Protection of Children Codes of Practice

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

I have one question for the Minister: what will the Government do to protect our youngest children—those whom even the social media platforms recognise should not be on these platforms—and ensure that they are not on them? Sadly, that will not happen through these codes.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this regret Motion. I am very familiar with it because, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I was part of the team scrutinising it when it came in front of us. I welcome the Minister to her post. This is one of her early baptisms in the world of online safety and it will be the precursor, I suspect, to many more. I suspect that she will be on a fairly steep learning curve, and I wish her well.

Many people have spoken about the perception that many of us have that we thought we were being very explicit about our hopes and ambitions for the Online Safety Bill as it went through Parliament—with, in particular, a huge amount of time in this House. If she has not yet been able to, I suggest that the Minister could benefit from sitting down over a suitable libation with the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscounts, Lord Camrose and Lord Colville, the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Kidron, and others to understand what we thought we were being very clear about in terms of Parliament’s expectations when this Act passed and what we are now experiencing in terms of its enactment. That would be really helpful in understanding where we are coming from when we repeatedly raise some of these issues. That really comes under the heading of an insufficiency of ambition and of clarity of understanding about what it was that we thought we were being very clear about.

There is a failure of process in certain areas. I will not go into great detail, but the fact that smaller, high-risk sites are, to a large extent, excluded is madness. It is exactly on some of those smaller, high-risk sites where you have incidents of people being encouraged to self-harm, of people being encouraged to end their lives and of radicalisation. That is going on in plain sight. At the moment, Ofcom does not appear to feel that it has enough resources to do anything about it. I am also not sure that it feels it is entirely clear, under the auspices of the Act, whether this should indeed be a priority for it.

There are also structural flaws: the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the safe harbour. There are three key questions that I will pose to the Minister— I do not expect her to be able to give a magic answer at the Dispatch Box—to really focus on trying to get an understanding of what is going on and some answers. I am sure she will be asked some of these questions in the future.

The first is: does Ofcom have sufficient resources and knowledge at its disposal to do what we very clearly intended it to do in the Act? Given the evidence at the moment of what it is able to do, I am not sure the resources are adequate. If the resources are adequate, they are not being tactically and strategically deployed in the best way to achieve what we were trying to do.

The second point was referred to briefly. We tried very hard, during the passage of the Act, to try to find a place for parents to go. If, under the terms of the Act, they are meant to go to the platform with which they have a problem—perhaps their child was harmed or, God forbid, even died—and the platform is unable to satisfy them and give them an adequate response, they have nowhere to go. We talked about that at length during the passage of the Act, and it is still the case. I do not think, in all conscience, that is adequate or appropriate. I encourage the Government to look carefully at that and how it might be mitigated. Talking to people such as Ian Russell and the Molly Rose Foundation would be a very good way of understanding what those families, who are not getting an adequate response, are going through and will continue to go through.

The third area is the level of scrutiny that the Act is undergoing. We fought in vain to encourage the then Government to agree to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise the Online Safety Act on a continuing basis; to establish a dialogue with Ofcom in a direct and relatively open way, but also for it to be possible to do it, if needs be, more discreetly, away from the limelight and publicity; to try to understand some of the issues and problems that Ofcom may be having; and to see how we can help, rather than being slightly outside it, as it is currently constructed. I do not feel comfortable being critical of Ofcom without necessarily being in full receipt of the facts and understanding what is really going on inside. I think all those of us involved in the passage of the Act would like to help Ofcom do its job, not castigate it for not doing what we think it should have done. Trying to see whether there is a way in which we can have a more regular dialogue between Parliament and Ofcom, for each to understand where the other is coming from and to be better informed, would be a good step forward.

The day before yesterday, in our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, we had yet another statutory instrument on online safety, in this case from the Home Office. Again, I am afraid it was slightly disappointing news. This statutory instrument has a particularly catchy title. It is called the Online Safety (CSEA Content Reporting by Regulated User-to-User Service Providers) (Revocation) Regulations. For those at the Dispatch Box, it is Statutory Instrument 2025 No. 1066, like the Battle of Hastings. In this case, an online portal to enable all reports of child sexual exploitation and abuse to be aggregated in one place was meant to go live, I think, next month. For reasons probably to do with poor design and project planning, it will not go live. It is effectively having to be rebuilt and will hopefully go online, if it works, at some point in the spring. We will publish our report and noble Lords will be able to read it and see that the committee was not exactly happy. In this case, the Home Office provided an inadequate Explanatory Memorandum and has agreed to go back and do a better job. I can see the chair of our committee sitting behind the Minister; he will be well aware of that.

In conclusion, I think the status quo is untenable. Until and unless the group of us who were particularly closely involved in the passage of the Act are more confident that the victims who are suffering in the online world, particularly children, are better protected—until we feel that their concerns and experiences are being responded to more robustly, succinctly and accurately—we will continue to keep on raising this issue again and again.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise: I came to listen to this debate from the steps of the throne, but the more I listened, the more I thought I would make a very short contribution. I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Motion. The noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Watson, and others in the House, will know that, as part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I and others have introduced a number of amendments that are relevant to our debate today. One would raise the age of access to social media for children from 13 to 15. Another would prohibit the use of VPNs by children. A third would ban the use of smartphones in schools during the school day.

