Online Safety Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments, so ably introduced by my noble friend and other noble Lords this afternoon.

I am not a lawyer and I would not say that I am particularly experienced in this business of legislating. I found this issue incredibly confusing. I hugely appreciate the briefings and discussions—I feel very privileged to have been included in them—with my noble friend the Minister, officials and the Secretary of State herself in their attempt to explain to a group of us why these amendments are not necessary. I was so determined to try to understand this properly that, yesterday, when I was due to travel to Surrey, I took all my papers with me. I got on the train at Waterloo and started to work my way through the main challenges that officials had presented.

The first challenge was that, fundamentally, these amendments cut across the Bill’s definitions of “primary priority content” and “priority content”. I tried to find them in the Bill. Unfortunately, in Clause 54, there is a definition of primary priority content. It says that, basically, primary priority content is what the Secretary of State says it is, and that content that is harmful to children is primary priority content. So I was none the wiser on Clause 54.

One of the further challenges that officials have given us is that apparently we, as a group of noble Lords, were confusing the difference between harm and risk. I then turned to Clause 205, which comes out with the priceless statement that a risk of harm should be read as a reference to harm—so maybe they are the same thing. I am still none the wiser.

Yesterday morning, I found myself playing what I can only describe as a parliamentary game of Mornington Crescent, as I went round and round in circles. Unfortunately, it was such a confusing game of Mornington Crescent that I forgot that I needed to change trains, ended up in Richmond instead of Redhill, and missed my meeting entirely. I am telling the Committee this story because, as the debate has shown, it is so important that we put in the Bill a definition of the harms that we are intending to legislate for.

I want to address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. She said that we might not all agree on what harms are genuinely harmful for children. That is precisely why Parliament needs to decide this, rather than abdicate it to a regulator who, as other noble Lords said earlier today, is then put into a political space. It is the job of Parliament to decide what is dangerous for our children and what is not. That is the approach that we take in the physical world, and it should be the approach that we take in the online world. We should do that in broad categories, which is why the four Cs is such a powerful framework. I know that we are all attempting to predict the known unknowns, which is impossible, but this framework, which gives categories of harm, is clear that it can be updated, developed and, as my noble friend Lord Bethell, said, properly consulted on. We as parliamentarians should decide; that is the purpose of voting in Parliament.

I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister. Does he agree that Parliament needs to decide what the categories of online harms are that the Bill is attempting to protect our children from? If he does, why is it not the four Cs? If he really thinks it is not the four Cs, will he bring back an alternative schedule of harms?

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, in my contribution to another very useful debate, which has brought to mind the good debate that we had on the first day in Committee, in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in which we were seeking to get into the Bill what we are actually trying to do.

I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was also welcoming additional clarity, specifically in the area of psychological harm, which I agree with. Certainly in its earlier incarnations, the Bill was scattered throughout with references, some of which have been removed, but they are very much open to interpretation. I hope that we will come back to that.

I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, around what took place in that coroner’s hearing. You had two different platforms with different interpretations of what they thought that their duty of care would be. That is very much the point. In my experience, platforms will follow what they are told to follow. The challenge is when each of them comes to their own individual view around what are often complex areas. There we saw platforms presenting different views about their risk assessments. If we clarify that for them through amendments such as these, we are doing everyone a favour.

I again compliment my noble friend Lady Benjamin for her work in this area. Her speech was also a model of clarity. If we can bring some of that clarity to the legislation and to explaining what we want, that will be an enormous service.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made some interesting points around how this would add value to the Bill, teasing out some of the specific gaps that we have there. I look forward to hearing the response on that.

I was interested in the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on mobile phone penetration. We should all hold in common that we are not going back to a time BC—before connection. Our children will be connected, which creates the imperative for us to get this right. There has perhaps been a tendency for us to bury our heads in the sand, and occasionally you hear that still—it is almost as if we would wish this world away. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is at the other end of the spectrum; she has come alive on this subject, precisely because she recognises that that will not happen. We are in a world where our children will be connected, so it is on us to figure out how we want those connections to work and to instruct the people who provide those connective services on what they should do. It is certainly not for us to imagine that somehow they will all go away. We will come to that in later groups when we talk about minimum ages; if younger children are online, there is a real issue around how we are going to deal with that.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford highlighted some really important challenges based on real experiences that families today are suffering—let us use the word as it should be—and made the case for clarity. I do not know how much we are allowed to talk in praise of EU legislation, but I am looking at the Digital Services Act—I have looked at a lot of EU legislation—and this Bill, and there is a certain clarity to EU regulation, particularly the process of adding recitals, which are attached to the law and explain what it is meant to do. That is sometimes missing here. I know that there are different legal traditions, but you can sometimes look at an EU regulation and the UK law and the former appears to be much clearer in its intent.

That brings me to the substance of my comments in response to this group, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I hope that the Government heed and recognise that, at present, no ordinary person can know what is happening in the Bill—other than, perhaps, the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who will read it for fun—and what we intend to do.

I was thinking back to the “2B or not 2B” debate we had earlier about the lack of clarity around something even as simple as the classification of services. I was also thinking that, if you ask what the Online Safety Bill does to restrict self-harm content, the answer would be this: if it is a small social media platform, it will probably be categorised as a 2B service, then we can look at Schedule 7, where it is prohibited from assisting suicide, but we might want to come back to some of the earlier clauses with the specific duties—and it will go on and on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, described, you are leaping backwards and forwards in the Bill to try to understand what we are trying to do with the legislation. I think that is a genuine problem.

In effect, the Bill is Parliament setting out the terms of service for how we want Ofcom to regulate online services. We debated terms of service earlier. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We are currently failing our own tests of simplicity and clarity on the terms of service that we will give to Ofcom.

As well as platforms, if ordinary people want to find out what is happening, then, just like those platforms with the terms of service, we are going to make them read hundreds of pages before they find out what this legislation is intended to do. We can and should make this simpler for children and parents. I was able to meet Ian Russell briefly at the end of our Second Reading debate. He has been an incredibly powerful and pragmatic voice on this. He is asking for reasonable things. I would love to be able to give a Bill to Ian Russell, and the other families that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred to, that they can read and that tells them very clearly how Parliament has responded to their concerns. I think we are a long way short of that simple clarity today.

It would be extraordinarily important for service providers, as I already mentioned in response to the noble Lord, Lord Russell. They need that clarity, and we want to make sure that they have no reason to say, “I did not understand what I was being asked to do”. That should be from the biggest to the smallest, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, keeps rightly raising with us. Any small service provider should be able to very clearly and simply understand what we are intending to do, and putting more text into the Bill that does that would actually improve it. This is not about adding a whole load of new complications and the bells and whistles we have described but about providing clarity on our intention. Small service providers would benefit from that clarity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, rightly raised the issue of the speed of the development of technology. Again, we do not want the small service provider in particular to think it has to go back and do a whole new legal review every time the technology changes. If we have a clear set of principles, it is much quicker and simpler for it to say, “I have developed a new feature. How does it match up against this list?”, rather than having to go to Clause 12, Clause 86, Clause 94 and backwards and forwards within the Bill.

It will be extraordinarily helpful for enforcement bodies such as Ofcom to have a yardstick—again, this takes us back to our debate on the first day—for its prioritisation, because it will have to prioritise. It will not be able to do everything, everywhere, all at once. If we put that prioritisation into the legislation, it will, frankly, save potential arguments between Parliament, the Government and Ofcom later on, when they have decided to prioritise X and we wanted them to prioritise Y. Let us all get aligned on what we are asking them to do up front.

Dare I say—the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, reminded me of this—that it may also be extraordinarily helpful for us as politicians so that we can understand the state of the law. I mean not just the people who are existing specialists or are becoming specialists in this area and taking part in this debate but the other hundreds of Members of both Houses, because this is interesting to everyone. I have experience of being in the other place, and every Member of the other place will have constituents coming to them, often with very tragic circumstances, and asking what Parliament has done. Again, if they have the Online Safety Bill as currently drafted, I think it is hard for any Member of Parliament to be able to say clearly, “This is what we have done”. With those words and that encouraging wind, I hope the Government are able to explain, if not in this way, that they have a commitment to ensuring that we have that clarity for everybody involved in this process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group and for the clarity with which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has concluded his remarks.

