from boys about this. Who knew?

I also believe that a consent-based law would provide the most suitable foundation for education and prevention initiatives. However, I have listened to the Minister and the Law Commission. I have been told that, if it got to court, the complainant would not be humiliated all over again by having to give evidence in court and admit the distress and humiliation they felt. But according to the Minister, like the new intimate image amendment tabled by the Government themselves, it is up to the Crown Prosecution Service to follow it up and, after making their statement of complaint, my understanding is that the complainant does not have to take part further—more of that later. However, given the current success rate of only 4% of even charging alleged perpetrators in intimate image abuse cases, I worry that not only will victims continue to be reluctant to come forward but the chances of prosecution will be so slim that it will not act as a deterrent. We know from experience of sharing sexual images without consent, that the motivation thresholds have limited police investigations and prosecutions due to the evidential challenges. That is what the Law Commission has recommended as regards the introduction of a consent-based image offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My comments will be rather shorter. I want to make a detailed comment about Amendment 5B, which I strongly support and which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allan. It refers to,

“a genuine medical, scientific or educational purpose, … the purposes of peer support”

I would urge him to put “genuine peer support”. That is very important because there is a lot of dog whistling that goes on in this area. So if the noble Lord—

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My working assumption would be that that would be contestable. If somebody claimed the peer support defence and it was not genuine, that would lead to them becoming liable. So I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. It is a very helpful suggestion.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I also want to support the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. The level of abuse to women online and the gendered nature of it has been minimised; the perpetrators have clearly felt immune to the consequences of law enforcement. What worries me a little in this discussion is the idea or conflation that anything said to a woman is an act of violence. I believe that the noble Baroness was being very specific about the sorts of language that could be caught under her suggestions. I understand from what she said that she has been having conversations with the Minister. I very much hope that something is done in this area, and that it is explored more fully, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, in the guidance. However, I just want to make the point that online abuse is also gamified: people make arrangements to abuse people in groups in particular ways that are not direct. If they threaten violence, that is quite different to a pile-in saying that you are a marvellous human being.

--- Later in debate ---

We expect these tight parameters and the usual prosecutorial discretion to provide sufficient safeguards against inappropriate prosecutions. The defence of necessity may also serve to ensure that actions undertaken in extraordinary circumstances to mitigate more serious harm should not be criminal. The offence of encouraging or assisting suicide has not led to the prosecution of vulnerable people who talk about suicidal feelings online or those who offer them support, and there is no reason to suppose that this offence will criminalise those whom this amendment seeks to protect. However, the noble Lords raise an important issue and I assure them that we will keep the operation of the offence under review. The Government have committed to expanding it to cover all ways of encouraging or assisting self-harm so there will be an opportunity to revisit it in due course.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. Could he also respond to my suggestion that it would be helpful for some of the people working on the front line to meet officials to go through their concerns in more detail?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am very happy to make that commitment. It would be useful to have their continued engagement, as we have had throughout the drafting of the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has tabled a number of amendments related to the new offence of cyberflashing. I will start with her Amendment 6. We believe that this amendment reduces the threshold of the new offence to too great an extent. It could, for example, criminalise a person sending a picture of naked performance art to a group of people, where one person might be alarmed by the image but the sender sends it anyway because he or she believes that it would be well received. That may be incorrect, unwise and insensitive, but we do not think it should carry the risk of being convicted of a serious sexual offence.

Crucially, the noble Baroness’s amendment requires that the harm against the victim be proven in court. Not only does this add an extra step for the prosecution to prove in order for the perpetrator to be convicted, it creates an undue burden on the victim, who would be cross-examined about his or her—usually her—experience of harm. For example, she might have to explain why she felt humiliated; this in itself could be retraumatising and humiliating for the victim. By contrast, Clause 170 as drafted means that the prosecution has only to prove and focus on the perpetrator’s intent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to continue some of the themes we touched on in the last group and the debate we have had throughout the passage of the Bill on the importance of tackling intimate image abuse. I shall introduce the government amendments in this group that will make a real difference to victims of this abhorrent behaviour.

Before starting, I take the opportunity again to thank the Law Commission for the work it has done in its review of the criminal law relating to the non-consensual taking, making and sharing of intimate images. I also thank my right honourable friend Dame Maria Miller, who has long campaigned for and championed the victims of online abuse. Her sterling efforts have contributed greatly to the Government’s approach and to the formulation of policy in this sensitive area, as well as to the reform of criminal law.

As we announced last November, we intend to bring forward a more expansive package of measures based on the Law Commission’s recommendations as soon as parliamentary time allows, but the Government agree with the need to take swift action. That is why we are bringing forward these amendments now, to deliver on the recommendations which fall within the scope of the Bill, thereby ensuring justice for victims sooner.

These amendments repeal the offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress and replace it with four new sexual offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The first is a base offence of sharing an intimate photograph or film without consent or reasonable belief in consent. This recognises that the sharing of such images, whatever the intent of the perpetrator, should be considered a criminal violation of the victim’s bodily autonomy.

The amendments create two more serious offences of sharing an intimate photograph or film without consent with intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, or for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. Offenders committing the latter offence may also be subject to notification requirements, commonly referred to as being on the sex-offenders register. The amendments create an offence of threatening to share an intimate image. These new sharing offences are based on the Law Commission’s recommended approach to the idea of intimate photographs or films to include images which show or appear to show a person nude or partially nude, or which depict sexual or toileting activity. This will protect more victims than the current Section 33 offence, which protects only images of a private and sexual nature.

Finally, these clauses will, for the first time, make it a criminal offence to share a manufactured or so-called deepfake image of another person without his or her consent. This form of intimate image abuse is becoming more prevalent, and we want to send a clear message that it will not be tolerated.

By virtue of placing these offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, we are extending to these offences also the current special measures, so that victims can benefit from them in court, and from anonymity provisions, which are so important when something so intimate has been shared without consent. This is only the first stage in our reform of the law in this area. We are committed to introducing additional changes, giving effect to further recommendations of the Law Commission’s report which are beyond the scope of the Bill, when parliamentary time allows.

I hope that noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House will agree that these amendments represent an important step forward in tackling intimate image abuse and protecting victims. I commend them to the House, and I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome these new offences. From my professional experience, I know that what came to be known as “sextortion” created some of the most distressing cases you could experience, where an individual would obtain intimate images, often by deception, and then use them to make threats. This is where a social network is particularly challenging; it enables people to access a network of all the family and friends of an individual whose photo they now hold and to threaten to distribute it to their nearest and dearest. This affects men and women; many of the victims were men who were honey-potted into sharing intimate images and in the worst cases it led to suicide. It was not uncommon that people would feel that there was no way out; the threat was so severe that they would take their own lives. It is extremely welcome that we are doing something about it, and making it more obvious to anyone who is thinking about committing this kind of offence that they run the risk of criminal prosecution.

I have a few specific questions. The first is on the definitions in proposed new Section 66D, inserted by government Amendment 8, where the Government are trying to define what “intimate” or “nudity” represents. This takes me back again to my professional experience of going through slide decks and trying to decide what was on the right or wrong side of a nudity policy line. I will not go into the detail of everything it said, not least because I keep noticing younger people in the audience here, but I will leave you with the thought that you ended up looking at images that involved typically fishnets, in the case of women, and socks, in the case of men—I will leave the rest to your Lordships’ imaginations to determine at what point someone has gone from being clothed to nude. I can see in this amendment that the courts are going to have to deal with the same issues.

The serious point is that, where there is alignment between platform policies, definitions and what we do not want to be distributed, that is extremely helpful, because it then means that if someone does try to put an intimate image out across one of the major platforms, the platform does not have to ask whether there was consent. They can just say that it is in breach of their policy and take it down. It actually has quite a beneficial effect on slowing transmission.

The other point that comes out of that is that some of these questions of intimacy are quite culturally subjective. In some cultures, even a swimsuit photo could be used to cause humiliation and distress. I know this is extremely difficult; we do not want to be overly censorious but, at the same time, we do not want to leave people exposed to threats, and if you come from a culture where a swimsuit photo would be a threat, the definitions may not work for you. So I hope that, as we go through this, there will be a continued dialogue between experts in the platforms who have to deal with these questions and people working on the criminal offence side. To the extent that we can achieve it, there should be alignment and the message should go out that if you are thinking of distributing an image like this, you run the risk of being censored by the platforms but also of running into a criminal prosecution. That is on the mechanics of making it work.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has unfortunately been briefly detained. If you are surprised to see me standing up, it is because I am picking up for her. I start by welcoming these amendments. I am grateful for the reaction to the thought-provoking debate that we had in Committee. I would like to ask a couple of questions just to probe the impact around the edges.

Amendment 27 looks as if it implies that purely content-generating machine-learning or AI bots could be excluded from the scope of the Bill, rather than included, which is the opposite of what we were hoping to achieve. That may be us failing to understand the detail of this large body of different amendments, but I would welcome my noble friend the Minister’s response to make sure that in Amendment 27 we are not excluding harm that could be generated by some form of AI or machine-learning instrument.

Maybe I can give my noble friend the Minister an example of what we are worried about. This is a recent scenario that noble Lords may have seen in the news, of a 15 year-old who asked, “How do I have sex with a 30 year-old?”. The answer was given in forensic detail, with no reference to the fact that it would in fact be statutory rape. Would the regulated service, or the owner of the regulated service that generated that answer, be included or excluded as a result of Amendment 27? That may be my misunderstanding.

This group is on AI-generated pornography. My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I are both very concerned that it is not just about pornography, and that we should make sure that AI is included in the Bill. Specifically, many of us with teenage children will now be learning how to navigate the Snap AI bot. Would harm generated by that bot be captured in these amendments, or is it only content that is entirely pornographic? I hope that my noble friend the Minister can clarify both those points, then we will be able to support all these amendments.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome the fact that there is a series of amendments here where “bot” is replaced by

“bot or other automated tool”.

I point out that there is often a lot of confusion about what a bot is or is not. It is something that was largely coined in the context of a particular service—Twitter—where we understand that there are Twitter bots: accounts that have been created to pump out lots of tweets. In other contexts, on other services, there is similar behaviour but the mechanism is different. It seems to me that the word “bot” may turn out to be one of those things that was common and popular at the end of the 2010s and in the early 2020s, but in five years we will not be using it at all. It will have served its time, it will have expired and we will be using other language to describe what it is that we want to capture: a human being has created some kind of automated tool that will be very context dependent, depending on the nature of the service, and they are pumping out material. It is very clear that we want to make sure that such behaviour is in scope and that the person cannot hide behind the fact that it was an automated tool, because we are interested in the mens rea of the person sitting behind the tool.

I recognise that the Government have been very wise in making sure that whenever we refer to a bot we are adding that “automated tool” language, which will make the Bill inherently much more future-proof.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I just want to elucidate whether the Minister has any kind of brief on my Amendment 152A. I suspect that he does not; it is not even grouped—it is so recent that it is actually not on today’s groupings list. However, just so people know what will be coming down the track, I thought it would be a good idea at this stage to say that it is very much about exactly the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, was asking. It is about the interaction between a provider environment and a user, with the provider environment being an automated bot—or “tool”, as my noble friend may prefer.

It seems to me that we have an issue here. I absolutely understand what the Minister has done, and I very much support Amendment 153, which makes it clear that user-generated content can include bots. But this is not so much about a human user using a bot or instigating a bot; it is much more about a human user encountering content that is generated in an automated way by a provider, and then the user interacting with that in a metaverse-type environment. Clearly, the Government are apprised of that with regard to Part 5, but there could be a problem as regards Part 3. This is an environment that the provider creates, but it is interacted with by a user as if that environment were another user.

I shall not elaborate or make the speech that I was going to make, because that would be unfair to the Minister, who needs to get his own speaking note on this matter. But I give him due warning that I am going to degroup and raise this later.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

28: Schedule 1, page 185, line 23, at end insert—
“Public information services
5A A user-to-user service is exempt if its primary purpose is the creation of public information resources and it has the following characteristics—(a) user-to-user functions are limited to those necessary for the creation and maintenance of a public information resource,(b) OFCOM has determined that there is minimal risk of users sharing harmful content on the service, and(c) it is non-commercial.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow OFCOM to exempt services like Wikipedia from regulation where it deems them to be low risk.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, as we enter the final stages of consideration of this Bill, it is a good time to focus a little more on what is likely to happen once it becomes law, and my Amendment 28 is very much in that context. We now have a very good idea of what the full set of obligations that in-scope services will have to comply with will look like, even if the detailed guidance is still to come.

With this amendment I want to return to the really important question that I do not believe we answered satisfactorily when we debated it in Committee. That is that there is a material risk that, without further amendment or clarification, Wikipedia and other similar services may feel that they can no longer operate in the United Kingdom.

Wikipedia has already featured prominently in our debates, but there are other major services that might find themselves in a similar position. As I was discussing the definitions in the Bill with my children yesterday—this may seem an unusual dinner conversation with teenagers, but I find mine to be a very useful sounding board—they flagged that OpenStreetMap, to which we all contribute, also seems to be in the scope of how we have defined user-to-user services. I shall start by asking some specific questions so that the Minister has time to find the answers in his briefing or have them magically delivered to him before summing up: I shall ask the questions and then go on to make the argument.

First, is it the Government’s view that Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap fall within the definition of user-to-user services as defined in Clause 2 and the content definition in Clause 211? We need to put all these pieces together to understand the scope. I have chosen these services because each is used by millions of people in the UK and their functionality is very well known, so I trust that the Government had them in mind when they were drafting the legislation, as well as the more obvious services such as Instagram, Facebook et cetera.

Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether any of the existing exemptions in the Bill would apply to Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap such that they would not have to comply with the obligations of a category 1 or 2B user-to-user service?

Thirdly, does the Minister believe that the Bill as drafted allows Ofcom to use its discretion in any other way to exempt Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap, for example through the categorisation regulations in Schedule 11? As a spoiler alert, I expect the answers to be “Yes”, “No” and “Maybe”, but it is really important that we have the definitive government response on the record. My amendment would seek to turn that to “Yes”, “Yes” and therefore the third would be unnecessary because we would have created an exemption.

The reason we need to do this is not in any way to detract from the regulation or undermine its intent but to avoid facing the loss of important services at some future date because of situations we could have avoided. This is not hyperbole or a threat on the part of the services; it is a natural consequence if we impose legal requirements on a responsible organisation that wants to comply with the law but knows it cannot meet them. I know it is not an intended outcome of the Bill that we should drive these services out, but it is certainly one intended outcome that we want other services that cannot meet their duties of care to exit the UK market rather than continue to operate here in defiance of the law and the regulator.

We should remind ourselves that at some point, likely to be towards the end of 2024, letters will start to arrive on the virtual doormats of all the services we have defined as being in scope—these 25,000 services—and their senior management will have a choice. I fully expect that the Metas, the Googles and all such providers will say, “Fine, we will comply. Ofcom has told us what we need to do, and we will do it”. There will be another bunch of services that will say, “Ofcom, who are they? I don’t care”, and the letter will go in the bin. We have a whole series of measures in the Bill by which we will start to make life difficult for them: we will disrupt their businesses and seek to prosecute them and we will shut them out of the market.

However, there is a third category, which is the one I am worried about in this amendment, who will say, “We want to comply, we are responsible, but as senior managers of this organisation”, or as directors of a non-profit foundation, “we cannot accept the risk of non-compliance and we do not have the resources to comply. There is no way that we can build an appeals mechanism, user reporter functions and all these things we never thought we would need to have”. If you are Wikipedia or OpenStreetMap, you do not need to have that infrastructure, yet as I read the Bill, if they are in scope and there is no exemption, then they are going to be required to build all that additional infrastructure.

The Bill already recognises that there are certain classes of services where it would be inappropriate to apply this new regulatory regime, and it describes these in Schedule 1, which I am seeking to amend. My amendment just seeks to add a further class of exempted service and it does this quite carefully so that we would exclude only services that I believe most of us in this House would agree should not be in scope. There are three tests that would be applied.

The first is a limited functionality test—we already have something similar in Schedule 1—so that the user-to-user functions are only those that relate to the production of what I would call a public information resource. In other words, users engage with one another to debate a Wikipedia entry or a particular entry on a map on OpenStreetMap. So, there is limited user-to-user functionality all about this public interest resource. They are not user-to-user services in the classic sense of social media; they are a particular kind of collective endeavour. These are much closer to newspaper publishers, which we have explicitly excluded from the Bill. It is much more like a newspaper; it just happens to be created by users collectively, out of good will, rather than by paid professional journalists. They are very close to that definition, but if you read Schedule 1, I do not think the definition of “provider content” in paragraph 4(2) includes at the moment these collective-user endeavours, so they do not currently have the exemption.

I have also proposed that Ofcom would carry out a harm test to avoid the situation where someone argues that their services are a public information resource, while in practice using it to distribute harmful material. That would be a rare case, but noble Lords can conceive of it happening. Ofcom would have the ability to say that it recognises that Wikipedia does not carry harmful content in any meaningful way, but it would also have the right not to grant the exemption to service B that says it is a new Wikipedia but carries harmful content.

Thirdly, I have suggested that this is limited to non-commercial services. There is an argument for saying any public information resource should benefit, and that may be more in line with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, where it is defined in terms of being encyclopaedic or the nature of the service. I recognise that I have put in “non-commercial” as belt and braces because there is a rationale for saying that, while we do not really want an encyclopaedic resource to be in the 2B service if it has got user-to-user functions, if it is commercial, we could reasonably expect it to find some way to comply. It is different when it is entirely non-commercial and volunteer-led, not least because the Wikimedia Foundation, for example, would struggle to justify spending the money that it has collected from donors on compliance costs with the UK regime, whereas a commercial company could increase its resources from commercial customers to do that.

I hope this is a helpful start to a debate in which we will also consider Amendment 29, which has similar goals. I will close by asking the Minister some additional questions. I have asked him some very specific ones to which I hope he can provide answers, but first I ask: does he acknowledges the genuine risk that services like Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap could find themselves in a position where they have obligations under the Bill that they simply cannot comply with? It is not that they are unwilling, but there is no way for them to do all this structurally.

Secondly, I hope the Minister would agree that it is not in the public interest for Ofcom to spend significant time and effort on the oversight of services like these; rather, it should spend its time and effort on services, such as social media services, that we believe to be creating harms and are the central focus of the Bill.

Thirdly, will the Minister accept that there is something very uncomfortable about a government regulator interfering with the running of a neutral public resource like Wikipedia, when there is so much benefit from it and little or no demonstrative harm? It is much closer to the model that exists for a newspaper. We have debated endlessly in this House—and I am sure we will come back to it—that there is, rightly, considerable reluctance to have regulators going too far and creating this relationship with neutral public information goods. Wikipedia falls into that category, as does OpenStreetMap and others, and there would be fundamental in principle challenges around that.

I hope the Government will agree that we should be taking steps to make sure we are not inadvertently creating a situation where, in one or two years’ time, Ofcom will come back to us saying that it wrote to Wikipedia, because the law told it to do so, and told Wikipedia all the things that it had to do; Wikipedia took it to its senior management and then came back saying that it is shutting shop in the UK. Because it is sensible, Ofcom would come back and say that it did not want that and ask to change the law to give it the power to grant an exemption. If such things deserve an exemption, let us make it clear they should have it now, rather than lead ourselves down this path where we end up effectively creating churn and uncertainty around what is an extraordinarily valuable public resource. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 29 and 30 stand in my name. I fully appreciated, as I prepared my thoughts ahead of this short speech, that a large part of what I was going to say might be rendered redundant by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. I have not had a discussion with him about this group at all, but it is clear that his amendment is rather different from mine. Although it addresses the same problem, we are coming at it slightly differently. I actually support his amendment, and if the Government were to adopt it I think the situation would be greatly improved. I do prefer my own, and I think he put his finger on why to some extent: mine is a little broader. His relates specifically to public information, whereas mine relates more to what can be described as the public good. So mine can be broader than information services, and I have not limited it to non-commercial operations, although I fully appreciate that quite a lot of the services we are discussing are, in practice, non-commercial. As I say, if his amendment were to pass, I would be relatively satisfied, but I have a moderate preference for my own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions during this debate. I am sympathetic to arguments that we must avoid imposing disproportionate burdens on regulated services, and particularly that the Bill should not inhibit services from providing valuable information which is of benefit to the public. However, I want to be clear that that is why the Bill has been designed in the way that it has. It has a broad scope in order to capture a range of services, but it has exemptions and categorisations built into it. The alternative would be a narrow scope, which would be more likely inadvertently to exempt risky sites or to displace harm on to services which we would find are out of scope of the Bill. I will disappoint noble Lords by saying that I cannot accept their amendments in this group but will seek to address the concerns that they have raised through them.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked me helpfully at the outset three questions, to which the answers are yes, no and maybe. Yes, Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap will be in scope of the Bill because they allow users to interact online; no, we do not believe that they would fall under any of the current exemptions in the Bill; and the maybe is that Ofcom does not have the discretion to exempt services but the Secretary of State can create additional exemptions for further categories of services if she sees fit.

I must also say maybe to my noble friend Lord Moylan on his point about Wikipedia—and with good reason. Wikipedia, as I have just explained, is in scope of the Bill and is not subject to any of its exemptions. I cannot say how it will be categorised, because that is based on an assessment made by the independent regulator, but I reassure my noble friend that it is not the regulator but the Secretary of State who will set the categorisation thresholds through secondary legislation; that is to say, a member of the democratically elected Government, accountable to Parliament, through legislation laid before that Parliament. It will then be for Ofcom to designate services based on whether or not they meet those thresholds.