The Department for Education and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, in their rejection of our proposed amendments in Committee, cited as reasons for waiting the lack of convincing evidence and the fact that these codes were going to be implemented, and said it was premature to act. I hope there is some way of making sure that the noble Baroness is briefed on today’s debate, because I think she might feel, if she listened to some of the comments around the House, somewhat less reassured. She would also have been less reassured if she had been present earlier this week at the round table we hosted, across parties and with Cross-Bench support, which took evidence from medical experts including the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, academic experts and safeguarding experts. What we heard was deeply troubling.

The Minister may be aware that there are a number of ongoing campaigns about aspects of this and the way in which social media has led to tragic deaths of children. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to Ian Russell and his daughter Molly, but Esther Ghey, mother of Brianna Ghey, and Ellen Roome, mother of Jools, also lost their children tragically as a result of their involvement with social media. This is an opportunity for the Government to be on the right side of history. All the evidence seems to be going in one direction and one direction only in terms of harm to children. If there is ever a time to adopt the precautionary principle, surely this is it.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

So this falls between, “Can we get fewer people going across the channel?” and “Can we make the roads, pavements and everything safer, and make sure that those who obey the law benefit from it and those who do not get taken to the cleaners?” I beg to move.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

As a loyal member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling & Walking—with an emphasis on the cycling rather than the walking—I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this, and I will explain why. As he indicated, what is behind this amendment is partly what is leading certain noble Lords around the Chamber to pepper the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, with a series of curveballs about e-bikes in all sorts of shapes and illegal forms.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling & Walking has just issued a rather alarming report called Unregulated and Unsafe: The Threat of Illegal E-Bikes. It has a specific chapter in it called:

“The role of delivery platforms and the gig economy”.


This evening, we are talking about two intertwined issues. First, there is an employment law issue. At the heart of the Bill is a wish by our new Government to rebalance what they view as an imbalance that has occurred during successive Conservative Administrations between the rights of workers, particularly unionised workers, and the rights and freedoms of employers. Whatever your view on that, what we are talking about today is a good example of an area of employment that is using slightly questionable tactics to avoid recognising its rights and responsibilities towards its workforce.

Your Lordships may recall that, a few years ago, when the phenomenon of Uber started taking over and assailing the black cab business here in London, there was a long debate and a big issue around Uber claiming again and again that the people who were driving for it were not its employees. In successive cases, it was taken to court and eventually it had to admit that the people who drive for it are actually employees and have some rights as employees.

We have a very similar situation with delivery platforms. These are the delivery platforms where, if you have a craving for a peanut butter and pineapple pizza at 3 o’clock in the morning—which, being married to an Italian, I certainly hope you do not—you can simply reach for your smartphone and it will be delivered to your door fairly quickly.

Those large platforms are basically doing what Uber did originally. They do not recognise the people who are driving for them as employees; they are said to be contractors—indeed, they allow the contractors to nominate people to substitute for them, people who have no commercial or contractual relationship with the company whatever. One of the larger delivery platforms, related to Deliveroo, successfully managed to win a case in the Supreme Court brought by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, which was aware that this particular arm delivered food around London and other cities, largely using unregulated and very fast e-bikes. The company successfully argued against the union that these were not employees, and it used the fact that the people who ride for it could substitute others as part of its defence, which was accepted by the High Court. So we clearly have a strange loophole here that is harmful for those workers and is driving all sorts of unfortunate behaviour.

In evidence, I turn back to the report of the all-party group and the issue about the role of delivery platforms and the gig economy. In its written evidence, London Councils said:

“Many delivery companies are set up as Platform companies, with riders classed as self-employed so companies are therefore not required to provide health and safety measures. Platform companies only take an advisory role in safety standards for riders, not mandating vehicle mode or collision reporting, therefore avoiding any financial implications. This means there are no checks and balances in place for the safety of the vehicles used for deliveries, the riders themselves and the impacts on other road users”.


In respect of evidence from one of the platforms—Just Eat, which noble Lords may have seen written on the back of mopeds with L-plates on or illegal e-bikes—the report said:

“Pay for riders per drop has declined in recent years, requiring ever longer shifts with ever more deliveries per hour in order for a rider to earn sufficient money”.


We see vehicles or e-bikes constantly jumping red lights, narrowly missing pedestrians and weaving in and out of traffic, but they are doing it because the way in which they are compensated requires them to make the maximum number of deliveries in the shortest possible time, which obviously encourages speeding and avoiding road traffic laws, red lights and things like that. I suspect that many noble Lords or members of their families have had experiences of looking around rather nervously even when they cross a zebra crossing because of what may suddenly assail them.

Lastly, this is written evidence—and it is a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, who is not in her place because this is not a Bill that she is involved in—from Leeds City Council, which has the same problems. It says:

“In addition to the safety of e-bikes, we would like to work with government to improve the industry’s employment and verification practices to address account sharing, where couriers can substitute deliveries to others who may not have a right to work in the UK. FDC [food delivery companies’] business models currently rely on riders themselves to confirm their eligibility to work, and this can enable illegal working. Alongside this, we would like to cover how to reduce the time pressure on riders to make deliveries, driving hours, and platforms’ responsibility for their riders’ safety”.


