Superintelligent AI
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(5 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant on AI regulation and policy for DLA Piper. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for provoking an extremely profound and thoughtful debate on an international moratorium on superintelligent AI development. I was very interested that he cited the Warnock approach as one to be emulated in this field. That was certainly one that our House of Lords Artificial Intelligence Committee recommended eight years ago, but sadly it has not been followed.
For nine years, I have co-chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence. I remain optimistic about AI’s potential, but I am increasingly alarmed about our trajectory, particularly in the field of defence. Superintelligence—AI surpassing human intelligence across all domains—is the explicit goal of major AI companies. Many experts predict that we could reach this within five to 10 years. In September 2025, Anthropic detected the first large-scale cyber espionage campaign using agentic AI. Yoshua Bengio, one of the godfathers of AI development, warns that these systems show “signs of self-preservation”, choosing their own survival over human safety.
Currently, no method exists to contain or control smarter-than-human AI systems. This is the “control problem” that Professor Stuart Russell describes: how do we maintain power over entities more powerful than us? That is why I joined the Global Call for AI Red Lines, which was launched at the UN General Assembly by over 300 prominent figures, including Nobel laureates and former Heads of State. They call for international red lines to prevent unacceptable AI risks, including prohibiting superintelligence development, until there is broad scientific consensus on how it can be done safely and with strong public buy-in.
ControlAI’s UK campaign, described by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is backed by more than 100 cross-party parliamentarians in the UK. Its proposals include banning deliberate superintelligence development, prohibiting dangerous capabilities, requiring safety demonstrations before deployment, and establishing licensing for advanced AI.
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer offers a precedent. In 1987, every country signed it within two years—during the Cold War. When threats are universal, rapid international agreements are possible. Superintelligence presents such a threat. Yet the current situation is discouraging. The US has rejected moratoria. Sixty countries signed the Paris AI Summit declaration in February 25, but the UK did not. Even Anthropic’s CEO, who has been widely quoted today, admits that we understand only 3% of how current systems work. Today, AI systems are grown through processes their creators cannot interpret.
The Government’s response has been inadequate. Ministers focus on regulating the use of AI tools rather than their development. But this approach fails fundamentally when facing superintelligence. Once a system surpasses human intelligence across all domains, we cannot simply regulate how it is used. We will have lost the ability to control it at all. You cannot regulate the use of something more intelligent than the regulator just sector by sector.
Our AI Security Institute, as the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, pointed out, has advisory powers only. We were promised binding regulation in July 2024, but we have seen neither consultation nor draft legislation. Growth and safety are not mutually exclusive. Without public confidence that systems are under human control, adoption will stall.
It is clear what the Government should do. The question is whether we will act with the seriousness this moment demands or whether competitive pressures will override the fundamental imperative of keeping humanity in control. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
TikTok: Bereaved British Parents
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government are aware of calls to make the data preservation process faster. These are new powers and we are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the current process, working closely with Ofcom to do this. We are carefully considering any means that could allow relevant data to be preserved in a timely manner to ensure investigations are well informed and families get the answers they need.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the litigation alleges that TikTok’s algorithm deliberately promoted harmful content to children. That is exactly what we originally thought the Online Safety Act was going to help protect our children from, but that appears to be wrong. Will the Government, given their statement of strategic priorities, insert a statutory definition of safety by design and require Ofcom specifically to address addictive algorithms and compulsive design features?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware of the Statement that the Technology Secretary made last week to initiate a short consultation looking at further measures that could be taken, which responds to some of the questions that underlie his question about the nature of social media use and actions that could be taken in response to parental and other requests to deal with it—for example, looking at breaks to stop excessive doomscrolling, or further enforcement of the law. That consultation will take place swiftly before the summer.
Superintelligent AI
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to mention the research of the AI Security Institute, which is advice the Government listen to and take very seriously. AI is a general-purpose technology with a wide range of applications, which is why the UK believes that the vast majority of AI should be regulated at the point of use. My noble friend is also right that collaboration with other countries is critical, and the UK’s approach is to engage with many other countries, and through the AI Security Institute with developers so that it has good insight into what is happening in development today.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
Let us have the Lib Dem Bench next and then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI regulation and policy. In their manifesto, the Government promised
“binding regulation on … companies developing the most powerful AI models”,
yet, 18 months later, even in light of the harmful activities of stand-alone AI bots, we have seen neither the promised consultation nor any draft legislation. How can the Government credibly claim to be taking superintelligence seriously when they cannot get round even to publishing a consultation, let alone legislating?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, most AI systems are regulated by our existing expert regulators, and they are already acting. The ICO has released guidance on AI and data protection and the MHRA is taking action to allow a sandbox for AI as a medical device product. We are working with regulators to boost their capabilities as part of the AI opportunities action plan, and where we need to take action—for example, as we have under the Online Safety Act—we will do so. We do not speculate on legislation ahead of future parliamentary Sessions, but we will keep noble Lords updated should and when we bring forward a consultation ahead of any potential legislation.
Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, the technological capabilities and their misuse that have prompted this Statement are, needless to say, deeply disturbing and demand our careful attention. The use of AI to generate non-consensual sexual imagery of women and children is both grotesque in itself, but also corrosive of trust in technology more broadly.
We therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that new offences criminalising the creation or solicitation of such material will be brought into force this week. We support the enforcement of these laws. We also welcome Ofcom’s decision to open a formal investigation into the use of Grok on X under the Online Safety Act, an investigation that must proceed swiftly to protect victims and hold platforms to account.
Hard though it is to predict the misuses of emerging technologies, we must collectively find better ways to be ready for them before they strike. I fear there is a pervasive and damaging sense of regulatory, legislative and political uncertainty around AI. As long as that remains the case, we risk remaining a victim of events beyond our control.
From the outset of this Parliament, and indeed in opposition, the Government have pledged to legislate on AI. Reviews and policy documents, including the Clifford AI Opportunities Action Plan, promised a framework to drive adoption and regulatory clarity. However, we still have no clear timeline, nor even a clear account of the Government’s policy on AI.
It is worth noting that the legislative tools the Government are now relying on to implement their proposed new offences, such as the creation and solicitation of non-consensual intimate images, are the product of amendments introduced by this House to the Data (Use and Access) Act. Ministers have repeatedly argued both that binding AI regulation must come, and that the existing multi-regulator framework is sufficient.
Evidence to the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee late last year confirmed that the Secretary of State would not commit to a specific AI Bill, instead speaking of considering targeted interventions rather than an overarching legislative framework. This may indeed be the right approach, but its unclear presentation and communication drive uncertainty that undermines confidence for investors, businesses and regulators, but above all for citizens.
Progress on other AI-related policy commitments seems to have stalled too. I do not underestimate the difficulty of the problem, but work thus far on AI and copyright has been pretty disappointing. I am not seeking to go into that debate now, but only to make the point that it contributes to a widespread sense of uncertainty about tech in general and AI in particular.
Frankly, this uncertainty has been compounded by inconsistent political messaging. Over the weekend, reports emerged that the Government were considering banning X altogether before subsequently softening that position, creating wholly unnecessary confusion. At the same time, the Government have mischaracterised X’s decision to move its nudification tools behind a paywall as a means to boost profits, when the platform argues, reasonably persuasively, that this is a measure to ensure that those misusing the tools cannot do so anonymously.
Nor has there been much effective communication from the Government about their regulatory intentions for AI. This leaves the public and businesses unclear on how AI will be regulated and what standards companies are expected to meet. Political and legislative uncertainty in this case is having real consequences. It weakens our ability to deter misuse of AI technologies; it undermines public confidence, and it leaves regulators and enforcement agencies in a reactive posture rather than being empowered to act with a clear statutory direction.
We of course support efforts to criminalise harmful uses of AI. However, under the Government’s current Sentencing Bill, most individuals convicted of these new AI-related offences against women and girls will be liable for only suspended sentences, meaning that they could leave court free to continue using the technology that enabled their crime. This is concerning. It cannot be right that someone found guilty of producing non-consensual sexual imagery may walk free, unrestrained and with unimpeded access to the tools that facilitated their offending.
As I say, we support Ofcom’s work and the use of existing powers, but law without enforcement backed by a coherent, predictable regulatory regime will offer little real protection. Without proper sentencing, regulatory certainty and clear legislative direction for AI, these laws will not provide the protection that we need.
We urge the Government to publish a clear statement on their intentions on comprehensive AI regulation, perhaps building on the AI White Paper that we produced in government, to provide clarity for both tech companies and the public, and to underpin the safe adoption of AI across the economy and society. We must assume that new ways to abuse AI are being developed as we speak. Either we have principled, strategic approaches to deal with them, or we end up lurching from one crisis to the next.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement, as well as her commitment to bring the new offence of creating or requesting non-consensual intimate images into force and to make it a priority offence. However, why has it taken this specific crisis with Grok and X to spur such urgency? The Government have had the power for months to commence this offence, so why have they waited until women and children were victimised on an industrial scale?
