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.

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.

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.

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.

Acknowledged that small enterprises should be excluded, while ensuring regulation can upscale in cases of harmful material exchange.

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.

Assured that when the Bill becomes an Act, the interim code will be made legally binding if necessary.

Acknowledged the importance of educating both children and parents. Announced plans for publishing an online media literacy strategy.

Clarified that Ofcom will be able to interrogate data. Stressed the need to avoid harmful sources masquerading as news publishers.

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.

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.

Stated that the focus is on user-generated content rather than comprehensive advertising bans, but acknowledged the importance of addressing specific harmful practices.

Confirmed that companies must build systems to tackle illegal content and protect children from harm, citing observed technologies as evidence.

Explained that the legislation aims to broaden protections against harmful user-generated content, including child exposure to illegal pornography.

Acknowledged the importance of addressing illegal conduct but stated that broader anonymity issues are complex, requiring careful consideration.

Discussed the challenges of lifting anonymity while protecting vulnerable individuals and stated a commitment to continued review.

Agreed with Karen's point, committing to holding tech companies accountable for using available technologies to protect children.

Responded that self-harm content will be made illegal, and international engagement is part of a global movement for online safety.

Confirmed plans to work with the Law Commission to specifically outlaw deep fakes, cyber-flashing, and other harmful activities.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, financial penalties will cause executives to take responsibility. Criminal sanctions remain an option for severe breaches.

Companies will be expected to use emergent technology for checks. Proportionality is applied based on the reliability of AI, not manual human identification.

Yes, cooperation on child abuse is important as it knows no boundaries.

Yes, any website hosting user-generated content is covered under the legislation.

The Bill addresses legal but harmful content, ensuring companies take action. Secondary legislation will engage with MPs to identify such harms.

The duty of care is designed to address evolving harms, ensuring companies take appropriate steps beyond identifying individual posts.

The threshold excludes businesses primarily engaged in non-user-generated content activities, allowing small businesses to operate without undue regulatory burden.

Privacy is crucial. Companies rely on technology and AI to identify trends; ongoing discussions with tech companies ensure appropriate protections.

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.