Motion A Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay That this House do
not insist on its Amendment 17 and do agree with the Commons in
their Amendments 17A and 17B in lieu. 17A: Clause 10, page 9, line
30, leave out paragraph (e) and insert— “(e) the extent to which
the design of the service, in particular its functionalities,
affects the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by
children, identifying and assessing those functionalities that
present...Request free trial
Motion A
Moved by
of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17 and do agree
with the Commons in their Amendments 17A and 17B in lieu.
17A: Clause 10, page 9, line 30, leave out paragraph (e) and
insert—
“(e) the extent to which the design of the service, in particular
its functionalities, affects the level of risk of harm that might
be suffered by children, identifying and assessing those
functionalities that present higher levels of risk, including
functionalities—
(i) enabling adults to search for other users of the service
(including children), or
(ii) enabling adults to contact other users (including children)
by means of the service;”
17B: Clause 10, page 9, line 38, after “used,” insert “including
functionalities or other features of the service that affect how
much children use the service (for example a feature that enables
content to play automatically),”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Culture, Media and Sport ( of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A and, with the leave of the
House, I shall also speak to Motions B to H.
I am pleased to say that the amendments made in your Lordships’
House to strengthen the Bill’s provisions were accepted in
another place. His Majesty’s Government presented a number of
amendments in lieu of changes proposed by noble Lords, which are
before your Lordships today.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for her
continued engagement on the issue of small but high-risk
platforms. The Government were happy to accept her proposed
changes to the rules for determining the conditions that
establish which services will be designated as category 1 or 2B
services. In making the regulations, the Secretary of State will
now have the discretion to decide whether to set a threshold
based on either the number of users or the functionalities
offered, or on both factors. Previously, the threshold had to be
based on a combination of both.
It remains the expectation that services will be designated as
category 1 services only where it is appropriate to do so, to
ensure that the regime remains proportionate. We do not, for
example, expect to apply these duties to large companies with
very limited functionalities. This change, however, provides
greater flexibility to bring smaller services with particular
functionalities into scope of category 1 duties, should it be
necessary to do so. As a result of this amendment, we have also
made a small change to Clause 98—the emerging services list—to
ensure that it makes operational sense. Before my noble friend’s
amendment, a service would be placed on the emerging services
list if it met the functionality condition and 75% of the user
number threshold. Under the clause as amended, a service could be
designated as category 1 without meeting both a functionality and
a user condition. Without this change, Ofcom would, in such an
instance, be required to list only services which meet the 75%
condition.
We have heard from both Houses about the importance of ensuring
that technology platforms are held to account for the impact of
their design choices on children’s safety. We agree and the
amendments we proposed in another place make it absolutely clear
that providers must assess the impact of their design choices on
the risk of harm to children, and that they deliver robust
protections for children on all areas of their service. I thank
in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lords,
and , my noble friend Lady
Harding of Winscombe and the right reverend Prelate the for their hard work to
find an acceptable way forward. I also thank Sir MP for his helpful
contributions to this endeavour.
Noble Lords will remember that an amendment from the noble
Baroness, Lady Merron, sought to require the Secretary of State
to review certain offences relating to animals and, depending on
the outcome of that review, to list these as priority offences.
To accelerate protections in this important area, the Government
have tabled an amendment in lieu listing Section 4(1) of the
Animal Welfare Act 2006 as a priority offence. This will mean
that users can be protected from animal torture material more
swiftly. Officials at the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs have worked closely with the RSPCA and are
confident that the Section 4 offence, unnecessary suffering of an
animal, will capture a broad swathe of illegal activity. Adding
this offence to Schedule 7 will also mean that linked inchoate
offences, such as encouraging or assisting this behaviour, are
captured by the illegal content duties. I am grateful to the
noble Baroness for raising this matter, for her discussions on
them with my noble friend and for her support for the
amendment we are making in lieu.