My Commons colleagues have called for the National Crime Agency to launch an urgent criminal investigation into X for facilitating the creation and distribution of this vile and abusive deepfake imagery. The Secretary of State is right to call X’s decision to put the creation of these images behind a paywall insulting; indeed, it is the monetisation of abuse. We welcome Ofcom’s formal investigation into sexualised imagery generated by Grok and shared on X. However, will the Minister confirm that individuals creating and sharing this content will also face criminal investigation by the police? Does the Minister not find it strange that the Prime Minister needs to be reassured that X, which is used by many parliamentarians and government departments, will comply with UK law?
While we welcome the move to criminalise nudification apps in the Crime and Policing Bill, we are still waiting for the substantive AI Bill promised in the manifesto. The Grok incident proves that voluntary agreements are not enough. I had to take a slightly deep breath when I listened to what the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, had to say. Who knew that the Conservative Party was in favour of AI regulation? Will the Government commit to a comprehensive, risk-based regulatory framework, with mandatory safety testing, for high-risk models before they are released to the public, of the kind that we have been calling for on these Benches for some time? We need risk-proportionate, mandatory standards, not voluntary commitments that can be abandoned overnight.
Will the Government mandate the adoption of hashtagging technology that would make the removal of non-consensual images possible, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill—I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, is in his place—and as advocated by StopNCII.org?
The Secretary of State mentioned her commitment to the safety of children, yet she has previously resisted our calls to raise the digital age of consent to 16, in line with European standards. If the Government truly want to stop companies profiteering from children’s attention and data, why will they not adopt this evidence-based intervention?
To be absolutely clear, the creation and distribution of non-consensual intimate images has nothing whatever to do with free speech. These are serious criminal offences. There is no free speech right to sexually abuse women and children, whether offline or online. Any attempt to frame this as an issue of freedom of expression is a cynical distortion designed to shield platforms from their legal responsibilities.
Does the Minister have full confidence that Ofcom has the resources and resolve to take on these global tech giants, especially now that it is beginning to ramp up the use of its investigation and enforcement powers? Will the Government ensure that Ofcom uses the full range of enforcement powers available to it? If X continues to refuse compliance, will Ofcom deploy the business disruption measures under Part 7, Chapter 6 of the Online Safety Act? Will it seek service restriction orders under Sections 144 and 145 to require payment service providers and advertisers to withdraw their services from the non-compliant platform? The public expect swift and decisive action, not a drawn-out investigation while the abuse continues. Ofcom must use every tool Parliament has given it.
Finally, if the Government believe that X is a platform facilitating illegal content at scale, why do they continue to prioritise it for official communications? Is it not time for the Government to lead by example and reduce their dependence on a platform that seems ideologically opposed to the values of decency and even perhaps the UK rule of law, especially now that we know that the Government have withdrawn their claim that 10.8 million families use X as their main news source?
AI technologies are developing at an exponential rate. Clarity on regulation is needed urgently by developers, adopters and, most importantly, the women and children who deserve protection. The tech sector can be a force for enormous good, but only when it operates within comprehensive, risk-proportionate regulatory frameworks that put safety first. We on these Benches will support robust action to ensure that that happens.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. We all agree that the circulation of these vile, non-consensual deepfakes has been shocking. Sexually manipulating images of women and children is despicable and abhorrent. The law is clear: sharing or threatening to share a deepfake intimate image without consent, including images of people in their underwear, is a criminal offence. To the noble Lord’s point, individuals who share non-consensual sexual deepfakes should expect to face the full extent of the law. In addition, under the Online Safety Act, services have duties to prevent and swiftly remove the content. If someone has had non-consensual intimate images of themselves created or shared, they should report it to the police, as these are serious criminal offences.
I turn to some of the points that have been raised so far. The Government have been very clear on their approach in terms of both the AI action plan and the legislation that we have brought forward. We have introduced a range of new AI-related measures in this Session to tackle illegal activity; we have introduced a new criminal offence to make it illegal to create or alter an AI model to create CSAM; we are banning nudification apps; and we are introducing a new legal defence to make it possible for selected experts to safely and securely test models for CSAM and non-consensual intimate images and extreme pornography vulnerabilities.
AI is a general-purpose technology with a wide range of applications, which is why we think that the vast majority of AI systems should be regulated at the point of use. In response to the AI action plan, the Government are committed to working with regulators to boost their capabilities. We will legislate where needed and where we see evidence of the gaps. Our track record so far has shown that that is what we do, but we will not speculate, as ever, on legislation ahead of future parliamentary Sessions.