The councils have made a compelling case for this, as has the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I suggest that for the Government to look at this would align with much of their intent in this Bill.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel obliged to add a word to my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s amendment, because I was counsel for the union in the Deliveroo case which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has mentioned. The issue in that case was slightly tangential to that raised by my noble friend; the question there was whether Deliveroo riders were among those entitled to the trade union rights and benefits of Article 11 of the European convention. We need not go into that.

The Supreme Court held that the presence of a right of substitution in the contracts between the Deliveroo riders and Deliveroo meant that they were not entitled to those trade union rights. That reflects the situation in English law under the definition of a worker in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act and the Employment Rights Act, which requires personal service. The courts have held that that excludes workers who have the right to engage a substitute, even in situations such as that with Deliveroo where the Central Arbitration Committee held that its use was rarely if ever put into operation. It was never used by those who brought the case.

The relevance of all this is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned, the categorisation of workers—whether they are an employee, a limb (b) worker, which Uber drivers are and the Deliveroo riders wanted to be, or an independent contractor—determines what rights they are entitled to under the various statutes. I accept that my noble friend the Minister will say that the status of workers will be consulted on in future. I completely agree that it should be approached holistically. As someone who has put up two Private Members’ Bills on the status of workers, both of which succeeded in this House with all-party support, I am happy to offer him my drafts. The matter has to be dealt with holistically. However, my noble friend Lord Berkeley has a point. This use of substitution clauses is a device to deprive workers of the statutory rights that Parliament intended them to have. It is an abuse that could be addressed now in this Bill before we get to the consultation on the status of workers generally.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley indicated some of the consequences of the abuse of these substitution clauses. I will articulate two more. First, as I have mentioned, where platform companies insert a substitution clause in the contract between the rider or the contractor and the platform company, the effect is to deprive them of all employment rights. When I say that the platform company inserts the clause, that is what happens—there is no agreement, consultation or collective bargaining; they are simply told, “If you want to work, you agree to the substitution clause”. It is a device. In the Deliveroo case, it was, in effect, accepted that that was the purpose of the insertion of the clause.

Noble Lords have already articulated the second problem. Since the Deliveroo case, substitution clauses have become extremely widespread and the use of actual substitutes, which was rare in the Deliveroo case, has now become very frequent and involves illegal working and so on. But—this is the final point I want to draw to your Lordships attention—think of the workers who are engaged as substitutes: they are being paid even less than the contracted riders; they are being exploited. They are the people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, pointed out, speed through the traffic, risking their lives to make as many deliveries as possible. It is an abusive situation and this might be a moment to deal with it, in advance of the general consultation and the legislation that will be required to regulate the status of workers generally.

Online Abuse: Protection for Children

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Algorithms are a real challenge, and we know some of the damage that can be done by them if they do not operate effectively. When Ofcom published its child safety codes on 24 April, it set out 40 measures that companies are expected to take to comply with the child safety duties. Measures include age-assurance technology, changing algorithms to filter out harmful content and adopting mechanisms so that parents and children can easily report harmful content. It is part of the children’s code to address algorithms. Over time, Ofcom will be able to report on how successful it has been in expecting that of platforms.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, building on the comment of my noble friend Lord Colville about the amount of time between consultation and action being taken, could the Minister draw to the attention of Ofcom the report by the NSPCC that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to? It contains no fewer than 27 specific suggestions and solutions for Ofcom to include in the illegal harms code of practice, in addition to the 40 she just named. If she could bring that to the attention of Ofcom and perhaps encourage it to get its skates on, that would be greatly appreciated.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that Ofcom has regular dialogue with the NSPCC and other stakeholders, but I will double-check to make sure that, as the noble Lord says, the issues and recommendations are being addressed.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I address my comments to the Government Benches, particularly the Government Front Bench.

If one looks at Commons Hansard from yesterday, from the last round of ping-pong, several things stand out. First, although we have been through many rounds of ping-pong, yesterday was the first time ever in ping-pong that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was named and acknowledged. This is the same noble Baroness who was accused by a spokesman for the department of trying to bully the Government because she is an activist. This was the first time that the Front Bench mentioned the noble Baroness’s name, which I find extraordinary and slightly disrespectful.

Secondly, yesterday, Sir Chris Bryant, who was obviously on fine form, managed to annoy no fewer than three chairs of Commons Select Committees. He managed to annoy Dame Meg Hillier, who is the chair of the Treasury Select Committee and the Liaison Committee, by the lastminute.com manner in which the department suddenly landed the culture and science Select Committees with this idea of a parliamentary liaison group with no prior warning whatever—they and the House more broadly knew absolutely nothing about it until an email went out early on Saturday morning.

This is not the way to manage this issue. Certain Back-Benchers on the Government side have spoken during the course of ping-pong to make clear their discomfort and the uncomfortable position they are put in between their loyalty to their party and Government and their clear concern about the manner in which the Ministers involved are currently managing this process.

I would just like to encourage all members of the governing party to try—and if anything I have said or that we have heard here rings a bell with them—to please find a way of getting the message through so they understand that it is not simply we who are not members of the governing party who are concerned, but that noble Lords and Members of another place are also deeply concerned. Frankly, we want and expect a change of attitude and pace, much greater focus and a much clearer demonstration to all these people who are so concerned about their future and their livelihood that the Government are on their side, are on the case, and will defend them in any way they can.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for the very gracious way he introduced his amendment, particularly given the history of this inter-House discussion.

