← Back to House of Commons Debates
Communications (Data Protection and Prompts) Bill - Schedule 8
12 July 2022
Lead MP
Damian Collins
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Science & TechnologyStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 68
At a Glance
Damian Collins raised concerns about communications (data protection and prompts) bill - schedule 8 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
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The proposed amendment seeks to introduce transparency reports by providers of Category 1 services, Category 2a services and Category 2b services, aiming to enhance data protection measures and ensure compliance with the new regulations.
Damian Collins
Con
Telford
The amendment proposes that service providers must submit transparency reports on their adherence to data protection laws, which will help in monitoring compliance and maintaining public trust. These reports will cover various aspects such as the handling of user data, privacy measures, and security practices.
Lindsay Hoyle
Speaker
Chorley
Introduced multiple new clauses and amendments enhancing regulatory duties on internet service providers.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Welcomed the new Minister to his position, noting that there was cross-party consensus behind the Bill's principles. Acknowledged nervousness about who would be standing at the Dispatch Box.
Welcomed the Minister to his position and emphasised the importance of free speech for women and girls online, criticising those who seek to critique the Bill. Raised concerns about discrimination against individuals based on protected characteristics.
Asked if Twitter should be bound by duties under domestic law not to discriminate against anyone on grounds of a protected characteristic, and questioned whether platforms providing services in the UK abide by such laws.
Welcomed the Minister to his position, noting that minimum standards should be set for risk assessments on legal but harmful content. Raised concerns about platforms setting risk assessment that allows vile content to appear.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
Congratulated the Minister on his appointment and supported him in his role. Emphasised that reports suggesting the Bill mandates censorship of legal content are inaccurate.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Congratulated the Minister on his promotion, questioning if he is satisfied with the Bill in relation to disinformation.
Welcomed the Minister and asked about how harmful content facilitating wildlife crime can be mitigated.
Kirsty Blackman
SNP
Aberdeen North
Noted that new clause 14 was not discussed in the Bill Committee and external organisations have not been consulted on it, expressing concern about major changes to the Bill.
Gosport
Welcomed the Minister's new position and emphasised the importance of clarity and transparency for users and social media providers to avoid opaqueness.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Intervened to highlight that people migrate from one platform to another, a fact not addressed by the Government.
Acknowledged the need to re-examine categorisation and expressed hope for discussion in the third group of amendments next week.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
Asked if Labour is reassured by the Government’s commitment to limit Secretary of State powers to exceptional circumstances only, as mentioned in a written ministerial statement.
Inquired about Labour's stance on exemptions for antisemites and raised concerns about search platforms providing racist content.
Suggested seeking assurance from Ofcom to issue a code of practice on violence against women and girls, negating the need for further amendments in the Bill.
Emphasised that the Online Safety Bill is significant in protecting users online and expressed willingness to work with Labour on this issue.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Davis criticises clause 13 for targeting legal but harmful content, fearing it will lead to censorship by social media firms due to fear of fines or prison sentences. He emphasises that lawful speech should not be regulated and calls for more parliamentary scrutiny.
Damian Collins
Con
Folkestone and Hythe
Collins intervenes to clarify that the Bill does not require companies to remove legal speech, but rather sets out what policies they have for dealing with harmful content. He argues against Davis's concerns about censorship.
John Nicolson
SNP
Nairn, Highland and Badenoch
The MP argues that the Secretary of State's powers under clause 40 should be removed or significantly constrained due to potential threats to Ofcom’s independence. He supports amendments reducing these powers, citing concerns from experts and stakeholders about politicisation of digital regulation. Additionally, he highlights a human trafficking amendment (187) which seeks to address platforms' involvement in aiding traffickers through advertising and co-ordination on social media.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
Welcomes new clause 19, supports amendments 11 and 12 to tighten definition of 'recognised news publisher', welcomes government's commitment to narrow Secretary of State’s powers in the House of Lords. Considers potential for speeding up researcher access provisions (clause 137) and making algorithmic promotion of harmful content more prescriptive.
Concerned about risk of increased content moderation; suggests amendment to ensure Twitter and other online service providers are subject to anti-discrimination law under the Equality Act 2010. Seeks clarity on consistency in applying codes of practice.
Damian Collins
Con
Folkestone and Hythe
Responds to concerns about consistency, agrees that regulator should apply methods consistently according to established codes of practice. Offers to meet concerned MPs to address any gaps in process.
Suggests removing Secretary of State from process and allowing Parliament to take code of standards directly from Ofcom for full debate. Argues that quicker process could be achieved.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Agrees on potential for academic researchers to better understand harm landscape with access to information, supports algorithmic amplification of harmful content being addressed in transparency reports.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
Supports amendments that address anonymous abuse while preserving anonymity for vulnerable groups. Proposes third-party identity verification to prevent harmful but legal abuse, ensuring privacy and freedom of speech are maintained.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South
Agrees that freedom of speech is not absolute and should be balanced with checks and balances as outlined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Worcestershire South
Fletcher argues that the current clause does not sufficiently protect freedom of speech and suggests stronger free speech obligations are necessary. He cites examples such as former US President Trump being blocked on Twitter to illustrate the need for better protections in digital public squares.