I come to the question of Ofcom enforcement action. On Ofcom’s investigation process, the Secretary of State was clear that she expects an update from Ofcom on next steps as soon as possible and expects Ofcom to use the full legal powers that Parliament has given it to investigate and take the action that is needed. If companies are found to have broken the law, Parliament has given Ofcom significant enforcement measures. These include the power to issue fines of up to 10% of a company’s qualifying worldwide revenue and, in the most serious cases, Ofcom can apply for a court order to impose serious business disruption measures. These are all tools at Ofcom’s disposal as it takes forward its investigations. On the question of whether Ofcom has the resources to investigate online safety, as I think I have mentioned in the House before, Ofcom has been given additional resources year on year to undertake its duties in respect of enforcing the Online Safety Act: that is, I think, £92 million, which is an uplift on previous years.
I come to the question of the Government’s participation in news channels and on X. We will keep our participation under review. We do not believe that withdrawing would solve the problems that we have seen. People get their news from sources such as X and it is important that they hear from a Government committed to protecting women and girls. It is important that they hear what we are doing and hear when we call out vile actions such as these. We think it is extremely important to continue to take action and continue to back Ofcom in the actions that it is taking in respect of this investigation, and in fact all of its investigations under the Online Safety Act.
The noble Lord asked whether it should be mandatory for AI developers to test whether their models can produce illegal material. Enabling AI developers to test for vulnerabilities in their models is essential for improving safeguards and ensuring that they are robust and future-proofed. At present, such testing is voluntary, but we have been clear that no option is off the table when it comes to protecting UK users, and we will act where evidence suggests that further action can be effective or necessary. We are keeping many of the areas that have been raised today under review and we are seeking further evidence. We are looking at what is happening in other jurisdictions and at what is happening here and we will continue to take action.
I also reflect on the point that the noble Lord made that the issues around enforcing illegal activity are nothing to do with free speech. These are entirely separate issues and it is incredibly important to note that this is not about restricting free speech, but about upholding the law and ensuring that the standards that we expect offline are held online. Many tech companies are acting responsibly and making strong endeavours to comply with the Online Safety Act, and we welcome their engagement on that. We need to make sure that our legislation and our enforcement is kept up to date with the great strides in technology that are happening. This means that, in some cases, we will be looking at the real-life impact and taking measures where new issues arise. That is the track record that we have shown and that is what we will continue to do.
Technology Adoption Review
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to take action on a number of fronts, including AI literacy and digital skills more generally. The Government are taking action on digital skills in a number of areas, including through what was the CyberFirst programme and is now the TechFirst programme, looking at both young people and students.
On AI skills, particularly for those in the workforce, the Prime Minister announced a plan to train 7.5 million workers with essential AI skills by 2030 through our industry partnership with key players. It is great to have those players collaborating with us on that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Technology Adoption Review is clear that the UK’s ability to turn research excellence into productivity gains depends on skills and access to world-class talent across our innovation system. In light of Sir Paul Nurse’s recent warnings that high visa fees and restrictive rules are actively deterring early career researchers and damaging the UK’s science base, will the Government commit to aligning research visa policy with their technology adoption ambitions, say, by emulating the Canada Global Impact+ Research Talent Initiative?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that attracting high-calibre talent to this country is incredibly important. We have a number of ongoing initiatives to do that, including the Global Talent Taskforce, as well as through academia, as my noble friend the Minister with responsibility for science and technology talked about. The digital skills jobs plan will also set out how we can support that aim and get the balance right between growing homegrown talent and attracting those we need to from abroad, so that we have the best chances of growing our science base and the spin-outs.
Data Adequacy Status: EU Data Protection Standards
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. He brings a great deal of experience over the years in many areas of data protection legislation, anti-money laundering and the security side. Since the UK and EU leaders’ summit on 19 May, we have been working with the EU to increase the safety and security of UK and EU citizens, to respond to shared threats, and to support police investigations, including through enhanced data exchange. We continue to work and meet closely with the EU on these matters.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Government are trying to hit a moving target, as far as I can see. The EU is adopting a new digital omnibus, which will change EU GDPR. How confident are the Government about being able to get a decision from the EU in time?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
To take that question in two parts, we are confident about the EU’s scrutiny of our legislation. The Commission has started its review and published the report that I mentioned in July. The European Data Protection Board published a non-legally binding opinion on its draft decision on 20 October. We are confident that a member state vote will take place ahead of the 27 December deadline. The EU’s proposals to change its data protection framework have only recently been published. We will have a look at the details of those changes as and when they become clear and are confirmed.
Children: Age Verification and Virtual Private Networks
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are standing right behind Ofcom. Many of us very strongly support Ofcom’s actions in fining those such as the AVS Group for not observing proper age checks on their sites. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicates, there is no point in having fines unless we have proper enforcement. What resource are the Government satisfied Ofcom has to pursue enforcement?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have ensured that Ofcom is resourced to implement its online safety duties and have increased the amount available to it year on year; its budget is, I think, £92 million to support all its Online Safety Act responsibilities. We believe that it has the resources it needs to effectively implement and supervise the Online Safety Act.