Whether it is betrayal, disrespect, negligence, bloody-mindedness, a bad dream or tone-deafness, whatever the reality, we find ourselves once again in this Chamber debating an issue that should have been settled long ago. I share the profound anger and frustration expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and admire her unwavering determination, even if she, for very honourable reasons, will not be voting today. As she pointed out, the Prime Minister, who entertained the tech industry at Chequers and Downing Street, is complicit in the situation we are in today.

We are here today because the Government have point-blank refused to move, repeatedly presenting the same proposition on three occasions while this House, by contrast, has put forward a series of genuine solutions in an attempt to find a way forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out. The only new element seems to be a promise of a cross-party parliamentary working party, but what is so enticing about merely more talking when action is desperately needed?

Amendment 49U, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and designed to amend the 1988 copyright Act, is a reasoned compromise. It requires identifying the copyrighted works and the means by which they were accessed, unless the developer has obtained a licence. That seems to be a fair trade-off. The noble Lord also pointed out that Minister Bryant has rather inadvertently made it clear that today’s amendment does not invoke financial privilege on this occasion. The Government argue that legislating piecemeal would be problematic, but the historical precedent of the Napster clause in the Digital Economy Act 2010 demonstrates that Parliament can and should take powers to act when a sector is facing an existential threat. There is an exact parallel with where we are today.

This is not about picking a side between AI and creativity, as we have heard across the House today. It is about ensuring that both can thrive through fair collaboration based on consent and compensation. We must ensure that the incentive remains for the next generation of creators and innovators. Given how Ministers have behaved in the face of the strength of feeling of the creative industries, how can anyone in those industries trust this Government and these Ministers ever again? Will they trust their instincts to appease big tech? I suspect not. I do not regard the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as personally liable in this respect, but I hope she feels ashamed of her colleagues in the Commons, of the behaviour of her department and of her Government. In this House we will not forget.

There is still time for the Government to listen, to act and to secure a future where human creativity is not plundered but valued and protected. If the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, chooses to put this to a vote, on these Benches we will support him to the hilt. I urge all noble Lords from all Benches, if he does put it to a vote, to support the UK creative industries once again.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Clause 35 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, before we move to the next group, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment 151 is agreed I will not be able to call Amendments 152 to 158 for reason of pre-emption.

Schedule 4: Pay and conditions of school support staff in England

Amendment 151

Moved by

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I ask the House to consider whose interest this inaction benefits. Ministers agree that the creative sector is precious, they agree that it is being robbed, and they agree that the world is better with music and the arts. Ministers love Kate Bush, Shakespeare and Coldplay, but they are frustrating any attempt to give this generation of artists a tool to defend themselves and to defend the next generation of artists. I am asking one last time for the Government to offer the House and the creative industries a timeline and a vehicle by which they can protect their investments and livelihood. It does not have to be this way. Failing to act denies the UK’s second-biggest sector the effective right to own and control its own property and labour. Denying them that basic human right puts the creative industries on a path of direct conflict with their elected representatives. That is not something I wish to see. I beg to move.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will very briefly make two points. The first is to perhaps allay some fears that noble colleagues may have about the constitutional propriety of where we find ourselves, and for this, I thank our wonderful Library.

This is a Lords starter Bill—it started in your Lordships’ House. Since 1997, there have been no fewer than 14 Bills which started in the Lords and have gone backwards and forwards for ping-pong three times or more. Of the 14 Bills, two of them got a score of five, one got a score of four and 11 got a score of three, so we are not in virgin or new territory. This is tried and tested and it is what happens when there are fundamental disagreements, and there is nothing unconstitutional about trying to settle a genuine disagreement in a way which gets each side to listen to the other, to acknowledge the other side’s strength of view and to come up with some sort of accommodation which both sides can live with. We are having a problem arriving at that, but we are not in a state of constitutional impropriety. That is the first point that I wish to make.

The second is to emphasise the point my noble friend was making on the urgency of this. I have some sympathy for His Majesty’s Government here. When I spoke briefly on Monday, I tried to indicate the background and the dilemma that our Government find themselves in, and I have a lot of sympathy for that.

Under the previous Government, noble Lords may recall that our penultimate Prime Minister was a great fan of AI and made great play of trying to attract interest in AI, positioning the United Kingdom as potentially a major base of the AI sector outside the United States. The new Government have continued that theme and recognised AI as a core element in one of their many missions for growth. However, if we look at where the United States is coming from, we see that its position is very clear, and it is deeply uncomfortable for us. Vice-President Vance said on 11 February at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris that

“with the president’s recent executive order on AI, we’re developing an AI Action Plan that avoids an overly precautionary regulatory regime while ensuring that all Americans benefit from the technology and its transformative potential … Now, we invite your countries to work with us and to follow that model if it makes sense for your nations. However, the Trump Administration is troubled by reports that some foreign governments are considering tightening the screws on U.S. tech companies with international footprints. Now, America cannot and will not accept that, and we think it’s a terrible mistake not just for the United States of America but for your own countries”.

What could be clearer than that?

OpenAI, one of the major companies involved in this, says that America needs a global strategy that adopts American AI systems, not anybody else’s, and a copyright strategy that protects

“the rights and interests of content creators”,

and preserves

“American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material”.

After the consultation in this country with our Government, it said:

“The UK has a rare opportunity to cement itself”,


—it makes one think of being in cement under Brooklyn Bridge—

“as the AI capital of Europe by making choices that avoid policy uncertainty, foster innovation, and drive economic growth”,

calling for a broad copyright exemption.

