Online Safety Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

186A: Before Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Terms of service as a contract
The terms of service under which a Category 1 service is provided to a person who is a consumer for the purposes of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 must be treated as being a contract for a trader to provide a service to a consumer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This purpose of this amendment is to ensure that providers’ terms of service are treated as consumer contracts, and to give users recourse to the remedies under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in the event of breach.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 186A, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not speaking in detail to the many other amendments in this group correctly branded “miscellaneous” by those who compile our lists for us. Many of them are minor and technical, especially the government amendments. However, that is not true of all of them: Amendment 253 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is a substantial amendment relating to regulatory co-operation, while Amendment 275A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is also of some interest, relating to the reports that Ofcom is being asked to produce on technological developments.

Nor is Amendment 191A lacking in importance and substance, although—I hope I will be forgiven for saying this, not in a snarky sort of way—for those of us who are worried about the enormous powers being given to Ofcom as a result of the Bill, the idea that it should be required by statute to give guidance to coroners, who are part of the courts system, seems to me strange and worth examining more closely. There might be a more seemly way of achieving the effect that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, understandably wants to achieve.

I turn to my own Amendment 186A, which, I hope, ought to be relatively straightforward. It concerns the terms of service of a contract with a category 1 service provider, and it is intended to improve the rights that consumers or users of that service have. It is the case that the Government want users of those services to have the ability to enforce their rights under contract against the service providers, as set out in Clause 65, and this is entirely welcome. However, it is well known that bringing claims in contract can be an expensive and onerous business, as I have pointed out in the past, particularly when the service is provided on the one-sided terms of the service provider—often, of course, drafted under the legal system of a foreign jurisdiction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will make some arguments in favour of Amendment 191A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and inject some notes of caution around Amendment 186A.

On Amendment 191A, it has been my experience that when people frequently investigate something that has happened on online services, they do it well, and well-formed requests are critical to making this work effectively. This was the case with law enforcement: when an individual police officer is investigating something online for the first time, they often ask the wrong questions. They do not understand what they can get and what they cannot get. It is like everything in life: the more you do it, the better you get at it.

Fortunately, in a sense, most coroners will only very occasionally have to deal with these awful circumstances where they need data related to the death of a child. At that point, they are going to be very dependent on Ofcom—which will be dealing with the companies day in and day out across a range of issues—for its expertise. Therefore, it makes absolute sense that Ofcom’s expertise should be distributed widely and that coroners—at the point where they need to access this information—should be able to rely on that. So Amendment 191A is very well intended and, from a practical point of view, very necessary if we are going to make this new system work as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I would like to see it work.

On Amendment 186A around consumer law, I can see the attraction of this, as well as some of the read-across from the United States. A lot of the enforcement against online platforms in the US takes place through the Federal Trade Commission precisely in this area of consumer law and looking at unfair and deceptive practices. I can see the attraction of seeking to align with European Union law, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, argued we should be doing with respect to consumer law. However, I think this would be much better dealt with in the context of the digital markets Bill and it would be a mistake to squeeze it in here. My reasons for this are about both process and substance.

In terms of process, we have not done the impact assessment on this. It is quite a major change, for two reasons. First, it could potentially have a huge impact in terms of legal costs and the way businesses will have to deal with that—although I know nobody is going to get too upset if the impact assessment says there will be a significant increase in legal costs for category 1 companies. However, we should at least flesh these things out when we are making regulations and have them in an impact assessment before going ahead and doing something that would have a material impact.

Secondly in process terms, there are some really interesting questions about the way this might affect the market. The consumer law we have does exclude services that are offered for free, because so much of consumer law is about saying, “If the goods are not delivered correctly, you get your money back”. With free services, we are clearly dealing with a different model, so the notion that we have a law that is geared towards making sure you either get the goods or you get the money may not be the best fit. To try to shoehorn in these free-at-the-point-of-use services may not be the best way to do it, even from a markets and consumer point of view. Taking our time to think about how to get this right would make sense.

