Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 12 September this year. The Government stated in their manifesto that they would

“use every government tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence”

in order to achieve their

“landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade”.

Through this statutory instrument, we are broadening online platforms’ and search engines’ responsibilities for tackling intimate image abuse under the Online Safety Act. More than one in three women have experienced abuse online. The rise in intimate image abuse is not only devastating for victims but also spreads misogyny on social media that can develop into potentially dangerous relationships offline. One in 14 adults in England and Wales has experienced threats to share intimate images, rising to one in seven young women aged 18 to 34.

It is crucial that we tackle these crimes from every angle, including online, and ensure that tech companies step up and play their part. That is why we are laying this statutory instrument. Through it, we will widen online platforms’ and search engines’ obligations to tackle intimate image abuse under the Online Safety Act. As noble Lords will know, the Act received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. It places strong new duties on online user-to-user platforms and search services to protect their users from harm.

As part of this, the Act gives service providers new “illegal content duties”. Under these duties, online platforms need to assess the risk that their services will allow users to encounter illegal content or be

“used for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence”.

They then need to take steps to mitigate identified risks. These will include implementing safety-by-design measures to reduce risks and content moderation systems to remove illegal content where it appears.

The Online Safety Act sets out a list of priority offences for the purposes of providers’ illegal content duties. These offences reflect the most serious and prevalent online illegal content and activity. They are set out in schedules to the Act. Platforms will need to take additional steps to tackle these kinds of illegal activities under their illegal content duties.

The priority offences list currently includes certain intimate image abuse offences. Through this statutory instrument, we are adding new intimate image abuse offences to the priority list. This replaces an old intimate image abuse offence, which has now been repealed. These new offences are in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. They took effect earlier this year. The older offence was in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The repealed offence covered sharing intimate images where the intent was to cause distress. The new offences are broader; they criminalise sharing intimate images without having a reasonable belief that the subject would consent to sharing the images. These offences include the sharing of manufactured or manipulated images, including so-called deepfakes.

Since these new offences are more expansive, adding them as priority offences means online platforms will be required to tackle more intimate image abuse on their services. This means that we are broadening the scope of what constitutes illegal intimate image content in the Online Safety Act. It also makes it clear that platforms’ priority illegal content duties extend to AI-generated deepfakes and other manufactured intimate images. This is because the new offences that we are adding explicitly cover this content.

As I have set out above, these changes affect the illegal content duties in the Online Safety Act. They will ensure that tech companies play their part in kicking this content off social media. These are just part of a range of wider protections coming into force next spring through the Online Safety Act that will mean that social media companies have to remove the most harmful illegal content, a lot of which disproportionately affects women and girls, such as through harassment and controlling or coercive behaviour.

Ofcom will set out the specific steps that providers can take to fulfil their illegal content duties for intimate image abuse and other illegal content in codes of practice and guidance documentation. It is currently producing this documentation. We anticipate that the new duties will start to be enforced from spring next year once Ofcom has issued these codes of practice and they have come into force. Providers will also need to have done their risk assessment for illegal content by then. We anticipate that Ofcom will recommend that providers should take action in a number of areas. These include content moderation, reporting and complaints procedures, and safety-by-design steps, such as testing their algorithm systems to see whether illegal content is being recommended to users. We are committed to working with Ofcom to get these protections in place as quickly as possible. We are focused on delivering.

Where companies are not removing and proactively stopping this vile material appearing on their platforms, Ofcom will have robust powers to take enforcement action against them. This includes imposing fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is highest.

In conclusion, through this statutory instrument we are broadening providers’ duties for intimate image abuse content. Service providers will need to take proactive steps to search for, remove and limit people’s exposure to this harmful kind of illegal content, including where it has been manufactured or manipulated. I hope noble Lords will commend these further steps that we have taken that take the provisions in the Online Safety Act a useful further step forward. I commend these regulations to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I endorse everything she said about intimate image abuse and the importance of legislation to make sure that the perpetrators are penalised and that social media outlets have additional duties under Schedule 7 for priority offences. I am absolutely on the same page as the Minister on this, and I very much welcome what she said. It is interesting that we are dealing with another 2003 Act that, again, is showing itself fit for purpose and able to be amended; perhaps there is some cause to take comfort from our legislative process.

I was interested to hear what the Minister said about the coverage of the offences introduced by the Online Safety Act. She considered that the sharing of sexually explicit material included deepfakes. There was a promise—the noble Viscount will remember it—that the Criminal Justice Bill, which was not passed in the end, would cover that element. It included intent, like the current offence—the one that has been incorporated into Schedule 7. The Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen—I have it in my hand—explicitly introduces an offence that does not require intent, and I very much support that.

I do not believe that this is the last word to be said on the kinds of IIA offence that need to be incorporated as priority offences under Schedule 7. I would very much like to hear what the noble Baroness has to say about why we require intent when, quite frankly, the creation of these deepfakes requires activity that is clearly harmful. We clearly should make sure that the perpetrators are caught. Given the history of this, I am slightly surprised that the Government’s current interpretation of the new offence in the Online Safety Act includes deepfakes. It is gratifying, but the Government nevertheless need to go further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also start on a positive note and welcome the ongoing focus on online safety. We all aim to make this the safest country in the world in which to be online. The Online Safety Act is the cornerstone of how all of us will continue to pursue this crucial goal. The Act imposed clear legal responsibilities on social media platforms and tech companies, requiring them actively to monitor and manage the content they host. They are required swiftly to remove illegal content and to take proactive measures to prevent harmful material reaching minors. This reflects the deep commitment that we all share to safeguarding children from the dangers of cyberbullying, explicit content and other online threats.

We must also take particular account of the disproportionate harm that women and girls face online. The trends regarding the online abuse and exploitation that disproportionately affect female users are deeply concerning. Addressing these specific challenges is essential if we are to create a truly safe online environment for everyone.

With respect to the Government’s proposed approach to making sharing intimate images without consent a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, this initiative will require social media companies promptly to remove such content from their platforms. This aims to curb the rise in abuse that has been described as “intolerable”—I think rightly—by the Secretary of State. The intent behind this measure is to prevent generations becoming “desensitised” to the devastating effects of online abuse.

Although this appears to signal a strong stance against online harm, it raises the question of what this designation truly accomplishes in practical terms. I am grateful to the Minister for setting this out so clearly. I am not entirely sure that I altogether followed the differences between the old offences and the new ones. Sharing intimate images without consent is already illegal under current laws. Therefore, can we not say that the real issue lies in the absence not of legal provision but of effective enforcement of existing regulation? We have to ensure that any changes we make do not merely add layers of complexity but genuinely strengthen the protections available to victims and improve the responsiveness of platforms in removing harmful content.

With these thoughts in mind, I offer five questions. I apologise; the Minister is welcome to write as necessary, but I welcome her views whether now or in writing. First, why is it necessary to add the sharing of intimate images to the list of priority offences if such acts are already illegal under existing legislation and, specifically, what additional protections or outcomes are expected? The Minister gave some explanation of this, but I would welcome digging a little deeper into that.

Secondly, where consent is used as a defence against the charge of sharing intimate images, what are the Government’s thoughts on how to protect victims from intrusive cross-examination over details of their sexual history?

Thirdly, with respect to nudification technology, the previous Government argued that any photoreal image was covered by “intimate image abuse”—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, touched on this issue well. Is there any merit in looking at that again?

Fourthly, I am keen to hear the Government’s views on my noble friend Lady Owen’s Private Member’s Bill on nudification. We look forward to debating that in December.

Fifthly, and lastly, what role can or should parents and educators play in supporting the Act’s objectives? How will the Government engage these groups to promote online safety awareness?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. This is, as I think all noble Lords who have spoken recognise, a really important issue. It is important that we get this legislation right. We believe that updating the priority offences list with a new intimate image abuse offence is the correct, proportionate and evidence-led approach to tackle this type of content, and that it will provide stronger protections for online users. This update will bring us closer to achieving the commitment made in the Government’s manifesto to strengthening the protection for women and girls online.

I will try to cover all the questions asked. My noble friend Lord Stevenson and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked whether we will review the Act and whether the Act is enough. Our immediate focus is on getting the Online Safety Act implemented quickly and effectively. It was designed to tackle illegal content and protect children; we want those protections in place as soon as possible. Having said that, it is right that the Government continually assess the law’s ability to keep up, especially when technology is moving so fast. We will of course look at how effective the protections are and build on the Online Safety Act, based on the evidence. However, our message to social media companies remains clear: “There is no need to wait. You can and should take immediate action to protect your users from these harms”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked what further action we are taking against intimate abuse and about the taking, rather than sharing, of intimate images. We are committed to tackling the threat of violence against women and girls in all forms. We are considering what further legislative measures may be needed to strengthen the law on taking intimate images without consent and image abuse. This matter is very much on the Government’s agenda at the moment; I hope that we will be able to report some progress to the noble Baroness soon.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked whether creating and making intimate image deepfakes will be an offence. The Government’s manifesto included a commitment to banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. This is a priority for the Government. DSIT is working with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to identify the most appropriate legislative vehicle for ensuring that those who create these images without consent face the appropriate punishment. The Government are considering options in this space to protect women and girls from malicious uses of these technologies. The new sharing intimate images offence, which will be added to the OSA priority list through this SI, explicitly includes—for the first time—wholly synthetic manufactured images, such as deepfakes, so they will be tackled under the Online Safety Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked about the material that is already there and the ability to have a hash database to prevent those intimate images continually being circulated. We are aware that the technology exists. Strengthening the intimate image abuse priorities under the Act is a necessary first step to tackling this, but we expect Ofcom to consider this in its final draft illegal content codes and guidance and to give more information about both the codes of practice and the further measures that would need to be developed to address this issue.