Lastly, Google said that rights holders can already effectively exercise “choice and control”, but suggested those who opt out of AI training would not necessarily have a right to remuneration if they still appeared on a model’s training data—so, basically, “We’ve stolen it, but too bad”. It further said that

“we believe training on the open web must be free”,

and it warned that

“excessive transparency requirements … could hinder AI development and impact the UK’s competitiveness in the space”.

This is the very uncomfortable dilemma we are in. I would welcome transparency from His Majesty’s Government about the fact that we are in an uncomfortable place and that we all need to work together to find a solution that is in the best interests of our country and of our creative sector. We obviously need to come to an accommodation with the United States of America, but on the basis of the last two months since “Freedom Day”, one day after April Fools’ Day, we are in dangerous territory. We just need to be honest with one another.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her determination and consistency in promoting this cause. It is very worth while, and, as she said, she is the spokesperson for at least 2.5 million people who constitute the cultural history of our country.

What I find rather extraordinary about this Government is that, within a period of a year, they have sought to turn huge numbers of people sharply against them. First, they turned the pensioners against them, then they turned on the farmers, and now they are turning on the creators of our culture, which are very much larger than the farmers. If this is passed tonight, I am sure it will go to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, who must begin to wonder, if he is managing to turn all these groups into enemies, how many will support them in 2029 This has political implications.

There is no doubt that the whole cultural world of our country—not just the writers but the composers and painters as well—feels that it would have its livelihood severely limited, if not almost eliminated. Not only does that go for the famous writers such as Ishiguro but last Thursday, Antony Gormley, our leading sculptor —some would say he is a genius—said that it was our duty to defend the moral integrity of creators. I hope that the Minister also believes in what he said about defending the moral integrity of creators. That is what this Bill is about. Once we remove the protection of royalty, we make copying very easy and very quick. If the Bill stands on the statute book like this, it will also enhance criminality, because not only the big four but anybody in their garage in Wolverhampton could ask ChatGPT, or AI, or Microsoft to create a picture by a great painter, and then they could sell it. Only if the painter were alive and said, “Well, I never painted it” would they be able to stop it. When they are dead, anybody can do it. In fact, I think some would do it.

I know the Minister is under pressure from the big American companies, but I draw her attention to comments in the Financial Times this week by someone who is described normally as the godfather of AI, a Canadian called Yoshua Bengio. He says that, at this moment, all sorts of people are experimenting in AI and trying to find a way to accommodate it and protect themselves from it but also benefit from it. He said very clearly that he was scared by recent events,

“because we don’t want to create a competitor to human beings on this planet, especially if they’re smarter than us”.

That is of course the danger of AI, particularly in the creative world. Once the creators have lost control of their royalties, what will they depend on? There is absolutely no doubt that many of them will suffer financially because of this Bill. Last week, as I already mentioned, Antony Gormley—our famous sculptor; some would say he is a genius—said on the “Today” programme that there is a duty to defend the moral dignity of our creators. That is at the heart of the amendments the noble Baroness has tabled.

I hope the Government will therefore consider not only that this is a bad Bill but that it has been done far too quickly. Normally in our legislation, we have consultation before we get to Report, but the Minister says that they are now consulting everywhere on the impacts of this measure. That is entirely the wrong way to behave, and I hope we will send the Bill back to the Commons later tonight.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

It seems obvious that we have a technological revolution under way, and we have to consider how best we can protect the creative industries in that situation. It is a completely different world that we are now moving into. Peter Kyle is saying that AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, involvement and experience of both creatives and technologists. That is what he intends to do in the coming months.

Therefore, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has won on this point and we should now gracefully withdraw from further ping-pong.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, very briefly, there were two Members of your Lordships’ House who were sitting in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago listening to the debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and myself. During that brief debate—as usual, it was time-limited—there were no fewer than 13 interventions on the Secretary of State from around the House. Of the 13, nine came from Labour’s own Back Benches. Every single one of those 13 interventions expressed concern to varying degrees; not a single person said, “You have got it right, we accept all these apologies and we are going in the right direction”.

If you read some of the comments by the somewhat hirsute Vice-President of the United States at the February AI summit in Paris, it is very clear what the White House and the Trump Administration are intending to do. It is America first, America second, America third, up to the power 10. That is their very clear intent.

If you look at the comments of OpenAI and Google when they talk about their input into the consultation that is taking place with our own Government, you see that their position and intent are crystal clear; they are against transparency and are basically saying that it is too late to act on all the information they have already taken as they have the ability to use it, and in fact they want and need even more.

However, the backdrop to that—as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said—is that there is an intense debate going on in the United States about this. Two weeks ago, the US Office of Copyright—if you like, the guardian of copyright in US law—issued a report which directly challenges many of the premises that these large AI companies are putting forth about their right to rob, rape and pillage intellectual property wherever they wish in the world. They are trying to subjugate the 50 states of the union to make sure the White House can override them, and they intend to do exactly the same with any foreign jurisdiction which chooses to stand up to what the White House views as its own best interest. That is the reality.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

Three months after the Government’s own report, this amendment allows Parliament to be informed on the scale of theft and the loss of revenue to United Kingdom companies, as it also enables a draft Bill on copyright infringement, AI models and transparency of input.