It would be wrong—indeed, nigh on impossible—for me to second-guess that designation process from the Dispatch Box. In many cases it is inherently a complex and nuanced matter since, as my noble friend Lady Harding said, many services change over time. We want to keep the Bill’s provisions flexible as services change what they do and new services are invented.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I—

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I would just like to finish my thought on Wikipedia. Noble Lords are right to mention it and to highlight the great work that it does. My honourable friend the Minister for Technology and the Digital Economy, Paul Scully, met Wikipedia yesterday to discuss its concerns about the Bill. He explained that the requirements for platforms in this legislation will be proportionate to the risk of harm, and that as such we do not expect the requirements for Wikipedia to be unduly burdensome.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I am computing the various pieces of information that have just been given, and I hope the Minister can clarify whether I have understood them correctly. These services will be in scope as user-to-user services and do not have an exemption, as he said. The Secretary of State will write a piece of secondary legislation that will say, “This will make you a category 1 service”—or a category 2 or 2B service—but, within that, there could be text that has the effect that Wikipedia is in none of those categories. So it and services like it could be entirely exempt from the framework by virtue of that secondary legislation. Is that a correct interpretation of what he said?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Secretary of State could create further exemptions but would have to bring those before Parliament for it to scrutinise. That is why there is a “maybe” in answer to his third question in relation to any service. It is important for the legislation to be future-proofed that the Secretary of State has the power to bring further categorisations before Parliament for it to discuss and scrutinise.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will keep pressing this point because it is quite important, particularly in the context of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about categorisation, which we will debate later. There is a big difference when it comes to Schedule 11, which defines the categorisation scheme: whether in the normal run of business we might create an exemption in the categorisation secondary legislation, or whether it would be the Secretary of State coming back with one of those exceptional powers that the Minister knows we do not like. He could almost be making a case for why the Secretary of State has to have these exceptional powers. We would be much less comfortable with that than if the Schedule 11 categorisation piece effectively allowed another class to be created, rather than it being an exceptional Secretary of State power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will check what I said but I hope that I have set out why we have taken the approach that we have with the broad scope and the exemptions and categorisations that are contained in it. With that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, that was a very useful debate. I appreciate the Minister’s response and his “yes, no, maybe” succinctness, but I think he has left us all more worried than when the debate started. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones tied it together nicely. What we want is for the regulator to be focused on the greatest areas of citizen risk. If there are risks that are missing, or things that we will be asking the regulator to do that are a complete waste of time because they are low risk, then we have a problem. We highlighted both those areas. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, rightly highlighted that we are not content with just “content” as the primary focus of the legislation; it is about a lot more than content. In my amendment and those by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we are extremely worried—and remain so—that the Bill creates a framework that will trap Wikipedia and services like it, without that being our primary intention. We certainly will come back to this in later groups; I will not seek to press the amendment now, because there is a lot we all need to digest. However, at the end of this process, we want to get to point where the regulator is focused on things that are high risk to the citizen and not wasting time on services that are very low risk. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, I too welcome these amendments and thank the Minister and the Government for tabling them. The Bill will be significantly strengthened by Amendment 172 and related amendments by putting the harms as so clearly described in the Bill. I identify with the comments of others that we also need to look at functionality. I hope we will do that in the coming days.

I also support Amendment 174, to which I added my name. Others have covered proposed new subsection (9B) very well; I add my voice to those encouraging the Minister to give it more careful consideration. I will also speak briefly to proposed new subsection (9A), on misinformation and disinformation content. With respect to those who have spoken against it and argued that those are political terms, I argue that they are fundamentally ethical terms. For me, the principle of ethics and the online world is not the invention of new ethics but finding ways to acknowledge and support online the ethics we acknowledge in the offline world.

Truth is a fundamental ethic. Truth builds trust. It made it into the 10 commandments:

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour”.


It is that ethic that would be translated across in proposed new subsection (9A). One of the lenses through which I have viewed the Bill throughout is the lens of my eight grandchildren, the oldest of whom is eight years old and who is already using the internet. Proposed new subsection (9A) is important to him because, at eight years old, he has very limited ways of checking out what he reads online—fewer even than a teenager. He stands to be fundamentally misled in a variety of ways if there is no regulation of misinformation and disinformation.

Also, the internet, as we need to keep reminding ourselves in all these debates, is a source of great potential good and benefit, but only if children grow up able to trust what they read there. If they can trust the web’s content, they will be able to expand their horizons, see things from the perspective of others and delve into huge realms of knowledge that are otherwise inaccessible. But if children grow up necessarily imbued with cynicism about everything they read online, those benefits will not accrue to them.

Misinformation and disinformation content is therefore harmful to the potential of children across the United Kingdom and elsewhere. We need to guard against it in the Bill.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 172 is exceptionally helpful in putting the priority harms for children on the face of the Bill. It is something that we have asked for and I know the pre-legislative scrutiny committee asked for it and it is good to see it there. I want to comment to make sure that we all have a shared understanding of what this means and that people out there have a shared understanding.

My understanding is that “primary priority” is, in effect, a red light—platforms must not expose children to that content if they are under 18—while “priority” is rather an amber light and, on further review, for some children it will be a red light and for other children it be a green light, and they can see stuff in there. I am commenting partly having had the experience of explaining all this to my domestic focus group of teenagers and they said, “Really? Are you going to get rid of all this stuff for us?” I said, “No, actually, it is quite different”. It is important in our debate to do that because otherwise there is a risk that the Bill comes into disrepute. I look at something like showing the harms to fictional characters. If one has seen the “Twilight” movies, the werewolves do not come off too well, and “Lord of the Rings” is like an orc kill fest.

As regards the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, about going to the cinema, we allow older teenagers to go to the cinema and see that kind of thing. Post the Online Safety Bill, they will still be able to access it. When we look at something like fictional characters, the Bill is to deal with the harm that is there and is acknowledged regarding people pushing quite vile stuff, whereby characters have been taken out of fiction and a gory image has been created, twisted and pushed to a younger child. That is what we want online providers to do—to prevent an 11 year-old seeing that—not to stop a 16 year-old enjoying the slaughter of werewolves. We need to be clear that that is what we are doing with the priority harms; we are not going further than people think we are.

There are also some interesting challenges around humour and evolving trends. This area will be hard for platforms to deal with. I raised the issue of the Tide pod challenge in Committee. If noble Lords are not familiar, it is the idea that one eats the tablets, the detergent things, that one puts into washing machines. It happened some time ago. It was a real harm and that is reflected here in the “do not ingest” provisions. That makes sense but, again talking to my focus group, the Tide pod challenge has evolved and for older teenagers it is a joke about someone being stupid. It has become a meme. One could genuinely say that it is not the harmful thing that it was. Quite often one sees something on the internet that starts harmful—because kids are eating Tide pods and getting sick—and then over time it becomes a humorous meme. At that point, it has ceased to be harmful. I read it as that filter always being applied. We are not saying, “Always remove every reference to Tide pods” but “At a time when there is evidence that it is causing harm, remove it”. If at a later stage it ceases to be harmful, it may well move into a category where platforms can permit it. It is a genuine concern.

To our freedom of expression colleagues, I say that we do not want mainstream platforms to be so repressive of ordinary banter by teenagers that they leave those regulated mainstream platforms because they cannot speak any more, even when the speech is not harmful, and go somewhere else that is unregulated—one of those platforms that took Ofcom’s letter, screwed it up and threw it in the bin. We do not want that to be an effect of the Bill. Implementation has to be very sensitive to common trends and, importantly, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, agrees, has to treat 15, 16 and 17 year-olds very differently from 10, 11 or 12 year-olds. That will be hard.

The other area that jumped out was about encouraging harm through challenges and stunts. That immediately brought “Jackass” to mind, or the Welsh version, “Dirty Sanchez”, which I am sure is a show that everyone in the House watched avidly. It is available on TV. Talking about equality, one can go online and watch it. It is people doing ridiculous, dangerous things, is enjoyed by teenagers and is legal and acceptable. My working assumption has to be that we are expecting platforms to distinguish between a new dangerous stunt such as the choking game—such things really exist—from a ridiculous “Jackass” or “Dirty Sanchez” stunt, which has existed for years and is accessible elsewhere.

The point that I am making in the round is that it is great to have these priority harms in the Bill but it is going to be very difficult to implement them in a meaningful way whereby we are catching the genuinely harmful stuff but not overrestricting. But that is that task that we have set Ofcom and the platforms. The more that we can make it clear to people out there what we are expecting to happen, the better. We are not expecting a blanket ban on all ridiculous teenage humour or activity. We are expecting a nuanced response. That is really helpful as we go through the debate.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I just have a question for the noble Lord. He has given an excellent exposé of the other things that I was worried about but, even when he talks about listing the harms, I wonder how helpful it is. Like him, I read them out to a focus group. Is it helpful to write these things, for example emojis, down? Will that not encourage the platforms to over-panic? That is my concern.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

On the noble Baroness’s point, that is why I intervened in the debate: so that we are all clear. We are not saying that, for priority content, it is an amber light and not a red light. We are not saying, “Just remove all this stuff”; it would be a wrong response to the Bill to say, “It’s a fictional character being slaughtered so remove it”, because now we have removed “Twilight”, “Watership Down” and whatever else. We are saying, “Think very carefully”. If it is one of those circumstances where this is causing harm—they exist; we cannot pretend that they do not—it should be removed. However, the default should not be to remove everything on this list; that is the point I am really trying to make.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, our debate on this group is on the topic of priority harms to children. It is not one that I have engaged in so I tread carefully. One reason why I have not engaged in this debate is because I have left it to people who know far more about it than I do; I have concentrated on other parts of the Bill.

In the context of this debate, one thing has come up on which I feel moved to make a short contribution: misinformation and disinformation content. There was an exchange between my noble friend Lady Harding and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on this issue. Because I have not engaged on the topic of priority harms, I genuinely do not have a position on what should and should not be featured. I would not want anybody to take what I say as support for or opposition to any of these amendments. However, it is important for us to acknowledge that, as much as misinformation and disinformation are critical issues—particularly for children and young people because, as the right reverend Prelate said, the truth matters—we cannot, in my view, ignore the fact that misinformation and disinformation have become quite political concepts. They get used in a way where people often define things that they do not agree with as misinformation—that is, opinions are becoming categorised as misinformation.

We are now putting this in legislation and it is having an impact on content, so it is important, too, that we do not just dismiss that kind of concern as not relevant because it is real. That is all I wanted to say.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 55 and 182. We are now at the stage of completely taking the lead from the Minister and the noble Lords opposite—the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones—that we have to accept these amendments, because we need now to see how this will work in practice. That is why we all think that we will be back here talking about these issues in the not too distant future.

My noble friend the Minister rightly said that, as we debated in Committee, the Government made a choice in taking out “legal but harmful”. Many of us disagree with that, but that is the choice that has been made. So I welcome the changes that have been made by the Government in these amendments to at least allow there to be more empowerment of users, particularly in relation to the most harmful content and, as we debated, in relation to adult users who are more vulnerable.

It is worth reminding the House that we heard very powerful testimony during the previous stage from noble Lords with personal experience of family members who struggle with eating disorders, and how difficult these people would find it to self-regulate the content they were looking at.

In Committee, I proposed an amendment about “toggle on”. Anyone listening to this debate outside who does not know what we are talking about will think we have gone mad, talking about toggle on and toggle off, but I proposed an amendment for toggle on by default. Again, I take the Government’s point, and I know my noble friend has put a lot of work into this, with Ministers and others, in trying to come up with a sensible compromise.

I draw attention to Amendment 55. I wonder if my noble friend the Minister is able say anything about whether users will be able to have specific empowerment in relation to specific types of content, where they are perhaps more vulnerable if they see it. For example, the needs of a user might be quite different between those relating to self-harm and those relating to eating disorder content or other types of content that we would deem harmful.

On Amendment 182, my noble friend leapt immediately to abusive content coming from unverified users, but, as we have heard, and as I know, having led the House’s inquiry into fraud and digital fraud last year, there will be, and already is, a prevalence of scams. The Bill is cracking down on fraudulent advertisements but, as an anti-fraud measure, being able to see whether an account has been verified would be extremely useful. The view now is that, if this Bill is successful—and we hope it is—in cracking down on fraudulent advertising, then there will be even more reliance on what is called organic reach, which is the use of fake accounts, where verification therefore becomes more important. We have heard from opinion polling that the public want to see which accounts are or are not verified. We have also heard that Amendment 182 is about giving users choice, in making clear whether their accounts are verified; it is not about compelling people to say whether they are verified or not.

As we have heard, this is a direction of travel. I understand that the Government will not want to accept these amendments at this stage, but it is useful to have this debate to see where we are going and what Ofcom will be looking at in relation to these matters. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say about these amendments.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 53, on the assessment duties, and Amendment 60, on requiring services to provide a choice screen. It is the first time we have seen these developments. We are in something of a see-saw process over legal but harmful. I agree with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones when he says he regrets that it is no longer in the Bill, although that may not be a consistent view everywhere. We have been see-sawing backwards and forwards, and now, like the Schrödinger’s cat of legal but harmful, it is both dead and alive at the same time. Amendments that we are dealing with today make it a little more alive that it was previously.

In this latest incarnation, we will insist that category 1 services carry out an assessment of how they will comply with their user-empowerment responsibility. Certainly, this part seems reasonable to me, given that it is limited to category 1 providers, which we assume will have significant resources. Crucially, that will depend on the categorisations—so we are back to our previous debate. If we imagine category 1 being the Meta services and Twitter, et cetera, that is one thing, but if we are going to move others into category 1 who would really struggle to do a user empowerment tool assessment—I have to use the right words; it is not a risk assessment—then it is a different debate. Assuming that we are sticking to those major services, asking them to do an assessment seems reasonable. From working on the inside, I know that even if it were not formalised in the Bill, they would end up having to do it as part of their compliance responsibilities. As part of the Clause 8 illegal content risk assessment, they would inevitably end up doing that.

That is because the categories of content that we are talking about in Clauses 12(10) to (12) are all types of content that might sometimes be illegal and sometimes not illegal. Therefore, if you were doing an illegal content risk assessment, you would have to look at it, and you would end up looking at types of content and putting them into three buckets. The first bucket is that it is likely illegal in the UK, and we know what we have to do there under the terms of the Bill. The second is that it is likely to be against your terms of service, in which case you would deal with it there. The third is that it is neither against your terms of service nor against UK law, and you would make a choice about that.

I want to focus on what happens once you have done the risk assessment and you have to have the choice screen. I particularly want to focus on services where all the content in Clause 12 is already against their terms of service, so there is no gap. The whole point of this discussion about legal but harmful is imagining that there is going to be a mixed economy of services and, in that mixed economy, there will be different standards. Some will wish to allow the content listed in Clause 12—self-harm-type content, eating disorder content and various forms of sub-criminal hate speech. Some will choose to do that—that is going to be their choice—and they will have to provide the user empowerment tools and options. I believe that many category 1 providers will not want to; they will just want to prohibit all that stuff under their terms of service and, in that case, offering a choice is meaningless. That will not make the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, or the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, very happy, but that is the reality.

Most services will just say that they do not want that stuff on their platform. In those cases, I hope that what we are going to say is that, in their terms of service, when a user joins a service, they can say that they have banned all that stuff anyway, so they are not going to give the user a user empowerment tool and, if the user sees that stuff, they should just report it and it will be taken down under the terms of service. Throughout this debate I have said, “No more cookie banners, please”. I hope that we are not going to require people, in order for them to comply with this law, to offer a screen that people then click through. It is completely meaningless and ineffective. For those services that have chosen under their terms of service to restrict all the content in Clause 12, I hope that we will be saying that their version of the user empowerment tool is not to make people click anything but to provide education and information and tell them where they can report the content and have it taken down.

Then there are those who will choose to protect that content and allow it on their service. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that this is, in some sense, Twitter-focused or Twitter-driven legislation, because Twitter tends to be more in the freedom of speech camp and to allow hate speech and some of that stuff. It will be more permissive than Facebook or Instagram in its terms, and it may choose to maintain that content and it will have to offer that screen. That is fine, but we should not be making services do so when they have already prohibited such content.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned services that use community moderators to moderate part of the service and how this would apply there. Reddit is the obvious example, but there are others. If you are going to have user empowerment—and Reddit is more at the freedom of expression end of things—then if there are some subreddits, or spaces within Reddit that allow hate speech or the kind of speech that is in Clause 12, it would be rational to say that user empowerment in the context of Reddit is to be told that you can join these subreddits and you are fine or you can join those subreddits and you are allowing yourself to be exposed to this kind of content. What would not make sense would be for Reddit to do it individual content item by content item. When we are thinking about this, I hope that the implementation would say that, for a service with community-moderated spaces, and subspaces within the larger community, user empowerment means choosing which subspaces you enter, and you would be given information about them. Reddit would say to the moderators of the subreddits, “You need to tell us whether you have any Clause 12-type content”—I shall keep using that language—“and, if you are allowing it, you need to make sure that you are restricted”. But we should not expect Reddit to restrict every individual content item.

Finally, as a general note of caution, noble Lords may have detected that I am not entirely convinced that these will be hugely beneficial tools, perhaps other than for a small subset of Twitter users, for whom they are useful. There is an issue around particular kinds of content on Twitter, and particular Twitter users, including people in prominent positions in public life, for whom these tools make sense. For a lot of other people, they will not be particularly meaningful. I hope that we are going to keep focused on outcomes and not waste effort on things that are not effective.

As I say, many companies, when they are faced with this, will look at it and say, “I have limited engineering time. I could build all these user empowerment tools or I could just ban the Clause 12 stuff in my terms of service”. That would not be a great outcome for freedom of expression; it might be a good outcome for the people who wanted to prohibit legal but harmful in the first place. You are going to do that as a really hard business decision. It is much more expensive to try to maintain these different regimes and flag all this content and so on. It is simpler to have one set of standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the broad, if not universal, support for the amendments that we have brought forward following the points raised in Committee. I apologise for anticipating noble Lords’ arguments, but I am happy to expand on my remarks in light of what they have said.

My noble friend Lord Moylan raised the question of non-verified user duties and crowdsourced platforms. The Government recognise concerns about how the non-verified user duties will work with different functionalities and platforms, and we have engaged extensively on this issue. These duties are only applicable to category 1 platforms, those with the largest reach and influence over public discourse. It is therefore right that such platforms have additional duties to empower their adult users. We anticipate that these features will be used in circumstances where vulnerable adults wish to shield themselves from anonymous abuse. If users decide that they are restricting their experience on a particular platform, they can simply choose not to use them. In addition, before these duties come into force, Ofcom will be required to consult effective providers regarding the codes of practice, at which point they will consider how these duties might interact with various functionalities.

My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, raised the potential for being bombarded with pop-ups because of the forced-choice approach that we have taken. These amendments have been carefully drafted to minimise unnecessary prompts or pop-ups. That is why we have specified that the requirement to proactively ask users how they want these tools to be applied is applicable only to registered users. This approach ensures that users will be prompted to make a decision only once, unless they choose to ignore it. After a decision has been made, the provider should save this preference and the user should not be prompted to make the choice again.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked further about his amendments on the cost of user empowerment tools as a core safety duty in the Bill. Category 1 providers will not be able to put the user empowerment tools in Clause 12 behind a pay wall and still be compliant with their duties. That is because they will need to offer them to users at the first possible opportunity, which they will be unable to do if they are behind a pay wall. The wording of Clause 12(2) makes it clear that providers have a duty to include user empowerment features that an adult user may use or apply.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

The Minister may not have the information today, but I would be happy to get it in writing. Can he clarify exactly what will be expected of a service that already prohibits all the Clause 12 bad stuff in their terms of service?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

I will happily write to the noble Lord on that.

Clause 12(4) further sets out that all search user empowerment content tools must be made available to all adult users and be easy to access.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about people who will seek out suicide, self-harm or eating-disorder content. While the Bill will not prevent adults from seeking out legal content, it will introduce significant protections for adults from some of the most harmful content. The duties relating to category 1 services’ terms of service are expected hugely to improve companies’ own policing of their sites. Where this content is legal and in breach of the company’s terms of service, the Bill will force the company to take it down.

We are going even further by introducing a new user empowerment content-assessment duty. This will mean that where content relates to eating disorders, for instance, but which is not illegal, category 1 providers need fully to assess the incidence of this content on their service. They will need clearly to publish this information in accessible terms of service, so users will be able to find out what they can expect on a particular service. Alternatively, if they choose to allow suicide, self-harm or eating content disorder which falls into the definition set out in Clause 12, they will need proactively to ask users how they would like the user empowerment content features to be applied.

My noble friend Lady Morgan was right to raise the impact on vulnerable people or people with disabilities. While we anticipate that the changes we have made will benefit all adult users, we expect them particularly to benefit those who may otherwise have found it difficult to find and use the user empowerment content features independently—for instance, some users with types of disabilities. That is because the onus will now be on category 1 providers proactively to ask their registered adult users whether they would like these tools to be applied at the first possible opportunity. The requirement also remains to ensure that the tools are easy to access and to set out clearly what tools are on offer and how users can take advantage of them.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Finally, last week, at the invitation of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the Minister and I attended an event at which we were addressed by children about the pressures they felt from social media. I thank all the young people present for the powerful and eloquent way in which they expressed the need for politicians and religious, civic and business leaders to do more to detoxify the digital world. If they are listening, as they said they would, I want to assure them that all of us in this Chamber hear their concerns. Importantly, when I asked Oliver, aged 12, and Arthur, aged 13, what one thing we could and should do to make their online world better, they said, “Make age checking meaningful”. Today, we are doing just that.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I shall follow on directly from some of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, around privacy. I shall not repeat the arguments around children and pornography but touch on something else, which is the impact of these amendments on the vast majority of internet users, the 85%-plus who are 18 or older. Of course, when we introduce age assurance measures, they will affect everyone: we should not kid ourselves that it is only about children, because everyone will have to pass through these gateways.

I shall speak particularly to Amendments 184 and 217 on privacy. I am sure that most adults will support extra safety measures for children, but they also want to be able to access a wide range of online services with the least possible friction and the lowest risk to their own personal data. We can explore how this might work in practice by looking at something that we might all do in this Chamber. Looking round, I believe that we are all at least 18 years old, and we might find ourselves idly passing the time creating an account on a new user-to-user or search service that has been recommended. We should consider this group of amendments by how that might play out. In future, the services will have to check that we are in the United Kingdom—there is a range of ways in which they can do that. Having confirmed that, they will need to understand whether we are 18-plus or a child user so that they can tailor their service appropriately.