Several noble Lords—the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Stevenson—asked for more details on the new offences. As I tried to set out in my opening statement, the Online Safety Act repeals the offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films with the intent to cause distress—this comes under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and is commonly known as the revenge porn offence—and replaces it with four new offences.

First, there is a base offence of sharing an intimate image without consent, which carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. Secondly, there are two specific-intent offences—the first is sharing an intimate image with intent to cause alarm, humiliation or distress; the second is sharing an intimate image for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification—each of which carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment to reflect the more serious culpability of someone who acts without consent and with an additional malign intent. Lastly, there is an offence of threatening to share an intimate image, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. This offence applies regardless of whether the image is shared.

These offences capture images that show, or appear to show, a person who is nude, partially nude, engaged in toileting or doing something sexual. These offences include the sharing of manufactured or manipulated images, which are referred to as deepfakes. This recognises that sharing intimate images without the consent of the person they show or appear to show is sufficiently wrongful or harmful to warrant criminalisation.

The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked what is so different about these new offences compared to those in the Act. I stress that it is because they are being given priority status, which does not sound much but gives considerable extra powers under the Act. There will be new powers and new obligations on platforms. The key thing is that all those offences that already exist are being given priority status under the Online Safety Act. There are thousands of things that Ofcom could address, but this is now in the much smaller list of things that will place very specific obligations on the platforms. Ofcom will monitor this and, as I said earlier, companies can be fined huge sums of money if they do not act, so there is a huge obligation on them to follow through on the priority list.

I hope that I have answered all the questions and that noble Lords agree with me on the importance of updating the priority offences in the Online Safety Act. The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked about parents and made an important point. This is not just about an Act, it is about everybody highlighting the fact that these activities are intolerable and offensive not just to the individuals concerned but to everybody in society, and parents have a responsibility, as we all do, to ensure that media literacy is at the height of the education we carry out formally in schools and informally within the home. The noble Viscount is absolutely right on that, and there is more that we could all do. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Medical Product Liability

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to raise the statutory limitation period for bringing a claim for medical product liability from 10 years to 20.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, our sympathies remain with those affected by faulty medical devices, and I pay tribute to the campaigners on these issues. The UK product liability legislation has been in place since 1987. My department is undertaking a review of this legislation and we will set out next steps in due course. Following this review, should we believe that changes are necessary, we will bring forward the necessary primary legislation to ensure that it remains up to date and fit for purpose.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, tens of thousands of women have been impacted by defective medical devices, such as certain contraceptive or breast implants or vaginal mesh. Men are impacted too through hernia mesh and hip replacements. The current 10-year statutory limit starts from the moment of manufacture, not use. Symptoms may take many years to become known, and that can be compounded by frequent misdiagnosis. Of course, we need to ensure that new and innovative products reach market, but the current limit means that many people are simply timed out of making claims for often life-changing impacts from faulty products. I am really pleased to hear the Minister confirm that this will be reviewed. As part of the review, can the Minister agree to meet campaigners from the Raise the Limit campaign to discuss this further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lady Merron is planning to engage with those groups representing the patients who have been affected and to follow up on The Hughes Report and listen to their experiences. We will be contacting those groups in due course.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, do my noble friend the Minister and ministerial colleagues in her department and the Department of Health intend to meet the Patient Safety Commissioner in the interim, while these issues are being discussed? As the noble Baroness has said, these particular issues to do with breast implants and other medical devices have, in some areas, been found to be deficient.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we very much welcome the appointment of Dr Henrietta Hughes as the Patient Safety Commissioner. We have been looking at the details of her work and hope to come back in due course, particularly on the report that she produced in February. I understand that my noble friend Lady Merron has already met the Patient Safety Commissioner; she has been on a joint visit with her and plans to meet her again in the future.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, there are over 600,000 medical devices used in the United Kingdom. Worldwide, there are probably over 2 million medical devices being used. People obviously want the devices as soon as they are available on the market without having been tested medically first. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government intend to review the legislation, particularly as it applies to class 3 devices; they are mostly implant devices and cause most of the damage, including the mesh and other implanted devices. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will look in a stratified way as to where the legislation should apply and to what category of device?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have already done considerable work on this, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her original work on this, as well as now to the Patient Safety Commissioner. We are looking in detail at these issues and will continue to do so. I should make it clear, however, that should we make any changes to the legislation, it will require—as I understand it—primary legislation. It will not in any case be retrospective, so all we can do is look at products going forward. Obviously, patient safety is our primary concern and is absolutely at the forefront of our mind in taking these issues forward.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, in discussing patient safety, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for all her work on patient safety and medical devices over the years. I think noble Lords were very reassured to hear from the Minister that the Government are going to review the timeframe on medical product liability. Is she able to give us a bit more detail about that process, perhaps including timeframes, and what the process will entail, including consultation and who will be consulted?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The Government are reviewing our product liability law but, as I say, making those changes requires primary legislation. Before we do that, we will consult all the appropriate parties to ensure that any updates we make to our product liability legislation continue to give the best protection to consumers and patients. It is of course important that we liaise with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that any specific concerns about medical products are taken into account. That review is ongoing and will be underlined by full consultation.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, the review mentioned by the Minister is very welcome. One major element will be that, on many occasions, women who make complaints in medical settings are not listened to in the way we would want. We have seen many reviews of maternity and other services where women’s fears, concerns and complaints have been ignored. This is a very important element because, since that will take time, it makes the time for complaints even longer. I hope that will be taken on board.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point: women’s voices have often not been heard in the past and we are absolutely determined to make sure that they are in the future. We will take steps to reach out, to make sure that everybody feels that if they have a concern or complaint, it is taken seriously. I know my colleagues in the Department of Health will absolutely follow that up.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in other areas of the law of limitation of actions, courts do not necessarily have a hard and fast line: the court is given a discretion to disapply the limitation period depending on the particular circumstances. Does the Minister think that that would be a helpful way of dealing with what can be a real injustice?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I bow to the noble Lord’s greater knowledge of this issue. My understanding is that any changes we want to make will require primary legislation, and that claims under the current legislation cannot be made more than 10 years after the product which caused the damage was supplied. There may be exceptions to that and perhaps the noble Lord and I could discuss that outside.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, does this cover generic medicines too?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The product liability legislation covers all types of products, not just medical products, so I am sure generic medicines will be covered by it as well.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister makes the important point that primary legislation will be needed and that it cannot be retrospective. Can she give a commitment to those people who will be suffering from a possible product defect or failure that the primary legislation will be brought forward in this Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I say, this is a matter for our colleagues in the Department of Health and I know that they will be taking these concerns into account. For the time being, all I can say is that they will be looking at the issues and coming forward with legislation that they think is most appropriate to address these issues.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to add unnecessarily to the list of concerns, but only last week the EU, after many years, amended its product liability directive, and there is now a 25-year limit for latent personal injuries from products. We are in a position where, if you are going to market, you will potentially go to market in the UK rather than in the EU because, as the Minister said, it is not retrospective. I impress on her the urgency of this, because we are completely out of step with our EU neighbours.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness rightly says, the EU is proposing to extend the limit for claims to 25 years in cases where the latency of a personal injury prevented the claim being brought within 10 years. As I say, this will apply only to products placed on the market following the introduction of the necessary legislation by member states. Again, I say that, sadly, it will not be retrospective, but we are of course looking at what is happening in the EU and talking to our EU partners.

Biocidal Products: Hand and Body Washes

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what restrictions they are considering placing on the use of biocidal products in over-the-counter hand and body washes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, biocides are a broad group of chemicals that include preservatives vital for ensuring the shelf life of cosmetic products. Preservatives proposed for use in cosmetics must be approved by the Secretary of State, following consideration by the independent scientific advisory group on chemical safety, before being added to the permitted list in the cosmetics regulation. Cosmetic products with a secondary biocidal function are permitted only if they are safe for human health.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. She and other noble Lords will have received a briefing on this matter from Dr Paul-Enguerrand Fady at the Centre for Long-Term Resilience. The Minister referred to preservatives, but many products are advertised as being biocidal. That briefing refers to a British Medical Journal article, which talks about biocide resistance as

“a new scourge of the infectious disease world”.