To ensure the speedy implementation of the Bill’s regime, we have
added Clauses 116 to 118, which relate to the disclosure of
information by Ofcom, and Clauses 170 and 171, which relate to
super-complaints, to the provisions to be commenced immediately
on Royal Assent. These changes will allow Ofcom and the
Government to hold the necessary consultations as quickly as
possible after Royal Assent. As noble Lords know, the intention
of the Bill is to make the UK the safest place in the world to be
online, particularly for children. I firmly believe that the Bill
before your Lordships today will do that, strengthened by the
changes made in this House and by the collaborative approach that
has been shown, not just in all quarters of this Chamber but
between both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very warmly for his introduction
today. I shall speak in support of Motions A to H inclusive. Yes,
I am very glad that we have agreement at this final milestone of
the Bill before Royal Assent. I pay tribute to the Minister and
his colleagues, to the Secretary of State, to the noble
Baronesses, Lady Morgan, Lady Kidron and Lady Merron, who have
brought us to this point with their persistence over issues such
as functionalities, categorisation and animal cruelty.
This is not the time for rehearsing any reservations about the
Bill. The Bill must succeed and implementation must take place
swiftly. So, with many thanks to the very many, both inside and
outside this House, who have worked so hard on the Bill for such
a long period, we on these Benches wish the Bill every possible
success. He is in his place, so I can say that it is over to the
noble Lord, Lord Grade, and his colleagues at Ofcom, in whom we
all have a great deal of confidence.
(CB)
My Lords, I shall contribute briefly from these Benches because
it is important for us all to be aware of just how much people
outside have been watching the progress of the Bill. Indeed,
today in the Public Gallery we have some bereaved parents who
have suffered at the hands of things that have come up on the
internet. We have been very privileged, all the way through the
Bill, to be able to hear from people who have been victims and
who have genuinely wanted to improve things for others and avoid
other problems. The collaborative nature with which everyone has
approached the Bill has, we hope, achieved those goals for
everyone.
We all need to wish the noble Lord, Lord Grade, good luck and all
the best as he takes on an incredibly important scrutiny role. I
am sure that in years to come we will be looking at
post-legislative scrutiny. In the meantime, I shall not name
everybody, apart from putting the Minister in prime position; I
thank him and everyone for having worked so hard, because I hear
from outside that that work is greatly appreciated.
(Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his swift and concise
introduction, which very carefully covered the ground without
raising any issues that we have to respond to directly. I am
grateful for that as well.
The noble Lord, , was his usual self. The
only thing that I missed, of course, was the quotation that I was
sure he was going to give from the pre-legislative scrutiny
report on the Bill, which has been his constant prompt. I also
think that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was very right to
remind us of those outside the House who we must remember as we
reach the end of this stage.
Strangely, although we are at the momentous point of allowing
this Bill to go forward for Royal Assent, I find that there is
actually very little that needs to be said. In fact, everything
has been said by many people over the period; trying to make any
additional points would be meretricious persiflage. So I will
make two brief points to wind up this debate.
First, is it not odd to reflect on the fact that this historic
Parliament, with all our archaic rules and traditions, has the
capacity to deal with a Bill that is regulating a technology
which most of us have difficulty in comprehending, let alone
keeping up with? However, we have done a very good job and, as a
result, I echo the words that have already been said; I think the
internet will now be a much safer place for children to enjoy and
explore, and the public interest will be well served by this
Bill, even though we accept that it is likely to only be the
first of a number of Bills that will be needed in the years to
come.
Secondly, I have been reflecting on the offer I made to the
Government at Second Reading, challenging them to work together
with the whole House to get the best Bill that we could out of
what the Commons had presented to us. That of course could have
turned out to be a slightly pointless gesture if nobody had
responded positively—but they did. I particularly thank the
Minister and the Bill team for rising to the challenge. There
were problems initially, but we got there in the end.
More widely, there was, I know, a worry that committing to
working together would actually stifle debate and somehow limit
our crucial role of scrutiny. But actually I think it had the
opposite effect. Some of the debates we had in Committee, from
across the House, were of the highest standard, and opened up
issues which needed to be resolved. People listened to each other
and responded as the debate progressed. The discussion extended
to the other place. It is very good to see Sir here; he has played a
considerable role in resolving the final points.
It will not work for all Bills, but if the politics can be
ignored, or at least put aside, it seems to make it easier to get
at the issues that need to be debated in the round. In suggesting
this approach, I think we may have found a way of getting the
best out of our House —something that does not always occur. I
hope that lesson can be listened to by all groups and
parties.