I hope we all agree that the services should not be asking us for passports or driving licences, for example, as that would be entirely contrary to the thrust of privacy regulations and would be a huge gateway to fraud and other problems. The most efficient way would be for them to ask us for some sort of digital certificate—a certificate that we have on our devices where we have proven to a trusted third party that we are 18-plus. The certificate does not need to contain any personal data but simply confirms that we are of age. That is very similar to the way in which secure websites work: they send a digital certificate to your browser and you verify that certificate with a trusted third party—a certificate authority—and then you can open an encrypted connection. We are reversing the flow: the service will ask the user for a certificate and then verify that before granting access. A user may have a setting on their device in future where they confirm that they are happy for their 18-plus certificate to be given to anybody or whether they would like to be asked every time there will be a new set of privacy controls.

Building the infrastructure for this is non-trivial. Many things could go wrong but at least the kind of model I am describing has some hope of achieving widespread adoption. It is very good for the adult users as they can continue to have the frictionless experience as long as they are happy for their device to send a certificate to new services. It is good for the market of internet services if new services can bring users on easily. It is good for privacy by avoiding lots of services each collecting personal data, as most people access a multiplicity of services. Perhaps most importantly in terms of the Bill’s objectives, it is good for children if services can separate out the vast majority of their users who are 18-plus and then focus their real efforts on tailoring the services for the minority of users who will be children. The Bill will introduce a whole set of new obligations.

We should not underestimate the scale of the challenge in practice; it will work only if major internet companies are willing to play the game and get into the market of offering 18-plus certificates. Companies such as Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft—the ones we normally love to hate—will potentially provide the solution, as well as not-for-profits. There will be foundations for those who object to the big internet companies, but it is those big internet companies which will have the reach; they each have millions of users in the United Kingdom. This is not to fly the flag for those companies; it is simply a question of efficiency. I suspect that everyone in the Chamber uses a combination of services from those big providers. We already share with them the personal data necessary for age assurance, and there would be no additional sharing of data. If they were willing to provide a certificate, they could do so at the kind of scale necessary for the 50 million or so adult internet users in the United Kingdom to be able to get one easily and then pass it to services when they choose to access them.

There may be some discomfort with big tech playing this role, but I cannot see the kind of aggressive targets that we are setting in the amendments working unless we take advantage of those existing platforms and use them to make this work. Amendment 230 tells us that we have about 18 months, which is very soon in terms of trying to build something. We should be clear that if we are to deliver this package it will depend on persuading some of those big names in tech to create age certification schemes for UK users.

For this to have widespread adoption and a competitive market, we need it to be free of direct financial costs to individual users and to services choosing to age-verify, as we have asked them to do so. We need to think very carefully about that, as it raises a whole series of competition questions that I am sure Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority will have to address, not least because we will be asking companies to provide age certification free of charge that will be used by their existing and future competitors to meet their compliance requirements.

There may be some listening who think that we can rely on small age-assurance start-ups. Some of them have a really important role to play and we should be proud of our homegrown industry, but we should be realistic that they will reach scale only if they work with and through the large service providers. Many of them are already seeking those kinds of relationship.

As a test case, we might think of an application such as Signal, a messaging app that prides itself on being privacy-first. It does not want to collect any additional information from its users, which is perfectly reasonable, given where it is coming from. It will be really interesting to see how comfortable such a service will be with working with certification schemes, under which it can prove that users are over 18 by taking advantage of the data held by other services which collect significant amounts of data and have a very good idea of how old we are.

I have not focused on under-18s but, once this system is in place, application providers will be thinking very carefully about the pros and cons of allowing under-18s on at all. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is also concerned about this. There will be services that will think very carefully, if they find that the vast majority of their users are 18-plus, about the extent to which they want to put time and effort into tailoring them for users under 18. We do not intend that outcome from the Bill, but we need realistically to consider it.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Just to be clear, I say that the purpose of my question to the Minister was to get at the fact that, for low-risk situations, there can be age assurance that is a lot less effective or intrusive, for that very reason.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I agree; that is very helpful. I think Amendments 74, 93 and 99 also talk about the exclusion, as the noble Baroness raised, of services from the child safety duties if they can show that they are only 18-plus. It will be quite material and critical to know at what level they can demonstrate that.

I have avoided talking about pornography services directly, but there are interesting questions around what will happen if this model develops, as it likely will. If big tech is now starting to provide age certification for the kinds of mainstream services we may all want to access, they may be much less comfortable providing that same certification to pornography providers, for reputational reasons. A mainstream provider would not want to enter that market. Ofcom will need to take a view on this. We have talked about interoperability in the framework we have created, but it is a big question for Ofcom whether it wants to steer all age certification providers also to provide 18-plus certification for pornography providers or, effectively, to allow two markets to develop—one for mainstream certification and one for certification for pornography.

I have taken a few minutes because this is a very high-risk area for the Bill. There are material risks in willing into existence a model that depends on technical infrastructure that has not yet been built. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to prior experience; one of the reasons why we have not delivered age assurance before is that the infrastructure was not there. We now want it built, so must recognise that it is quite a high-risk endeavour. That does not mean it is not worth attempting, but we must recognise the risks and work on them.

If the implementation is poor, it will frustrate adult users, which may bring the Bill into disrepute. We need to recognise that as a genuine risk. There are people out there already saying that the Bill means that every internet service in the world will ask you for your passport. If that is not the case, we need to stress that we do not expect that to happen. There are also potentially significant impacts on the market for online services available to both adults and children in the UK, depending on the design of this system.

The purpose of thinking about some of these risks today is not to create a doom-laden scenario and say that it will not work. It is entirely the opposite—to say that, if we are to move ahead into a world in which children are protected from harmful content, for which very good reasons have been articulated and a huge amount of work has gone ahead, and in which services can tailor and gear access to the age of the child, we have to be able to take the 18-plus out of that, put it into a separate box and do so in a really easy, straightforward manner. If not, the 18-plus will end up dragging down what we want to do for the underage.

I hope that explanation helps in the context of these amendments. We will need to test them against it as implementation happens over the next few months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I just realised I forgot to thank the Government for Amendment 271, which reflected something I raised in Committee. I will reflect back to the Minister that, as is reinforced by his response now, it goes precisely where I wanted to. That is to make sure—I have raised this many times—that we are not implementing another cookie banner, but are implementing something and then going back to say, “Did it work as we intended? Were the costs proportionate to what we achieved?” I want to put on the record that I appreciate Amendment 271.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s interjection and, indeed, his engagement on this issue, which has informed the amendments that we have tabled.

In relation to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as I set out, there are already robust safeguards for user privacy in the Bill. I have already mentioned Amendment 124, which puts age-assurance principles in the Bill. These require Ofcom to have regard, when producing its codes of practice on the use of age assurance, to the principle of protecting the privacy of users, including data protection. We think that the noble Baroness’s amendment is also unnecessary. I hope that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will be willing to not move their amendments and to support the government amendments in the group.

--- Later in debate ---

I simply ask the Minister to reflect and look carefully at this and, frankly, the illogicality of the Government’s current approach to see whether we can yet again improve the Bill—as he has on so many occasions.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, particularly in talking about Amendments 43, 87 and 242, which raise some interesting and quite profound questions on what we are expecting from the market of internet services once the Online Safety Bill is in place.

It is worth taking a moment to remind ourselves of what we do and do not want from the Bill. We want services that are causing harm and are unwilling to take reasonable steps to address that to leave the UK market. That is clear. As a result of this legislation, it will be likely that some services leave the UK market, because we have asked them to do reasonable things and they have said no; they are not willing to comply with the law and therefore they need to be out. There is a whole series of measures in the Bill that will lead to that.

Equally, we want services that are willing to take reasonable steps to stay in the UK market, do the risk assessments, work at improvements and have the risks under control. They may not all be resolved on day one—otherwise, we would not need the legislation—but they should be on a path to address the risks that have been identified. We want those people to be in the market, for two reasons.

The first is that we want choice for people; we do not take pleasure in shutting people who are providing services out of the market. Also, from a child safety point of view, there is a genuine concern that, if you limit choice too far, you will end up creating more of a demand for completely unregulated services that sit outside the UK and will fill the gap. There is a balance in making sure that there is a range of attractive services, so that teenagers in particular feel that their needs are being met. We want those services to be regulated and committed to improvement.

Something that is in between will be a hard decision for Ofcom—something that is not great today, but not so bad that we want it out tomorrow. Ofcom will have to exercise considerable judgment in how it deals with those services. This is my interpretation of where proportionality and capacity come in. If you are running a very large internet service, something such as PhotoDNA, which is the technology that allows you to scan photos and detect child abuse images, is relatively straightforward to implement. All the major providers do it, but there are costs to that for smaller services. There are some real capacity challenges around implementing those kinds of technology. It is getting better over time and we would like them to do it, but you would expect Ofcom to engage in a conversation as a smaller service—smaller not in terms of its users but in its engineers and capacity—may need a little longer to implement such a technology.

A larger service could do proactive investigations. If it has a large team, once it has identified that something is problematic, it can investigate proactively. Again, a smaller service may not have the bodies on the ground to do that, but you would hope it would develop that capacity. It is important to recognise something about capacity if we are to encourage those that are half way between to come to the light side rather than slip off to the dark side.

I am interested in the Minister’s interpretation of these words and the instruction to Ofcom. We will be dependent on Ofcom, which will sit on the other side of a real or virtual table with the people who run these companies, as Ofcom can insist that they come in and talk to it. It will have to make these judgments, but we do not want it to be conned or to be a walkover for an organisation that has the capacity or could do things that are helpful, but is simply refusing to do them or somehow trying to pull the wool over Ofcom’s eyes.

Equally, we do not want Ofcom to demand the impossible of a service that genuinely struggles to meet a demand and that has things broadly under control. That is the balance and the difficult judgment. I think we are probably aiming for the same thing, and I hope the Minister is able to clarify these instructions and the way the Government expect Ofcom to interpret them. We are looking for that point at which Ofcom is seriously demanding but does not get overbearing and unnecessarily drive out of the market people who are making best efforts to do their risk assessments and then work hard to resolve those risks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 286 and 294, which are the last two amendments in this group, and I will explain what they are about. They are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening, to which I and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, have added our names, as has the Minister, for which we are very grateful. They serve a simple purpose: they seek to insert a definition of the phrase “freedom of expression” into the list of definitions in Clause 211 and add it to the index of defined expressions in Clause 212.

They follow an amendment which I proposed in Committee. My amendment at that stage was to insert the definition into Clause 18, where the phrase

“freedom of expression within the law”

appears. It was prompted by a point made by the Constitution Committee in its report on the Bill, which said that the House might wish to consider defining that expression in the interests of legal certainty.

The same point arose when the House was considering the then Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. Following a similar amendment by me, a government amendment on Report, to achieve the same result, was agreed to that Bill. My amendment in Committee on this Bill adopted the same wording as the government amendment to that Bill. In his response to what I said in Committee, the Minister pointed out, quite correctly, that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act and this Bill serve quite different purposes, but he did say that the Bill team—and he himself—would consider our amendment closely between then and Report.

What has happened since is the amendment we are now proposing, which has undergone some changes since Committee. They are the product of some very helpful discussions with the Bill team. The most important is that the definition placed in Clause 211 extends to the use of the expression “freedom of expression” wherever it appears in the Bill, which is obviously a sensible change. It also now includes the word “receive” as well as the word “impart”, so that it extends to both kinds of communication that are within the scope of the Bill. The words “including in electronic form”, which are in my amendment, have been removed as unnecessary, as the Bill is concerned with communications in electronic form only.

There are also two provisions in the Bill which refer to freedom of expression to which, as the definition now makes clear, this definition is not to apply. They are in Clauses 36(6)(f) and 69(2)(d). This is because the context in which the expression is used there is quite different. They require Ofcom to consult people with expertise as to this right when preparing codes of conduct. They are not dealing with the duties of providers, which is what the definition aims to do.

As the discussion in Committee showed, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, demonstrated again this evening, we tend to use the phrases “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression” interchangeably, perhaps without very much thought as to what they really mean and how they relate to other aspects of the idea. That is why legal certainty matters when they appear in legislation. The interests of legal certainty will be met if this definition finds a place in the Bill, and it makes it clear that the reference is to the expression referred to in Article 10(1) of the convention as it has effect for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. That is as generous and comprehensive a definition as one would wish to have for the purposes of the Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for his support and to the Bill team for their help. When the times come, either the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, or I will move the amendment; it comes at the very end of the Bill so it will be at the last moment of the last day, when we are finishing Report. I look forward to that stage, as I am sure the Minister does himself.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I want to respond to some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I have been looking forward to this debate equally, as it touches on some crucial issues. One of the mistakes of the Bill that I place on the Government is that it was sold as somehow a balancing Bill. It is not; it is a speech-limiting Bill, as all Bills of this kind are. Its primary purpose is to prevent people in the United Kingdom encountering certain types of content.

If you support the Bill, it is because you believe that those restrictions are necessary and proportionate in the context of Article 8. Others will disagree. We cannot pretend that it is boosting free speech. The United States got it right in its first amendment. If you want to maximise speech, you prohibit your parliament regulating on speech: “Congress shall make no law that limits speech”. As soon as you start regulating, you tend towards limitations; the question in the UK and European contexts is whether those limitations are justified and justifiable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I understand the point the noble Lord is making but, if he were thrown out, sacked or treated in some other way that was incompatible with his rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European convention, he would have cause for complaint and, possibly, cause for legal redress.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

That point is well made. In support of that, if the public space treated me in a discriminatory way, I would expect to have redress, but I do not think I have a right in every public space to say everything I like in the classic Article 8 sense. My right vis-à-vis the state is much broader than my right vis-à-vis any public space that I am operating in where norms apply as well as my basic legal rights. Again, to take the pub example, if I went in and made a racist speech, I may well be thrown out of the pub even though it is sub-criminal and the police are never called; they do not need to be as the space itself organises it.

I am making the point that terms of service are about managing these privately managed public services, and it would be a mistake to equate them entirely with our right to speak or the point at which the state can step in and censor us. I understand the point about state interference but it cuts both ways: both the state interfering in excessively censoring what we can say but also the state potentially interfering in the management of what is, after all, a private space. To refer back to the US first amendment tradition, a lot of that was about freedom of religion and precisely about enabling heterodoxy. The US did not want an orthodoxy in which one set of rules applied everywhere to everybody. Rather, it wanted people to have the right to dissent, including in ways that were exclusive. You could create your own religious sect and you could not be told not to have those beliefs.

Rolling that power over to the online world, online services, as long as they are non-discriminatory, can have quite different characters. Some will be very restrictive of speech like a restrictive religious sect; some will be very open and catholic, with a small “c”, in the sense of permitting a broad range of speech. I worry about some of the amendments in case there is a suggestion that Ofcom would start to tell a heterodox community of online services that there is an orthodox way to run their terms of service; I would rather allow this to be a more diverse environment.

Having expressed some concerns, I am though very sympathetic to Amendment 162 on Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I have tried in our debates to bring some real experience to this. There are two major concerns about the inclusion of the Public Order Act in the Bill. One is a lack of understanding of what that means. If you look at the face of the language that has been quoted at us, and go back to that small service that does not have a bunch of lawyers on tap, it reads as though it is stopping any kind of abusive content. Maybe you will google it, as I did earlier, and get a little thing back from the West Yorkshire Police. I googled: “Is it illegal to swear in the street?”. West Yorkshire Police said, “Yes, it is”. So if you are sitting somewhere googling to find out what this Public Order Act thing means, you mind end up thinking, “Crikey, for UK users, I have to stop them swearing”. There is a real risk of misinterpretation.

The second risk is that of people deliberately gaming the system; again, I have a real-life example from working in one of the platforms. I had people from United Kingdom law enforcement asking us to remove content that was about demonstrations by far-right groups. They were groups I fundamentally disagree with, but their demonstrations did not appear to be illegal. The grounds cited were that, if you allow this content to go ahead and the demonstration happens, there will be a Public Order Act offence. Once you get that on official notepaper, you have to be quite robust to say, “No, I disagree”, which we did on occasion.

I think there will be other services that receive Public Order Act letters from people who seem official and they will be tempted to take down content that is entirely legal. The critical thing here is that that content will often be political. In other parts of the Bill, we are saying that we should protect political speech, yet we have a loophole here that risks that.

I am sure the Minister will not concede these amendments, but I hope he will concede that it is important that platforms are given guidance so that they do not think that somebody getting upset about a political demonstration is sufficient grounds to remove the content as a Public Order Act offence. If you are a local police officer it is much better to get rid of that EDL demonstration, so you write to the platform and it makes your life easier, but I do not think that would be great from a speech point of view.

Finally, I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on Amendment 188 about the ECHR Article 8 exemption. As I read it, if your terms of service are not consistent with ECHR Article 8—and I do not think they will be for most platforms—you then get an exemption from all the other duties around appeals and enforcing them correctly. It is probably a probing amendment but it is a curious way of framing it; it essentially says that, if you are more restrictive, you get more freedom in terms of the Ofcom relationship. I am just curious about the detail of that amendment.

It is important that we have this debate and understand this relationship between the state, platforms and terms of service. I for one am persuaded that the general framework of the Bill makes sense; there are necessary and proportionate restrictions. I am strongly of the view that platforms should be allowed to be heterodox in their terms of service. Ofcom’s job is very much to make sure that they are done correctly but not to interfere with the content of those terms of service beyond that which is illegal. I am persuaded that we need to be extraordinarily careful about including Public Order Act offences; that particular amendment needs a good hearing.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I have said several times when we have been debating this Bill—and I will probably say it again when we get to the group about powers—that, for me, the point of the Online Safety Bill is to address the absence of accountability for the extraordinary power that the platforms and search engines have over what we see online and, indeed, how we live and engage with each other online. Through this Bill, much greater responsibility for child safety will be placed on the platforms. That is a good thing; I have been very supportive of the measures to ensure that there are strong protections for children online.

The platforms will also have responsibility, though, for some measures to help adults protect themselves. We must not forget that, the more responsibility that platforms have to protect, the more power we could inadvertently give them to influence what is an acceptable opinion to hold, or to shape society to such an extent that they can even start to influence what we believe to be right or wrong—we are talking about that significant amount of power.

I was of the camp that was pleased when the Government removed the legal but harmful aspects of the Bill, because for me they represented a serious risk to freedom of expression. As I just described, I felt that they risked too much inadvertent power, as it were, going to the platforms. But, with the Government having done that, we have seen through the passage of the Bill some push-back, which is perfectly legitimate and understandable—I am not criticising anyone—from those who were concerned about that move. In response to that, the Government amended the Bill to provide assurances and clarifications on things like the user-empowerment tools. As I said, I do not have any problem; although I might not necessarily support some of the specific measures that were brought forward, I am okay with that as a matter of principle.

However, as was explained by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, there has not been a similar willingness from the Government to reassure those who remain concerned about the platforms’ power over freedom of expression. We have to bear in mind that some people’s concerns in this quarter remained even when the legal but harmful change was made—that is, the removal of legal but harmful was a positive step, but it did not go far enough for some people with concerns about freedom of expression.

I am sympathetic to the feeling behind this group, which was expressed by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I am sympathetic to many of the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, pointed out, specifically Amendment 162 in relation to the Public Order Act seems worthy of further consideration by the Government. But the amendments in the group that caught my attention place a specific duty on Ofcom in regard to freedom of expression when drawing up or amending codes of practice or other guidance—these amendments are in my noble friend Lord Moylan’s name. When I looked at them, I did not think that they undermined anything else that the Government brought forward through the amendments to the Bill, as he said, but I thought that they would go a long way towards enforcing the importance of freedom of expression as part of this regulatory framework—one that we expect Ofcom to attach serious importance to.

I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said about the framework of this legislation being primarily about safeguarding and protection. The purpose of the Bill is not to enhance freedom of expression, but, throughout its passage, that has none the less always been a concern. It is right that the Government seek to balance these two competing fundamental principles. I ask whether more can be done—my noble friend pointed to the recommendations of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and how they reinforce some of what he proposed. I would like to think that my noble friend the Minister could give some greater thought to this.

As was said, it is to the Government’s credit how much they have moved on the Bill during its passage, particularly between Committee and Report. That was quite contrary to the sense that I think a lot of us felt during the early stages of our debates. It would be a shame if, once the Bill leaves the House, it is felt that the balance is not as fine—let me put it like that—as some people feel it needs to be. I just wanted to express some support and ask my noble friend the Minister to give this proper and serious consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

As I set out, I think my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, are not right to point to the European Convention on Human Rights here. That concerns individuals’ and entities’ rights

“to receive and impart ideas without undue interference”

by public authorities, not private entities. We do not see how a service provider deciding not to allow certain types of content on its platform would engage the Article 10 rights of the user, but I would be very happy to discuss this further with my noble friend and the noble Baroness in case we are talking at cross-purposes.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

On that point specifically, having worked inside one of the companies, they fear legal action under all sorts of laws, but not under the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Minister explained, it is for public bodies; if people are going to take a case on Article 10 grounds, they will be taking it against a public body. There are lots of other grounds to go after a private company but not ECHR compliance.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I genuinely appreciate this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made what I thought was a very important point, which is, in going through the weeds of the Bill—and some people have been involved in it for many years, looking at the detail—I appreciate that it can be easy to forget the free speech point. It is important that it has been raised but it also constantly needs to be raised. That is the point: it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, admitted, a speech-restricting Bill where we are working out the balance.

I apologise to the noble and learned, Lord Hope of Craighead, for not acknowledging that he has constantly emphasised the distinction between free speech and free expression. He and I will not agree on this; it is that we do not have time for this argument now rather than me not understanding. But he has been diligent in his persistence in trying to at least raise the issues and that is important.

I was a bit surprised by the Minister’s response because, for the first time ever, since I have been here, there has been some enthusiasm across the House for one of my amendments—it really is unprecedented—Amendment 162 on the public order offences. I thought that the Minister might have noted that, because he has noted it every other time there has been a consensus across the House. I think he ought to look again at Amendment 162.

