← Back to House of Commons Debates
Telecommunications (Data Protection and Open Internet) Bill - Schedule 14 - Amendments consequential on offences in Part 10 of this Act
05 December 2022
Lead MP
Paul Scully
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Science & Technology
Other Contributors: 63
At a Glance
Paul Scully raised concerns about telecommunications (data protection and open internet) bill - schedule 14 - amendments consequential on offences in part 10 of this act 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:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The amendment proposes changes to the existing clauses and schedules that will ensure consistency with the new offences introduced under Part 10. This is necessary for aligning regulatory measures across different parts of the bill, ensuring a cohesive legal framework.
Lindsay Hoyle
Speaker
Chorley
The Speaker informed members that today's debate would cover specific new clauses and amendments listed on a selection paper. He highlighted that certain clauses and schedules will be recommitted to the Public Bill Committee, and any proposed Government amendments for this process are not in scope for today’s debate.
Lindsay Hoyle
Speaker
Chorley
Introduced the debate for multiple new clauses and amendments, outlining their purposes without expressing a specific position.
Priti Patel
Con
Witham
Asked about how Ofcom's role will interact with law enforcement in dealing with child sexual abuse and exploitation, showing support for the bill's provisions regarding these issues.
Inquired about the definition of extremism within the context of terrorism prevention, indicating a desire for clarity and robust measures against extremist content online.
Warrington North
Questioned the effectiveness of social media companies in policing themselves following Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, expressing scepticism about their ability to self-regulate effectively.
Kit Malthouse
Con
North West Hampshire
Explored the concept of accredited technology and its potential reliance on problematic industry practices, expressing worries about delays in implementation due to commercial or other reasons.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Asked about the impact of implementing monitoring technologies on encryption standards, indicating a cautious approach towards potential security risks associated with technological solutions.
Welcomed the speaker to their position and clarified that companies refusing to use existing technology would be in breach of regulatory duties under the bill, supporting stringent enforcement mechanisms.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Suggested that Ofcom should set minimum standards for operators based on industry initiatives like Content Authenticity Initiative, advocating for a proactive regulatory approach.
Pontypridd
Argues for new clause 17 to make directors, managers and officers responsible for compliance failures. Supports new clauses addressing children's online safety advocacy body and media literacy. Criticises government changes that remove harmful communications offences.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Intervenes to disagree with the notion that fines are a drop in the ocean, suggesting directors' liability is unusual if it only applies to information offences.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Intervenes to point out that fines for tech companies are substantial, contradicting Labour's view.
Bury South
Agrees with concerns over harmful content and its impact on Jewish communities online. Criticises government for dropping measures against 'legal but harmful' content.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
Supports concerns about impacts of removing legal but harmful measures, citing examples like comparing vaccination efforts to Nazi death camps as deeply damaging.
Julian Knight
Con
Solihull
Welcomes the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Paul Scully, to his place. Acknowledges that the legislation is imperfect but essential given the power and influence of tech companies like Alphabet. Argues that these companies have a 'skater boy approach' towards regulation and law. Supports the bill despite its imperfections due to the urgent need for regulatory action. Calls for post-legislative scrutiny through Committees set up after a year, emphasising the importance of maintaining parliamentary integrity.
David Davis
Con
Goole
Intervenes to suggest that tech companies are like modern buccaneer states and that much more legislation is needed beyond this Bill.
Suggests there should be a special Committee of both Houses to keep the area under constant review, emphasising the need for continuous scrutiny given the complexities involved.
John Nicolson
SNP
Glasgow North
Supports the inclusion of legal but harmful material provisions, advocating for a strong advocacy body to protect children's interests online. Argues against the removal of these measures as it undermines protection for vulnerable adults and fails to address evolving online harms adequately.
Damian Collins
Con
Folkestone and Hythe
During an intervention, questions John Nicolson's stance on the term 'legal but harmful' and suggests a preference for clarity and enforcement based on priority illegal offences and terms of service.
Damian Collins
Con
Folkestone and Hythe
Collins interjected to emphasise that addressing online safety requires clear legislative definitions, noting the need for cross-government effort in drafting relevant laws.
Rachel Maclean
Lab
Redditch
Maclean praised Patel's speech and urged the Minister to provide details on how the Internet Watch Foundation could collaborate with Ofcom to assist victims in removing harmful content.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
Ms. Hodge supports new clause 15, which proposes making directors of online platforms personally liable for compliance with the law. She provides examples from construction and bribery laws to argue that personal liability is an effective way to change corporate behaviour. She highlights studies showing that harmful content attracts more traffic on social media sites. She also mentions Facebook's decisions in relation to election misinformation and holocaust denial, and Elon Musk's actions after taking over Twitter.
David Davis
Con
Goole
Mr. Davis questions how culpability can be established when many decisions are made by algorithms, suggesting that penalising directors might not always be feasible in such cases.