Artificial Intelligence Legislation
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I remind the House that AI is already regulated in the UK and we regulate on a context-specific approach. Our regulators can take account of the developments in AI, which are indeed rapid, and ensure that they are tailored. In addition, as noble Lords know, we have got various regulators undertaking regulatory sandboxes and the new proposal for the AI growth lab, which will look across all sectors and allow regulators to collaborate on this quite rapidly changing technological development.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare in interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society and as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy. The first meeting of the rather grandly named Lords’ AI and copyright parliamentary engagement group takes place tomorrow. Would it not be extraordinary if the Government did not bring forward a Bill in the face of that engagement group’s conclusions and those of the industry working groups? Would any of those discussions not be rendered meaningless without a Bill next year? If a Bill does not come forward, would that not demonstrate the influence of big tech and the major technology companies on the Government?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The issues to which the noble Lord refers have, of course, been extensively debated here. One outcome of conversations during the passing of the data Act was a commitment to have these discussions. I also think it would be premature to decide the nature or timing of legislation until those discussions are completed. Like the noble Lord, I highlight the importance of the parliamentary consultations, the first of which with Peers is indeed happening tomorrow, with the two Secretaries of State.
Protection of Children Codes of Practice
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
That this House regrets that the draft Protection of Children Codes of Practice for search services does not fully deliver the level of protection for children envisaged by the Online Safety Act 2023 due to regulatory gaps, accessibility challenges, and the consultation process failing adequately to address feedback from civil society organisations and victims’ groups.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this is a regret Motion, and one of my regrets today is that we are debating it so long after it was tabled back in May this year. The Online Safety Act 2023 was born from tireless campaigning over a long period, and when I look around the Chamber, I see a number of those who were heavily engaged on that Act. The clear parliamentary intent was to create a safer digital environment. This House passed landmark legislation with the clear ambition to compel online platforms to take proportional measures to safeguard children from accessing or being exposed to harmful and inappropriate content and behaviour.
One of the key questions today, which many have continued to raise since I first put down the regret Motion, is: does the implementation of the Act match that ambition? The children’s codes of practice were intended to translate Parliament’s intent into practical reality; yet following scrutiny by the Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee, extensive feedback from civil society organisations and analysis of emerging online harms, it is clear that in their current form these codes present significant shortcomings, hence this regret Motion. For example, the Molly Rose Foundation, founded following the death of 14 year-old Molly Russell, is deeply dismayed by the lack of ambition in these codes and states explicitly that it does not have confidence that the Online Safety Act will prevent a repeat of Molly’s death.
The Online Safety Act explicitly mandates that a higher standard of protection is provided for children than for adults. It demands that services are safe by design, yet the codes recommend only a limited number of measures that do little to address the fundamental design features and functionalities that facilitate or exacerbate harm to children. Specifically, the codes fail to address the harmful design features that platforms have embedded in their business models, features that prioritise engagement and monetisation over safety. These include scroll mechanisms that trap children in continuous content consumption, push notifications that constantly pull them back to platforms, loot boxes that exploit addictive behaviours, and algorithmic amplification that prioritises content designed to maximise engagement rather than well-being.
Ofcom will require platforms only to reduce the frequency with which children are shown certain forms of harmful content, such as dangerous stunts, rather than demanding they stop recommending it altogether. Several platforms have persuaded the regulator that content moderation is not technically feasible, leading Ofcom to require only “proportionate alternatives” such as preventing access to group chats where primary priority content has been identified, which the Molly Rose Foundation anticipates is highly likely to be gamed by the industry. Measures that could have helped, such as enabling children to provide feedback on algorithmic recommendations, appear to have been watered down and are now effectively left to the platform’s discretion.
The codes fail adequately to require safety by design or to require companies to take specific actions to address high-risk functionalities such as live streaming, despite Ofcom highlighting them in its register of risks. Civil society organisations such as Internet Matters have expressed disappointment that key recommendations on parental controls were not included as specific duties. There is a notable lack of reference to media literacy, which is essential for equipping families to support children’s safety. Concerns surrounding complex issues such as child-on-child harms were raised in consultation, yet these recommendations were not taken forward. The fundamental problem regarding pornography is not just access, but that the pornography itself is extreme, depicting acts that could not be legally published in offline formats such as DVDs. The regulator’s proposed measures for recommender systems are seen as having misdiagnosed the core problem, focusing narrowly on demotion of illegal content rather than addressing the amplification of lawful but cumulatively harmful content.
