Online Safety Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and director of the Regulatory Funding Company, and I note my other interests in the register.

I welcome the Bill as the first rung on the ladder, ensuring that the unregulated, untransparent and unaccountable platforms begin finally to be subject to the legal strictures of regulation, accountability and transparency. In 1931, Baldwin famously said the press exercised power without responsibility. Now, the press is subject to intense regulation and tough competition laws, and it is the platforms exercising power without responsibility. This vital Bill begins the journey to rectify that.

It was an honour to sit on the Joint Committee and a huge pleasure to work with colleagues from across the House under the exceptional chairmanship of Damian Collins. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, brought such insight and energy to our work. I believe that, as a result of its work, the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between platform regulation, freedom of expression and the protection of quality journalism.

I will make just two points about the policy backdrop to this legislation. While regulation is crucially important, it is just one side of the coin: it must go hand in hand with competition. What is vital is that legislation to deal with digital markets and consumer protection follows swiftly. It is time—to coin a phrase—to level up the playing field between platforms and publishers.

For years, news publishers have operated in a deeply dysfunctional digital market, hampering efforts to realise fair returns for their content. Local and regional publishers continue to be hardest hit. Platforms generate a huge portion of advertising revenue from news media content: figures calculated by Cambridge professor Matt Elliott estimate UK publishers generate £1 billion in UK revenues for Google, Facebook, Apple and others each year.

The news consumption trend from print to digital means digital markets must function in a fair and transparent way to secure the sustainability of quality journalism. Google has more than a 90% share of the £7.3 billion UK search advertising market. That means platforms take news content for free and the bulk of advertising, which would pay for it in the analogue world, at the same time.

I welcome the fact that the Government will bring forward legislation to deal with this by giving the Digital Markets Unit statutory powers and tough competition tools. It will be a world-leading digital regulator alongside this world first in online safety, paving the way for a sea change in how platforms operate and ensuring the sustainability of journalism.

As a new age of regulation dawns, I join my noble friend Lady Stowell in urging the Minister to ensure speedy implementation of changes that are the vital other side of the coin. The Joint Committee said in its report that this should happen as soon as possible. Indeed, these two pieces of legislation will feed off each other. As a joint report by the CMA and Ofcom concluded:

“Competition interventions can … improve online safety outcomes.”


My other point is the fluid nature of the legal ecosystem surrounding the platforms, which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned. For almost 30 years the US tech giants have benefited from the protection of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Passed while the internet was in its infancy, it provided platforms with safe harbours in which to operate as intermediaries of content without fear of being liable for it, which is why we now have the manifold, terrible problems of social media we have heard about today, which the Bill is rightly addressing. But times have changed, and that backbone of internet law is under intense scrutiny, above all from the US Supreme Court, which has for the first time in quarter of a century agreed to hear a case, Gonzalez v Google, challenging the immunity of companies that host user content online. The court’s decision will have a significant impact on the internet ecosystem, especially taken alongside anti-trust legal actions in the US and the EU. They are issues to which we will inevitably have to return.

The Bill—along with many other developments that will have a profound effect on competition, on regulation and on the protection of children—ushers in an era of radical change, but is, as we have heard a number of times today, only part of the journey. Let us now move forward swiftly to finish that job.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

So, in probing the Government on what they mean by “psychological harm”, I hope to have something hard and solid coming back from them that we know sets some limits to where this can take us.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, this is my first opportunity to speak in Committee on this important Bill, but I have followed it very closely, and the spirit in which constructive debate has been conducted has been genuinely exemplary. In many ways, it mirrors the manner in which the Joint Committee, on which I had the privilege to serve with other noble Lords, was conducted, and its report rightly has influenced our proceedings in so many ways. I declare an interest as deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group, which is a member of the News Media Association, and a director of the Regulatory Funding Company, and note my other interests as set out in the register.

I will avoid the temptation to ruminate philosophically, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, entertained us by doing. I will speak to Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the other amendments which impact on the definition of “recognised news publisher”. As the noble Lord said, his amendments are pretty robust in what they seek to achieve, but I am very pleased that he has tabled them, because it is important that we have a debate about how the Bill impacts on freedom of expression—I use that phrase advisedly—and press and media freedom. The noble Lord’s aims are laudable but do not quite deliver what he intends.

