Schools: Data, Digital and Financial Literacy

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, given the importance of this subject and the risks that children in particular run on a daily basis with the internet, why have the Government not seized a golden opportunity in the Online Safety Bill to set minimum standards for digital and media literacy in schools and give Ofcom greater powers in terms of media literacy strategy?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Our Online Safety Bill goes a long way to addressing the concerns that the noble Lord rightly raises, but I should like to reassure him that some of that is also reinforced by the work that we are doing at every key stage in our schools.

Schools: Artificial Intelligence Software

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and his reflections. The Government are already engaging with the education sector on these issues. I will meet the head of Ofqual next week. Guidance has also recently been produced for universities on this. The spirit of the noble Lord’s question, which is that we must seize this opportunity, is absolutely a key part of our focus.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this Question clearly concerns a very powerful new generative, probabilistic type of artificial intelligence, which we ought to encourage in terms of creativity but not of cheating or deception. Does the Question not demonstrate the limitations of the Government’s online digital and media education strategy? Why is there nothing in the Online Safety Bill on this?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Elements of the Online Safety Bill will touch on this, but, as the noble Lord understands very well, this is much broader than online safety. I push back hard on his assertion of a lack of ambition in the Government’s strategy. This is a central part of the Prime Minister-chaired National Science and Technology Council and is one of the top five priorities within it.

Schools: Biometric Technologies

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Monday 6th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government are not softening up our children. The use of biometric data in schools requires explicit consent from both parents of a child, and the child themselves can overrule that, should they wish.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, from what the Minister has said today, it is clear that, despite promises, no new guidance has been produced since 2018, the Government have no means of ensuring compliance with that guidance and they have very little information about the use of this technology in schools. From that, can we conclude that this Government are washing their hands of virtually any responsibility for the deployment of this technology?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government are clearly not washing their hands; there are very clear procedures which schools must follow if they want to introduce this technology and very clear procedures which must be followed if a breach takes place.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I hear the noble Lord’s concerns. We will of course take back his comments and reflect on them again. However, I know that officials working on this Bill have considered these points in enormous detail and would be happy to meet the noble Lord and discuss them, if that would be helpful. We believe that our framework does not water down but balances future-proofing with the precision and specificity that the noble Lord seeks. I hope we can follow up on that in a separate meeting.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I see a slight chink of light, perhaps, that may be opened by opened by a meeting with the Minister on this subject—because she will appreciate that none of the amendments tabled to the Bill, which we think is important, has been put down lightly, and definition is crucial.

I was somewhat baffled by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, flying in his jet—I was thinking of perhaps pressing the ejector button, but I thought better of it. The idea that there is an analogy between flying a jet and what we are talking about here was a bit baffling. The only way that I could think of the analogy for a planned outage, which is exactly what the providers are worried about being subject to under this definition of “security compromise”, is where a jet does a planned manoeuvre and everyone scrambles and treats it as an incident—so I cannot see that his analogy holds at all.

I much prefer and give thanks for the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Fox, who, in doubling down on the points raised about the purposes of the Bill, illustrated exactly why we seek to have a much more precise definition. The big problem is that the flexibility demanded by the Government is effectively at businesses’ cost and causes uncertainty. That is the worry about the way that the Bill is currently drafted.

The Minister talked about future-proofing and doing it more precisely, in a sense, by setting out the duties by secondary legislation—but, of course, there are great concerns about the way that the secondary legislation is to be agreed and the codes of practice. So I suppose that, if I were going to ask for a quid pro quo, if there is to be a loose definition of “security compromise”, there must be a very tight way of agreeing the codes of practice and the secondary legislation—but I wonder whether the Minister will actually agree to that trade-off, as we go through the afternoon. I would like to have all of the amendments that we have tabled for today.

I really think that, when the Minister said that this would “undermine the whole approach”, it is good to have it in her script, but that is absolutely not the case. The last thing that we are doing by trying to tighten this definition is to undermine the whole approach; we are trying to create certainty for the providers so that, when they plan outages and there are other planned events, they are not caught by a sidewind when trying to comply with the terms of the Bill. This is a practical issue.

I understand what the Minister says about resilience and, to some degree, that is the case, but there is clearly a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the providers’ interpretation of the Bill, as it currently stands—and they are the ones that will be subject to this. As I said—without wishing to repeat myself too much—the Government’s impact assessment itself makes it very clear that the costs of this exercise, of having to comply with the Bill, are extremely uncertain at this point, and there is quite a lot of concern about that.

I am sure that, if we have a meeting with the Minister in due course, we will be able to persuade her to accept these amendments, and I look forward to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.