Amendments 20, 74, 93 and 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would mean a significant revising of the Bill’s approach to content that is harmful to children. It would set a new schedule of harmful content and risk to children—the 4 Cs—on the face of the Bill and revise the criteria for user-to-user and search services carrying out child safety risk assessments.

I start by thanking the noble Baroness publicly—I have done so privately in our discussions—for her extensive engagement with the Government on these issues over recent weeks, along with my noble friends Lord Bethell and Lady Harding of Winscombe. I apologise that it has involved the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, missing her stop on the train. A previous discussion we had also very nearly delayed her mounting a horse, so I can tell your Lordships how she has devoted hours to this—as they all have over recent weeks. I would like to acknowledge their campaigning and the work of all organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, listed at the start of her speech, as well as the families of people such as Olly Stephens and the many others that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford mentioned.

I also reassure your Lordships that, in developing this legislation, the Government carried out extensive research and engagement with a wide range of interested parties. That included reviewing international best practice. We want this to be world-leading legislation, including the four Cs framework on the online risks of harm to children. The Government share the objectives that all noble Lords have echoed in making sure that children are protected from harm online. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for echoing the remarks I made earlier in Committee on this. I am glad we are on the same page, even if we are still looking at points of detail, as we should be.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, knows, it is the Government’s considered opinion that the Bill’s provisions already deliver these objectives. I know that she remains to be convinced, but I am grateful to her for our continuing discussions on that point, and for continuing to kick the tyres on this to make sure that this is indeed legislation of which we can be proud.

It is also clear that there is broad agreement across the House that the Bill should tackle harmful content to children such as content that promotes eating disorders, illegal behaviour such as grooming and risk factors for harm such as the method by which content is disseminated, and the frequency of alerts. I am pleased to be able to put on record that the Bill as drafted already does this in the Government’s opinion, and reflects the principles of the four Cs framework, covering each of those: content, conduct, contact and commercial or contract risks to children.

First, it is important to understand how the Bill defines content, because that question of definition has been a confusing factor in some of the discussions hitherto. When we talk in general terms about content, we mean the substance of a message. This has been the source of some confusion. The Bill defines “content”, for the purposes of this legislation, in Clause 207 extremely broadly as

“anything communicated by means of an internet service”.

Under this definition, in essence, all user communication and activity, including recommendations by an algorithm, interactions in the metaverse, live streams, and so on, is facilitated by “content”. So, for example, unwanted and inappropriate contact from an adult to a child would be treated by the Bill as content harm. The distinctions that the four Cs make between content, conduct and contact risks is therefore not necessary. For the purposes of the Bill, they are all content risks.

Secondly, I know that there have been concerns about whether the specific risks highlighted in the new schedule will be addressed by the Bill.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

Where are the commercial harms? I cannot totally get my head around my noble friend’s definition of content. I can sort of understand how it extends to conduct and contact, but it does not sound as though it could extend to the algorithm itself that is driving the addictive behaviour that most of us are most worried about.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

In that vein, will the noble Lord clarify whether that definition of content does not include paid-for content?

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

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?

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

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.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

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.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I add my support for all the amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for bringing the need for the consistent regulation of pornographic content to your Lordships’ attention. Last week, I spoke about my concerns about pornography; I will not repeat them here. I said then that the Bill does not go far enough on pornography, partly because of the inconsistent regulation regimes between Part 3 services and Part 5 ones.

In February, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Commercial Sexual Exploitation made a series of recommendations on the regulation of pornography. Its first recommendation was this:

“Make the regulation of pornography consistent across different online platforms, and between the online and offline spheres”.


It went on to say:

“The reforms currently contained in the Online Safety Bill not only fail to remedy this, they introduce further inconsistencies in how different online platforms hosting pornography are regulated”.


This is our opportunity to get it right but we are falling short. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, go to the heart of the issue by ensuring that the duties that currently apply to Part 5 services will also apply to Part 3 services.

Debates about how these duties should be amended or implemented will be dealt with later on in our deliberations; I look forward to coming back to them in detail then. Today, the question is whether we are willing to have inconsistent regulation of pornographic content across the services that come into the scope of the Bill. I am quite sure that, if we asked the public in an opinion poll whether this was the outcome they expected from the Bill, they would say no.

An academic paper published in 2021 reported on the online viewing of 16 and 17 year-olds. It said that pornography was much more frequently viewed on social media, showing that the importance of the regulation of such sites remains. The impact of pornography is no different whether it is seen on a social media or pornography site with user-to-user facilities that fall within Part 3 or on a site that has only provider content that would fall within Part 5. There should not be an either/or approach to different services providing the same content, which is why I think that Amendment 125A is critical. If all pornographic content is covered by Part 5, what does and does not constitute user-generated material ceases to be our concern. Amendment 125A highlights this issue; I too look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

There is no logic to having different regulatory approaches in the same Bill. They need to be the same and come into effect at the same time. That is the simple premise of these amendments; I fully support them.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, earlier today the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to a group of us as kindred spirits. I suggest that all of us contributing to this debate are kindred spirits in our desire to see consistent outcomes. All of us would like to see a world where our children never see pornography on any digital platform, regardless of what type of service it is. At the risk of incurring the ire of my noble friend Lord Moylan, we should have zero tolerance for children seeing and accessing pornography.

I agree with the desire to be consistent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, but it is consistency in outcomes that we should focus on. I am very taken with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that we must be very careful about the unintended consequences of a consistent regulatory approach that might end up with inconsistent outcomes.

When we get to it later—I am not sure when—I want to see a regulatory regime that is more like the one reflected in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Bethell. We need in the Bill a very clear definition of what age assurance and age verification are. We must be specific on the timing of introducing the regulatory constraints on pornography. We have all waited far too long for that to happen and that must be in the Bill.

I am nervous of these amendments that we are debating now because I fear other unintended consequences. Not only does this not incentivise general providers, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, described them, to remove porn from their sites but I fear that it incentivises them to remove children from their sites. That is the real issue with Twitter. Twitter has very few child users; I do not want to live in a world where our children are removed from general internet services because we have not put hard age gates on the pornographic content within them but instead encouraged those services to put an age gate on the front door. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said earlier today, I fear that, with all the best intentions, the desire to have consistent outcomes and these current amendments would regulate the high street rather than the porn itself.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, there is absolutely no doubt that across the Committee we all have the same intent; how we get there is the issue between us. It is probably about the construction of the Bill, rather than the duties that we are imposing.

It is a pleasure again to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. If you take what my noble friend Lord Allan said about a graduated response and consistent outcomes, you then get effective regulation.

I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, had it right. If we passed her amendments in the second group, and included the words “likely to be accessed”, Clause 11 would bite and we would find that there was consistency of outcomes for primary priority content and so on, and we would then find ourselves in much the same space. However, it depends on the primary purpose. The fear that we have is this. I would not want to see a Part 5 service that adds user-generated content then falling outside Part 5 and finding itself under Part 3, with a different set of duties.

I do not see a huge difference between Part 3 and Part 5, and it will be very interesting when we come to debate the later amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Again, why do we not group these things together to have a sensible debate? We seem to be chunking-up things in a different way and so will have to come back to this and repeat some of what we have said. However, I look forward to the debate on those amendments, which may be a much more effective way of dealing with this than trying to marry Part 5 and Part 3.

I understand entirely the motives of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and that we want to ensure that we capture this. However, it must be the appropriate way of regulating and the appropriate way of capturing it. I like the language about consistent outcomes without unintended consequences.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests as put in the register and declared in full at Second Reading. I will speak to Amendment 2 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, to Amendments 3 and 5 in my name, and briefly to Amendments 19, 22, 298 and 299 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.

The digital world does not have boundaries in the way that the Bill does. It is an ecosystem of services and products that are interdependent. A user journey is made up of incremental signals, nudges and enticements that mean that, when we use our devices, very often we do not end up where we intended to start. The current scope covers user-to-user, search and commercial porn services, but a blog or website that valorises self-harm and depression or suggests starving yourself to death is still exempt because it has limited functionality. So too are games without a user-to-user function, in spite of the known harm associated with game addiction highlighted recently by Professor Henrietta Bowden-Jones, national expert adviser on gambling harms, and the World Health Organization in 2019 when it designated gaming disorder as a behavioural addiction.