Does the Minister agree that those measures assist the process of copyright protection here while setting a useful standard abroad, including within the 46 states’ human rights affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a much-respected member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman?

In sending out the right message from the United Kingdom, not least is this proposed amendment also consistent with Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, safeguarding, privacy and personal data.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points I have raised, and I hope His Majesty’s Government consider the arguments I have made today as the Employment Rights Bill makes its way through this place. I beg to move.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am very happy to add my name to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, having worked for many years before she came to the House on domestic abuse issues.

Nobody would disagree with the Government having this priority to reduce violence against women and girls; it is a no-brainer, given where we are starting from. The examples in the workplace of things going wrong, often in plain sight, are embarrassing, and the list the noble Baroness put before us, which I will briefly repeat in part, demonstrates that it is just the tip of the iceberg.

When I was a head-hunter, for many years I specialised in HR—sometimes known as “human refuse” or “human remains”, but otherwise known as personnel—and Harrods was known as a revolving door for HR directors. Any personnel director who looked at an offer of employment from Mr Fayed—he actually was just Mr Mohamed Fayed; he added the “al” because it makes you sound posher in Egypt—and who had done their homework knew what they were in for. Even people who took a deep breath and, for a large amount of money, took on that role rarely lasted more than 12 months. It really was supping with the devil, and it was widely known, but nobody did anything about it.

The BBC has been mentioned, as well as the NHS. The fact that female employees, surgeons included, in the NHS have reported rape—both allegations of rape and actual rape—over many years is inconceivable in principle but is and has been taking place.

The case of Gracie Spinks was mentioned. I too had the privilege of listening to her father as he spoke of his anguish at the death of his daughter. That is an interesting example. The company where the person who killed her, and who then killed himself, worked, Xbite, had a grand total of 140 employees. So, as we think through how to deal with this, how can we help organisations such as that, which had started up only five years before, to understand the co-responsibilities they have with their employees to try to protect them in the working environment? But also, how do we make that practical and effective?

I was involved, with others, in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill which has just left your Lordships’ House. Part of the reason that the Government brought that in is precisely because of issues of abuse in the workplace. The well-known tragic case of Jaysley Beck, who took her own life after years of repeated harassment by, shamefully, a series of her superiors, is a case in point. The Ministry of Defence itself also has a major issue in this regard.

The fact is that, as many of us will know, many of us—some of us—will indeed have married, gone out with or, heaven forbid, had affairs with people that we have met through interactions at the workplace. The workplace, outside of the home, is a major cause and focus of social interaction between people, and most of us spend a significant part of our lives there. To expect that to exist in a separate bubble and compartment and not recognise the issues that can often be engendered and amplified by the intensity of a working environment is to ignore the obvious.

So, should we ignore this in this Bill? I think we all agree that this is an issue that needs to be tackled. I think we all agree that we need to do better, but I think we need to ask ourselves: is this the right vehicle by which to try and do something about it? I have come to the conclusion that the answer is probably yes, not least because of the timing of the Government’s current focus on reducing violence against women and girls. What is clear at the moment is that there is a real lack of clarity and guidance, and ownership and responsibility, on how to respond in these kinds of situations.

We have a tangle of different laws and regulations dating back as far as 1974, with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. We have the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. We have the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We have the remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have the Health and Safety Executive, and we have the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 190. That is a complicated thicket to try and work your way through, and there are many inconsistencies in the way it is applied and an almost total lack of understanding by those employers who are perhaps trying to respond to some of the issues that their employees are raising as to how best to deal with it, because there is no clear path or clear outline of how to respond. Creating clarity in this area for both the victims and the employers is an opportunity we should not miss.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he/she and their colleagues will sit down with Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones to try and look at this in the round, because, in a way, it would fit in very neatly with some of the other laudable initiatives of the Government to reduce violence against women and girls. I ask the Front Benches: please can we work together, politics out of the window, to try and work out between now and Report whether there are ways we can try and pull all this together, give greater clarity and improve on the unacceptable status quo?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am speaking in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett, who is not able to be here today, and she has signed both of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes.

The noble Baroness made an excellent opening speech and has covered almost everything, but I think it is worth repeating that what we are trying to do here is provide workplaces that are safe, free from violence and free from gender-based harassment. As we heard during an Oral Question earlier, sexism and misogyny are on the rise in our society, and that impacts on women and girls—probably girls, particularly—of all ages. It is crucial that the Government take this seriously.

We are not asking employers to sit down and think what they have to do from scratch, because this research has been done before. There is an excellent project conducted by the Fawcett Society that identifies five key requirements to create a workplace that does not tolerate sexual harassment: culture, policy, training, reporting mechanisms and the way that employers respond to reports. Successful and lasting change needs sustained commitment, and the Fawcett Society shows the way forward—or a way forward. Of course, that, with a great deal of other existing research, is something that the Health and Safety Executive could draw on.