More fundamentally, in terms of the substance, we need to recognise that, as a result of the Online Safety Bill, Ofcom will be requiring regulated services to rewrite their terms of service in quite a lot of detail. We see this throughout the Bill. We are going to have to do all sorts of things—we will debate other amendments in this area today—to make sure that their terms of service are conformant with what we want from them in this Bill. They are going to have to redo their complaints and redress mechanisms. All of this is going to have to change and Ofcom is going to be the regulator that tells them how to do it; that is what we are asking Ofcom to tell them to do.

My fundamental concern here, if we introduce another element, is that there is a whole different structure under consumer law where you might go to local trading standards or the CMA, or you might launch a private action. In many cases, this may overlap. The overlap is where consumer law states that goods must be provided with reasonable care and skill and in a reasonable time. That sounds great, but it is also what the Online Safety Bill is going to be doing. We do not want consumer law saying, “You need to write your terms of service this way and handle complaints this way”, and then Ofcom coming along and saying, “No, you must write your terms of service that way and handle complaints that way”. We will end up in a mess. So I just think that, from a practical point of view, we should be very focused in this Bill on getting all of this right from an Online Safety Bill point of view, and very cautious about introducing another element.

Perhaps one of the attractions of the consumer law point for those who support the amendment is that it says, “Your terms must be fair”. It is the US model; you cannot have unfair terms. Again, I can imagine a scenario in which somebody goes to court and tries to get the terms struck down because they are unfair but the platform says, “They’re the terms Ofcom told me to write. Sort this out, please, because Ofcom is saying I need to do this but the courts are now saying the thing I did was unfair because somebody feels that they were badly treated”.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Does the noble Lord accept that that is already a possibility? You can bring an action in contract law against them on the grounds that it is an unfair contract. This could happen already. It is as if the noble Lord is not aware that the possibility of individual action for breach of contract is already built into Clause 65. This measure simply supplements it.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I am certainly aware that it is there but, again, the noble Lord has just made the point himself: this supplements it. The intent of the amendment is to give consumers more rights under this additional piece of legislation; otherwise, why bother with the amendment at all? The noble Lord may be arguing against himself in saying that this is unnecessary and, at the same time, that we need to make the change. If we make the change, it is, in a sense, a material change to open the door to more claims being made under consumer law that terms are unfair. As I say, we may want this outcome to happen eventually, but I find it potentially conflicting to do it precisely at a time when we are getting Ofcom to intervene much more closely in setting those terms. I am simply arguing, “Let’s let that regime settle down”.

The net result and rational outcome—again, I am speaking to my noble friend’s Amendment 253 here—may be that other regulators end up deferring to Ofcom. If Ofcom is the primary regulator and we have told it, under the terms of the Online Safety Bill, “You must require platforms to operate in this way, handle complaints in this way and have terms that do these things, such as excluding particular forms of language and in effect outlawing them on platforms”, the other regulators will eventually end up deferring to it. All I am arguing is that, at this stage, it is premature to try to introduce a second, parallel route for people to seek changes to terms or different forms of redress, however tempting that may be. So I am suggesting a note of caution. It is not that we are starting from Ground Zero—people have routes to go forward today—but I worry about introducing something that I think people will see as material at this late stage, having not looked at the full impact of it and potentially running in conflict with everything else that we are trying to do in this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this has indeed been a wide-ranging and miscellaneous debate. I hope that since we are considering the Bill on Report noble Lords will forgive me if I do not endeavour to summarise all the different speeches and confine myself to one or two points.

The first is to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her support for my amendment but also to say that having heard her argument in favour of her Amendment 191A, I think the difference between us is entirely semantic. Had she worded it so as to say that Ofcom should be under a duty to offer advice to the Chief Coroner, as opposed to guidance to coroners, I would have been very much happier with it. Guidance issued under statute has to carry very considerable weight and, as my noble friend the Minister said, there is a real danger in that case of an arm of the Executive, if you like, or a creature of Parliament—however one wants to regard Ofcom—interfering in the independence of the judiciary. Had she said “advice to the Chief Coroner and whoever is the appropriate officer in Scotland”, that would have been something I could have given wholehearted support to. I hope she will forgive me for raising that quibble at the outset, but I think it is a quibble rather than a substantial disagreement.

On my own amendment, I simply say that I am grateful to my noble friend for the brevity and economy with which he disposed of it. He was of course assisted in that by the remarks and arguments made by many other noble Lords in the House as they expressed their support for it in principle.

