-
Question
Will the Secretary of State provide a specific timeline for when the Bill will be introduced to the House? Additionally, how does he address concerns about social media companies self-regulating and the lack of immediate criminal sanctions?
Minister reply
The minister reassured that while the exact timing is under consideration, engagement with stakeholders continues. He acknowledged previous criticisms of self-regulation but emphasised the new regime's robustness, including Ofcom oversight and potential criminal sanctions for senior executives in future secondary legislation.
-
Question
The MP welcomed the statement but criticised its lack of ambition, highlighting delays and questioning the influence of tech firms. She also inquired about leaving companies to self-regulate and the absence of immediate criminal liability for senior executives.
Minister reply
The Secretary of State assured that discussions with tech firm representatives did not affect policy decisions. He emphasised the substantial fines proposed, which could reach up to 10% of global revenue for non-compliance. Criminal sanctions would be enforced through secondary legislation after initial compliance and enforcement measures are implemented.
-
Question
The MP welcomed the appointment of a regulator and imposition of a duty of care but asked for clarification on broadening priority categories to include misinformation. He also inquired about independent oversight of transparency reports and news publishing exemptions.
Minister reply
The Secretary of State confirmed plans to involve the DCMS Committee extensively in prelegislative scrutiny. News publisher exemptions will apply broadly, including video sharing platforms. Disinformation causing harm would be covered under secondary legislation.
-
Question
Welcomed the proposed online harms Bill but raised concerns about social media anonymity and Ofcom's regulatory powers.
Minister reply
Acknowledged the importance of social media anonymity for certain groups like domestic violence victims. Stressed that Ofcom will need to step up its game with independent expertise. Emphasised actions to address misinformation through trusted sources, rebutting false information, and working with tech companies.
-
Question
Welcomed progress on legislation but urged for its introduction as soon as possible. Asked about the regulatory system's ability to deal with smaller platforms.
Minister reply
Acknowledged that small enterprises should be excluded, while ensuring regulation can upscale in cases of harmful material exchange.
-
Question
Welcomed legislation and asked about its scope regarding targeted advertising of gambling to young people.
Minister reply
Noted that the call for evidence on loot boxes will address issues raised. Explained that platforms with user-generated content related to gambling will fall within the Bill's scope.
-
Question
Welcomed measures protecting children and asked about making the interim code of conduct on online child sexual abuse a statutory obligation.
Minister reply
Assured that when the Bill becomes an Act, the interim code will be made legally binding if necessary.
-
Jamie Stone
Lib Dem
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Question
Suggested improving children's education to empower them in dealing with harmful content online.
Minister reply
Acknowledged the importance of educating both children and parents. Announced plans for publishing an online media literacy strategy.
-
Question
Asked about Ofcom's ability to audit transparency reports by social media companies, definition of news providers, and legal consequences for non-compliance.
Minister reply
Clarified that Ofcom will be able to interrogate data. Stressed the need to avoid harmful sources masquerading as news publishers.
-
Question
Asked about age assurance technology and its differences from age verification, Carla Lockhart also inquired about the government's response to online scams.
Minister reply
Responded by explaining emerging technologies for identifying child users through typing patterns and AI. Also agreed to write a detailed response on further powers mentioned by Carla.
-
Question
Asked about the capabilities of tech companies in removing harmful content.
Minister reply
Replied that tech firms often find ways to address issues when it suits their commercial interests, affirming the legislation's aim to compel them to take action for public interest.
-
Question
Asked about prohibiting online advertising of infant formula.
Minister reply
Stated that the focus is on user-generated content rather than comprehensive advertising bans, but acknowledged the importance of addressing specific harmful practices.
-
Question
Inquired if technology firms will be required to prevent exploitation of children through online platforms.
Minister reply
Confirmed that companies must build systems to tackle illegal content and protect children from harm, citing observed technologies as evidence.