The size of the problem is probably indicated by research from Scotland; there is no reason to think that the issue there is larger than anywhere else on these islands. Last year, a study reported that 70% of women in Scotland reported having experienced or witnessed sexual harassment in the workplace and that 80% of those never reported it to their employer. Those are absolutely terrible statistics. I am sure that the Government want to do something about this, not least because lower-paid and younger workers are particularly vulnerable. This is something that the Government will surely want to address because there are an awful lot of votes out there from younger people and, at the next general election, this Labour Government might need them.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope and trust that this will reassure the noble Baroness that the current legal framework for addressing violence and harassment in the workplace is both robust and comprehensive—

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the plethora of different types of Act and instrument that are meant to be woven together into a seamless whole to stop abuse in the workplace happening. He started off by mentioning an Act passed 51 years ago. He then talked about regulations enacted 26 years ago. He then spoke about the harassment Act of 18 years ago and the Equality Act of 16 years ago. With the greatest respect, if the combination of these regulations has been in force for as long as they have been and we are in the situation we now find ourselves in, with the evidence of what is happening in a variety of workplaces, large, medium and small, clearly all is not well.

The idea of bringing forward amendments such as these is not that they are word perfect from the word go. Everybody in the House knows that perfectly well. Committee is to probe; to try to see if we can come to agreement across the Chamber that it ain’t working and we need to do something better. With the best will in the world, standing up and trying to defend the status quo, when the status quo quite clearly is not working as it is meant to do in theory, is not helping anybody. So, I again ask and suggest—and I am sure the noble Baroness will say this when she responds to the Minister—that we accept that it is not working properly and that it would be a no-brainer to try to work together, across this House and with another place, to see if we can use this Act as a way to improve on what clearly is not working at the moment.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for that, and I hear what he says. But I stress here, with all the current legislation in place, that there must have been cases before us that we can learn lessons from. What we need to do, and do better, is use “black box thinking”, where we can learn from what has happened and hopefully share with other regulators what works and what may not have worked, so that we can address a problem rather than bring in more legislation. We can look at what has been successful and share those successes among other enforcers as well.

I conclude by saying that the Government remain committed to raising awareness of this important issue. I can confirm that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, has already met with Minister Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones, and we continue to work with them to try to see how we can come together on this. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 128 and 139, which I have signed, but all the amendments in this group have real value.

In my relatively long life, in which I have argued endlessly for human rights, I think there can be only one or two times when I have stood up and argued for men’s rights, because I feel they have plenty of them and they do their own arguing. But, of course, this is a human rights issue. It is not just men’s rights; it is women’s rights as well, because the mothers will benefit if the fathers have parental leave.

Statutory paternity leave does not support families only in their first weeks; it helps rebalance society by moving away from a statutory parental leave system, which sends a strong message that parenting is a woman’s job and that men should keep working and stay out of the home. That idea is not just present in the legislation; it is embedded and deeply rooted in many people’s prejudices. Maternity leave is already a very hard-fought and essential right, but the imbalance between maternity and paternity leave is structurally embedding gender differences that do not benefit society.

This legislation can set young families up for a stronger start by ensuring that new fathers have plenty of paid time off work in those early weeks and months that are so crucial to a child’s development. I hope the Prime Minister was listening to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and that he will perhaps urge this House to adopt at least some of these amendments.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendments 127 and 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I rise as one of, I think, only two fathers in this debate so far and, as it happens, a recent grandfather. I thought it would be helpful to have a little bit of balance in a discussion on a group of amendments which is about what appears to be an imbalance in the respective roles of fathers and mothers.

It seems to me that there are three key reasons to act, rather than to think and debate and dance on the head of an ever-smaller pin. The first is the early years argument. I, together with other noble Lords and noble Baronesses, will be arguing the case for early years being included and very deeply thought about in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Education yesterday said that early years was her number one priority. It is inarguable that changing our approach to paternity pay and giving fathers the opportunity to have a much greater presence in the lives of their children in the early years—and also, very importantly, in support of their partner or spouse, particularly if she is working or is attempting to work—is frankly a no-brainer. In that context, that is a very good first reason.

The second reason is that the economic arguments for this are also very strong. The report by the Joseph Roundtree Foundation, which came out only three weeks ago, and which was mentioned by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is fairly convincing. It says:

“Building on the evidence from other countries on the impact of paternity leave, the”


Centre for Progressive Policy—one would imagine that His Majesty’s Government would be in favour of an institute with a name like that—

“has modelled the economic costs and benefits of more generous paternity leave options. This novel model was built to help policy-makers understand the labour market effects – and associated economic and tax costs – of varying paternity leave terms in the UK”.

Its conclusions were very simple:

“The modelling shows a positive economy-wide effect of £2.68 billion, driven by the gains achieved when more women move into work and work more hours”.


The second bullet point is particularly apposite to the Government’s aims and what they are trying to achieve with the Bill:

“The modelling also shows that the increase in labour market outputs for this policy option is mainly driven by those at the bottom and middle of the labour market”.


That is a policy outcome you would think was very close to the Government’s heart.

Turning to the third and final reason, for 31 years I was a professional headhunter and, as a headhunter, you become relatively expert in what I might call the psychology of attraction and repulsion—what attracts people to particular types of employment or employer, and what detracts from that degree of attraction. There is increasing evidence to show that companies that are thoughtful, progressive and transparent about the offering they are making to both fathers and mothers stand a much better chance in this labour market of attracting people of real talent who have many choices they could follow up on. Also, relating back to comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in a previous group, an important issue is that many individuals have a degree of trepidation about working for potential employers because they are uncertain of the working environment and how it might impact on their ability to play a full part in family life.