Covid-19: Broadband

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Monday 5th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, the Covid-19 crisis has shown the integral role digital connectivity plays in our lives. Thanks to the Government, 97% of the UK can now access superfast broadband and over 40% of premises can access gigabit-capable networks—up from 18% at the start of the pandemic. We also recognise the importance of affordable broadband. That is why we have worked with BT, Virgin Media and others to ensure that they offer social tariffs for households in receipt of universal credit and other means-tested benefits.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I note the Minister’s reply, but data poverty and digital exclusion, as the Good Things Foundation and ParentZone have shown, is widespread. Research from Citizens Advice suggests:

“2.5 million people are behind on their broadband bills, with 700,000 of these falling into the red during Covid”.


The existing variation in broadband deals across the market leads to confusion and low take-up among those who need support the most. Will the Government commit to requiring all providers to offer an affordable social tariff for low-income families, as recommended by the Lords Covid-19 Select Committee?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government are working in different areas to address affordability, and I am sure that the noble Lord has seen the recent Ofcom report on this issue. Some 99% of households can access an affordable tariff, but the take-up of that is much lower than we would hope, and Ofcom has recommended more proactive marketing of those tariffs.

Digital Identification Protocol

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Thursday 20th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point on which I absolutely agree. That is why we have taken this very transparent approach with the publication of the trust framework alpha. A second iteration will be published this summer and then, as I mentioned, further work towards legislation later this year.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Government Digital Service is hiring a new head of design with the statement:

“Our vision is that citizens will be able to use one login for all government services.”


But we have already spent £200 million on Verify without notable success. Despite what seemed to be the intention in the call for evidence response of creating an open marketplace for verifiable credentials, are the Government really planning to reinvent Verify?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

We are not planning to reinvent anything. We will continue to run the Verify system, plan for its retirement and the offboarding of services, while working closely with departments, including my own, to develop a viable long-term digital identity solution for all government, which will be called “One Login for Government”.

Creative Industries: Covid-19

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Monday 26th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I just commented on the expansion of the scheme, which we think will include many new freelancers who are self-employed. The Government share the noble Lord’s concerns about support for our deprived communities and see cultural assets as critical in their revival. That is why more than two-thirds of the Culture Recovery Fund has been spent outside London and why we have a major series of funds, including the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund and, in future, the shared prosperity fund, all of which have a creative industries strand within them.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, a number of groups in the creative industries are falling between the cracks in government support. For example, recent BECTU figures show that the overall number of black and minority-ethnic workers employed in the theatre industry has fallen by 19% over the last year, compared with a 3% overall reduction in the number of white workers. Does the Minister agree that levelling up must be about disadvantaged groups as well as geography? What can the levelling-up fund do for the creative industries in this respect?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord is right to raise these points. Absolutely, levelling up should cut across a number of axes, including the one the noble Lord raises. We are working to improve this area. At Budget the Chancellor announced a new approach to apprenticeships in the creative industries, with £7 million of pilot funding to test flexi-job apprenticeships that might suit better the working practices of the creative industries. Over 1,300 creative industry placements are now available via the Department for Work and Pensions Kickstart scheme.

Video-sharing Platforms: BBFC Ratings

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Thursday 4th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware that the adoption of BBFC ratings, particularly by Netflix, is a relatively recent development, so we have not yet made an assessment of its impact on both accessibility of content and other streaming services. As I said to my noble friend Lord Grade, we are keeping this under review.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, YouGov research confirms that 82% of parents and 73% of children want BBFC age ratings displayed on user-generated content on these video-sharing platforms. Given new duties under the revised audio-visual media services directive to protect children, and with the promised duty of care, is not actual regulation from the Government needed to make sure that these platforms work with the trusted ratings from the BBFC to better protect children? Are not the Government running against the tide?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

We do not believe that we are running against the tide. The online harms legislation, which we have discussed extensively in this House and which I know we will debate in great detail in future, will make us a world leader in this regard.

Australia: News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Thursday 25th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am unable to share the detail of the progress made to date, but I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government are using every opportunity for international dialogue with both our European neighbours and others. This morning, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State met with his counterpart in Australia and he also recently met his counterpart in Canada. We are working in the most collaborative way possible.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Australian approach risks legislating in a way that will create its own unintended outcomes. Content and copyright for news publishers is just one part of the problem and can be solved. Market dominance in access to data and in digital advertising is a much bigger issue. We have had many reports urging legislation and action: Cairncross, Furman, the digital task force and now Penrose. Why are the Government dragging their heels in bringing forward legislation to tackle it effectively?

