Skip to main content

Lords Chamber

Volume 829: debated on Thursday 27 April 2023

House of Lords

Thursday 27 April 2023

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Oaths and Affirmations

Baroness Hallett took the oath.

Banks: Closures and Shared Banking Hubs


Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many (1) bank branches have closed, and (2) shared banking hubs have opened, in the last 12 months; and what steps they are taking to minimise the former and speed up the latter.

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my financial services interests as set out in the register.

My Lords, the Government do not make assessments of bank branch networks or intervene in commercial decisions to close branches. Banks should follow FCA guidance, including considering alternative access where appropriate. One example of this is shared banking hubs. More than 50 hubs have been announced, with four now open, and the pace of delivery is expected to accelerate over the coming months. People can also access everyday banking via their local post office.

My Lords, in the past 12 months, 847 bank branches have closed or are set to close. Four shared banking hubs have opened. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Government need to act to ensure local banking provision, including deposit taking as well as withdrawals and advice? They must also act to ensure acceptance of, as well as access to, cash; otherwise, what currency is cash if there is no place to spend it? Finally, will the Government consider carefully commissioning a review into access to digital financial services to ensure that everyone can benefit from all the financial innovations in that space?

My Lords, as my noble friend will know, in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, we are legislating to protect access to cash. That covers withdrawal as well as deposit services. The Government do not plan to mandate the acceptance of cash. That would be an unprecedented intervention. However, the increased access particularly to deposit services for businesses should allow those who wish to continue to accept cash to be able to do so on a more sustainable footing. My noble friend makes an interesting suggestion. The Government are working hard to ensure financial inclusion, including digital financial inclusion. I will think about his suggestion very carefully.

My Lords, getting a smart hub still requires the voluntary participation of the banks, which is part of the reason why the pace of progress has been so slow. Will the Government consider changing the rules so that any community that meets the standards to justify a smart hub, as assessed by LINK, then has an automatic right to that hub and can overcome bank resistance?

My Lords, the Government are not considering changing the framework. As I said in response to the Question, we expect the pace of delivery to pick up. Shared banking hubs are one initiative to ensure that communities can continue to access banking. I mentioned the Post Office as being another route: 99% of personal and 95% of business banking customers can carry out their everyday banking there, with more than 11,000 branches across the UK.

My Lords, my noble friend will recollect, no doubt, an earlier Question asked by my noble friend Lord Holmes about the nature of the facilities provided by ATMs and banks, particularly for those with disabilities. Will my noble friend therefore confirm that, in the establishment of these hubs, there will be a requirement on them to be careful to provide the sorts of facilities that are suitable for people with disabilities, as the banks were starting to do?

My Lords, in taking forward this work, I am sure that that is a consideration the banks have in mind. The banking hubs came out of a pilot programme that allowed banks to test out this model to ensure that it was accessible to all their customers. Of course, they are subject to the equality duty, which also means that they need to make proper provision for those with protected characteristics.

My Lords, legal tender is legal tender. I urge my noble friend to bear in mind that the Government have the opportunity, if they wish, to mandate the use of cash—people can use it when they want. Will she also bear in mind that a lot of people now are being discouraged from writing cheques? Many people like to pay their bills with cheques. All these facilities should remain, certainly for the next two decades.

My Lords, the Government acknowledge the important role that cash still plays in many of our lives, which is why we are taking unprecedented action on protecting access to cash. As I said, ensuring that businesses have access to deposit facilities will also promote ongoing cash acceptance by businesses.

I do not think my children know what a cheque is, actually. The Social Market Foundation and the Treasury Select Committee in the other place have expressed some concern about the overreliance on post offices as a stopgap. Postal staff are wonderful, but they are not trained banking specialists. Does the Minister agree that we need that trusted expertise to be available on our high streets? Does she also agree that some post offices just are not suitable for many of the requirements of face-to-face banking, especially for more vulnerable customers, as they do not provide the privacy and dignity that many bank customers need?

I agree with the noble Baroness that the Post Office can play a really important role in ensuring ongoing provision, but it should not be the only provider of services. There are other services that are more appropriately delivered in other ways, including in person, which is part of where banking hubs come in. As I have said, we hope to see the delivery of those hubs accelerated this year. It is also reassuring to hear that several banks have committed that if their branch is the last in town, it will stay open until the relevant banking hub is up and running, to ensure continuity of service.

In my local town of Bishop Auckland, Newcastle Building Society and Darlington Building Society have moved on to the high street as banks have moved off it. Will the Minister commend building societies for their commitment to local communities and to making things accessible to them, and will she encourage further work on that?

I absolutely commend building societies and all businesses that have a commitment to local communities and are thinking about how they can make their services as accessible as possible. There are many different routes to ensuring accessibility. We should focus on the outcome for the customer and embrace the different routes that this can be delivered by.

My Lords, the bigger the profit, the less customer service there is. This has happened over the last decade. There are still some banks pretending that they are disabled by Covid and that is why you cannot get through on the phone, and the local branch is closed so you cannot actually talk to anyone. Will the Minister ask the banks to start putting the customer first and ensure that there are facilities available, not just at the odd hub but in local communities, which, in the past, could rely on serious, person-to-person customer service?

My Lords, a process has been put in place to allow communities to make the case through LINK for where they need access to further services, and there is a commitment that if something is deemed necessary, it will be implemented. The noble Lord is right that it is essential that the interests of consumers are properly considered in all areas of financial services. There is the new consumer duty, which is due to be implemented later this year and will take forward some of his suggestions.

My Lords, in contrast to my noble friend Lord Cormack, I do not know what a cheque is; I thought it was something one received in a restaurant in the United States. I do not carry cash and, in common with millions of people, I pay using contactless technology. Of course, some still need cash, including small businesses, but, as my noble friend says, is not the Post Office network a ready-made, available network for cash, which almost every business can use and is guaranteed in terms of proximity?

My noble friend is right about the breadth of the Post Office network, and I have talked about the high percentages of people who can access their everyday banking services through it. It is also geographically widespread; 93% of the UK’s population live within one mile of a post office and 99.7% within three miles of their nearest post office. There are other services that people need to be able to access, which is why it is important that we encourage banks to continue to innovate so that people can access the services in the way that is most appropriate for them.

Climate Change Committee: Discussions


Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Climate Change Committee about (1) the impact newly licensed oil and gas infrastructure will have on domestic and global emissions, and (2) the design of their ‘Climate Compatibility Checkpoint’.

My Lords, the Government work closely with the Climate Change Committee and are grateful for its expert independent advice. The committee provided advice on 24 February 2022 in relation to both new licensing and the climate compatibility checkpoint; the advice was published on the committee’s website. Officials also had several discussions with the committee throughout the design process for the checkpoint. Its advice was considered in the final design, which has now been published on the GOV.UK website.

My Lords, the climate compatibility checkpoint, in reference to new oil and gas fields, is, quite frankly, doublethink in Orwellian proportions. Can the Minister confirm that the IEA, the IPCC, the vast bulk of UK scientists and the Government’s own net zero tsar, Chris Skidmore, have all stated that the opening of new fields is incompatible with keeping global warming within the 1.5 degree scenario necessary to protect us and the natural world from catastrophic climate breakdown?

I do not agree with the noble Baroness. She is dead wrong about these matters. The reality is, whether the Liberal Democrats like it or not, that we get about 75% of our energy from oil and gas. That is declining, and the North Sea is a declining field. Unless she is proposing to tell voters that they should disconnect their gas boilers or not drive their cars anywhere, we have a requirement for oil and gas in the future, albeit for a declining amount. Therefore, the only question is whether we get them from our own fields and employ British workers, paying British taxes, or whether we import them from abroad, which usually has a higher carbon footprint. That is the choice that faces us.

Is my noble friend aware that the Government asked for the Climate Change Committee’s advice and then ignored it? First, the Climate Change Committee said that it was perfectly possibly to do this if there were a proper checkpoint. The checkpoint is not what we asked for. Secondly, the committee said that the Government should make sure that all extraction from the North Sea should be of the highest environmental level. We have not insisted on that. Norway has a much higher level. Thirdly, the committee said that the Government should accept that they should not increase the amount of oil being produced on the excuse of the war in Ukraine. Why have the Government not accepted the CCC’s advice?

Let me give my noble friend some other quotes from the letter from the Climate Change Committee, with which he is of course closely associated:

“UK extraction has a relatively low carbon footprint (more clearly for gas than for oil) and the UK will continue to be a net importer of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, implying there may be emissions advantages to UK production replacing imports”.

I think he should read the letter that he sent.

My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to reduce the impact of flaring? I am sure the Minister is aware that routine flaring, which incidentally has been banned in Norway since 1970, has a very bad effect on the environment, as it releases methane 80 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period. As a result, if Rosebank goes ahead, we will exceed our carbon budget.

As the noble Baroness is aware, we have a plan to reduce our flaring. We had a Question on that a few weeks ago. We have committed, along with many other countries, to eliminate flaring by 2030. The amount of flaring is declining rapidly across the North Sea and action is being taken.

My Lords, can I follow up on the last question? The Rosebank oilfield, which has just been licensed, is the largest undeveloped field in the North Sea. It is going to create 200 million tonnes of CO2, which is more than the combined annual emissions of all 28 low-income countries in the world. Most of the oil is going to be exported; it is not going to lower our domestic bills. Can the Government tell me what the benefits from this are? How on earth is this showing global leadership, at a time when all the institutions are saying that we have to stop extracting oil and gas to defeat climate change and temperature rise?

I refer the noble Baroness to the answer I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. We still have in this country a requirement for oil and gas. Some 80% of our space heating comes from gas. We need to phase that out in a transition. Over the years, we need to electrify more, but in the short term we have a requirement for oil and gas. The question is whether we want to get it from Qatar or Saudi Arabia and pay taxes abroad, or employ our own people in the North Sea to extract those same reserves?

My Lords, the Dasgupta review commissioned by the Treasury warned against the continued use of subsidies towards fossil fuels because they are driving biodiversity loss. Before the Minister says that they do not subsidise them, there are tax breaks, investment allowances and decommissioning loopholes—all of which are subsidies. What can the Minister say today about dealing with biodiversity loss and ending those subsidies towards fossil fuels?

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but the Minister is going to say that we do not subsidise fossil fuels, because that is the case. In fact, the opposite is true. We gain billions of pounds per year in tax revenues from fossil fuels.

My Lords, would the Minister agree with the right honourable Member in the other place Chris Skidmore, the chair of the independent review of net zero, who has come out in opposition to the new Rosebank field development? He recently said:

“We must not let the industries of the past dictate our future”.

I actually agree with him on that particular statement. Of course we need to move towards phasing out fossil fuel use; nobody disagrees with that. We have a legal commitment to do that and we are doing so through a transition. As I said in response to previous questions, the question is where we get those reserves from in future. Even with new licensing, UK production in the North Sea will continue to decline at a rate of about 7% per year. At the moment we are importing LNG to satisfy our domestic demand, which has about twice the carbon footprint of that produced in the North Sea. I really do not understand the point the noble Baroness is making.

My Lords, as we have heard, the CCC’s report last month emphasised the need for decarbonising and expanding the electricity system to rapidly reduce the UK’s demand for fossil fuels. As mentioned in the report, the Government still have not provided a coherent strategy or essential details on how they will achieve their goal of decarbonisation by 2035. When will these be provided? When will the Government accept that the quickest and cheapest way to offer the required supply of variable renewables to do so will involve onshore wind and solar?

Decarbonising our electricity system, which we are doing at the fastest rate of all G7 countries, will require much more electrification. Renewable generation capacity is currently six times greater than in 2010. We are expanding to deliver up to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. We have said that we will also consider onshore wind in future CfD rounds. We have one of the highest solar capacities in Europe as well—in fact, we have more solar capacity than even countries such as France.

My Lords, the Minister’s defence of new exploration and production in the North Sea is that the carbon footprint of the oil and gas produced will be less because it will be consumed here. This goes against all the evidence. Can the Minister therefore give the House an assurance that all future production of oil and gas in the North Sea will be consumed in the UK in order to reap the benefits which he so repeatedly announces?

The reason I said it was lower carbon intensity is that that is a fact. There are lots of studies being done on it. Imported LNG has about twice the carbon footprint of domestic production. Of course I cannot give him a guarantee that it will all be consumed within the UK, because it is an international market. We have pipelines, for instance, interlinking our gas supply with the continent, as the noble Lord well knows. If the Liberal Democrats really believe that we should stop our production tomorrow, I look forward to all the focus leaflets—which are being distributed at the moment—telling people that they have to stop using their gas boilers or driving their cars. Lots of leaflets are being produced but I have not noticed the Liberals saying that in public.

My Lords, the Minister did answer the question on the impact on biodiversity of fossil fuel extraction. Could he have another go now?

Of course it has an impact on biodiversity, but we have very strict climate and environmental studies that need to be done before any fields are licensed. This is the subject of court action at the moment, as the noble Baroness probably realises, so I cannot comment on it in detail. We follow all the required biodiversity protocols.

Overseas Territories: Illegal Immigration


Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to support the Overseas Territories in the Caribbean with the challenge of illegal immigration.

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and remind your Lordships of my interest as the honorary colonel of the Cayman Islands Regiment.

I salute my noble friend for his contribution to the overseas territories. The Prime Minister has been clear that supporting the overseas territories is a top priority for this Government. That includes supporting Caribbean overseas territories tackling irregular migration. I am working closely with colleagues across government to strengthen our collective support for the OTs. The Turks and Caicos Islands face particularly high levels of irregular migration from Haiti. The UK’s support package includes FCDO-funded work to introduce electronic borders and procuring a maritime surveillance aircraft.

My Lords, last month I visited the Turks and Caicos Islands with the Chief of the General Staff to see the work of the TCI regiment, which is supporting the countermigration challenges the islands face. It is a very real problem. So far this year, some 1,599 Haitians have been intercepted—which, for an island with a population of just 60,000, is an enormous challenge. Notwithstanding the work of my noble friend, who I know is committed to the OTs, I must say that I was underwhelmed by the response of His Majesty’s Government. It really is a challenge. The problem seems to be that other government departments here in the UK view the OTs as not their problem but an FCDO problem. However, the FCDO does not have the levers to pull to help the overseas territories, for example in policing. If the FCDO is unable to support the OTs, should responsibilities be transferred to the Cabinet Office to ensure a whole of government approach to supporting our overseas territories?

My noble friend raises an important point; I know I am expected to say this, but I am genuinely grateful to him for raising this issue, which is not raised enough in this place. The problem he described is serious, but he is semi-right in relation to the FCDO. The FCDE is air traffic control for the OTs; the levers of delivery belong to other departments of government. But I pay tribute to the team in the FCDO, given that it is the department, notwithstanding what I just said, delivering the most for the OTs. We commissioned a serious crime review before the situation escalated in TCI, and urgently requested the deployment of UK police—and funded this. It is true, as has been noted, that UK police pulled their officers out and chose not to provide operational officers at the time they were needed. That was a mistake on their part, but the Foreign Office then secured further UK police capacity-building team and separately procured a 16-strong operational serious crime team for TCI through commercial routes, and that team is in place and making a big difference today. The FCDO also requested and funded the support of a Royal Navy helicopter at the height of the crisis in the TCI. The Foreign Secretary has been working with the Prime Minster and myself to ensure that all government departments understand their role in supporting the overseas territories. The noble Lord makes an important point that this is not someone else’s problem. The OTs are part of the UK family and the message has gone out from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, and to individual Ministers from me, that the Government need to step up across Whitehall.

My Lords, the international medical charity MSF has underlined that gang violence has spread to every part of Port-au-Prince, displacing many residents who are now living in dire conditions. Hospitals, clinics and schools have been forced to close, worsening already appalling food shortages and limiting access to clean drinking water. What steps are the UK and UN taking to help address the violence and humanitarian situation, and to support those fleeing the country to find safety?