Mr. Penrose supports Ms. Hodge's proposal and suggests supporting new clause 34, which would require platforms to prevent factual inaccuracies on their sites.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Mr Davis questions how accountability can be established within companies, suggesting that a named individual with criminal liability for supplying information could be crucial. He raises concerns about the balance of probabilities versus beyond reasonable doubt in adjudicating cases.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
Mrs Hodge draws attention to the importance of corporate criminal liability clauses, citing a case involving Barclays Bank where such provisions could have made accountability easier. She supports the need for holding both companies and individuals accountable.
Ian Paisley Jnr
DUP
North Antrim
Mr Paisley expresses support for open access to devices left by deceased persons, which is part of a private Member's Bill jointly sponsored with Mr Collins.
Dean Russell
Con
Watford
Mr Russell pays tribute to Mr Collins' leadership in guiding the Joint Committee on the Online Safety Bill, highlighting its ethical and technical challenges.
Priti Patel
Con
Witham
Mrs Patel emphasises the importance of integrating existing Government tools to address criminality fuelled by online activity, supporting the Bill's role in securing necessary prosecutions and creating a deterrent effect.
Natalie Elphicke
Con
Dover
Mrs Elphicke seeks clarification on the coverage of illegal immigration and modern slavery offences, aligning with Mr Collins' amendment to ensure comprehensive regulation.
Sarah Champion
Lab
Rotherham
Ms. Champion highlights that over 100 online grooming and child abuse image crimes are likely to be recorded daily, but due to the use of VPNs, many cases go unreported. She also emphasises the need for a user advocacy body representing children's interests in regulatory decisions. Furthermore, she advocates for new clauses protecting women and girls from non-consensual sharing of intimate images and ensuring that tech companies provide support to moderators dealing with disturbing content.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Mr. Davis supports new clause 16 to criminalize encouragement of self-harm but opposes the requirement for companies to use 'accredited technology' under clause 104 due to potential weakening of encryption.
Damian Collins
Con
Folkestone and Hythe
Mr. Collins supports Mr. Davis's view on the controllability of algorithms through regulatory frameworks, suggesting that companies could be compelled to use existing technology if it is proven effective.
Adam Afriyie
Con
Windsor
Mr. Afriyie raises concerns about the implications of clause 104 on telephone conversations, noting that all such data would be covered under this measure.
Bill Cash
Constitutional
Stone
Mr. Cash supports Mr. Davis's new clause for its aim and echoes the sentiment of personal liability of directors to prevent illegal content promotion on platforms.
Eleanor Laing
Con
Called on Members to limit their speeches to around eight minutes in order to manage the debate time effectively.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Rose to support John Martin McDonnell, emphasising that the production order structure is already being abused. He argued for stronger and clearer protection of journalists, whistleblowers, and people acting in public interest reasons.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Proposes amendments to include a wider range of criteria for designating category 1 services, arguing that this would prevent harmful content from migrating to smaller platforms. Also suggests giving Ofcom temporary powers to address significant harm during re-categorisation processes.
Neale Hanvey
Con
Airdrie and Shotts
Hanvey expresses concerns about the promotion of gender ideology online, which he argues creates a toxic environment for young people. He criticises the affirmative model that promotes irreversible treatments like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, stating it is reckless to accelerate young people into such models without proper therapeutic support.
Maria Miller
Con
Basingstoke
Proposes new clauses to criminalize posting explicit images without consent, distribute fake images, threaten to share intimate images, and extend protections for victims similar to those under the Modern Slavery Act. Emphasises the need for legislative action based on Law Commission recommendations.
Matt Rodda
Lab
Reading Central
Focuses on legal but harmful content and its relationship to knife crime, mentioning a harrowing constituency case. Acknowledges the devastating impact of such content on victims and their families.
Adam Afriyie
Con
Windsor
Welcomes the new shape and focus of the Bill aimed at protecting children. Supports making it an offence to encourage self-harm, though he does not press for a vote on this point. Argues that companies perpetrating illegal acts should pay fines which can support victims. Emphasises the need for clarity in criminalising harmful but legal content, advocating for primary legislation instead of relying on third-party entities like commercial companies or regulators to decide what is harmful.
Several hon. Members
18:45:00
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Kim Leadbeater
Lab
Spen Valley
Supports new clause 53 for its protection against epilepsy trolling. Advocates for stricter director liability, comprehensive media literacy initiatives, and a more robust platform categorisation system to address high-risk content.
John Penrose
Con
Wotton
Proposes new clauses 34 and 35 to address collective harms through duties of balance and factual accuracy. Argues that existing rules for broadcasters should be imposed on platforms to prevent echo chambers and radicalisation, ensuring a balanced view in filter bubbles. Emphasises the importance of identifying false information quickly and accurately.
Dean Russell
Con
Watford
Raises concerns about body image and photo-shopped images, suggesting that these issues fall into the category of truth addressed by new clauses 34 and 35.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
Burgon pays tribute to Twist’s work and refers to a case of his constituent, Joe Nihill, who died by suicide after accessing harmful material online. He supports new clause 16 and amendment 159, calling for assurances from the Minister that the Bill will protect adults like Joe and others using smaller platforms.