European Union: Visa-free Touring for Musicians

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am slightly taken aback at the noble Lord’s tone; the Government have been incredibly committed to this area. Obviously, there were multiple complex issues that needed to be considered in these negotiations, including the commitments to take back control of our borders and to make sure that our creative industries continue to flourish. We remain entirely committed to both.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, touring musicians and creative artists are deeply angry at this negotiating failure. Is not the root of the problem refusal by the Home Office to extend permitted paid engagement here to 90 days for EU artists, meaning as a result that work permits will now be required in many member states for our artists? Will the Government urgently rethink this and renegotiate on the instrument and equipment carnet and on trucking issues?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

There were a number of drawbacks to the EU proposals, which did not meet the requirements of our sectors, as I mentioned; they covered only ad hoc performances, they were non-binding and did not address technical staff or work permits. Our door absolutely remains open to reviewing these points, but in the meantime we will do everything we can to support our sectors.

Online Harms Consultation

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, over three years have elapsed and three Secretaries of State have come and gone since the Green Paper, in the face of a rising tide of online harms, not least during the Covid period, as Ofcom has charted. On these Benches, therefore, we welcome the set of concrete proposals we finally have to tackle online harms through a duty of care. We welcome the proposal for pre-legislative scrutiny, but I hope that there is a clear and early timetable for this to take place.

As regards the ambit of the duty of care, children are of course the first priority in prevention of harm, but it is clear that social media companies have failed to tackle the spread of fake news and misinformation on their platforms. I hope that the eventual definition in the secondary legislation includes a wide range of harmful content such as deep fakes, Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, and misinformation such as anti-vax and QAnon conspiracy theories.

I am heartened too by the Government’s plans to consider criminalising the encouragement of self-harm. I welcome the commitment to keeping a balance with freedom of expression, but surely the below-the-line exemption proposed should depend on the news publisher being Leveson-compliant in how it is regulated. I think I welcome the way that the major impact of the duty of care will fall on big-tech platforms with the greatest reach, but we on these Benches will want to kick the tyres hard on the definition, threshold and duties of category 2 to make sure that this does not become a licence to propagate serious misinformation by some smaller platforms and networks.

I welcome the confirmation that Ofcom will be the regulator, but the key to success in preventing online harms will be whether Ofcom has teeth. Platforms will need to demonstrate how they have reduced the “reasonably foreseeable” risk of harm occurring from the design of their services. In mitigating the risk of “legal but harmful content”, this comes down to the way in which platforms facilitate and even encourage the sharing of extreme or sensationalist content designed to cause harm. As many excellent bodies such as Reset, Avaaz and Carnegie UK have pointed out—as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, the latter is the begetter of the duty of care proposal—this means having the power of compulsory audit. Inspection of the algorithms that drive traffic on social media is crucial.

Will Ofcom be able to make a direction to amend a recommender algorithm, how a “like” function operates and how content is promoted? Will it be able to inspect the data by which the algorithm trains and operates? Will Ofcom be able to insist that platforms can establish the identity of a user and address the issue of fake accounts, or that paid content is labelled? Will it be able to require platforms to issue fact-checked corrections to scientifically inaccurate posts? Will Ofcom work hand in hand with the Internet Watch Foundation? International co-ordination will be vital.

Ofcom will also need to work closely with the CMA if the Government are to protect vulnerable victims of online scams, fraud, and fake and misleading online reviews, if they are explicitly excluded from this legislation. Ofcom will need to work with the ASA to regulate harmful online advertising, as well. It will also need to work with the Gambling Commission on the harms of online black-market gambling, as was highlighted yesterday by my noble friend Lord Foster.

How will this new duty of care mesh with compliance with the age-appropriate design code, regulated by the ICO? As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has mentioned, the one major fudge in the response is on age verification. The proposals do not meet the objectives of the original Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. We were promised action when the response arrived, but we have a much watered-down proposal. Pornography is increasingly available and accessible to young people on more sites than just those with user-generated content. How do the Government propose to tackle this ever more pressing problem? There are many other areas that we will want to examine in the pre-legislative process and when the Bill comes to this House.

As my honourable friend Jamie Stone pointed out in the Commons yesterday, a crucial component of minimising risk online is education. Schools need to educate children about how to use social media responsibly. What commitment do the Government have to online media education? When will the strategy appear and what resources will be devoted to it?