There is a lot of focus on antimicrobial and antifungal resistance, but does the Minister agree on the need to focus on biocide resistance as well? Will she direct the department to look at biocide resistance and see what can be done to tackle what that article describes as a “scourge”?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about the impact on antimicrobial resistance that could result from these products. The Government are already focusing the second of our five-year national plans on this, and we support the 20-year vision established by the previous Government to ensure that antimicrobial resistance will be controlled and contained by 2040. This is an important issue that crosses over into human health in the wider sphere, so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, the outer layer of skin acts as a barrier and has a lot of naturally occurring bacteria on it all the time. Pathogenic, harmful bacteria also accumulate there, and there are secretions on the skin that act as natural biocides. The problem with some of these products is that they attempt to knock out all the bacteria, so they knock out the ones that are protective of you as well as harmful ones. The other problem is that there are reactions to some of the chemicals—quite nasty, local, allergic skin reactions. Therefore, will the Government seriously consider whether it is not much safer for us simply to advocate using old-fashioned soap and water frequently to wash hands and all our skin so that we do not transfer harmful bacteria from one person to another?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness obviously has given us very good advice on this issue. There is no need for many of these products to be on the market. There is a challenge that they are increasingly on the market, particularly after Covid. The Government are continuing to keep the new products under review and the opinions of the scientific advisory group on chemical safety will continue to drive our view—but the noble Baroness has given very good advice about soap and water.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we are bombarded with television adverts for products to ensure that our homes smell floral and that every germ is wiped from kitchen surfaces, including the trays of babies’ high chairs. While it is important that bacteria and viruses are kept at bay, a little dirt is often a good thing. Little is known of the effects of antimicrobial products in toxic biocidal products. In October 2022, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee warned of the danger of these substances. Will the Government support the PMB on this subject when it comes forward?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about the marketing of some of these products. There are requirements, under the cosmetic regulation requirements, to make sure that such products are advertised appropriately, and there is enforcement by local trading standards offices to make sure that that is the case. We are looking at the Private Member’s Bill in detail and will come to a view on it in due course.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there might be some challenges for members of the public in understanding what is actually meant by biocidal products? Given the number of categories and the different types of chemicals that could be classified as such, it is a bit of a nightmare for people wanting to understand what they are purchasing. Is it possible for the Government to work with stakeholders to look at whether there needs to be more transparency about what is in these products?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about education. We have already established that we need to keep the regulatory framework on these products under review, particularly with regard to new threats and hazards that might occur from them. That is why we have introduced the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will give the Government much more flexibility to look at these new products in future. But, yes, there is a huge job of education to be done about such products, and I thank the noble Baroness for her point.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is it worth the Minister checking with advisers whether they have actually read Dr Fady’s research and are taking that into account?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I hope that they have, because I asked them to look at it—so let us assume that they have done. This is a fast-moving area. We have a Private Member’s Bill coming up, and we will obviously look again at the science behind all this. With any new science coming forward, obviously we want to welcome any new evidence. We are very aware that we need to keep people safe. As I said originally, not only is it about the safety of the individual but if we allow antimicrobial resistance to develop, everybody will be affected—and it will have an adverse effect on all human beings.

Independent Pornography Review

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what stage the Independent Pornography Review has reached and what are its findings to date.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, the work of the independent pornography review is an important area of interest to this Government. The review, commissioned in December 2023, will assess the effectiveness of current pornography legislation, regulation and enforcement. I met with the leader of the review, the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, to express our support for this work to tackle issues that I know are important to everybody in this Chamber, particularly that of tackling violence against women. The Government are looking forward to seeing the review’s final report later this year. Given its independence, I am unable to share the review’s findings so far.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that positive response. The rules on how pornographic content is regulated are different online compared with offline. Because of the impact this harmful and violent content is having on women and children, I, along with other noble Lords, called during the passage of the Online Safety Act for it to be regulated online the same as it is offline. Does the Minister agree that regulating online pornography would aid the Government’s mission to dramatically reduce violence against women and girls within the next decade? What plans do they have to ensure that online pornography is regulated the same way as offline?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the review is looking at this important area of work within its terms of reference, and obviously, we are very interested in its recommendations. I say to the noble Baroness, though, that alignment between the online and offline world is not as straightforward as it might seem, given the volume and spread of content online. Nevertheless, it is an important aspiration and we look forward to hearing what the review will say in guiding us forward on this issue.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response so far. In a previous debate on this issue, I raised the need for robustness from Ofcom. Therefore, will she outline what action the Government will take to ensure that Ofcom acts in a more robust form and, if it does not, what action the Government will then take?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. We are absolutely determined to keep children safe online and to use the Online Safety Act to provide protection across all the categories under its jurisdiction. Ofcom’s draft guidance lays out which technologies could constitute, for example, highly effective age assurance to protect children, and it will have a full range of enforcement powers to take action against companies that do not follow the duties, including substantial fines. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that robustness is key here. I think some people are frustrated that some of the duties in the Online Safety Act are taking time to be rolled out, but it was a feature of the Act that it would be done on that basis. We are very keen, as everybody in the House is, to see it enacted in full as soon as it can be.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, the Revenge Porn Helpline has a removal rate of 90% of non-consensually shared intimate content, including deepfake. However, in 10% of cases, the host site will not comply with its removal, even where there has been a successful conviction. These sites are often hosted in Russia and Latin America, and are unlikely to come under Ofcom’s scope, even with the changes that make sharing a priority offence. Can the Minister inform the House what action the Government are taking to address non-compliance, and does she agree that it would be better adopt a rapid and wide-ranging approach—favoured by victims—to deem NCII content illegal, thus giving internet service providers the power to block it?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her continuing interest in this issue and her campaigning work. The Government have already put forward secondary legislation to ensure that the new intimate image abuse offence is made a priority under the Online Safety Act, and all other acts of deepfake portrayal will come under the Act if they are illegal. Going back to the earlier question about robustness, we absolutely expect Ofcom to implement those protections in a robust way.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that every effort must be made to protect children who feature in pornography? It is just dreadful.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The scale of violent images featuring women and girls in our country is intolerable, and this Government will treat it as the national emergency it is. The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the Government have set out an unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. We are using every government tool we have to target the perpetrators and address the root cause of violence. That involves many legislative and non-legislative measures, as the noble Lord will appreciate, including tackling the education issue. However, ultimately, we have to make sure that the legislation is robust and that we take action, which we intend to do.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister and others have mentioned, there is considerable and increasing concern about deepfake pornographic material, particularly the so-called nudification apps, which can be easily accessed by users of any age. What action will the Government be taking against this unacceptable technology, and will an offence be included in the forthcoming crime and policing Bill?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. Where nudification apps and other material do not come under the remit of the Online Safety Act, we will look at other legislative tools to make sure that all new forms of technology—including AI and its implications for online images —are included in robust legislation, in whatever form it takes. Our priority is to implement the Online Safety Act, but we are also looking at what other tools might be necessary going forward. As the Secretary of State has said, this is an iterative process; the Online Safety Act is not the end of the game. We are looking at what further steps we need to take, and I hope the noble Lord will bear with us.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

What is the Government’s assessment of the technical difficulties behind requiring pornography sites and others to implement age-verification services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We are working with Ofcom on the requirement to introduce age-appropriate protections. A number of businesses are already beginning to do that, as I am sure the noble Lord knows. Our task is not to find the technology, which I believe is already out there; it is to make sure we have a standardised system that runs across all businesses and social media sites, so that people can be assured the same rules are being applied across the piece, rather than individual companies introducing their own age-assurance and age-protection requirements. I would like to think that it is not a technological bar we are confronting.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, a great deal of the efforts of those of us involved in the passage of the Online Safety Act were focused on safeguarding children. Given that primary school children onwards can easily access the internet and online pornography, and given that research shows that one in eight pieces of pornography is actively violent, and eight and nine year-olds are seeing that, will the Government please recognise this issue and take action? I do not want to be asking this question again in a year’s time.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right about that. However, I reassure him that Ofcom has robust enforcement powers that will be available to use against companies that do not fulfil their duties to take action against these sites. The frustration is, in part, because not all aspects of the Online Safety Act have been introduced yet; some are not coming onstream until next year. But I like to think that once all the elements of the Act are introduced, we will have a robust system. As I have said, if gaps appear we will take action to try to fill them. It is not our intention to have an incomplete range of legislative tools to tackle what, as the noble Lord says, is a very important threat to our country.