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Of course, Haiti is not an overseas territory, but it has a big impact on neighbouring overseas territories, as we have been discussing. We are obviously very concerned. We used our platform in the UN Security Council to support the UN sanctions back in October. We continue to engage in Security Council discussions, including considering Haitian requests for security assistance, and we want stability and security as soon as possible in Haiti. We are supporting it through contributions to the UN and other international agencies that have a strong presence on the ground, including the World Bank, and we are working with the UN office in Haiti and the international community to support a peaceful, democratic and Haitian-led solution for the Haitian people.

My Lords, the Minister knows that the OTs operate their own visa regime, which is separate from that of the United Kingdom. Given the violence and climate crises in that near neighbourhood, there are no safe and legal routes for seeking asylum. Are the OTs fully covered by the proposals in the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill, which means that they will now have to detain and then remove to Rwanda any of those individuals? What are the mechanisms for providing support for detention facilities within the OTs and supporting the cost of flights to Rwanda that the Government are now going to insist the OTs carry out? What was their response? I assume the Government and FCDO consulted them. What was the response to the consultation?

Different OTs have different challenges and problems. We began the conversation about TCI, where the migration problem is on a scale that is incomparable. If it was translated into UK conditions, it would be like 4 million or 5 million people crossing the channel every year, and clearly that is a major problem for a small island with a small population. What we are helping to do in TCI is helping the country return those refugees to Haiti where possible. Similarly, we have a problem in Cayman, where large numbers of people are fleeing from Cuba. The answer there is to return people wherever possible to Cuba. The only issue that seems to be of interest to Parliament at the moment relates to the British Indian Ocean Territory, where we have a particular problem with refugees, mostly from Sri Lanka, who are inhabiting an area that is effectively uninhabitable. There we have particular issues and it is in those circumstances where the Rwanda option may be the best one.

My Lords, when I had the good fortune to do the Minister’s job in the other place, I was able to visit most of the OTs. One of the consistent themes was the lack of capacity, experience and training across the Governments of the OTs. One way to address this is to put in place twinning arrangements with local authorities in the UK. One such partnership was between the TCI and Hertfordshire County Council to exchange and train staff, move people and embed them and, above all, build that crucial capacity. Is that twinning arrangement still going? What plans do he and HMG have to put in place further such arrangements?

There are actually quite a few arrangements of the sort that the noble Lord describes—on education, policing and a wide range of issues. There are too many for me to regale now in the short time that we have, but I am happy to write to him and detail some of the most effective arrangements in place. I would emphasise the point made in the original Question. Different government departments need to recognise that we have a constitutional responsibility to the overseas territories. While the FCDO is a key central organisation in ensuring that that delivery happens, different government departments need to recognise that the inhabitants of the overseas territories are no less His Majesty’s subjects than we are in this place.

My Lords, HMS “Medway” was deployed to very considerable and very good effect in the Caribbean in 2022. Why cannot it or a vehicle of a similar class be deployed in the Caribbean in support of the overseas dependencies in 2023? If it cannot, is that not a good argument for having a permanent naval presence in the Caribbean?

The noble Lord makes a good point and I agree with him that HMS “Medway” and the auxiliary ship RFA “Tideforce” were of huge assistance in the Turks and Caicos Islands in the wake of Hurricane Fiona. “Medway” then supported the Cayman Islands in response to Hurricane Ian. HMS “Dauntless” will be in the region from 1 June this year to provide a consistent maritime presence in the Caribbean, including humanitarian assistance and disaster response support. It is our intention and duty to ensure we have that presence when needed, particularly during the hurricane season.

My Lords, if flights to Rwanda are an option for the Caribbean, overseas territories and beyond, who picks up the bill?

The noble Lord raises what I think is currently an academic question. The Rwanda option is being explored in relation to the refugees I mentioned earlier who have landed in Chagos—Diego Garcia. We have a particular issue there, given that the facilities are not appropriate. The area that the refugees currently occupy is not strictly inhabitable and we need to return as many of those people as possible. I would add 130 individuals have already voluntarily returned home and the numbers are now pretty small.

My Lords, on the issue of assistance from HMG to the overseas territories, can the Minister confirm that carbon emissions from overseas territories count under the UK’s net-zero target? What support are the Government providing to those overseas territories to tackle their carbon emissions?

The key value of the overseas territories is related less to carbon—their emissions are minuscule—than to the fact that 96% of UK biodiversity is in the overseas territories. That is an enormous source of pride for the UK, and rightly so. We provide a lot of financial support through Darwin Plus, which we expanded to £10 million annually. We have £2 million also available this year to the OTs through the CSSF. We have the Blue Belt programme, which has grown—Anguilla joined a few months ago and another overseas territory will be joining. I long to tell the House about that but I cannot do so yet. That programme continues to grow. We are focusing a lot of effort and energy in helping the OTs to protect and enhance their biodiversity. I did not answer the question about whether emissions are included, because I am afraid that I do not know the answer. My colleague here no doubt does.

Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP: Resignation Letter


Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action, if any, they are considering following the comments made about civil servants by the Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister dated 21 April.

My Lords, the Prime Minister has been clear that the Civil Service is vital to the work of the Government. The Government greatly value the work of civil servants who, together with Ministers, are working to deliver for the British people. The Prime Minister has accepted the resignation of the right honourable Dominic Raab, the former Deputy Prime Minister, following the findings of Adam Tolley KC, in a published exchange of letters.

My Lords, I welcome much of the Minister’s reply, but does she accept that the emerging pattern we see is not civil servants conspiring against their Ministers? The pattern documented is of Conservative Ministers bullying their staff, with three examples in the current Parliament, two of which led to resignations and one of which should have led to a resignation.

I cannot accept the conclusion of the noble Lord. Of course, as the Prime Minister said, we need to learn from these cases

“how to better handle such matters better in future”,

and a credible complaints process needs to have the confidence of Ministers and civil servants alike. Work is under way on that. Ministers and civil servants work together on difficult issues every day and, in the main, very constructively.

My Lords, as someone who headed four separate departments, all under Conservative Governments, in my experience overwhelmingly the Civil Service was loyal and gave exceptional advice to the Government. Would it not be better to look at the quality of special advisers, who sometimes exhibit neither of those qualities?

Having worked as an adviser, a Minister and a civil servant, I would say that the constitution has these different parts. Political advisers are important and helpful. In most cases, they work well with the Civil Service.

My Lords, is it not important to recognise that Ministers have no power to select, reward, promote or demote officials working for them? Likewise, officials should not have the power effectively to dismiss Ministers for whom they work, least of all by making anonymous complaints against them. I was very fortunate, like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that my officials were a joy to work with throughout, but some Ministers have perceived some officials to be reluctant to implement their policies and have had to try to find ways of dealing with that, and some officials have perceived Ministers’ responses trying to get them to do that too abrasive, demanding and rude. I sympathise with those who had to duck telephones thrown by Gordon Brown or to deal with Richard Crossman, who said in his diaries that when he found officials reluctant to do his will:

“I bullied them and made a fool of them in front of others, quite often their subordinates”.

I suspect such an approach was counterproductive. Does the Minister agree that it is up to the electorate or elected superiors to get rid of Ministers who cannot deliver, not officials?

Ministers are of course part of the process of democratic election. I agree with much of what my noble friend said.

My Lords, in his letter of resignation, the former Deputy Prime Minister said that the inquiry into his actions

“set a dangerous precedent for the conduct of good government”,

and set the “threshold for bullying” too low. The Prime Minister in response said that we should learn to manage these matters better in future. Does the Minister agree that the threat to good government comes not from the inquiry but from bullying Ministers, that the threshold which needs to be raised is that of ministerial behaviour, and that the lesson to be learned is that Ministers should behave themselves and not bully their staff?

Ministers are required to behave themselves and do behave themselves. The code includes the statement:

“Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated”.

Complaints are investigated, as we have been discussing.

In his report, Mr Tolley took care to anonymise all the complainants. Reading the report, it was not possible to see who had complained. In his resignation letter, the former Deputy Prime Minister mentioned a Gibraltar negotiation and then someone leaked the name of the British ambassador to Spain to the Telegraph. Will His Majesty’s Government condemn that leak?

I read the Tolley report. He took great care on this matter. Where there are specific allegations, it can be very difficult to guarantee anonymity in a process like this. It is important for fairness that the full details of the complaint are made. Although the Deputy Prime Minister stepped down and there were findings of concern, there were also areas where Mr Tolley took a different view.

The Minister is choosing her words carefully, and she has our sympathy for that, but the extraordinarily poor grace of Mr Raab’s resignation letter means that this case has failed to clarify the standards expected of Ministers.

“The conclusion of the Raab inquiry has done nothing to help other ministers who misunderstand what professional behaviour looks like avoid getting into the same position”.

Those are not my words but the words of the Institute for Government. Is it not time that the Government introduced an independent adviser with the power to initiate investigations? Should there not also be an independent review of the effectiveness of the Ministerial Code?

I should point out that in his letter, Dominic Raab, who did some good things as a Secretary of State, said:

“I am genuinely sorry for any unintended stress or offence that any officials felt”.

An independent adviser, Mr Tolley, was asked to conduct the inquiry because at that time there was no ethics adviser, as the noble Baroness knows. Sir Laurie Magnus has since been appointed. He can initiate, but he has to get the approval of the Prime Minister. As we discussed on Tuesday, the arrangements have been changed and the process shows that, where there is need for an inquiry, an inquiry takes place.

My Lords, looking around, I see many noble Lords who have had more successful ministerial experiences than mine, but none who lasted 21 years. My experience is that you do not get the best out of civil servants by shouting at them. There is no organised conspiracy to frustrate the will of Ministers, but some Ministers may see as obstruction civil servants doing their job by pointing out the adverse consequences of certain policy options. If we have a review of the complaints procedure, can we debate it in this House so the plethora of ex-Ministers, ex-civil servants and others can contribute to that review?

I think almost no Secretary of State has been as successful as my noble friend, and he has helped here as well by joining the Front Bench. What we debate in this House is a matter for the usual channels, but we are getting on and work is under way on the complaints process.

My experience, having spoken to a number of Ministers, is that a couple of them have said things like, “You won’t get this past the Civil Service”. What does that mean?

I do not dare to speculate on what the thing in question was. The Civil Service has a fundamental principle of political impartiality so, in considering proposals, that is something they have to look at. If something is improper, then the good civil servant—I used to be one—will point that out to the Minister of the day, and it might be that that is what was meant. Obviously Ministers are advised by civil servants on matters of policy, and it is clear that civil servants sometimes disagree with Ministers.

I once asked a senior civil servant who were their favourite Ministers to work with. In confidence, they said Nicholas Ridley and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—which in itself is an interesting combination. I asked why, and they said it was because you knew where you stood with them and they were decisive. I think that is the definition of a good Minister. I have never met a civil servant who was disloyal, but I have met people who say that they would rather not receive direct instructions via a spad and would rather speak to a Minister. I think that is not necessarily because of the quality of the spad, but because of the method of avoiding talking to civil servants. Does the Minister agree?

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. These are the sort of points that come up when we debate these things. Good Ministers decide clearly, and civil servants and political spads provide advice, which can be helpful. Spads can indeed be helpful to civil servants, as I remember.

House of Lords Commission, Services, Liaison, Procedure and Privileges and Selection Committees

Membership Motion

Moved by

That the Earl of Kinnoull be appointed to the following Select Committees, in place of Lord Judge:

House of Lords Commission



Procedure and Privileges


My Lords, in moving the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper, I express my considerable thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on behalf of the whole House for his work as Convenor of the Cross Benches over the past three and a half years, and recognise his service and significant contribution to those committees on which he served as convenor. We look forward to the noble and learned Lord’s return to the House in due course. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems Committee

Membership Motion

Moved by

That Lord Mitchell and Lord Triesman be appointed members of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.

Motion agreed.

Built Environment Committee

Membership Motion

Moved by

Motion agreed.

Constitution Committee

Membership Motion

Moved by

Motion agreed.

Science and Technology Committee

Membership Motion

Moved by

That Viscount Stansgate be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe.

Motion agreed.

Online Safety Bill

Committee (3rd Day)

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 6: Providers of user-to-user services: duties of care

Amendment 13

Moved by

13: Clause 6, page 5, line 33, after “services” insert “that are not Category 2A services”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment is consequential on other amendments in the name of Lord Moylan to remove Clause 23(3) and the subsequent new Clause after 23, the effect of which is that the duties imposed on search services vary depending on whether or not they are Category 2A services: this needs to be reflected in the provision about combined services (regulated user-to-user services that include public search services) in Clause 6.

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 13 I will speak to all the amendments in the group, all of which are in my name with the exception of Amendment 157 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pickles. These are interlinked amendments; they work together. There is effectively only one amendment going on. A noble Lord challenged me a day or two ago as to whether I could summarise in a sentence what the amendment does, and the answer is that I think I can: Clause 23 imposes various duties on search engines, and this amendment would remove one of those duties from search engines that fall into category 2B.

There are two categories of search engines, 2A and 2B, and category 2B is the smaller search engines. We do not know the difference between them in greater detail than that because the schedule that relates to them reserves to the Secretary of State the power to set the thresholds that will define which category a search engine falls into, but I think it is clear that category 2B is the smaller ones.

These amendments pursue a theme that I brought up in Committee earlier in the week when I argued that the Bill would put excessively onerous and unnecessary obligations on smaller businesses. The particular duty that these amendments would take away from smaller search engines is referred to in Clause 23(2):

“A duty, in relation to a service, to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design or operation of the service to effectively mitigate and manage the risks of harm to individuals, as identified in the most recent illegal content risk assessment of the service”.

The purpose of that is to recognise that very large numbers of smaller businesses do not pose a risk, according to the Government’s own assessment of the market, and to allow them to get on with their business without taking these onerous and difficult measures. They are probing amendments to try to find out what the Government are willing to do in relation to smaller businesses that will make this a workable Bill.

I can already imagine that there are noble Lords in the Chamber who will say that small does not equal safe, and that small businesses need to be covered by the same rigorous regulations as larger businesses. But I am not saying that small equals safe. I am saying—as I attempted to say when the Committee met earlier—that absolute safety is not attainable. It is not attainable in the real world, nor can we expect it to be attainable in the online world. I imagine that objection will be made. I see it has some force, but I do not think it has sufficient compelling force to put the sort of burden on small businesses that this Bill would do, and I would like to hear more about it.

I will say one other thing. Those who object to this approach need to be sure in their own minds that they are not contributing to creating a piece of legislation that, when it comes into operation, is so difficult to implement that it becomes discredited. There needs to be a recognition that this has to work in practice. If it does not—if it creates resentment and opposition—we will find the Government not bringing sections of it into force, needing to repeal them or going easy on them once the blowback starts, so to speak. With that, I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and others, since the noble Lord is unavoidably absent. It is along the same lines as Amendment 13; it is relatively minor and straightforward, and asks the Government to recognise that search services such as Google are enormously important as an entry to the internet. They are different from social media companies such as Twitter. We ask that the Government be consistent in applying their stated terms when these are breached in respect of harm to users, whether that be through algorithms, through auto-prompts or otherwise.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill treats user-to-user services, such as Meta, and search services, such as Google, differently. The so-called third shield or toggle proposed for shielding users from legal but harmful content, should they wish to be shielded, does not apply when it comes to search services, important though they are. Indeed, at present, large, traditional search services, including Google and Microsoft Bing, and voice search assistants, including Alexa and Siri, will be exempted from several of the requirements for large user-to-user services—category 1 companies. Why the discrepancy? Though search services rightly highlight that the content returned by a search is not created or published by them, the algorithmic indexing, promotion and search prompts provided in search bars—the systems they design and employ—are their responsibility, and these have been proven to do harm.