There is also an open question about immersive technologies, whose protocols are still very much in flux. I am concerned that the Government are willing to assert that these environments will meet the bar of user-to-user when those that are still building immersive environments make quite clear that that is not a given. Indeed, later in Committee I will be able to demonstrate that already the very worst harms are happening in environments that are not clearly covered by the Bill.

Another unintended consequence of the current drafting is that the task of working out whether you are on a regulated or unregulated service is left entirely to children. That is not what we had been promised. In December the Secretary of State wrote in a public letter to parents,

“I want to reassure every person reading this letter that the onus for keeping young people safe online will sit squarely on the tech companies’ shoulders”.

It is likely that the Minister will suggest that the limited- functionality services will be caught by the gatekeepers. But, as in the case of immersive technology, it is dangerous to suggest that, just because search and user- to-user are the primary access points in 2023, that will remain the case. We must be more forward thinking and ensure that services likely to be accessed that promote harm are in scope by default.

Amendments 3 and 5 are consequential, so I will not debate them now. I have listened to the Government and come back with a reasonable and implementable amendment that applies only to services that are likely to be accessed by children and that enable harm. I now ask the Government to listen and do likewise.

Amendments 92 and 193 cover the child user condition. The phrase “likely to be accessed”, introduced in this House into what became the Data Protection Act 2018, is one of the most unlikely successful British exports. Both the phrase and its definition, set out by the ICO, have been embedded in regulations in countries the world over—yet the Bill replaces this established language while significantly watering down the definition.

The Bill requires

“a significant number of children”

to use the service, or for the service to be

“likely to attract a significant number of users who are children”.

“Significant” in the Bill is defined relative to the overall UK user base, which means that extremely large platforms could deem a few thousand child users not significant compared with the several million-strong user base. Since only services that cross this threshold need comply with the child safety duties, thousands of children will not benefit from the safety duties that the Minister told us last week were at the heart of the Bill.

Amendment 92 would put the ICO’s existing and much-copied definition into the Bill. It says a service is

“likely to be accessed by children”

if

“the service is designed or intended for use by children … children form a substantive and identifiable user group … the possibility of a child accessing the service is more probable than not, taking into consideration … the nature and content of the service and whether that has particular appeal for children … the way in which the service is accessed and any measures in place to prevent children gaining access … market research, current evidence on user behaviour, the user base of similar or existing services”

that are likely to be accessed.

Having two phrases and definitions is bad for business and even worse for regulators. The ICO has first-mover advantage and a more robust test. It is my contention that parents, media and perhaps even our own colleagues would be very shocked to know that the definition in the Bill has the potential for many thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of children to be left without the protections that the Bill brings forward. Perhaps the Minister could explain why the Government have not chosen regulatory alignment, which is good practice.

Finally, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 19, 22, 298 and 299. I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, will spell out how the app stores of Google and Apple are simply a subset of “search”, in that they are gatekeepers to accessing more than 5 million apps worldwide and the first page of each is indeed a search function. Their inclusion should be obvious, but I will add a specific issue about which I have spoken directly with both companies and about which the 5Rights Foundation, of which I am chair, has written to the ICO.

When we looked at the age ratings of apps across Google Play Store and Apple, four things emerged. First, apps are routinely rated much lower than their terms and conditions: for example, Amazon Shopping says 18 but has an age rating of 4 on Apple. This pattern goes across both platforms, covering social sites, gaming, shopping, et cetera.

Secondly, the same apps and services did not have the same age rating across both services, which, between them, are gatekeepers for more than 95% of the app market. In one extreme case, an app rated four on one of them was rated 16 on the other, with other significant anomalies being extremely frequent.

Thirdly, almost none of the apps considered their data protection duties in coming to a decision on their age rating, which is a problem, since privacy and safety and inextricably linked.

Finally, in the case of Apple, using a device registered to a 15 year-old, we were able to download age-restricted apps including a dozen or more 18-plus dating sites. In fairness, I give a shoutout to Google, which, because of the age-appropriate design code, chose more than a year ago not to show 18-plus content to children in its Play Store. So this is indeed a political and business choice and not a question of technology. Millions of services are accessed via the App Store. Given the Government’s position—that gatekeepers have specific responsibilities in relation to harmful content and activity—surely the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, are necessary.

My preference was for a less complicated Bill based on principles and judged on outcomes. I understand that that ship has sailed, but it is not acceptable for the Government now to use the length and complexity of the Bill as a reason not to accept amendments that would fill loopholes where harm has been proven. It is time to deliver on the promises made to parents and children, and to put the onus for keeping young people safe online squarely on tech companies’ shoulders. I beg to move.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 19, 22, 298 and 299 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Clement-Jones. I will also briefly add at the end of my speech my support for the amendments in the name of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It has been a huge privilege to be her support act all the way from the beginnings of the age-appropriate design code; it feels comfortable to speak after her.

I want briefly to set out what my amendments would do. Their purpose is to bring app stores into the child protection elements of the Bill. Amendment 19 would require app stores to prepare

“risk assessments equal to user-to-user services due to their role in distributing online content through apps to children and as a primary facilitator of user-to-user”

services reaching children. Amendment 22 would mandate app stores

“to use proportionate and proactive measures, such as age assurance, to prevent children”

coming into contact with

“primary priority content that is harmful to children”.

Amendments 298 and 299 would simply define “app” and “app stores”.

Let us be clear what app stores do. They enable customers to buy apps and user-to-user services. They enable customers to download free apps. They offer up curated content in the app store itself and decide what apps someone would like to see. They enable customers to search for apps for user-to-user content. They provide age ratings; as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, they may be different age ratings in different app stores for the same app. They sometimes block the download of apps based on the age rating and their assessment of someone’s age, but not always, and it is different for different app stores.

Why should they be included in this Bill—if it is not obvious from what I have already said? First, two companies are profiting from selling user-to-user products to children. Two app stores account for some 98%-plus of all downloads of user-to-user services, with no requirements to assess the risk of selling those products to children or to mitigate those risks. We do not allow that in the physical world so we should not allow it in the digital world.

Secondly, parents and teenagers tell us that this measure would help. A number of different studies have been done; I will reference just two. One was by FOSI, the Family Online Safety Institute, which conducted an international research project in which parents consistently said that having age assurance at the app store level would make things simpler and more effective for them; ironically, the FOSI research was conducted with Google.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I certainly think we are heading into a world where there will be more regulation of app stores. Google and Apple are commercial competitors with some of the people who are present in their stores. A lot of the people in their stores are in dispute with them over things such as the fees that they have to pay. It is precisely for that reason that I do not think we should be throwing online safety into the mix.

There is a role for regulating app stores, which primarily focuses on these commercial considerations and their position in the market. There may be something to be done around age-rating; the noble Baroness made a very good point about how age-rating works in app stores. However, if we look at the range of responsibilities that we are describing in this Bill and the tools that we are giving to intermediaries, we see that they are the wrong, or inappropriate, set of tools.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

Would the noble Lord acknowledge that app stores are already undertaking these age-rating and blocking decisions? Google has unilaterally decided that, if it assesses that you are under 18, it will not serve up over-18 apps. My concern is that this is already happening but it is happening indiscriminately. How would the noble Lord address that?

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point; they are making efforts. There is a role for app stores to play but I hope she would accept that it is qualitatively different from that played by a search engine or a user-to-user service. If we were to decide, in both instances, that we want app stores to have a greater role in online safety and a framework that allows us to look at blogs and other forms of content, we should go ahead and do that. All I am arguing is that we have a Bill that is carefully constructed around two particular concepts, a user-to-user service and a search engine, and I am not sure it will stretch that far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, as my name is on Amendment 9, I speak to support these amendments and say that they are worthy of debate. As your Lordships know, I am extremely supportive of the Bill and hope that it will be passed in short order. It is much needed and overdue that we have the opportunity for legislation to provide us with a regulator that is able to hold platforms to account, protect users where it can and enhance child safety online. I can think of no better regulator for that role than Ofcom.