Webb speaks in support of new clause 53 (Zach’s law), which aims to protect people with epilepsy from flashing images sent by trolls. She thanks Zach Eagling, his mother, and the Epilepsy Society for their efforts. Webb highlights that tech companies should regulate themselves better without needing a Bill.
Jamie Stone
Lib Dem
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Supports new clause 55 as part of the Bill's overall objective to ensure a fair society where those responsible for harm are held accountable. While his primary focus is on child safety online, he acknowledges the importance of tackling illegal immigration and modern slavery through digital means. He commends the proposal for its potential to disrupt criminal networks promoting such activities.
Carla Lockhart
DUP
Upper Bann
Welcomes the Bill but expresses concerns over unaddressed issues. Supports new clauses to protect children from self-harm, illegal distribution of intimate images, and those with epilepsy from targeted harm. Highlights the importance of robust protection for children against online dangers such as pornography.
Supports amendments tabled by Maria Miller focusing on protecting women and girls from intimate image abuse, extreme pornography, and cyber-flashing. Emphasises the importance of new clause 16 to protect young people suffering from eating disorders and self-harm. Calls for strict regulation of online access to pornographic content harmful to children.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Jim Shannon supports the Online Safety Bill, highlighting its importance in addressing issues such as social media pressure on young people and online bullying. He mentions that there has been an increase in correspondence from parents concerned about their children’s safety on social media platforms. He also referred to a report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists which concluded that excessive use of phones and social media is detrimental to mental health and development, with online abuse becoming more prevalent. Shannon praised Zach's law included in the Bill and mentioned new clause 48, welcoming the ability to hand down sentences for up to five years for those sharing nude or intimate photos. He emphasised the need for increased focus on making children’s use of the internet safer by design and highlighted the distinct risks faced by girls online.
Dean Russell
Con
Watford
Mr Russell advocates for new clause 53, which aims to prevent online harassment through legislative means. He cites Zach's case as a driving force behind the amendment and criticises tech companies' failure to address such issues despite their technical capabilities. Mr Russell also emphasises the importance of addressing content addiction and the moral responsibility of platforms to protect vulnerable users.
Suzanne Webb
Con
Stourbridge
[INTERVENTION]: Ms Suzanne Webb suggests formalising new clause 53 as Zach's law, proposing it as a meaningful Christmas present to acknowledge the campaign’s success.
Laura Farris
Con
Rutland and Melton
Supports new clauses 28, 45 to 50. Argues for an advocacy body representing child users online due to the evolving nature of online platforms exposing children to harmful content. Highlights impact on young boys and girls, with evidence showing rise in sexually aggressive behaviour among boys and submissive attitudes in girls. Emphasises need for regular advocacy regarding age verification to protect children from online pornography.
Miriam Cates
Con
Penistone and Stocksbridge
Supports new clause 28, which calls for an advocacy body to represent child users of the internet. Emphasises that regulating the online world is necessary due to its importance as essential infrastructure. Cites statistics on children's exposure to pornography and sexual abuse materials. Argues for criminalising harmful content affecting children and supports individual director liability through new clause 17.
Paul Scully
Con
Ealing North
The Minister thanked Members for their contributions and expressed sympathy towards proposals to criminalise promotion of self-harm but noted that the Government will introduce a new offence in due course. He recognised cross-party support and mentioned the impact of the Molly Russell case, committing to work with MPs to address eating disorders in legislation. The Minister agreed with intent behind some amendments, such as representing child users' interests, and stated that Ofcom would have all necessary tools for regulatory enforcement without needing further individual liability measures. He emphasised that there are ample opportunities for children's voices to be heard through existing provisions.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
Asked the Minister to ensure thorough examination of matters raised and requested clarification on new clause 17, indicating dissatisfaction with current explanations given by the Minister.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
Inquired if the Minister is open to changing his view regarding rejection of new clause 17 and seeking clarification, showing interest in further discussion on the matter.
Sarah Champion
Lab
Rotherham
Asked for assurance that there would be a specific vehicle for children’s voices to be heard in the legislation, stressing the importance of understanding daily traumas and evolving social media threats faced by children.
Natalie Elphicke
Con
Dover
Confirmed that discussions had been held regarding amendments in line with new clause 55 and schedule 7, and requested confirmation from the Minister about bringing back necessary amendments as the Bill progresses.
Maria Miller
Con
Basingstoke
Asked for clarification on whether it is his intention to implement Law Commission’s recommendations within the scope of the Bill prior to its reaching the House of Lords, expressing satisfaction if this was confirmed.
John McDonnell
Lab
Hayes and Harlington
Briefly inquired about protection for journalists regarding amendment 204, seeking a response from the Minister on ensuring safeguards for journalists' privacy and safety.
▸
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.