To indicate the muddle one gets in, in terms of public order offences and illegality, the police force in Cheshire, where I am from, has put out a film online today saying that misgendering is a crime. That is the police who have said that. It is not a crime and the point about these things, and the difficulty we are concerned with, is asking people to remove and censor material based on illegality or public offences that they should not be removing. That is my concern: censorship.

To conclude, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, that of course free speech does not mean saying whatever you want wherever you want. That is not free speech, and I am a free speech absolutist. Even subreddits—if people know what they are—think they are policing each other’s speech. There are norms that are set in place. That is fine with me—that multitude.

My concern is that a state body such as Ofcom is going to set norms of what is acceptable free speech that are lower than free speech laws by demanding, on pain of breach of the law, with fines and so on, that these private companies have to impose their own terms of service, which can actually then set a norm, leading them to be risk-averse, and set a norm for levels of speech that are very dangerous. For example, when you go into work, you cannot just say anything, but there are people such as Maya Forstater, who said something at work and was disciplined and lost her job and has just won more than £100,000, because she was expressing her views and opinions. The Equality Act ran to her aid and she has now won and been shown to be right. You cannot do that if your words have disappeared and are censored.

I could talk about this for a long time, as noble Lords know. I hope that at least, as the Bill progresses, even when it becomes an Act, the Government could just stamp on its head, “Don’t forget free speech”—but before then, as we end this process, they could come back with some concessions to some of the amendments that have been raised here today. That would be more than just words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and indeed the Secretary of State for bringing forward these amendments in the fulsome manner that they have. I appreciate it, but I know that Bereaved Families for Online Safety also appreciates it. The Government committed to bringing forward these amendments on the last day in Committee, so they have been pre-emptively welcomed and discussed at some length. One need only read through Hansard of 22 June to understand the strength of feeling about the pain that has been caused to families and the urgent need to prevent others experiencing the horror faced by families already dealing with the loss of their child.

I will speak briefly on three matters only. First, I must once again thank bereaved families and colleagues in this House and in the other place for their tireless work in pressing this issue. This is one of those issues that does not allow for celebration. As I walked from the Chamber on 22 June, I asked one of the parents how they felt. They said: “It is too late for me”. It was not said in bitterness but in acknowledgement of their profound hurt and the failure of companies voluntarily to do what is obvious, moral and humane. I ask the Government to see the sense in the other amendments that noble Lords brought forward on Report to make children safer, and make the same, pragmatic, thoughtful solution to those as they have done on this group of amendments. It makes a huge difference.

Secondly, I need to highlight just one gap; I have written to the Secretary of State and the Minister on this. I find it disappointing that the Government did not find a way to require senior management to attend an inquest to give evidence. Given that the Government have agreed that senior managers should be subject to criminal liability under some circumstances, I do not understand their objections to summoning them to co-operate with legal proceedings. If a company submits information in response to Ofcom and at the coroner’s request the company’s senior management is invited to attend the inquest, it makes sense that someone should be required to appear to answer and follow up those questions. Again, on behalf of the bereaved families and specifically their legal representatives, who are very clear on the importance of this part of the regime, I ask the Government to reconsider this point and ask the Minister to undertake to speak to the department and the MoJ, if necessary, to make sure that, if senior managers are asked to attend court, they are mandated to do so.

Thirdly, I will touch on the additional commitments the Minister made beyond the Bill, the first of which is the upcoming Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. I am glad to report that some of the officials working on the Bill have already reached out, so I am grateful to the Minister that this is in train, but I expect it to include guidance for companies that will, at a minimum, cover data preservation orders and guidance about the privacy of other users in cases where a child has died. I think that privacy for other users is central to this being a good outcome for everybody, and I hope we are able to include that.

I am pleased to hear about the undertaking with the US regarding potential barriers, and I believe—and I would love to hear from the Minister—that the objective is to make a bilateral agreement that would allow data to be shared between the two countries in the case of a child’s death. It is very specific requirement, not a wide-ranging one. I believe, if we can do it on a bilateral basis, it would be easier than a broad attempt to change the data storage Act.

I turn finally to training for coroners. I was delighted that the Chief Coroner made a commitment to consider issuing non-legislative guidance and training on social media for coroners and the offer of consultation with experts, including Ofcom, the ICO and bereaved families and their representatives, but this commitment was made subject to funding. I ask the Minister to agree to discuss routes to funding from the levy via Ofcom’s digital literacy duty. I have proposed an amendment to the government amendment that would make that happen, but I would welcome the opportunity to discuss it with the Minister. Coroners must feel confident in their understanding of the digital world, and I am concerned that giving this new route to regulated companies via Ofcom without giving them training on how to use it may create a spectre of failure or further frustration and distress for bereaved families. I know there is not a person in the House who would want that to be the outcome of these welcome government amendments.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I also welcome this group of amendments. I remember a debate led by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, some time ago in the Moses Room, where we discussed this, and I said at the time I thought it would get fixed in the Online Safety Bill. I said that in a spirit of hope, not knowing any of the detail, and it is really satisfying to see the detail here today. As she said, it is testimony to the families, many of whom got in touch with me at that time, who have persisted in working to find a solution for other families—as the noble Baroness said, it is too late for them, but it will make a real difference to other families—and it is so impressive that, at a time of extreme grief and justifiable anger, people have been able to channel that into seeking these improvements.

The key in the amendments, which will make that difference, is that there will be a legal order to which the platforms know they have to respond. The mechanism that has been selected—the information notice—is excellent because it will become well known to every one of the 25,000 or so platforms that operate in the United Kingdom. When they get an information notice from Ofcom, that is not something that they will have discretion over; they will need to comply with it. That will make a huge difference.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on her amendments and to raise some concerns, in particular about Amendment 138. I do this as somebody who has had the perhaps unique experience of being leaned on by Governments around the world who sought to give us, as a platform, directions about how to handle content. The risk is real: when there is a huge public outcry and you are an elected politician, you must be seen to be doing something, and the thing that you have been doing to date is to go directly to the platforms and seek to lean on them to make the change that you want.

In future, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has pointed out quite a few times, we are moving the accountability from the platforms to our independent regulator, Ofcom—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that that is the right model, as it is an independent regulator. In these amendments we are considering a mechanism whereby that political outrage can still find an outlet, and that outlet will be a direction from the Secretary of State to the regulator asking it to change the guidance that it would otherwise have issued. It is really important that we dig into that and make sure that it does not prevent legitimate political activity but, at the same time, does not replicate the problem that we have had—the lack of transparency about decision-making inside companies, which has been resolved and addressed through leaks and whistleblowers. We do not want to be in a position in which understanding what has been happening in that decision-making process, now inside government, depends on leaks and whistleblowers. Having these directions published seems critical, and I worry a lot about Amendment 138 and how it will potentially mean that the directions are not published.

I have a couple of specific questions around that process to which I hope the Minister can respond. I understand how this will work: Ofcom will send its draft code of practice to the department and, inside the department, if the Secretary of State believes that there is an issue related to national security or there is another more limited set of conditions, they will be able to issue a direction. The direction may or may not have reasons with it; if the Secretary of State trusts Ofcom, they might give their reasons, but if the Secretary of State does not trust Ofcom with the information, they will give it the bare direction with no reasons. Clause 39 gives the Secretary of State the power to either give or withhold reasons, for reasons of national security. Ofcom will then come up with an amended version of the code of practice, reflecting the direction that it has been given.

The bit that I am really interested in is what happens from a Freedom of Information Act point of view. I hope that the Minister can clarify whether it would be possible for an individual exercising their Freedom of Information Act powers to seek the original draft code of practice as it went to the department. The final code of practice will be public, because it will come to us. It may be that we are in a situation in which you can see the original—Ofcom’s draft—and the final draft as it came to Parliament, and the only bit you cannot see under Amendment 138 is the actual direction itself, if the Secretary of State chooses to withhold it. That is quite critical, because we can anticipate that in these circumstances there will be Freedom of Information Act requests and a significant public interest in understanding any direction that was given that affected the speech of people in the United Kingdom. I would expect the ICO, unless there was some compelling reason, to want that original draft from Ofcom to be made public. That is one question around the interaction of the Freedom of Information Act and the process that we are setting out here, assuming that the Secretary of State has withheld their direction.

The other question is whether the Minister can enlighten us as to the circumstances in which he thinks the Secretary of State would be happy to publish the direction. We have said that this is now related only to very narrow national security interests and we have given them that get-out, so I am curious as to whether there are any examples of the kind of direction, in legislating for a power for the Secretary of State, that would meet the narrow criteria of being those exceptional circumstances, yet not be so sensitive—to use the double negative—that the Secretary of State would want to withhold it. If there were some examples of that, it might help assure us that the withholding of publication will be exceptional rather than routine.

My fear is that Section 138 says you can withhold in some circumstances. Actually, if we read it all together and say that, by definition, the direction comes from the fact that there is a national security concern, we end up with a situation in which the lack of publication has to be on national security grounds. Those two mirror each other, and therefore the norm may be that directions are never published. The Minister might allay our concerns if he could, at least in general terms, describe the kind of directions that would meet the gateway criteria for being permissible and yet not be so sensitive that the Secretary of State would not be comfortable with them being published.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this is indeed an apposite day to be discussing ongoing ping-pong. I am very happy to speak enthusiastically and more slowly about my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston’s Amendments 139 and 140. We are happy to support those, subject to some tidying up at Third Reading. We agree with the points that she has made and are keen to bring something forward which would mean broadly that a statement would be laid before Parliament when the power to direct had been used. My noble friend Lady Harding characterised them as the infinite ping-pong question and the secretive ping-pong question; I hope that deals with the secretive ping-pong point.

My noble friend Lady Stowell’s other amendments focus on the infinite ping-pong question, and the power to direct Ofcom to modify a code. Her Amendments 139, 140, 144 and 145 seek to address those concerns: that the Secretary of State could enter into a private form of ping-pong with Ofcom, making an unlimited number of directions on a code to prevent it from ever coming before Parliament. Let me first be clear that we do not foresee that happening. As the amendments I have spoken to today show, the power can be used only when specific exceptional reasons apply. In that sense, we agree with the intent of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Stowell. However, we cannot accept them as drafted because they rely on concepts— such as the “objective” of a direction—which are not consistent with the procedure for making a direction set out in the Bill.

The amendments I have brought forward mean that private ping-pong between the Secretary of State and Ofcom on a code is very unlikely to happen. Let me set out for my noble friend and other noble Lords why that is. The Secretary of State would need exceptional reasons for making any direction, and the Bill then requires that the code be laid before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable once the Secretary of State is satisfied that no further modifications to the draft are required. That does not leave room for the power to be used inappropriately. A code could be delayed in this way and in the way that noble Lords have set out only if the Secretary of State could show that there remained exceptional reasons once a code had been modified. This test, which is a very high bar, would need to be met each time. Under the amendments in my name, Parliament would also be made aware straightaway each time a direction was made, and when the modified code came before Parliament, it would now come under greater scrutiny using the affirmative procedure.

I certainly agree with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and others made that any directions should be made in as transparent a way as possible, which is why we have tabled these amendments. There may be some circumstances where the Secretary of State has access to information—for example, from the security services—the disclosure of which would have an adverse effect on national security. In our amendments, we have sought to retain the existing provisions in the Bill to make sure that we strike the right balance between transparency and protecting national security.

As the noble Lord mentioned, the Freedom of Information Act provides an additional route to transparency while also containing existing safeguards in relation to national security and other important areas. He asked me to think of an example of something that would be exceptional but not require that level of secrecy. By dropping economic policy and burden to business, I would point him to an example in those areas, but a concrete example evades me this afternoon. Those are the areas to which I would turn his attention.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

Can the Minister confirm that the fact that a direction has been made will always be known to the public, even if the substance of it is not because it is withheld under the secrecy provision? In other words, will the public always have a before and after knowledge of the fact of the direction, even if its substance is absent?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes; that is right.

I hope noble Lords will agree that the changes we have made and that I have outlined today as a package mean that we have reached the right balance in this area. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Stowell —who I see wants to come in—for the time that she too has given this issue, along with members of her committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The report must be read as a whole. I do not accept at all what the noble Lord has said. It is worth visiting the IPSO website, because he was very disparaging about the number of complaints that were upheld. IPSO is very transparent; its website shows all the decisions that were reached and the way in which they were reached. I invite those who doubt its independence to look at the constituent elements of those who are on the complaints committee and the board, and all the published decisions, in order to decide whether IPSO is indeed in the pockets of the press, which seemed to be the suggestion made by both noble Lords.

Of course, the approved regulator, Impress, has very little work to do. I am sure it does its work highly conscientiously. The code by which it regulates is remarkably similar to the editors’ code, which is produced by the industry, it is true, with contributions from all sorts of people. It varies from year to year. There is very little criticism of the editors’ code. It provides a very sensible and balanced view to make the press accountable, allowing the complaints committee to decide whether there has been a violation of the code.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that at last it has found the press to be in breach of that code in the recent complaint. It was interesting that the complaints body which I chair was alleged to not be independent of the press. It was roundly criticised by the press for coming to that decision—by the Times, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. At the same time, it is said that the organisation which I chair is not independent. It is of course independent and will continue to be so.

As for Section 40, before I had anything to do with press regulation, I did not like it. As a lawyer, the idea of somebody having a free hit against anybody is unattractive. Whatever you think of press regulation, I do not think that Section 40 should commend itself to anybody. As they have promised for some time, the Government are quite right to include it in the media Bill, which is to come before your Lordships’ House in due course. It has been a sword of Damocles hanging over the industry. It is not helpful, and I hope that it is repealed. I understand that the Labour Party and perhaps the Liberal Democrats will bring back something of that sort. I understand they may be opposing it when it comes into the media Bill, but that is a matter for them in due course.

Of course, the press should be accountable. Of course, it should be properly regulated. The idea of an independent regulator is to provide reassurance that it is being regulated, as opposed to, until this Bill becomes law, social media—which is not regulated—which provides a source for news which is considerably less reliable than all those newspapers which are subject to regulation.

This is not the occasion to go into further debates about Leveson, but it is perhaps worth rereading the Leveson report and the conclusions that Sir Brian reached—which I have done recently. It must be seen, as all reports, as very much of its time. It is particularly interesting to see the extent to which he promoted and advanced the cause of arbitration. Alternative dispute resolution is very much at the centre of what the legal profession as a whole, and Sir Brian Leveson and his committee in particular, advance as a much better way to resolve disputes. There is an arbitration scheme provided by IPSO, as noble Lords and the House may know. Of course, that is an option which we would encourage people to use—consistent with what Sir Brian and his committee recommended. It is not a substitute for going to court, and if people want to, they should be allowed to do so. However, I think there is a case for courts considering having directions whereby, at first, somebody seeking relief in the court should show that they have exhausted alternative remedies, including alternative dispute resolution. I am in favour of that.

On the idea of being Leveson-compliant—I do not think Sir Brian Leveson particularly likes that expression. He made various recommendations, many of which are reflected in what IPSO does now. I understand there is a great deal of history in this debate. I remember the debates myself. No doubt, we will return to them in due course, but I think we should fight today’s battles, and not the battles of 10 years ago or longer. I think the press is much more accountable and responsible than it was. Of course, as parliamentarians, we will carefully watch what the press do and consider carefully whether this exemption is merited. However, I do not think that this amendment is justified and I hope that the Government do not support it.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I want to bring the tone of the debate down somewhat to talk about government Amendments 158 and 161 in a rather nerdier fashion. I hope that the House will be patient with me as I do that.

The Minister said that these two amendments introduce some “minor changes” that would make the Bill work as intended. I want to explore whether they are rather more significant than the Minister has given them credit for, and whether they may have unintended consequences. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that all forms of video and audio content, in long form or short form, whether originally broadcast or made exclusively for social media, will now benefit from the news publisher exemptions.

Particularly thinking about this from a social media point of view—the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, just made the point about news publishers such as newspapers—when we have been looking at the Bill and the news publisher exemption, we have been thinking of the BBC and newspapers. We have been thinking a lot less about people who regard themselves to be news publishers but produce things exclusively for social media—often in a clickbait fashion, using a lot of short-form material. As I read these amendments, they are saying very clearly that this kind of material will benefit from the news publisher exemption. That opens up a whole series of questions we must ask ourselves about whether that will have unintended consequences.

Looking at this in the context of what it takes to be registered as a news publisher in Clause 50, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, referred to the fact that there is an intention and a view that Clause 50 should be kept broad so that people can register as news publishers. Clearly, that is good for media diversity, but if we look at those tests, they are tests that I think that a lot of organisations could pass. We must ask ourselves who might try to establish themselves as a recognised news publisher. They would need to have an office in the United Kingdom. They would also need to apply our standards code, but Clause 50(6)(b) says that the standards code can be their own standards code—it does not have to be anyone else’s.

I am not going to get into a debate about who should be the press regulator; that is for other noble Lords. As I read it, these internet services could pass the Clause 50(2) test by establishing the office and meeting a few basic requirements, then under Clause 50(6)(b) say, “I’ve got a standards code. It’s my standards code. I’ve written it—on the back of an envelope but it’s a standards code”. Then we need to think about who might want to take advantage of that material. My reading of the Bill, thinking about intention, is that services such as Breitbart News—which is not my cup of tea, but is a recognised news publisher—would pass the test and would be able to establish themselves as a news publisher in the UK, benefiting from the exemptions. Whether or not I agree with it, I can see that is a reasonable unintended outcome.

My concern is about other services, such as Infowars, which I am sure everybody is familiar with. It is a service that has caused untold harm and has been sued in the US courts for defamation—which is a pretty high bar. Infowars has clearly caused so much harm that it has found itself on the wrong end of defamation lawsuits in the United States. I do not think it should in any way be our intention that a service such as Infowars should be able to benefit from the special privileges granted to news publishers under the legislation. I know that it is hard to draw lines, and I am not expecting the Minister to say at the Dispatch Box exactly where the line should be drawn. However, I think that without citing examples such as that, we risk not testing the legislation to destruction—which is precisely what we should be doing here—and ending up in a scenario where we have created a news publisher exemption that could be taken advantage of by the wrong organisations. Someone has to draw a line and make a classification.

As we create this news publisher exemption, it is incumbent on us to describe it to people out there in vernacular terms they would understand. My understanding is that the BBC, the Daily Mail, Breitbart News—all those are in. We expect them to be able to pass the Clause 50 test and we have no problem with that. Russia Today, Infowars and a whole host of other services that brand themselves news but are incredibly harmful and destructive to society and individuals—we would want them to fail the Clause 50 test.

I hope the Minister will at least acknowledge that there is going to be a challenge around bad services run by bad people claiming to be news publishers under Clause 50. I hope he will agree that it is not our intention to give publisher privileges to services such as Infowars that cause so much harm to society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

As I opened up that question, just to be clear, I was saying that it is exactly right that an individual user would not be covered, but I was trying to suggest that a social media-only news service that does not exist as a publication or a broadcaster outside social media, if it meets the Clause 50 test to be a recognised news publisher, should be given extra scope under the amendments.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I hope they do not, and I think the Minister has to answer that question quite directly. The issue here is about quality material that would otherwise be taken down being kept in place so that we can all as a society be informed by that. That does not mean it needs to be from particular sources that we know to be egregious or running material which is certainly not in the public interest. Again, I make the point that that would have been a better way of approaching this in the legislation, but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, who knows his stuff—I often think we ought to bottle him and carry it around so we can take a whiff of his expertise and knowledge every time we get stuck on a problem, but I am not quite sure how we manage that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, child sexual exploitation or abuse is an abhorrent crime. Reporting allows victims to be identified and offenders apprehended. It is vital that in-scope companies retain the data included in reports made to the National Crime Agency. This will enable effective prosecutions and ensure that children can be protected.

The amendments in my name in this group will enable the Secretary of State to include in the regulations about the reporting of child sexual exploitation or abuse content a requirement for providers to retain data. This requirement will be triggered only by a provider making a report of suspected child sexual exploitation or abuse to the National Crime Agency. The provider will need to retain the data included in the report, along with any associated account data. This is vital to enabling prosecutions and to ensuring that children can be protected, because data in reports cannot be used as evidence. Law enforcement agencies request this data only when they have determined that the content is in fact illegal and that it is necessary to progress investigations.

Details such as the types of data and the period of time for which providers must retain this data will be specified in regulations. This will ensure that the requirement is future-proofed against new types of data and will prevent companies retaining types of data that may have become obsolete. The amendments will also enable regulations to include any necessary safeguards in relation to data protection. However, providers will be expected to store, process and share this personal data within the UK GDPR framework.

Regulations about child sexual exploitation or abuse reporting will undergo a robust consultation with relevant parties and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This process will ensure that the regulations about retaining data will be well-informed, effective and fit for purpose. These amendments bring the child sexual exploitation and abuse reporting requirements into line with international standards. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, these seem very sensible amendments. I am curious about why they have arrived only at this stage, given this was a known problem and that the Bill has been drafted over a long period. I am genuinely curious as to why this issue has been raised only now.

On the substance of the amendments, it seems entirely sensible that, given that we are now going to have 20,000 to 25,000 regulated entities in scope, some of which will never have encountered child sexual exploitation or abuse material or understood that they have a legal duty in relation to it, it will be helpful for them to have a clear set of regulations that tell them how to treat their material.

Child sexual exploitation or abuse material is toxic in both a moral and a legal sense. It needs to be treated almost literally as toxic material inside a company, and sometimes that is not well understood. People feel that they can forward material to someone else, not understanding that in doing so they will break the law. I have had experiences where well-meaning people acting in a vigilante capacity sent material to me, and at that point you have to report them to police. There are no ifs or buts. They have committed an offence in doing so. As somebody who works inside a company, your computer has to be quarantined and taken off and cleaned, just as it would be for any other toxic material, because we framed the law, quite correctly, to say that we do not want to offer people the defence of saying “I was forwarding this material because I’m a good guy”. Forwarding the material is a strict liability offence, so to have regulations that explain, particularly to organisations that have never dealt with this material, exactly how they have to deal with it in order to be legally compliant will be extremely helpful.