I have listened to the debate with great interest. Although I support the intentions of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, I am not sure I agree with him that there are two cultures in this House, as far as the Bill is concerned; I think everybody is concerned about child safety. However, these amendments are right to draw attention to the huge regulatory burden that this legislation can potentially bring, and to the inadvertent bad consequences it will bring for many of the sites that we all depend upon and use.

I have not signed many amendments that have been tabled in this Committee because I have grown increasingly concerned, as has been said by many others, that the Bill has become a bit like the proverbial Christmas tree where everyone hangs their own specific concern on to the legislation, turning it into something increasingly unwieldy and difficult to navigate. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, put it extremely well when she effectively brought to life what it would be like to run a small website and have to comply with this legislation. That is not to say that certain elements of micro-tweaking are not welcome—for example, the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on giving coroners access to data—but we should be concerned about the scope of the Bill and the burden that it may well put on individual websites.

This is in effect the Wikipedia amendment, put forward and written in a sort of wiki way by this House—a probing amendment in Committee to explore how we can find the right balance between giving Ofcom the powers it needs to hold platforms to account and not unduly burdening websites that all of us agree present a very low risk and whose provenance, if you like, does not fit easily within the scope of the Bill.

I keep saying that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Moylan. I do not—I think he is one of the finest Members of this House—but, while it is our job to provide legislation to set the framework for how Ofcom regulates, we in this House should also recognise that in the real world, as I have also said before, this legislation is simply going to be the end of the beginning. Ofcom will have to find its way forward in how it exercises the powers that Parliament gives it, and I suspect it will have its own list of priorities in how it approaches these issues, who it decides to hold to account and who it decides to enforce against. A lot of its powers will rest not simply on the legislation that we give it but on the relationship that it builds with the platforms it is seeking to regulate.

For example, I have hosted a number of lunches for Google in this House with interested Peers, and it has been interesting to get that company’s insight into its working relationship with Ofcom. By the way, I am by no means suggesting that that is a cosy relationship, but it is at least a relationship where the two sides are talking to each other, and that is how the effectiveness of these powers will be explored.

I urge noble Lords to take these amendments seriously and take what the spirit of the amendments is seeking to put forward, which is to be mindful of the regulatory burden that the Bill imposes; to be aware that the Bill will not, simply by being passed, solve the kinds of issues that we are seeking to tackle in terms of the most egregious content that we find on the internet; and that, effectively, Ofcom’s task once this legislation is passed will be the language of priorities.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, this is not the first time in this Committee, and I suspect it will not be the last, when I rise to stand somewhere between my noble friend Lord Vaizey and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am very taken by her focus on risk assessments and by the passionate defences of Wikipedia that we have heard, which really are grounded in a sort of commoner’s risk assessment that we can all understand.

Although I have sympathy with the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about small and medium-sized businesses being overburdened by regulation, I am less taken with the amendments on that subject precisely because small tech businesses become big tech businesses extremely quickly. It is worth pointing out that TikTok did not even exist when Parliament began debating this Bill. I wonder what our social media landscape would have been like if the Bill had existed in law before social media started. We as a country should want global tech companies to be born in the UK, but we want their founders—who, sadly, even today, are predominantly young white men who do not yet have children—to think carefully about the risks inherent in the services they are creating, and we know we need to do that at the beginning of those tech companies’ journeys, not once they have reached 1 million users a month.

While I have sympathy with the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, not to overburden, just as my noble friend Lord Vaizey has said, we should take our lead from the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron: we need a risk assessment even for small and medium-sized businesses. It just needs to be a risk assessment that is fit for their size.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Everything the noble Baroness has said is absolutely right, and I completely agree with her. The point I simply want to make is that no form of risk-based assessment will achieve a zero-tolerance outcome, but—

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

I am so sorry, but may I offer just one final thought from the health sector? While the noble Lord is right that where there are human beings there will be error, there is a concept in health of the “never event”—that when that error occurs, we should not tolerate it, and we should expect the people involved in creating that error to do a deep inspection and review to understand how it occurred, because it is considered intolerable. I think the same exists in the digital world in a risk assessment framework, and it would be a mistake to ignore it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am now going to attempt for the third time to beg the House’s leave to withdraw my amendment. I hope for the sake of us all, our dinner and the dinner break business, for which I see people assembling, that I will be granted that leave.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow other noble Lords who have spoken. I too support this key first amendment. Clarity of purpose is essential in any endeavour. The amendment overall sets out the Bill’s aims and enhances what will be vital legislation for the world, I hope, as well as for the United Kingdom. The Government have the very welcome ambition of making Britain the safest country in the world to go online. The OSB is a giant step in that direction.

As has been said, there has been remarkable consensus across the Committee on what further measures may still be needed to improve the Bill and on this first amendment, setting out these seven key purposes. Noble Lords may be aware that in the Christian tradition the number seven is significant: in the medieval period the Church taught the dangers of the seven deadly sins, the merits of the seven virtues and the seven acts of mercy. Please speak to me later if a refresher course is needed.

Amendment 1 identifies seven deadly dangers—I think they are really deadly. They are key risks which we all acknowledge are unwelcome and destructive companions of the new technologies which bring so many benefits: risks to public health or national security; the risk of serious harm to children; the risk of new developments and technologies not currently in scope; the disproportionate risk to those who manifest one or more protected characteristics; risks that occur through poor design; risks to freedom of expression and privacy; and risks that come with low transparency and low accountability. Safety and security are surely one of the primary duties of government, especially the safety and security of children and the vulnerable. There is much that is good and helpful in new technology but much that can be oppressive and destructive. These seven risks are real and present dangers. The Bill is needed because of actual and devastating harm caused to people and communities.

As we have heard, we are living through a period of rapid acceleration in the development of AI. Two days ago, CBS broadcast a remarkable documentary on the latest breakthroughs by Google and Microsoft. The legislation we craft in these weeks needs future-proofing. That can happen only through a clear articulation of purpose so that the framework provided by the Bill continues to evolve under the stewardship of the Secretary of State and of Ofcom.

I have been in dialogue over the past five years with tech companies in a variety of contexts and I have seen a variety of approaches, from the highly responsible in some companies to the frankly cavalier. Good practice, especially in design, needs stronger regulation to become uniform. I really enjoyed the analogy from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, a few minutes ago. We would not tolerate for a moment design and safety standards in aeroplanes, cars or washing machines which had the capacity to cause harm to people, least of all to children. We should not tolerate lesser standards in our algorithms and technologies.

There is no map for the future of technology and its use, even over the rest of this decade, but this amendment provides a compass—a fixed point for navigation in the future, for which future generations will thank this Government and this House. These seven deadly dangers need to be stated clearly in the Bill and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, to be a North Star for both the Secretary of State and Ofcom. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I too support this amendment. I was at a dinner last night in the City for a group of tech founders and investors—about 500 people in a big hotel ballroom, all focused on driving the sort of positive technology growth in this country that I think everyone wants to see. The guest speaker runs a large UK tech business. He commented in his speech that tech companies need to engage with government because—he said this as if it was a revelation—all Governments turned out not to speak with one voice and that understanding what was required of tech companies by Governments is not always easy. Business needs clarity, and anyone who has run a large or small business knows that it is not really the clarity in the detail that matters but the clarity of purpose that enables you to lead change, because then your people understand why they need to change, and if they understand why, then in each of the micro-decisions they take each day they can adjust those decisions to fit with the intent behind your purpose. That is why this amendment is so important.

I have worked in this space of online safety for more than a decade, both as a technology leader and in this House. I genuinely do not believe that business is wicked and evil, but what it lacks is clear direction. The Bill is so important in setting those guardrails that if we do not make its purpose clear, we should not be surprised if the very businesses which really do want Governments to be clear do not know what we intend.