I will explain why it is important that Clauses 13 and 14 stand part of the Bill, and without amendments of the sort proposed. The Joint Committee considered this issue in some detail and supported the inclusion of the news publisher content exemption. These clauses are crucial to the whole architecture of the Bill because they protect news publishers from being dragged into an onerous regime of statutory content control. The press—these clauses cover the broadcasters too—have not been subject to any form of statutory regulation since the end of the 17th century. That is what we understand by press freedom: that the state and its institutions do not have a role in controlling or censoring comment. Clauses 13 and 14 protect that position and ensure that the media, which is of course subject to rigorous independent standard codes as well as to criminal and civil law, does not become part of a system of state regulation by the back door because of its websites and digital products.

That is what is at the heart of these clauses. However, it is not a carte blanche exemption without caveats. As the Joint Committee looked at, and as we have heard, to qualify for it, publishers must meet stringent criteria, as set out in Clause 50, which include being subject to standards codes, having legal responsibility for material published, having effective policies to handle complaints, and so on. It is exactly the same tough definition as was set out in the National Security Bill, which noble Lords across the House supported when it was on Report here.

Without such clear definitions, alongside requirements not to take down or restrict access to trusted news sources without notification, opaque algorithms conjured up in Silicon Valley would end up restricting the access of UK citizens to news, with scant meaningful scope for reinstating it given the short shelf life of news. Ultimately, that would have a profound impact on the public’s right to access news, something which the noble Baroness rightly highlighted. That is why the Joint Committee recommended, at paragraph 304 of its report, that the Bill was

“strengthened to include a requirement that news publisher content should not be moderated, restricted or removed unless it is content the publication of which clearly constitutes a criminal offence, or which has been found to be unlawful by order of a court within the appropriate jurisdiction”.

The Government listened to that concern that the platforms would put themselves in the position of censor on issues of democratic importance, and quite rightly amended the draft Bill to deal with that point. Without it, instead of trusted, curated, regulated news comment, from the BBC to the Guardian to the Manchester Evening News, news would end up being filtered by Google and Facebook. That would be a crushing blow to free speech, to which all noble Lords are absolutely committed.

So, instead of these clauses acting as a bulwark against disinformation by protecting content of democratic importance, they would weaken the position of trusted news providers by introducing too much ambiguity into the system. As we all know, ambiguity brings with it legal challenge and constant controversy. This is especially so given that the exemptions that we are talking about already exist in statute elsewhere, which would cause endless confusion.

I understand the rationale behind many of the amendments, but I fear they would not work in practice. Free speech—and again I use the words advisedly—is a very delicate bloom, which can easily be swept away by badly drafted, uncertain or opaque laws. Its protection needs certainty, which is what the Bill, as it stands, provides. A general catch-all clause would be subject, I fear, to endless argument with the platforms, which are well known for such tactics and for endless legal wrangling.

I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, in his superb speech on the opening day in Committee, when he said that one issue with the Bill is that it

“is very difficult to understand, in part because of its innate complexity and in part because it has been revised so often”. [Official Report, 19/4/23; col. 700.]


He added, in a welcome panegyric to clarity and concision, that given that it is a long and complex Bill, why would we add to it? I agree absolutely with him, but those are arguments for not changing the Bill in the way he proposes. I believe the existing provisions are clear and precise, practical and carefully calibrated. They do not leave room for doubt, and protect media freedom, investigative journalism and the citizen’s right to access authoritative news, which is why I support the Bill as it stands.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, given the lateness of the hour, I will make just three very brief points. The first is that I find it really fascinating that the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, come from a completely different perspective, but still demand transparency over what is going on. I fully support the formation that she has found, and I think that in many ways they are better than the other ones which came from the other perspective. But what I urge the Minister to hear is that we all seek transparency over what is going on.

Secondly, in many of the amendments—I think I counted about 14 or 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and also of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall—there is absolutely nothing I disagree with. My problem with these amendments really goes back to the debate we had on the first day on Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. He set out the purposes of the Bill, and the Minister gave what was considered by most Members of your Lordships’ House to be the groundwork of a very excellent alternative, in the language of government. It appears, as we go on, that many dozens of amendments could be dropped in favour of this purposive clause, which itself could include reference to human rights, children’s rights, the Equality Act, the importance of freedom of expression under the law, and so on. I urge the Minister to consider the feeling of the House: that the things said at the Dispatch Box to be implicit, again and again, the House requires to be explicit. This is one way we could do it, in short form, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, just urged us.