One thing I want to flag is that there are going to be some really fundamental cross-border issues that have to be addressed. In many instances of child sexual exploitation or abuse material, the material has been shared between people in different jurisdictions. The provider may not be in a UK jurisdiction, and we have got to avoid any conflicts of laws. I am sure the Government are thinking about this, but in drafting those regulations, what we cannot do, for example, is order a provider to retain data in a way that would be illegal in the jurisdiction from which it originates or in which it has its headquarters. The same would apply vice versa. We would not expect a foreign Government to order a UK company to act in a way that was against UK law in dealing with child sexual exploitation or abuse material. This all has to be worked out. I hope the Government are conscious of that.

I think the public interest is best served if the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, in particular, adopt common standards around this. I do not think there is anything between us in terms of how we would want to approach child sexual exploitation or abuse material, so the extent to which we end up having common legal standards will be extraordinarily helpful.

As a general matter, to have regulations that help companies with their compliance is going to be very helpful. I am curious as to how we have got there with the amendment only at this very late stage.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to make a slightly lesser point, but I also welcome these amendments. I want to ask the Minister where the consultation piece of this will lie and to check that all the people who have been in this space for many years will be consulted.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

I do not think we have time to wait for the report that my noble friend seeks. This is the long-awaited Online Safety Bill. We have been warned by the inventors of neural networks and leaders in AI and alternate realities that we are at a crossroads between human and machine. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the Bill is fit not only for the past but for the future. In order to do that, they need to look at the definitions—as they did so admirably in Part 5—but also at some of the exceptions they have carved out so that they can say that the Bill truly ends the era of exceptionality in which harms online are treated differently from those offline. My view is that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay should not be necessary at this stage. But, if the Minister cannot confirm that it is already covered, perhaps he will indicate his willingness to accept the amendment.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will make some arguments in favour of Amendment 191A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and inject some notes of caution around Amendment 186A.

On Amendment 191A, it has been my experience that when people frequently investigate something that has happened on online services, they do it well, and well-formed requests are critical to making this work effectively. This was the case with law enforcement: when an individual police officer is investigating something online for the first time, they often ask the wrong questions. They do not understand what they can get and what they cannot get. It is like everything in life: the more you do it, the better you get at it.

Fortunately, in a sense, most coroners will only very occasionally have to deal with these awful circumstances where they need data related to the death of a child. At that point, they are going to be very dependent on Ofcom—which will be dealing with the companies day in and day out across a range of issues—for its expertise. Therefore, it makes absolute sense that Ofcom’s expertise should be distributed widely and that coroners—at the point where they need to access this information—should be able to rely on that. So Amendment 191A is very well intended and, from a practical point of view, very necessary if we are going to make this new system work as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I would like to see it work.

On Amendment 186A around consumer law, I can see the attraction of this, as well as some of the read-across from the United States. A lot of the enforcement against online platforms in the US takes place through the Federal Trade Commission precisely in this area of consumer law and looking at unfair and deceptive practices. I can see the attraction of seeking to align with European Union law, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, argued we should be doing with respect to consumer law. However, I think this would be much better dealt with in the context of the digital markets Bill and it would be a mistake to squeeze it in here. My reasons for this are about both process and substance.

In terms of process, we have not done the impact assessment on this. It is quite a major change, for two reasons. First, it could potentially have a huge impact in terms of legal costs and the way businesses will have to deal with that—although I know nobody is going to get too upset if the impact assessment says there will be a significant increase in legal costs for category 1 companies. However, we should at least flesh these things out when we are making regulations and have them in an impact assessment before going ahead and doing something that would have a material impact.

Secondly in process terms, there are some really interesting questions about the way this might affect the market. The consumer law we have does exclude services that are offered for free, because so much of consumer law is about saying, “If the goods are not delivered correctly, you get your money back”. With free services, we are clearly dealing with a different model, so the notion that we have a law that is geared towards making sure you either get the goods or you get the money may not be the best fit. To try to shoehorn in these free-at-the-point-of-use services may not be the best way to do it, even from a markets and consumer point of view. Taking our time to think about how to get this right would make sense.

More fundamentally, in terms of the substance, we need to recognise that, as a result of the Online Safety Bill, Ofcom will be requiring regulated services to rewrite their terms of service in quite a lot of detail. We see this throughout the Bill. We are going to have to do all sorts of things—we will debate other amendments in this area today—to make sure that their terms of service are conformant with what we want from them in this Bill. They are going to have to redo their complaints and redress mechanisms. All of this is going to have to change and Ofcom is going to be the regulator that tells them how to do it; that is what we are asking Ofcom to tell them to do.

My fundamental concern here, if we introduce another element, is that there is a whole different structure under consumer law where you might go to local trading standards or the CMA, or you might launch a private action. In many cases, this may overlap. The overlap is where consumer law states that goods must be provided with reasonable care and skill and in a reasonable time. That sounds great, but it is also what the Online Safety Bill is going to be doing. We do not want consumer law saying, “You need to write your terms of service this way and handle complaints this way”, and then Ofcom coming along and saying, “No, you must write your terms of service that way and handle complaints that way”. We will end up in a mess. So I just think that, from a practical point of view, we should be very focused in this Bill on getting all of this right from an Online Safety Bill point of view, and very cautious about introducing another element.

Perhaps one of the attractions of the consumer law point for those who support the amendment is that it says, “Your terms must be fair”. It is the US model; you cannot have unfair terms. Again, I can imagine a scenario in which somebody goes to court and tries to get the terms struck down because they are unfair but the platform says, “They’re the terms Ofcom told me to write. Sort this out, please, because Ofcom is saying I need to do this but the courts are now saying the thing I did was unfair because somebody feels that they were badly treated”.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Does the noble Lord accept that that is already a possibility? You can bring an action in contract law against them on the grounds that it is an unfair contract. This could happen already. It is as if the noble Lord is not aware that the possibility of individual action for breach of contract is already built into Clause 65. This measure simply supplements it.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I am certainly aware that it is there but, again, the noble Lord has just made the point himself: this supplements it. The intent of the amendment is to give consumers more rights under this additional piece of legislation; otherwise, why bother with the amendment at all? The noble Lord may be arguing against himself in saying that this is unnecessary and, at the same time, that we need to make the change. If we make the change, it is, in a sense, a material change to open the door to more claims being made under consumer law that terms are unfair. As I say, we may want this outcome to happen eventually, but I find it potentially conflicting to do it precisely at a time when we are getting Ofcom to intervene much more closely in setting those terms. I am simply arguing, “Let’s let that regime settle down”.

The net result and rational outcome—again, I am speaking to my noble friend’s Amendment 253 here—may be that other regulators end up deferring to Ofcom. If Ofcom is the primary regulator and we have told it, under the terms of the Online Safety Bill, “You must require platforms to operate in this way, handle complaints in this way and have terms that do these things, such as excluding particular forms of language and in effect outlawing them on platforms”, the other regulators will eventually end up deferring to it. All I am arguing is that, at this stage, it is premature to try to introduce a second, parallel route for people to seek changes to terms or different forms of redress, however tempting that may be. So I am suggesting a note of caution. It is not that we are starting from Ground Zero—people have routes to go forward today—but I worry about introducing something that I think people will see as material at this late stage, having not looked at the full impact of it and potentially running in conflict with everything else that we are trying to do in this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, transparency and accountability are at the heart of the regulatory framework that the Bill seeks to establish. It is vital that Ofcom has the powers it needs to require companies to publish online safety information and to scrutinise their systems and processes, particularly their algorithms. The Government agree about the importance of improving data sharing with independent researchers while recognising the nascent evidence base and the complexities of this issue, which we explored in Committee. We are pleased to be bringing forward a number of amendments to strengthen platforms’ transparency, which confer on Ofcom new powers to assess how providers’ algorithms work, which accelerate the development of the evidence base regarding researchers’ access to information and which require Ofcom to produce guidance on this issue.

Amendment 187 in my name makes changes to Clause 65 on category 1 providers’ duties to create clear and accessible terms of service and apply them consistently and transparently. The amendment tightens the clause to ensure that all the providers’ terms through which they might indicate that a certain kind of content is not allowed on its service are captured by these duties.

Amendment 252G is a drafting change, removing a redundant paragraph from the Bill in relation to exceptions to the legislative definition of an enforceable requirement in Schedule 12.

In relation to transparency, government Amendments 195, 196, 198 and 199 expand the types of information that Ofcom can require category 1, 2A and 2B providers to publish in their transparency reports. With thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his engagement on this issue, we are pleased to table these amendments, which will allow Ofcom to require providers to publish information relating to the formulation, development and scope of user-to-user service providers’ terms of service and search service providers’ public statements of policies and procedures. This is in addition to the existing transparency provision regarding their application.

Amendments 196 and 199 would enable Ofcom to require providers to publish more information in relation to algorithms, specifically information about the design and operation of algorithms that affect the display, promotion, restriction, discovery or recommendation of content subject to the duties in the Bill. These changes will enable greater public scrutiny of providers’ terms of service and their algorithms, providing valuable information to users about the platforms that they are using.

As well as publicly holding platforms to account, the regulator must be able to get under the bonnet and scrutinise the algorithms’ functionalities and the other systems and processes that they use. Empirical tests are a standard method for understanding the performance of an algorithmic system. They involve taking a test data set, running it through an algorithmic system and observing the output. These tests may be relevant for assessing the efficacy and wider impacts of content moderation technology, age-verification systems and recommender systems.

Government Amendments 247A, 250A, 252A, 252B, 252C, 252D, 252E and 252F will ensure that Ofcom has the powers to enable it to direct and observe such tests remotely. This will significantly bolster Ofcom’s ability to assess how a provider’s algorithms work, and therefore to assess its compliance with the duties in the Bill. I understand that certain technology companies have voiced some concerns about these powers, but I reassure your Lordships that they are necessary and proportionate.

The powers will be subject to a number of safeguards. First, they are limited to viewing information. Ofcom will be unable to remotely access or interfere with the service for any other purpose when exercising the power. These tests would be performed offline, meaning that they would not affect the services’ provision or the experience of users. Assessing systems, processes, features and functionalities is the focus of the powers. As such, individual user data and content are unlikely to be the focus of any remote access to view information.

Additionally, the power can be used only where it is proportionate to use in the exercise of Ofcom’s functions—for example, when investigating whether a regulated service has complied with relevant safety duties. A provider would have a right to bring a legal challenge against Ofcom if it considered that a particular exercise of the power was unlawful. Furthermore, Ofcom will be under a legal obligation to ensure that the information gathered from services is protected from disclosure, unless clearly defined exemptions apply.

The Bill contains no restriction on services making the existence and detail of the information notice public. Should a regulated service wish to challenge an information notice served to it by Ofcom, it would be able to do so through judicial review. In addition, the amendments create no restrictions on the use of this power being viewable to members of the public through a request, such as those under the Freedom of Information Act—noting that under Section 393 of the Communications Act, Ofcom will not be able to disclose information it has obtained through its exercise of these powers without the provider’s consent, unless permitted for specific, defined purposes. These powers are necessary and proportionate and will that ensure Ofcom has the tools to understand features and functionalities and the risks associated with them, and therefore the tools to assess companies’ compliance with the Bill.

Finally, I turn to researchers’ access to data. We recognise the valuable work of researchers in improving our collective understanding of the issues we have debated throughout our scrutiny of the Bill. However, we are also aware that we need to develop the evidence base to ensure that any sharing of sensitive information between companies and researchers can be done safely and securely. To this end, we are pleased to table government Amendments 272B, 272C and 272D.

Government Amendment 272B would require Ofcom to publish its report into researcher access to information within 18 months, rather than two years. This report will provide the evidence base for government Amendments 272C and 272D, which would require Ofcom to publish guidance on this issue. This will provide valuable, evidence-based guidance on how to improve access for researchers safely and securely.

That said, we understand the calls for further action in this area. The Government will explore this issue further and report back to your Lordships’ House on whether further measures to support researchers’ access to data are required—and if so, whether they could be implemented through other legislation, such as the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 247B in my name was triggered by government Amendment 247A, which the Minister just introduced. I want to explain it, because the government amendment is quite late—it has arrived on Report—so we need to look in some detail at what the Government have proposed. The phrasing that has caused so much concern, which the Minister has acknowledged, is that Ofcom will be able to

“remotely access the service provided by the person”.

It is those words—“remotely access”—which are trigger words for anyone who lived through the Snowden disclosures, where everyone was so concerned about remote access by government agencies to precisely the same services we are talking about today: social media services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions in this group. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, on why we are bringing in some of these powers now, I say that the power to direct and observe algorithms was previously implicit within Ofcom’s information powers and, where a provider has UK premises, under powers of entry, inspection and audit under Schedule 12. However, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which is set to confer similar powers on the Competition and Markets Authority and its digital markets unit, makes these powers explicit. We wanted to ensure that there was no ambiguity over whether Ofcom had equivalent powers in the light of that. Furthermore, the changes we are making ensure that Ofcom can direct and observe algorithmic assessments even if a provider does not have relevant premises or equipment in the UK.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, for inviting me to re-emphasise points and allay the concerns that have been triggered, as his noble friend Lord Clement-Jones put it. I am happy to set out again a bit of what I said in opening this debate. The powers will be subject to a number of safeguards. First, they are limited to “viewing information”. They can be used only where they are proportionate in the exercise of Ofcom’s functions, and a provider would have the right to bring a legal challenge against Ofcom if it considered that a particular exercise of the power was done unlawfully. Furthermore, Ofcom will be under a legal obligation to ensure that the information gathered from services is protected from disclosure, unless clearly defined exemptions apply.

These are not secret powers, as the noble Lord rightly noted. The Bill contains no restriction on services making the existence and detail of the information notice public. If a regulated service wished to challenge an information notice served to it by Ofcom, it would be able to do so through judicial review. I also mentioned the recourse that people have through existing legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act, to give them safeguards, noting that, under Section 393 of the Communications Act, Ofcom will not be able to disclose information that it has obtained through its exercise of these powers without the provider’s consent unless that is permitted for specific, defined purposes.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 247B seeks to place further safeguards on Ofcom’s use of its new power to access providers’ systems remotely to observe tests. While I largely agree with the intention behind it, there are already a number of safeguards in place for the use of that power, including in relation to data protection, legally privileged material and the disclosure of information, as I have outlined. Ofcom will not be able to gain remote access simply for exploratory or fishing purposes, and indeed Ofcom expects to have conversations with services about how to provide the information requested.

Furthermore, before exercising the power, Ofcom will be required to issue an information notice specifying the information to be provided, setting out the parameters of access and why Ofcom requires the information, among other things. Following the receipt of an information notice, a notice requiring an inspection or an audit notice, if a company has identified that there is an obvious security risk in Ofcom exercising the power as set out in the notice, it may not be proportionate to do so. As set out in Ofcom’s duties, Ofcom must have regard to the principles under which regulatory activities should be proportionate and targeted only at cases where action is needed.

In line with current practice, we anticipate Ofcom will issue information notice requests in draft form to identify and address any issues, including in relation to security, before the information notice is issued formally. Ofcom will have a legal duty to exercise its remote access powers in a way that is proportionate, ensuring that undue burdens are not placed on businesses. In assessing proportionality in line with this requirement, Ofcom would need to consider the size and resource capacity of a service when choosing the most appropriate way of gathering information, and whether there was a less onerous method of obtaining the necessary information to ensure that the use of this power is proportionate. As I said, the remote access power is limited to “viewing information”. Under this power, Ofcom will be unable to interfere or access the service for any other purpose.

In practice, Ofcom will work with services during the process. It is required to specify, among other things, the information to be provided, which will set the parameters of its access, and why it requires the information, which will explain the link between the information it seeks and the online safety function that it is exercising or deciding whether to exercise.

As noble Lords know, Ofcom must comply with the UK’s data protection law. As we have discussed in relation to other issues, it is required to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 8 privacy rights. In addition, under Clause 91(7), Ofcom is explicitly prohibited from requiring the provision of legally privileged information. It will also be under a legal obligation to ensure that the information gathered from services is protected from disclosure unless clearly defined exemptions apply, such as those under Section 393(2) of the Communications Act 2003—for example, the carrying out of any of Ofcom’s functions. I hope that provides reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who raised these questions.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister. That was helpful, particularly the description of the process and the fact that drafts have to be issued early on. However, it still leaves open a couple of questions, one of which was very helpfully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. We have in Schedule 12 this other set of protections that could be applied. There is a genuine question as to why this has been put in this place and not there.

The second question is to dig a little more into the question of what happens when there is a dispute. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out that if you have created a backdoor then you have created a backdoor, and it is dangerous. If we end up in a situation where a company believes that what it is being asked to do by Ofcom is fundamentally problematic and would create a security risk, it will not be good enough to open up the backdoor and then have a judicial review. It needs to be able to say no at that stage, yet the Bill says that it could be committing a serious criminal offence by failing to comply with an information notice. We want some more assurances, in some form, about what would happen in a scenario where a company genuinely and sincerely believes that what Ofcom is asking for is inappropriate and/or dangerous and it wants not to have to offer it unless and until its challenge has been looked at, rather than having to offer it and then later judicially review a decision. The damage would already have been done by opening up an inappropriate backdoor.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

A provider would have a right to bring a legal challenge against Ofcom if it considered that a particular exercise of the remote access power was unlawful. I am sure that would be looked at swiftly, but I will write to the noble Lord on the anticipated timelines while that judicial review was pending. Given the serious nature of the issues under consideration, I am sure that would be looked at swiftly. I will write further on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We do not think that six weeks is enough time for the evidence base to develop sufficiently, our assessment being that to endow the Secretary of State with that power at this point is premature.

Amendment 262AA would require Ofcom to consider whether it is appropriate to require providers to take steps to comply with Ofcom’s researcher access guidance when including a requirement to take steps in a confirmation decision. This would be inappropriate because the researcher access provisions are not enforceable requirements; as such, compliance with them should not be subject to enforcement by the regulator. Furthermore, enforcement action may relate to a wide variety of very important issues, and the steps needed should be sufficient to address a failure to comply with an enforceable requirement. Singling out compliance with researcher access guidance alone risks implying that this will be adequate to address core failures.

Amendment 272AB would require Ofcom to give consideration to whether greater access to data could be achieved through legal requirements or incentives for regulated services. I reassure noble Lords that the scope of Ofcom’s report will already cover how greater access to data could be achieved, including through enforceable requirements on providers.

Amendment 272E would require Ofcom to take a provider’s compliance with Ofcom’s guidance on researcher access to data into account when assessing risks from regulated services and determining whether to take enforcement action and what enforcement action to take. However, we do not believe that this is a relevant factor for consideration of these issues. I hope noble Lords will agree that whether or not a company has enabled researcher access to its data should not be a mitigating factor against Ofcom requiring companies to deal with terrorism or child sexual exploitation or abuse content, for example.

On my noble friend Lord Bethell’s remaining Amendments 272BA, 273A and 273B, the first of these would require Ofcom to publish its report on researchers’ access to information within six months. While six months would not be deliverable given other priorities and the complexity of this issue, the government amendment to which I have spoken would reduce the timelines from two years to 18 months. That recognises the importance of the issue while ensuring that Ofcom can deliver the key priorities in establishing the core parts of the regulatory framework; for example, the illegal content and child safety duties.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

Just on the timescale, one of the issues that we talked about in Committee was the fact that there needs to be some kind of mechanism created, with a code of practice with reference to data protection law and an approving body to approve researchers as suitable to take information; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, referred to the DSA process, which the European Union has been working on. I hope the Minister can confirm that Ofcom might get moving on establishing that. It is not dependent on there being a report in 18 months; in fact, you need to have it in place when you report in 18 months, which means you need to start building it now. I hope the Minister would want Ofcom, within its existing framework, to be encouraging the creation of that researcher approval body and code of practice, not waiting to start that process in 18 months’ time.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will continue my train of thought on my noble friend’s amendments, which I hope will cover that and more.

My noble friend’s Amendment 273A would allow Ofcom to appoint approved independent researchers to access information. Again, given the nascent evidence base here, it is important to focus on understanding these issues before we commit to a researcher access framework.

Under the skilled persons provisions, Ofcom will already have the powers to appoint a skilled person to assess compliance with the regulatory framework; that includes the ability to leverage the expertise of independent researchers. My noble friend’s Amendment 273B would require Ofcom to produce a code of practice on access to data by researchers. The government amendments I spoke to earlier will require Ofcom to produce guidance on that issue, which will help to promote information sharing in a safe and secure way.

To the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Allan: yes, Ofcom can start the process and do it quickly. The question here is really about the timeframe in which it does so. As I said in opening, we understand the calls for further action in this area.

I am happy to say to my noble friend Lord Bethell, to whom we are grateful for his work on this and the conversations we have had, that we will explore the issue further and report back on whether further measures to support researchers’ access to data are required and, if so, whether they can be implemented through other legislation, such as the Data Protection and Digital Information (No.2) Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 158 is one of the more mysterious clauses in the Bill and it would greatly benefit from a clear elucidation by the Minister of how it is intended to work to reduce harm. I thank him for having sent me an email this afternoon as we started on the Bill, for which I am grateful; I had only a short time to consider it but I very much hope that he will put its content on the record.

My amendment is designed to ask how the Minister envisages using the power to direct if, say, there is a new contagious disease or riots, and social media is a major factor in the spread of the problem. I am trying to erect some kind of hypothetical situation through which the Minister can say how the power will be used. Is the intention, for example, to set Ofcom the objective of preventing the spread of information on regulated services injurious to public health or safety on a particular network for six months? The direction then forces the regulator and the social media companies to confront the issue and perhaps publicly shame an individual company into using their tools to slow the spread of disinformation. The direction might give Ofcom powers to gather sufficient information from the company to make directions to the company to tackle the problem.

If that is envisaged, which of Ofcom’s media literacy powers does the Minister envisage being used? Might it be Section 11(1)(e) of the Communications Act 2003, which talks about encouraging

“the development and use of technologies and systems for regulating access to such material, and for facilitating control over what material is received, that are both effective and easy to use”.

By this means, Ofcom might encourage a social media company to regulate access to and control over the material that is a threat.