For those three key reasons, I support not only having a long hard look at paternity leave—as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said, frankly, we have been looking at it for longer than is either necessary or good for us—but, for the good of families and children, just getting on with it.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my support to this group, in particular to Amendment 76 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister. I commend her illuminating and penetrating introduction. Indeed, all the speeches that we have heard set out a very strong case.

When I worked in an organisation, I had women colleagues whose partners could not afford to take even the leave they were entitled to, thus further burdening the tired mother and losing those irreplaceable bonding first days, to the detriment of both child and father, as many noble Lords have said. That bonding and support for the mother is just as important for adoptive fathers and stepfathers. Why should self-employed fathers be unequally treated? They are just as much fathers. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will carry out the review as set out in this amendment.

Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

I ask my noble friend to meet me and others to discuss whether there is some way in which we can still make this work. These issues and the emotions that have been raised should not be bottled into a debate about a regret amendment to a statutory instrument. They need to be taken as they occur. They need to be reasoned through. We need to be able to explain, we need to hear and listen to the arguments in government that are so powerful that they do not fit the way in which this Bill was framed. I hope my noble friend accepts that invitation and that we can find a way forward. This is not the way to do this. This is a bad decision which is against the will of Parliament. The consequences, as noble Lords have already mentioned, will be the Government’s responsibility.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to illustrate why we are as concerned as we are. One of the platforms that would not come under the categorisation that we would wish it to is Telegram. Last month, on 16 January, a 19 year-old man, Cameron Finnigan, a member of a Satanist extremist group called 764, was sentenced to six years in prison on charges including encouraging suicide and possessing indecent images of a child.

764 originates in the United States; Telegram has been used to disseminate it across the Atlantic. The FBI describes 764 as

“a network of violent extremists who seek to normalize the production, sharing, and possession of child pornography and gore material to desensitize and corrupt youth toward future acts of violence. Members of 764 gain notoriety by systematically targeting, grooming, and extorting victims through online social media platforms”,

particularly the small ones. It continues:

“Members demand that victims engage in and share media of self-mutilation, sexual acts, harm to animals, acts of random violence, suicide, and murder, all for the purpose of accelerating chaos and disrupting society and the world order”.


On that basis, you can understand completely why Ofcom thinks this is fine.

This is unacceptable and the Government really should look at this again. Above all, it is incumbent on Ofcom to recognise that to, apparently wilfully, diverge from the clear stated will of both Houses of Parliament, and what is written in the Act, is not simply inappropriate but, as other noble Lords have suggested, may well be illegal, and that should be looked into.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will be incredibly brief, having not been part of the collective of Peers who worked on the parent Act to this statutory instrument. The key question that has been highlighted is, what is the Government’s interpretation now of the powers in the Act? The Government’s and the Official Opposition’s interpretation at the time it was passed was that it had the power to include in category 1 providers on the basis of risk, not size. I am incredibly concerned because, in the debate in the Commons, the Minister said that

“as things stand, the Secretary of State does not have the power to include them”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/25; col. 16.]

That was a reference to small but risky providers, and actually the Minister seemed slightly outraged at the implication that they were not acting where they should otherwise be doing so. So can the Minister clarify for this debate whether it is the Government’s position that they would like to include them and that that is the intention that they thought the Act had given them, but they cannot under the law as it is written; or that they do have the powers but have chosen not to, which is our understanding of their decision-making?

The reason that is so important is that the Minister has committed to reviewing these thresholds in future, but such reviews will have very little power if the Act itself is faulty and does not give them the ability to designate on the basis of risk, or the review is pointless because they already have the powers and the evidence of the risk of these providers but are choosing not to act.

I have another point on legal advice. In the debate in the Commons, the Minister committed to writing, including a letter from government lawyers, setting out in great detail what she was saying

“in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State in setting the categories”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/25; col. 19.]

In other words, the letter would clarify for people what the interpretation, which has so shifted from the original debate, is from the Government. I may have missed that letter—maybe it was placed in the House of Commons Library—but perhaps the Minister could say whether the letter was written and share its content with this Chamber also, because I think that gets to the heart of what we are regretting today from the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister heard the example that I gave and is aware of the harm that was done as a result of using the small channel Telegram. For harm to be done, the material does not need to be widely disseminated; it is disseminated through a very small group of hardcore believers in some of these strange cults, and that is how the harm is done. The fact that it is not widely disseminated is completely irrelevant. One person taking that onboard and then doing something unmentionable should be against the Act as it was written and as we understood it would be legislated for, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The breadth and extent of dissemination and the number of users are irrelevant.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the whole “small but risky” issue that the noble Lord is raising is hugely close to our heart. We have engaged with Ofcom and pressed it to take more action on the sort of small but risky services that he is talking about. Our view is that they do not necessarily have to be dealt with under the categorisation process; there are other ways. Ofcom has assured us, in the way that it has come back to us, that there are other ways in which it is addressing them.

It is not as though they have been discarded. It is an absolute priority for this Government that we address the “small but risky” issue, and we are doing so. We are working with Ofcom to make sure that that is followed through. As I said when I opened this debate, the fact is that we have worked with Ofcom and it is setting up a task force to look at this, while separately we are looking at these issues. What more can we do? On the position at the moment regarding the rollout of the SI and the categorisation, the reality is that Ofcom’s research and advice, and the risk of unintended consequences, means that it is not currently workable to ignore user numbers when setting category 1 and so on.