Asked by Baroness Kidron To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light
of the Prevention of Future Deaths Report published at the
conclusion of the Molly Russell inquest, what plans they have to
bring forward the Online Safety Bill in sufficient time to ensure
its passage during this parliamentary Session. Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question of which I have
given private notice, I declare my interests, particularly as
founder and...Request free trial
Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the Prevention of
Future Deaths Report published at the conclusion of the Molly
Russell inquest, what plans they have to bring forward the Online
Safety Bill in sufficient time to ensure its passage during this
parliamentary Session.
(CB)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question of which I have
given private notice, I declare my interests, particularly as
founder and chair of 5Rights Foundation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport ( of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the arrangement of parliamentary business is, as the
noble Baroness will appreciate, a matter for business managers
through the usual channels. However, the Bill remains a priority.
The Secretary of State committed on 20 October to bringing it
back to Parliament shortly. We will continue to work with noble
Lords, Members in another place and others on the passage of this
important legislation.
(CB)
I thank the Minister for that reply and am happy to see him back
in his place. However, after four years of waiting, I am afraid
his Answer was not quite good enough.
Coroner Walker’s landmark judgment that Molly Russell died after
suffering negative effects of online content, and his Prevention
of Future Deaths Report, deserve to be met with action. That
action should be finally bringing forward the Online Safety Bill.
Molly Russell died five years ago, the same five years in which
we have been working on the Online Safety Bill, in the absence of
which children suffer an aggressive bombardment of material that
valorises self-harm, body dysmorphia, violent porn and, of
course, suicide— real harms to real children. Does the Minister
agree that it is time to stop this suffering and commit to
bringing the Bill to this House before the end of this month,
which is the date by which we have been told we need it to ensure
correct scrutiny and its passage in this Session?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this important legislation has indeed been a long time
coming. I was a special adviser in the Home Office when it was
first proposed and was in Downing Street when it was first put in
the Conservative manifesto in 2017. Like the noble Baroness, I am
very keen to see it in your Lordships’ House so that it can be
properly scrutinised, so that we can deliver the protections that
we all want to see for children and vulnerable people. The noble
Baroness is tireless in her defence of these people. She served
excellently on the Joint Committee, which has already looked at
the Bill. Like her, I am very keen to get it before your
Lordships’ House so that we can continue.
(Con)
My Lords, I register an interest as an adviser to Common Sense
Media. I am delighted to see my noble friend the Minister in his
place, although I am sad to see that his predecessor has lost his
place. Anyway, he is in and he is out.
I regard the Online Safety Bill as the end of the beginning, not
the beginning of the end. Mindful that the excellent chair of
Ofcom is in the Chamber, I say this: is it not time to get on,
expedite the Bill and allow Ofcom, finally, to start to regulate
these platforms and social media sites? We have seen Elon Musk
taking over Twitter—we need some action now. The Bill is
effectively being scrutinised in the other place, and it is ready
to come here. Let us get on with it.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right to point to the noble Lord, , as one of many
voices in your Lordships’ House who will help us in the important
scrutiny of this Bill. We are very keen for that to take place.
Of course, the other place has to finish its scrutiny before this
happens. Once it has done that, we can debate it here.
(Lab)
My Lords, business managers will be listening. I hope they will
make sure that we are given sufficient time in this House to give
proper scrutiny to a highly complex Bill.
If part of the compromises that may have been made in the
department are to remove aspects of the Bill, particularly around
“legal but harmful”, could the Minister also consider—and have
conversations across government—about finding time in a
subsequent legislative Session for us to finish the job if the
Bill that he brings to this House does not do a proper job?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
Regarding future legislative Sessions, I will restrict myself to
the debate on the current one. The noble Lord is right: the
business managers will have heard how anxious your Lordships’
House is to see the Bill and begin its scrutiny. The decision
will be communicated in the usual way.
(CB)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that he, the Minister
here and the Minister in the other place, will take advice from
all the NGOs and other expert groups that have been working on
this crucial issue for so long?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I absolutely can. Ministers have had meetings with such groups
and officials have continued to have those meetings, even with
the change of Ministers in recent weeks. These have informed the
scrutiny and improvement of the Bill to date.
(LD)
My Lords, when I sat on the Puttnam commission 20 years ago,
there was some excuse for not taking action for the real harms
being caused on the internet. There is no such excuse now, as has
been indicated. This House and the other place have been working
on this for five years. The regulators are very well tooled up
and ready to move. It is inexcusable, and there will be no excuse
for leaving things undone due to backroom deals at the last
minute. I do not doubt the Minister’s integrity on this but there
must be no deals by No. 10 to weaken the Bill at this point;
there is too much at stake. I do not think the Government will be
forgiven if they renege on past promises to deliver a Bill worthy
of the challenges that we are facing.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right. Members of your Lordships’ House
and another place will be vigilant. The Bill is being laid before
Parliament so that noble Lords and Members in another place can
see what is being proposed and inform the debate on it.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the tragic inquest on
Molly Russell illustrated that the greatest crime of the 21st
century has been the progressive destruction of childhood
innocence? Will he therefore talk to business managers to ensure
that a carry-over into the next Session happens if it is
necessary? As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, we must get the
Bill on to the statute book after thorough scrutiny in your
Lordships’ House.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The inquest into the heartbreaking death of Molly Russell
highlights the importance of holding technology companies to
account to keep their users, particularly children, safe online.
That is why we are bringing forward the Online Safety Bill, why
the strongest protections in the Bill are for children and why I
look forward to debating it in your Lordships’ House.
(Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister back to the Front Bench. His
former boss, , launched the online harms
agenda, which we on these Benches supported. Yet, three Prime
Ministers later, we are still waiting for this crucial
legislation to reach your Lordships’ House. Other noble Lords
have noted that the Bill must be completed in this Session, as it
has already been carried over. If repeated delays mean that the
Bill’s passage conflicts with plans for winding up this Session,
will the Government extend the Session to get the protections on
to the statute book or simply drop the Bill?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her words of welcome. She will
appreciate that her final point is one for business managers
rather than for me but I reiterate, having been there at the
genesis of the discussions that led to the Bill, that I am very
keen to see it in your Lordships’ House and to give it that
thorough scrutiny. It has already been well improved because of
the work of the Joint Committee of both Houses, but it needs to
come to your Lordships’ House so that we can scrutinise it
properly.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, the original aim of the Bill was to tackle harm to
children, which we can all agree on, but it has expanded
enormously and some say represents a real threat to freedom of
speech for adults. Will the Minister ensure that he not only sees
stakeholders working with those interested in online safety for
children but meets free speech organisations and civil liberty
campaigners to ensure the Bill does not become a legislative
piece of censorship?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Bill contains strong safeguards for freedom of expression. No
platforms will be required to remove legal content and all
services will need to have regard to freedom of expression when
implementing their safety duties. Of course, although Ministers
have met such groups throughout the passage of the Bill so far, I
would be very happy to continue to do so to ensure that aspect of
the Bill gets proper scrutiny too.
(Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the Bill has been
extended. One of the extensions was to financial harm caused
online. Will the Government assure us that they remain committed
to including strong measures on financial harm? This can hurt
people as much as the other forms of harm that we find
online.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The context shows the importance of preventing financial harm to
people, particularly in the current economic climate. When the
Bill comes forward from another place, it will be open to
scrutiny by noble Lords on this aspect and many others.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister obviously has a very difficult brief to
bring before your Lordships’ House. He has barely opened his
folder of notes during the course of this Question because all he
is able to say is that it is a matter for the business managers,
but is it not the case that this is a Bill about which there has
been extensive consultation? There is very broad consensus. The
only thing now holding it up is an internal row within the
Conservative Party. It is not a question of waiting for the
business managers. Could he tell his colleagues in the
Conservative Party to stop arguing and enable the Bill to be
brought forward?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Bill is being scrutinised in another place by Members of
Parliament from all parties. It is important that they complete
that work before it comes to your Lordships’ House, but it has
benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee,
which again drew on people from all parties and none. I am keen
to see that scrutiny continue in your Lordships’ House.
(CB)
Could the noble Lord suggest to business managers that if further
time is required for the Bill and is not otherwise available, it
would be available if the Government were to abandon the
ridiculous plans to bring back the Bill of Rights Bill, which the
Lord Chancellor appears keen on?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will pass the noble Lord’s message on to business managers, but
he will understand that it is not for me to respond.
The Lord
My Lords, this seems a classic example of the people we want to
protect not getting a voice. Five years’ worth of children have
been damaged because of the lack of this. Please can we and the
business managers put the children first?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
Your Lordships’ House gives voice to those voiceless victims
through the right reverend Prelate and, not least, the noble
Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has rightly asked this Question today.
I am keen for all those voices to be joined in the debate on the
Bill as soon as possible.
(Con)
To go back to one of the earlier questions about financial harms,
does my noble friend agree that one of the problems facing the
Bill is the way in which things keep getting added to it? Once
the Bill arrives in your Lordships’ House—the sooner we can get
on with scrutinising it, the better—it is important that we all
remain self-disciplined, try not to add things to it and just
focus on child safety.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend makes the sort of wise point that one would
expect from a former Leader of your Lordships’ House. I think
that is the case with any Bill that comes before Parliament. With
this one, which has benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny,
Members of both Houses have been able to look at it and wider
issues. I look forward to thorough but targeted debates when the
Bill comes forward.
(Con)
My Lords, a number of noble Lords and I were fortunate to attend
a round table organised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, with
some of the children’s charities. What we heard there, even from
my noble friend , who believes strongly in
free speech, is that when it comes to child protection there
really is no debate; there is consensus across the House. The
real challenges are some of the harms that may conflict with free
speech, for example, but also the issue of harms themselves.
Clearly, some definitions of harm suggest that some harms may
well be subjective rather than objective. How do my noble friend
the Minister and his colleagues intend to deal with some of these
subjective arguments over harms?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I pay tribute to my noble friend for his work on this Bill while
in office. I saw him at this Dispatch Box answering questions
that reflected your Lordships’ eagerness to receive it and begin
that scrutiny work. He is tempting me to stray into debates on
the Bill itself, which we will have plenty of time for when it
comes forward. As I say, the strongest protections in the Bill
are for children and nothing in the Bill is designed to harm
freedom of expression. The Bill holds those in balance, but I
know that is one area that noble Lords will want to scrutinise
during the Bill’s passage.
of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, has the noble Lord, , not precisely made the point
by pointing out that what we need to do now is talk about the
Bill? We are prevented from talking about the Bill for reasons
that may be clear to a number of your Lordships but are certainly
not clear to me. Is it not time that we get a chance to have the
discussions implied in the question from the noble Lord, ? Although Molly Russell was
the most—how can one say it? The noble Lord used the word
“heartbreaking”—example put before us recently, there have been
many others and there will be many more before the Bill gets on
to the statute book.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. There have been too many such cases,
and we want to get this legislation on to the statute book to
prevent as many of those preventable harms as we are able to. I
too want to have that debate to continue the scrutiny in your
Lordships’ House, but it is important that the other place
concludes that before we are able to do so. I hope that it will
be engaged in that very swiftly and that the Bill will soon be
before your Lordships.
|