Andrew Percy
Con
Brigg and Goole
Percy intervenes, arguing that social media companies must take action against legal but harmful content due to their global influence. He suggests the requirement for risk assessment and appropriate warnings.
Adam Afriyie
Con
Windsor
Afriyie supports Fletcher's argument, suggesting annual debates in Parliament to decide what should be considered harmful and made illegal.
Anna McMorrin
Lab
Cardiff North
McMorrin speaks against the amendments, advocating for new clause 3 to include violence against women and girls on the face of the Bill. She highlights statistics showing the prevalence of online abuse and violence against women, arguing that current measures are inadequate.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
Cherry intervenes to support McMorrin's position, highlighting her own experience with online abuse and the need for even-handed application of moderation policies across all protected characteristics.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Mr. Jeremy Wright proposes that the Bill should balance children’s safety with their well-being benefits by adding a clause in amendment 42, which would ensure platforms consider the positive impact of online activities on children's welfare when taking proportionate measures for their safety. He also suggests amending clause 16 to narrow down the definition of journalistic content and protect only genuine news publishers. Furthermore, he proposes removing the Secretary of State’s broad discretion over Ofcom through amendment 13.
Mr. Julian Knight agrees with Mr. Jeremy Wright that down the line, Ofcom might need a regime of compliance officers to provide guidance for platforms in understanding how to identify and handle illegal content effectively.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Recognises that the platforms currently have unfettered control over content moderation but supports the framework presented by the Bill to balance decisions. Acknowledges the need for Twitter to comply with domestic anti-discrimination laws.
Damian Collins
Con
Former Member
Offers to continue dialogue and meet Joanna Cherry to discuss the amendments at a further date, showing support for addressing Twitter's discrimination against protected characteristics under the Equality Act.
Julian Knight
Con
Solihull
Knight is concerned that clause 40 gives the Secretary of State too much power over Ofcom, potentially compromising its independence. He proposes amendments to remove this interference and allow codes of practice to be reviewed directly by Parliament instead.
Kevan Jones
Lab
Durham
Campaigns for better regulation of cosmetic surgery sector, highlighting safety concerns and mental health impacts on young people. Proposes a kitemark or disclaimer to warn about health risks associated with procedures.
Damian Collins
Con
Monmouth
[INTERVENTION]: Acknowledges the importance of regulating online advertising and assures follow-up with Department of Health and Social Care to discuss Kevan Jones' points.
Eleanor Laing
Con
Dartford
Acknowledges Kevan Jones' speech as brief and relevant, but does not provide a position or further details on the amendment.
Nigel Evans
unknown constituency
Evans introduced a six-minute limit on speeches and emphasised the need for legislation that keeps users safe online while protecting freedom of speech. He supported media literacy promotion, expressed concerns about end-to-end encryption and the vagueness of 'harm' in the Bill, and highlighted issues with press exemption, suggesting these provisions could allow channels like Russia Today to be exempt.
Jamie Stone
Lib Dem
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Stone welcomed the Minister and stressed the importance of addressing online abuse that threatens democracy. He tabled amendments for media literacy promotion by Ofcom and against provisions that might restrict end-to-end encryption, expressing concerns about vague definitions in the Bill and press exemption issues.
Feryal Clark
Lab
Enfield North
Feryal Clark supports amendments 15 and 16, emphasising the need to keep people safe. She argues that social media platforms have failed to make their platforms safe for everyone, particularly children. Clark highlights the issue of 'breadcrumbing' where child abusers use social networks to guide users to illegal content elsewhere online. The amendments would give regulators powers to tackle this practice and ensure proactive responses to child abuse on social media.
Munira Wilson
Lib Dem
Twickenham
Wilson supports focusing on system design rather than content removal to protect children online. She believes the Bill should expand its scope beyond user-to-user and search services, covering all technologies likely accessed by children, such as augmented reality and the metaverse.
Damian Collins
Con
Folkestone and Hythe
Collins intervened to clarify that the Bill focuses on both systems and content, not just content as often perceived. This intervention supports a broader interpretation of the Bill's scope.
Kirsty Blackman
SNP
Aberdeen North
Ms Kirsty Blackman supports amendments to enhance child protection measures on the internet. She advocates for proactive technology use, user empowerment duties for children, regulation of habit-forming features, and removal of exemptions for live one-to-one communications. Her arguments include concerns over addiction-like behaviour among young people and significant risks posed by platforms like OnlyFans and Fortnite.