Thirdly, I do have to speak against Amendment 294. I would be happy to take the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, through dozens of studies that show the psychological impact of online harms: systems that groom users to gamble, that reward them for being online at any cost to their health and well-being, that profile them to offer harmful material, and more of the same whether they ask for it or not, and so on. I am also very happy to put some expert voices at his disposal, but I will just say this: the biggest clue as to why this amendment is wrongheaded is the number of behavioural psychologists that are employed by the tech sector. They are there, trying to get at our behaviours and thoughts; they anticipate our move and actually try to predict and create the next move. That is why we have to have psychological harm in the Bill.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 124 but also to Amendments 126 and 227, all of which were tabled by my noble friend Lord McNally and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. Sadly, they are both unable to do battle today, for health reasons, and I start by wishing them both a speedy recovery. I hope that I at least partly do justice to their intentions and to these amendments today.

These amendments are designed to address significant loopholes in the Bill which have been very clearly pointed out by Hacked Off, Impress—the press regulator—and the Press Recognition Panel. These loopholes risk enabling extremist publishers to take advantage of the overbroad “recognised news publisher” exemption and allow hatred and other online harms to spread on some of the most popular social media forums online—the newspaper comment sections. Amendment 124 would remove comment sections operated by news websites where the publisher has a UK turnover of more than £100 million from the exemption for regulated user-generated content.

Some of the most harmful online content is in newspaper comment sections, which are in fact social media forums themselves and are read by millions of readers every day. Hacked Off has found examples of misogyny, explicit anti-Semitic language, Holocaust denial and more. Women in public life are also the target of misogyny in these comments sections. Professor Corinne Fowler, an academic who was criticised by some newspapers after contributing to a National Trust report, describing her experience, wrote that

“unregulated comments beneath articles, including the Telegraph and The Times as well as the Daily Mail and the Express … contained scores of suggestions about how to kill or injure me. Some were general ideas, such as hanging, but many were gender-specific, saying that I should be burnt at the stake like a witch … without me knowing, my son (then 12 years old) read these reader comments. He became afraid for my safety. The comments were easily accessible: he googled ‘Corinne Fowler National Trust’ and scrolled below the articles. No child should have to deal with hate speech directed at a parent”.

Amendment 126 would have the effect of incentivising newspapers to sign up to an independent regulator. It would expand the definition of a “recognised news publisher” to incorporate any entity that is a member of an approved regulator, while excluding publishers that are not members of such a regulator, unless they are broadcasters and regulated by Ofcom. Recognised news publishers enjoy wide exemptions in the Bill. Their content is not only protected from being taken down by platforms, but a new provision will require platforms to actively consult media publishers before removing their content. As a result, news publishers will enjoy greater free speech rights under the Bill than private citizens.

The criteria to qualify as a “recognised news publisher” is different for broadcasters and other media. For broadcasters, outlets must be regulated by Ofcom. For non-broadcast media, outlets need only meet a list of vague criteria: have a standards code, which could say anything; have a complaints process, which could also say anything; have a UK office; have staff; and not be a sanctioned title. As a result, a host of extremist and disinformation publishing websites may qualify immediately, or with minor administrative changes, for this rather generous exemption. For example, conspiracy theorist and racist David Icke’s website could qualify with minor administrative changes. He would be free to propagate his dangerous and, in many cases, anti-Semitic conspiracies on social media. Heritage and Destiny, an openly racist website, would likewise be able to qualify with minor changes and spread racial hatred on social media. Infowars could open up a UK office, qualify and spread harmful content on social media.

This amendment would replace that vague list of criteria with the simple requirement that, to access the exemption, non-broadcast media publishers must be in a PRP-approved independent regulator. The effect would be that extremists and harmful publishers would not be able to access the exemption. All publishers would have the same free speech rights as everyone else, unless they are otherwise regulated under the charter system or Ofcom in the case of broadcasters.

Amendment 227 requires Ofcom’s reporting on the impact of the regulatory regime on the availability and treatment of news publishers and journalistic content to also cover what impact the news publisher exemption and journalistic content duty have on the regime’s efficacy. The Bill requires Ofcom to publish a report on whether the new regime will harm freedom of the press. This is despite the fact the Bill already goes to extraordinary lengths to protect the interests of the press. This very modest amendment would require Ofcom’s report to also query whether the news publisher exemption is undermining the regulatory regime.