I suspect that my noble friend the Minister might object to this amendment and say that it is already in the Bill. As others have already said, I actually hope it is. If it is not, we have a different problem. The point of an upfront summary of purpose is to do precisely that: to summarise what is in what a number of noble Lords have already said is a very complicated Bill. The easier and clearer we can make it for every stakeholder to engage in the Bill, the better. If alternatively my noble friend the Minister objects to the detailed wording of this amendment, I argue that that simply makes getting this amendment right even more important. If the four noble Lords, who know far more about this subject than I will ever do in a lifetime, and the joint scrutiny committee, which has done such an outstanding job at working through this, have got the purposes of the Bill wrong, then what hope for the rest of us, let alone those business leaders trying to interpret what the Government want?

That is why it is so important that we put the purposes of the Bill absolutely at the front of the Bill, as in this amendment. If we have misunderstood that in the wording, I urge my noble friend the Minister to come back with wording on Report that truly encapsulates what the Government want.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to clarify the purposes of the Bill, but I am not sure that the amendment helps as my North Star. Like the Bill, it throws up as many questions as answers, and I found myself reading it and thinking “What does that word mean?”, so I am not sure that clarity was where I ended up.

It is not a matter of semantics, but in some ways you could say—and certainly this is as publicly understood—that the name of the Bill, the Online Safety Bill, gives it its chief purpose. Yet however well-intentioned, and whatever the press releases say or the headlines print, even a word such as “safety” is slippery, because safety as an end can be problematic in a free society. My worry about the Bill is unintended consequences, and that is not rectified by the amendment. As the Bill assumes safety as the ultimate goal, we as legislators face a dilemma. We have the responsibility of weighing up the balance between safety and freedom, but the scales in the Bill are well and truly weighted towards safety at the expense of freedom before we start, and I am again not convinced the amendment weights them back again.

Of course, freedom is a risky business, and I always like the opportunity to quote Karl Marx, who said:

“You cannot pluck the rose without its thorns!”


However, it is important to recognise that “freedom” is not a dirty word, and we should avoid saying that risk-free safety is more important than freedom. How would that conversation go with the Ukrainian people who risk their safety daily for freedom? Also, even the language of safety, or indeed what constitutes the harms that the Bill and the amendments promise to keep the public safe from, need to be considered in the cultural and social context of the norms of 2023. A new therapeutic ethos now posits safety in ever-expanding pseudo-psychological and subjective terms, and this can be a serious threat to free speech. We know that some activists often exploit that concept of safety to claim harm when they merely encounter views they disagree with. The language of safety and harm is regularly used to cancel and censor opponents—and the Government know that, so much so that they considered it necessary to introduce the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill to secure academic freedom against an escalating grievance culture that feigns harm.

Part of the triple shield is a safety duty to remove illegal content, and the amendment talks about speech within the law. That sounds unobjectionable—in my mind it is far better than “legal but harmful”, which has gone—but, while illegality might sound clear and obvious, in some circumstances it is not always clear. That is especially true in any legal limitations of speech. We all know about the debates around hate speech, for example. These things are contentious offline and even the police, in particular the College of Policing, seem to find the concept of that kind of illegality confusing and, at the moment, are in a dispute with the Home Secretary over just that.

Is it really appropriate that this Bill enlists and mandates private social media companies to judge criminality using the incredibly low bar of “reasonable grounds to infer”? It gets even murkier when the legal standard for permissible speech online will be set partly by compelling platforms to remove content that contravenes their terms and conditions, even if these terms of service restrict speech far more than domestic UK law does. Big tech is being incited to censor whatever content it wishes as long as it fits in with their Ts & Cs. Between this and determining, for example, what is in filters—a whole different issue—one huge irony here, which challenges one of the purposes of the Bill, is that despite the Government and many of us thinking that this legislation will de-fang and regulate big tech’s powers, actually the legislation could inadvertently give those same corporates more control of what UK citizens read and view.

Another related irony is that the Bill was, no doubt, designed with Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google, TikTok and WhatsApp in mind. However, as the Bill’s own impact assessment notes, 80% of impacted entities have fewer than 10 employees. Many sites, from Wikipedia to Mumsnet, are non-profit or empower their own users to make moderation or policy decisions. These sites, and tens of thousands of British businesses of varying sizes, perhaps unintentionally, now face an extraordinary amount of regulatory red tape. These onerous duties and requirements might be actionable if not desirable for larger platforms, but for smaller ones with limited compliance budgets they could prove a significant if not fatal burden. I do not think that is the purpose of the Bill, but it could be an unintended outcome. This also means that regulation could, inadvertently, act as barrier to entry to new SMEs, creating an ever more monopolistic stronghold for big tech, at the expense of trialling innovations or allowing start-ups to emerge.

I want to finish with the thorny issue of child protection. I have said from the beginning—I mean over the many years since the Bill’s inception—that I would have been much happier if it was more narrowly titled as the Children’s Online Safety Bill, to indicate that protecting children was its sole purpose. That in itself would have been very challenging. Of course, I totally agree with Amendment 1’s intention

“to provide a higher level of protection for children than for adults”.

That is how we treat children and adults offline.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to follow so many powerful speeches. My second daughter was born in the year Facebook launched in the UK and Apple sold its first iPhone. Today she is 15; she has lived her whole life in a digitally enabled world. She has undoubtedly benefited from the great things that digital technology brings, but, throughout that life, she has had no meaningful legal protection from its harms.

A number of noble Lords have referenced the extraordinarily moving and disturbing briefing that Ian Russell and his lawyer, Merry Varney, gave us on Monday. When I went home from that briefing, first, I hugged my two teenage girls really close, and then I talked to them about it. My 15 year-old daughter said, “Mum, of course, I know about Molly Russell and all the awful content there is on social media. Didn’t you realise? When are all you adults going to realise what’s going on and do something about it?” The Bill is important, because it is the beginning of us doing something about it.

It is also a huge Bill, so we need to be careful not to let perfect be the enemy of the good. Like other noble Lords, I urge this House to focus on the critical areas where we can improve this already much debated and discussed Bill and try to resist the temptation to attach so many baubles to it that it no longer delivers on its core purpose of protecting our children online. So, like others, I will focus my remarks on three structural changes that I hope will help make the Bill more effective at driving the positive changes that, I think, everyone in this House intends: first, the consequences for senior managers of not complying with the legislation; secondly, how compliance is defined and by whom; and, finally, which services are included.

To change digital platforms and services to protect children is not impossible—but it is hard, and it will not happen by itself. Tech business models are simply too driven by other things; development road maps are always too contested with revenue-raising projects, and competition for clicks is just too intense. So we need to ask ourselves whether the incentives in the Bill to drive compliance are strong enough to counter the very strong incentives not to.

It is clear that self-regulation will not work, and relying on corporate fines is also not enough. We have learned in other safety-critical industries and sectors that have needed dramatic culture change, such as financial services, that fines alone do not drive change. However, once you name an individual as responsible for something, with serious consequences if they fail, change happens. I look forward to the government amendment that I hope will clearly set out the consequences for named senior managers who do not deliver on their overall online safety responsibilities.

The second area I highlight is how compliance is defined. Specifically, the powers that the Bill grants the Secretary of State to amend Ofcom’s proposed code of conduct are far too wide. Just as with senior tech managers, the political incentives not to focus on safety are too strong. Almost every Minister I have ever met is keen to support tech sector growth. Giving the Secretary of State the ability to change codes of conduct for economic reasons is asking them to trade off economic growth against children’s safety—the same trade-off that tech companies have failed to make over the last 15 years. That is not right, it is not fair on the Ministers themselves, and it will not deliver the child protections we are looking for.

The third area I will cover—I will be very brief—has been highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It is important that we capture all the services that are accessed by children. If not, we risk creating a dangerous false sense of security. Specifically, I am worried about why app stores are not covered. In the physical world—I say this as an erstwhile retailer—retailers have long come to terms with the responsibilities they bear for ensuring that they do not sell age-restricted products to children. Why are we shying away from the same thing in the digital world?

There are many other things I would support, not least the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I finish by simply saying that the most important thing is that the Bill is here. We need to do this work—our children and grandchildren have waited far too long.

BBC: Future Funding (Communications and Digital Committee Report)

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Friday 16th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in the debate, although I fear that I will have no anecdotes to come close to those of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Stowell on her excellent introduction and comprehensive summary of the report, and on her outstanding chairing of the Select Committee, on which it has been a privilege to serve.