I think there is a degree of confusion about what the Bill is doing. There seemed to be a sense that somehow the amendment was giving individuals the right to bring actions in the courts against providers, but of course that already happens because that right exists and is enshrined in Article 65. All the amendment would do is give some balance so that consumers actually had some protections in what is normally, in essence, an unequal contest, which is trying to ensure that a large company enforces the terms and contracts that it has written.

In particular, my amendment would give, as I think noble Lords know, the right to demand repeat performance—that is, in essence, the right to put things right, not monetary compensation—and it would frustrate any attempts by providers, in drafting their own terms and conditions, to limit their own liability. That is of course what they seek to do but the Consumer Rights Act frustrates them in their ability to do so.

We will say no more about that for now. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 186A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie’s incredibly well-made points. I learned a long time ago that, when people speak very softly and say they have a very small point to make, they are often about to deliver a zinger. She really did; it was hugely powerful. I will say no more than that I wholeheartedly agree with her; thank you for helping us to understand the issue properly.

I will speak in more detail about access to data for researchers and in support of my noble friend Lord Bethell’s amendments. I too am extremely grateful to the Minister for bringing forward all the government amendments; the direction of travel is encouraging. I am particularly pleased to see the movement from “may” to “must”, but I am worried that it is Ofcom’s rather than the regulated services’ “may” that moves to “must”. There is no backstop for recalcitrant regulated services that refuse to abide by Ofcom’s guidance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, in other areas of the Bill we have quite reasonably resorted to launching a review, requiring Ofcom to publish its results, requiring the Secretary of State to review the recommendations and then giving the Secretary of State backstop powers, if necessary, to implement regulations that would then require regulated companies to change.

I have a simple question for the Minister: why are we not following the same recipe here? Why does this differ from the other issues, on which the House agrees that there is more work to be done? Why are we not putting backstop powers into the Bill for this specific issue, when it is clear to all of us that it is highly likely that there will be said recalcitrant regulated firms that are not willing to grant access to their data for researchers?

Before my noble friend the Minister leaps to the hint he gave in his opening remarks—that this should all be picked up in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill—unlike the group we have just discussed, this issue was discussed at Second Reading and given a really detailed airing in Committee. This is not new news, in the same way that other issues where we have adopted the same recipe that includes a backstop are being dealt with in the Bill. I urge my noble friend the Minister to follow the good progress so far and to complete the package, as we have in other areas.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is valuable to be able to speak immediately after my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe, because it gives me an opportunity to address some remarks she made last Wednesday when we were considering the Bill on Report. She suggested that there was a fundamental disagreement between us about our view of how serious online safety is—the suggestion being that somehow I did not think it was terribly important. I take this opportunity to rebut that and to add to it by saying that other things are also important. One of those things is privacy. We have not discussed privacy in relation to the Bill quite as much as we have freedom of expression, but it is tremendously important too.

Government Amendment 247A represents the most astonishing level of intrusion. In fact, I find it very hard to see how the Government think they can get away with saying that it is compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which we incorporated into law some 20 years ago, thus creating a whole law of privacy that is now vindicated in the courts. It is not enough just to go around saying that it is “proportionate and necessary” as a mantra; it has to be true.

This provision says that an agency has the right to go into a private business with no warrant, and with no let or hindrance, and is able to look at its processes, data and equipment at will. I know of no other business that can be subjected to that without a warrant or some legal process in advance pertinent to that instance, that case or that business.

My noble friend Lord Bethell said that the internet has been abused by people who carry out evil things; he mentioned terrorism, for example, and he could have mentioned others. However, take mobile telephones and Royal Mail—these are also abused by people conducting terrorism, but we do not allow those communications to be intruded into without some sort of warrant or process. It does not seem to me that the fact that the systems can be abused is sufficient to justify what is being proposed.

My noble friend the Minister says that this can happen only offline. Frankly, I did not understand what he meant by that. In fact, I was going to say that I disagreed with him, but I am moving to the point of saying that I think it is almost meaningless to say that it is going to happen offline. He might be able to explain that. He also said that Ofcom will not see individual traffic. However, neither the point about being offline nor the point about not seeing individual traffic is on the face of the Bill.