The second key issue is the failure of process. It is a matter of great concern that civil society organisations and victims’ groups felt that they were not listened to during consultation. These groups draw on the lived and often traumatic experience of victims and survivors, and they report that fundamental issues that they flagged remain unaddressed. There is a suggestion that Ofcom may have given greater weight to industry concerns than to the voices of safety advocates. Ofcom has explicitly confirmed that it has made no quantitative assessment or modelling of the societal costs and impacts of harmful online content. The quantified financial costs to businesses of compliance are given disproportionate weight compared to the immense potential impact of harm on individuals and the wider economic and societal costs.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and add my welcome to her to the Front Bench: you cannot have enough south Londoners on the Front Bench. I also thank her very much for the serious and comprehensive way in which she answered many of the points raised—and, indeed, some of the points that we did not raise—during the debate.
There is an essential issue running all the way through most of the speeches, which is this question of oversight and scrutiny. I very much hope the Minister will take a leaf out of her predecessor’s book—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who I am glad to see is also on the Benches today—in engaging with those Members across the House who have strong views about online safety, who helped take the Bill through, and who genuinely want to see Ofcom succeed in regulating social media platforms. It is not just about formal engagement through the SLSC or other mechanisms, valuable though that is; it is important that we get to grips with a lot of the new information in what she had to say, which I thought was extremely helpful.
Employment Rights Bill
Lord Clement-Jones ExcerptsWednesday 23rd July 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-IV(b) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (23 Jul 2025)
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 160, although I support all the amendments in this group. I declare an interest as a self-employed visual artist. Amendment 160 seeks to establish a freelance commissioner. It is closely tied to consequential Amendments 161 and 162, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which seek to define what a freelancer is and to give the freelance commissioner greater teeth. I am very grateful for the support on this from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, as well as that of my noble friend Lord Colville, who I know would have signed this amendment if there had been room to do so.
The first thing to say is that the creative industries welcome the appointment of a champion for this sector, as announced in the industrial strategy after Committee, and are pleased that that champion will be a member of the Creative Industries Council. These are things that the creative industries have been asking for for a long time, so there is appreciation that the Government have listened in this respect. Yesterday, I also had sight of the draft terms of reference—which is, of course, interesting timing. Those terms of reference, which are the result of conversations between relevant organisations and the DCMS within the framework of the Good Work Review, are impressive, if not yet entirely comprehensive, tasks and concerns. It is important to stress that this also illustrates the immense challenges a freelance champion will have. Nevertheless, I applaud the Government for opening the lines of communication between the DCMS and other organisations; long may that continue.
However, there remain questions concerning the champion. What powers will the champion really have, if any significant powers at all? Is this to be a salaried position? How much, in practice, will the champion be able to cut across different departments? Will this role be more about guidance for the sector rather than the really necessary action required for freelancers in terms of the many rights that standard employees have—and to a large extent take for granted—but that freelancers lack? I would be very grateful if the Minister could fill in some of those gaps if she is able to do so.
There are broadly two reasons why we should have a statutorily appointed and independent freelance commissioner. The first is that we urgently need someone to look at the whole landscape of freelance and self-employed work, which constitutes a not-negligible 15% of the workforce—and this is a sector that is growing. As my noble friend Lord Londesborough pointed out in Committee, this includes not just the creative industries but construction workers, agricultural workers and others. My amendment covers that landscape, one that the Bill—which is supposed to be an Employment Rights Bill, not an employee rights Bill—does not cover. Instead, as freelancers are always asked to do, we are told to wait in line. This of course happened during Covid, when so many freelancers fell through the gaps in support.
Even looking just at the creative industries, there is a question as to whether the whole of the creative industries themselves would necessarily be served by the new champion, in whatever guise that comes. The DCMS’s current understanding of these industries may be narrower than the reality, and this is certainly true of those craft industries—hugely important for our economy—that may not necessarily fall within the champion’s remit because of the manner in which parts of the creative industries are currently defined. This is something for the Government to look closely at, and I know that my noble friend Lord Freyberg intends to flesh out some of the detail of this very real concern about invisibility in both this and the debate that follows.
The second crucial reason for having a statutory appointment is not just that that role would have the requisite powers to argue for and effect real change, with the necessary authority to do so, but that it is a long-term position that cannot be rescinded easily because we are in this for the long haul. There is no doubt that freelancers’ concerns—this is certainly true of the creative industries—have grown more critical in terms of rights; income; the problems with late payment; Brexit, which has affected and continues to affect so many of our creative industries, not just music; AI, of course; and, crucially, the downturn in the funding of the sector. All these things have become immense pressures, which demand the appointment of an independent commissioner with the requisite powers to effectively address all these concerns and influence government policy.