These are some of the yet unanswered questions before the draft legislation arrives, but I hope that the Government commit to a full debate early in the new year so that some of these issues can be unpacked at the same time as the pre-legislative scrutiny process starts.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for welcoming this full response to the consultation. I am happy to echo them both in their thanks, in particular to Carnegie UK and the important work it has done. We hope very much that the Bill will bring us into an age of accountability for big tech.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, what is illegal in the real world should indeed be illegal in the digital world. This Bill, when it comes, will help us move towards that. He raised the question about the focus on individuals. Obviously, the level of harm—in terms of the more individuals who are impacted—will be relevant to the sanctions that Ofcom can enforce. But he also raised a wider and very important point about trust in our institutions; clearly, social media and big tech platforms are institutions where the level of trust has been tremendously eroded in recent years. We want to restore that, so that what the big tech platforms say they will do is actually what happens in practice.

Both noble Lords asked about the category 1 companies, how those are defined and whether we will miss important actors as a result of that definition. Category 1 businesses will be based on size of audience but also on the functionality that they offer. For example, the ability to share content widely or to contact users anonymously, which are obviously higher-risk characteristics, could put a platform with a smaller audience into that category 1. Ofcom will publish the thresholds for these factors, assess companies against those thresholds and then publish a list of them. To be clear, all companies working in this area with user-generated content have to tackle all illegal content, and they have to protect children in relation to legal but harmful content. We are building safety by design into our approach from the get-go.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about criminal liability; we are not shying away from it. Indeed, the powers to introduce criminal liability for directors are, as he knows, being included in the Bill and can be introduced via secondary legislation. We would just rather give the technology companies a chance to get their house in order. The significant fines that can be levied—up to 10% of the turnover of the parent company or £18,000, whichever is higher—are obviously, for the larger tech companies, very substantial sums of money. We think that those fines will help to focus their minds.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about legal but harmful content. This is a very important and delicate area. We need to protect freedom of expression; we cannot dictate that legal content should automatically be taken down. That is why we agree with him that a duty of care is the right way forward. He questioned whether this would be sufficient to protect children. Our aim, and our number one priority, throughout this is clearly the protection of children.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked a number of questions about Ofcom. I might not have time to answer them all now, but we believe that the Bill will give Ofcom the tools it needs to understand how to address the harms that need addressing through transparency reports, and to take action if needed. Ofcom will have extensive powers in order to achieve this. He also mentioned international co-ordination. We are clearly very open to working with other countries and regulators and are keen to do so.

Both noble Lords questioned whether the shift from age verification to age assurance is in some way a step backwards. We really do not believe that this is the case. We think that when the Bill comes, its scope will be very broad. We expect companies to use age-assurance or age-verification technologies to prevent children accessing services that pose the highest risk of harm to them, such as online pornography. The legislation will not mandate the use of specific technological approaches because we want it to be future-proofed. The emphasis will be on the duty of care and the undiluted responsibility of the tech companies to provide sufficient protection to children. We are therefore tech neutral in our approach, but we expect the regulator to be extremely robust towards those sites that pose the highest risk of harm to children.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also asked about our media literacy strategy, which we are working on at the moment.

Streaming Platforms: Age Ratings

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the partnership between Netflix and the British Board of Film Classification to establish age ratings for streaming platforms; and what plans they have to encourage other streaming platforms to adopt such ratings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, while adoption of the British Board of Film Classification’s best-practice age ratings by online platforms is currently voluntary, we welcome their usage by video on-demand platforms. This includes an ongoing partnership with Netflix which, on 1 December, announced that it had become the first platform to achieve complete coverage of its content under the BBFC’s ratings. We will continue to engage with industry to encourage other platforms to do the same and will keep the evidence for legislation in this area under review.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, given that at present, under the audiovisual media services directive, the UK cannot regulate non-UK-based video on-demand services, does the Minister agree that BBFC ratings are the best way to inform parents and children whether content is appropriate, because they are trusted and reflect our national concerns on issues such as violence and discrimination? Will the Government take action to promote and ensure adoption by VOD platforms whether regulated here or not?

Amazon

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Monday 12th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord raises an important point, but I remind him that the Government have established a number of groups and reviews, starting with the Furman review, which reported in March 2019, and most recently the digital markets task force. One of the recommendations we have accepted is the development of a code of conduct, just as the noble Lord suggests.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the chief executive of the CMA described the market position of some of the major US online platforms as “unassailable”. The Government are clearly going to give in to the US on food standards in any trade deal; will they do the same with the digital sales tax and competition regulation?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government remain determined to create the most innovative pro-growth economy that we can. That is dependent on effective competitions in all markets, particularly digital markets, so that is where our focus remains.