Perhaps the Minister could set out clearly how he intends all this to work, because on a straight reading of Clause 158, we on these Benches have considerable concerns. The threshold for direction is low—merely having

“reasonable grounds for believing that circumstances exist”—

and there is no sense here of the emergency that the then Minister, Mr Philp, cited in the Commons Public Bill Committee on 26 May 2022, nor even of the exceptional circumstances in Amendment 138 to Clause 39, which the Minister tabled recently. The Minister is not compelled by the clause to consult experts in public health, safety or national security. The Minister can set any objectives for Ofcom, it seems. There is no time limit for the effect of the direction and it seems that the direction can be repeatedly extended with no limit. If the Minister directs because they believe there is a threat to national security, we will have the curious situation of a public process being initiated for reasons the Minister is not obliged to explain.

Against this background, there does not seem to be a case for breaching the international convention of the Government not directing a media regulator. Independence of media regulators is the norm in developed democracies, and the UK has signed many international statements in this vein. As recently as April 2022, the Council of Europe stated:

“Media and communication governance should be independent and impartial to avoid undue influence on policymaking or”


the discriminatory and

“preferential treatment of powerful groups”,

including those with significant political or economic power. The Secretary of State, by contrast, has no powers over Ofcom regarding the content of broadcast regulation and has limited powers to direct over radio spectrum and wireless, but not content. Ofcom’s independence in day-to-day decision-making is paramount to preserving freedom of expression. There are insufficient safeguards in this clause, which is why I argue that it should not stand part of the Bill.

I will be brief about Clause 159 because, by and large, we went through it in our debate on a previous group. Now that we can see the final shape of the Bill, it really does behove us to stand back and see where the balance has settled on Ofcom’s independence and whether this clause needs to stand part of the Bill. The Secretary of State has extensive powers under various other provisions in the Bill. The Minister has tabled welcome amendments to Clause 39, which have been incorporated into the Bill, but Clause 155 still allows the Secretary of State to issue a “statement of strategic priorities”, including specific outcomes, every five years.

Clause 159 is in addition to this comprehensive list, but the approach in the clause is incredibly broad. We have discussed this, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has tabled an amendment that would require parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State can issue guidance to Ofcom on more or less anything encompassed by the exercise of its functions under this Act, with no consultation of the public or Parliament prior to making such guidance. The time limit for producing strategic guidance is three years rather than five. Even if it is merely “have regard” guidance, it represents an unwelcome intervention in Ofcom going about its business. If the Minister responds that the guidance is merely “to have regard”, I will ask him to consider this: why have it all, then, when there are so many other opportunities for the Government to intervene? For the regulated companies, it represents a regulatory hazard of interference in independent regulation and a lack of stability. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said in Committee, a clear benefit of regulatory independence is that it reduces lobbying of the Minister by powerful corporate interests.

Now that we can see it in context, I very much hope that the Minister will agree that Clause 159 is a set of guidance too many that compromises Ofcom’s independence and should not stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will add to my noble friend’s call for us to consider whether Clause 158 should be struck from the Bill as an unnecessary power for the Secretary of State to take. We have discussed powers for the Secretary of State throughout the Bill, with some helpful improvements led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. This one jars in particular because it is about media literacy; some of the other powers related to whether the Secretary of State could intervene on the codes of practice that Ofcom would issue. The core question is whether we trust Ofcom’s discretion in delivering media literacy and whether we need the Secretary of State to have any kind of power to intervene.

I single out media literacy because the clue is in the name: literacy is a generic skill that you acquire about dealing with the online world; it is not about any specific text. Literacy is a broader set of skills, yet Clause 158 has a suggestion that, in response to specific forms of content or a specific crisis happening in the world, the Secretary of State would want to takesb this power to direct the media literacy efforts. To take something specific and immediate to direct something that is generic and long-term jars and seems inappropriate.

I have a series of questions for the Minister to elucidate why this power should exist at all. It would be helpful to have an example of what kind of “public statement notice”—to use the language in the clause—the Government might want to issue that Ofcom would not come up with on its own. Part of the argument we have been presented with is that, somehow, the Government might have additional information, but it seems quite a stretch that they could come up with that. In an area such as national security, my experience has been that companies often have a better idea of what is going on than anybody in government.

Thousands of people out there in the industry are familiar with APT 28 and APT 29 which, as I am sure all noble Lords know, are better known by their names Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear. These are agents of the Russian state that put out misinformation. There is nothing that UK agencies or the Secretary of State might know about them that is not already widely known. I remember talking about the famous troll factory run by Prigozhin, the Internet Research Agency, with people in government in the context of Russian interference—they would say “Who?” and have to go off and find out. In dealing with threats such as that between the people in the companies and Ofcom, you certainly want a media literacy campaign which tells you about these troll agencies and how they operate and gives warnings to the public, but I struggle to see why you need the Secretary of State to intervene as opposed to allowing Ofcom’s experts to work with company experts and come up with a strategy to deal with those kinds of threat.

The other example cited of an area where the Secretary of State might want to intervene is public health and safety. It would be helpful to be specific; had they had it, how would the Government have used this power during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021? Does the Minister have examples of what they were frustrated about and would have done with these powers that Ofcom would not do anyway in working with the companies directly? I do not see that they would have had secret information which would have meant that they had to intervene rather than trusting Ofcom and the companies to do it.

Perhaps there has been an interdepartmental workshop between DHSC, DCMS and others to cook up this provision. I assume that Clause 158 did not come from nowhere. Someone must have thought, “We need these powers in Clause 158 because we were missing them previously”. Are there specific examples of media literacy campaigns that could not be run, where people in government were frustrated and therefore wanted a power to offer it in future? It would be really helpful to hear about them so that we can understand exactly how the Clause 158 powers will be used before we allow this additional power on to the statute book.

In the view of most people in this Chamber, the Bill as a whole quite rightly grants the Government and Ofcom, the independent regulator, a wide range of powers. Here we are looking specifically at where the Government will, in a sense, overrule the independent regulator by giving it orders to do something it had not thought of doing itself. It is incumbent on the Government to flesh that out with some concrete examples so that we can understand why they need this power. At the moment, as noble Lords may be able to tell, these Benches are not convinced that they do.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The danger with Clause 158 is that it discredits media literacy as something benign or anodyne; it will become a political plaything. I am already sceptical, but if ever there was anything to add to this debate then it is that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the need for Clauses 158 and 159. The amendments in this group consider the role of government in two specific areas: the power for the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom about its media literacy functions in special circumstances and the power for the Secretary of State to issue non-binding guidance to Ofcom. I will take each in turn.

Amendment 219 relates to Clause 158, on the Secretary of State’s power to direct Ofcom in special circumstances. These include where there is a significant threat to public safety, public health or national security. This is a limited power to enable the Secretary of State to set specific objectives for Ofcom’s media literacy activity in such circumstances. It allows the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom to issue public statement notices to regulated service providers, requiring providers to set out the steps they are taking to address the threat. The regulator and online platforms are thereby compelled to take essential and transparent actions to keep the public sufficiently informed during crises. The powers ensure that the regulatory framework is future-proofed and well equipped to respond in such circumstances.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, outlined, I corresponded with him very shortly before today’s debate and am happy to set out a bit more detail for the benefit of the rest of the House. As I said to him by email, we expect the media literacy powers to be used only in exceptional circumstances, where it is right that the Secretary of State should have the power to direct Ofcom. The Government see the need for an agile response to risk in times of acute crisis, such as we saw during the Covid-19 pandemic or in relation to the war in Ukraine. There may be a situation in which the Government have access to information, through the work of the security services or otherwise, which Ofcom does not. This power enables the Secretary of State to make quick decisions when the public are at risk.

Our expectation is that, in exceptional circumstances, Ofcom would already be taking steps to address harm arising from the provision of regulated services through its existing media literacy functions. However, these powers will allow the Secretary of State to step in if necessary to ensure that the regulator is responding effectively to these sudden threats. It is important to note that, for transparency, the Secretary of State will be required to publish the reasons for issuing a direction to Ofcom in these circumstances. This requirement does not apply should the circumstances relate to national security, to protect sensitive information.

The noble Lord asked why we have the powers under Clause 158 when they do not exist in relation to broadcast media. We believe that these powers are needed with respect to social media because, as we have seen during international crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic, social media platforms can sadly serve as hubs for low-quality, user-generated information that is not required to meet journalistic standards, and that can pose a direct threat to public health. By contrast, Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code ensures that broadcast news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. Ofcom can fine, or ultimately revoke a licence to broadcast in the most extreme cases, if that code is breached. This means that regulated broadcasters can be trusted to strive to communicate credible, authoritative information to their audiences in a way that social media cannot.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

We established in our last debate that the notion of a recognised news publisher will go much broader than a broadcaster. I put it to the Minister that we could end up in an interesting situation where one bit of the Bill says, “You have to protect content from these people because they are recognised news publishers”. Another bit, however, will be a direction to the Secretary of State saying that, to deal with this crisis, we are going to give a media literacy direction that says, “Please get rid of all the content from this same news publisher”. That is an anomaly that we risk setting up with these different provisions.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

On the previous group, I raised the issue of legal speech that was labelled as misinformation and removed in the extreme situation of a public health panic. This was seemingly because the Government were keen that particular public health information was made available. Subsequently, we discovered that those things were not necessarily untrue and should not have been removed. Is the Minister arguing that this power is necessary for the Government to direct that certain things are removed on the basis that they are misinformation—in which case, that is a direct attempt at censorship? After we have had a public health emergency in which “facts” have been contested and shown to not be as black and white or true as the Government claimed, saying that the power will be used only in extreme circumstances does not fill me with great confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have a very strong point to make with this amendment. I have tried in our discussions to bring some colour to the debate from my own experience so I will tell your Lordships that in my former professional life I received representations from many Ministers in many countries about the content we should allow or disallow on the Facebook platform that I worked for.

That was a frequent occurrence in the United Kingdom and extended to Governments of all parties. Almost as soon as I moved into the job, we had a Labour Home Secretary come in and suggest that we should deal with particular forms of content. It happened through the coalition years. Indeed, I remember meeting the Minister’s former boss at No. 10 in Davos, of all places, to receive some lobbying about what the UK Government thought should be on or off the platform at that time. In that case it was to do with terrorist content; there was nothing between us in terms of wanting to see that content gone. I recognise that this amendment is about misinformation and disinformation, which is perhaps a more contentious area.

As we have discussed throughout the debate, transparency is good. It keeps everybody on the straight and narrow. I do not see any reason why the Government should not be forthcoming. My experience was that the Government would often want to go to the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail or some other upright publication and tell it how they had been leaning on the internet companies—it was part of their communications strategy and they were extremely proud of it—but there will be other circumstances where they are doing it more behind the scenes. Those are the ones we should be worried about.

If those in government have good reason to lean on an internet company, fine—but knowing that they have to be transparent about it, as in this amendment, will instil a certain level of discipline that would be quite healthy.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, clearly, there is a limited number of speakers in this debate. We should thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling this amendment because it raises a very interesting point about the transparency—or not—of the Counter Disinformation Unit. Of course, it is subject to an Oral Question tomorrow as well, which I am sure the noble Viscount will be answering.

There is some concern about the transparency of the activities of the Counter Disinformation Unit. In its report, Ministry of Truth, which deals at some length with the activities of the Counter Disinformation Unit, Big Brother Watch says:

“Giving officials an unaccountable hotline to flag lawful speech for removal from the digital public square is a worrying threat to free speech”.


Its complaint is not only about oversight; it is about the activities. Others such as Full Fact have stressed the fact that there is little or no parliamentary scrutiny. For instance, freedom of information requests have been turned down and Written Questions which try to probe what the activities of the Counter Disinformation Unit are have had very little response. As it says, when the Government

“lobby internet companies about content on their platforms … this is a threat to freedom of expression”.

We need proper oversight, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

228: Clause 173, page 151, leave out lines 1 and 2
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a requirement on providers which could encourage excessive content removal in borderline cases of illegality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, we are coming to some critical amendments on a very important issue relatively late in the Bill, having had relatively little discussion on it. It is not often that committees of this House sit around and say, “We need more lawyers”, but this is one of those areas where that was true.

Notwithstanding the blushes of my noble friend on the Front Bench here, interestingly we have not had in our debate significant input from people who understand the law of freedom of expression and wish to contribute to our discussions on how online platforms should deal with questions of the legality of content. These questions are crucial to the Bill, which, if it does nothing else, tells online platforms that they have to be really robust in taking action against content that is deemed to be illegal under a broad swathe of law in the United Kingdom that criminalises certain forms of speech.

We are heavy with providers, and we are saying to them, “If you fail at this, you’re in big trouble”. The pressure to deal with illegal content will be huge, yet illegality itself covers a broad spectrum, from child sexual exploitation and abuse material, where in many cases it is obvious from the material that it is illegal and there is strict liability—there is never any excuse for distributing that material—and pretty much everyone everywhere in the world would agree that it should be criminalised and removed from the internet, through to things that we discussed in Committee, such as public order offences, where, under some interpretations of Section 5 of the Public Order Act, swearing at somebody or looking at them in a funny way in the street could be deemed alarming and harassing. There are people who interpret public order offences in this very broad sense, where there would be a lot less agreement about whether a specific action is or is not illegal and whether the law is correctly calibrated or being used oppressively. So we have this broad spectrum of illegality.

The question we need to consider is where we want providers to draw the line. They will be making judgments on a daily basis. I said previously that I had to make those judgments in my job. I would write to lawyers and they would send back an expensive piece of paper that said, “This is likely to be illegal”, or, “This is likely not to be illegal”. It never said that it was definitely illegal or definitely not illegal, apart from the content I have described, such as child sexual abuse. You would not need to send that, but you would send the bulk of the issues that we are dealing with to a lawyer. If you sent it to a second lawyer, you would get another “likely” or “not likely”, and you would have to come to some kind of consensus view as to the level of risk you wished to take on that particular form of speech or piece of content.

This is really challenging in areas such as hate speech, where exactly the same language has a completely different meaning in different contexts, and may or may not be illegal. Again, to give a concrete example, we would often deal with anti-Semitic content being shared by anti-anti-Semitic groups—people trying to raise awareness of anti-Semitic speech. Our reviewers would quite commonly remove the speech: they would see it and it would look like grossly violating anti-Semitic speech. Only later would they realise that the person was sharing it for awareness. The N-word is a gross term of racial abuse, but if you are an online platform you permit it a lot of the time, because if people use it self-referentially they expect to be able to use it. If you start removing it they would naturally get very upset. People expect to use it if it is in song lyrics and they are sharing music. I could give thousands of examples of speech that may or may not be illegal depending entirely on the context in which it is being used.

We will be asking platforms to make those judgments on our behalf. They will have to take it seriously, because if they let something through that is illegal they will be in serious trouble. If they misjudged it and thought the anti-Semitic hate speech was being circulated by Jewish groups to promote awareness but it turned out it was being circulated by a Nazi group to attack people and that fell foul of UK law, they would be in trouble. These judgments are critical.

We have the test in Clause 173, which says that platforms should decide whether they have “reasonable grounds to infer” that something is illegal. In Committee, we debated changing that to a higher bar, and said that we wanted a stronger evidential basis. That did not find favour with the Government. We hoped they might raise the bar themselves unilaterally, but they have not. However, we come back again in a different way to try to be helpful, because I do not think that the Government want excessive censorship. They have said throughout the Bill’s passage that they are not looking for platforms to be overly censorious. We looked at the wording again and thought about how we could ensure that the bar is not operated in a way that I do not think that the Government intend. We certainly would not want that to happen.

We look at the current wording in Clause 173 and see that the test there has two elements. One is: “Do you have reasonable grounds to infer?” and then a clause in brackets after that says, “If you do have reasonable grounds to infer, you must treat the content as illegal”. In this amendment we seek to remove the second part of that phrasing because it seems problematic. If we say to the platform, “Reasonable grounds to infer, not certainty”—and it is weird to put “inference”, which is by definition mushy, with “must”, which is very certain, into the same clause—we are saying, “If you have this mushy inference, you must treat it as illegal”, which seems quite problematic. Certainly, if I were working at a platform, the way I would interpret that is: “If in doubt, take it out”. That is the only way you can interpret that “must”, and that is really problematic. Again, I know that that is not the Government’s intention, and if it were child sexual exploitation material, of course you “must”. However, if it is the kind of abusive content that you have reasonable grounds to infer may be an offence under the Public Order Act, “must” you always treat that as illegal? As I read the rest of the Bill, if you are treating it as illegal, the sense is that you should remove it.

That is what we are trying to get at. There is a clear understanding from the Government that their intention is “must” when it comes to that hard end of very bad, very clearly bad content. However, we need something else—a different kind of behaviour where we are dealing with content where it is much more marginal. Otherwise, the price we will pay will be in freedom of expression.

People in the United Kingdom publish quite robust, sweary language. I sometimes think that some of the rules we apply penalise the vernacular. People who use sweary, robust language may be doing so entirely legally—the United Kingdom does not generally restrict people from using that kind of language. However, we risk heading towards a scenario where people post such content in future, and they will find that the platform takes it down. They will complain to the platform, saying, “Why the hell did you take my content down?”—in fact, they will probably use stronger words than that to register their complaint. When they do, the platform will say, “We had reasonable grounds to infer that that was in breach of the Public Order Act, for example, because somebody might feel alarmed, harassed or distressed by it. Oh, and look—in this clause, it says we ‘must’ treat it as illegal. Sorry—there is nothing else we can do. We would have loved to have been able to exercise the benefit of the doubt and to allow you to carry on using that kind of language, because we think there is some margin where you have not behaved in an illegal way. But unfortunately, because of the way that Clause 173 has been drafted, our lawyers tell us we cannot afford to take the risk”.

In the amendment we are trying to—I think—help the Government to get out of a situation which, as I say, I do not think they want. However, I fear that the totality of the wording of Clause 173, this low bar for the test and the “must treat as” language, will lead to that outcome where platforms will take the attitude: “Safety first; if in doubt, take it out”, and I do not think that that is the regime we want. I beg to move.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I regret I was unable to be present in Committee to deliver my speech about the chilling effect that the present definition of illegality in the Bill will have on free speech on the internet.

I am still concerned about Clause 173, which directs platforms how to come to the judgment on what is illegal. My concern is that the criterion for illegality, “reasonable grounds to infer” that elements of the content are illegal, will encourage the tech companies to take down content which is not necessarily illegal but which they infer could be. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, gave us a whole list of examples of where that might happen. Unfortunately, in Committee there was little support for a higher bar when asking the platforms to judge what illegal content is. However, I have added my name to Amendment 228, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, because, as he has just said, it is a much less radical way of enhancing free speech when platforms are not certain whether to take down content which they infer is illegal.

The deletion of part of Clause 173(5) is a moderate proposal. It still leaves intact the definition for the platforms of how they are to make the judgment on the illegality of content, but it takes out the compulsory element in this judgment. I believe that it will have the biggest impact on the moderation system. Some of those systems are run by machines, but many of the moderation processes, such as Meta’s Facebook, involve thousands of human beings. The deletion of the second part of Clause 173(5), which demands that they take down content that they infer is illegal, will give them more leeway to err on the side of freedom of speech. I hope that this extra leeway to encourage free speech will also be included in the way that algorithms moderate our content.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that this allays the concerns raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I remain concerned that people who use more choice words of Anglo-Saxon origin will find their speech more restricted than those who use more Latinate words, such as “inference” and “reasonable”, but the Minister has given some important clarifications.

The first is that no single decision could result in a problem for a platform, so it will know that it is about a pattern of bad decision-making rather than a single decision; that will be helpful in terms of taking a bit of the pressure off. The Minister also gave an important clarification around—I hate this language, but we have to say it—priority versus primary priority. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority but, in this Bill, some things are more of a priority than others. The public order offences are priority offences; therefore, they have a little bit more leeway over those offences than they do over primary priority offences, which include the really bad stuff that we all agree we want to get rid of.

As I say, I do not think that we are going to get much further in our debates today although those were important clarifications. The Minister is trying to give us reasonable grounds to infer that the guidance from Ofcom will result in a gentle landing rather than a cliff edge, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly suggested is what we want. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 228 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, for her role in bringing this issue forward. I too welcome the government amendments. It is important to underline that adding the potential role of app stores to the Bill is neither an opportunity for other companies to fail to comply and wait for the gatekeepers to do the job nor a one-stop shop in itself. It is worth reminding ourselves that digital journeys rarely start and finish in one place. In spite of the incredible war for our attention, in which products and services attempt to keep us rapt on a single platform, it is quite important for everyone in the ecosystem to play their part.

I have two minor points. First, I was not entirely sure why the government amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult as opposed to Ofcom. Can the Minister reassure me that, whoever undertakes the consultation, it will include children and children’s organisations as well as tech companies? Secondly, like the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I was a little surprised that the amendment does not define an app store but uses the term “the ordinary meaning of”. That seems like it may have the possibility for change. If there is a good reason for that—I am sure there is—then it must be stated that app stores cannot suddenly rebrand to something else and that that gatekeeper function will be kept absolutely front and centre.

Notwithstanding those comments, and associating myself with the idea that nothing should wait until 2025-26, I am very grateful to the Government for bringing this forward.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a brief contribution because I was the misery guts when this was proposed first time round. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, not just on working with colleagues to come up with a really good solution but on seeking me out. If I heard someone be as miserable as I was, I might try to avoid them. She did not; she came and asked me, “Why are you miserable? What is the problem here?”, and took steps to address it. Through her work with the Government, their amendments address my main concerns.

My first concern, as we discussed in Committee, was that we would be asking large companies to regulate their competitors, because the app stores are run by large tech companies. She certainly understood that concern. The second was that I felt we had not necessarily yet clearly defined the problem. There are lots of problems. Before you can come up with a solution, you need a real consensus on what problem you are trying to address. The government amendment will very much help in saying, “Let’s get really crunchy about the actual problem that we need app stores to address”.