I talked at some length in Committee about these increasing pressures as they affect the creative industries, and I will not repeat those arguments, except to add some conclusions from a survey to be published tomorrow by the organisation Freelancers Make Theatre Work—I am grateful for its permission to do so. It says:
“A striking headline in this year’s data is that 44% of respondents earned less than the 2024 UK National Living Wage in the 23-24 tax year … a significant worsening of the already critical situation from the previous year … where the equivalent figure was 34%”.
It goes on to say:
“These levels of pay would be illegal in salaried positions”.
I was worried by Chris Bryant’s recent evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in which he said that he wants to see a reduction in the number of freelancers over the next 10 years. My understanding was that he is thinking about workers such as his mother, a make-up artist for the BBC, who lost their salaried jobs and were pushed into becoming freelancers. However, this is but one part of the landscape, and this exclusive emphasis ignores all the other freelancers, many of whom are creators—artists, writers, composers and many others—for whom there never has been any option other than being a freelancer for the work they do. Again, we need to understand the whole landscape—the reality of that landscape and the ecology of that landscape.
It becomes difficult to imagine how effective a champion with close proximity to the DCMS will be if the DCMS is actively trying to reduce the total number of freelancers—something it ought to be agnostic about. We need an independent commissioner—in other words, someone in a position of authority—who will support and, importantly, promote the practice of freelance work. We need it in law; we need it in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is extremely disappointing that we are debating something of this order of importance at this time of day and at the fag-end of this Bill. However, unusually, I shall try to ingratiate myself with the House by being as brief as possible.
First, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his letter of 30 June and for the publication of the draft terms of reference for the freelance champion, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who set out the stall extremely cogently for these amendments. I do not need to go over the ground that he has explained extremely well. The lack of a single clear voice representing the interests of freelancers to government is what this is all about—a clear definition of what a freelancer is and clear duties for the freelancer commissioner.
The freelance champion has some similar characteristics to the freelance commissioner, but there are significant differences from the independent freelance commissioner. It is not going to be a statutory office, unlike the freelance commissioner. The structure proposed in our amendments would be more permanent and more independent of government. The terms of reference explicitly state that the champion will focus on freelancers working in the creative industries only, so it will not be cross-sectoral. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, it is clear that freelancers are extremely prevalent not only in the creative industries but in many other industries as well, including construction, professional, scientific and technical activities, business support, health and social work, IT, digital services and education and training.
While welcome, the freelance champion for the creative industries under the sectoral plan does not go nearly far enough across the board in making sure that there is a real advocate and one with teeth who is able to influence policy towards freelancers across all those different sectors. The question really is why the Government have failed to grasp the urgency and widespread nature of the challenges faced by freelancers across all sectors. It is not unclear that freelance work covers much broader areas than just the creative industries. These amendments would offer recognition to a workforce that contributes enormously to our economy and cultural life and is too often unprotected and unheard in legislative terms.
I urge the Government, even at this time of day and at this time in the Bill, when they cannot really change their approach, really to think about this. We have heard so much about how, on AI or dependent contractors, the Government are considering these things. They really need to shape up in terms of the modern economy. Freelancing is on the increase and they need protection—and the freelance commissioner would be by far the best way forward.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Clancarty and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who have each set out the case for a more coherent and strategic approach to freelance policy with great clarity. I shall not repeat their arguments but will attempt to build on them.
I support Amendments 160 to 162, to which I have added my name, and I will speak to my own Amendments 163 to 165. I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am going to be extremely brief because it is now 11.20 pm. We need to finish these proceedings at least before midnight, but that may be an ambition too far. I declare an interest, as I should have done in the last group, as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society.
It would have been extremely useful to have inserted the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Berkeley, because that is precisely what my amendment is all about. It is about ensuring that our employment law ensures the rights of a growing segment of our workforce. Our current system is based on statutory definitions and case law, and it settled on three categories: self-employed; worker—also known as limb (b), as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, mentioned —or dependent contractor; and employee. However, determining whether an individual falls within this framework is often inconsistent and reliant on lengthy and expensive court cases, such as the landmark Uber v Aslam case. The Minister has extremely helpfully undertaken a consultation on employment status, and that is exactly what this amendment was designed to provoke, so I feel that to a large extent we have succeeded in pushing the Government further towards defining that kind of employment status.