Impress, which is the UK’s only press regulator approved by the Press Recognition Panel under royal charter, says that the Bill leaves the public vulnerable and exposed to online harms and therefore falls short of the Government’s aim of making the UK the safest place to be online. It has summarised the three ways in which the current Bill is in danger of undermining its principal function—to protect the public from online harms—which could be resolved by these amendments.

First, the Bill creates an uneven playing field. A poor definition of what constitutes a news publisher threatens to undermine the public protection benefits of the Bill. Secondly, the Bill misses an opportunity to fight misinformation or disinformation. The Bill undermines industry standards and fails to distinguish journalism from fake news. Thirdly, the Bill could be easily used as a cover to spread serious harms. The Bill’s current journalism exemptions create dangerous loopholes which could easily be exploited to spread misinformation and disinformation. Publishers should be required to demonstrate compliance and oversight in relation to their published code of conduct and complaints policy.

If we needed any more persuasion, a letter to me from David Wolfe KC, the chair of the PRP, provides an additional twist:

“I am writing to draw your attention to the Bill’s potential impact on the regulation of the press and news publishers in the UK. Specifically, to Clause 50 of the Bill, which explains the circumstances in which news publishers are taken out of the proposed Ofcom regulatory regime … it does not specify any minimum standards and does not specify who is to assess publishers. The practical implication, though, is that Ofcom—whose board are appointed by the Secretary of State … and which operates under their direct oversight—will not only set the minimum requirements but also undertake the assessment. Paradoxically, the possibility of political interference, which Lord Leveson and the Royal Charter set out to avoid (in the Royal Charter and PRP framework) might now be directly introduced for all UK news publishers”.


That means that the national press, which has avoided regulation, is coming under the regulation of Ofcom. I will be very interested to hear what a number of noble Lords might have to say on that subject.

Taken together, these amendments would address serious flaws in the Bill, and I very much hope that the Government’s response will be to reflect on them. I beg to move.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord in wishing the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Lipsey, well. I hope they are watching us on the television—perhaps as a cure for insomnia at this time of night. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and of the Regulatory Funding Company and note my other interests set out in the register. I must admit I was gripped by a sense of déjà vu when I saw these amendments on the Marshalled List, because I fear they risk catapulting us back into the debate over matters which were settled a decade ago in response to events which took place two decades or more ago.

Before coming on to the detail of some of the amendments that the noble Lord set out, I will make a few general points which relate principally to Amendments 126 and 227 but impinge on the whole group.

First, I do not believe that this Bill, which is about the enormous, unaccountable and unregulated platforms and the dangers they pose to the vulnerable, is the place to reopen the debate about press regulation. Later in the year there will be a media Bill, recently published in draft, which will contain provisions to repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. If noble Lords want to discuss the whole issue of the royal charter and punitive legislation against the press, I respectfully suggest that that is the time and place to do so.

Secondly, this Bill has widespread support. The vast majority of people agree with its aims, even if we have disagreements at the edges. If the Bill ceases to be the Online Safety Bill and becomes the state regulation of the press Bill, it will become enormously controversial not just here but internationally.

That is my third point: the enormous global ramifications of seeking to use novel online legislation to force state-backed regulation on the press. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 and the establishment of the royal charter were roundly condemned by international press freedom organisations worldwide—the very same press freedom organisations we all claim to support when talking about the safety of journalists or the way in which the press is controlled in authoritarian regimes. Those same organisations condemned it utterly and they would look on with incredulity and horror if this, the first brave piece of legislation in the world to tackle online safety, was corrupted in this way and in a manner which sent the wrong signals to undemocratic regimes worldwide that it is okay to censor the press in the name of making the platforms accountable.

I was going to make a few comments about IPSO, which the noble Lord raised, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is in his place and I am sure he will make them much more effectively than I would.

The other general point is that this group of amendments flies in the face of the most fundamental Leveson recommendation. In his report, he stressed that it was essential that the system of self-regulation remained voluntary. What these proposals do is the antithesis of that. In effect, they hold a gun to the head of the industry and say, “Either you join a state-approved regulator, or you’re subject to the statutory control of Ofcom”. There is no voluntary element in that at all because either route ends up in a form of state regulation. That is Hobson’s choice.

