Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2021-01-06
Topic: Technology
Timothy Francis Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and her extremely cogent introduction. I have signed Amendment 23, which we on these Benches strongly support. I pay tribute to her consistent campaigning efforts in the area of online child safety and child protection. Very briefly, I will add why we need this amendment, through some recent media headlines which illustrate the issues involved First, on the extent of online harms, here are just a few headlines: "Social media stalking on rise as harassers dodge identity checks", "QAnon is still spreading on Facebook, despite a ban", "Facebook’s algorithm a major threat to public health" and "Tech companies continue to provide online infrastructure for contentious Covid-19 websites even after flagging them as fake news, finds new Oxford study" Many of these online harms impact heavily on children and other vulnerable groups Secondly, here are two headlines on the power of big tech: "Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research documents" and "Facebook says it may quit Europe over ban on sharing data with US" There can be no doubting the sheer global lobbying power of the major platforms and their ability to influence governments Thirdly, on the opportunity for change and to retain our laws, the headlines included "New ‘transformational’ code to protect children’s privacy online", which refers to the age-appropriate design code that has now been renamed "the children’s code", and "Britain can lead the world in reining in the tech giants if we get the details right", which refers to the proposals to introduce a new online duty of care "CMA advises government on new regulatory regime for tech giants" refers to the new digital markets unit, and the CMA is referred to again in: "Google told to stamp out fraudulent advertising" We have started down a crucial road of regulating the behaviour of the big tech companies and preventing harm, particularly to our children and the vulnerable. In any trade deal we want to preserve the protections that our citizens have, and all those that are coming into place, and we do not want to water them down in any way as a result of any trade negotiation The trade deal that looms largest is of course with the US, and there are indications that with the new Administration, which so many of us welcome, there will be new attitudes towards privacy rights, especially now that it seems that Congress will have Democrat majority control. I hope that they will vigorously pursue the antitrust cases that have been started, but we have no guarantee that they will go further, for instance in successfully eliminating the all-important safe harbour legal shield for internet companies, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. There is no guarantee that this will go, or that there will not be attempts to enforce this by the US in its future trade deals The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, for whom I have the greatest respect, will no doubt say that the Government will have red lines in their negotiations and that there is no way that they will countenance negotiating away the online protections which we currently have. But, as we have seen with the withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland, the fishing industry and the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement, these can be washed away, or blurred, as data protection is in the agreement with Japan. So there is a great degree of uncertainty on both sides of the Atlantic. For that reason, without doubting any assurance that the Minister gives, this amendment is essential, and on these Benches we will strongly support it if the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, takes it to a vote.