Electronic Media: False Information

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Online Safety Act will be our key tool in combating online misinformation and disinformation. It sets out a regulatory framework to tackle misinformation and disinformation where they constitute illegal content or harmful content to children. In addition, we are educating and empowering users through our work on media literacy, to increase society’s resilience to misinformation and disinformation. Officials are also regularly engaged with major platforms about disinformation activity, emerging risks and platform responses.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, the threat posed by electronic media manifests itself in at least two ways. As we saw during the recent riots, electronic media was used to spread lies and misinformation about refugees and asylum seekers, and urged people to use violence. It is also being used to try to undermine our democracy, again through lies and misinformation. Does the Minister agree that our electronic media poses a threat to both our democracy and our social cohesion? Is she satisfied that the Government have enough powers to deal with these threats, bearing in mind that we probably will need effective international co-operation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we must protect the UK’s democratic integrity. Our Defending Democracy Taskforce safeguards our democratic institutions and processes from threats, including misinformation and disinformation. Sharing best practice and strategic insights with international partners helps industry and Government to protect our democracy from media threats. Under the Online Safety Act, companies must act against illegal content, including the incitement of violence, hate speech and state-backed disinformation, and remove it. Where hateful content or misinformation and disinformation are prohibited in the largest platforms’ terms of service, they must remove it.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)]

My Lords, false information is as likely to be spread through online platforms with smaller numbers of users as those with many users. We have heard about the role of Telegram in spreading disinformation about this summer’s disorder, as well as the terrible suicide forums. I was very pleased to see the Secretary of State’s letter to Ofcom this week on “small but risky” online services. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue of platform categorisation, given the amendment I proposed to the then Online Safety Bill, which this House passed in July 2023?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss this further, and I pay tribute to the work she has done on this issue in the past. On “small but risky” services, as she knows, the Secretary of State has written to Melanie Dawes, the CEO of Ofcom, and a very detailed reply was received today from Ofcom. We are still absorbing everything that it is proposing, but it is clear that it is taking this issue very seriously. That will give us the focus for our discussion when we meet.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, we have seen the first charge under the Online Safety Act’s false communications offence. To facilitate further prosecutions for false communications, can the Minister support statutory guidance to further define the term “non-trivial psychological harm” on a likely audience caused by disinformation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, all this information will be detailed in the Ofcom guidance to be published in due course. This includes not only illegal harms but all the other issues under the category that the noble Viscount mentioned, all of which will be covered by the Ofcom codes to be published in due course.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, part of the challenge of addressing the proliferation of misinformation is the large volume of accounts created solely to spread information that is not verifiable and is fake. Often, these accounts are bots, as we call them. Have the Government considered introducing mandatory verification of identity on social media, so that platforms know the identity of all their users without removing their anonymity?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. This will depend very much on the terms of service of those individual platforms, the whole basis of which, as she knows, is to provide that anonymity. We would need a much more detailed discussion about them and about whether individuals should be identified. However, she is right that the proliferation of bots is a dangerous issue, and we need to be aware of it, not only in the UK but in state-sponsored attacks on our democracy.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that tech billionaires are richer, more powerful and sometimes more arrogant than whole countries? With hindsight, fawning before them at Bletchley Park was not a good idea for any British Government. Will the Foreign Office explore treaty-making to examine the kind of future co-operation that my noble friend Lady Kennedy suggested?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have engagement with the large platforms at every level, including of course on the aspects of business and trade to which they contribute. I reassure my noble friend that, however big those companies are, they must comply with UK laws. We will ensure, throughout the rollout of the Online Safety Act, that everybody, however big and rich the individual, must comply with the Act.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, is not the reality that there has been a huge shift of global power in favour of the giant electronic platforms? I see that, for instance, the French have gone so far as to arrest the chairman of one of the biggest platforms in the world. Is that the kind of remedy that we will consider here?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I reiterate to the noble Lord that we have very high expectations of companies that have access to the British economy and society. If they do not adhere to the law or act in any way that contributes positively to our society, we will be increasingly assertive in our response, including by making full use of the powers brought in by the Online Safety Act. They are not above the law, and we will monitor their activities carefully.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister acknowledge that there is some concern that the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” are being weaponised to justify partisan censorship, although free speech is vital for democracy. Can she comment on the seeming immunity for some misinformation? An example is when high-profile anti-hate NGOs terrified local communities by announcing that 100 far-right protests were planned. When they did not materialise, the NGOs admitted that it was probably a hoax, but they were congratulated because it led to positive “stand up to racism” headlines. It seems like double standards.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Where people are instigating violence, hatred, misogyny and so on, we will take action against them, however we define it. This is a very difficult area, because we have to balance free speech with the regulations we will introduce, but people have to comply with the law.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I will follow on from the questions on international co-operation raised by my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Chakrabarti. By chance it was only on Monday that I chaired a meeting in Edinburgh of the Council of Europe Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society. We discussed fake news and all the aspects raised today. Can the Minister make sure that her department is in close touch with the Council of Europe in Strasburg and that there is co-operation between its 46 member countries?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend makes the important point that international co-operation is absolutely vital. We continue to talk to all our friends across the globe, exchanging information and making sure that best practice arises from those discussions.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, research by Vodafone found that algorithms are pushing content to boys related to misogyny and violence following innocent and unrelated searches. Can the Minister say whether the Government are looking into how these algorithms have been used not only to push misinformation and disinformation but to push people towards and reinforce more extreme views?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, deepfakes and other forms of manipulated media are captured by the Online Safety Act where they constitute illegal content or harmful content to children in scope of the regulatory framework. Under the Act, all companies will be forced to take action against illegal content online, including illegal misinformation and disinformation, and they will be required to remove in-scope content. These duties will also apply to in-scope AI-generated content and AI-powered features.

Post Office Horizon: Redress

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, about the Government’s Statement being very welcome and the attempt to try to unscramble some of the complexities of the scheme, but from these Benches too we are concerned about the low level of conclusion of cases, despite the process. I echo his questions about how this is being managed. Mindful that there are other inquiry redress processes that have hit problems and have had to repeatedly be redesigned, my first question to the Minister is to ask whether she is absolutely convinced that she has addressed all of them. I shall come on to a couple of specific points.

Chris Head, a former sub-postmaster who lost everything when he was wrongly accused of theft, has spoken up since the publication of the statements with some concerns, saying:

“The remit of the appeal process cannot be restricted to only those that produce new evidence. Many people have been materially disadvantaged by not having access to legal advice and interim payments that were only introduced in November 2022. This appeals mechanism must be available to everyone that has settled claims since the scheme launched in 2020 to ensure they are properly compensated back to a position they would have been in had the scandal not happened”.


Members of your Lordships’ House, including the Minister, I think, have repeatedly raised concerns about the difference between these various schemes for different sub-postmasters and staff. While it is good that the Government want to have an independent appeals process for the HSS, I remind her that the complex redress schemes arising out of other tragic scandals have had to be adapted. It took the work done on the Victims and Prisoners Act to create the infected blood compensation scheme earlier this year—with an enormous amount of energy—to untangle all the different parts of that redress scheme. Does the Minister recognise that Mr Head and others have valid concerns about inconsistencies between the schemes, and that trying to sort all this out now, at pace, as was done with the infected blood scheme, must be a priority?

I want to raise two other issues briefly. First, on the predecessor package to Horizon, known as Capture, I raised the issue of the postmasters and staff who lost their jobs because of Capture, some of whom were also prosecuted but many of whom were sacked. The Independent newspaper and ITN have given voice to these victims. When will the Government’s own investigation into Capture be published and when will they update your Lordships’ House on its findings? Should redress be due, will it be incorporated into the existing postmasters’ scheme, or will there have to be a brand-new one?

Finally, in July, my noble friend Lord Fox raised again the issue of those not included in the overturning of convictions because they had appealed their cases and lost in the Appeal Court. Both he and I had helpful discussions with the previous Minister. The concern was expressed that the judiciary, in particular, had felt it was wrong for this group of victims to have their cases overturned under the legislation in the summer, because there was some merit to other parts of the cases brought against them. Yet, that question was not asked of any other case whatever, only those that went to appeal. Are the Government prepared to reconsider that? What now exists in the redress scheme is a small group of people who have to have an exceptionally high bar of going to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, hoping that it will refer their cases back to the Court of Appeal. This seems unfair and particularly long term, which means these victims will not get resolution for a long time to come.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lords for raising these points on what is clearly a very important issue. I have to say that it upsets me greatly to hear of the harrowing experiences postmasters faced over so many years. I understand and have the utmost respect for their wish for full, fair, speedy redress, for answers from the inquiry about what went wrong and for people to be properly held to account for what has happened. This scandal represents one of the biggest miscarriages of justice of our time, and it is crucial that we get redress for those affected as quickly as possible. This is what we are focusing on as a Government—fair and timely redress for postmasters—and we will continue to work with and support the Post Office Horizon inquiry as it carries out its vital work in establishing the facts about what went wrong in this scandal.

Before I turn to the specific questions raised, I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, to all the many postmasters who have championed this cause and to Sir Alan Bates and Lady Suzanne, whom I congratulate on their recent wedding. I also thank members of the advisory board, including the noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot, who are members of the Horizon advisory board. I thank them for their advocacy for postmasters affected by the scandal over many years and for their hard work in helping the Government improve the delivery of redress. We shall continue to listen to their advice.