For myself, participating in this Bill and the pre-legislative
scrutiny committee which preceded it has been a terrific
experience. Sadly, a lot of people who contributed to our
discussions over that period cannot be here today, but I hope
they read this speech in Hansard, because I want to end by
thanking them, and those here today, for being part of this whole
process. We support the amendments before the House today and
wish good luck to the noble Lord, Lord Grade.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very conscious that this is not the end of the
road. As noble Lords have rightly pointed out in wishing the Bill
well, attention now moves very swiftly to Ofcom, under the able
chairmanship of the noble Lord, , who has
participated, albeit silently, in our proceedings before, and to
the team of officials who stand ready to implement this swiftly.
The Bill benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny. A number of
noble Lords who have spoken throughout our deliberations took
part in the Joint Committee of both Houses which did that. It
will also benefit from post-legislative scrutiny, through the
Secretary of State’s review, which will take place between two
and five years after Royal Assent. I know that the noble Lords
who have worked so hard on this Bill for many years will be
watching it closely as it becomes an Act of Parliament, to ensure
that it delivers what we all want it to.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, reminded us of the challenge he
set us at Second Reading: to minimise the votes in dissent and to
deliver this Bill without pushing anything to ping-pong. I think
I was not the only one in the Chamber who was sceptical about our
ability to do so, but it is thanks to the collaborative approach
and the tone that he has set that we have been able to do that.
That is a credit to everybody involved.
3.45pm
I am conscious that the noble Lord is just one of many people in
both Houses who have followed the Bill very closely since it was
first published in draft in May 2021, and indeed since the White
Paper was published in April 2019. No shortage of people in both
Houses have devoted many hours to considering and improving it,
informed of course by the discussions and correspondence they
have had with countless people from beyond your Lordships’ House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is right to draw our attention
to those watching, both here and at home, and who have high hopes
for the Bill. No shortage of Ministers have played its part in
listening to those representations and steering the Bill through
Parliament. It is a privilege to be the last one to do so, to
have the final word and to say, for one last time, that I beg to
move.
Motion A agreed.
Motion B
Moved by
of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 20, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 20A.
20A: Because the Bill already makes sufficient provision
requiring providers of user-to-user- services to mitigate the
impact of harm to children online.
Motion C
Moved by
of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 22A.
22A: Because the Bill already makes sufficient provision
requiring providers of user-to-user- services to mitigate the
impact of harm to children online.
Motion D
Moved by
of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 81 and do agree
with the Commons in their Amendments 81A, 81B and 81C in
lieu.
81A: Clause 25, page 26, line 31, leave out paragraph (c) and
insert—
“(c) the extent to which the design of the service, in particular
its functionalities, affects the level of risk of harm that might
be suffered by children, identifying and assessing those
functionalities that present higher levels of risk, including a
functionality that makes suggestions relating to users’ search
requests (predictive search functionality);”
81B: Clause 25, page 26, line 33, at end insert—
“(ca) the different ways in which the service is used, including
functionalities or other features of the service that affect how
much children use the service, and the impact of such use on the
level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children;”
81C: Clause 25, page 26, line 35, leave out “(c)” and insert
“(ca)”
Motion E
Moved by
of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 148 and do agree
with the Commons in their Amendment 148A in lieu.
148A: Page 205, line 36, at end insert—
“Animal welfare
32A An offence under section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006
(unnecessary suffering of an animal).”
Motion F
Moved by
of Whitley Bay
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment
182A.
182A (as an amendment to Amendment 182): Line 1, leave out
““presented by content”” and insert ““content on””
Motion G
Moved by
of Whitley Bay
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments
349A and 349B.
349A (as an amendment to Amendment 349): Line 20, at end
insert—
“(qa) sections 104 to 106;”
349B (as an amendment to Amendment 349): Line 24, at end
insert—
“(ta) sections 150 and 151;”
Motion H
Moved by
of Whitley Bay
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments
391A and 391B.
391A (as an amendment to Amendment 391): Line 1, after ““and”
insert “at least one specified condition about”
391B: Schedule 11, page 78, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) If the regulations under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11
specify that a service meets the Category 1 threshold conditions
if any one condition about number of users or functionality is
met (as mentioned in paragraph 1(4)(a) of that Schedule)—
(a) subsection (2) applies as if paragraph (b) were omitted,
and
(b) subsections (3) and (7) apply as if the reference to the
conditions in subsection (2) were to the condition in subsection
(2)(a).”
Motions B to H agreed.
|
