Online Safety Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Of course we should not. What I am saying is that this amendment is simple. If it is in the Bill, it should then be what we are aiming to create as the Bill goes through this House, with our hours of scrutiny. I shall not take part in many parts of this Bill, as I am not equipped to do so, but there are many in this House who are. Having been set the benchmark of this amendment, they can seek to make the Bill comprehensible to those of us—and that seems to include the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—who at the moment find it incomprehensible.

In a way, we are dealing with the most important subject of all: the protection of childhood innocence. We have got to err in that direction. Although I yield to no one in my passionate belief in the freedom of speech, it must have respect for the decencies of life and not be propagator of the profanities of life.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I think we need to move now to closing speeches, if that seems appropriate—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I have tried to be patient, and I will be very brief. A lot has been said about a lawyer’s paradise. At the moment, the lawyers are over here and paradise is over there and there is a gulf between us. Like the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, I declare my former interest. I did not get any shillings from Facebook or any other big tech empires, but I was a government lawyer for some years, and it is in that vein that I may have a small contribution to make, if the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, does not mind.

There can be a real benefit to an amendment such as this. I want to explain why, not by repeating anything that I said at Second Reading on the substance of the Bill but by speaking from the perspective of legislative drafting and its policy. I will confine my short remarks to that.

In my view, length is always an issue. My noble friend was quite right when he moved his amendment to say that the burden was on him because he was going to add to the length of a very long Bill. In my experience as a government lawyer for about five and half years, with the mixed privilege of sitting over there through many Bills, sometimes counterintuitively a little extra length can actually aid clarity. Sometimes, a very tightly drafted Bill that is complex can be more difficult to read if, for example, it has many schedules and you need a number of copies open at any one time in order to make reference to what will be substantive sections and subsections of the Act. Ironically, it is sometimes beneficial to add a clause of this kind.

There are, I would argue, three potential reasons why Governments sometimes want to do this in relation to legislative policy. One reason is accessibility, and that has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords today. That is, I think, generally a good thing. It is not easy to achieve; I do not blame any colleagues in the Box or the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, or Ministers, for the challenge of legislating in a complex, fast-developing area that is only going to change over time. But accessibility can be aided at times by a provision of the kind that my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others are proposing.

A second possible reason is to aid interpretation, which can be very beneficial as well. That is not just interpretation for judges, litigators and these wicked barracuda lawyers that everyone is so concerned about. Interpretation is important in practice when people are having to deal on a day-to-day basis with the functioning of contentious and important legislation; that is when they have executive, regulatory and legislative functions under a measure of this kind. It is to aid their interpretation—a point made rather well, if I may say so, by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.

So, it is not just about interpretation for lawyers, in order to sue based on what things mean; it is to aid regulators of those in the regulated sector and, potentially, members of the public and pressure groups, with some advice. As a lawyer, I consider myself a half-decent legislative professional, and this is a complex Bill for me. It would be aided by a provision of the kind my noble friends are proposing. I am saying this, really, to tempt the Minister seriously to consider something like it. I suppose I am partly trying to pre-empt what I suspect is in his brief to say by way of rebuttal in just a moment.

The third potential reason to have a provision like this at the beginning of the Bill is pure politics, and we sometimes see that in Bills: it is total flummery, and just a way of making a big political statement of intent. That is never, in my view, a good enough reason by itself. But that is not what is happening or what is suggested in my noble friend’s amendment.

I now come to complexity and the benefits of a purposive provision in this Bill. Before the Minister says that it is not appropriate, not what we do and not what parliamentary counsel does, may I remind noble Lords of another Bill going through Parliament at the moment? In contrast to this Bill, which consists of 247 pages, 212 clauses and 17 schedules, we are going to have another controversial—more controversial, I would argue—Bill in due course with a mere 59 pages, 58 clauses and one schedule, which is just a list of countries. That Illegal Migration Bill has, in fact, a purposive provision right at the beginning, in the first subsection of Clause 1. I am not making a point about the substance of that legislation; I am just pre-empting any argument that this is not what we do and not how we draft Bills. Sometimes, it appears, it is. As I say, it is a much shorter, much simpler, dare I say even more controversial Bill, and perhaps there is more politics there than accessibility of interpretation.

That was my cheap point. What I really want to say to all noble Lords in this Committee is that for the purposes of debating this amendment, let us put to one side what we think about the Bill and the various clauses and amendments we would like to see or not see. Let us just ask: is this amendment as drafted and the approach recommended by my noble friend going to aid accessibility and interpretation—not litigation and lawyers and those wicked people in my profession, but the people who, day to day, will have to live and work with the proposed new regime? Whatever one’s views—be they those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, or others—about the Bill as it stands or as it should or should not stand, as amended, something like Amendment 1, in my submission, is a very good idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, just before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones gets to wind up, I wanted to ask a question and make a point of clarification. I am grateful for the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti; that was a helpful point to make.

My question, which I was going to direct to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—although it may be one that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to respond to if the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is not coming back—is about the use of the word “purpose” versus “objective”. The point I was trying to make in referring to the Joint Committee’s report was that, when it set out the limbs of this amendment, it was referring to them as objectives for Ofcom. What we have here is an amendment that is talking about purposes of the Bill, and in the course of this debate we have been talking about the need for clarity of purpose. The point I was trying to make was not that I object to the contents of this amendment, but that if we are looking for clarity of purpose to inform the way we want people to behave as a result of this legislation, I would make it much shorter and simpler, which is why I pointed to subsection (g) of the proposed clause.

It may be that the content of this amendment—and this is where I pick up the point the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was making—is not objectionable, although I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is right: at the moment, let us worry less about the specifics. Then, we can be clearer about what bits of the amendment are meant to be doing what, rather than trying to get all of them to offer clarity of purpose. That is my problem with it: there are purposes, which, as I say, are helpful structurally in terms of how an organisation might go about its work, and there is then the clarity of purpose that should be driving everything. The shorter, simpler and more to the point we can make that, the better.

[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.