As my noble friend said, there is a real danger that the subject—the funding of a treasured national institution—will very quickly become polarised and political, and that any challenge to the status quo is seen as an existential threat to the institution itself. We have exactly the same problem in our debates on another beloved institution, the NHS: that suggesting reform can risk being accused of not believing in the principle of the institution. What has been hugely encouraging about the way the Communications and Digital Committee has developed the report, under my noble friend’s excellent leadership, is that we have been able to move away from those kinds of debates and false polarisation.

As the report and today’s debate have so clearly set out, we all fundamentally and passionately believe in the BBC. As many of us said in the recent debate to mark 100 years of the BBC, we all want to see it thrive for another 100 years and beyond; and—not “but”—we are also clear, as the title of the report suggests, that, for the BBC to continue to command the broad support of the population, change is needed. In fact, as the title says, we want to give the BBC licence to change.

The most important reason why the status quo is not an option is precisely because the BBC is so important to our society, democracy and country. As a number of noble Lords have said, technology is driving huge change in society in general, and in our media in particular—some good, and some not so good. Technology connects us directly with people all over the world who share our interests and enables us to access an extraordinary array of content on multiple platforms and devices. However, at the same time, our children and grandchildren face online threats that were inconceivable when we were growing up; the echo chambers of social media are making it harder for people to have civilised debate on our political differences; and the fragmentation of audiences is making it ever harder for a mid-sized media organisation such as the BBC to thrive.

The pandemic and the Ukraine war have brought soaring inflation, and, with that, hardship, uncertainty and fear. That all means that institutions and ways of living that bind our society together are even more important than they were before, so a healthy BBC really matters. It is a public service media organisation that has a mandate of universality to inform, educate and entertain all of us in some way or other, and it brings us all together when it really matters. It helps us to articulate the values we hold dear in our country, acting as national glue in an increasingly fragmented and social media-driven world. However, to do that, the BBC needs to remain genuinely relevant and valued, which means that it needs to change with the times. Change is hard for everyone; the older you get, the harder the change gets. If you are a 100 year-old and much-loved national institution, there is no doubt that change can be quite hard to face into.

I would like to use my speech to highlight three areas that the report draws attention to where the BBC needs to change. The first and most obvious, given the title of the report and its subject matter, is the way in which the BBC is funded. The current funding mechanism is not sustainable. My children’s generation find it baffling that they need a TV licence when they leave home to go to university without a television. If they want to watch anything, they are not watching on a television, as they do not own one, but we expect them to pay something linked to a TV set. It is not surprising that that generation is the least engaged group of BBC viewers. Linking funding to the ownership of a television set will be ever less justifiable—and this matters, because for a BBC to remain relevant to all, the way we pay for it must be relevant and justifiable to all of us. Changing the funding mechanism, as many others have said this morning, is not going to be easy, but not changing sends the BBC down a certain path where gradually it becomes less and less relevant to society.

The report sets out the pros and cons of the various options. It is clear that an advertising model or full-subscription model would not be financially sustainable or consistent with a mandate of universality. Some form of levy will likely be necessary. We are not the first country to face this transition of funding our public service broadcaster based on the TV set and moving towards some form of levy, and there is much to learn from Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries. One of the biggest learnings, as the noble Lord, Lord Hall, highlighted, is that this takes time. If we are going to do this, we need to get started. Even to be in a position to make a decision for the next charter renewal period, we do not have much time left. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm what the timetable is that gets us to a decision point with ample opportunity for full public consultation and debate in time for the next charter renewal?

Secondly, I would like to address how the BBC delivers on its commitment to universality. I know that the BBC reaches 75% of 16 to 34 year-olds each week, but TikTok is ahead of it with 16 to 24 year-olds. We heard directly from young people in Salford and from people of all ages from other communities outside the elite metropolitan bubble we live in here that they do not feel that the BBC fully reflects them and their interests. Just as how we pay for the BBC must reflect modern society, of course the content really needs to too. I appreciate that this is not easy, and cannot mean that the BBC tries to literally be all things to all people. Choices need to be made, and made wisely. But I worry that the BBC leadership finds it hard to admit the scale of this challenge for fear of the debate really being existential. I think the opposite is true: the only thing that could present an existential threat to the BBC is a failure to acknowledge the need to improve and therefore not to listen hard enough to those communities’ needs. The BBC should be more open about the challenges it faces in delivering for all communities and work ever harder to address them.

Thirdly, we need the BBC to lead us in this overall work. It was encouraging, as my noble friend said, to see the recent speech made by the BBC director-general at the television conference and hear that he is aiming to make the BBC a digitally-led public service media company. But one speech does not deliver it, nor does one speech give us sufficient clarity on the BBC’s long term vision and plan to inform, educate and entertain us in the digital era. I know that the director-general is right that no organisation on the planet has delivered a successful digital transformation without investment, but no investment proposal should be approved without a compelling long-term vision and plan. We need the BBC to be brave and to set that out for us. That is hard to do if you think the real debate is about your existence—but it is not, and should not be. It is about how the BBC thrives and continues to play a central role in our society for the next 100 years.

Public Service Broadcasting: BBC Centenary

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating and welcoming my noble friend back to his rightful place on the Front Bench. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for securing this debate.

I declare my interests in the register and, if noble Lords will forgive me, I will highlight a correction recently made to them. I have been undertaking work for Vitrifi Ltd, a telecoms business that is part of a fund managed by Octopus Ventures, which I had incorrectly declared as working for Octopus Ventures. My entry in the register now accurately reflects that I am working directly for Vitrifi, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive my inaccurate previous statement.

As many noble Lords have said, public service broadcasting and broadcasters enjoy broad public support. Inquiries by committees of both Houses have consistently found support not just for the principles of public service broadcasting but for the programmes themselves. But the world is very different from 100 years ago, when the BBC was born—both the media landscape and British society. We no longer sit in our living rooms, watching linear broadcast channels all together as a single family unit on the single family TV set: the landscape is now multimedia, multidevice and multiplatform. We have and need public service media, not just public service broadcasters.

Society is also very different from 100 years ago: it is more diverse and more open. Our digital native children and grandchildren access media completely differently from the way that we in this Chamber do and did. As we heard, viewing of BBC channels, for example, by 16 to 34 year-olds has halved over the last 10 years, according to our Communications and Digital Committee report. So, if we value public service broadcasters—I do not think that anyone has spoken today from a position other than valuing them—we should not be afraid of change. In fact, I would argue that updating and changing to reflect the modern world is essential to maintain the public glue and the very value that we all hold so dear in our public service broadcasters.

Noble Lords may call me naive, but I worry that in public debate we too quickly move to hero or villain. It is very hard for individuals and institutions to admit mistakes or that that they could do better without immediately being castigated as the villain. It is also very hard to take risks and to change if you are put on a pedestal as the hero. It is entirely possible both to be incredibly proud of an organisation, its role in society and its performance and to acknowledge that it can and should change and do better.

That is where I am about public service broadcasters in the round. Our PSBs are one of the things that hold our country together. Like many of my fellow citizens, I am incredibly proud of them. I watch and love their content, and I think they could do better. Indeed, we could help them do better. There is something for all of us in helping them to do that. As a number of noble Lords have said, legislation is clearly needed to recognise that existing rules that worked in a linear TV and radio world need to be updated to reflect the digital age of streaming and global tech platforms. Clearly, prominence rules need to be updated, but we also need things such as the Digital Markets Unit in Ofcom to be put on a firm legal footing. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that that legislation will be coming soon.

There is clearly work for government to do as well. It needs to face into the difficult decision of funding the BBC. Our generation here today might just about be able to get our heads around a licence fee being linked to a television set, but that is impossible for my children, who consume almost all their media on other devices. I fear we risk the credibility of our system of funding the BBC by tethering it to an increasingly anachronistic model of media consumption—that of just the television set. I do not pretend that replacing the licence fee as it stands today is easy, but just ignoring the need for change is definitely not the answer.

As a number of noble Lords have said, the public service broadcasters themselves must work much harder to appeal to all groups, especially young people and those from more diverse backgrounds, both urban and rural. As with the funding decisions, this is really easy to say, but it is much harder to do well. That is what will mark out successful public service broadcasters and media organisations worldwide. It is those which develop platforms and programmes that make us all feel welcome and have something for all of us to treasure that will flourish in the future. We need our wonderful public service broadcasters to stand up to that challenge.