Music Industry

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Thursday 10th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Unfortunately, the data my noble friend seeks has not yet been published. We are expecting Arts Council England to provide that data shortly, and it will obviously be shared publicly. In terms of reallocation, an enormous amount of work went into deciding the proportions within the fund, and those reflect where we think funds are needed.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, at a minimum, the furlough and the SEIS scheme should be extended, but we need to go further. The Prime Minister in his Statement yesterday outlined plans to pilot mass testing in Salford for indoor venues. Will the Minister ensure that music venues in the local area are part of these pilots, and will the Government look into underwriting insurance to event promoters in the event of short-notice cancellation in any pilots?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I can certainly confirm to the noble Lord that the Government really value the contribution of the arts, including music, are ambitious in trying to get venues open as quickly as it is safe to do so, and are considering all options to do that.

Covid-19: Artificial Intelligence

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My noble friend is right to highlight the importance of the Global Partnership on AI. The Government hope this will be a tool for spreading good practice across the world, allowing us to both innovate and learn very quickly.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the AI Barometer talks of low levels of public trust being one fundamental barrier to the use of AI in both public and private sectors. Trust in government use of AI has been hugely damaged by the A-level algorithm fiasco. What are the Government doing to restore that trust? Is it not now crucial to put the CDEI on a statutory footing and ensure that there is a proper mechanism for ethical compliance across government services?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to focus on the importance of trust: it is a vital underpinning in the development of AI. I imagine he is aware that we have just published our National Data Strategy, which sets out very clearly the importance of public understanding of both government and non-government data within an ethical framework.

Digital Platforms: Impact on Democracy

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I cannot give a simple “yes” or “no” at this time; all these things will be considered in detail, as I have mentioned already.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, rightly says:

“The digital and social media landscape is dominated by two behemoths—Facebook and Google … Platforms’ decisions about what content they remove or stop promoting through their algorithms set the de facto limits of free expression online”—


a concern expressed by Facebook’s own recent audit. The Minister will be aware of the boycott of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram by leading companies over their approach to hate speech and fake news. Will she now ensure that all government departments join that boycott?

[Baroness Barran]

I would hope that government departments are putting nothing on Facebook or any other platform other than helpful and accurate information, so I cannot give the noble Lord that guarantee.

Data Strategy

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

Our plans for our data strategy are extremely ambitious. We see it as a crucial part of driving economic prosperity and social good. We believe that we have laid the foundations for that already and will announce more detail in due course.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Government’s call for evidence on digital identity was issued in July 2019; it rightly emphasised the importance of public trust and the role that a successful approach to digital identity can play in the use of public data. That call closed last September, so is it not high time that we had some policy proposals in this crucial area, too—especially given the failures of the past, such as Verify—so as to ensure that, as techUK has suggested, we create a framework of standards that can be used by all players in this field?

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord is right that digital identity and having clarity on that is critical. The Government have been very open about having had some unavoidable delays, most particularly around the election and now, sadly, with Covid. Part of the work within the strategy will be to identify which areas and datasets to prioritise and focus on.

Children: Exposure to Harmful Content

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Thursday 11th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the research by the British Board of Film Classification on the extent of exposure of children and teens to harmful or upsetting content while in lockdown, published on 4 May.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, children are going online more due to Covid-19 measures. As the British Board of Film Classification’s report has highlighted, this can put them at greater risk of encountering harmful content. DCMS published new online safety guidance on 23 April which includes guidance for parents, including on preventing children’s exposure to age-inappropriate content. There is advice on implementing content filters and on talking to your child about staying safe online. Children’s online safety is a priority for this Government, and new online harms legislation will be ready in this Session.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the research carried out for the BBFC has revealed that, in lockdown, 47% of all children and teens—that is nearly half—have seen content that they wish they had not. Given these appalling figures, and previous figures from the Government themselves about children’s access to pornography, will the Minister now make clear the Government’s commitment to urgently introduce long-delayed and much needed age verification for online pornography? This is a vital child protection measure which parents overwhelmingly support, and which Ministers themselves have described as a critical and urgent issue.

[Baroness Barran [V]]

The noble Lord will be aware that in our proposals we take the duty to deliver a much higher level of protection for children and adults extremely seriously. We are following an approach of requiring a duty of care on social media and other online content providers, and we think that this is more robust than any particular set of procedures, although it would obviously include age verification.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I thank the noble Lord for his further questions. To cover the point about Openreach, the noble Lord will be aware that on 15 May the Financial Times suggested that BT was considering the sale of a stake in Openreach to potential buyers, including Macquarie. Officials spoke to BT last week, which confirmed that this was inaccurate. Both Openreach and Macquarie sources have also publicly told the press that this is inaccurate. On his wider point, if the Government became aware that Openreach did not have the capacity to deliver on our target, we would obviously reconsider how best to meet it, but I am not in a position to be able to give any more detail here.