-
Question
Asked if Ofcom will have powers to demand information about service use and whether age verification will be pursued.
Minister reply
Explained that the legislation aims to broaden protections against harmful user-generated content, including child exposure to illegal pornography.
-
Question
Asked about regulating hate speech and antisemitic abuse online.
Minister reply
Acknowledged the importance of addressing illegal conduct but stated that broader anonymity issues are complex, requiring careful consideration.
-
Question
Inquired if social media companies should be required to identify users posting illegal content or harmful abuse.
Minister reply
Discussed the challenges of lifting anonymity while protecting vulnerable individuals and stated a commitment to continued review.
-
Question
Asked about not letting perfection be the enemy of good progress on age verification technology.
Minister reply
Agreed with Karen's point, committing to holding tech companies accountable for using available technologies to protect children.
-
Question
Asked how the legislation will address harmful information on Wikipedia.
Minister reply
Responded that self-harm content will be made illegal, and international engagement is part of a global movement for online safety.
-
Question
Inquired about individual complaint resolution and the need for stronger laws against specific types of abuse.
Minister reply
Confirmed plans to work with the Law Commission to specifically outlaw deep fakes, cyber-flashing, and other harmful activities.
-
Question
As the Secretary of State will undoubtedly be aware, I really welcome this Bill; I honestly believe that it is well intended, but fear it is rather muddled and jumbled. I would like to know when the Bill is coming to the Floor of the House—not pre-legislative scrutiny, as the Secretary of State has mentioned in answer to several other Members, but when the Bill is coming—because we have been waiting two years for just this statement. I would also like to know why delay culpability has been delayed; self-governance has not worked for 15 years, so why delay it? Finally, why not deal with the issues around economic crime? That is increasing, and I believe it is a mistake not to deal with the problems of economic crime in society through platforms.
Minister reply
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s overall support. On when this will be coming, the legislation will be brought before the House in 2021. He asked about economic crime, and other Members also raised that. [Interruption.] Well, to the extent that this comes from user-generated content, of course it will fall within scope, but if we seek to make this Bill deal with every harm on the internet, it will quickly become very unwieldy. Most fraud comes as a result of activities such as online advertising. We must try to have some sort of a scope around this. The hon. Gentleman asked why we are delaying taking powers. We are not delaying taking powers: from the get-go, these enormous fines of up to 10% of global turnover will be imposed. If that is still not effective, we will have taken the power to use criminal sanctions for senior managers, and it will simply be a case of passing secondary legislation to bring that into force. As it is such a big step to have criminal liability, if we can avoid criminal liability I would like to do so. I believe the fines will be sufficient, but if they are not, then we will have taken those powers.
-
Question
I welcome these robust proposals, particularly the focus on children, but they need to lead to robust legislation and robust practice. I particularly welcome the referral to the Law Commission about self-harm sites; will my right hon. Friend make sure they include so-called self-help sites on eating disorders, which are nothing of the sort and just promote those sorts of behaviour? May I also return to the point of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) about anonymity, because it is key? Whether it is hate speech, extremism, antisemitism or grooming sites, the perpetrators hide behind anonymity. When they get taken down, they reappear under a different name. Is it not possible for them to have to reveal their identity, and prove their identity to the platform providers only, so it does not involve whistleblowers revealing themselves, so that they cannot get away with it, they cannot keep reposting, and they can be referred to the police where necessary?
Minister reply
I hear my hon. Friend’s points about anonymity, and, as he said, they were made very powerfully by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). We are seeking to get the balance right so that we protect victims of domestic violence and others who rely on anonymity; of course, there are the law enforcement powers, but we genuinely keep an open mind, and if we can find a way of doing this that is proportionate, we will continue to consider whether there are measures we can take as we go through pre-legislative scrutiny. We are grappling with that challenge.