When we ask ourselves what the purpose of this astonishing power is—this was referred to obliquely to some extent by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—we can find it in Clause 91(1), to which proposed new subsection (2A) is being added or squeezed in subordinate to it. Clause 91(1) talks about

“any information that they”—

that is, Ofcom—

“require for the purpose of exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of their online safety functions”.

The power could be used entirely as a fishing expedition. It could be entirely for the purpose of educating Ofcom as to what it should be doing. There is nothing here to say that it can have these powers of intrusion only if it suspects that there is criminality, a breach of the codes of conduct or any other offence. It is a fishing expedition, entirely for the purpose of

“exercising, or deciding whether to exercise”.

Those are the intrusions imposed upon companies. In some ways, I am less concerned about the companies than I am about what I am going to come to next: the intrusion on the privacy of individuals and users. If we sat back and listened to ourselves and what we are saying, could we explain to ordinary people—we are going to come to this when we discuss end-to-end encryption—what exactly can happen?

Two very significant breaches of the protections in place for privacy on the internet arise from what is proposed. First, if you allow someone into a system and into equipment, especially from outside, you increase the risk and the possibility that a further, probably more hostile party that is sufficiently well-equipped with resources—we know state actors with evil intent which are so equipped—can get in through that or similar holes. The privacy of the system itself would be structurally weakened as a result of doing this. Secondly, if Ofcom is able to see what is going on, the system becomes leaky in the direction of Ofcom. It can come into possession of information, some of which could be of an individual character. My noble friend says that it will not be allowed to release any data and that all sorts of protections are in place. We know that, and I fully accept the honesty and integrity of Ofcom as an institution and of its staff. However, we also know that things get leaked and escape. As a result of this provision, very large holes are being built into the protections of privacy that exist, yet there has been no reference at all to privacy in the remarks made so far by my noble friend.

I finish by saying that we are racing ahead and not thinking. Good Lord, my modest amendment in the last group to bring a well-established piece of legislation—the Consumer Rights Act—to bear upon this Bill was challenged on the grounds that there had not been an impact assessment. Where is the impact assessment for this? Where is even the smell test for this in relation to explaining it to the public? If my noble friend is able to expatiate at the end on the implications for privacy and attempt to give us some assurance, that would be some consolation. I doubt that he is going to give way and do the right thing and withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the debate so far has been—in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—a Committee debate. That is partly because this set of amendments from the Government has come quite late. If they had been tabled in Committee, I think we would have had a more expansive debate on this issue and could have knocked it about a bit and come back to it on Report. The timing is regrettable in all of this.

That said, the Government have tabled some extremely important amendments, particularly Amendments 196 and 198, which deal with things such as algorithms and functionalities. I very much welcome those important amendments, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, did.

I also very much support Amendments 270 and 272 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. I hope the Minister, having been pre-primed, has all the answers to them. It is astonishing that, after all these years, we are so unattuned to the issues of the devolved Administrations and that we are still not in the mindset on things such as research. We are not sufficiently granular, as has been explained—let alone all the other questions that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked. I hope the Minister can unpack some of that as well.

I want to express some gratitude, too, because the Minister and his officials took the trouble to give us a briefing about remote access issues, alongside Ofcom. Ofcom also sent through its note on algorithmic assessment powers, so an effort has been made to explain some of these powers. Indeed, I can see the practical importance, as explained to us. It is partly the lateness, however, that sets off what my noble friend Lord Allan called “trigger words” and concerns about the remote access provisions. Indeed, I think we have a living and breathing demonstration of the impact of triggers on the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, because these are indeed issues that concern those outside the House to quite a large degree.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

