Social Media: Use of X by Government Departments

My Lords, the Government use a wide range of digital platforms to reach and engage citizens. We continuously evaluate channels for brand safety and suitability. In government, paid advertising on X has been suspended since April 2023, which means that no taxpayers’ money has been spent with the platform. Individual departments manage their own accounts, ensuring that activity is proportionate, appropriate and relevant to their audiences.

Given the many issues with X, such as its frequent lethargy in reacting to extreme racial abuse or even violent threats, why do the Government continue to repeatedly single out X specifically for promotion above and beyond other social networks in so much of their activity, such as in the official signatures appended to many government emails, or in the Home Office’s own social media policy, which singles out X in encouraging people to use it? Is it not time to end this preferential treatment for Elon Musk?

The noble Lord has been campaigning on this issue for many years, including before he entered your Lordships’ House. A level of pragmatism needs to be adopted. We need to talk to the electorate and to our citizens where they are, and not necessarily on which platforms we wish they were on. When 19.2 million British citizens use X, it is an important place, which I guess is why the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, is still on X.

Does anyone in government have the job of reading all the incoming messages, following the Government’s submission, and do they ever take any of them seriously?

My Lords, on a personal level I tend to look at X as little as possible, which is why I was a little out of the loop yesterday given all the news that was breaking on X. But, having said that, there is a genuine thing here about how we communicate with people. There is a reason why we use these tools. In fact, given the extreme heat that we are currently experiencing, both the Met Office and UKHSA are using X, among other platforms, for engagement. It is making sure that it about engagement and not just one-way, although on a personal level, when I was an MP, I found Meta platforms much easier to engage with the electorate on.

My Lords, the Minister says that there is a reason why the Government use X. Why is it that the Attorney-General’s department can manage without using X but other government departments cannot?

The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point. We need to remember how we speak to people and where we speak to them. The Cabinet Office guidance in this space recommends that government departments on an individual basis consider the best platforms for them to engage with. For example, the Northern Ireland Office will use different tools from those used by the Home Office or the Department of Health because of the people that it is engaging with and on the platforms that it needs to engage on. The Attorney-General’s Office has made a decision that X is not an appropriate vehicle for it, subject to some of the legal issues that it may need to use it for, but that is a department-by-department consideration.

My Lords, I understand that many of the responses to messages that are put out on X come from bots, and they foment social and civil unrest. What are the Government doing to try to deal with these bots? They really are dangerous to our society.

My noble friend is absolutely right. We have seen the issues of dis- and misinformation, and in recent weeks we saw what happened in Belfast and in other parts of the country. Bad faith actors are using social media platforms to try to sow division, whether that is through bots or other sources, and we need to be very aware of that. That is why Ofcom has been given the tools through the Online Safety Act, which Members of your Lordships’ House discussed for eight years to try to get right. The tools need to be used and Ofcom needs to do its job.

My Lords, on Thursday, this House will be discussing threats to democracy. We are close to the point now where one has to see X—and Elon Musk—as something of a threat to British democracy, deliberately putting out misinformation, using algorithms to promote the most anti-democratic candidate in the Makerfield by-election, and so on. Do the Government not need to look at much tighter regulation on X and other social media which are actively attempting to bias the way in which people in Britain understand our democratic life?

The noble Lord is absolutely right. Everything that every Member of your Lordships’ House does every day is to promote British values and ensure that they are protected. That is why we have the Defending Democracy Taskforce and why we have just had the Rycroft review; it is also why, in the most recent by-election, the Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit was set up to try to tackle some of these issues. Although I am a huge advocate of freedom of expression—I ran Index on Censorship until the general election—it is about making sure that, within the prism of freedom of speech, we are protecting the values that we hold most dear. That is why we have given powers to Ofcom; obviously, we will continue to review those powers, and, if they do not work, we will need to do more.

My Lords, in October last year, the Government indicated their intention to relax the rules on civil servants speaking publicly, including to the media and stakeholders. Can the Minister confirm when the formal guidance will be published? Will it include guidance on social media use?

The noble Baroness makes an interesting point. I should have anticipated a question on that; I thought that she might ask about the Civil Service’s principles on social media, as opposed to anything more substantive. I will write to her with an update on the issue she raises, but I assure all Members of your Lordships’ House that the Civil Service has to operate with impartiality, regardless of which platform it is using.

My Lords, most of our media—whether the press or social media—is controlled by the right wing. Is it not important that we have legislation that stops these people putting out propaganda, which is what they do every day?

I thank my noble friend. I had a fascinating conversation with a very young member of my private office. When I suggested to him that the Daily Express had once been in a Labour-leaning newspaper, he was a little surprised; that shows either my age or his. There is an issue here around making sure that people have access to genuine information sources that are real and accurate. Like me, my noble friend will remember that, in the general election in 1997, more than 80% of people got their information from BBC sources—at least, I believe so; I should say that before I get myself in trouble again over statistics in this space—but that is not the case now. Most people get their news online, which is why we need to make sure that free and fair journalism is protected.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the real threat to reliable information is not news publishers but weaponised disinformation published by our enemies using bots? The scale of that is far in excess of anything that Mr Musk might promote or anything that any individual news provider here might promote.

The noble Viscount is absolutely right. When Iran shut down its internet to try to stop proper, fair protests in that country, we saw how many cybernats and other accounts went down in the UK for people who were seeking to sow division and separation in the United Kingdom. We know that bad faith actors try every day to undermine the very values for which we stand. That is why we have the Government’s media literacy action plan and why we are working at every level of society to highlight these issues. It is also, from my perspective, one of the reasons why we need to work every day to make things clear and to ensure that platforms take their responsibilities seriously.

My Lords, disinformation and propaganda go back hundreds of years. There are some good things to be said about X, but the antidote is as follows. It is very much to be regretted that young people no longer read newspapers. I call on the Department for Education to fund a selection of newspapers in every single secondary school in the country; that is the only way to get young people interested in serious, proper news.

The noble Baroness makes a really interesting point. She is right that misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and counterpropaganda are not new. Last week, my husband wrote an article for his local paper in which he reminded everybody that there is one day of the year when we look at media with a level of cynicism: 1 April. We need to be doing that every single day of the year. The noble Baroness makes an important point, which I will look at. A DCMS consultation is currently out; I will ensure that her point is fed in.

My Lords, I was a little alarmed by the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He does not like some things that are being said on X. He was not talking about incitement, harassment or the promotion of illegal activities. He specifically cited campaigning for a candidate whom he did not like—something that is legal but which he did not like. The Minister said, I think, that this might be a proper case for Ofsted toughening its regulatory powers. Would she like to clarify that, because I think we can all agree that we do not want to criminalise different political points of view?

I am sorry if I gave that impression. That is absolutely not what I meant; I meant that, in terms of its responsibilities, X has to follow the law. With regard to anyone standing for election, all of us who have done so know that there are ways and means for us to beat our opponents, and that is at the ballot box. We will continue to do so. Personally, I enjoyed campaigning against the candidate who was referenced; it is an incredibly important part of all this. Last week, I had the final Question just before the football. I have the same Question today. I do not want to tempt fate, but come on, England!