-
Question
The Work and Pensions Committee is inquiring into pension scams. Much of that problem is online, boosting the profits of tech firms and causing immense hardship. Martin Lewis, Which?, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) on the Front Bench and others have called for such scams to be in scope here. The right hon. Gentleman says they will be if they are “user-generated”, so can he explain how these measures will address the very serious problem of financial online harms?
Minister reply
Through secondary legislation, we will set out priority harms. I will not go into every last harm, because that will be a process for scrutiny. On the broader point about financial fraud and so on, the right hon. Gentleman raises very important points, and of course we will seek to address that as a Government; I am just not convinced that this is the appropriate legislative vehicle for doing so.
-
Question
Whether it is on promoting illegal content, anti-vaccine content, covid denial or conspiracy theories in general, for far too long now social media platforms have failed to get their own houses in order, and trust in the industry has fallen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures he is proposing today will ensure a new age of accountability for tech that in turn will restore trust in the industry?
Minister reply
As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. This marks a watershed and introduces that new age of accountability. For too long, tech firms have considered that because of the novelty of their technology, they are not subject to the same norms as others—broadcasters and so on. This starts to redress that balance.
-
Question
This is a global problem that requires a global response. Will the Secretary of State confirm what co-operation protocols are in place to block offending platforms across multiple countries?
Minister reply
First, on blocking offending platforms, we will reserve that power in this legislation; it is a power that will be available to Ofcom. Of course, we engage on exactly those points through various international forums, and we continue to work together.
-
Question
Even the most vigilant parents struggle to keep up with the latest apps, websites and ways to get around parental controls. While parental responsibility will always remain key, these proposals help parents to deliver that. However, I think people will be concerned to know that the proposals have teeth, especially when it comes to the very wealthy companies that are involved. Can the Secretary assure us that they do have teeth, and that he will be able to act in a way that means something to these companies?
Minister reply
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There seems to be a degree of complacency from some Opposition Members about the scale of the fines we are proposing. We have never before proposed fining tech firms up to 10% of global turnover. That is an enormous sum for them, and it gives real teeth and credibility to what we are doing.
-
Question
A constituent of mine in Aberdeen has been in contact to say that in recent months they have had to respond to three instances of children in primary school accessing Pornhub on mobile phones. I am sure the Secretary of State shares my profound concern about that, but we do not want warm words; we want action, so will he confirm if and when online age verification checks will finally be put in place?
Minister reply
As a father of primary-age children, I share the hon. Gentleman’s complete outrage that that is possible. This legislation will address exactly that. A site like Pornhub will fall within the scope of this legislation, because it has a large amount of user-generated content, and we will expect it to take appropriate measures to safeguard children from accessing the site. If it fails to do so, it will face severe consequences.
-
Question
I welcome the statement. Bearing in mind that the perpetrators of online harms and abuse know no international boundaries, does the Secretary of State agree that, as a member of the Council of Europe, which is a key pillar for the protection of human rights online, we have an important ally in the ECHR, which rules on applications alleging violations? What plans does he have to work with our international partners? Particularly given the speed at which technology moves, how can he be sure that his proposals will keep pace with technological advances and escalating international activity? Bearing in mind the high-profile international cases involving people with autism, can he offer better international protection for individuals caught up inadvertently in incidents?
Minister reply
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I make this announcement to the House, I am writing to my counterparts around the world to inform them of what the British Government are doing; it is world leading. There is a lot of interest from my counterparts around the world and I shall be working with them because although, as we all know, the UK is a significant country in terms of market share for tech firms, we cannot operate in isolation. It is important to work with major markets, such as the US and the EU, to achieve a co-ordinated approach. We are all trying to move in this direction, so the more we can join up our approach, the more effective we can be.
-
Question
Online activity is really important to extremists of all kinds in furthering their aims. Fake news—disinformation—is the currency of authoritarian forces, undermining our democracy; and on their business models, currently tech companies profit from that. What action would the Bill take to defend our democratic values if it was on the statute book now? How would it solve this threat?