I will also correct something. I hope noble Lords did not understand me to say that potential delays in rollout from the impact of Covid-19 are only short term. At the moment, we understand some of the short-term impacts and we hope we will be able to absorb them, but given that none of us has a crystal ball on how this will all unwind, I wanted to clarify that for the record.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, implied, it was ironic that we were talking about fast, reliable, resilient broadband, in the Minister’s words, yet she is the one who has principally suffered from not having it in the course of the debate. I thank her anyway, and I look forward to the letter she will send, which might be a little bit clearer than the reception we had for her response.

I thank noble Lords for their support for the amendments. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, brought out some of the real issues associated with getting the wording wrong. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, that there is nothing wrong with Liberal with a large “L”. We might want to see the ECC interpreted with a large “L”, not just a small one.

I felt the Minister really did not start off on the right foot when talking about the actual aim—the Government’s objectives. I understand that there may be some delay as a result of Covid-19, but the target was set out in the Conservative manifesto. We have not really had a pledge on that. We have had “as soon as possible”—I think that that was in the Minister’s speech last time—but no pledge that that is the objective and that all the Government’s sinews are being strained to achieve it. That is what we want to see.

On the amendments, we are back to the question of access. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, got this right. It is about absolute access for various types of occupier. We should be treating this as a utility. We cannot be talking about this in 19th-century property terms. It is as if we were at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, when people were arguing about whether electricity should be installed in their houses. Broadband should take its place alongside gas, electricity and water as an essential utility and we should give suitable powers of access to do that.

I look forward to the letter from the Minister but to say that my amendments affect the clarity of the drafting of the wider Bill is almost laughable, because the drafting of the Bill is not clear. The use of the term “lessee”, which excludes quite a number of different types of occupation and tenancy—as has been pointed out—is not adequate. We do not just have a legal issue; we have a clear access fault line about how we treat broadband and its essential nature. We are going to have have-nots who are not able to benefit from the ECC and that will be greatly regretted, not least by those who are unable to access the kind of service that the Minister herself would like. I do not necessarily take on board the arguments about unintended consequences and occupation. One is being over-cautious in the way that the Bill has been put together, but that is a characteristic of the Bill as a whole. We will, no doubt, come back to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I absolutely support what the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Livermore, said on this matter. A lot of what we are trying to achieve with our comments on the Bill—clearly there is a great deal of commonality here—is to get the Government to state very clearly what their objectives are and how they will achieve them. This is a very well-worded amendment designed to do just that, so that the operators must commit to a one-gigabit-capable broadband commitment. Amendment 21, when we come to it, has a very similar intention.

The problem is that we seem to be faced with a really slippery objective that we cannot quite get our hands on; the Government have not quite committed to it. We really need to see proper commitment from the Government to full access to the one-gigabit-capable broadband which they absolutely promised in their manifesto. At the moment, there seem to be an awful lot of get-out clauses. That is not satisfactory. We will keep arguing through this Bill for a proper commitment to the one-gigabit-capable broadband promised at the last general election.

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, I will now respond to Amendment 2 and the points raised by noble Lords.

This amendment would limit the use of the powers contained in Part 4A only to operators installing gigabit-capable services. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, stressed, the spirit of this amendment is to test the Government’s commitment to providing gigabit-capable broadband. I am obviously disappointed that he found insufficient the remarks of my honourable friend the Minister for Digital Infrastructure in the other place.

The Government remain completely committed to bringing faster, gigabit-capable broadband to the whole country as soon as possible. Our ambition remains nationwide coverage by 2025. However, we do not believe that we should force consumers to take out specific services.

Clause 1, as currently drafted, supports our ambition. It provides a bespoke process in the courts that will allow an operator faced with a landowner of a premises within the scope of this Bill who repeatedly fails to respond to notices, and a tenant waiting for a service to be connected, to gain interim code rights for the purpose of connecting that building to their broadband service. To limit provision only to services

“that can deliver an average download speed of at least one gigabit per second”

runs the risk, particularly in the short term, of limiting access to better broadband, which, as all noble Lords have agreed, is extremely important.

This Bill, like the Electronic Communications Code, which it amends, is technology neutral and therefore speed neutral. It makes no distinction between the type of service being deployed but recognises the consumer’s right to choose the service they want from the provider they want. Of course, many consumers will want the speed, reliability and resilience offered by full-fibre or gigabit-capable connections, and it should not be the role of government to limit their ability to choose.

In a similar vein, although gigabit-capable services are being rolled out across the UK, they are not yet being deployed everywhere. In practice, the amendment would mean that households in areas yet to be reached by gigabit-capable networks would have to wait—maybe for a long period—even though a superfast or ultrafast service might already be available. Our experience and current practice suggest that an operator would be very unlikely to install outdated technology, and therefore such a delay would be unnecessary and extremely frustrating for consumers.