Some of the examples of such harm have already been cited in the other place, but not before this Committee. I do not want to give them too much of an airing because they were in the past, and the search people have taken them down after complaints, but some of the dreadful things that emerge from searching on Google et cetera are a warning of what could occur. It has been pointed out that search engines would in the past have thrown up, for example, swastikas, SS bolts and other Nazi memorabilia when people searched for desk ornaments. If George Soros’s name came up, he would be included in a list of people responsible for world evils. The Bing service, which I dislike anyway, has been directing people—at last, it did in the past—to anti-Semitic and homophobic searches through its auto-complete, while Google’s image carousel highlighted pictures of portable barbecues to those searching for the term “Jewish baby stroller”.

These search engines, which are larger than some countries in terms of the funds they raise, should be treated in the same way as Meta, Twitter and others, knowing the harm that their systems can cause. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill, and Ministers in meetings with the APPG Against Antisemitism, have been clear that this is an issue and recognised that it needs addressing. I hope the Minister will agree that our amendment, or perhaps one similar to it that the Government might care to introduce in the next stages, would be a small, smart and meaningful technical fix to the Bill in addressing the unnecessary imbalance that allows major search companies to avoid protecting the public to the full extent that we, in the Bill, expect of other large companies. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet interested parties and to do the sensible and right thing about search engines.

My Lords, I also support Amendment 157, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and others, including my own. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, indicated, it is specific in the nature of what it concentrates on. The greatest concern that arises through the amendment is with reference to category 2A. It is not necessarily incompatible with what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposes; I do not intend to make any direct further comment on his amendments. While the amendment is specific, it has a resonance with some of the other issues raised on the Bill.

I am sure that everyone within this Committee would want to have a Bill that is as fit for purpose as possible. The Bill was given widespread support at Second Reading, so there is a determination across the Chamber to have that. Where we can make improvements to the Bill, we should do that and, as much as possible, try to future-proof the Bill. The wider resonance is the concern that if the Bill is to be successful, we need as much consistency and clarity within it as possible, particularly for users. Where we have a level of false dichotomy of regulations, that runs contrary to the intended purposes of the Bill and creates inadvertent opportunities for loopholes. As such, and as has been indicated, the concern is that in the Bill at present, major search engines are effectively treated in some of the regulations on a different basis from face-to-face users. For example, some of the provisions around risk assessment, the third shield and the empowerment tools are different.

As also indicated, we are not talking about some of the minor search engines. We are talking about some of the largest companies in the world, be it Google, Microsoft through Bing, Amazon through its devices or Apple through its Siri voice tool, so it is reasonable that they are brought into line with what is there is for face-to-face users. The amendment is therefore appropriate and the rationale for it is that there is a real-world danger. Mention has been made—we do not want to dwell too long on some of the examples, but I will use just one—of the realms of anti-Semitism, where I have a particular interest. For example, on search tools, a while ago there was a prompt within one search engine that Jews are evil. It was found that when that prompt was there, searches of that nature increased by 10% and when it was removed, they were reduced. It is quite fixable and it goes into a wide range of areas.

One of the ways in which technology has changed, I think for us all, is the danger that it can be abused by people who seek to radicalise others and make them extreme, particularly young children. Gone are the days when some of these extremists or terrorists were lonely individuals in an attic, with no real contact with the outside world, or hanging around occasionally in the high street while handing out poorly produced A4 papers with their hateful ideology. There is a global interconnection here and, in particular, search engines and face-to-face users can be used to try to draw young people into their nefarious activities.

I mentioned the example of extremism and radicalisation when it comes to anti-Semitism. I have seen it from my own part of the world, where there is at times an attempt by those who still see violence as the way forward in Northern Ireland to draw new generations of young people into extremist ideology and terrorist acts. There is an attempt to lure in young people and, sadly, search engines have a role within that, which is why we need to see that level of protection. Now, the argument from search engines is that they should have some level of exemptions. How can they be held responsible for everything that appears through their searches, or indeed through the web? But in terms of content, the same argument could be used for face-to-face users. It is right, as the proposer of this amendment has indicated, that there are things such as algorithmic indexing and prompt searches where they do have a level of control.

The use of algorithms has moved on considerably since my schooldays, as they surely have for everyone in this Committee, and I suspect that none of us felt that they would be used in such a fashion. We need a level of protection through an amendment such as this and, as its proposers, we are not doctrinaire on the precise form in which this should take place. We look, for example, at the provisions within Clause 11—we seek to hear what the Government have to say on that—which could potentially be used to regulate search engines. Ensuring that that power is given, and will be used by Ofcom, will go a long way to addressing many of the concerns.

I think all of us in this Committee are keen to work together to find the right solutions, but we feel that there is a need to make some level of change to the regulations that are required for search engines. None of us in this Committee believes that we will ultimately have a piece of legislation that reflects perfection, but there is a solemn duty on us all to produce legislation that is as fit for purpose and future-proofed as possible, while providing children in particular with the maximum protection in what is at times an ever-changing and sometimes very frightening world.

My Lords, I agree in part with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I was the person who said that small was not safe, and I still feel that. I certainly do not think that anything in the Bill will make the world online 100% safe, and I think that very few noble Lords do, so it is important to say that. When we talk about creating a high bar or having zero tolerance, we are talking about ensuring that there is a ladder within the Bill so that the most extreme cases have the greatest force of law trying to attack them. I agree with the noble Lord on that.

I also absolutely agree with the noble Lord about implementation: if it is too complex and difficult, it will be unused and exploited in certain ways, and it will have a bad reputation. The only part of his amendment that I do not agree with is that we should look at size. Through the process of Committee, if we can look at risk rather than size, we will get somewhere. I share his impatience—or his inquiry—about what categories 2A and 2B mean. If category 2A means the most risky and category 2B means those that are less risky, I am with him all the way. We need to look into the definition of what they mean.

Finally, I mentioned several times on Tuesday that we need to look carefully at Ofcom’s risk profiles. Is this the answer to dealing with where risk gets determined, rather than size?

My Lords, I rise to speak along similar lines to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will address my noble friend Lord Moylan’s comments. I share his concern that we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good but, like the noble Baroness, I do not think that size is the key issue here, because of how tech businesses grow. Tech businesses are rather like building a skyscraper: if you get the foundations wrong, it is almost impossible to change how safe the building is as it goes up and up. As I said earlier this week, small tech businesses can become big very quickly, and, if you design your small tech business with the risks to children in mind at the very beginning, there is a much greater chance that your skyscraper will not wobble as it gets taller. On the other hand, if your small business begins by not taking children into account at all, it is almost impossible to address the problem once it is huge. I fear that this is the problem we face with today’s social media companies.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, hit the nail on the head, as she so often does, in saying that we need to think about risk, rather than size, as the means of differentiating the proportionate response. In Clause 23, which my noble friend seeks to amend, the important phrase is “use proportionate measures” in subsection (2). Provided that we start with a risk assessment and companies are then under the obligation to make proportionate adjustments, that is how you build safe technology companies—it is just like how you build safe buildings.

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

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

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

I am sure that a rationale does underlie that—the people who wrote the legislation will of course have come up with the schema for a reason—but it is important to push on that, because we want our legislation to be intelligible to people out there. Again, it would be entirely logical to have a schema that says, “1A: large user-to-user; 1B: small user-to-user; 2A: large search; 2B: small search; and 3: pornographic”. If the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has her way and we add extra services, we could make them categories 4 and 5, and we could have categories 4A and 4B.

Again, I hope that the Minister can take this opportunity to respond on the substance of whether there should be different requirements and to explain why we have that categorisation, where category 2B is small user-to-user services, category 1 is big user-to-user services and category 2A is search and combined services. That would probably not be the first assumption of most people in the House, and it has been bugging me since I first read the Bill, so it would be nice to get an answer today.

My Lords, I welcome this debate, which revisits some of the areas discussed in earlier debates about the scope of the Bill, as many noble Lords said. It allows your Lordships’ House to consider what has to be the primary driver for assessment. In my view and as others said, it ought to be about risk, which has to be the absolute driver in all this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, businesses do not remain static: they start at a certain size and then change. Of course, we hope that many of the businesses we are talking about will grow, so this is about preparation for growth and the reality of doing businesses.

As we discussed, there certainly are cases where search providers may, by their very nature, be almost immune from presenting users with content that could be considered either harmful or illegal under this legislative framework. The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—I am grateful to him for allowing us to explore these matters—and its various consequential amendments, would limit the duty to prevent access to illegal content to core category 2A search providers, rather than all search providers, as is currently the case under Clause 23(3).

The argument that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, put forward is that the illegal content duty is unduly wide, placing a disproportionate and otherwise unacceptable burden on smaller and/or supposedly safer search providers. He clearly said he was not saying that small was safe—that is now completely understood—but he also said that absolute safety is not achievable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, that is indeed so. If this legislation is too complex and creates the wrong provisions, we will clearly be a long way away from our ambition, which here has to be to have in place the best legislative framework, one that everyone can work with and that provides the maximum opportunity for safety and what we all seek to achieve.

Of course, the flip side of the argument about an unacceptable burden on smaller, or on supposedly safer, search providers may be that they would in fact have very little work to do to comply with the illegal content duty, at least in the short term. But the duty would act as an important safeguard, should the provider’s usual systems prove ineffective with the passage of time. Again, that point was emphasised in this and the previous debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.

We look forward to the Minister’s response to find out which view he and his department subscribe to or, indeed, whether they have another view they can bring to your Lordships’ House. But, on the face of it, the current arrangements do not appear unacceptably onerous.

Amendment 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, deals with search by a different approach by inserting requirements about search services’ publicly available statements into Clause 65. In the debate, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, raised very important, realistic examples of where search engines can take us, including to material that encourages racism directed at Jews and other groups and encourages hatred of various groups, including Jews. The amendment talks about issues such as the changing of algorithms or the hiding of content and the need to ensure that the terms of providers’ publicly available statements are applied as consistently.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister in response to Amendment 157 as the tech certainly moves us beyond questions of scope and towards discussion of the conduct of platforms when harm is identified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“To be, or not to be”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, will forgive me if I do not comment on the amendment they spoke to in the name of my noble friend Lord Pickles, except to say that of course they made their case very well.

I will briefly comment on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am glad to see a degree of common ground among us in terms of definitions and so forth—a small piece of common ground that we could perhaps expand in the course of the many days we are going to be locked up together in your Lordships’ House.

I am grateful too to the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. I am less clear on “2B or not 2B”, if that is the correct way of referring to this conundrum, than I was before. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that size does not matter and that it is all about risk, but my noble friend the Minister cunningly conflated the two and said at various points “the largest” and “the riskiest”. I do not see why the largest are necessarily the riskiest. On the whole, if I go to Marks & Spencer as opposed to going to a corner shop, I might expect rather less risk. I do not see why the two run together.

I address the question of size in my amendment because that is what the Bill focuses on. I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, may want to explore at some stage in Committee why that is the case and whether a risk threshold might be better than a size threshold. If she does that, I will be very interested in following and maybe even contributing to that debate. However, at the moment, I do not think that any of us is terribly satisfied with conflating the two—that is the least satisfactory way of explaining and justifying the structure of the Bill.

On the remarks of my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe, I do not want in the slightest to sound as if there is any significant disagreement between us—but there is. She suggested that I was opening the way to businesses building business models “not taking children into account at all”. My amendment is much more modest than that. There are two ways of dealing with harm in any aspect of life. One is to wait for it to arrive and then to address it as it arises; the other is constantly to look out for it in advance and to try to prevent it arising. The amendment would leave fully in place the obligation to remove harm, which is priority illegal content or other illegal content, that the provider knows about, having been alerted to it by another person or become aware of it in any other way. That duty would remain. The duty that is removed, especially from small businesses—and really this is quite important—is the obligation constantly to be looking out for harm, because it involves a very large, and I suggest possibly ruinous, commitment to constant monitoring of what appears on a search engine. That is potentially prohibitive, and it arises in other contexts in the Bill as well.

There should be occasions when we can say that knowing that harmful stuff will be removed as soon as it appears, or very quickly afterwards, is adequate for our purposes, without requiring firms to go through a constant monitoring or risk-assessment process. The risk assessment would have to be adjudicated by Ofcom, I gather. Even if no risk was found, of course, that would not be the end of the matter, because I am sure that Ofcom would, very sensibly, require an annual renewal of that application, or after a certain period, to make sure that things had not changed. So even to escape the burden is quite a large burden for small businesses, and then to implement the burden is so onerous that it could be ruinous, whereas taking stuff down when it appears is much easier to do.

Perhaps I might briefly come in. My noble friend Lord Moylan may have helped explain why we disagree: our definition of harm is very different. I am most concerned that we address the cumulative harms that online services, both user-to-user services and search, are capable of inflicting. That requires us to focus on the design of the service, which we need to do at the beginning, rather than the simpler harm that my noble friend is addressing, which is specific harmful content—not in the sense in which “content” is used in the Bill but “content” as in common parlance; that is, a piece of visual or audio content. My noble friend makes the valid point that that is the simplest way to focus on removing specific pieces of video or text; I am more concerned that we should not exclude small businesses from designing and developing their services such that they do not consider the broader set of harms that are possible and that add up to the cumulative harm that we see our children suffering from today.

So I think our reason for disagreement is that we are focusing on a different harm, rather than that we violently disagree. I agree with my noble friend that I do not want complex bureaucratic processes imposed on small businesses; they need to design their services when they are small, which makes it simpler and easier for them to monitor harm as they grow, rather than waiting until they have grown. That is because the backwards re-engineering of a technology stack is nigh-on impossible.

My noble friend makes a very interesting point, and there is much to ponder in it—too much to ponder for me to respond to it immediately. Since I am confident that the issue is going to arise again during our sitting in Committee, I shall allow myself the time to reflect on it and come back later.

While I understand my noble friend’s concern about children, the clause that I propose to remove is not specific to children; it relates to individuals, so it covers adults as well. I think I understand what my noble friend is trying to achieve—I shall reflect on it—but this Bill and the clauses we are discussing are a very blunt way of going at it and probably need more refinement even than the amendments we have seen tabled so far. But that is for her to consider.

I think this debate has been very valuable. I did not mention it, but I am grateful also for the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Having listened to the Minister, I think we need clarification on the issue of duplication and what is illegal as opposed to just harmful. If we can clarify that, I shall not move my Amendment 157.

Moved by

13A: Clause 6, page 5, line 35, after “service” insert “is not a Category 2A service and”

Member’s explanatory statement

This technical amendment ensures that the duties imposed on providers of combined services in relation to the search engine are correct following the changes to clause 20 arising from the new duties in clauses 23, 25 and 29 which are imposed on providers of Category 2A services only.

13B: Clause 6, page 5, line 37, after “service” insert “is not a Category 2A service and”

Member’s explanatory statement

This technical amendment ensures that the duties imposed on providers of combined services in relation to the search engine are correct following the changes to clause 20 arising from the new duties in clauses 23, 25 and 29 which are imposed on providers of Category 2A services only.

13C: Clause 6, page 5, line 38, at end insert—

“(c) if the service is a Category 2A service not likely to be accessed by children, the duties set out in Chapter 3 referred to in section 20(2) and (3A);(d) if the service is a Category 2A service likely to be accessed by children, the duties set out in Chapter 3 referred to in section 20(2), (3) and (3A).”Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment ensures that the new duties set out in the amendments in the Minister’s name to clauses 23, 25 and 29 below (duties to summarise risk assessments in a publicly available statement and to supply records of risk assessments to OFCOM) are imposed on providers of combined services that are Category 2A services in relation to the search engine.

Amendments 13A to 13C agreed.