Finally, as I have said to this House before, and I hoped I would never have to say again, the vast majority of the press will not under any circumstances join a regulator which is authorised by a state body and underpinned by the threat of legislation. Even Sir Brian Leveson said that he recognised that this was a matter of principle. That principle is that the press cannot be free if it is subject to any form of statutory control, however craftily concealed. That position has existed for many centuries and is threatened by the amendments. The reason for that is that if Amendment 126, and some of the others, went through, none of the major publishers at national, regional and local level, nor magazines, would be exempt from the terms of the Bill and would become subject to the statutory control of Ofcom—something that Ofcom has always made clear that it wants nothing to do with—and the prospect of unlimited penal sanctions. That is the end of a free press, by any definition.

I will very briefly discuss a few specifics. Amendment 124 seeks to bring the comments sections of basically all national newspaper websites within the Bill’s statutory regime. These are already regulated by IPSO, unless the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, corrects me, and they come under its jurisdiction as soon as a complaint is made to the publishers, even if they are not moderated. Unlike social media, which is entirely different in its reach and impact, editors are legally responsible for what appears on their websites, which is why in most cases there are strong content moderation procedures in place. That is why comments sections rightly fall within the limited functionality exemption in the Bill, because there is such limited scope for harm. The impact of Amendment 124 would be to introduce confusing and complex double regulation of comments sections on websites, to the detriment of the public who wish to engage in legitimate debate.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I have been a journalist my whole career and I have great respect for the noble Lords who put their names to Amendments 159 and 160. However, I cannot support another attempt to lever Section 42 of the Crime and Courts Act into the Bill. In Committee I put my name to Amendment 51, which aims to protect journalism in the public interest. It is crucial to support our news outlets, in the interests of democracy and openness. We are in a world where only a few newspapers, such as the New York Times, manage to make a profit from their digital subscribers. I welcome the protection provided by Clause 50; it is much needed.

In the past decade, the declining state of local journalism has meant there is little coverage of magistrates’ courts and council proceedings, the result being that local public servants are no longer held to account. At a national level, newspapers are more and more reluctant to put money into investigations unless they are certain of an outcome, which is rarely the case. Meanwhile, the tech platforms are using newspapers’ contents for free or paying them little money, while disaggregating news content on their websites so the readers do not even know its provenance. I fear that the digital era is putting our legacy media, which has long been a proud centrepiece of our democracy, in great danger. The inclusion of these amendments would mean that all national newspapers and most local media would be excluded from the protections of the clause. The Bill, which is about regulating the digital world, should not be about trying to limit the number of newspapers and news websites covered by the protections of Clause 50; it would threaten democracy at a local and national level.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to say a few words, because I do not want to disappoint my good friend the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who has obviously read the text of my speech before I have even delivered it. I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and a director of the Regulatory Funding Company, and note my other interests as set out in the register.

It will not come as a surprise that I oppose Amendments 159 and 160. I am not going to detain your Lordships for long; there are other more important things to talk about this evening than this seemingly never-ending issue, about which we had a good discussion in Committee. I am sorry that the two noble Lords were indisposed at that time, and I am glad to see they are back on fighting form. I am dispirited that these amendments surfaced in the first place as I do not think they really have anything to do with online safety and the protection of children. This is a Bill about the platforms, not the press. I will not repeat all the points we discussed at earlier stages. Suffice it to say that, in my view, this is not the time and the place to seek to impose what would be statutory controls on the press, for the first time since that great liberal, John Locke, led the charge for press freedom in 1695 when the Licensing Acts were abolished. Let us be clear: despite what the two noble Lords said, that is what these amendments would do, and I will briefly explain why.

These amendments seek to remove the exemption for news publishers from an onerous statutory regime overseen by Ofcom, which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, a state regulator, unless they are part of an approved regulator. Yet no serious publisher, by which I mean the whole of the national and regional press, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said—including at least 95% of the industry, from the Manchester Evening News to Cosmopolitan magazine—is ever going to join a regulator which is approved by the state. Even that patron saint of press controls, Sir Brian Leveson, conceded that this was a “principled position” for the industry to take. The net effect of these amendments would be, at a stroke, to subject virtually the entire press to state regulation—a momentous act wholly inimical to any definition of press freedom and free speech—and with very little discussion and absolutely no consultation.