UK Parliament / Open data

Online Safety Bill

Well, my Lords, it has been a very good debate, and we should be grateful for that. In some senses, I should bank that; we have got ourselves off to a good start for the subsequent debates and discussions that we will have on the nearly 310 amendments that we must get through before the end of the process that we have set out on.

However, let us pause for a second. I very much appreciated the response, not least because it was very sharp and very focused on the amendment. It would have been tempting to go wider and wider, and I am sure that the Minister had that in mind at some point, but he has not done that. The first substantial point that he made seemed to be a one-pager about what this Bill is about. Suitably edited and brought down to

manageable size, it would fit quite well into the Bill. I am therefore a bit puzzled as to why he cannot make the jump, intellectually or otherwise, from having that written for him and presumably working on it late at night with candles so that it was perfect—because it was pretty good; I will read it very carefully in Hansard, but it seemed to say everything that I wanted to say and covered most of the points that everybody else thought of to say, in a way that would provide clarity for those seeking it.

The issue we are left with was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, in her very perceptive remarks. Have we got this pointing in the right direction? We should think about it as a way for the Government to get out of this slightly ridiculous shorthand of the safest place to be online, to a statement to themselves about what they are trying to do, rather than an instruction to Ofcom—because that is where it gets difficult and causes problems with the later stages. This is really Parliament and government agreeing to say this, in print, rather than just through reading Hansard. That then reaches back to where my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is, and it helps the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, with her very good point, that this will not work if people do not even bother to get through the first page.

6.45 pm

My noble friend Lord Knight mentioned the first page and the opening statement, which the Minister nearly touched on himself in his excellent speech but did not quite. This is a Bill to:

“Make provision for and in connection with the regulation by OFCOM of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes”.

Really? We can do better than that. Yes, of course there are Explanatory Notes, but it is the Bill that matters and the Bill that Parliament will sign on to, and there is a gap. I understand the downside of this and am not in any sense trying to force us down a road which will lead to unfortunate consequences—although probably not the same ones as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about. However, seven deadly sins stalk us as we go down this road. Surely between now and the end of Committee we can find a package that would work and cover us. I will leave it there at this stage because we have talked at length. It has been a very good debate. It is my birthday and I want to go and celebrate, but the Minister did not share the real killer, which is that it is my wedding anniversary; I must go.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
829 cc727-8 
Session
2022-23
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top