← Back to House of Commons Debates
Online Safety Bill
17 January 2023
Lead MP
Rosie Winterton
Unknown Constituency
Lab
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Science & Technology
Other Contributors: 46
At a Glance
Rosie Winterton raised concerns about online safety bill in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Rosie Winterton
Lab
Unknown Constituency
Before opening the debate, Rosie Winterton provided guidance on the scope of today’s consideration. She highlighted that only new clauses and amendments listed in the selection paper are up for discussion, excluding those parts of the Bill previously debated during report stage unless they are consequential to changes made during re-committal. She also noted scheduling adjustments due to an emergency debate.
Pontypridd
Begged to move that the clause be read a Second time, indicating support for advancing the debate on the specified clause or amendment. However, no detailed arguments were provided in this excerpt.
Kim Leadbeater
Lab
Spen Valley
Ms Kim Leadbeater supported the amendments, emphasising that legal but harmful content often serves as a gateway to more dangerous forms of radicalization and extremism. She urged for the default hiding of such content from adult users to prevent exposure.
Andrew Gwynne
Ind
Gorton and Denton
Mr Andrew Gwynne shared a case study about an 11-year-old girl who was groomed on Spotify and uploaded explicit photos, illustrating why stringent measures are needed to protect children from harmful content online.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Ms Debbie Abrahams supported Ms Winterton's proposal, specifically mentioning Baroness Kidron’s advocacy for ensuring coroners have access to data when investigating child deaths potentially linked to social media use.
Rosie Winterton
Lab
unknown constituency
Ms Rosie Winterton noted that some Members may have stood up at the last minute and suggested adjusting timings accordingly to accommodate everyone within the debate timeframe.
Priti Patel
Con
Witham
Ms Priti Patel emphasises the need for criminal liability for senior managers who fail to comply with safety duties, noting that current provisions fall short. She highlights public support for holding tech executives accountable and stresses the importance of proactive measures by tech companies to protect children from online harms.
Jamie Stone
Lib Dem
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Mr Jamie Stone interjected that digital education could underpin the safeguards needed to ensure children's safety online, suggesting it should be integrated into school curricula.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
Ms Hodge supports the amendment, arguing it would make online spaces safer for children by holding senior managers accountable. She cites examples like Elon Musk's tenure at Twitter and Pavel Durov's handling of Telegram to illustrate how personal decisions by platform leaders affect content moderation. Ms Hodge emphasises that legislating director liability has worked in other contexts such as health and safety on construction sites, bribery prevention, and tax evasion.
Gosport
Supports the Online Safety Bill, emphasising its importance in protecting children and vulnerable individuals from online harms. Highlights the NSPCC's estimate of over 21,000 online child sex crimes recorded by the police since last summer. Cites an example of a dangerous TikTok challenge that encourages children to strangle each other until they pass out, underlining the need for legislation. Supports amendment 84 to ban content advertising conversion therapies and welcomes the government’s support for this amendment. Acknowledges the importance of senior executive liability but expresses concern about defining legal but harmful content and the opt-out option's effectiveness in protecting vulnerable adults.
Agrees with Caroline Dinenage that the new crime of cyber-flashing is an improvement in the Bill, which should help reduce violence against women and girls. Highlights this as a positive development.
Kirsty Blackman
SNP
Aberdeen North
Proposes a default setting that users have to opt in for unsafe or harmful content, highlighting issues like eating disorder and pro-suicide material. Emphasises the need for transparency from platforms on their terms of service regarding harmful content. Discusses habit-forming features, advocating for user empowerment, especially for children, to prevent exposure to dangerous live streaming and private messaging. Supports measures against conversion therapy and proposes a higher regulatory bar for small but highly harmful platforms.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Wright argues that new clause 2 is too broadly drafted, potentially criminalising minor breaches of safety duties. He raises concerns about the difficulty in prosecuting such offences due to the subjective nature of 'proportionate measures' and the potential for excessive removal of content under a wide criminal liability framework.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
Bill Cash briefly intervened, highlighting that the written ministerial statement indicates constructive discussions have taken place and suggesting some of Wright's points may no longer be applicable in light of recent developments.