I have had some useful conversations with Evri, which engaged in a legal case when it was under the name Hermes. As a result of its engagement with the GMB, it has come forward with what I think is an extremely interesting and satisfactory form of dependent contractor status that grants certain rights as if they were employees, and that is precisely what I hope this consultation will come up with in terms of family leave, entitlements, the right to request fixed hours and so on. The GMB, while awaiting formal policy setting through its democratic process, has expressed a positive stance towards retaining and reforming the limb (b) worker status. So I hope that the consultation that the Government engage in will not try to force everything into two categories but will make sure that that third category is recognised and given enhanced rights.
I think there was some misunderstanding in Committee in what the Minister said. She talked about complications and so on, and I hope that does not mean that what we are all trying to get to is two categories, employment or self-employment. I hope that the result of the consultation will be to come forward with some kind of dependent contractor status for precisely the kinds of people that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was talking about—however fast they may go on their scooters.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I rise to introduce at this late hour Amendment 184A in my name. I refer to my registered interests as an employer and investor. I thank the many noble Lords on the Labour Benches who have kindly stayed to hear the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, and myself; it is very decent of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, kindly committed just now to publishing the Government’s consultation on employment status, which relates strongly to the amendments that the three of us have introduced to this clause, and it is very welcome to hear that commitment. For me, that takes us half way to what my amendment proposes.
The Minister’s focus just now was on freelancers, while that of the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, was on both freelancers and the self-employed. My amendment focuses on protecting the self-employed and the so-called middle worker status, in particular for so-called platforms, which I will elaborate on briefly in a minute. I do hope to get your Lordships out before midnight; I will do my best.
The Government’s make work pay document, part of their manifesto, has, as we all know, made various commitments—or threats, as we call them on this side of the House—relating to workers’ employment status. Some are included in the Bill and some are promised for an unspecified future Bill or other kind of regulation. In particular, the employment status of worker, a middle stage between self-employed and fully employed, as just described by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and as decided in the ruling in the Uber case, is to be reviewed, and there is the threat that that category will be tightened or even abolished. To date, the Government have said little else about its future although, in the Bill we are discussing now, Clause 1 on guaranteed hours and Clause 2 on shift contracts both significantly constrain what an employer can agree with an individual holding worker status.
It is depressing to note how the Government’s financial and regulatory policies are already hitting employment—the very topic of this Bill—not just in traditional areas such as pubs and entertainment, but in those advanced sectors where the economy’s hope for the future lie: AI or gene modification, for example, and now, in this Bill, the platform businesses that drive the gig economy.
Take driver platforms. In surveys, 76% of drivers say being self-employed is the key attraction; 60% of them value flexible hours above all else, rising to 72% among working parents. Nearly nine in 10 use multiple platforms to earn a living, which would be near impossible if rigid employment frameworks were imposed. A strong entrepreneurial spirit runs through the sector: 34% already see themselves as entrepreneurs and 49% aspire to be.
Platform companies such as Bolt, which has 100,000 drivers on its books, are currently at sea as to what the rules will be. Will they, because of all this, be forced to offer full employment packages to those who would rather be flexible worker employees? Will this then increase the platform company’s costs and lead to layoffs, as more hours have to be offered to these workers, leaving fewer hours available to the self-employed?
My amendment seeks to get a commitment to a formal review of all this—and we just got that from the Minister—in order to ensure that the Government stand by their stated intent to consult fully, and I think that word is key, before changes are made. Platforms need to know what future employment categories will be allowed and how they will be defined because, one way or another, all of this will lead to their having to make very significant changes to their platforms. It is important that the Government have a full review and consultation before they decide on their detailed approach.
Platform companies can and must form a leading part of our future economy. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others explained, as was the case with freelancers, so it is with platform workers. All employers and employees agree that, in these areas, flexibility is key and the Government have elsewhere committed to reducing, not increasing, inflexible regulation. This amendment seeks to hold the Government to that commitment.
Platform employers are investing hundreds of millions in their activities per country, per platform employer, in other countries around the world, yet are not doing so here in the UK. One platform company recently contacted me to say that they had withheld £170 million of investment from this country precisely because of this Bill and the threats it imposes on it.
We are falling further and further behind other modern economies, and it is precisely because of ever-increasing taxes and regulation, and the threat of more to come, from this and future mooted Bills. Removing the middle-stage worker status would both increase unemployment and deter further inward investment.
My amendment seeks to hold the Government to account on their promises to consult on the expected outcome of this part of the Bill, which the Minister has just done, and to figure out the likely impacts carefully in the hope that the most detrimental potential regulations might not be imposed. As we go into the summer break, we already see employment, particularly youth employment, plummeting. The NIC increases, the now very high minimum wage and the fear created by this Bill are causing employers to hold off further employment. All of this is leading to less and less hiring. I ask the Government to have pity on the employer, to have pity on the self-employed and indeed to have pity on our economy overall by agreeing to this, I hope, helpful amendment.