Amendment 14

Moved by

14: Clause 6, page 5, line 38, at end insert—

“(6A) Providers of regulated user-to-user services are required to comply with duties under subsections (2) to (6) for each such service which they provide to the extent that is proportionate and technically feasible without making fundamental changes to the nature of the service (for example, by removing or weakening end-to-end encryption on an end-to-end encrypted service).”Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment is part of a series of amendments by Lord Clement-Jones intended to ensure risk assessments are not used as a tool to undermine users’ privacy and security.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I stress again that, in the context of our debate on these amendments, a key element in the rationale for deploying these tools voluntarily—not because they are required to do so by law—is the fact that social media services are acting as hosts for content on their servers, so they feel partially liable for it; in fact, in legal terms, they may well be strictly liable for it. By contrast, modern private messaging services tend to have quite a different architecture, where the provider does not host content on its servers but simply moves it from one device on the network to another. There are some exceptions to that with legacy services, such as Facebook Messenger and the caching of large files—we could go into that subject, if noble Lords are interested. But the key point is that there has been a trend towards more functionality at the edge—namely, on the device in your pocket—as we move from classic social media, which depended on servers, to messaging. That distinction is critical when we consider what is commonly referred to as client-side scanning. The scanning that takes place today generally takes place on platform servers on content they are hosting themselves. The introduction of scanning on to people’s own devices is a different beast in technical, legal and ethical terms; I am sure we will want to tease that out in the debate.

The second trend we have seen is the concern over government surveillance. Back in the day, we may have been comfortable with the security services having a desk in the telephone exchange or asking their mate Bob, who does the filing at some company, to pass them information about a dodgy character—but the landscape has shifted. The Snowden revelations triggered a huge debate about the reach of Governments into our online lives—even those whom we think are on our side, such as the UK Government or the US Government—and we are increasingly concerned about foreign surveillance at home, to the extent that we are willing to spend a fortune pulling Huawei devices out of core UK telecom networks to mitigate the risk of Chinese government access. If you think that a foreign Government have gained access to the UK’s telecom networks, using an end-to-end encrypted service is one of the best ways to protect yourself, which, I am sure, is on the minds of the technical staff of UK political parties when they choose to put their teams on encrypted apps such as WhatsApp.

Thirdly, there is a general trend in privacy expectations and legislation, which are all heading in one direction: improving transparency over what is being done with data and giving people more power to withhold or grant consent. This reflects the fact that more of our lives are moving online, so being able to control it becomes more critical to us all. We see this trend playing out in multiple pieces of legislation, such as the general data protection regulation and the privacy regulation, as well as in actions taken by regulators to step up enforcement.

Far from being an irrational move by platforms careless as to its negative impacts, the adoption of end-to-end encryption is an entirely rational response to these three powerful regulatory and societal trends. It can help to mitigate the ever-increasing risks related to content liability—which the Bill, in fact, adds to—it makes hostile government surveillance much harder, and it is a key safeguard against privacy violations.

If this is where we have been with regulation incentivising the adoption of end-to-end encryption, how might this play out as we introduce a new element in the mix with the Online Safety Bill? I can see three scenarios that could play out as the Bill comes into force and Ofcom gains powers to issue directions to platforms. First, the Government could declare that their intent is to impose technical requirements that would mean that people in the UK will no longer be able to use truly secure end-to-end encrypted products. That could be either through explicit instructions to messaging service providers to remove the end-to-end encryption, or through requiring client-side scanning to be installed on user devices in the UK, which would, in effect, render them less secure. That is not my preferred option, but it would at least allow for an orderly transition, if services choose to withdraw products from the UK market rather than operate here on these terms. It might be that there are no significant withdrawals, and the UK Government could congratulate themselves on calling the companies’ bluff and getting what they want at little cost, but I doubt that this would be the case, given the strength of feeling out there—which, I am sure, we have all seen. We would at least want to know, one way or the other, which way that will go before adopting that course of action.

The second course is for the Government to continue with the posture of intentional ambiguity, as they have done to date. They are careful to say that they have no intention of banning end-to-end encryption, and I expect to hear that again in the Minister’s response today, but at the same time refuse to confirm that they could not do so under the new powers in the Bill. This creates a high-stakes game of chicken, where the Government think companies will give them more if they hold the threat of drastic technical orders over them. That “more” might include providing more metadata—who messaged whom, when and from where—or tools to identify patterns of suspicious behaviour without reading message content. These are all things we can expect the Government to be discussing with companies, as well as urging them to deploy forms of client-side scanning voluntarily.

As a veteran of a thousand psychic wars of this kind, I have to say that I do not think it is as productive a way to proceed as some in government may believe. It is all too common to have meetings with government representatives where you are working together on responding to terrorist content only to find a Minister going out the next day to say that your platform does not care about terrorism. I get it; this is politics. However, it is hard to explain to engineers who you are asking to go the extra mile to build new safety tools why they should do so when the Government who asked for the tools give them no credit for this. I understand the appeal from the government side of going into a negotiation with a big regulatory stick that you can show to the other side, but I think it is misguided.

The Government’s hope is that companies will blink first in the game of chicken and give them what they want, but it is at least as likely that the Government will blink first and have to abandon proposals, which risks discrediting their efforts as a whole. If nobody blinks, and we allow an unstoppable force to hit an immovable object, we could end up with the complete breakdown of key relationships and years of unproductive litigation. I believe that the interests of people in the UK lie in government being able to work with the services that millions of us use to find the best ways to combat harms—harms that everybody, on both sides, agree are a priority.

That brings me to my third and final scenario, and the one that these amendments are seeking to create. This is where the Government accept that end-to-end encrypted communication services are a legitimate part of the modern online environment that should not be undermined or pushed out of the UK market. The Government would explicitly rule out any intention to use orders under Clause 110 to weaken end-to-end encrypted services and instead focus their efforts on making it clear to people that end-to-end encryption does not mean impunity.

I was talking to my children as I came in about the fact that end-to-end encryption is not entirely secure and does not grant absolute privacy, and they said, “Of course—everyone should do the online safety classes we do at school”. These offer the simple message that it is foolish to send things over any internet service that you would not want to be shared widely, and the training tells you that any message can be screenshotted and passed around. Rather than talking up the fact that end-to-end encryption is protecting people sharing bad content, we should be talking up the ways in which you remain exposed.

Sadly, we have become used to reading stories about awful content being shared in groups on messaging services used by serving police officers—these were WhatsApp end-to-end encrypted messages. If there is legitimate interest in investigating content, we will see it serviced, whether or not it is shared on an encrypted service. Unless people are communicating only with themselves, there are multiple ways that their content, if illegal, might come to the attention of the authorities. The most obvious is that someone who is privy to the content hands it over, either voluntarily or because they are themselves under investigation. But the police and security services also have a range of intrusive surveillance tools at their disposal which can compromise the devices of their targets under properly warranted authority, and all the content on any apps they use can be provided to the security services properly, under the controls in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. There are long-standing powers, sometimes used controversially, to require people to grant access to their own devices if there are grounds to think it is necessary to investigate some types of offence.

I hope the Government will give serious consideration to moving in this direction and to accepting the force of the amendments that have been put forward today. This is not about weakening the fight against appalling harms such as child sexual abuse material and terrorism, but rather about finding the most practical way to wage that fight in a world where end-to-end encryption exists and is being used to mitigate other material risks to our online lives. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 285 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. That is not to say that I do not have a great deal of sympathy for the incredibly detailed and expert speech we have just heard, but I want to say just a couple of things.

First, I think we need to have a new conversation about privacy in general. The privacy that is imagined by one community is between the state and the individual, and the privacy that we do not have is between individuals and the commercial companies. We live in a 3D world and the argument remains 2D. We cannot do that today, but I agree with the noble Lord that many in the enforcement community do have one hand on human rights, and many in the tech world do care about human rights. However, I do not believe that the tech sector has fully fessed up to its role and the contribution it could make around privacy. I hope that, as part of the debate on the Bill, and the debate that we will have subsequently on the data Bill No. 2, we come to untangle some of the things that they defend—in my view, unnecessarily and unfairly.

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

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

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

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

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 203 in this group, along with those of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Moylan. I shall speak in general terms about the nature of the group, because it is most usefully addressed through the fundamental issues that arise. I sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for his careful and comprehensive introduction to the group, which gave us a strong foundation. I have crossed out large amounts of what I had written down and will try not to repeat, but rather pick up some points and angles that I think need to be raised.

As was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, this debate and the range of these amendments shows that the Bill is currently extremely deficient and unclear in this area. It falls to this Committee to get some clarity and cut-through to see where we could end up and change where we are now.

I start by referring to a briefing, which I am sure many noble Lords have received, from a wide range of organisations, including Liberty, Big Brother Watch, the Open Rights Group, Article 19, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Reset and Fair Vote. It is quite a range of organisations but very much in the human rights space, particularly the digital human rights space. The introduction of the briefing includes a sentence that gets to the heart of why many of us have received so many emails about this element of the Bill:

“None of us want to feel as though someone is looking over our shoulder when we are communicating”.

I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that many of our communications are scanned and this has an impact, but as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, end-to-end encryption prevents this. There is an increasing public awareness and understanding about that, and a desire to get away from the big tech companies the public utilises and clearly wishes to continue to utilise. That is a general public view, and one of the points made in the briefing is that so many people have very good reason to desire to maintain their privacy and be able to express themselves freely. The briefing notes that LGBTQIA+ people, for example, may wish that individual communications remain private.

I want to focus mostly on the broader issue of people who are looking to use services for public good. Some 40 million people in the UK use private messaging services every day, but some of those are journalists and activists for democracy and human rights around the world who are potentially putting themselves, and those with whom they communicate, in danger from repressive regimes. We have the problem that, if we open up the encryption, it can then be used by all kinds of different actors. It is worth putting on the record that the National Union of Journalists—I declare my position as a former newspaper editor—has expressed grave concerns about the duties currently being put on breaking encryption. It notes that it places

“journalists, sources and whistle-blowers in danger, creating a chilling effect that prevents individuals providing information that could help inform public interest journalism, and hold the powerful to account”.

I regret that I cannot be in the Committee on the economic crime Bill running in parallel to this, where we are talking about some of these issues. On the last group in that Bill, we talked about the importance of the media and NGOs in exposing economic crime, and that is true of many other areas of our society.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, stressed what we might see if organisations choose to withdraw from the UK rather than leave their services here, but I want to address the point about what could happen if the organisations remain here and allow the set-up of systems for client-side scanning, as this Bill appears to point towards. That would open up the tools to being available and we know from experience around the world that, once we have those tech approaches out there, they spread literally in the manner of a virus—both in the biological and technical sense. They are available then to a whole lot of actors whom we do not want to have them.

It is worth coming back to the overall view of this. Sometimes we say that the security services were always able to open letters and look at individual communications, when we hope they had the legal basis to do so. Here we are talking about everything, everybody, all the time, which is an entirely different world situation to that individual, targeted legal basis.

I want to take advantage of the noble Baroness having raised that point to say that perhaps I was not clear enough in my speech. While I absolutely agree about not everything, everybody, all the time, for my specific concerns around child sexual abuse, abuse of women and so on, we have to find new world order ways of creating targeted approaches so it does not have to be everything, everybody, all the time.

I am glad I gave the noble Baroness the opportunity for that intervention. I have a reasonable level of technical knowledge—I hand-coded my first website in 1999, so I go back some way—but given the structures we are dealing with, I question the capacity and whether it is possible to create the tools and say they will be used only in a certain way. If you break the door open, anyone can walk through the door—that is the situation we are in.

As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, this is a crucial part of the Bill that was not properly examined and worked through in the other place. I will conclude by saying that it is vital we have a full and proper debate in this area. I hope the Minister can reassure us that he and the department will continue to be in dialogue with noble Lords as the Bill goes forward.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 205 in my name, but like other noble Lords I will speak about the group as a whole. After the contributions so far, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, there is not a great deal left for me to add. However, I will say that we have to understand that privacy is contextual. At one extreme, I know the remarks I make in your Lordships’ House are going to be carefully preserved and cherished; for several centuries, if not millennia, people will be able to see what I said today. If I am in my sitting room, having a private conversation, I expect that not to be heard by somebody, although at the same time I am dimly aware that there might be somebody on the other side of the wall who can hear what I am saying. Similarly, I am aware that if I use the telephone, it is possible that somebody is listening to the call. Somebody may have been duly authorised to do so by reference to a tribunal, having taken all the lawful steps necessary in order to listen to that call, because there are reasons that have persuaded a competent authority that the police service, or whatever, listening to my telephone call has a reason to do so, to avoid public harm or meet some other justified objective agreed on through legislation.

Here, we are going into a sphere of encryption where one assumes privacy and feels one is entitled to some privacy. However, it is possible that the regulator could at any moment step in and demand records from the past—records up to that point—without the intervention of a tribunal, as far as I can see, or without any reference to a warrant or having to explain to anybody their basis for doing so. They would be able to step in and do it. This is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle: unlike the telephone conversation, where it does not have to be everyone, everywhere, all the time—they are listening to just me and the person to whom I am talking—the provider has to have the capacity to go back, get all those records and be able to show Ofcom what it is that Ofcom is looking for. To do that requires them to change their encryption model fundamentally. It is not really possible to get away from everyone, everywhere, all the time, because the model has to be changed in order to do it.

That is why this is such an astonishing thing for the Government to insert in this Bill. I can understand why the security services and so forth want this power, and this is a vehicle to achieve something they have been trying to achieve for a long time. But there is very strong public resistance to it, and it is entirely understood, and to do it in this space is completely at odds with the way in which we felt it appropriate to authorise listening in on private conversations in the past—specific conversations, with the authority of a tribunal. To do it this way is a very radical change and one that needs to be considered almost apart from the Bill, not slipped in as a mere clause and administrative adjunct to it.

My Lords, there have been some excellent speeches so far. The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, brilliantly laid out why these amendments matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, explained why this has gained popular interest outside of the House. Not everything that goes on in this House is of interest and people do not study all of the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, even though they are always in the public sphere, but this particular group of amendments has elicited a huge amount of discussion.

We should remember that encrypted chat has become an indispensable part of the way that we live in this country and around the world. According to the Open Rights Group it has replaced the old-fashioned wired telephone—a rather quaint phrase. The fact that the citizens of the United Kingdom think that chat services matter so much that they are used by 60% of the total population should make us think about what we are doing regarding these services.

End-to-end encryption—the most secure form of encryption available—means that your messages are stored on your phone; people feel that they are in control because they are not on some server somewhere. Even WhatsApp cannot read your WhatsApp messages; that is the point of encryption. That is why people use it: the messages are secured with a lock which only you and the recipient have the special key to unlock to read them.

Obviously, there are certain problems. Certain Government Ministers wanted to voluntarily share all of their WhatsApp messages with a journalist who would then share them with the rest of us. If your Lordships were in that group you might have thought that was a rude thing to do. People have their WhatsApp messages leaked all the time, and when it happens we all think, “Oh my God, I’m glad I wasn’t in that WhatsApp group”, because you assume a level of privacy, even though as a grown-up you need to remember that somebody might leak them. But the main point is that they are a secure form of conversation that is widely used.

Everyone has a right to private conversations. I was thinking about how, when society closed down during the lockdown period, we needed technology in order to communicate with each other. We understood that we needed to WhatsApp message or Zoom call our friends and family, and the idea that this would involve the state listening in would have appalled us—we considered that our private life.

We want to be able to chat in confidence and be confident that only ourselves and the recipients can see what we are sharing and hear what we are saying. That is true of everyday life, but there are very good specific cases to be made for its importance, ranging through everything from Iranian women resisting the regime and communicating with each other, to all the civil liberties organisations around the world that use WhatsApp. The security of knowing that you can speak without Putin listening in or that President Xi will not be sent your WhatsApp messages is important.

The Government keep assuring us that we do not need to worry, but the Bill gives Ofcom the power to require services to install tools that would require the surveillance of encrypted communications regarding child exploitation and terrorism content, for example. Advocates and people on my side argue that this is not possible without undermining encryption because, just as you cannot be half pregnant, you cannot be half encrypted once you install tools for scanning for certain content. There is a danger that we say, “We’re only doing it for those things”, but actually it would be an attack on encryption itself.

Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I know nothing about the technical aspects of this, as noble Lords can hear from the way I am speaking about it. But I can see from a common-sense point of view what encryption is: you cannot say, “We’re only going to use it a little bit”. That is my point.

I want to tackle the issue of child abuse, because I know that it lurks around here. It is what really motivates the people who say, “It’s ok as long as we can deal with that”. This is put forward as a proposed solution to the problem of encrypted chat services that send messages of that nature and the question of what we can do about it. Of course I stress that images of child abuse and exploitation are abhorrent—that is a very important background to this conversation—but I want to draw attention to the question of what we are prepared to do about child abuse, because I think it was referred to in an earlier group. I am nervous that we are promising a silver bullet through this Bill that it will all be solved through some of these measures.

I noted that Professor Ross Anderson of the University of Cambridge said that we cannot expect artificial intelligence to replace police officers, teachers, and social workers in child protection. He said:

“The idea that complex social problems are amenable to cheap technical solutions is the siren song of the software salesman and has lured many a gullible government department on to the rocks”.

This is true. Most child abuse happens offline. Online child abuse needs to be dealt with, but I worry that we will say to people, “Don’t worry, all will be well because we’re dealing with it in the Online Safety Bill”.

No one in the Committee or anyone standing behind us who speaks up for children thinks that this is going to be a silver bullet. It is unacceptable to suggest that we take that position. Much child abuse takes place offline and is then put online, but the exponential way in which it is consumed, created, and spread is entirely new because of the services we are talking about. Later in Committee I will explain some of the new ways in which it is creating child abuse—new forms, new technologies, new abuse.

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I have made my feelings clear that I am not an end-to-end encryption “breaker”. There are amendments covering this; I believe some of them will come up later in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on safety by design and so on. I also agree with the noble Baroness that we need more resources in this area for the police, teachers, social workers and so on. However, I do not want child sexual abuse to be a football in this conversation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, that last exchange was incredibly helpful. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for what he just said and the way in which he introduced this group. I want to make only a few brief remarks.

I have put my name to two amendments in this group: Amendment 202 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which seeks to ensure that Ofcom will be subject to the same kind of requirements and controls as exist under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act before issuing a technology notice

“to a regulated service which offers private messaging with end-to-end encryption”;

and Amendment 285, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. This amendment would make sure that no social media platforms or private end-to-end messaging services have an obligation generally to monitor what is going on across their platforms. When I looked at this group and the various amendments in it, those were the two issues that I thought were critical. These two amendments seemed to approach them in the most simple and straightforward manner.

Like other noble Lords, my main concern is that I do not want search and social media platforms to have an obligation to become what we might describe as thought police. I do not want private messaging firms to start collecting and storing the content of our messages so that they have what we say ready to hand over in case they are required to do so. What the noble Lord, Lord Allan, just said is an important point to emphasise. Some of us heard from senior representatives from WhatsApp a few weeks ago. I was quite surprised to learn how much they are doing in this area to co-operate with the authorities; I felt very reassured to learn about that. I in no way want to discourage that because they are doing an awful amount of good stuff.

Basically, this is such a sensitive matter, as has been said, that it is important for the Government to be clear what their policy intentions are by being clear in the Bill. If they do not intend to require general monitoring that needs to be made explicit. It is also important that, if Ofcom is to be given new investigatory powers or powers to insist on things through these technology notices, it is clear that its powers do not go beyond those that are already set out in law. As we have heard from noble Lords, there is widespread concern about this matter not just from the social media platforms and search engines themselves but from news organisations, journalists and those lobby groups that often speak out on liberty-type matters. These topics go across a wide range of interest groups, so I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to respond constructively and open-mindedly on them.

My Lords, I was not intending to intervene on this group because my noble friend Lord Stevenson will address these amendments in their entirety, but listening in to this public conversation about this group of amendments has stimulated a question that I want both to put on the record and to give the Minister time to reflect on.

If we get the issues of privacy and encrypted messaging wrong, it will push more people into using VPN—virtual private network—services. I went into the app store on my phone to search for VPN software. There is nothing wrong with such software—our parliamentary devices have it to do general monitoring and make sure that we do not use services such as TikTok—but it is used to circumnavigate much of the regulatory regime that we are seeking to put together through this Bill. When I search for VPNs in the app store, the first one that comes up that is not a sponsored, promoted advertisement has an advisory age limit of four years old. Several of them are the same; some are 17-plus but most are four-plus. Clearly, the app promotes itself very much on the basis that it offers privacy and anonymity, which are the key features of a VPN. However, a review of it says, “I wouldn’t recommend people use this because it turns out that this company sends all its users’ data to China so that it can do general monitoring”.

I am not sure how VPNs are being addressed by the Bill, even though they seem really pertinent to the issues of privacy and encryption. I would be interested to hear whether—and if we are, how—we are bringing the regulation and misuse of VPNs into scope for regulation by Ofcom.

My Lords, I would like to say something very quickly on VPN. I had a discussion with some teenagers recently, who were all prepared for this Bill—I was quite surprised that they knew a lot about it. They said, “Don’t worry, we’ve worked out how to get around it. Have you heard of VPN?” It reminded me of a visit to China, where I asked a group of students how they dealt with censorship and not being able to google. They said, “Don’t worry about it”, and showed me VPN. It is right that we draw attention to that. There is a danger of inadvertently forcing people on to the unregulated dark web and into areas that we might not imagine. That is why we have to be careful and proportionate in our response.

My Lords, I have long been on record as being for radical reform of the House of Lords, but I do not think there are many Chambers in the world that could have had such an interesting debate on such a key subject—certainly not the House of Commons, sadly. Without falling into the old trap of saying what a wonderful lot we all are, it is important that, in such an important Bill, covering so many important areas of civil liberties and national security, there should be an opportunity, before we get to voting, to have this kind of debate and get some of the issues into the public domain.

I am on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on knowledge of the technology—looking back to 20 years ago, when I was on the committee that worked on the communications Bill which set up Ofcom, I see that we were genuinely innocents abroad. We deliberately decided not to try regulating the internet, because we did not know what it was going to do. I do not think that we can have that excuse today.

Perhaps an even more frightening background is that, for three and a half years, during the coalition Government, I was Minister for Digital Protection—a less equipped Minister to protect your digital I cannot imagine. However, I remember being taken to some place over the river to have a look at our capacities in this area. Having seen some of the things that were being done, I rather timidly asked the expert who was showing me round, “Aren’t there civil liberty issues in what you’re doing?” He said, “Oh no, sir. Tesco know far more about you than we do”.

There is this element about what is secret. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in her last contribution, said that children look with contempt at some of the safeguards and blockages that keep them away from things. I do not think anybody is deluding themselves that there is some silver bullet. As always, Parliament must do its best to address real national concerns and real problems in the best way that we see at this time. There is a degree of cross-party and Cross-Bench unity, in that there are real and present dangers in how these technologies are being used, and real and present abuses of a quite horrific kind. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is right. This technology has given a quantum leap to the damage that the abuser and the pornographer can do to our society, in the same way that it has given a quantum leap to those who want to undermine the truth and fairness of our election system. There are real problems that must be addressed.

Although it has not been present in this debate, it is no help to polarise the argument as being between the state wanting to accrue more and more powers and brave defenders of civil liberties. As somebody who has practised some of these dark arts myself, I advise those who are organising letters to ensure that those sending them do not leave in the paragraph that says, “Here you may want to include some personal comments”. It waters down the credibility of this as some independent exercising of a democratic right.

I make a plea, as someone on the edges of the debate who at times had some direct responsibilities, to use what the Bill has thrown up to address whether it is now in the right shape—I hope the Minister hears it. The Government should not be ashamed to take it away and think a bit. It may be that we can add some of the protections that we quite often do, such as allowing certain interventions after a judge or senior police officer or others have been involved. That may already be in other parts of the Bill. However, it would be wrong to allow the Bill to polarise this, given that there was no one who spoke this morning who is not trying to deal with very real difficulties, problems and challenges, within the framework of a democratic society, in a way that protects our freedoms but also protects us from real and present dangers.

My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill in Committee. I know noble Lords are keen to move on and get through the groups as quickly as possible, but I hope they will forgive me if I say that I will speak only about twice on the Bill, and this is one of the groups that I want to speak to. I will try not to make your Lordships impatient.

I should tell the Committee a little about where I am coming from. I was very geeky as a kid. I learned to program and code. I did engineering at university and coded there. My master’s degree in the late 1980s was about technology and policy, so I have been interested in technology policy since then, having followed it through in my professional life. In 1996, I wrote a book on EU telecoms—it sold so well that no one has ever heard of it. One thing I said in that book, which though not an original thought is pertinent today, is that the regulation will always be behind the technology. We will always play catch-up, and we must be concerned about that.

Interestingly, when you look at studies of technology adoption—pioneers, early adopters and then the rest of the population—quite often you see that the adult industry is at the leading edge, such as with cable TV, satellite TV, video cassettes, online conferencing, et cetera. I assure your Lordships that I have not done too much primary research into this, but it is an issue that we ought to be aware of.

I will not speak often in this debate, because there are many issues that I do not want to disagree on. For example, I have already had a conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and we all agree that we need to protect children. We also know that we need to protect vulnerable adults; there is no disagreement on that. However, in these discussions there will be inevitable trade-offs between security and safety and freedom. It is right to have these conversations to ensure that we get the balance right, with the wisdom of noble Lords. Sacrifices will be made on either side of the debate, and we should be very careful as we navigate this.

I am worried about some of the consequences for freedom of expression. When I was head of a research think tank, one of the phenomena that I became interested in was that of unintended consequences. Well-meaning laws and measures have often led to unintended consequences. Some people call it a law of unintended consequences, and some call it a principle, and we should be careful about this. The other issue is subjectivity of harms. Given that we have taken “legal but harmful” out and there are amendments to the Bill to tackle harms, there will be a debate on the subjectivity of harms.

One reason I wanted to speak on this group is that some of the amendments tabled by noble Lords—too many to mention—deal with technology notices and ensuring that we are consistent between the offline and online worlds, particularly regarding the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. I welcome and support those amendments.

We also have to be aware that people will find a way around it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. When I was looking at terrorism and technology, one of the issues that people raised with me was not to forget that one way around it was to create an email account and store stuff in a draft folder. You could then share the username and password with others who could then access that data, those pictures or those instructions in a draft folder. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, has gone some way to addressing that issue.

The other issue that we have to be clear about is how the tech sector can do more. It was interesting when my noble friend Lady Stowell organised a meeting with Meta, which was challenged particularly on having access to information and pictures from coroners. It was very interesting when Meta told us what it could access: it does not know what is in the messages, but there are things that it can access, or advise people to access, on the user’s phone or at the other end. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has had the conversation with Meta, but it would be helpful and important to find some common ground there, and to probe and push Meta and others to make sure that they share that information more quickly, so we do not have to wait five years to get it via the coroner or whatever. We ought to push that as much as possible.

I want to talk in particular about unintended consequences, particularly around end-to-end encryption. Even if you do not believe the big businesses and think that they are crying wolf when they say that they will quit the UK—although I believe that there is a threat of that, particularly when we continually want the UK to be a global hub for technology and innovation and so cannot afford for companies such as Meta, Signal and others to leave—you should listen to the journalists who are working with people, quite often dissidents, in many countries, and rely on encrypted communications to communicate with them.

The other risk we should be aware of is that it is very difficult to keep technology to a few people. In my academic career, I also looked at technology transfer, both intentional and unintentional. We should look at the intelligence services and some of the innovations that happened: for example, when Concorde was designed, it was not very long after that the Soviets got their hands on that equipment. Just as there used to be a chap called Bob in the exchange who could share information, there is always a weak spot in chains: the humans. Lots of humans have a price and can be bought, or they can be threatened, and things can be shared. The unintended consequence I am worried about is that this technology will get into the hands of totalitarian regimes. At the same time, it means people over here who are really trying desperately to help dissidents and others speak up for freedom in other countries will be unable to support them. We should be very careful and think about unintended consequences. For that reason, I support this group of amendments.

I really am looking forward to the responses from the Minister. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that he was a Minister for three years on data protection; I was a Minister in this department for one month. I was so pleased that I had my dream job, as Minister for Civil Society and Heritage, and so proud of my party and this country because we had elected the first Asian Prime Minister; then, six days later, I got sacked. So, as they say, be careful what you wish for.

In this particular case, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken up in this debate. I do not want to repeat any other points but just wanted to add that. I will not speak often, but I want to say that it is really critical that, when we look at this trade-off between security, safety and freedom, we get it right. One way of doing that is to make sure that, on technology notices and RIPA, we are consistent between the online and offline worlds.

My Lords, it has been a very good debate indeed. When I first saw this grouping, my heart sank: the idea that we should be able to encompass all that within the space of just over an hour seemed a bit beyond all of us, however skilled and experienced we were, and whatever background we were able to bring to the debate today. I agree with both noble Lords who observed that we have an expertise around here that is very unusual and extremely helpful in trying to drill down into some of these issues.

The good thing that has come out from this debate, which was summed up very well by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is that we are now beginning to address some of the underlying currents that the Bill as a boat is resting on—and the boat is a bit shaky. We have a very strong technological bias, and we are grateful for the masterclass from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, on what is actually going on in the world that we are trying to legislate for. It leaves me absolutely terrified that we are in a situation where we appear to be trying to future-proof, possibly in the wrong direction. We should be very careful about that. We will want to reflect on the point he made on where the technology is driving this particular aspect of our social media and search engine operations.

The Bill is very wide ranging and, therefore, the amendments must necessarily follow it. But, in this group, we seem to be doing three things: we are trying to recognise whether there is a problem with encrypted messaging, and its relationship to security on the one hand and privacy and human rights on the other. I am very pleased that we are doing this, but I am not quite sure that we are in a position to make long-lasting conclusions. Like everybody else, I think that the burden falls on the Minister to convince us that he has reached the right place in the consideration of this and that his proposals will be right for the present day, let alone the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, was right: we need to be very clear what the Government are trying to do here. I am afraid that I am not convinced that I know what it is. I put it to the Minister that he should make it very evident up front. This section of the Bill, and the way that we have been grouped into discussing it—because there are other things that we will need to come back to that relate to it—will need to be convincing. At the moment, I do not think that it is.

I say that because, if you go down where the Bill is trying to get to, it is very odd indeed that Ofcom has the powers to look at the messaging of private individuals and that the same body is also regulating. In other words, Ofcom is expected to be both gamekeeper and poacher. The points made around the Chamber on this issue are unanswerable. In the offline world, we have a structure that works through RIPA, which seems an exemplary model. I have heard the Minister say in private meetings that the procedures which will be in place in Ofcom will replicate that in every way and that there should be no concern about it, but the problem is the fact that it is the same body that is doing it. Enough has been said to make a very good case that at the very least, if we go ahead on the basis of what the Bill says, the decisions on whether or not the technologies can begin to peek into the encrypted world need to be authorised by an external body at a judicial level, and that it should follow the RIPA model, which has stood the test of time and seems to work very well and to everyone’s satisfaction. That is my first point.

My second point is that if we are to go down a technological route, we have to be certain that it is necessary; I worry that it is in advance of where we perhaps need to go, and that having a bit more time before it comes into place might be a way forward. I think we have heard enough from those who have written in and in the meetings we have had that this does not seem to be a hotspot for the police, who will have responsibility for doing quite a lot of the legwork on this. They seem to have powers which they could use to get to where they need to be in order to make sure that the crimes being commissioned or committed can be investigated and that those responsible are brought to justice. If that is the case, why are we putting in this extra step? Again, I do not have the confidence that the Bill is going in the right direction here.