Minister reply
This legislation is specifically aimed at harm caused to individuals, so of course, to the extent that there is harm to individuals, such material will fall within the scope of this legislation. But remember: this sits alongside other action by the Government. For example, the Cabinet Office is leading work on the cross-government defending democracy programme, to deal with the wider challenges to our democratic values.
-
Question
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. Organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation have over 24 years’ experience in tackling threats to children online; indeed, the foundation played a huge role in reducing the percentage of vile, indecent images of children from 18% of such images held on UK servers across the globe, down to 1% today. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that organisations like the foundation will be fully involved, so that we may harness their expertise in the regulatory framework that he brings forward?
Minister reply
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have, of course, met the Internet Watch Foundation. Ofcom will need to draw on expert advice, and I would expect that to include that of the foundation.
-
Question
In October 2019, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report recommending that Twitter should include sex as a protected characteristic in its hateful conduct policy. Does the Minister agree with this recommendation?
Minister reply
The short answer is yes. The legislation will ensure Ofcom holds tech companies accountable to deal effectively with misogyny through policies and enforcement, and criminal powers are reserved for action.
-
Question
How will the proposed legislation be future-proofed to address emerging forms of harmful content?
Minister reply
Ofcom will have discretion to deal with new threats through codes of conduct and secondary legislation, allowing for updates to priority harms over time as they emerge.
-
Question
Does the Minister agree that senior managers should be held responsible if social media companies fail to protect children and vulnerable people?
Minister reply
Yes, financial penalties will cause executives to take responsibility. Criminal sanctions remain an option for severe breaches.
-
Question
Will major platforms be required to use automated technology on private channels to identify illegal child sexual exploitation content?
Minister reply
Companies will be expected to use emergent technology for checks. Proportionality is applied based on the reliability of AI, not manual human identification.
-
Question
Will my right hon. Friend work with me and other members of the Council of Europe to strengthen a convention dealing with online abuse of children?
Minister reply
Yes, cooperation on child abuse is important as it knows no boundaries.
-
Question
Will the Bill address sites like Craigslist that profit from ads sexually exploiting young people?
Minister reply
Yes, any website hosting user-generated content is covered under the legislation.
-
Question
Does the Bill tackle 'legal but harmful' material and will Parliament have a role in secondary legislation to address harms like self-harm and eating disorders among young people?
Minister reply
The Bill addresses legal but harmful content, ensuring companies take action. Secondary legislation will engage with MPs to identify such harms.
-
Question
How will the legislation deal with systems and cross-posting sites that propagate disinformation?
Minister reply
The duty of care is designed to address evolving harms, ensuring companies take appropriate steps beyond identifying individual posts.
-
Question
What criteria will determine when a business meets the threshold for new regulations?
Minister reply
The threshold excludes businesses primarily engaged in non-user-generated content activities, allowing small businesses to operate without undue regulatory burden.
-
Question
How will the duty of care be implemented for private messaging platforms like WhatsApp without undermining end-to-end encryption?
Minister reply
Privacy is crucial. Companies rely on technology and AI to identify trends; ongoing discussions with tech companies ensure appropriate protections.
-
Question
Earlier this year I participated in a roundtable with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and I advocated for this, so I welcome the statement, especially the immediate removal of antisemitic material. There are those who would consider that this might be a slippery slope to an attack on our freedom of speech, but does my right hon. Friend agree that instead it creates a framework to ensure that our fundamental right to freedom of speech is protected from those who seek to corrupt or even abuse it?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are taking measures to guard against things such as antisemitic abuse, but we have taken two very clear decisions: first, we are protecting press and journalistic freedom; they will not be subject to this legislation for exactly the reasons he outlines. Secondly, we will ensure when we draft the legislation that it does not create a situation whereby Government or social media companies can start putting their worldview onto their output. There must be reasonable grounds for taking content down—they cannot just take it down because it does not cohere with their worldview.