Finally, were this amendment to form part of the Bill, we consider that it would not have the effect intended by noble Lords. It amends paragraph 27A, which is an introductory provision and explains in very general terms what Part 4A of the code does. The amendment in itself does not amend any of the Bill’s substantive provisions, such as paragraph 27B of the code. Its drafting would not therefore operate within the rest of the Bill.

I understand what noble Lords are seeking to achieve in tabling the amendment. The Government absolutely share the aspiration of achieving gigabit-capable broadband across the whole country, but it is important that the Bill, and the Electronic Communications Code more widely, stay technology neutral for the sake of the consumer’s right to choose and to ensure that we do not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

A number of noble Lords raised the question of the universal service obligation, which is the safety net that we legislated for and which went live on 20 March. It ensures that everyone across the UK has a clear and enforceable right to request high-speed broadband of at least 10 megabits a second from a designated provider and up to a reasonable cost threshold of £3,400. We keep the speed and quality parameters of the USO under review all the time to make sure that it keeps pace with consumers’ evolving needs, and our officials work closely with Ofcom regarding the implementation of the universal service obligation.

With that, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who is correct in saying that the purport of our amendment, Amendment 8, is very similar. I was struck by the Minister’s implying that, if we are not careful, consumers will be forced to take a service. That is not the situation. What we want to do, as far as possible, is to facilitate the laying of fibre across 100% of the country. Consumers can well make up their own minds about whether to enter into a consumer contract. We need, as far as we can, to facilitate the operators in what they do. Just as with electricity—we have had several references to the utilities aspect—people should have access to this. I cannot understand why the Government are not making a distinction between laying the infrastructure and then entering into consumer contracts for the supply of internet services; the distinction is readily understood.

I accept that the Bill introduces a new process for operators to gain access in cases where a tenant has requested a service and the landlord is unresponsive. This will, of course, be helpful for deployment but it depends on a tenant requesting a service rather than supporting the proactive laying of cable ahead of individual customer requests. That means that operators’ teams may not be able to access buildings in areas where operators are currently building, or plan to build, so they will be less effective in supporting rapid deployment. That is what the Bill is ostensibly about: facilitating the deployment of fibre. The most efficient building process is when operators can access all premises in a given area, rather than having to return to them when a building team may have moved many miles away.

Operators say that if they were able to trigger this process without relying on a tenant request for service, they would be able to plan and execute deployment much more efficiently—in effect, proactively building in these MDUs at the point where their engineering teams are in place, rather than waiting for a tenant to request a service. Both these amendments are pure common sense; I hope that the Minister will accept them.

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for tabling these amendments, which would allow telecommunications operators to apply to the courts for a Part 4A order without requiring a “lessee in occupation” in the property making a request for a service. I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, but we are concerned that both have the potential to undermine the balance between the rights of the landowner, the rights of the operator and the public interest.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to our comments in the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review but we then consulted publicly on the policy in this Bill. What is here in the Bill reflects the outcome of that consultation. The Bill, like the rest of the Electronic Communications Code, was designed to create a fair and balanced framework to underpin the relationships between telecoms operators and landowners. We believe that it works because it is balanced and gives the interests of all sides careful consideration. We believe the Bill continues that balance. Where a landowner is unresponsive, for whatever reason, it is important to ensure that an interest other than that of the operator is being considered by granting an order which potentially impinges on an individual’s property rights.

This is the reason for the requirement that the lessee in occupation of the property actively requests that a telecommunications service be delivered. This is integral to the policy. This request is an unequivocal demonstration that the interests of parties other than the operator alone are reflected and goes to the heart of the Bill’s carefully crafted work, taking into account and balancing the respective interests of tenants, landowners and operators. Some network operators may well welcome the freedom of being able to judge for themselves what is and is not in the public interest and the ability to gain access to a property simply by proposing to make a service available. That freedom is what these amendments would give them. However, I hope noble Lords will agree that without any accompanying constraint on such a freedom, such a system could be capable of being abused, and that is a risk the Government are not willing to accept.

I am also mindful that these amendments would mark a significant shift from the policy that was consulted on, and that is something to be particularly cautious of when dealing with issues around property rights. With that in mind, I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Data Protection: Age-appropriate Design Code

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I was very disappointed to see in the final version of the code that the section dealing with age-appropriate application has been watered down to leave out reference to age-verification mechanisms. Is this because the age-verification provisions of the Digital Economy Act have been kicked into the long grass at the behest of the pornography industry so that we will not have officially sanctioned age-verification tools available any time soon?