We can add to that some of the technological issues, which are as important. If we have a technology capable of carrying out the inquisition of encrypted material in a way which will be satisfactory as defined by the legislation, is there not a risk that we are simply opening up the whole process to hackers and those who might be able to do more harm than good? One representation we had said that the requirement under Clause 110 to use accredited technology to identify CSEA and/or terrorism content, whether, in the words of the Bill,

“communicated publicly or privately by means of the service”,

means that a currently secure platform check and a scan of users will be opened up. That proposal imposes the decryption of something that is encrypted, which cannot be right. That would open up too much of a risk for those who are, as we have heard, in many ways and in many parts of the world dependent on encryption to carry on doing the things that we want them to do. The ability to hijack this type of technology is a worry which I have not seen reflected in any of the discussions we have had with the Government on this point.

Finally, I know this is unpopular as far as the Government are concerned, but is there not a concern that we are running a coach and horses through some of our well thought-through and important issues relating to human rights? The EHRC’s paper says that the provisions in Clause 110 may be disproportionate and an infringement of millions of individuals’ rights to privacy where those individuals are not suspected of any wrongdoing. This is not a right or wrong issue; it is a proportion issue. We need to balance that. I do not know if have heard the Minister set out exactly why the measures in the Bill meet that set of conditions, so I would be grateful if he could talk about that or, if not, write to us. If we are in danger of heading into issues which are raised by Article 8 of the ECHR—I know the noble Lord opposite may not be a huge supporter of it, but it is an important part of our current law, and senior Ministers have said how important it will be in the future—surely we must have safeguards which will protect it.

My Lords, this has indeed been a very good debate on a large group of amendments. We have benefited from two former Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend Lord Kamall. I hope it is some solace to my noble friend that, such a hard act is he to follow, his role has been taken on by two of us on the Front Bench—myself at DCMS and my noble friend Lord Camrose at the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

The amendments in this group are concerned with the protection of user privacy under the Bill and the maintenance of end-to-end encryption. As noble Lords have noted, there has been some recent coverage of this policy in the media. That reporting has not always been accurate, and I take this opportunity to set the record straight in a number of areas and seek to provide the clarity which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, asked for just now.

Encryption plays a crucial role in the digital realm, and the UK supports its responsible use. The Bill does not ban any service design, nor will it require services materially to weaken any design. The Bill contains strong safeguards for privacy. Broadly, its safety duties require platforms to use proportionate systems and processes to mitigate the risks to users resulting from illegal content and content that is harmful to children. In doing so, platforms must consider and implement safeguards for privacy, including ensuring that they are complying with their legal responsibilities under data protection law.

With regard to private messaging, Ofcom will set out how companies can comply with their duties in a way that recognises the importance of protecting users’ privacy. Importantly, the Bill is clear that Ofcom cannot require companies to use proactive technology, such as automated scanning, on private communications in order to comply with their safety duties.

In addition to these cross-cutting protections, there are further safeguards concerning Ofcom’s ability to require the use of proactive technology, such as content identification technology on public channels. That is in Clause 124(6) of the Bill. Ofcom must consider a number of matters, including the impact on privacy and whether less intrusive measures would have the equivalent effect, before it can require a proactive technology.

The implementation of end-to-end encryption in a way that intentionally blinds companies to criminal activity on their services, however, has a disastrous effect on child safety. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in the United States of America estimates that more than half its reports could be lost if end-to-end encryption were implemented without preserving the ability to tackle child sexual abuse—a conundrum with which noble Lords grappled today. That is why our new regulatory framework must encourage technology companies to ensure that their safety measures keep pace with this evolving and pernicious threat, including minimising the risk that criminals are able to use end-to-end encrypted services to facilitate child sexual abuse and exploitation.

Given the serious risk of harm to children, the regulator must have appropriate powers to compel companies to take the most effective action to tackle such illegal and reprehensible content and activity on their services, including in private communications, subject to stringent legal safeguards. Under Clause 110, Ofcom will have a stand-alone power to require a provider to use, or make best endeavours to develop, accredited technology to tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse, whether communicated publicly or privately, by issuing a notice. Ofcom will use this power as a last resort only when all other measures have proven insufficient adequately to address the risk. The only other type of harm for which Ofcom can use this power is terrorist content, and only on public communications.

The use of the power in Clause 110 is subject to additional robust safeguards to ensure appropriate protection of users’ rights online. Ofcom will be able to require the use of technology accredited as being highly accurate only in specifically detecting illegal child sexual exploitation and abuse content, ensuring a minimal risk that legal content is wrongly identified. In addition, under Clause 112, Ofcom must consider a number of matters, including privacy and whether less intrusive means would have the same effect, before deciding whether it is necessary and proportionate to issue a notice.

The Bill also includes vital procedural safeguards in relation to Ofcom’s use of the power. If Ofcom concludes that issuing a notice is necessary and proportionate, it will need to publish a warning notice to provide the company an opportunity to make representations as to why the notice should not be issued or why the detail contained in it should be amended. In addition, the final notice must set out details of the rights of appeal under Clause 149. Users will also be able to complain to and seek action from a provider if the use of a specific technology results in their content incorrectly being removed and if they consider that technology is being used in a way that is not envisaged in the terms of service. Some of the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, pertain in this instance.

The Bill also recognises that in some cases there will be no available technology compatible with the particular service design. As I set out, this power cannot be used by Ofcom to require a company to take any action that is not proportionate, including removing or materially weakening encryption. That is why the Bill now includes an additional provision for this scenario, to allow Ofcom to require technology companies to use their best endeavours to develop or find new solutions that work on their services while meeting the same high standards of accuracy and privacy protection. Given the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the sector, it is reasonable to ask it to do everything possible to protect children from abuse and exploitation. I echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, about the work being done across the sector to do that.

More broadly, the regulator must uphold the right to privacy under its Human Rights Act obligations when implementing the new regime. It must ensure that its actions interfere with privacy only where it is lawful, necessary and proportionate to do so. I hope that addresses the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. In addition, Ofcom will be required to consult the Information Commissioner’s Office when developing codes of practice and relevant pieces of guidance.

I turn now to Amendments 14—

Before the Minister does so, can he give a sense of what he means by “best endeavours” for those technology companies? If it is not going to be general monitoring of what is happening as the message moves from point to point—we have had some discussions about the impracticality and issues attached to monitoring at one end or the other—what, theoretically, could “best endeavours” possibly look like?

I am hesitant to give too tight a definition, because we want to remain technology neutral and make sure that we are keeping an open mind to developing changes. I will think about that and write to the noble Lord. The best endeavours will inevitably change over time as new technological solutions present themselves. I point to the resourcefulness of the sector in identifying those, but I will see whether there is anything more I can add.

While the Minister is reflecting, I note that the words “best endeavours” are always a bit of a worry. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, made the good point that once it is on your phone, you are in trouble and you must report it, but the frustration of many people outside this Chamber, if it has been on a phone and you cannot deal with it, is what comes next to find the journey of that piece of material without breaking encryption. I speak to the tech companies very often—indeed, I used to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, when he was in position at then Facebook—but that is the question that we would like answered in this Committee, because the frustration that “It is nothing to do with us” is where we stop with our sympathy.

The noble Baroness’s intervention has given me an opportunity to note that I am about to say a little more on best endeavours, which will not fully answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, but I hope fleshes it out a little more.

I do that in turning to Amendments 14, 108 and 205, which seek to clarify that companies will not be required to undertake fundamental changes to the nature of their service, such as the removal or weakening of end-to-end encryption. As I previously set out, the Bill does not require companies to weaken or remove any design and there is no requirement for them to do so as part of their risk assessments or in response to a notice. Instead, companies will need to undertake risk assessments, including consideration of risks arising from the design of their services, before taking proportionate steps to mitigate and manage these risks. Where relevant, assessing the risks arising from end-to-end encryption will be an integral part of this process.

This risk management approach is well established in almost every other industry and it is right that we expect technology companies to take user safety into account when designing their products and services. We understand that technologies used to identify child sexual abuse and exploitation content, including on private communications, are in some cases nascent and complex. They continue to evolve, as I have said. That is why Ofcom has the power through the Bill to issue a notice requiring a company to make best endeavours to develop or source technology.

This notice will include clear, proportionate and enforceable steps that the company must take, based on the relevant information of the specific case. Before issuing a warning notice, Ofcom is expected to enter into informal consultation with the company and/or to exercise information-gathering powers to determine whether a notice is necessary and proportionate. This consultation period will assist in establishing what a notice to develop a technology may require and appropriate steps for the company to take to achieve best endeavours. That dialogue with Ofcom is part of the process.

There are a lot of phrases here—best endeavour, proportionate, appropriate steps—that are rather subjective. The concern of a number of noble Lords is that we want to address this issue but it is a matter of how it is applied. That is one of the reasons why noble Lords were asking for some input from the legal profession, a judge or otherwise, to make those judgments.

All the phrases used in the Bill are subject to the usual scrutiny through the judicial process—that is why we debate them now and think about their implications—but of course they can, and I am sure will, be tested in the usual legal ways. Once a company has developed a new technology that meets minimum standards of accuracy, Ofcom may require its use but not before considering matters including the impact on user privacy, as I have set out. The Bill does not specify which tools are likely to be required, as we cannot pre-empt Ofcom’s evidence-based and case-by-case assessment.

Amendment 285 intends to clarify that social media platforms will not be required to undertake general monitoring of the activity of their users. I agree that the protection of privacy is of utmost importance. I want to reassure noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who asked about it, that the Bill does not require general monitoring of all content. The clear and strong safeguards for privacy will ensure that users’ rights are protected.

Setting out clear and specific safeguards will be more effective in protecting users’ privacy than adopting the approach set out in Amendment 285. Ofcom must consider a number of matters, including privacy, before it can require the use of proactive technology. The government amendments in this group, Amendments 290A to 290G, further clarify that technology which identifies words, phrases or images that indicate harm is subject to all of these restrictions. General monitoring is not a clearly defined concept—a point made just now by my noble friend Lord Kamall. It is used in EU law but is not defined clearly in that, and it is not a concept in UK law. This lack of clarity could create uncertainty that some technology companies might attempt to exploit in order to avoid taking necessary and proportionate steps to protect their users. That is why we resist Amendment 285.

I understand the point the Minister is making, but it is absolutely crystal clear that, whatever phrase is used, the sensibility is quite clear that the Government are saying on record, at the Dispatch Box, that the Bill can in no way be read as requiring anybody to provide a view into private messaging or encrypted messaging unless there is good legal cause to suspect criminality. That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made very clearly. One may not like the phrasing used in other legislatures, but could we find a form of words that will make it clear that those who are operating in this legal territory are absolutely certain about where they stand on that?

My Lords, I want to give clear reassurance that the Bill does not require general monitoring of all content. We have clear and strong safeguards for privacy in the Bill to ensure that users’ rights are protected. I set out the concerns about use of the phrase “general monitoring”. I hope that provides clarity, but I may have missed the noble Lord’s point. The brief answer to the question I think he was asking is yes.

Let the record stand clear: yes. It was the slight equivocation around how the Minister approached and left that point that I was worried about, and that people might seek to use that later. Words from the Dispatch Box are never absolute and they are never meant to be, but the fact that they have been said is important. I am sure that everybody understands that point, and the Minister did say “yes” to my question.

Perhaps I might go back to an earlier point. When the Minister said the Government want to make sure, I think he was implying that certain companies would try to avoid obligations to keep their users safe by threatening to leave or whatever. I want it to be clear that the obligations to the users of the service are, in the instance of encrypted services, to protect their privacy, and they see that as keeping them safe. It would be wrong to make that a polar opposite. I think that companies that run unencrypted services believe that to be what their duties are—so that in a way is a clash.

Secondly, I am delighted by the clarity in the Minister’s “yes” answer, but I think that maybe there needs to be clearer communication with people outside this Chamber. People are worried about whether duties placed on Ofcom to enact certain things would lead to some breach of encryption. No one thinks that the Government intend to do this or want to spy on anyone, but that the unintended consequences of the duty on Ofcom might have that effect. If that is not going to be the case, and that can be guaranteed by the Government, and they made that clear, it would reassure not just the companies but the users of messaging services, which would be helpful.

The points the noble Baroness has just made bring me neatly to what I was about to say in relation to the question raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. But first, I would say that Ofcom as a public body is subject to public law principles already, so those apply in this case.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about virtual private networks and the risk of displacing people on to VPNs or other similar alternatives. That is a point worth noting, not just in this group but as we consider all these amendments, particularly when we talk later on about age verification, pornography and so on. Services will need to think about how safety measures could be circumvented and take steps to prevent that, because they need to mitigate risk effectively. There may also be a role in enforcement action, too; Ofcom will be able to apply to the courts to require these services where appropriate to apply business disruption measures. We should certainly be mindful of the incentives for people to do that, and the example the noble Lord, Lord Knight, gave earlier is a useful lesson in the old adage “Caveat emptor” when looking at some of these providers.

I want to say a little bit about Amendments 205A and 290H in my name. Given the scale of child sexual abuse and exploitation that takes place online, and the reprehensible nature of these crimes, it is important that Ofcom has effective powers to require companies to tackle it. This brings me to these government amendments, which make small changes to the powers in Clause 110 to ensure that they are effective. I will focus particularly, in the first instance, on Amendment 290H, which ensures that Ofcom considers whether a service has features that allow content to be shared widely via another service when deciding whether content has been communicated publicly or privately, including for the purposes of issuing a notice. This addresses an issue highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, and Professor Stuart Macdonald in a recent paper. The separate, technical amendment, Amendment 205A, clarifies that Clause 110(7) refers only to a notice on a user-to-user service.

Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to introduce a new privacy duty on Ofcom when considering whether to use any of its powers. The extensive privacy safeguards that I have already set out, along with Ofcom’s human rights obligations, would make this amendment unnecessary. Ofcom must also explicitly consult persons whom it considers to have expertise in the enforcement of the criminal law and the protection of national security, which is relevant to online safety matters in the course of preparing its draft codes. This may include the integrity and security of internet services where relevant.

Amendments 202 and 206, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and Amendments 207, 208, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249 and 250 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, all seek to deliver privacy safeguards to notices issued under Clause 110 through additional review and appeals processes. There are already strong safeguards concerning this power. As part of the warning notice process, companies will be able to make representations to Ofcom which it is bound to consider before issuing a notice. Ofcom must also review any notice before the end of the period for which it has effect.

Amendment 202 proposes mirroring the safeguards of the investigatory powers Act when issuing notices to encrypted messaging services under this power. First, this would be inappropriate, because the powers in the investigatory powers Act serve different purposes from those in this Bill. The different legal safeguards in the investigatory powers Act reflect the potential intrusion by the state into an individual’s private communications; that is not the case with this Bill, which does not grant investigatory powers to state bodies, such as the ability to intercept private communications. Secondly, making a reference to encryption would be—

Is that right? I do not need a yes or no answer. It was rhetorical; I am just trying to frame the right question. The Minister is making a very strong point about the difference between RIPA requirements and those that might be brought in under this Bill. But it does not really get to the bottom of the questions we were asking. In this situation, whatever the exact analogy between the two systems is, it is clear that Ofcom is marking its own homework—which is fair enough, as there are representations, but it is not getting external advice or seeking judicial approval.

The Minister’s point was that that was okay because it was private companies involved. But we are saying here that these would be criminal offences taking place and therefore there is bound to be interest from the police and other agencies, including anti-terrorism agencies. It is clearly similar to the RIPA arrangements, so he could he just revisit that?

