Inside the Lords: Huw Edwards, illegal migration, and more Online Safety Bill

Claire Fox reports on a week in parliament - and what the Huw Edwards revelations mean for press freedom.

This week inside the Lords, there’s been lots of talk about Huw Edwards, the BBC presenter at the centre of a scandal over the past week. While I personally wish I just didn’t have to know about his dirty laundry, the way the issue is developing into a whose-side-are-you-on factional dispute is worrying - and telling.

Too many in the ‘respectable’ media are queuing up to make this a Sun-bashing event. It’s turned into another row about press freedom, with tabloid newspapers becoming a whipping boy for those keen to curtail reporting. Indeed, in one debate on amendments to the Online Safety Bill, the old rows over the Leveson Inquiry were dragged up. Rupert Murdoch was pilloried (again) and, as always, restrictions were the solution.

It’s worth a historical reminder, of John Milton’s brilliant 1644 Areopagitica pamphlet against licensing of the press, written in response to the British parliament’s passage of a law requiring the government to approve all books prior to publication: ‘Truth and understanding, are not such wares as to be monopolised and traded in by tickets and statutes, and standards.’ Certainly not by the Online Safety Bill in 2023, or the fallout from unsavoury - if legal - behaviour by a newsreader. It’s as important as ever to uphold the right of newspapers to hold public figures to account, and not just when it’s politically convenient.

The Illegal Migration Bill is still on the agenda, and, as per usual, the discussion around it shows some clear selective empathy. The high ground taken by many on this issue, which disregards the legitimate public concerns about illegal immigration - implying it’s driven by racist and xenophobic sentiments - results in an undemocratic push to wreck the Bill, making it meaningless through amendments at the final stages of ‘ping pong’ (the to-and-from between the Commons and the Lords). I voted late into the night without joining in the debate. I will be vocal next week when it returns again to the Lords, focusing on the anti-democratic problem of unelected peers blocking an elected chamber putting forward a policy with public support.

Onto the Online Safety Bill, you’d expect a full house when we’re discussing such fundamental issues of freedom of speech and civil liberties. But as you can tell from the clip below, there were a lot of empty benches. This Bill will fundamentally change the relationship between the public, big-tech companies and the state, and yet is going through without much fanfare. I began my contributions this week with my concerns around the lack of democratic accountability in the Bill:

The government tries to avoid describing the Bill as censorship, but it is passing laws to give huge powers to an 'independent' regulator, Ofcom, which then forces platforms to remove online content it deems harmful. It’s smoke and mirrors.

Then, there were plaudits for the government asking Ofcom to produce guidance for protections for women and girls. And here, there is a problem with conflating words and actions. However, the big elephant in the room is that so much online verbal abuse is aimed at gender-critical women. If Ofcom is to consult, they should be sure they include organisations who understand this like Sex Matters and LGB Alliance:

I then asked a quick follow-up question to the minister, as I was irritated that he misrepresented my point by batting away what I said about abuse aimed at woman for daring to state that they know what a woman is:

I then moved on to a defence of press freedom. The Online Safety Bill exempts ‘recognised news publishers’ from regulation, and that is good. But there are bound to be disputes about who will pass the test as ‘recognised’. And will the public really be prevented from clipping from news?

This builds on my free expression amendments to the Bill from earlier in the week. Obviously, the only Lords who the government seem to listen to are those pushing for more safety measures at the expense of freedom of expression. The Conservative front bench has made hundreds of concessions to that side. A few of us battle on, trying to raise free-speech concerns within the Bill. The government at least needs to squirm for bringing in such a censorious law:

Later on, I summed up, stressing that free speech is not about being able to say anything, anywhere. People can and should police their own speech, navigating these challenges between each other - but the Online Safety Bill won't allow for that:

My concern is state-enabled censorship. And when someone loses their job for their views it is UK law to which we should turn, not Silicon Valley terms of service. Who decides what views are banned online via the Online Safety Bill anyway? Balancing speech and law is always fraught. But with a police woman declaring misgendering is illegal (it isn’t, by the way), or the state forcing algorithms and Big-Tech employees to remove illegal speech, trusting the Online Safety Bill to police our interactions is dangerous.

The Online Safety Bill will definitely pass without opposition from the Lords. While there are hundreds of new amendments, unlike the Illegal Migration Bill, these are bi-partisan - agreed on by all sides. Sometimes it can feel like a cosy consensus among government and opposition benches, and all changes make the Bill worse for free speech. While this is dispiriting, it is when the Bill becomes an Act, and then law, that I am hoping public discussion can count and the public can have its say. 

It’s complicated legislation, and both Ofcom and politicians will need to implement it – not an easy job. As they stumble around, censoring and removing online material, I hope we will hear a clamour of resistance. As we have seen in Ireland, the public pushback against the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill has led the government to reconsider and amend it after the fact. The same spirit needs to be rallied against the Online Safety Bill.