Turning to the subject in hand and the questions the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked, we will look to establish the new Horizon shortfall scheme appeal process announced yesterday as quickly as possible. Postmasters’ stories are harrowing, but their resilience and steadfastness in seeking justice are inspiring. The Government’s priority is ensuring that the victims of the scandal receive the redress they deserve. We want to help bring some closure to postmasters as soon as we can. I cannot give an exact timeline today, but it is likely that it will be launched in the new year. We will keep postmasters updated on its development.

I can reassure noble Lords that legal advice will be available from the outset for those who enter the appeals process. We want the appeals process to be available to all those who are not satisfied that they received the correct amount of compensation. As in the case of the broader design of the process, we will engage with postmasters and the advisory board on the detailed approach before agreeing and setting out in due course details on eligibility criteria.

The appeals process is intended to support, in particular, those who have settled their claim but feel that they were unable to set it out in full in their initial application. There are a variety of reasons why postmasters may have been unable to do so, and these will be considered when designing the process and its eligibility criteria. It will also be open to more recent applicants who have not yet settled and are unhappy with the offer they have received from the Post Office. However, on the specific question from the noble Lord, those who have accepted £75,000 are not eligible for an appeal. They were told this at the outset, when they accepted the payment.

The Government are committed to ensuring that we support postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal to get the redress they deserve. We plan to continue to work in a cross-party way on this important national priority, which of course was highlighted so well by the ITV drama “Mr Bates vs. The Post Office” earlier this year, and in last night’s follow-up documentary.

The noble Baroness asked about the investigation into the Capture software. We expect to receive this report shortly, and the conclusion of this exercise will support the Government in determining whether postmasters faced detriment due to the Capture system and what steps should be taken based on the conclusions of the investigation.

The noble Lord asked how many payments have been made for the Horizon convictions redress scheme. As of 30 August, we have made six interim payments totalling £1.2 million. As of 6 September, 178 letters have been issued by the MoJ. On the issue of the MoJ letters, as the Secretary of the State said yesterday, the state of the records has, sadly, delayed the process. This is a real frustration, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that, after everything people have been through, we should not take the risk of sending out a letter incorrectly. The Government are grateful for the support of the HSS appeals mechanism.

To all those who think that this is not moving fast enough, I can reassure them that we are moving at speed on this issue. There are a huge number of technical and legal issues that we are still ironing out, but we understand the need to move and resolve these issues at speed.

In response to the noble Lord’s point about cultural issues, I agree they are important, and I hope they will come out in the final phase of Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry. Hopefully, we can follow it up and act on it.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I served on the Select Committee on the Inquiries Act, and, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, it is clear that there are a number of schemes set up in a number of ways. Although, as in court cases, the compensation arises from very different circumstances, there could be standard tariffs or set amounts in certain instances. Can the Minister assure us that there are meetings between the departments running these schemes, and that we are not going to see headlines about the care of someone in a home, saying they got this amount from one scheme and that amount from another? We need to make sure that every avenue is sealed off, so that the compensation is fair.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. We do have a number of schemes with different eligibility criteria. We are doing everything we can to standardise them and to make sure that people are treated fairly. Of course, people are at different stages in the process. Some have already started their applications, while others have yet to do so. We are doing everything we can to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and in the way they should be, following this terrible scandal.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her very detailed Statement in relation to this egregious issue that goes back so many years. So many sub-postmasters were wrongly convicted and wrongly maligned.

Will sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland be eligible to apply to this appeals system? They were similarly affected and some of them were similarly prosecuted. Also, some sub-postmasters have said to me that the original compensation scheme has been too slow in reaching them. So I would like assurances that the appeals system, where it applies, is acted on expeditiously.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Again, my noble friend makes a very important point about speed. I think I have reiterated that we absolutely get and understand that message. I hope that, when people come to look back on the actions we have taken, further delays will not be one of the criticisms that come to mind, because I really feel that we are acting at the absolute top rate that we possibly can.

With regard to where there are specific arrangements in Northern Ireland, I apologise that I do not know the answer to that. I will write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, in my capacity as an MP in the other place, I came across a number of cases of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who were investigated and subject to the most enormous amount of stress and financial hardship, but then simply handed in their lease because they had had enough. They have since been completely vindicated. Many of this particular cohort appear to be falling by the wayside in terms of compensation. What do HMG plan to do about them?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that the individuals to which the noble Lord refers will be picked up by one of the number of schemes we now have. We now have what I hope is a comprehensive set of schemes that apply to all circumstances, so my understanding is that people who left because they were suffering hardship while not necessarily having a conviction should be covered by the scheme.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I beg to move that the House be adjourned for a period of five minutes.

Construction Sector: Cash Retentions

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Aberdare]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to end the practice of cash retentions in the construction sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord in championing this issue so successfully over the years. The Government are committed to amending the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 to require firms to report on their policies and provide key metrics in relation to retentions. We intend to introduce legislation for this in 2024. We will consider whether further action on retentions is needed to deliver our manifesto commitment to tackle late payment.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Cash retentions—withholding payments due to subcontractors for work done, often for an unreasonable period of time, or indeed for ever—have a highly damaging impact on the ability of small construction firms to invest, expand or even survive, and create pressure to cut corners on quality and safety. The Grenfell report is a shocking reminder of where that can lead.

There is a long-standing goal of ending retentions by 2025—I welcome what the Minister has said about the implementation of the reporting requirement—and widespread industry recognition that legislation is needed to achieve this. What plans do the Government have to introduce such legislation, thereby freeing thousands of construction SMEs to play their full part in delivering the Government’s housebuilding goals?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we are prioritising bringing forward the statutory instrument to amend the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations this year, with the aim of it coming into force in 2025. This will require large firms to report twice per financial year on their policies in relation to retentions, including standard terms for holding retentions and metrics in relation to payment performance for retentions. We believe that this information will be most useful to small firms in the supply chain, and this legislation was developed in conjunction with firms in the industry and their representative organisations.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, this pernicious issue, interestingly, is not covered in the Government’s construction playbook, which sets out exactly how public works projects are to be assessed, procured and delivered. Indeed, a number of government departments and arm’s-length bodies continue to use retentions themselves. So would it be a good first step for this new Government to put their own house in order as soon as possible?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about public procurement. There are steps that we can take to progress on this issue; it is a manifesto commitment that we will do so. Obviously, we will consult before we introduce any further legislation, but we are committed to reviewing our policies on this issue, to enable more smaller firms to be able to access public contracts.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, late payments in the construction sector hold developments back significantly, which hinders progress on the delivery of new homes. The previous Government took strong action on this and published a payment and cash flow review in November 2023. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of cash retention on housing delivery, and will the Minister commit to continuing the excellent work of the previous Government to tackle this issue?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As the noble Lord has said, there have already been some changes made to this and we are following that up to introduce further changes. We will be addressing the value of payments and the level of invoices not paid because of disputes, but there is more work to be done on this and enforcement is obviously part of that. DBT has already written to 416 large companies not complying with the payment performance reporting requirements and 45% of firms written to have come into compliance. We have further follow-up action to make sure that those further transgressions are being addressed.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I often think of Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, who was a great champion of this issue, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for following in his footsteps. Does the Minister agree with me that the present proposals do not get rid of the plain abuse of power that happens in subcontracting and contracting in construction? Late payment leads to bankruptcies in small and middle-sized firms and is part of the difficulty across the whole of the construction industry that leads to cutting corners in safety—and we have seen the results of that over many years. Does she agree that Lord O’Neill and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who have been fighting for this for years, have been looking for something a bit more concrete?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as I have said, it is important that we seek the views of industry on any reforms. We will take further action and obviously we will welcome the views of Members of this House, as well as the construction industry, as part of that process. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords have talked about safety and we are acutely aware of the situation with the Grenfell Tower final report, which highlights the systemic failure of institutions and individuals to ensure building safety and the safety of construction products and materials. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Building Safety and Homelessness tabled a Written Statement on 2 September that commits the Government to a system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime. Those reforms will take account of the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her replies so far. On her last answer, what proportion of businesses and organisations will be small or will represent small contractors and businesses in this trade? It is they who suffer most, which, as noble Lords have said, can lead to bankruptcies. If you are stuck with payments to make yourself for materials and supplies and you have not been paid by the overall contractor, you may go out of business. It is very important to bear in mind that we should give higher emphasis to the smaller contractors and businesses.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that the smaller businesses are getting squeezed at the end of the supply chain, but we are already making progress with the steps that have been taken, which will continue with the new regulations that we will introduce. There have already been improvements in payment performance since 2018: for example, the average time to pay invoices has come down from 45 to 32 days. We are doing this on a step-by-step basis and we are working with industry—the construction sector—to make sure that this is what people want and truly effective.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned taking the views of industry. The Government have been taking the views of industry since the completion of their consultation in 2020. The reason that they have not come to a conclusion is that there is no consensus with the industry. I greatly miss the contributions of Lord Stunell, who described seeking a consensus on this issue as being like asking lions and lambs to sit down together and agree on a menu for tea. There is no consensus between the larger and smaller firms, which is why the only solution seems to many in the industry to be legislation. Reporting is all very well, but it will not solve the problem on its own.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have been working to resolve the problems associated with cash retentions through the Construction Leadership Council. As the noble Lord said, there are a wide range of views across the sector about the use and problems associated with retentions and how they might be addressed. Many in the industry are in favour of reform and are now calling for a legislative ban, in the way that the noble Lord described, but any policy solution must be sustainable and work for the whole of industry and its clients, addressing both the surety and fair payment issues that are thrown up.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that the vice of late payments is not confined to the building industry? Do the Government have any plans to address this mischief more broadly?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Yes, my understanding is that the changes that will be introduced are not to affect only the construction industry. Certainly the late payments legislation that we are working on will be across the board and not specific to the construction sector.