Finally, I am a glass-half-full kind of guy as well as a misery guts—there is a contradiction there—and so I genuinely think that these large tech businesses will start to change their behaviour and address some of the concerns, such as getting age ratings correct, just by virtue of our having this regulatory framework in place. Even if today the app stores are technically outside, the fact that the sector is inside and that this amendment tells them that they are on notice will, I think and hope, have a hugely positive effect and we will get the benefits much more quickly than the timescale envisaged in the Bill. That feels like a true backstop. I sincerely hope that the people in those companies, who I am sure will be glued to our debate, will be thinking that they need to get their act together much more quickly. It is better for them to do it themselves than wait for someone to do it to them.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, on her tenacity, and to the Minister on his flexibility. I believe that where we have reached is pretty much the right balance. There are the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and others have asked of the Minister, and I hope he will answer those, but this is a game-changer, quite frankly. Rightly, the noble Baroness has paid tribute to the companies which have put their head above the parapet. That was not that easy for them to do when you consider that those are the platforms they have to depend on for their services to reach the public.

Unlike the research report, they have reserved powers that the Secretary of State can use if the report is positive, which I hope it will be. I believe this could be a turning point. The digital markets and consumers Bill is coming down the track this autumn and that is going to give greater powers to make sure that the app stores can be tackled—after all, there are only two of them and they are an oligopoly. They are the essence of big tech, and they need to function in a much more competitive way.

The noble Baroness talked about timing, and it needs to be digital timing, not analogue. Four years does seem a heck of a long time. I hope the Minister will address that.

Then there is the really important aspect of harmful content. In the last group, the Minister reassured us about systems and processes and the illegality threshold. Throughout, he has tried to reassure us that this is all about systems and processes and not so much about content. However, every time we look, we see that content is there almost by default, unless the subject is raised. We do not yet have a Bill that is actually fit for purpose in that sense. I hope the Minister will use his summer break wisely and read through the Bill to make sure that it meets its purpose, and then come back at Third Reading with a whole bunch of amendments that add functionalities. How about that for a suggestion? It is said in the spirit of good will and summer friendship.

The noble Baroness raised a point about transparency when it comes to Ofcom publishing its review. I hope the Minister can give that assurance as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked about the definition of app store. That is the gatekeeper function, and we need to be sure that that is what we are talking about.

I end by congratulating once again the noble Baroness and the Minister on where we have got to so far.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 19th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am mindful of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to be brief. I add a note of welcome to the mechanism that has been set out.

In this legislation, we are initiating a fundamental change to the way in which category 1 providers will run their reporting systems, in that prior to this they have not had any external oversight. Ofcom’s intervention will be material, given that online service providers will have to explain to Ofcom what they are doing and why.

We should note that we are also asking providers to do some novel prioritisation. The critical thing with all these reporting systems is that they operate at such huge volumes. I will not labour the points, but if noble Lords are interested they can look at the Meta and YouTube transparency reports, where it is explained that they are actioning tens of millions of pieces of content each month, on the basis of hundreds of millions of reports. If you get even 1% of 10 million reports wrong, that is 100,000 errors. We should have in mind the scale we are operating at. Ofcom will not be able to look at each one of those, but I think it will be able to produce a valuable system and make sure that quality control is improved across those systems, working with the providers. Having additional powers to create an alternative dispute resolution mechanism where one does not exist and would prove to be useful is helpful. However, the slow and steady approach of seeing what will happen with those systems under Ofcom supervision before jumping into the next stage is right.

I also note that we are asking platforms to do some prioritisation in the rest of the Online Safety Bill. For example, we are saying that we wish journalistic and politician content to be treated differently from ordinary user content. All of those systems need to be bedded in, so it makes sense to do it at a reasonable pace.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who cannot be here today, was also very interested in this area and wanted to make sure we made the point that the fact there is a reasonable timescale for the review does not mean that we should take our foot off the pedal now for our expectations for category 1 service providers. I think I heard that from the Minister, but it would be helpful for him to repeat it. We will be asking Ofcom to keep the pressure on to get these systems right now, and not just wait until it has done the report and then seek improvements at that stage. With that—having been about as brief as I can be— I will sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 238A and 238D seek to change the parliamentary process for laying—oh, I am skipping ahead with final day of Report enthusiasm.

As noble Lords know, companies will fund the costs of Ofcom’s online safety functions through annual fees. This means that the regime which the Bill ushers in will be cost neutral to the taxpayer. Once the fee regime is operational, regulated providers with revenue at or above a set threshold will be required to notify Ofcom and to pay a proportionate fee. Ofcom will calculate fees with reference to the provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House has made two recommendations relating to the fee regime which we have accepted, and the amendments we are discussing in this group reflect this. In addition, we are making an additional change to definitions to ensure that Ofcom can collect proportionate fees.

A number of the amendments in my name relate to qualifying worldwide revenue. Presently, the Bill outlines that this should be defined in a published statement laid before Parliament. Your Lordships’ committee advised that it should be defined through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. We have agreed with this and are proposing changes to Clause 76 so that Ofcom can make provisions about qualifying worldwide revenue by regulations which, as per the committee’s recommendations, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Secondly, the committee recommended that we change the method by which the revenue threshold is defined. Presently, as set out in the Bill, it is set by the Secretary of State in a published statement laid before Parliament. The committee recommended that the threshold be set through regulations subject to the negative procedure and we are amending Clause 77 to make the recommended change.

Other amendments seek to make a further change to enable Ofcom to collect proportionate fees from providers. A provider of a regulated service the qualifying worldwide revenue of which is equal to, or greater than, the financial threshold will be required to notify Ofcom and pay an annual fee, calculated by reference to its qualifying worldwide revenue. Currently, this means that that fee calculation can be based only on the revenue of the regulated provider. The structure of some technology companies, however, means that how they accrue revenue is not always straightforward. The entity which meets the definition of a provider may therefore not be the entity which generates revenue referable to the regulated service.

Regulations to be made by Ofcom about the qualifying worldwide revenue will therefore be able to provide that the revenue accruing to certain entities in the same group as a provider of a regulated service can be taken into account for the purposes of determining qualifying worldwide revenue. This will enable Ofcom, when making such regulations, to make provisions, if necessary, to account for instances where a provider has a complex group structure; for example, where the regulated provider might accrue only a portion of the revenue referrable to the regulated service, the rest of which might be accrued by other entities in the group’s structure. These amendments to Clause 76 address these issues by allowing Ofcom to make regulations which provide that the revenue from certain other entities within the provider’s group structure can be taken into account. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, we have not talked much about fees in our consideration of the Bill, and I will not talk much about them today, but there are some important questions. We should not skip too lightly over the fact that we will be levying revenues from online providers. That might have a significant impact on the markets. I have some specific questions about this proposed worldwide revenue method but I welcome these amendments and that we will now be getting a better procedure. This will also allow the Minister to say, “All these detailed points can be addressed when these instruments come before Parliament”. That is a good development. However, there are three questions that are worth putting on the record now so that we have time to think about them.

First, what consideration will be given to the impact on services that do not follow a classic revenue model but instead rely on donations and other sorts of support? I know that we will come back to this question in a later group but there are some very large internet service providers that are not the classic advertising-funded model, instead relying on foundations and other things. They will have significant questions about what we would judge their qualifying worldwide revenue to be, given that they operate to these very different models.

The second question concerns the impact on services that may have a very large footprint outside the UK, and significant worldwide revenues, but which do very little business within the UK. The amendment that the Minister has tabled about group revenues is also relevant here. You can imagine an entity which may be part of a very large worldwide group making very significant revenues around the world. It has a relatively small subsidiary that is offering a service in the UK, with relatively low revenues. There are some important questions there around the potential impact of the fees on decision-making within that group. We have discussed how we do not want to end up with less choice for consumers of services in the UK. There is an interesting question there as to whether getting the fee level wrong might lead to worldwide entities saying, “If you’re going to ask me to pay a fee based on my qualifying worldwide revenue, the UK market is just not worth it”. That may particularly true if, for example, the European Union and other markets are also levying a fee. You can see a rational business choice of, “We’re happy to pay the fee to the EU but not to Ofcom if it is levied at a rate that is disproportionate to the business that we do here”.

The third and very topical question is about the Government’s thinking about services with declining revenues but whose safety needs are not reducing and may even be increasing. I hope as I say this that people have Twitter in mind, which has very publicly told us that its revenue is going down significantly. It has also very publicly fired most of its trust and safety staff. You can imagine a model within which, because its revenue is declining, it is paying less to Ofcom precisely when Ofcom needs to do more supervision of it.

I hope that we can get some clarity around the Government’s intentions in these circumstances. I have referenced three areas where the worldwide qualifying revenue calculation may go a little awry. The first is where the revenue is not classic commercial income but comes from other sources. The second is where the footprint in the UK is very small but it is otherwise a large global company which we might worry will withdraw from the market. The third, and perhaps most important, is what the Government’s intention is where a company’s revenue is declining and it is managing its platform less well and its Ofcom needs increase, and what we would expect to happen to the fee level in those circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendment does not remove the sites completely. Those sites promoting suicide, serious self-harm and other activities across society will still continue, but because they will potentially be able to be captured and required to look at their risk assessment, their activities will perhaps at least be curtailed and, to a certain extent, regulated. It seems that the amendment simply provides a level playing field in the core issue of safety, which has been a theme we have addressed right through the Bill. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment as it is; one change of wording could allow Ofcom to do its job so much better. If he does not, I hope the amendment will be strongly supported by all sides of the House.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Coates, and her amendment, which tries to help parliamentary counsel draft better regulations later on. I am really struggling to see why the Government want to resist something that will make their life easier if they are going to do what we want them to do, which is to catch those high-risk services—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out—but also, as we have discussed in Committee and on Report, exclude the low-risk services that have been named, such as Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap.

I asked the Minister on Report how that might happen, and he confirmed that such services are not automatically exempt from the user-to-user services regulations, but he also confirmed that they might be under the subsequent regulations drafted under Schedule 11. That is precisely why we are coming back to this today; we want to make sure that they can be exempt under the regulations drafted under Schedule 11. The test should be: would that be easier under the amended version proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, or under the original version? I think it would be easier under the amended version. If the political intent is there to exclude the kind of services that I have talked about—the low-risk services—and I think it should be, because Ofcom should not be wasting time, in effect, supervising services that do not present a risk and, not just that, creating a supervisory model that may end up driving those services out of the UK market because they cannot legally say that they will make the kind of commitments Ofcom would expect them to make, having two different thresholds, size and functionality, gives the draftspeople the widest possible choice. By saying “or”, we are not saying they cannot set a condition that is “and” or excludes “and”, but “and” does exclude “or”, if I can put it that way. They can come back with a schedule that says, “You must be of this size and have this kind of functionality”, or they could say “this functionality on its own”—to the point made by the two noble Baronesses about some sites. They might say, “Look, there is functionality which is always so high-risk that we do not care what size you are; if you’ve got this functionality, you’re always going to be in”. Again, the rules as drafted at the moment would not allow them to do that; they would have to say, “You need to have this functionality and be of this size. Oh, whoops, by saying that you have to be of this size, we’ve now accidentally caught somebody else who we did not intend to catch”.

I look forward to the Minister’s response, but it seems entirely sensible that we have the widest possible choice. When we come to consider this categorisation under Schedule 11 later on, the draftspeople should be able to say either “You must be this size and have this functionality” or “If you’ve got this functionality, you’re always in” or “If you’re of this size, you’re always in”, and have the widest possible menu of choices. That will achieve the twin objectives which I think everyone who has taken part in the debate wants: the inclusion of high-risk services, no matter their size, and the exclusion of low-risk services, no matter their size—if they are genuinely low risk. That is particularly in respect of the services we have discussed and which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has been a very strong advocate for. In trying to do good, we should not end up inadvertently shutting down important information services that people in this country rely on. Frankly, people would not understand it if we said, “In the name of online safety, we’ve now made it so that you cannot access an online encyclopaedia or a map”.

It is going to be much harder for the draftspeople to draft categorisation under Schedule 11, as it is currently worded, that has the effect of being able to exclude low-risk services. The risk of their inadvertently including them and causing that problem is that much higher. The noble Baroness is giving us a way out and I hope the Minister will stand up and grab the lifeline. I suspect he will not.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 238A, which I think was in response to the DPRRC report. The sentiment around the House is absolutely clear about the noble Baroness’s Amendment 245. Indeed, she made the case conclusively for the risk basis of categorisation. She highlighted Zoe’s experience and I struggle to understand why the Secretary of State is resisting the argument. She knocked down the nine pins of legal uncertainty, and how it was broader than children and illegal by reference to Clause 12. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, added to the knocking down of those nine pins.

Smaller social media platforms will, on the current basis of the Bill, fall outside category 1. The Royal College of Psychiatrists made it pretty clear that the smaller platforms might be less well moderated and more permissive of dangerous content. It is particularly concerned about the sharing of information about methods of suicide or dangerous eating disorder content. Those are very good examples that it has put forward.

I return to the scrutiny committee again. It said that

“a more nuanced approach, based not just on size and high-level functionality, but factors such as risk, reach, user base, safety performance, and business model”

should be adopted. It seems that many small, high-harm services will be excluded unless we go forward on the basis set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. The kind of breadcrumbing we have talked about during the passage of the Bill and, on the other hand, sites such as Wikipedia, as mentioned by noble friend, will be swept into the net despite being low risk.

I have read the letter from the Secretary of State which the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, kindly circulated. I cannot see any argument in it why Amendment 245 should not proceed. If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, on these Benches we will support her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am conscious of the imprecation earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, that we keep our contributions short, but I intend to take no notice of it. That is for the very good reason that I do not think the public would understand why we disposed of such a momentous matter as bringing to an end end-to-end encryption on private messaging services as a mere technicality and a brief debate at the end of Report.

It is my view that end-to-end encryption is assumed nowadays by the vast majority of people using private messaging services such as WhatsApp, iMessage and Signal. They are unaware, I think, of the fact that it is about to be taken from them by Clause 111 of the Bill. My amendment would prevent that. It is fairly plain; it says that

“A notice under subsection (1)”


of Clause 111

“may not impose a requirement relating to a service if the effect of that requirement would be to require the provider of the service to weaken or remove end-to-end encryption applied in relation to the service”.

My noble friend says that there is no threat of ending end-to-end encryption in his proposal, but he achieves that by conflating two things—which I admit my own amendment conflates, but I will come back to that towards the end. They are the encryption of platforms and the encryption of private messaging services. I am much less concerned about the former. I am concerned about private messaging services. If my noble friend was serious in meaning that there was no threat to end-to-end encryption, then I cannot see why he would not embrace my amendment, but the fact that he does not is eloquent proof that it is in fact under threat, as is the fact that the NSPCC and the Internet Watch Foundation are so heavily lobbying against my amendment. They would not be doing that if they did not think it had a serious effect.

I shall not repeat at any length the technical arguments we had in Committee, but the simple fact is that if you open a hole into end-to-end encryption, as would be required by this provision, then other people can get through that hole, and the security of the system is compromised. Those other people may not be very nice; they could be hostile state actors—we know hostile state actors who are well enough resourced to do this—but they could also be our own security services and others, from whom we expect protection. Normally, we do get a degree of protection from those services, because they are required to have some form of warrant or prior approval but, as I have explained previously in debate on this, these powers being given to Ofcom require no warrant or prior approval in order to be exercised. So there is a vulnerability, but there is also a major assault on privacy. That is the point on which I intend to start my conclusion.

If we reflect for a moment, the evolution of this Bill in your Lordships’ House has been characterised and shaped, to a large extent, by the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, when he spoke at Second Reading, to take a collaborative approach. But that collaborative approach has barely extended to those noble Lords concerned about privacy and freedom of expression. As a result, in my view, those noble Lords rightly promoting child protection have been reckless to the point of overreaching themselves.

If we stood back and had to explain to outsiders that we were taking steps today that took end-to-end encryption and the privacy they expect on their private messaging services away from them, together with the security and protection it gives, of course, in relation to scams and frauds and all the other things where it has a public benefit, then I think they would be truly outraged. I do not entirely understand how the Government think they could withstand that outrage, were it expressed publicly. I actually believe that the battle for this Bill—this part of this Bill, certainly—is only just starting. We may be coming to the end here, but I do not think that this Bill is settled, because this issue is such a sensitive one.

Given the manifest and widespread lack of support for my views on this question in your Lordships’ House in Committee, I will not be testing the opinion of the House today. I think I know what the opinion of the House is, but it is wrong, and it will have to be revised. My noble friend simply cannot stand there and claim that what he is proposing is proportionate and necessary, because it blatantly and manifestly is not.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, the powers in Clause 111 are perhaps the most controversial outstanding issue in the Bill. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that they deserve some continued scrutiny. I suspect that Members of another place are being lobbied on this extensively right now. Again, it is one of the few issues; they may not have heard of the Online Safety Bill, but they will do in the context of this particular measure.

We debated the rights and wrongs of encryption at some length in Committee, and I will not repeat those points today, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has made some of the arguments as to why encryption is important. I will instead today focus on the future process, assuming that the Clause 111 powers will be available to Ofcom as drafted and that we are not going to accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

Amendments 258 and 258ZA, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, both aim to improve the process of issuing a Clause 111 order by adding in some necessary checks and balances.

As we debate this group, we should remember that the Clause 111 powers are not specific to encrypted services—I think the Minister made this point—and we should have the broader context in mind. I often try to bring some concrete scenarios to our discussions, and it may be helpful to consider three different scenarios in which Ofcom might reach for a Clause 111 notice.

The first is where a provider has no particular objections to using technology to identify and remove child sexual exploitation and abuse material or terrorist material but is just being slow to do this. There are mature systems out there. PhotoDNA is very well known in the industry and effectively has a database with digital signatures of known child sexual exploitation material. All the services we use on a daily basis such as Facebook, Instagram and others will check uploaded photos against that database and, where it is child sexual exploitation material, they will make sure that it does not get shown and that those people are reported to the authorities.

I can imagine scenarios where Ofcom is dealing with a service which has not yet implemented the technology—but does not have a problem doing it—and the material is unencrypted so there is no technical barrier; it is just being a bit slow. In those scenarios, Ofcom will tell the service to get on with it or it will get a Clause 111 notice. In those circumstances, in most cases the service will just get on with it, so Ofcom will be using the threat of the notice as a way to encourage the slow coaches. That is pretty unexceptional; it will work in a pretty straightforward way. I think the most common use of these notices may be to bring outliers into the pack of those who are following best practice. Ofcom may not even need to issue any kind of warning notice at all and will not get past the warning notice period. Waving a warning notice in front of a provider may be sufficient to get it to move.

The second scenario is one where the provider equally does not object to the use of the technology but would prefer to have a notice before it implements it. Outside the world of tech companies, it may seem a little strange why a provider would want to be ordered to do something rather than doing the right thing voluntarily, but we have to remember that the use of this kind of technology is legally fraught in many jurisdictions. There have been court cases in a number of places, not least the European Union, where there are people who will challenge whether you should use this technology on unencrypted services, never mind encrypted ones. In those cases, you can imagine there will be providers, particularly those established outside the United Kingdom, which may say, “Look, we are fine implementing this technology, but Ofcom please can you give us a notice? Then when someone challenges it in court, we can say that the UK regulator made us do it”. That would be helpful to them. This second group will want a notice and here we will get to the point of the notice being issued. They are not going to contest it; they want to have the notice because it gives them some kind of legal protection.

I think those two groups are relatively straightforward: we are dealing with companies which are being slow or are looking for legal cover but do not fundamentally object. The third scenario, though, is the most challenging and it is where I think the Government could get into real trouble. My amendments seek to help the Government in situations where a provider fundamentally objects to being ordered to deploy a particular technology because it believes that that technology will create real privacy threats and risks to the service that it offers. I do not think the provider is being awkward in these circumstances; it has genuine concerns about the implications of the technology being developed or which it is being instructed to deploy.

In these circumstances, Ofcom may have all the reasons in the world to argue why it thinks that what it is asking for is reasonable. However, the affected provider may not accept those reasons and take quite a strong counterview and have all sorts of other arguments as to why what it is being asked to do is unacceptable and too high-risk. This debate has been swirling around at the moment as we think about current models of end-to-end encryption and client-side scanning technology, but we need to recognise that this Bill is going to be around for a while and there may be all sorts of other technologies being ordered to be deployed that we do not even know about and have not even been developed yet. At any point, we may hit this impasse where Ofcom is saying it thinks it is perfectly reasonable to order a company to do it and the service provider is saying, “No, as we look at this, our experts and our lawyers are telling us that this is fundamentally problematic from a privacy point of view”.

--- Later in debate ---

I will touch on the question raised by my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe—

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I appreciate the tone of the Minister’s comments very much, but they are not entirely reassuring me. There is a debate going on out there: there are people saying, “We’ve got these fabulous technologies that we would like Ofcom to order companies to install” and there are companies saying, “That would be disastrous and break encryption if we had to install them”. That is a dualistic situation where there is a contest going on. My amendment seeks to make sure the conflict can be properly resolved. I do not think Ofcom on its own can ever do that, because Ofcom will always be defending what it is doing and saying “This is fine”. So, there has to be some other mechanism whereby people can say it is not fine and contest that. As I say, in this debate we are ignoring the fact that they are already out there: people saying “We think you should deploy this” and companies saying “It would be disastrous if we did”. We cannot resolve that by just saying “Trust Ofcom”.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

To meet the expectation the noble Lord voiced earlier, I will indeed point out that Ofcom can consult the ICO as a skilled person if it wishes to. It is important that we square the circle and look at these issues. The ICO will be able to be involved in the way I have set out as a skilled person.

Before I conclude, I want to address my noble friend Lady Harding’s questions on skilled persons. Given that notices will be issued on a case-by-case basis, and Ofcom will need to look at specific service design and existing systems of a provider to work out how a particular technology would interact with that design system, a skilled person’s report better fits this process by requiring Ofcom to obtain tailored advice rather than general technical advice from an advisory board. The skilled person’s report will be largely focused on the technical side of Ofcom’s assessment: that is to say, how the technology would interact with the service’s design and existing systems. In this way, it offers something similar to but more tailored than a technical advisory board. Ofcom already has a large and expert technology group, whose role it is to advice policy teams on new and existing technologies, to anticipate the impact of technologies and so on. It already has strong links with academia and with external researchers. A technical advisory board would duplicate that function. I hope that reassures my noble friend that the points she raised have been taken into account.