225: After Clause 161, insert the following new Clause—
“Transparency of government representations to regulated service providers
(1) The Secretary of State must produce a report setting out any relevant representations His Majesty’s Government have made to providers of Part 3 services to tackle the presence of misinformation and disinformation on Part 3 services.(2) In this section “relevant representations” are representations that could reasonably be considered to be intended to persuade or encourage a provider of a Part 3 service to—(a) modify the terms of service of a regulated service in an effort to address misinformation or disinformation,(b) restrict or remove a particular user’s access to accounts used by them on a regulated service, or(c) take down, reduce the visibility of, or restrict access to content that is present or may be encountered on a regulated service.(3) The first report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.(4) Subsequent reports must be laid before both Houses of Parliament at intervals not exceeding six months.(5) The Secretary of State is not required by this section to include in the report information that the Secretary of State considers would be against the interests of national security.(6) If the Secretary of State relies upon subsection (5) they must as soon as reasonably practicable send a report containing that information to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment addresses government influence on content moderation, for example by way of initiatives like the Government’s Counter Disinformation Unit.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, continuing the rather radical approach of debating an amendment that has already been debated in Committee and has not just been introduced, and picking up on the theme of our debate immediately before we adjourned, I move an amendment that seeks to address the question of the Government’s activities in interacting with providers when they seek to influence providers on what is shown on their sites.

It might be a matter of interest that according to the Daily Telegraph, which I implicitly trust, only on Tuesday of last week, a judge in Louisiana in the United States issued an injunction forbidding a lengthy list of White House officials from making contact with social media companies to report misinformation. I say this not because I expect the jurisprudence of the state of Louisiana to have any great influence in your Lordships’ House but simply to show how sensitive and important this issue is. The judge described what he had heard and seen as one of the greatest assaults on free speech in the history of the United States.

We are not necessarily quite in that territory, and nor does my amendment do anything so dramatic as to prevent the Government communicating with providers with a view to influencing their content, but Amendment 225 requires the Secretary of State to produce a report within six months of the passing of the Act, and every six months thereafter, in which he sets out

“any relevant representations His Majesty’s Government have made to providers”

that are

“intended to persuade or encourage a provider”

to do one of three things. One is to

“modify the terms of service of a regulated service in an effort to address misinformation or disinformation”;

one is to

“restrict or remove a particular user’s access to accounts used by them”;

and the third is to

“take down, reduce the visibility of, or restrict access to content that is present or may be encountered on a regulated service”.

None of these things would be prohibited or prevented by this amendment, but it would be required that His Majesty’s Government produce a report saying what they have done every six months.

Very importantly there is an exception, in that there would be no obligation on the Secretary of State to disclose publicly any information that affected national security, but he would be required in that case to make a report to the Intelligence and Security Committee here in Parliament. As I said, this is a very sensitive subject, and remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in the previous debate referred in particular to this subject in connection with the pandemic. While that is in the memory, other topics may easily come up and need to be addressed, where the Government feel obliged to move and take action.

We know nothing about those contacts, because they are not instructions or actions taken under law. They are simply nudges, winks and phone conversations with providers that have an effect and, very often, the providers will act on them. Requiring the Government to make a report and say what they have done seems a modest, proportionate and appropriate means to bring transparency to this exercise, so that we all know what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I have addressed the points made by the noble Baroness and my noble friend already. She asks the same question again and I can give her the same answer. We are operating openly and transparently here, and the Bill sets out further provisions for transparency and accountability.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I see what my noble friend did there, and it was very cunning. He gave us a very worthwhile account of the activities of the Counter Disinformation Unit, a body I had not mentioned at all, as if the Counter Disinformation Unit was the sole locus of this sort of activity. I had not restricted it to that. We know, in fact, that other bodies within government have been involved in undertaking this sort of activity, and on those he has given us no answer at all, because he preferred to answer about one particular unit. He referred also to its standardised transparency processes. I can hardly believe that I am reading out words such as those. The standardised transparency process allows us all to know that encounters take place but still refuses to let us know what actually happens in any particular encounter, even though there is a great public interest in doing so. However, I will not press it any further.

My noble friend, who is genuinely a friend, is in danger of putting himself, at the behest of civil servants and his ministerial colleagues, in some danger. We know what happens in these cases. The Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says “This has never happened; it never normally happens; it will not happen. Individuals are never spoken of, and actions of this character are never taken”. Then of course, a few weeks or months later, out pour the leaked emails showing that all these things have been happening all the time. The Minister then has to resign in disgrace and it is all very sad. His friends, like myself, rally round and buy him a drink, before we never see him again.

Anyway, I think my noble friend must be very careful that he does not put himself in that position. I think he has come close to doing so this evening, through the assurances he has given your Lordships’ House. Although I do not accept those assurances, I will none the less withdraw the amendment, with the leave of the House.

Amendment 225 withdrawn.