Luke Pollard
Lab Co-op
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport
Mr. Pollard supports the introduction of new clause 4 to mandate minimum standards for online platforms, specifically targeting incel culture which promotes hatred towards women, anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. He cites evidence that smaller platforms outside category 1 provisions are being used by incels to radicalise young men, arguing that current measures do not address the issue effectively.
Damian Collins
Con
Witham
Suggests that criminal liability should apply when there are persistent breaches of safety duties, after companies have already been fined and issued guidance. He agrees with new clause 2's intent but finds it too wide as drafted. Advocates for clear definitions in the Bill about what constitutes a failure to meet safety duties. Supports legal changes for clearer requirements on companies regarding content removal and enforcement of terms of service.
Matt Rodda
Lab
Reading Central
Supports new clause 1, which would help parents make complaints about harmful content. Argues for a default position protecting children from harmful content as per new clause 43. Advocates for further measures to tackle legal but harmful content and expresses support for other important new clauses.
Tim Loughton
Con
East Worthing and Shoreham
Intervened to support new clause 2, arguing that it would encourage social media companies to invest more in moderators to prevent harmful content before it is posted. He noted the substantial profits of large tech firms like Meta as justification for increased investment.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
Critiques amendments that remove adult safety duties, arguing they worsen protections. Cites the case of Joe Nihill who took his own life after accessing harmful content online at 23. Emphasises research showing most people believe access to potentially harmful content should be restricted for adults too. Urges the Government to reconsider gutting protections for vulnerable adults.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
He argues that tech companies exploit data to manipulate users, causing harm to mental health and facilitating illegal activities. He supports new clause 2 which holds directors personally liable for breaches of child safety duties.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
He emphasises the importance of protecting children from online harms, supporting new clause 2 as it makes non-compliance with safety duties an offence for service providers. He also supports additional clauses aimed at addressing various forms of harmful content and ensuring proper engagement with stakeholders.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
Mr Cash supports the amendments, particularly new clause 2, arguing for criminal penalties including imprisonment for senior managers who ignore requirements risking serious harm to children. He cites precedent in other sectors and personal stories of child suicide linked to online activities. Mr Cash also credits constructive dialogue with the Government leading to these proposals.
Miriam Cates
Con
Penistone and Stocksbridge
Supports new clause 2 to introduce senior manager criminal liability, arguing that it is necessary for driving proactive change in tech companies. Emphasises the importance of holding individuals accountable for harms to children online and welcomes government commitments to include similar provisions.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
Intervenes to thank Miriam Cates for her work and highlights the support from the NSPCC in advancing child protection efforts. Emphasises the importance of holding tech executives accountable.
Lia Nici
Con
Dover
Supports amendments aimed at protecting children online, arguing that fines alone are insufficient to change corporate culture. Advocates for the threat of personal criminal liability to focus senior managers on child protection measures.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
Intervenes again, stressing that online harms affect children's minds as well as their physical safety, making the case for stringent protections against harmful content.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Intervenes to反驳这种有害内容的支持者，指出这些人的行为实际上限制了人们的自由，并且将受害者变成残酷集团的奴隶。
Vicky Ford
Con
Chelmsford
Argues for treating eating disorders as seriously as other forms of self-harm, citing a rise in cases and harmful social media content. Supports Irish-style legislation to hold tech bosses accountable.
Marcus Fysh
Con
Yeovil
Supports tackling illegal activity and addressing harms to children and vulnerable adults, but warns against trusting digital platforms. Argues for stronger duties to stop harmful content and promote freedom of expression.
