To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to restrict the impact of foreign-owned social media companies upon UK democratic politics and public order.
My Lords, we are committed to the implementation and integrity of our democracy, but we cannot be complacent. It is a collective endeavour to protect it against threats and ensure that it remains robust. The Online Safety Act creates a new regulatory regime for online platforms and search services, with new duties to act to protect UK users from harm in both the design and operation of their services. These duties apply to overseas services with links to the UK and include offences relating to public order and terrorism, as well as illegal foreign interference that undermines our democratic politics.
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, not least on her birthday. To reflect the previous Question, does she agree that free speech is given constitutional protection in this country and elsewhere in the Council of Europe by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? However, even in the US—famously, the land of the first amendment—free speech does not extend to, for example, the malicious and deliberate spreading of incendiary libels and the incitement of public disorder.
My Lords, free speech is crucial, but it brings with it responsibility. I think we would all say that, although people have no right not to be offended, it is important that any comments made, whether on social media or in any other form of media, are factual, accurate and well-informed. It strikes me that on issues that are contentious we should perhaps lower the temperature, not the tone.
The Leader of the House may be aware that, in the latest incident, Elon Musk has responded to Ed Davey’s criticism in language that Tommy Robinson might well use but, I am sure, Nigel Farage would disapprove of. It is important to have a sense of commonality in public debate. A public broadcasting network on which there can be a national conversation becomes all the more important when misinformation is being put into this country by social media outfits abroad. Can the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will do their best to defend and promote the BBC, which all public opinion polls show is the most trusted source of news for the largest proportion of our population?
My Lords, I am a great defender of the BBC, not least for its fantastic production of “Wolf Hall”. If we look back through history, we find that misinformation has caused enormous chaos time and again. It is important that all of us see truth, accuracy and decency as a collective responsibility, and that debate is conducted in a way that is conducive to providing information and helping people to understand the issues. I repeat that we should lower the temperature on contentious issues. It seems that some people are sometimes too interested in lowering the tone of the debate, not the temperature.
My Lords, the first point is to ensure that we bring the Online Safety Act into force in full. That is a foundation on which we can build. It is fairly new legislation that the last Government brought in, which we supported. I hope the Act helps and shows providers the responsibilities they have to ensure that there is a proper debate with good and accurate information. Disinformation is not a new issue, but it is a serious one, because information can travel around the world far faster than it ever has before. Let us see how the Online Safety Act works, make sure that it does and use it as a foundation to build on.
My Lords, has my noble friend the Leader seen that, just in the last couple of hours, there has been a report from the United States that the founder of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, has announced his intention to reduce fact-checking on his platforms and to move the way in which those platforms operate closer to the way that X, formerly known as Twitter, now operates? I think most people in this House know what that means. Does she agree that, in those circumstances, it is more important than it has ever been for safeguarding within our national environment to be as strong as it can possibly be?
The noble Baroness makes an important point about fact-checking. I think all platforms will want to ensure their information is as accurate as possible. In fact, the Meta decision does not apply to this country; it applies only to the US and it does not remove fact-checking in Europe, which will remain.
My Lords, does the Leader of the House think it is time that we looked at the rules regarding foreign contributors to political parties, albeit through domestic companies which they may own, and that we should also perhaps tell our nearest and dearest ally, the Americans, that just as we supported them in their resentment of Russian interference in their elections, so also we should expect American citizens not to interfere in our political process?
The noble Lord makes a really important point about foreign interference, whether financial or otherwise, in other countries’ democracy. All of us in this country value our democracy and want it to remain robust. The issue of ensuring not just that donations to political parties are legal under the current rules but that the rules are fit for purpose is one that we should take very seriously.
My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader agree that although free speech can be extremely offensive at times, the dividing line is the context in which it occurs, and that the rules governing hate speech in this country—and criminalisation of speech—must always take into account that context? It is the context that determines whether that speech will have further very undesirable outcomes.
If a matter appears before the courts regarding hate speech, I think that would be taken into account. The context is very important. We have to remember that we should choose our words carefully when we speak, whether that is in public or online. The days when you had a conversation in the pub and went home and everyone had forgotten about it are gone; now it seems that everything is recorded and amplified at speed around the world. There are people who are vulnerable and people who have malign intent. These things happen in real time and people can face real dangers from people not choosing their words carefully.
My Lords, do the Government agree that widespread online media literacy is by far the best defence against misinformation and disinformation online and that, consequently, the more resilient we become to these harms, the less our need to restrict freedom of expression online? If so, could the Minister briefly summarise the Government’s planned approach to drive up online media literacy?
I am not sure that I really understand the noble Viscount’s point. To be media-literate or social media-literate does not stop somebody making inaccurate or offensive comments. The key issue is that we should not say that different rules apply to people on social media. We should look to have public discourse, which is the responsibility of us all, to be at all times courteous and factual, and to conduct debate properly. That is not to say people cannot disagree or debate, or even be offensive. We cannot have what is almost incitement, and people not worrying about what the truth is and what is accurate if it gets a reaction. Sometimes too much of what is being said on social media is designed to get a reaction rather than to help inform people.
My Lords, the victims of many of the actions that have led to this tsunami of bad words are being revictimised by that sort of language and the way people are talking. I work with many of them—with small women’s groups, particularly in the north, around Doncaster, Rotherham and Newcastle, that are working still with victims who have been abused and violently treated. Is it not time that all of us said that our main concern has to be for them, and to be working to make sure that social media is not a means of abusing and exploiting vulnerable women?