So I hope the noble Lord, Lord Allan, will not feel the need to divide—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

258ZA: After Clause 114, insert the following new Clause—
“Review by the Information Commissioner of notices under Section 111(1)
(1) Where a provider believes that a notice it has been given under section 111(1) will have a material impact on the private communications of its users, it may request a review by the Information Commissioner.(2) The review must consider the compatibility of the notice with—(a) the Human Rights Act 1998,(b) the Data Protection Act 2018,(c) the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, and(d) any other legislation the Information Commissioner considers relevant.(3) In carrying out the review, the Information Commissioner must consult—(a) OFCOM,(b) the provider,(c) UK users of the provider’s service, and (d) such other persons as the Information Commissioner considers appropriate.(4) Following a review under subsection (1) the Information Commissioner must publish a report including—(a) their determination of the compatibility of the notice with relevant legislation,(b) their reasons for making such a determination, and(c) their advice to OFCOM in respect of the drafting and implementation of the notice.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give providers a right to request an assessment by the ICO of the compatibility of a section 111 order with UK privacy legislation.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 262A, I will speak also to the other government amendments in the group. These amendments address the Bill’s enforcement powers. Government Amendments 262A, 262B, 262C, 264A and 266A, Amendments 265, 266 and 267, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bethell, and Amendment 268 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, relate to senior management liability. Amendment 268C from the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, addresses interim service restriction orders.

In Committee, we amended the Bill to create an offence of non-compliance with steps set out in confirmation decisions that relate to specific children’s online safety duties, to ensure that providers and individuals can be held to account where their non-compliance risks serious harm to children. Since then, we have listened to concerns raised by noble Lords and others, in particular that the confirmation decision offence would not tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse. That is why the government amendments in this group will create a new offence of a failure to comply with a child sexual exploitation and abuse requirement imposed by a confirmation decision. This will mean that providers and senior managers can be held liable if they fail to comply with requirements to take specific steps as set out in Ofcom’s confirmation decision in relation to child sexual exploitation and abuse on their service.

Ofcom must designate a step in a confirmation decision as a child sexual exploitation and abuse requirement, where that step relates, whether or not exclusively, to a failure to comply with specific safety duties in respect of child sexual exploitation and abuse content. Failure to comply with such a requirement will be an offence. This approach is necessary, given that steps may relate to multiple or specific kinds of illegal content, or systems and process failures more generally. This approach will ensure that services know from the confirmation decision when they risk criminal liability, while providing sufficient legal certainty via the specified steps to ensure that the offence can be prosecuted effectively.

The penalty for this offence is up to two years in prison, a fine or both. Through Clause 182, where an offence is committed with the consent or connivance of a senior manager, or attributable to his or her neglect, the senior manager, as well as the entity, will have committed the offence and can face up to two years in prison, a fine or both.

I thank my noble friend Lord Bethell, as well as our honourable friends Miriam Cates and Sir William Cash in another place, for their important work in raising this issue and their collaborative approach as we have worked to strengthen the Bill in this area. I am glad that we have reached a position that will help to keep children safe online and drive a change in culture in technology companies. I hope this amendment reassures them and noble Lords that the confirmation decision offence will tackle harms to children effectively by ensuring that technology executives take the necessary steps to keep children safe online. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly comment positively on the Minister’s explanation of how these offences might work, particularly the association of the liability with the failure to enforce a confirmation decision, which seems entirely sensible. In an earlier stage of the debate, there was a sense that we might associate liability with more general failures to enforce a duty of care. That would have been problematic, because the duty of care is very broad and requires a lot of pieces to be put in place. Associating the offences with the confirmation decision makes absolute sense. Having been in that position, if, as an executive in a tech company, I received a confirmation decision that said, “You must do these things”, and I chose wilfully to ignore that decision, it would be entirely reasonable for me to be held potentially criminally liable for that. That association is a good step forward.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 268C, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who has been so proactive in this area. The amendment seeks to clarify the threshold for Ofcom to take immediate enforcement action when children are exposed to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders and pornographic materials. It would require the regulator to either take that action or at least provide an explanation to the Secretary of State within a reasonable timeframe as to why it has chosen not to.

When we pass the Bill, the public will judge it not simply on its contents but on its implementation, its enforcement and the speed of that enforcement. Regulatory regimes as a whole work only if the companies providing the material believe the regulator to be sufficiently muscular in its approach. Therefore, the test is not simply what is there but how long it will take for a notice, whenever it is issued, to lead to direct change.

I will give two scenarios to illustrate the point. Let us take the example of a video encouraging the so-called blackout challenge, or choking challenge, which went viral on social media about two years ago. For those who are unaware, it challenged children to choke themselves to the point at which they lost consciousness and to see how long they could do that. This resulted in the death of about 15 children. If a similar situation arises and a video is not removed because it is not against the terms and conditions of the service, does Ofcom allow the video to circulate for a period of, say, six months while giving a grace period for the platform to introduce age gating? What if the platform fails to implement that highly effective age verification? How long will it take to get through warnings, a provisional notice of contravention, a representation period, a confirmation decision and the implementation of required measures before the site is finally blocked? As I indicated, this is not hypothetical; it draws from a real-life example. We know that this is not simply a matter of direct harm to children; it can lead to a risk of death, and has done in the past.

What about, for example, a pornographic site that simply has a banner where a person can self-declare that they are over 18 in order to access it? I will not rehearse, since they have been gone through a number of times, the dangers for children of early exposure to violent pornography and the impact that will have on respectful relationships, as we know from government reports, and particularly the risk it creates of viewing women as sex objects. It risks additional sexual aggression towards women and perpetuates that aggression. Given that we are aware that large numbers of children have access to this material, surely it would be irresponsible to sacrifice another generation of children to a three-year implementation process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding their names to Amendment 270A, and to the NSPCC for its assistance in tabling this amendment and helping me to think about it.

The Online Safety Bill has the ambition, as we have heard many times, of making the UK the safest place for a child to be online. Yet, as drafted, it could pass into legislation without a system to ensure that children’s voices themselves can be heard. This is a huge gap. Children are experts in their own lives, with a first-hand understanding of the risks that they face online. It is by speaking to, and hearing from, children directly that we can best understand the harms they face online—what needs to change and how the regulation is working in practice.

User advocates are commonplace in most regulated environments and are proven to be effective. Leading children’s charities such as 5Rights, Barnardo’s and YoungMinds, as well as organisations set up by bereaved parents campaigning for child safety online, such as the Molly Rose Foundation and the Breck Foundation, have joined the NSPCC in calling for the introduction of this advocacy body for children, as set out in the amendment.

I do not wish to detain anyone. The Minister’s response when this was raised in Committee was, in essence, that this should go to the Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to her for tracking me down in a Pret A Manger in Russell Square on Monday and having a chat. She reasonably pointed out that much of the amendment reads a bit like her job description, but she also could see that it is desirable to have an organisation such as the NSPCC set up a UK-wide helpline. There are children’s commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are supportive of a national advocacy body for children. She was suggesting —if the Minister agrees that this seems like a good solution—that they could commission a national helpline that works across the United Kingdom, and then advises a group that she could convene, including the children’s commissioners from the other nations of the United Kingdom. If that seems a good solution to the Minister, I do not need to press the amendment, we are all happy and we can get on with the next group. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I just want to make some brief comments in support of the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is aiming at in this amendment.

The Bill is going to have a profound impact on children in the United Kingdom. We hope that the most profound impact will be that it will significantly advance their interests in terms of safety online. But it will also potentially have a significant impact on what they can access online and the functionality of different services. They are going to experience new forms of age assurance, about which they may have very strong views. For example, the use of their biometric data to estimate their age will be there to protect them, but they may still have strong views about that.

I have said many times that there may be some measures in the Bill that will encourage services to become 18-plus only. That is not adult in the sense of adult content. Ordinary user-to-user social media services may look at the obligations and say, “Frankly, we would much rather restrict ourselves to users from the UK who identify as being 18-plus, rather than have to take on board all the associated liabilities in respect of children”—not because they are irresponsible, but precisely because they are responsible, and they can see that there is a lot of work to do in order to be legally and safely available to those under 18. For all those reasons, it is really important that the child advocacy body looks at things such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the rights of children to access information, and that it is able to take a view on them.

The reason I think that is important—as will any politician who has been out and spoken in schools—is that very often children are surprising in terms of what they see as their priorities. We make assumptions about their priorities, which can often be entirely wrong. There has been some really good work done on this. There was a project called EU Kids Online, back in the days of the EU, which used to look at children right across the European Union and ask them what their experience of being online was like and what was important to them. There are groups such as Childnet International, which for years has been convening groups of children and taking them to places such as the Internet Governance Forum. That always generates a lot of information that we here would not have thought of, about what children feel is really important to them about their online experience.

For all those reasons, it really would be helpful to institutionalise this in the new regime as some kind of body that looks in the round at children’s interests—their interests to stay safe, but also their interests to be able to access a wide variety of online services and to use the internet as they want to use it. I hope that that strengthens the case the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has made for such a body to exist in some kind of coalition-like format.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I have some reservations about this amendment. I was trying not to, but I have. The way that the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, explained the importance of listening to young people is essential—in general, not being dictated to by them, but to understand the particular ways that they live their lives; the lived experience, to use the jargon. Particularly in relation to a Bill that spends its whole time saying it is designed to protect young people from harm, it might be worth having a word with them and seeing what they say. I mean in an ongoing way—I am not being glib. That seems very sensible.

I suppose my concern is that this becomes a quango. We have to ask who is on it, whether it becomes just another NGO of some kind. I am always concerned about these kinds of organisations when they speak “on behalf of”. If you have an advocacy body for children that says, “We speak on behalf of children”, that makes me very anxious. You can see that that can be a politically very powerful role, because it seems to have the authority of representing the young, whereas actually it can be entirely fictitious and certainly not democratic or accountable.

The key thing we discussed in Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, is very keen on—and I am too—is that we do not inadvertently deny young people important access rights to the internet in our attempt to protect them. That is why some of these points are here. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was very keen on that. She wants to protect them but does not want to end up with them being denied access to important parts of the internet. That is all good, but I just think this body is wrong.

The only other thing to draw noble Lords’ attention to—I am not trying to be controversial, but it is worth nothing—is that child advocacy is currently in a very toxic state because of some of the issues around who represents children. As we speak, there is a debate about, for example, whether the NSPCC has been captured by Stonewall. I make no comment because I do not know; I am just noting it. We have had situations where a child advocacy group such as Mermaids is now discredited because it is seen to have been promoting chest binders for young people, to have gone down the gender ideology route, which some people would argue is child abuse of a sort, advocating that young women remove their breasts—have double mastectomies. This is all online, by the way.

I know that some people would say, “Oh, you’re always going on about that”, but I raise it because it is a very real and current discussion. I know a lot of people who work in education, with young people or in children’s rights organisations, and they keep telling me that they are tearing themselves apart. I just wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Knight, might note that there is a danger of walking into a minefield here—which I know he does not mean to walk into—by setting up an organisation that could end up being the subject of major culture wars rows or, even worse, one of those dreaded quangos that pretends it is representing people but does not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, even if the content is not harmful. We keep saying “content” because it is the way the content is disseminated, as the Bill sets out, but the features and functionalities can increase the risks of harm as well. We have addressed this through looking at the cumulative effects and in other ways.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

This is the key question. For example, let us take a feature that is pushing something at you constantly; if it was pushing poison at you then it would obviously be harmful, but if it was pushing marshmallows then they would be singularly not harmful but cumulatively harmful. Is the Minister saying that the second scenario is still a problem and that the surfeit of marshmallows is problematic and will still be captured, even if each individual marshmallow is not harmful?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, because the cumulative harm—the accumulation of marshmallows in that example—has been addressed.

Noble Lords should also be aware that the drafting of Amendment 281FA has the effect of saying that harm can arise from proposed new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)—for example, from the

“age or characteristics of the likely user group”.

In effect, being a child or possessing a particular characteristic may be harmful. This may not be the intention of the noble Baronesses who tabled the amendment, but it highlights the important distinction between something being a risk factor that influences the risk of harm occurring and something being harmful.

The Government are clear that these aspects should properly be treated as risk factors. Other parts of the Bill already make it clear that the ways in which a service is designed and used may impact on the risk of harm suffered by users. I point again to paragraphs (f) to (h) of Clause 10(6); paragraph (e) talks about the level of risk of functionalities of the service, paragraph (f) talks about the different ways in which the service is used, and so on.

We have addressed these points in the Bill, though clearly not to the satisfaction of my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others. As we conclude Report, I recognise that we have not yet convinced everyone that our approach achieves what we all seek, though I am grateful for my noble friend’s recognition that we all share the same aim in this endeavour. As I explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her Amendment 35, I was asking her not to press it because, if she did, the matter would have been dealt with on Report and we would not be able to return to it at Third Reading.

As the Bill heads towards another place with this philosophical disagreement still bubbling away, I am very happy to commit to continuing to talk to your Lordships—particularly when the Bill is in another place, so that noble Lords can follow the debates there. I am conscious that my right honourable friend Michelle Donelan, who has had a busy maternity leave and has spoken to a number of your Lordships while on leave, returns tomorrow in preparation for the Bill heading to her House. I am sure she will be very happy to speak even more when she is back fully at work, but we will both be happy to continue to do so.

I think it is appropriate, in some ways, that we end on this issue, which remains an area of difference. With that promise to continue these discussions as the Bill moves towards another place, I hope that my noble friend will be content not to press these amendments, recognising particularly that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has already inserted this thinking into the Bill for consideration in the other House.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his engagement and for the amendments he has tabled at various stages throughout the passage of the Bill.

Amendment 15 provides a definition:

““age assurance” means age verification or age estimation”.

When the Minister winds up, could he provide details of the framework or timetable for its implementation? While we all respect that implementation must be delivered quickly, age verification provisions will be worthless unless there is swift enforcement action against those who transgress the Bill’s provisions. Will the Minister comment on enforcement and an implementation framework with direct reference to Amendment 15?

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, as this is a new stage of the Bill, I need to refer again to my entry in the register of interests. I have no current financial interest in any of the regulated companies for which I used to work, in one of which I held a senior role for a decade.

I welcome Amendment 7 and those following from it which change the remote access provision. The change from “remote access” to “view remotely” is quite significant. I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to consider it and particularly the Bill team’s creativity in coming up with this new phrasing. It is much simpler and clearer than the phrasing we had before. We all understand what “view remotely” means. “Access” could have been argued over endlessly. I congratulate the Minister and the team for simplifying the Bill. It again demonstrates the value of some of the scrutiny we carried out on Report.

It is certainly rational to enable some form of viewing in some circumstances, not least where the operations of the regulated entities are outside the United Kingdom and where Ofcom has a legitimate interest in observing tests that are being carried out. The remote access, or the remote viewing facility as it now is, will mean it can do this without necessarily sending teams overseas. This is more efficient, as the Minister said. As this entire regime is going to be paid for by the regulated entities, they have an interest in finding cheaper and more efficient methods of carrying out the supervision than teams going from London to potentially lots of overseas destinations. Agreement between the provider and Ofcom that this form of remote viewing is the most efficient will be welcomed by everybody. It is certainly better than the other option of taking data off-site. I am glad to see that, through the provisions we have in place, we will minimise the instances where Ofcom feels it needs data from providers to be taken off-site to some other facility, which is where a lot of the privacy risks come from.

Can the Minister give some additional assurances at some stage either in his closing remarks or through any follow-up correspondence? First, the notion of proportionality is implicit, but it would help for it to be made explicit. Whenever Ofcom is using the information notices, it should always use the least intrusive method. Yes, it may need to view some tests remotely, but only where the information could not have been provided in written form, for example, or sent as a document. We should not immediately escalate to remote viewing if we have not tried less intrusive methods. I hope that notion of proportionality and least intrusion is implicit within it.

Secondly, concerns remain around live user data. I heard the Minister say that the intention is to use test data sets. That needs to be really clear. It is natural for people to be concerned that their live user data might be exposed to anyone, be it a regulator or otherwise. Of course, we expect Ofcom staff to behave with propriety, but there have sadly been instances where individuals have taken data that they have observed, whether they were working for the police, the NHS or any other entity, and abused it. The safest safeguard is for there to be no access to live user data. I hope the Minister will go as far as he can in saying that that is not the intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I shall ask my noble friend the Minister a question about encryption but, before I do, I will briefly make a couple of other points. First, I echo all the tributes paid around the House to those involved in this legislation. It is no secret that I would have preferred the Bill to be about only child safety, so I particularly congratulate the Government, and the various Members who focused their efforts in that area, on what has been achieved via the Bill.

That said, the Government should still consider other non-legislative measures, such as banning smartphones in schools and government guidance for parents on things such as the best age at which to allow their children to have their own smartphones. These may not be points for DCMS, but they are worth highlighting at this point, as the Bill leaves us, soon to become legislation.

As I said on Report, I remain concerned about the reintroduction of some protections for adults, in lieu of “legal but harmful”, without any corresponding amendments to reinforce to Ofcom that freedom of expression must be the top priority for adults. We now have to leave it to Ofcom and see what happens. I know that the current leadership is deeply conscious of its responsibilities.

On encryption, I was pleased to hear what my noble friend said when he responded to the debate at Third Reading. If he is saying that the technology not existing means that Clause 122 cannot be deployed, as it were, by Ofcom, does that mean that the oversight measures that currently exist would not be deployed? As my noble friend will recall, one of the areas that we were still concerned about in the context of encryption was that what was in the Bill did not mirror what exists for RIPA. I am not sure whether that means that, because Clause 122 has been parked, our oversight concerns have been parked too. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that.

In the meantime, in the absence of Clause 122, it is worth us all reinforcing again that we want the tech firms to co-operate fully with law enforcement, either because a user has alerted them to illegal activity or when law enforcement suspects criminal behaviour and seeks their help. In that latter context, it would be helpful to understand what the Minister has said and to know what oversight that might involve. I congratulate my noble friend on this marathon Bill, and I am sorry to have delayed its passing.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a short contribution so that I do not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Moylan; I will make a few direct and crunchy comments. First, I thank colleagues who participated in the debate for giving me a hearing, especially when I raised concerns about their proposals. It has been a constructive process, where we have been, as the Minister said, kicking the tyres, which is healthy in a legislature. It is better to do it now than to find faults when something has already become law.

I am in the unusual position of having worked on problems comparable to those we are now placing on Ofcom’s desk. I have enormous empathy for it and the hard work we are giving it. I do not think we should underestimate just how difficult this job is.

I want to thank the Minister for the additional clarification of how Ofcom will give orders to services that provide private communications. Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, I think this is a challenging area. We want Ofcom to give orders where this is easy—for example, to an unencrypted service hosting child sexual abuse material. The technology can be deployed today and is uncontroversial, so it is important that we do not forget that.

I heard the Minister say that we do not want Ofcom to move so fast that it breaks encryption. It should be moving but it should be careful. Those are the fears that have been expressed outside: on the day that this becomes law, Ofcom will issue orders to services providing encrypted communications that they will not be able to accept and therefore they will leave the UK. I think I heard from the Minister today that this is not what we want Ofcom to do. At the same time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell said, we are not expecting Ofcom to ease off; any online service should be doing everything technically possible and feasible to deal with abhorrent material.

I humbly offer three pieces of advice to Ofcom as we pass the baton to it. This is based on having made a lot of mistakes in the past. If I had been given this advice, I might have done a better job in my previous incarnation. First, you cannot overconsult; Ofcom should engage with all interested parties, including those who have talked to us throughout the process of the Bill. It should engage with them until it is sick of engaging with them and then it should engage some more. In particular, Ofcom should try to bring together diverse groups, so I hope it gets into a room the kind of organisations that would be cheering on the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, as well as those that would be cheering on the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. If Ofcom can bring them into the room, it has a chance of making some progress with its regulations.

Secondly, be transparent. The more information that Ofcom provides about what it is doing, the less space it will leave for people to make up things about what it is doing. I said this in the previous debate about the access request but it applies across the piece. We are starting to see some of this in the press. We are here saying that it is great that we now have a government regulator—independent but part of the UK state—overseeing online services. As soon as that happens, we will start to see the counterreaction of people being incredibly suspicious that part of the UK state is now overseeing their activity online. The best way to combat that is for Ofcom to be as transparent as possible.

Thirdly, explain the trade-offs you are making. This legislation necessarily involves trade-offs. I heard it again in the Minister’s opening remarks: we have indulged in a certain amount of cakeism. We love freedom of expression but we want the platforms to get rid of all the bad stuff. The rubber is going to hit the road once Ofcom has the powers and, in many cases, it will have to decide between one person’s freedom of expression and another’s harm. My advice is not to pretend that you can make both sides happy; you are going to disappoint someone. Be honest and frank about the trade-offs you have made. The legislation has lots of unresolved trade-offs in it because we are giving lots of conflicting instructions. As politicians, we can ride that out, but when Ofcom gets this and has to make real decisions, my advice would be to explain the trade-offs and be comfortable with the fact that some people will be unhappy. That is the only way it will manage to maintain confidence in the system. With that, I am pleased that the Bill has got to this stage and I have a huge amount of confidence in Ofcom to take this and make a success of it.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I rise briefly to raise the question of access to data by academics and research organisations. Before I do so, I want to express profound thanks to noble Lords who have worked so collaboratively to create a terrific Bill that will completely transform and hold to account those involved in the internet, and make it a safer place. That was our mission and we should be very proud of that. I cannot single out noble Peers, with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, with whom I worked collaboratively both on age assurance and on harms. It was a partnership I valued enormously and hope to take forward. Others from all four corners of the House contributed to the parts of the Bill that I was particularly interested in. As I look around, I see so many friends who stuck their necks out and spoke so movingly, for which I am enormously grateful.

The question of data access is one of the loose ends that did not quite make it into the Bill. I appreciate the efforts of my noble friend the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Bill team in this matter and their efforts to try and wangle it in; I accept that it did not quite make it. I would like to hear reassurance from my noble friend that this is something that the Government are prepared to look at in future legislation. If he could provide any detail on how and in which legislation it could be revisited, I would be enormously grateful.