[Baroness Barran]

There is no intention to water down the code. Its content is the responsibility of the Information Commissioner, who has engaged widely to develop the code, with a call for evidence and a full public consultation.

Social Media: Fake News

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, in the light of the Avaaz report and Ofcom’s latest figures showing the massive extent of Covid disinformation, is not the Government’s approach to social media platforms far too flabby? Should they not be obliging social media platforms to not only provide correct information, but issue warnings and then terminate the accounts of those disseminating misinformation about Covid-19?

[Baroness Barran]

We would rebut the allegation that our response has been flabby. This is clearly an incredibly fast-moving situation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State meets regularly with the social media companies. As I said earlier, we think that there is more that they can do, but they have made some important moves in recent weeks.

Covid-19: Music Sector and Creative Economy

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Thursday 23rd April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I thank my noble friend for his question. We recognise the financial challenges which small venues face, particularly those in London that might not benefit from the relief to business rates because they have a rateable value above £51,000. We are grateful to the Music Venue Trust for the work it is doing to gather evidence from the sector, and we will use that to inform our plans as we move forward.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

As the Minister will know, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, and other noble Lords have highlighted, the music sector and other live arts performance has been extremely badly hit by the coronavirus lockdown. We have discussed current support for the sector this morning. Will the Government give serious consideration to financial incentives to stimulate and promote UK music and other live performance production after the lockdown, especially in view of the recovery period that will be required?

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord is right that the recovery period could be longer for these sectors than some others. As I said, we are working very hard to understand the evidence on this. Giving evidence to the Select Committee yesterday, the Secretary of State said that we have not reached the end of the road in our thinking. We are listening, analysing the evidence and working on where we should focus our support.

Covid-19: Public Interest Reporting

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I hope my honourable friend the Minister for Media and Data has the NUJ on speed dial, but I will check; he is certainly actively talking to broadcasters, the Society of Editors and others regularly. As the noble Lord rightly raised, work is going on in relation to the position of the self-employed.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to all the journalists, photographers and, in particular, camera staff in our 24-hour news service, who are providing a vital, trusted news source in an incredibly fast-moving situation. As the noble Lord said, many of them are freelancers. Does the Minister agree that it would be quite wrong for those freelancers to feel under pressure to work because they do not have the underpinning support enjoyed by those employees rightly identified by the Chancellor in the very supportive settlement that he arranged? There is no equivalent for those freelancers. We have the UQ coming in a minute, but I see that the Statement says that further help is coming. I hope that further help is coming very fast indeed; otherwise, we will see freelancers who feel obliged to carry on working when they are creating a danger to themselves and others.

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord has covered a number of points. I absolutely echo his sentiment about the importance of journalists and those involved in public service broadcasting at the moment; not only are they a trusted source of facts, but they will have a role to play in rallying communities and getting the message across about how we can keep ourselves and our families safe, and protect our NHS. Undoubtedly, they have a critical role. I know the noble Lord understands the pace at which government has had to work over the past couple of weeks. In a number of these areas, it may be worth waiting a couple more days and getting the solution right, rather than being too hasty.

Covid-19: Business Interruption Insurance

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Barran

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration it has given to the ability of entertainment and hospitality businesses to claim on their business interruption insurance policies where customers have been advised to stay away but no order for closure has been given.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government understand that this has been an unprecedented time for these industries and that Covid-19 has indeed had a very profound impact. At the Budget last week, the Government set out a £30 billion fiscal stimulus to support British people, British jobs and British businesses. I think the noble Lord will be aware of the statement this morning from the Association of British Insurers saying that the vast majority of businesses would not be covered for business interruption of the type we are talking about under their insurance, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is having calls across the industry this afternoon to make sure that our lines of communication are open.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I, too, have read the statement from the ABI. This is a major issue which has rightly received extensive and negative attention in the media. These businesses are in limbo and are threatened with ruin as a result of being unable to invoke the terms of their business interruption insurance policies. Will the Government now reconsider their policy and direct closure, as has been the case in so many continental countries? It is much more likely—although not certain, as the ABI statement makes clear—that claims will be successful in those circumstances. The other alternative is for the Government to put their own scheme in place where insurance is not available. It is incumbent on the Government to show that they understand what business is facing.

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord is quite right. Across government we are trying to understand the challenges that business is facing, which is why all Ministers are in regular, frequent conversations with the key stakeholders they represent. I referred to the package of measures in the Budget, but we know that given the scale and speed of this epidemic we need to do more and we need to do it quickly, which is why the Chancellor will be addressing the other place with a package of measures at 7 pm today.