Damian Collins
Con
Tunbridge Wells
The Minister outlined support for the bill's provisions, arguing that violence against women and girls is adequately covered within existing legal frameworks and through amendments proposed by the Law Commission. He emphasised the iterative process of improving the Bill with input from Members across the House. The Minister addressed concerns raised about the necessity to include specific references to 'violence against women and girls' in the priority harms section, asserting that existing legislation and future amendments provide adequate coverage.
Anna McMorrin
Lab
Cardiff North
[INTERVENTION]: The shadow Minister challenged the Minister's statement by highlighting the clear definition of violence against women and girls provided in the Istanbul convention, arguing that including this reference would ensure comprehensive coverage.
Bristol West
Argues that despite numerous Government resignations and lack of support within the Conservative party, the Prime Minister continues to govern without a formal vote of no confidence. Expresses concern over the Prime Minister's actions as an erosion of democratic conventions.
Margaret Beckett
Lab
Warwick and Leamington
Considers the refusal to grant a vote on a motion of no confidence as outrageous and undermining democratic principles, given the Prime Minister's past constitutional innovations.
Angela Eagle
Lab
Wallasey
Emphasises that testing the confidence of the House is a fundamental part of democratic governance, particularly in light of the Prime Minister's lack of support.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Cites historical precedents for motions of no confidence and argues against the current Government's refusal to grant a debate on the issue, deeming it as unconstitutional.
Karin Smyth
Lab
Bristol South
Highlights the potential loss of democracy due to the Government's refusal to allow a vote on no confidence, referencing testimony from Sir John Major.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham and Chislehurst
Critiques the Conservative party for refusing to support a vote on no confidence despite acknowledging issues within the Government, calling it cowardly.
Questions the inconsistency in Conservative MPs' actions regarding their views on the Prime Minister's fitness to govern and their refusal to table a vote.
Inquires whether Mr Speaker has received any explanation from the Government for denying a debate on the motion, challenging the procedural legitimacy of the current stance.
Echoed concerns about online abuses and supported the Bill's aim to address them. Raised specific concern about ensuring that only pornographic material is defined as such, avoiding unintended consequences for sites featuring artistic nude works or body positivity content.
Barbara Keeley
Lab
Worsley and Eccles South
Emphasises the need to strengthen provisions against fraudulent advertising, protect consumers from scams through better regulation of secondary ticketing websites, and accelerate the implementation of protections for harmful content. She also calls for parliamentary oversight in decision-making processes regarding priority offences.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Emphasises the importance of balancing legislative powers between the Secretary of State, regulator Ofcom, and Parliament. Acknowledges the need for further discussion on where this balance lies but is not convinced that the current amendments achieve it perfectly. Discusses practical challenges in verifying age and consent for pornographic content as proposed by new clause 7 and amendment 33, questioning how platforms would establish these details. Supports the principle of ensuring children are protected from inappropriate online material but raises concerns about interpreting 'pornographic content' broadly (amendment 56).
John Nicolson
SNP
Nairn, Aberdeenshire & Moray
Mr. Nicolson emphasises the need for consistent legal standards for pornography to address illegal and harmful content online. He cites examples of children viewing pornographic material that normalises abuse and provides evidence from Barnardo’s on real-world impacts.
Kirsty Blackman
SNP
Aberdeen North
Supports new clause 7, emphasising the need for robust protections against child exploitation. Highlights the importance of futureproofing legislation to cover emerging internet technologies and practices such as virtual reality and private livestreaming sessions.
unknown constituency
Supports new clauses 7 and 33 from a perspective emphasising the importance of consent in the sex work industry, arguing that individuals should retain control over their personal content even after initial consent. Expresses concern over lack of mechanisms for revoking consent once given.
Ronnie Cowan
SNP
Inverclyde
Encourages support for new clause 7, stressing its importance in teaching about consent and leveraging existing technology to protect individuals from exploitation. Acknowledges the feasibility of implementing such measures based on evidence provided by an industry expert.
Damian Collins
Con
Tunbridge Wells
Collins argued that the bill sets out requirements for companies to have systems in place and use technologies to prevent illegal content from appearing on their platforms. He cited examples such as Google’s system with the Financial Conduct Authority, which limits fraudulent ads and has reduced fraud rates compared to Facebook.
Jess Phillips
Lab
Birmingham Yardley
Phillips questioned why they would not legislate to ensure companies comply with the requirements set out in the bill, suggesting that the current approach sounds like hoping for better outcomes rather than implementing them.
Diana R. Johnson
Lab
Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham
Johnson expressed doubt about the Minister's assertion that the legislation will be sufficient, pointing out that they could make it a requirement to put the proposal in the bill.
Barbara Keeley
Lab
Worsley and Eccles South
Keeley highlighted that she had previously tabled amendments on fraudulent advertising, which were not accepted by a former Minister. She argued that the case being quoted by the current Minister was one they had raised in Committee without success.
Brighton Kemptown
Russell-Moyle sought reassurance on the legal enforcement of content removal when consent is withdrawn, questioning whether there was any ability to legally enforce that such content should be removed.
▸
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.