Rachel Maclean
Con
Stockton South
Strongly supports the Bill, highlighting its importance in protecting children from online abuse while upholding free speech. Emphasises the need for strengthened protections for children and greater criminal sanctions to hold tech company directors accountable. She believes the Bill will cement the UK's role as a leader in this space.
Dean Russell
Con
Watford
Supports new clause 2 and acknowledges the Government’s engagement on it. Criticises tech giants for their lack of care towards the harm they cause to vulnerable children and adults. Proposes a separate committee focused on the Online Safety Bill, anticipating rapid changes in technology such as virtual reality and AI.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Whitstable
Acknowledges patience from another MP but does not provide substantial arguments or position.
Siobhan Baillie
Con
Cheltenham
Argues for amendments to ensure clarity in verification measures, allowing social media companies to implement them effectively. Highlights the urgency of protecting children and vulnerable adults from anonymous abuse and financial scams online.
Kirsty Blackman
SNP
Aberdeen North
Intervenes to point out that the current empowerment duties apply only to adult users, meaning children will not have the option to toggle off unverified users.
Paul Scully
Con
Yeovil
Argues that new clause 2's aims are sympathetic but requires careful consideration to ensure it aligns with child safety while not hindering tech investment. Mentions ongoing discussions with stakeholders on criminal liability amendments and the need for flexible legislation.
Sajid Javid
Con
Bromsgrove
Requests a commitment from the Minister to consider Baroness Kidron’s amendment that would require coroners to have access to data related to online activities in child death cases.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Agrees on protecting children but raises concern about misinformation and societal impacts, suggesting the need for a committee to monitor such effects.
Damian Collins
Con
Monmouth
Asks if the Government will close the loophole that prevents coroners from accessing necessary data and information for their investigations, particularly in cases involving child deaths linked to social media.
Priti Patel
Con
Witham
Requests a clear timetable for engagements with tech firms and transparency on the progress of developing regulations around criminal liability, stressing the importance of visibility for Parliament.
Vicky Ford
Con
Chelmsford
Asks the Minister to give way but no specific intervention content is provided in the transcript.
Pontypridd
Asked leave to withdraw a clause. No detailed arguments provided in this excerpt.
Vicky Ford
Con
Chelmsford
Asked the Minister to confirm that content glamorising eating disorders will be treated as seriously as other forms of self-harm when the Bill reaches the House of Lords.
Damian Collins
Con
Tunbridge Wells
Asked for clarification on whether content that is illegal offline but legal online will be regulated as ads or posts through a general principle established in the ongoing work of the Bill and the Online Advertising Review.
Lucy Powell
Lab Co-op
Manchester Central
Powell supports the Online Safety Bill, highlighting the importance of stronger online regulation. She discusses the growing influence of social media in society and its potential harms to individuals, democracy, economy, society, and public health. Powell acknowledges past improvements made during parliamentary debates but expresses concern over the narrowing scope of the bill regarding wider harms such as hate speech, disinformation, abuse, terrorism, racism, self-harm, eating disorders, misogyny, antisemitism, among others. She calls for further work to be done in the other place to strengthen the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
SNP
Aberdeen North
Blackman supports the Online Safety Bill but raises concerns over its specific provisions. She highlights issues around the definition of 'Children’s Commissioner' and the need to address children's interactions beyond social media platforms like Fortnite and Roblox. Blackman criticises the removal of protections against legal but harmful content such as eating disorder or self-harm promotion, questioning the rationale behind these changes.
Andrew Percy
Con
Brigg and Goole
Supports the Online Safety Bill for its stance on antisemitic conspiracy theories and illegal content. Acknowledges the work done to address Jewish community concerns, highlighting the legislation's world-leading nature in combating online hate speech. Critiques free speech arguments as misunderstanding the consequences of harmful speech. Provides examples of antisemitism linked with anti-vaccine conspiracies, emphasising the need for more action on conspiracy theories and advertising money fueling hate sites.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.