We as parliamentarians have a role to play as well. Our public service broadcasters are the envy of the free world, and it has been all too fashionable to bash many of the establishment organisations in this country. It is hugely important that we do not fall into that trap. Nor should we put them on a pedestal. Our role as parliamentarians should be to be hugely proud of our public service broadcasters but also to challenge them to do an even better job. One hundred years ago, it was the most fantastic moment that the BBC was born. We need to both respect and challenge our PSBs to deliver for another 100 years ahead.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, before I begin to speak to this group, I declare my interest as a land and business owner in Wales with various wayleaves.

In Committee, several of your Lordships expressed support for an amendment to facilitate the more effective use of telegraph poles situated on private land. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay explained that the Government were looking into this. Subsequent discussions with stakeholders clarified the significant benefits to which changes in this area can lead and the barriers that currently prevent apparatus such as telegraph poles being used to their best effect.

I also thank my noble friend Lady Harding, whose insightful contributions have been of great assistance. Based on these discussions, I am pleased to bring forward Amendment 18 to improve the existing regime which regulates overhead networks contained in Part 11 of the code.

Before turning to the amendment itself, I will explain how Part 11 operates. Part 11 confers rights on operators to keep apparatus on or over land. I will refer to them as main operators. The apparatus with which this part is concerned is typically telegraph poles.

The rights conferred by Part 11 permit these main operators to install and keep lines connected to their poles, which may also pass over neighbouring land. These rights are automatic but subject to specific height restrictions, a notice requirement and a right to object in certain circumstances. However, while the Part 11 regime allows a main operator to fly lines from these poles, it does not permit them to upgrade or carry out works to the poles that may be needed to deliver gigabit-capable connections—for example, running cable wire from the base of the pole to the top. Similarly, the regime does not permit operators other than the main operator to fly their own lines from the poles, creating an obstacle to apparatus sharing.

Amendment 18 is designed to address both gaps. It extends the right in paragraph 74 of the Electronic Communications Code to install and keep lines to operators other than the main operator, provided that the main operator consents to this, subject to the same height restrictions, notice requirement and right to object already in place for the main operator. Sharing the use of these poles will not only speed up the pace of deployment but reduce the need for additional installations and their associated impacts. In addition, the amendment will confer new rights on either operator to upgrade or carry out any other works to the pole so that the lines flown from them can deliver gigabit-capable connections.

Among other things, this change will ensure that, as my noble friend Lady Harding raised at Second Reading, the benefits of other rights that we are introducing to permit greater sharing of underground ducts will extend to overhead networks, by allowing upgraded fibre from such ducts to be rolled up the pole and subsequently strung between the poles to deliver gigabit connections.

The new rights will be subject to specific conditions, intended to protect the interests of individuals affected by them. First, exercise of these rights cannot have more than a minimal adverse impact on the appearance of the pole. Secondly, exercise of these rights cannot have more than a minimal adverse impact on the land on which the pole is kept. Thirdly, these rights cannot be used to carry out works that will cause loss, damage or expense to any person with an interest in the land on which the pole is kept.

In addition to the above, operators entering land on which a pole is kept, to exercise any Part 11 right, must have the occupier’s permission. This does not need to be a written agreement, but it is important that operators obtain consent before entering private land, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Harding in Committee. For main operators, access rights may already be in place but, where they are not and where other operators wish to exercise their new rights, permission to enter the land must be obtained. I beg to move.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare a new interest as an adviser on the telecoms market to Octopus Ventures. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harlech on his new role and welcome my noble friend Lord Kamall to a small, select club of people with a shared passion for healthcare and telegraph poles. One can find a number of us in the Chamber today. I thank both my noble friends, and the staff in DCMS, for the extremely constructive way that they have approached this Bill and thank my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the predecessor of my noble friend Lord Kamall, for his excellent work on this Bill and more broadly on the DCMS brief.

I am encouraged by this amendment and very grateful for it. It addresses the specific issue that I and others raised in Committee. With that, I also thank my noble friends Lord Vaizey and Lady Stowell, the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for their work. This might be a small and technical amendment, but it has been a real team effort.

I have two clarifying questions. As we discussed in Committee, the devil is in the detail of this, and we share the same goal of being able to lay the fibre cable up the telegraph pole and from one pole to another. Perhaps your Lordships will humour my two very specific questions. First, the amendment gives operators the right to share the existing pole infrastructure

“with the agreement of the main operator.”

Can the Minister explain what proof of permission from a main operator an operator wishing to avail themselves of these provisions will be required to secure? Also, how easy will it be for them to do so? For example, will the normal provisions of PIA be an acceptable route to do that?

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Harding of Winscombe Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, if my noble friend Lady Harding is not in the Chamber—I was not expecting to do this—I will move the amendment on her behalf. I look to other noble Lords whose names are on this amendment to introduce it more comprehensively than I can. I just want to get this debate going, because I know that there is broad support across the Chamber for Amendment 18. Noble Lords may remember that I expressed my support on this matter when it was referred to at Second Reading, because it is of benefit to all telecoms operators. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise. I rise to speak to Amendment 18 in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lord Vaizey, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for putting their names to it. I apologise—I am slightly breathless, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, gave us a little bit of disinformation about today’s Order Paper.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I beg your Lordships’ pardon—the moving of the Statement on the Metropolitan Police was not communicated to several of us.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

Many apologies. I also thank my noble friend Lady Stowell, who I was not expecting to see, but who has been extremely helpful already this afternoon. I promise I will be brief. The aim of this amendment is to address an issue that other noble Lords and I raised on Second Reading: ensuring that the Bill enables the sharing of pre-2017 poles on private land without requiring an additional wayleave, just as it does for ducts on private land. This may sound very detailed—it is—but will substantially speed up the rollout of full-fibre broadband, on which we are all agreed.

There are an estimated 1 million-plus telegraph poles on private land. Access to them is particularly important in accelerating fibre rollout in rural England and urban Scotland. As with ducts, these poles are regulated under Ofcom’s PIA mechanism. That means that any operator is able to access those poles, so extending the provision to pre-2017 poles on private land would allow all operators to speed up their rollout equally. Without this, operators will have to dig up streets or put up new poles, which will slow down the rollout in the very parts of the country that suffer some of the slowest broadband speeds, based on copper.

There is clear consensus across the industry that the Bill needs to make this possible. I understand that the Digital Infrastructure Minister recently received a letter from all the major operators and trade bodies, asking that this issue be resolved and clearly stating the public benefit that doing so would bring. There is cross-party support for the amendment, and at Second Reading my noble friend the Minister was clear that he was keen to look into the matter very closely. However, as drafted, the Bill does not actually solve the problem. There is no explicit right in the Bill to access the pole or install equipment on it. My amendment is relatively simple and seeks to set that straight. It is limited in scope.

By extending the rights granted under the existing paragraph 74 of the code, these powers would be a code right and therefore apply equally to all operators. That is a really important principle in maintaining the Government’s pro-competition policy. By explicitly including the right to carry out

“works to install, maintain and keep such lines and other reasonably associated apparatus”,

this amendment ensures that there is a right for limited works only and apparatus that is associated only with flying lines between poles. It will not allow large, unsightly or unassociated apparatus to be put on the poles, so there would be very limited visual impact. In fact, it is important to remember that technology is getting smaller all the time; a number of these telegraph poles already have equipment on them, so this would most probably reduce the visual impact rather than increase it.

This amendment also protects the rights of landowners. It grants limited additional rights for operators on how they use the poles. It does not give operators additional rights to get to the pole in people’s back gardens. Landowners would still need to give their consent—that could be a simple verbal agreement—to allow an engineer to enter the property. This amendment does not intend to change that.