Watchdogs (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to respond on behalf of the Government. I thank my noble friend Lord Hollick for tabling today’s Motion and congratulate him on the report of the Industry and Regulators Committee. As others have said, the report is a fine swansong for his very able period as chair of the committee. I am also grateful to other members of the committee and other speakers for their insights and remarks on this important topic. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for giving us a very short but important history lesson. It is important that we remember the context which started this whole process, through the natural monopolies that were created and the forced need for external oversight. What a journey we have been on from those days to where we have got to today, with all the complications of regulation that we are now confronting.

This Government welcome views on how we best improve the performance and accountability of UK regulators and the frameworks to which they operate. This will support our ambition to build a pro-innovation, pro-worker, pro-wealth creation economy. I am therefore grateful to the committee for conducting its inquiry and producing this report, which focused on concerns about the functioning of the relationship between regulators, government and Parliament and made recommendations spanning issues across the regulatory landscape. I have heard messages from noble Lords today which echo many of the issues in the report: for example, the need for a review of regulator duties, with a view to streamlining duties and objectives and providing clear priorities; the need for strategic steers in how regulators handle any political and distributional trade-offs in implementing their duties; more attention to the skills and resource needs of regulators in the context of what they are being asked to achieve; the need for measures to support accountability, including a definitive list of UK regulators; and a greater emphasis on performance reporting from regulators, with metrics linked to outcomes.

As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, quite rightly identified, a formal government response was published in May 2024 as a supplementary document to the White Paper, Smarter Regulation: Delivering a Regulatory Environment for Innovation, Investment and Growth. This response proposed a number of non-statutory reforms to the regulatory landscape and worked towards addressing some of the recommendations in the committee’s report. However, I have to say that the response was written some time ago, and since then a new Government have been formed, so I think it is important to say that we will need to consider afresh our approach to all these issues.

I should also say that I know that noble Lords will want to press me on the specifics of our reform agenda, but I hope they will understand that, at this stage, I am able only to outline a direction of travel; we are still working on a lot of the detail. However, what I can say is that the Government are determined to kick-start economic growth, working with industry and businesses to deliver economic opportunity. This of course needs to be supported by the right regulatory frameworks that foster competition, innovation and investment. Central to this will be a focus on ensuring high-quality regulation, both in terms of improving existing regulations and, where the bar is met, delivery of any new regulations necessary to support the Government’s missions.

In addition to the interest from the committee and the comments we have heard today, noble Lords will know that there have also been numerous well-researched publications on regulatory reform led by a number of think tanks, including Progressive Britain. They too have set out concerns and recommendations on the performance and accountability of independent regulators. All of this is invaluable work in shaping the Government’s next steps. It goes without saying that regulators play a crucial role across almost all sectors of the economy, including the oversight of essential services and infrastructure; medicines and healthcare products; workplace safety; and the environment and financial services. Their work is seen and felt by consumers, businesses and the environment—by everyone. It is only right that we continue to evaluate how our regulators are functioning and drive improvement where needed to support our economic growth mission.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the Government of course have a critical role to play in setting that strategic direction and the outcomes that they want to see regulators deliver, so issuing strategic guidance in a consistent way is key to that delivery.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others asked about publishing a list of the UK regulators, with their responsibilities and their oversight. The White Paper proposed that a register be published, and we are considering how to take that proposal forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and others asked about getting the best possible people on boards. Many of these are regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, but we are determined to reduce delays and improve those processes. I think we could all identify with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, when he illustrated the problems that he encountered.

The noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Johnson of Lainston, asked about and emphasised the growth agenda. The Government recognise the importance of well-performing and accountable regulators in our mission to kick-start economic growth. This is reflected in our plans to launch a new industrial strategy to build a more resilient economy, while ensuring that we have the right regulatory environment to go for growth at every opportunity. Regulators reporting on their performance will continue to play an important part, and the Government will set out their overall plans on performance to help deliver that growth agenda in due course.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hollick, stressed the importance of independence. The Government recognise the important role of regulatory independence, particularly in technical areas where outcomes depend on long-term decisions that sit outside of traditional political cycles. We know this is valued by businesses, investors and wider stakeholders. At the same time, we know that regulators differ in their degree of operational and policy independence, and that there is a role for government in providing that strategic direction and ensuring that regulators operate to the right duties. As noble Lords have argued, we must be alive to mission creep, and ensure that regulators’ duties are focused on what matters to business and to citizens.

We are alive to the importance of these issues for all stakeholders. Indeed, the Department for Business and Trade’s call for evidence, which has been referred to, and which ran from October 2023 to January 2024, has informed our understanding of these regulatory issues and the specific concerns of industry. The call for evidence received over 200 responses from a diverse range of voices, including businesses, consumers and industry groups, academia and regulators themselves. Respondents recognised the many positives in the UK regulatory system, that it is broadly well-structured and that it is well-regarded internationally.

However, they also set out some specific concerns that are helpful to the committee’s understanding of these issues. These points have been reiterated today—for example, the difficulty that businesses and others face in understanding the different roles and remits of the different regulatory bodies and how they interact with government; the accumulation of regulatory duties over time, which can dilute regulatory purpose and give rise to trade-offs which are implied rather than explicitly addressed; and the need for effective strategic steers from government to regulators on how to handle those trade-offs in their duties, particularly for decisions that verge on the political, such as normative and distributional issues.

This Government are determined to further understand and tackle these issues head-on. This includes pro-actively engaging with regulators to understand the issues they face and identify where the greater scope for improvement lies. This will also include identifying areas where the costs of regulation, particularly when viewed in the round, may be too high and burdensome for businesses. This includes both how regulations are designed, as well as how they are implemented.

In response to my noble friend Lady Taylor, we absolutely understand the need for regulators to have those clear duties and objectives, particularly in the light of the piecemeal accumulation of duties which has occurred to date.

We will take a mission-driven approach to improving the UK regulatory regime. This means improving existing regulations and working actively with regulators to support their performance and accountability, the frameworks that they operate to, and, crucially, the candour with which they explain their decisions. It means ensuring there is a shared understanding of objectives, and working with regulators to ensure that they have a skilled and capable workforce, alongside an efficient appointments process for independent boards.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, quite rightly raised the issue of raising skills, particularly in technology and AI. I absolutely understand and concur with her concerns. As part of this work, we want world-leading regulatory structures in driving technology and innovation, with, for example, a clear understanding of the potential role that artificial intelligence can play.

In that regard, I agree with my noble friend Lord Chandos and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that AI has a huge role to play, but we have to get the regulation right. So, as per our manifesto, we will introduce binding regulation on the handful of companies developing the most powerful AI models.

More broadly, we are acutely aware of the need to support innovative businesses working in a fast-growing, fast-changing field such as AI and quantum computing, so that they can navigate the regulatory landscape effectively. This will be the principal focus of the regulatory innovation office, led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This was a key manifesto commitment, and we are pressing ahead to deliver on it over the coming weeks and months.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Hollick and Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, questioned the role of the regulatory innovation office. It is important to clarify its future role. It is part of the overall solution but will not be the independent statutory oversight body recommended by the committee. As part of the Government’s mission-driven vision for regulatory reform, the activities of the regulatory innovation office will sit alongside wider cross-cutting work on improving regulatory performance and accountability led by the Department for Business and Trade, and it will work closely to deliver on the Government’s priorities with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, raised the interests of stakeholders. We are acutely aware of the importance that stakeholders place on understanding roles and responsibilities across government, with clear points of contact to address their regulatory concerns. I reassure the House that the Government will take a joined-up approach to regulatory reform across departments and will clearly communicate this to stakeholders.

More broadly, we are in the process of developing a clear regulatory reform agenda that addresses all the issues I have outlined in my speech and which noble Lords have highlighted today. This agenda will be set out in more detail in due course. However, we are clear that these reforms must have a real, lasting and positive impact on business and everyone who interacts with the regulatory system and UK regulators. It is important that we get this right and deliver the high-quality reforms that are needed. This will be the best way to support the growth mission and deliver the right outcomes for individuals, households, businesses and the environment.