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

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

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

Before my noble friend moves on, when he is reviewing that back in the office, could he also satisfy himself that the concerns coming from the journalism and news organisations in the context of RIPA are also understood and have been addressed? That is another angle which, from what my noble friend has said so far, I am not sure has really been acknowledged. That is not a criticism but it is worth him satisfying himself on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I shall search out the book written by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, but he was right to talk about unintended consequences. Critically, we are in a world of known unknowns here: we know that there will be an issue when the technical notices are issued, but we do not have the technical notices, so it is really hard for us to understand how far they will be a problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about the human rights aspect. Again, that is critical. How do we know whether the powers are proportionate if we do not know what Ofcom is going to tell companies to do? That is the problem. To his credit, the Minister tried to respond and gave some more clarity. There was some in there—and people out there will pore over this like a sacred text to try to understand what was said—but what I heard was, “If you’re already offering an end-to-end encrypted service, we’re not going to tell you to get rid of it, but if your service isn’t currently end-to-end encrypted, we may”. I heard the words “if you are deliberately blinding yourself to the bad content”. That sounds to me like, “Don’t start encrypting if you’re not already encrypted”. If that is the Government’s intention, it may be reasonable, but we will need to tease it out further. It is quite a big deal. Looking forward, we have to ask whether, if end-to-end encrypted services did not exist today and were coming on to the market, Ofcom would try to use the powers to stop them coming on to the market or whether they would be relaxed. We still have a lot of known unknowns in this space that I am sure we will come back to.

I am conscious of the time. I am sure that there will be people out there who are looking at this debate. I remind them that, at this stage, we never vote on anything. I am sure that we will come back to this issue at later stages, where we may vote on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Amendment 15 not moved.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed.

Clause 7 agreed.

House resumed.

Illegal Migration Bill

First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Sitting suspended. Committee to begin again not before 3.03 pm.

Online Safety Bill

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

Clause 8: Illegal content risk assessment duties

Amendment 16

Moved by

16: Clause 8, page 7, line 16, after “governance,” insert “terms of service,”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment makes clear that “design and operation of a service” includes its terms of service.

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns terms of service. All the amendments either have the phrase “terms of service” in them or imply that we wish to see more use of the phrase in the Bill, and seek to try to tidy up some of the other bits around that which have crept into the Bill.

Why are we doing that? Rather late in the day, terms of service has suddenly become a key fulcrum, under which much of the operations of the activity relating to people’s usage of social media and service functions on the internet will be expressed in relation to how they view the material coming to them. With the loss of the adult “legal but harmful” provisions, we also lost quite a considerable amount of what would have been primary legislation, which no doubt would have been backed up by codes of practice. The situation we are left with, and which we need to look at very closely, is the triple shield at the heart of the new obligations on companies, and, in particular, on their terms of service. That is set out primarily in Clauses 64, 65, 66 and 67, and is a subject to which my amendments largely refer.

Users of the services would be more confident that the Government have got their focus on terms of service right, if they actually said what should be said on the tin, as the expression goes. If it is the case that something in a terms of service was so written and implemented so that material which should be taken down was indeed taken down, these would become reliable methods of judging whether or not the service is the one people want to have, and the free market would be seen to be working to empower people to make their own decisions about what level of risk they can assume by using a service. That is a major change from the way the Bill was originally envisaged. Because this was done late, we have one or two of the matters to which I have referred already, which means that the amendments focus on changing what is currently in the Bill.

It is also true that the changes were not consulted upon; I do not recall there being any document from government about whether this was a good way forward. The changes were certainly not considered by the Joint Committee, of which several of those present were members—we did not discuss it in the Joint Committee and made no recommendation on it. The level of scrutiny we have enjoyed on the Bill has been absent in this area. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford will speak shortly to amendments about terms of service, and we will be able to come back to it. I think it would have been appropriate had the earlier amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, been in this group because the issue was the terms of service, even though it had many other elements that were important and that we did discuss.

The main focus of my speech is that the Government have not managed to link this new idea of terms of service and the responsibilities that will flow from that to the rest of the Bill. It does not seem to fit into the overall architecture. For example, it is not a design feature, and does not seem to work through in that way. This is a largely self-contained series of clauses. We are trying to ask some of the world’s largest companies, on behalf of the people who use them, to do things on an almost contractual basis. Terms of service are not a contract that you sign up to, but you certainly click something—or occasionally click it, if you remember to—by which you consent to the company operating in a particular set of ways. In a sense, that is a contract, but is it really a contract? At the heart of that contract between companies and users is whether the terms of service are well captured in the way the Bill is organised. I think there are gaps.

The Bill does have something that we welcome and want to hold on to, which is that the process under which the risks are assessed and decisions taken about how companies operate and how Ofcom relates to those decisions is about the design and operation of the service—both the design and the operation, something that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is very keen to emphasise at all times. It all starts and ends with design, and the operation is a consequence of design choices. Other noble Baronesses have mentioned in the debate that small companies get it right and so, when they grow, can be confident that what they are doing is something that is worth doing. Design, and operating that design to make a service, is really important. Are terms of service part of that or are they different, and does it matter? It seems to me that they are downstream from the design: something can be designed and then have terms of service that were not really part of the original process. What is happening here?

My Amendments 16, 21, 66DA, 75 and 197 would ensure that the terms of service are included within the list of matters that constitute “design and operation” of the service at each point that it occurs. I have had to go right through the Bill to add it in certain areas—in a rather irritating way, I am sure, for the Bill team—because sometimes we find that what I think should be a term of service is actually described as something else, such as a “a publicly available statement”, whatever that is. It would be an advantage if we went through it again and defined terms of service and made sure that that was what we were talking about.

Amendments 70 to 72, 79 to 81 and 174 seek to help the Government and their officials with tidying up the drafting, which probably has not been scrutinised enough to pick up these issues. It may not matter, at the end of the day, but what is in the Bill is going to be law and we may as well try to get it right as best we can. I am sure the Minister will say we really do not need to worry about this because it is all about risks and outcomes, and if a company does not protect children or has illegal content, or the user-empowerment duties—the toggling—do not work, Ofcom will find a way of driving the company to sort it out. What does that mean in practice? Does it mean that Ofcom has a role in defining what terms of service are? It is not in the Bill and may not reach the Bill, but it is something that will be a bit of problem if we do not resolve what we mean by it, even if it is not by changing the legislation.

If the Minister were to disagree with my approach, it would be quite nice to have it said at the Dispatch Box so that we can look at that. The key question is: are terms of service an integral part of the design and operation of a service and, if so, can we extend the term to make sure that all aspects of the services people consume are covered by adequate and effective terms of service? There is probably going to be division in the way we approach this because, clearly, whether they are terms of service or have another name, the actual enforcement of illegal and children’s duties will be effected by Ofcom, irrespective of the wording of the Bill—I do not want to question that. However, there is obviously an overlap into questions about adults and others who are affected by the terms of service. If you cannot identify what the terms of service say in relation to something you might not wish to receive because the terms of service are imprecise, how on earth are you going to operate the services, the toggles and things, around it? If you look at that and accept there will be pressure within the market to get these terms of service right, there will be a lot of dialogue with Ofcom. I accept that all that will happen, but it would be good if the position of the terms of service was clarified in the Bill before it becomes law and that Ofcom’s powers in relation to those are clarified—do they or do they not have the chance to review terms of service if they turn out to be ineffective in practice? If that is the case, how are we going to see this work out in practice in terms of what people will be able to do about it, either through redress or by taking the issue to court? I beg to move.

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

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

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

Secondly, to back up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we need to be realistic that no one will ever read all the terms of service of the services that they use. There was a study that looked at how long it would take to read the terms of service on a typical mobile phone—I think it is around 10 days; given that they get updated most years, are any of us going to spend 10 days a year reading the terms of service?

We like our real-world analogues: we read all of the law, but none of the people out there read all of the laws of the land unless and until they have a problem, at which point they do read them. Terms of service are very similar in that people are not going to read them and we should not expect people to read them unless and until they have a problem that requires them to do so. I do not mean that as a counsel of despair, but we have to be realistic about what we are expecting people to do.

Thirdly, the Bill is going to make terms of service longer, and we need to get over that. The challenge is always that you want your terms of service to be comprehensive and easy for users, and as we move in the Bill towards making terms of service more actionable—which we are doing because the Bill says that Ofcom will be able to say, “Did you apply your terms of service properly?”—the lawyers for the platforms are going to be saying “What have we missed out?” and “If there is anything we have missed out, we have to go and stick it in there because now we are going to have a regulator breathing down our neck, checking whether or not we have done what we say”.

We should be realistic that we are asking companies to be entirely comprehensive and transparent, and in general that will mean making their terms of service longer. Again, this is not a complete counsel of despair. We can follow Mark Twain’s advice:

“I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one”

and invest the time. That is what we can do to try to make terms of service shorter, rather than just saying to lawyers, “We will pay you by the word, and the more words there are, the happier we are”. But, again, we should be realistic: if it is comprehensive, it is going to be long; there is no way to avoid that.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked whether or not it is a contract—that is an interesting question, certainly for the US providers. In the US the regulation, such that there is, is done largely by the Federal Trade Commission, and the concept is whether or not services are engaged in unfair or deceptive practices. An unfair or deceptive practice is not doing what you said you would do in the terms of service or a critical document of that nature.

Interestingly, all the incentive in the US is to be as vague as possible because if you have not said that you will do things, you cannot be hauled in front of the FTC. The EU generally creatives incentives to be as comprehensive as possible, and I was involved in a number of cases where the company I worked for was taken to court and forced to add in more text because the US text was seen as too skeletal—that is a familiar debate to us here, whether we like things to be skeletal or for everything to be filled in.

So we need to be cognisant of that as we build terms of service into the Bill. This is not an argument against the amendments, but rather to say that as we do this, we need to be clear that we may be pulling in opposite directions. They need to be comprehensive, yet easy to use. “We are going to hold you accountable in the US; therefore, you should be vague; but we are also going to hold you accountable in the UK if you are too vague”—where is the right point of specificity and vagueness?

Having said that, it is really important that we focus on this because from a user’s point of view you are far more likely to come across an issue with the terms than an issue with the law—this is great, because most people in this country are law-abiding and not seeking to break the law.

The final point is that sometimes there is a tendency to think that everyone should have uniform terms of service. I can see the argument for a baseline, but in a vibrant market there is a strong case to say that we should celebrate where they are different, and there are communities that are different. For example, if you have a service that targets young people you might want to prohibit swearing; whereas, for example, it would be completely inappropriate to prohibit swearing in a vibrant political community for adults only. There are lots of areas where people understand that the context is different. For example, there are places where nudity—not pornography—is okay, and places where it is not.

So having different terms of service for different types of service is healthy, but I also think that Ofcom making sure that people do what they say they do is a reasonably healthy development, as long as we recognise and accept the consequences of that.

My Lords, I am grateful for this short and focused debate, which has been helpful, and for the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I think we all share the same objective: ensuring that terms of service promote accountability and transparency, and empower users.

One of the Bill’s key objectives is to ensure that the terms of service of user-to-user platforms are suitable and effective. Under the Bill, companies will be required both to set out clearly how they will tackle illegal content and protect children and to ensure that their terms of service are properly enforced. The additional transparency and accountability duties on category 1 services will further ensure that users know what to expect on the largest platforms. This will put an end to these services arbitrarily removing content or, conversely, failing to remove content that they profess to prohibit.

The Bill will also ensure that search services are clear to their users about how they are complying with their adult and child safety duties under this new law. Given the very different way in which search services operate, however, this will be achieved through a publicly available statement rather than through terms of service. The two are meant distinctly.

Noble Lords are right to point to the question of intelligibility. It struck me that, if it takes 10 days to read terms of service, perhaps we should have a race during the 10 days allotted to this Committee stage to see which is quicker—but I take the point. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, is also right that the further requirements imposed through this Bill will only add to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked a fair question about what “accessibility” means. The Bill requires all platforms’ terms of service for illegal content and child safety duties to be clear and accessible. Ofcom will provide guidance on what that means, including ensuring that they are suitably prominent. The same applies to terms of service for category 1 services relating to content moderation.

I will focus first on Amendments 16, 21, 66DA, 75 and 197, which seek to ensure that both Ofcom and platforms consider the risks associated with platforms’ terms of service with regard to the illegal content and child safety duties in the Bill. We do not think that these amendments are needed. User-to-user services will already be required to assess the risks regarding their terms of service for illegal content. Clause 8 requires companies to assess the “design and operation” of a service in relation to illegal content. As terms of service are integral to how a service operates, they would be covered by this provision. Similarly, Clause 10 sets out that companies likely to be accessed by children will be required to assess the “design and operation” of a service as part of their child risk assessments, which would include the extent to which their terms of service may reduce or increase the risk of harm to children.

In addition to those risk assessment duties, the safety duties will require companies to take proportionate measures effectively to manage and mitigate the risk of harm to people whom they have identified through risk assessments. This will include making changes to their terms of service, if appropriate. The Bill does not impose duties on search services relating to terms of service, as search services’ terms of service play a less important role in determining how users can engage on a platform. I will explain this point further when responding to specific amendments relating to search services but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that search services will have comprehensive duties to understand and mitigate how the design and operation of their service affects risk.

Amendment 197 would require Ofcom to assess how platforms’ terms of service affect the risk of harm to people that the sector presents. While I agree that this is an important risk factor which Ofcom must consider, it is already provided for in Clause 89, which requires Ofcom to undertake an assessment of risk across regulated services. That requires Ofcom to consider which characteristics of regulated services give rise to harm. Given how integral terms of service are to how many technology companies function, Ofcom will necessarily consider the risk associated with terms of service when undertaking that risk assessment.

However, elevating terms of service above other systems and processes, as mentioned in Clause 89, would imply that Ofcom needs to take account of the risk of harm on the regulated service, more than it needs to do so for other safety-by-design systems and processes or for content moderation processes, for instance. That may not be suitable, particularly as the service delivery methods will inevitably change over time. Instead, Clause 89 has been written to give Ofcom scope to organise its risk assessment, risk register and risk profiles as it thinks suitable. That is appropriate, given that it is best placed to develop detailed knowledge of the matters in question as they evolve over time.

Amendments 70, 71, 72, 79, 80, 81, 174 and 302 seek to replace the Bill’s references to publicly available statements, in relation to search services, with terms of service. This would mean that search services would have to publish how they are complying with their illegal content and child protection duties in terms of service rather than in publicly available statements. I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord has tabled and introduced these amendments. However, they do not consider the very different ways in which search services operate.

User-to-user services’ terms of service fulfil a very specific purpose. They govern a user’s behaviour on the service and set rules on what a user is allowed to post and how they can interact with others. If a user breaks these terms, a service can block his or her access or remove his or her content. Under the status quo, users have very few mechanisms by which to hold user-to-user platforms accountable to these terms, meaning that users can arbitrarily see their content removed with few or no avenues for redress. Equally, a user may choose to use a service because its terms and conditions lead them to believe that certain types of content are prohibited while in practice the company does not enforce the relevant terms.

The Bill’s duties relating to user-to-user services’ terms of service seek to redress this imbalance. They will ensure that people know what to expect on a platform and enable them to hold platforms accountable. In contrast, users of search services do not create content or interact with other users. Users can search for anything without restriction from the search service provider, although a search term may not always return results. It is therefore not necessary to provide detailed information on what a user can and cannot do on a search service. The existing duties on such services will ensure that search engines are clear to users about how they are complying with their safety duties. The Bill will require search services to set out how they are fulfilling them, in publicly available statements. Their actions must meet the standards set by Ofcom. Using these statements will ensure that search services are as transparent as user-to-user services about how they are complying with their safety duties.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 174 also seeks to expand the transparency reporting requirements to cover the scope and application of the terms of service set out by search service providers. This too is unnecessary because, via Schedule 8, the Bill already ensures transparency about the scope and application of the provisions that search services must make publicly available. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance that the concerns he has raised are already covered. With that, I invite him to withdraw Amendment 16.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that very detailed response, which I will have to read very carefully because it was quite complicated. That is the answer to my question. Terms of service will not be very easy to identify because to answer my questions he has had to pray in aid issues that Ofcom will necessarily have to assess—terms of services—to get at whether the companies are performing the duties that the Bill requires of them.

