Contribution
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, particularly as chair of 5Rights and as adviser to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford. I wholeheartedly agree with both the previous speakers, and in fact, they have put the case so forcefully that I hope that the Government are listening.
I wanted to use my time to speak about the gap between the Act that we saw pass through this House and the outcome. What worries me the most is how we should understand the purpose of an Act of Parliament and the hierarchy of the instructions it contains. I ask this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, have already said, the Government of the day, with the express support of Members of this House, including the Front Bench of the Labour Party, agreed that categorisation would be a question of risk or size, not simply size. That was the decision of the House, it was supported in the other place, and it is in the text of the Act. So, it would be useful to understand, in the view of His Majesty’s Government, whether the text of an Act and, separately, a statement made by a Minister from the Dispatch Box, have any authority. If they do, I cannot understand how Ofcom is allowed to overturn that, or how the Secretary of State, without taking action to amend the Act, has been able to allow it to do so.
It is essential to get a clear answer from the Minister about the status of the text of the Act, because this is a pattern of behaviour where the regulator and government appear to be cherry-picking which bits of the Online Safety Act are convenient and ignoring those they consider too difficult, too disruptive, or—I really hope not—too onerous for tech companies. Ofcom has similarly determined not to observe the provisions in the OSA about functionalities contained throughout the Act; for example, at Sections 9(5), 10(4) and 11(6)—I could go on; on extended use, at Section 11(6)(f); and on the requirement to consider the needs of children in different age groups which, like functionalities, run through the Act like a golden thread.
Ofcom’s own illegal harms register risk management guidance states that
“certain ‘functionalities’ stand out as posing particular risks because of the prominent role they appear to play in the spread of illegal content and the commission and facilitation of … offences”.
Ofcom then says its regulatory framework is intended to ensure service providers put in place safeguards to manage the risks posed by functionalities. It lists end-to-end encryption, pseudonymity and anonymity, live-streaming, content recommender systems, and, quite rightly, generative AI, all as functionality that it considers to be high risk. Specifically in relation to grooming, functionalities Ofcom considers risky include network expansion prompts, direct messaging, connection lists and automated information displays.
Despite acknowledgement that functionalities create heightened risk, a clear statement that addressing risk forms part of its regulatory duties, and the clearly expressed intent of Parliament and the wording of the Act, Ofcom has failed to comprehensively address functionalities both in the published illegal harms code and the draft children’s code, and it has chosen to overrule Parliament by ignoring the requirement in Schedule 11 to consider functionalities in determining which services should be designated as category 1 services.
Meanwhile, paragraph 4(a)(vii) of Schedule 4 is crystal clear in its objective of the Act that user-to-user services
“be designed and operated in such a way that … the different needs of children at different ages are taken into account”.
Ofcom has chosen to ignore that. Volume 5 of its draft children’s code says
“our proposals focus at this stage on setting the expectation of protections for all children under the age of 18”.
Any child, any parent and anyone who has spent time with children knows that five and 15 are not the same. The assertion from Ofcom in its narrative about the children’s code is blinding in its stupidity. If common sense cannot prevail, perhaps 100 years or more of child development study that sets out the ages and stages by which children can be expected to have the emotional and intellectual capacity to understand something could inform the regulator—and similarly, the age and stage by which we cannot expect a child to understand or have the intellectual capacity to deal with something.
The whole basis of child protection is that we should support the children on their journey from dependence to autonomy because we know that they do not have the capacity to do it for themselves in all contexts, because of the vulnerabilities associated with ages and development stages. Ofcom knows that the Act says that it should reflect this but somehow feels empowered to ignore or overrule the will of Parliament and, just as with categorisation, the Government appear to condone it.