A number of noble Lords illustrated the failures of regulation in a number of different sectors, and Ofwat, as has been well discussed, is a good case in point. My noble friend Lord Hollick described it as arising from a catastrophic underinvestment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, well illustrated how the regulator lost its way in maintaining water quality standards. She also rightly mentioned the need to listen to wider voices when we are putting forward the direction for regulators. The Water (Special Measures) Bill will deliver our manifesto commitment by putting water companies under tough special measures by strengthening regulation. Similarly, as my noble friend Lady Taylor illustrated, the Office for Students was given too many conflicting spheres which prevented it fulfilling its effectiveness. We would not want to repeat that issue in the future.

Before I turn to other points made in this debate, I acknowledge the Grenfell report that was published this week and take this moment to honour those who lost their lives and the many who were injured and extend my deepest sympathy to the bereaved and to the broader Grenfell community affected by this tragic event. I echo the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister, who apologised on behalf of the state in a Statement to the House of Commons on 4 September. There is no doubt that it represents, in part, a failure of regulations at that time. This Government are committed to carefully considering the inquiry’s findings and recommendations to ensure that a tragedy like this can never happen again. There will of course be opportunities for more in-depth debate on the inquiry’s report in due course.

Turning back to the context of this debate, I hope that I have picked up most of the points that have been made. I would be happy to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, to discuss the UK captive regime and perhaps could recommend HMT Ministers joining that discussion as well. If I have missed other noble Lords’ questions, I will write to them.

I noted the report’s remarks on the previous Government’s engagement, or perhaps lack of engagement, with the committee, and I reassure your Lordships that this Government look forward to engaging in a bipartisan fashion with the committee and in a very positive way with noble Lords as we take this vital work forward. I personally have a huge respect for the work of the committee and look forward to working with it in future.

In conclusion, I believe we are broadly on the same page, not only in the report but in this debate, and I hope that in due course noble Lords will see the full evidence of the seriousness with which we are taking these issues and our determination to modernise the regulatory landscape to achieve better outcomes. I therefore commend this report to noble Lords.

Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for tabling this Bill. It has enabled us to have a fascinating and wide-ranging discussion. I have certainly learned a lot about the issues as we have gone forward.

At the outset, I should say that I share the concerns of noble Lords at the number of traffic deaths that have occurred, and we share that determination to make sure that we prevent further deaths by whatever means possible. I also assure noble Lords that we have received proper briefings from the fire service. We have met and talked with it and take its concerns very seriously. I hope that, as a result of this debate and the issues that I shall come on to, we will have a common cause on the way forward.

The Government recognise the intent of the Bill and the importance of safe storage, use and disposal of lithium-ion batteries. However, for reasons that I will set out, and as I think noble Lords already know, we have reservations about this particular Bill. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords about the alternative that we propose.

First, I reassure your Lordships that the Government take product safety extremely seriously. As such, we are already taking significant steps to protect people from the types of harm that the Bill aims to address. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, which sits within my department, has been working with colleagues from across government and industry to ensure that action is taken to protect consumers and remove dangerous products from the market. For example, action has focused on assessing the compliance of manufacturers and importers to ensure products are safe when placed on the market; issuing guidance for repairers to make them aware of their responsibilities to be competent to complete safe repairs and modifications; giving consumers clear information to enable them to purchase and use products safely; and ensuring that online marketplaces play their part in keeping consumers safe.

The OPSS has been working with local authorities and has successfully targeted unsafe and non-compliant products at the border to prevent them entering the UK in the first place. We have also engaged with UK businesses to ensure that compliance with regulations is carried out, and we have worked with the fire and rescue services to identify products involved in incidents and to take action where unsafe products are identified. Our efforts have led to 18 separate product recalls and 20 other enforcement actions for unsafe or non-compliant e-bikes or e-scooters since 2022. The OPSS has issued 26 withdrawal notices on eight online marketplaces and two manufacturers and across 16 separate sellers to stop the sale of dangerous models of e-bike battery manufactured by Unit Pack Power that were identified by the fire and rescue authorities’ investigations.

While batteries and chargers may individually be compliant with the law, we know that if they are used in a combination that is not compatible there is a risk of product failure leading to serious fires. This may also be the case when an e-bike or e-scooter draws more power from a battery than it is manufactured to supply safely. The emerging evidence base also suggests that, when these products are modified inappropriately, they can pose a high safety risk. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, were right to make the point about the dangers of modification and conversion; evidence shows that there is a particular danger of fire when that occurs.

Based on this evidence, earlier this year the OPSS launched the e-bike and e-scooter repairer project, working with local authorities across the UK to conduct inspections at local businesses involved in the maintenance and modification of e-bikes and e-scooters. Those inspections are focused on providing advice and guidance on businesses’ legal responsibilities to complete safe modifications and repairs. In addition, the OPSS published a safety message for consumers in the run-up to Christmas last year, with five steps to follow to reduce risks when purchasing, using or charging an e-bike or e-scooter. This followed guidance on safe charging published by Fire England. Further guidance was also published by the Department for Transport in February this year. We continue to work closely with fire and rescue services and other stakeholders to raise consumer awareness and reduce the risk of fire.

Noble Lords are right to raise concerns about how easy it can be for unsafe products to find their way on to the market through online marketplaces. That is why, in addition to the action that I have just referenced, the OPSS wrote to major online marketplaces earlier this year to express its concerns about the availability of unsafe products online. We have demanded action on the need for user instructions to be supplied with all e-bikes and e-scooters, including batteries and accessories. In addition, online marketplaces must comply with legal notices that prevent the supply of specific products.

Existing product safety law is clear: products must be safe before they are placed on the market, and those seeking to profiteer from the supply of products that are unsafe will be dealt with. However, while a significant amount has already happened to ensure that people are kept safe, we know that much more must be done. As noble Lords will be aware, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill was introduced by the Government on Wednesday. It will have its Second Reading here on 8 October. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I hope that many of the points he raised will be raised at that Second Reading, when there will be a proper, thorough debate.

This Bill will ensure that we have a regulatory framework that is agile and adaptable in a digital world. The potential fire risks posed by lithium-ion batteries is today’s challenge, but it is not the first and it will not be the last. As the products we buy and the way we buy them adapt in a digital world, it is essential that we have laws that can adapt and go forward when we need them to protect the public. This is what the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will deliver. Through the powers in that Bill, we will be able to respond to emerging risks in product safety. This includes, where necessary, strengthening regulation to respond to risks from a range of products such as lithium-ion batteries and e-bikes, protecting consumers. It will also allow us to look more closely at those who are making these products available on the market, including online marketplaces, and to take the necessary steps to stop unsafe goods reaching consumers.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that product safety should start with safe design and I very much hope that our Bill will be at the heart of that. I also agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, who said that this is an opportunity for us to be trail-blazers in global safety standards. There are huge opportunities in the marketplace for us to set standards and to maximise our growth in this market if we get it right, so there is a win-win in pursuing this with vigour.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My noble friend has given the House a good list of the work that has been done recently to make the whole system safer, and I am hoping that the new Bill will do that, but have the Government got as far as being able to persuade the London Fire Brigade, for example, to withdraw its ban, or recommended ban, on scooter batteries on trains and things like that? In other words, are they happy that the new regulations will enable people to use these things safely wherever they want to go?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I do not know the answer to that specifically. My instinct is that there needs to be a policy of “safety first” on issues such as the London Underground, but we may well get those standards to a high enough level. I was very interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about passports for batteries. There may be schemes like that that we could adopt. I do not know the answer, but it is a very good point that I think we can pursue outside this Chamber.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Winston for delivering an interesting lesson on the science and chemistry behind these products: I know that we all learned from it. I reassure him that the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will allow for changes to labelling to ensure that proper details are updated and safety information on products is made clear.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that helpful point. Does that mean that there is a possibility that the chemistry might be labelled? If we could actually teach people a bit more about the chemistry, it would do no harm. Also, of course, we are dealing with products that are going to become scarcer and scarcer and which will be thrown away, or not recycled. There is a public lesson that is rather more important than the average labelling that we see on many foodstuffs, for example.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

In fact, I am going to come on to the point about the availability of lithium, so bear with me for a second. I reassure the noble Lord that we are taking greater education very seriously, and we will be running more consumer campaigns. The composition of the products might be included in that. I recognise, however, that more can be done.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Winston, made a point about the new technology implications of this. I assure them that the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will allow us to regulate for developments of innovation and technology in UK energy going forward, because there are new issues that a number of noble Lords have raised. It will enable powers to change the regulations, to future-proof full technological advancements.

To noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Howell, and my noble friend Lord Winston, I say that at the moment lithium-ion batteries are the most efficient way of powering vehicles; we should not lose sight of that. We will, however, continue to keep the mining of critical minerals and their use in our green technology under review. We have to do that because, as my noble friend quite rightly said, if we do not, we are in danger of scarcity on these issues. We have to keep moving forward. There is not an endless supply of these minerals, so we have to make sure that those in circulation are protected and properly recycled.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley made a point about battery safety being a wider issue and gave some very vivid examples of why that was the case. I assure him that we continue to liaise with the Department for Transport on these issues. Similarly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised an important point about wheelchair travel. She mentioned the issue of wheelchair passports, which was an interesting conversation. I assure her that we will continue to liaise with departmental Ministers across the board, including the Disability Ministers, because we need to get this issue sorted.