I will not go further on that. We know that there will be enough there to answer the main questions I had about this. I take the point about search being distinctively different in this area, although a tidy mind like mine likes to see all these things in one place and understand all the words. Every time I see “publicly available statement”, I do not know why but I think about people being hanged in public rather than a term of service or a contract.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, made the point that nobody ever reads these terms of service. We generally agree with that, but if you are married to a lawyer, as I am, you read an awful lot more of these things than you perhaps feel are good for your diet. I cannot even go on holiday until I have proven to her that I have read every word of my insurance policy on what I will be shipped home with. It is a frightening thought that some people do that because they like doing it, and she does.

I will not take this much further. The jibe that I had at the beginning—that this does not quite fit with the rest of the Bill—is still there, but we will not get much change out of what we are doing. The important thing is that, even though it is a rather complicated route, it looks as though Ofcom will have, possibly retrospectively and with more transparency than actual powers, the ability to look at terms of service when they are not working.

What I miss is the ability to set a standard for terms of service that is broadly acceptable to people, which was exactly the point that the noble Lord made: they cannot be so complex that you will not read them but they have to be sufficient to achieve what they do. I am still lost about what you can use the triple shield for if you do not know whether the services will deliver what you know you do not want. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Amendment 16A

Moved by

16A: Clause 8, page 7, line 23, after “19(2)” insert “and (8A)”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment inserts a signpost to the new duty in clause 19 about supplying records of risk assessments to OFCOM.

Amendment 16A agreed.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed.

Clause 9: Safety duties about illegal content

Amendments 16B and 16C

Moved by

16B: Clause 9, page 7, line 27, leave out “all”

Member’s explanatory statement

This is a technical amendment needed because the new duty to summarise illegal content risk assessments in the terms of service (see the amendment in the Minister’s name inserting new subsection (8A) below) is imposed only on providers of Category 1 services.

16C: Clause 9, page 7, line 27, at end insert “(as indicated by the headings).”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment provides clarification because the new duty to summarise illegal content risk assessments in the terms of service (see the amendment inserting new subsection (8A) below) is imposed only on providers of Category 1 services.

Amendments 16B and 16C agreed.

Amendment 17

Moved by

17: Clause 9, page 7, line 30, leave out “prevent individuals from” and insert “protect individuals from harms arising due to them”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment, along with the other amendment to Clause 9 in the name of Lord Moylan, adds a requirement to protect individuals from harm, rather than monitoring, prior restraint and/or denial of access. Further obligations to mitigate and manage harm, including to remove unlawful content that is signalled to the service provider, are unchanged by this amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are all worried in this Committee about prospect of speech being censored in a way which infringes the freedom of speech rights that we fought so hard to establish and which are also embedded in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We want to have a legal structure that does not empower providers to act as private sector censors ranging over what we do, except in circumstances where it is wholly justified and in the public interest. The language in the Bill is far too loose for this purpose. It does not give us the protection. It does not do what my noble friend said it would do when he spoke at Second Reading, which is to strike the right balance. These amendments in my third group—and indeed the one in my second group—are there to help strike the right balance. I beg to move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a really interesting potential role for Ofcom here. One thing that is frustrating if you work at a platform is that you will often get stuck and when you go out and look for advice, you find it is hard to get it. When I ran a working group with some French lawyers, including quite senior judges, they came into the working group saying, “This is all straightforward—you’re just not removing the illegal stuff”. So we gave them real cases and it was interesting to see how half of the lawyers in the room would be on one side, saying “It must come down—it’s against French law” while the other half was saying, “How could you possibly take this down in France?”, because it was protected speech. It is really difficult to get that judgment but, interestingly, an unintended consequence of the Bill may be that Ofcom will ultimately get stuck in that position.

The Bill is not about Ofcom making rulings on individual items of content but if—as in the example I shared with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, earlier—the police have said to a platform, “You must remove this demonstration. It is illegal”, and the platform said, “No, we judge it not to be illegal”, where are the police going to go? They will go to Ofcom and say, “Look, this platform is breaching the law”, so Ofcom is going to get pulled into that kind of decision-making. I do not envy it that but, again, we need to plan for that scenario because people who complain about illegality will go wherever they think they can get a hearing, and Ofcom will be one of those entities.

A huge amount on this illegal content area still needs to be teased out. I ask the Minister to respond specifically to the points I have raised around whose jurisdiction it is. If the speaker is speaking legally, because they are in a country outside the United Kingdom, what is the Government’s expectation on platforms in those circumstances? Will he look at the issue of the tests and where on this spectrum, from probably illegal through to likely to be illegal and may be illegal, the Government expect platforms to draw the line? If platforms have removed the bad content, will he consider carefully to what extent the Government think that the platforms should have to go through the process of investing time and energy to work out whether they removed it for illegality or for a terms of service breach? That is interesting but if our focus is on safety, frankly, it is wasted effort. We need to question how far we expect the platforms to do that.

My Lords, before speaking to my Amendment 137, I want to put a marker down to say that I strongly support Amendment 135 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. I will not repeat anything that he said but I agree with absolutely every word.

Amendment 137 is in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. This amendment is one of five which I have tabled with the purpose of meeting a core purpose of the Bill. In the words of my noble friend the Minister in response to Amendment 1, it is

“to protect users of all ages from being exposed to illegal content”—[Official Report, 19/4/23; col. 724.]

—in short, to ensure that what is illegal offline is illegal online.

If accepted, this small group of amendments would, I strongly believe, make a really important difference to millions of people’s lives—people who are not necessarily listed in Clause 12. I therefore ask the Committee to allow me to briefly demonstrate the need for these amendments through the prism of millions of people and their families working and living in rural areas. They are often quite isolated and working alone in remote communities, and are increasingly at risk of or are already suffering awful online abuse and harassment. This abuse often goes way beyond suffering; it destroys businesses and a way of life.

I find it extraordinary that the Bill seems to be absent of anything to do with livelihoods. It is all about focusing on feelings, which of course are important—and the most important focus is children—but people’s businesses and livelihoods are being destroyed through abuse online.

Research carried out by the Countryside Alliance has revealed a deeply disturbing trend online that appears to be disproportionately affecting people who live in rural areas and who are involved in rural pursuits. Beyond direct abuse, a far more insidious tactic that activists have adopted involves targeting businesses involved in activities of which they disapprove, such as livestock farming or hosting shoots. They post fake reviews on platforms including Tripadvisor and Google Maps, and their aim is to damage the victim, their business and their reputation by, to put it colloquially, trashing their business and thereby putting off potential customers. This is what some call trolling.

Let me be clear that I absolutely defend, to my core, the right to freedom of expression and speech, and indeed the right to offend. Just upsetting someone is way below the bar for the Bill, or any legislation. I am deeply concerned about the hate crime—or non-crime—issue we debated yesterday; in fact, I put off reading the debate because I so disagree with this nonsense from the College of Policing.

Writing a negative review directly based on a negative experience is entirely acceptable in my book, albeit unpleasant for the business targeted. My amendments seek to address something far more heinous and wrong, which, to date, can only be addressed as libel and, therefore, through the civil courts. Colleagues in both your Lordships’ House and in another place shared with me tremendously upsetting examples from their constituents and in their neighbourhoods of how anonymous activists are ruining the lives of hard-working people who love this country and are going the extra mile to defend our culture, historic ways of life and freedoms.

Fortunately, through the Bill, the Government are taking an important step by introducing a criminal offence of false communications. With the leave of the Committee, I will briefly cite and explain the other amendments in order to make sense of Amendment 137. One of the challenges of the offence of false communications is the need to recognise that so much of the harm that underpins the whole reason why the Bill is necessary is the consequence of allowing anonymity. It is so easy to destroy and debilitate others by remaining anonymous and using false communications. Why be anonymous if you have any spine at all to stand up for what you believe? It is not possible offline—when writing a letter to a newspaper, for example—so why is it acceptable online? The usual tech business excuse of protecting individuals in rogue states is no longer acceptable, given the level of harm that anonymity causes here at home.

Therefore, my Amendment 106 seeks to address the appalling effect of harm, of whatever nature, arising from false or threatening communications committed by unverified or anonymous users—this is what we refer to as trolling. Amendments 266 and 267, in my name and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and my noble friend Lord Leicester, would widen the scope of this new and welcome offence of false communications to include financial harm, and harm to the subject of the false message arising from its communication to third parties.

The Bill will have failed unless we act beyond feelings and harm to the person and include loss of livelihood. As I said, I am amazed that it is not front and centre of the Bill after safety for our children. Amendment 268, also supported by my noble and learned friend, would bring within the scope of the communications offences the instigation of such offences by others—for example, Twitter storms, which can involve inciting others to make threats without doing so directly. Currently, we are unsure whether encouraging others to spread false information—for example, by posting fake reviews of businesses for ideologically motivated reasons—would become an offence under the Bill. We believe that it should, and my Amendment 268 would address this issue.

I turn briefly to the specifics of my Amendment 137. Schedule 7 lists a set of “priority offences” that social media platforms must act to prevent, and they must remove messages giving rise to certain offences. However, the list does not include the new communications offences created elsewhere in Part 10. We believe that this is a glaring anomaly. If there is a reason why the new communications offences are not listed, it is important that we understand why. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain.

The practical effect of Amendment 137 would be to include the communications offences introduced in the Bill and communications giving rise to them within the definition of “relevant offence” and “priority illegal content” for the purposes of Clause 53(4) and (7) and otherwise.

I ask the Committee to have a level of imagination here because I have been asked to read the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—

I do not know who advised the noble Baroness—and forgive me for getting up and getting all former Leader on her—but this is a practice that we seem to have adopted in the last couple of years and that I find very odd. It is perfectly proper for the noble Baroness to deploy the noble Viscount’s arguments, but to read his speech is completely in contravention of our guidance.

I beg the pardon of the Committee. I asked about it and was misinformed; I will do as the noble Baroness says.

The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is unable to be with us. He put his name to Amendments 273, 275, 277 and 280. His concern is that the Bill sets the threshold for illegality too low and that in spite of the direction provided by Clause 170, the standards for determining illegality are too vague.

I will make a couple of points on that thought. Clause 170(6) directs that a provider must have

“reasonable grounds to infer that all elements necessary for the commission of the offence, including mental elements, are present or satisfied”,

but that does not mean that the platform has to be certain that the content is illegal before it takes it down. This is concerning when you take it in combination with what or who will make judgments on illegality.

If a human moderator makes the decision, it will depend on the resources and time available to them as to how much information they gather in order to make that judgment. Unlike in a court case, when a wide range of information and context can be gathered, when it comes to decisions about content online, these resources are very rarely available to human moderators, who have a vast amount of content to get through.

If an automated system makes the judgment, it is very well established that algorithms are not good at context—the Communications and Digital Committee took evidence on this repeatedly when I was on it. AI simply uses the information available in the content itself to make a decision, which can lead to significant missteps. Clause 170(3) provides the requirement for the decision-makers to judge whether there is a defence for the content. In the context of algorithms, it is very unclear how they will come to such a judgment from the content itself.

I understand that these are probing amendments, but I think the concern is that the vagueness of the definition will lead to too much content being taken down. This concern was supported by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, which wrote to the former Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, on that matter. I apologise again.

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that probe how removing illegal material is understood and will be used under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, explained a lot of my concerns, as indeed did the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, via his avatar. We have heard a range of very interesting contributions that need to be taken seriously by the Government. I have put my name to a number of amendments.

The identification of illegal material might be clear and obvious in some cases—even many cases. It sounds so black and white: “Don’t publish illegal material”. But defining communications of this nature can be highly complex, so much so that it is traditionally reserved for law enforcement bodies and the judicial system. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that, despite Home Secretaries, this House, regulations and all sorts of laws having indicated that non-crime hate incidents, for example, should not be pursued by the police, they continue to pursue them as though they are criminal acts. That is exactly the kind of issue we have.

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

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

That is very helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, my contribution will be less officious than my intervention earlier in this group. In the last couple of years since I returned to the House—as I describe it—having spent time at the Charity Commission, I have noticed a new practice emerging of noble Lords reading out other people’s speeches. Every time I had seen it happen before, I had not said anything, but today I thought, “I can’t sit here and not say anything again”. I apologise for my intervention.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for bringing forward his amendments and for introducing them in the incredibly clear way he did; they cover some very complex and diverse issues. I know that there are other amendments in the group which might be described as similar to his.

There are a couple of things I want to highlight. One interesting thing about the debate on this group is the absence of some of our legal friends—I apologise to my noble friend Lady Buscombe, who is of course a very distinguished lawyer. The point I am making is that we are so often enriched by a lot of legal advice and contributions on some of the more challenging legal issues that we grapple with, but we do not have that today, and this is a very difficult legal issue.

It is worth highlighting again, as has been touched on a little in some of the contributions, the concern, as I understand it, with how the Bill is drafted in relation to illegal content and the potential chilling effect of these clauses on social media platforms. As has already been said, there is a concern that it might lead them to take a safety-first approach in order to avoid breaking the law and incurring the sanctions and fines that come with the Bill, which Ofcom will have the power to apply. That is the point we are concerned with here. It is the way in which this is laid out, and people who are much better equipped than I am have already explained the difference between evidence versus reasonable grounds to infer.

What the noble Lord, Lord Allan, hit on in his contribution is also worth taking into account, and that is the role of Ofcom in this situation. One of the things I fear, as we move into an implementation phase and the consequences of the Bill start to impact on the social media firms, is the potential for the regulator to be weaponised in a battle on the cultural issues that people are becoming increasingly exercised about. I do not have an answer to this, but I think it is important to understand the danger of where we might get to in the expectations of the regulator if we create a situation where the social media platforms are acting in a way that means people are looking for recourse or a place to generate further an argument and a battle that will not be helpful at all.

I am not entirely sure, given my lack of legal expertise —this is why I would have been very grateful for some legal expertise on this group—whether what my noble friend is proposing in his amendments is the solution, but I think we need to be very clear that this is a genuine problem. I am not sure, as things stand in the Bill, that we should be comfortable that it is not going to create problems. We need to find a way to be satisfied that this has been dealt with properly.

It is a great honour to follow my noble friend. I completely agree with her that this is a powerful discussion and there are big problems in this area. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Moylan for raising this in the first place. It has been a very productive discussion.

I approach the matter from a slightly different angle. I will not talk about the fringe cases—the ones where there is ambiguity, difficulty of interpretation, or responsibility or regulatory override, all of which are very important issues. The bit I am concerned about is where primary priority content that clearly demonstrates some kind of priority offence is not followed up by the authorities at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, referred to this point, although he did slightly glide over it, as though implying, if I understood him correctly, that this was not an area of concern because, if a crime had clearly been committed, it would be followed up on. My fear and anxiety is that the history of the internet over the last 25 years shows that crimes—overt and clear crimes that are there for us to see—are very often not followed up by the authorities. This is another egregious example of where the digital world is somehow exceptionalised and does not have real-world rules applied to it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, quite reasonably asked me about Andrew Tate. That matter is sub judice; the noble Lord, Lord Allan, referred to it and I do not want to drag the conversation into dangerous legal territory. However, she makes the good point that we sometimes see, particularly in the online abuse of women, offences that are quite clearly crimes; they are crimes of rape, violent abuse and child abuse. It would not take any of us long to find videos that showed clear examples of crime, but very often they are not followed up with the energy and determination that they could or should be, because things on the internet somehow do not seem to touch the authorities in the way they should do.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services—

I want to clarify one point. I have had a slightly different experience, which is that for many people—women, at least—whom I have talked to recently, there is an over-enthusiasm and an over-zealous attitude to policing the speech of particular women and, as we have already heard, gender-critical women. It is often under the auspices of hate speech and there is all sorts of discussion about whether the police are spending too long trawling through social media. By contrast, if you want to get a policeman or policewoman involved in a physical crime in your area, you cannot get them to come out. So I am not entirely convinced. I think policing online speech at least is taking up far too much of the authorities’ time, not too little time, and distracting them from solving real social and criminal activity.