With over 1 million poles on private land today, this small and straightforward amendment would significantly increase the rollout of full fibre, on which we all agree. I ask my noble friend to tell us that he agrees that the Bill must be amended to do this. I am not precious about the specific wording or the exact amendment. I understand that DCMS lawyers have some concerns about whether the wording achieves our aim of going up the pole and putting the necessary equipment on it, but I have not seen any alternative proposals. I hope my noble friend will take this amendment in the constructive way in which it is intended. If he has concerns about the specific wording, I hope we will be able to work together between Committee and Report to bring back an amendment that delivers the outcome that I believe we all agree on.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, a cup of tea lies gently cooling in the tea room, unpaid for as I sprinted to move my amendment—and failed to arrive in time. It would never do for me to blame the Liberal Democrats for the mess that I find myself in; I take entire responsibility for not following with due care the moving of the Statement on the Metropolitan Police. Although the finely crafted Amendments 17A and 17B will not be debated, I have the chance to address at least some of the issues they raise in my response to my noble friend Lady Harding’s excellent exposition of Amendment 18.

We are talking about the ability to upgrade telecoms infrastructure. It is worth taking a step back to think about what the Bill is about in its focus on telecoms infrastructure and reform of the Electronic Communications Code. As I pointed out at Second Reading, when I was a Minister I had the opportunity to change the Electronic Communications Code, and I freely admit that I did so after extensive representations from infrastructure providers of all kinds who made the point that the rents that they were being charged by landowners, both in the countryside and on buildings, were extremely high and were affecting their ability to invest in infrastructure. The time had come to redress the balance so that the rents charged were proportionate to the investment being made in infrastructure. However, in the Bill we are trying to revise it further so that the infrastructure can be upgraded much more easily. We find ourselves in a slightly invidious position where, every time a telecoms provider wants to upgrade the existing infrastructure, in theory it has to start all over again on how it negotiates the rents.

Amendment 18, and, had they been moved, Amendments 17A and 17B, address essentially the same issue, which is existing infrastructure and the ability to upgrade it with as little fuss as possible. All of us in this House know that telecoms infrastructure is constantly being modernised and changed. Indeed, sometimes political issues come into play: for example, the decision to remove Huawei from our telecoms infrastructure will require a great deal of changes to existing infrastructure.

It is quite clear that all the infrastructure providers and indeed the Government support some kind of amendment that will allow infrastructure providers to upgrade infrastructure on telegraph poles. That is without dispute. The question we face is whether we can craft a suitable amendment that balances the rights of landowners and infrastructure providers to allow that to happen as smoothly as possible. What I find strange is the fact that multi-dwelling units do not attract the same support. However, I think I understand why telegraph poles are uncontroversial and multi-dwelling units controversial. That is because of a perceived monopoly of Openreach in multi-dwelling units but not telegraph poles. As my noble friend pointed out, telegraph poles fall under the public interest infrastructure access regulations, which means that a telegraph pole that is, as it were, owned by Openreach but on somebody’s land can still be accessed by a competitor, whereas a multi-dwelling unit cannot be accessed where Openreach has its infrastructure.

I ask the Minister again to take a step back and think about the purpose of the Bill and what he and his colleagues are trying to achieve in terms of the £5 billion subsidy to support the upgrading of infrastructure to full fibre, particularly in rural areas. As I said on Second Reading, this is all about planning, not about technology. It is trying to remove as far as possible all the obstacles that exist when it comes to planning. The Minister must ask himself: what is the reality on the ground? It is that Openreach is indeed present in many premises where its competitors are not. There are something like 1.5 million multi-dwelling units in this country that are at risk of not being upgraded because people cannot get access. Openreach tells me that there are something like 620,000 flats to which it has not been able to gain access and 165,000 flats where it has had no response from landlords at all for six months. Those flats will be left out if we do not consider the position of multi-dwelling units. That is not the subject of this amendment but I posit that it is exactly a parallel case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

As I am explaining, we think that the views from other operators point out that my noble friend’s amendment, which was not moved, would create an unfair advantage for operators who already have equipment; that would itself be anti-competitive. Given that the amendment was not put and, as I hope he has heard, would have been resisted in any case—certainly from the Liberal Democrat Benches—perhaps it may be best if he and I discuss it over a cup of tea, which he can add to his tab, between now and Report. I hope that he will not feel it necessary to bring these amendments back on Report.

On Amendment 18 regarding telegraph poles, while reassuring noble Lords that we will continue to look at this actively, I hope that my noble friend Lady Harding —or my noble friend Lady Stowell, who moved it—will be happy to withdraw that amendment for now.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

 I rise, somewhat hesitantly, having consulted the oracle that is the former Leader of this House, to respond. I thank my noble friend for that response. As a brief aside, I am pleased to hear his conviction and belief in competition before we come back on Report, if we do, to the amendments that have not been debated.

I am cautiously optimistic that we will find a solution to this. I was slightly worried when I heard my noble friend say “if” we bring something back, rather than when. I would feel considerably more optimistic about solving this problem if I had heard him say “when”. I would also feel a bit more optimistic if I had heard him say that he and the department will be considering alternatives, rather than observing and watching. We have been observing and watching since Second Reading, and the department has proposed no alternatives to my amendment. I look forward to some more active discussions about alternatives to the amendment but, on that basis, I am happy to withdraw it.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, may I make one additional comment? Despite my noble friend Lord Vaizey thinking I am personally responsible for mobile investment and pricing, I should like to put on the record that TalkTalk did not do anything to mobile pricing; it is a fixed-line broadband provider, not a mobile provider.

Regardless, I should like to make a serious point about competition. The noble Earl made the point that we should believe in a free market, which I definitely do. I firmly believe that competition will get to the right answer, but completely unfettered, unregulated infrastructure markets do not drive competition—they drive the opposite. That is one reason I am really concerned about the multi-dwelling unit amendment that we did not debate, because that risks the absence of competition.

In the same way, I support my noble friend Lord Vaizey because if we do not have a regulated approach to the valuation, we will find not the domination of big mobile companies but the monopoly control of individual landowners, particularly when there is already a mobile mast on their site, as they have a complete monopoly control of that site. It is important that we find a balance because there is power on both sides of this relationship. Big is not always the most powerful. I say that having learned that myself at TalkTalk. I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Vaizey. This is not as one-sided as this debate has perhaps felt.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, the issue of valuation, as we have heard clearly today, generates one of the most significant ranges of concerns. Noble Lords have been extremely helpful in unpacking the issues, whichever side they may be on in this debate. I will focus on Amendment 21, which I am pleased to have tabled. It seeks to guide courts in relation to the appropriate reduction in rents paid by operators to landowners. The amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the Government’s previous indication that losses would be confined to something in the order of 40% maximum. I will confine my comments to that point.

When the Government reformed the code in 2017, Ministers indicated that, although landowners would lose out overall, they could expect to receive some 60% of the sum to which they had become accustomed. As we have heard in this debate, losing 40% of proceeds, despite exactly the same access rights being granted to operators, is quite a situation to contend with. As discussed at Second Reading, cases have been cited where reductions reached some 90%.

I am aware that the campaign group Speed Up Britain has objected to the quoted figure of 90%, citing industry figures that show an average rental reduction of 63%. However, even that is substantially higher than the 40% promised by the Government, which has led to many churches, village halls, sports clubs, farmers and even hospitals scratching their heads, trying to make sense of the situation.

We all know that we need the infrastructure; that was made clear by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. We want that infrastructure quickly, but we also want an appropriate balance of the rights and responsibilities of both telecoms operators and landowners. It is not a convincing argument that lower rents automatically mean higher investment in infrastructure. I am sure that is a discussion we will return to during the eighth group for debate today.

Our Amendment 21 is but one suggestion and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has brought forward a number of his own. I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing his expertise to bear in addressing these issues. I certainly hope the Minister will engage in his usual considerate way with all the propositions put before the Committee. I also appreciate the amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is also seeking to ensure fairness and balance between the parties.

So I hope the Minister will address a point that he made at Second Reading and that is relevant today. He suggested that rent reductions were likely to be compensated for—not directly but as a matter of degree —by funds allocated under other DCMS schemes. It would be helpful if he could provide the figures to back that up; I realise that that requires considerable detail, so he could perhaps respond not today but subsequently, in writing.

The list of case studies grows day by day and, given this, many people are asking why the Government did not stand by their original commitment to a maximum reduction of 40%. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments and respond to that question.