I have spoken a lot about product safety, but I am aware that the noble Lord’s Bill goes further in scope, so I will now turn to battery energy storage systems, which are also covered by the Bill. The flexibility offered by grid-scale lithium-ion batteries will play a vital role in the decarbonisation of the grid, enabling Britain to balance the system at lower cost while maximising the efficiency of intermittent low-carbon generators such as wind and solar—a point the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, quite rightly made.

The Government agree with the intent of having robust measures in place to manage the risks associated with facilities that involve the use of large numbers of lithium-ion batteries. In terms of the proposals in this Bill, powers already exist under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 to bring new sectors and pollution sources in scope of the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2016. Similarly, the Government do not believe currently that there is a need for additional statutory consultees on planning applications for standalone battery energy storage systems. However, my officials continue to work closely with the industry-led electricity storage health and safety governance group to ensure that a robust health and safety standards framework is maintained.

A number of noble Lords talked about disposal. The Government are deeply saddened at the recent increase in the number of fires at waste treatment facilities caused by batteries. We are committed to cracking down on waste as we move towards a circular economy where we keep our resources in use for longer and reduce waste. The existing producer responsibility scheme for batteries and waste electricals makes producers responsible for the cost of end-of-life treatment.

Under the existing legislation, it is already mandatory for all batteries placed on the market in the UK to be clearly marked with the crossed-out wheeled bin symbol. This symbol indicates that batteries should not be disposed of by throwing them in the bin. This symbol is also mandatory on electrical products containing batteries. Existing legislation also requires those selling batteries to provide a means to take back waste batteries —for example, the waste battery collection bins at supermarkets, which many noble Lords will be familiar with. Similarly, sellers of disposable vapes, which were mentioned earlier, are now required to provide take-back of waste vapes. Producers of industrial batteries, including e-bike and e-scooter batteries, must take back waste batteries free of charge on request. This means that a shop selling e-bikes, such as Halfords, must take back a waste e-bike battery if asked to do so by the owner of that battery.

There are also existing public awareness campaigns such as the HypnoCat Recycle Your Electricals campaign, funded by industry to educate the public on safe battery disposal. Ministers are reviewing proposals to consult on reforms to UK battery regulations before setting out the next steps. However, I agree with noble Lords that we need to find more imaginative ways to help consumers dispose of batteries more conveniently and in greater numbers than is currently the case.

In summary, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for the debate that this Bill has enabled. As I have laid out, my department is already working across government to identify the key aspects of lithium-ion battery safety and has taken action where needed. The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will soon be debated by your Lordships’ House, will enable us, where necessary, to make regulatory change to keep our product safety framework up to date. We are seeking to address this complex issue while ensuring that we have the evidence to help prevent further injury and loss of life. We will continue to engage with all noble Lords on these critical issues as we develop our regulatory approach.

I can of course assure the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we will continue to consult with him about his Bill, which will happen at a ministerial and official level, as necessary. I hope that the noble Lord has heard my request for him to consider withdrawing this Bill and I look forward to his response.

Online Safety Legislation: Abuse on Social Media

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ability of current online safety legislation to regulate abuse, including racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and sectarianism, on social media platforms.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we take these issues very seriously. The Online Safety Act will tackle illegal abuse, protect children and empower users. Regulated providers, including social media companies, must implement systems to reduce the risk that their services are used for illegal activity, including illegal abuse. Under the Act, stirring up hatred is a priority offence, requiring providers to proactively combat illegal racism, Islamophobia, homophobia and sectarianism.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her detailed Answer. What consideration have the Government given to the flourishing of hate content on smaller online platforms, which they have the power to regulate under the highest tier of regulation: category 1 under Schedule 11 to the Online Safety Act? Are the Government minded to reject Ofcom’s advice not to use the powers available to them under the Act to do so?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we share my noble friend’s concern about the flourishing of hate crime on these sites and particularly on smaller online platforms. The Secretary of State for DSIT is carefully considering Ofcom’s categorisation recommendations and will make regulations as soon as reasonably practical. He can decide to proceed with Ofcom’s advice or divert from it. If the latter approach is taken, a statement must be published explaining why.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it was reported today that the United States, the EU and the UK are all expected to sign the Council of Europe’s convention on AI, which emphasises human rights and democratic values in its approach to the regulation of public and private sector systems. The convention, which is legally enforceable, requires signatories to be accountable for any harmful or discriminatory outcomes of AI systems and for victims of AI-related rights violations to have legal recourse. In addition to the offence of sharing, is now not the time to consider criminalising the creation of sexualised deepfake images without consent? The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, called for this on 13 February in your Lordships’ House, and described deepfake abuse, which is almost wholly misogynistic and now epidemic. It is the new frontier of violence against women.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend will know that, in addition to the implementation of the Online Safety Act, we already have plans to bring forward a new data Bill where some of these issues can be debated. We also have ambitions to bring forward a further piece of AI legislation, on which we will have the opportunity to talk about those issues in more detail. He is absolutely right: these are serious issues. They were debated at length during the passage of the previous data protection Bill, and we hope to return to them again.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that Ofcom is letting down the public? What we need is to review the role of Ofcom and other regulators and, if they are failing to do their duties for the public, they should be removed from office.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, Ofcom has a very wide-ranging and serious set of responsibilities. There is no suggestion that it is not carrying out its responsibilities in the run-up to the implementation of the Online Safety Act. We are working very closely with Ofcom and believe that it will carry out those additional functions that we have given it with proper scrutiny and to high standards. Yes, there is a case for looking at all regulators; we have a debate on this on Monday in the House, and I am looking forward to that, but that is a wider issue. For the moment, we have to give Ofcom all the support that we can in implementing a very difficult set of regulations.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, the crafting of the Online Safety Act was fraught with exceptions, exclusions and loopholes, the most egregious of which is that regulated companies get safe harbour if they comply with Ofcom’s codes, but Ofcom has provided us with codes that have huge gaps in known harms. What plans do the Government have to fulfil their election promise to strengthen the OSA by ensuring that it protects all children effectively, even the very young, and that it has adequate mechanisms to act swiftly in a crisis, or with an evolving new risk, to stop abuse being whipped up algorithmically and directed at minority groups?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that we are in danger of downplaying the significance of the Online Safety Act. It is a trail-blazing Act; the noble Baroness was very much involved in it. Our priority has to be to get that Act implemented. Under it, all user-to-user services and search providers, regardless of size, will have to take swift and effective action against illegal content, including criminal online abuse and posts of a sexual nature. We should get behind Ofcom and the Online Safety Act, and we will then obviously have to keep that Act under review, but we have the tools to do that.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that digital literacy is crucial, so that people are better able to identify often damaging misinformation and fake news? What is the Government’s strategy in that respect?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. Part of Ofcom’s responsibility is to heighten the role of media literacy. We are talking to the Department for Education, and obviously there is a role for schools to be involved in all this—but parents also have to take responsibility for their children, and for their access to these sites. The media literacy role that we have to play goes right throughout society; it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure that people understand, when they access these sites, what they are able to see and how all that can be moderated. Again, the social media companies have a particular responsibility to play in all that. We expect them to uphold their terms of service to make sure that children cannot access the sites that are inappropriate, and we will work with them to make sure that this happens.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I hope that the Government will look with sympathy at the Private Member’s Bill being brought forward by my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, which the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, mentioned. It deals with very important issues.

The Minister will be aware of the arrest of Pavel Durov in France—the founder and chief executive of the messaging application Telegram. I do not expect her to be able to comment on an ongoing investigation, but can she tell your Lordships’ House whether His Majesty’s Government have had any contact with the Government of France in relation to this matter and whether British law enforcement agencies have been involved in the investigation? I appreciate that she may need to write after checking with them.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord for all the work that he did in getting the Online Safety Act on to the statute book. With regard to Telegram, obviously we cannot comment on issues in another country’s jurisdiction. We have regular contact with all friendly nations dealing with those issues. I cannot comment on whether there has been specific dialogue on the issue of Telegram, but we would normally expect that to be something for the French Government to deal with.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, I recognise absolutely the urgency and importance of legislation in this area, but does the Minister agree that equally important is the work of tackling the prejudice that lies behind online abuse, and the important role therefore of intermediate institutions such as community groups and faith groups in tackling prejudice? What are the Government doing to support those groups in that work?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. I think that we were all pleased with the community reaction to the riots. It was very heartening to see that people were not prepared to have those abhorrent views coming to the fore in their communities. We need to do more to encourage that community response, and we need to work with all of civil society, including the Church, to make sure that happens. We also need to make sure that the police, as they play a community role, make clear what is illegal and take action when actions in a locality are illegal. This is a much broader issue about civil society, and I agree with him.