← Back to House of Commons Debates
Online Harms Legislation
13 February 2020
Lead MP
Julian Knight
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
NHSEconomyCulture, Media & SportBenefits & WelfareMental Health
Other Contributors: 22
At a Glance
Julian Knight raised concerns about online harms legislation in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Response
We agree that regulation must have teeth and are discussing with Ofcom what form this should take, including considering a levy to fund the regulator. Companies will be legally required to be more transparent with their customers regarding privacy rights. Pre-legislative scrutiny by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is an interesting suggestion for ensuring effective oversight without delay. Addressed concerns about rushing, collaboration with tech companies and charities, parental controls for children's safety, international cooperation on pro-suicide content, coverage of self-harm and eating disorder promotion, effectiveness of sanctions regime, discussions with social media companies to remove harmful content, criminalisation of non-consensual sharing of explicit pictures, Ofcom’s resources and skills, protection from online gambling grooming, fair regulatory regime for tech companies. Yes, the figure we have talked about in the consultation is that no more than 5% of UK businesses will be affected by this legislation. We are mindful of the challenges presented by technology, but this is a profoundly pro-tech Government. We see those opportunities, and we will make sure that businesses, small and large, can seize them in a way that is safe for all our citizens.
Yes, is the short answer. The duty of care is a central part of this piece of legislation. It is the way in which we protect children and vulnerable people from exactly the kind of disgraceful behaviour that the hon. Member describes.
Matt Warman
Con
Birkenhead
The Government are taking significant action to tackle the issue of online harm, proposing a statutory duty of care enforced by an independent regulator. The proportion of parents who believe the benefits of their child being online outweigh the risks has fallen from 65% in 2015 to 55% last year, indicating growing concern over online safety. We aim for legislation that balances freedom of expression with user protection, particularly for children and vulnerable individuals. A statutory duty of care will apply only to businesses facilitating user-generated content. Ofcom is being considered as the regulator due to its expertise in dealing with media and communications issues.
Julian Knight
Con
Solihull
I thank the Minister for his initial response but ask for assurances that the proposed Ofcom plus regulator will have genuine power to hold social media companies accountable, including through public shaming and fines. A tech levy of 2% of UK revenues is suggested to properly fund this super-regulator. There needs to be a legal duty on companies to inform users of their personal privacy rights. Pre-legislative scrutiny by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and a veto over the appointment or dismissal of the head regulator are proposed. The Minister should assure that legislation will come this year as it has been awaited for long.
Chi Onwurah
Lab
Newcastle upon Tyne Central
Real examples of online harms include Molly Russell's suicide at 14 after viewing Instagram posts, David Turnball's pension loss through an unregulated financial product advertised by Google, and a teenager’s suicide live-streamed on TikTok. The response to these issues is overdue and weak; the inventor of the internet, Tim Berners-Lee, among others, has called for regulation. Social media companies have always had a duty of care but victims await legislation. New harms like hacking smart doorbells are emerging, yet algorithms, facial recognition, and AI are not addressed. Will there be clear enforcement powers for Ofcom with additional resources? Transparency on how complaints will be regulated is requested.
Alex Norris
Lab Co-op
Nottingham North
Challenged the Minister's rationale for cancelling the second phase of the Leveson inquiry, questioning the delay in addressing both print and online harms. Asked when draft legislation will be introduced.
Replied to concerns about rushing the process, stating that no other country is moving faster on tackling online harms. Promised a full Government response in spring and legislative introduction this Session. Emphasised collaboration with tech companies and charities for safer internet use.
Asked about urging tech companies to make parental controls easier, focusing on safeguarding children online.
Congratulated the work of the UK Safer Internet Centre and asked for Government support in making internet safer for young people.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
Highlighted teachers' role in dealing with online harms, urged focus on protecting freedom of speech while tackling harm to minors. Requested clarity on metrics and timetable for regulation.
Liz Twist
Lab
Blaydon and Consett
Asked about international action to create a suicide-safer internet, highlighting the need for global cooperation in addressing pro-suicide content online.
Damian Hinds
Con
East Hampshire
Welcomed the approach but asked if legislation will cover promotion and glamorisation of self-harm and eating disorders on social media.
Questioned whether penalties and prosecution for directors would be dropped in final proposals, expressing concern over policy changes.
Asked about discussions with social media companies to remove harmful content as quickly as possible.
Called for criminalisation of non-consensual sharing of explicit private and sexual pictures, suggesting existing loopholes need addressing.
Asked if Ofcom has the right resources, powers, and skills to keep pace with technological changes in preventing new harms.
Inquired about protection of children from being groomed as future gamblers through online gaming and gambling platforms.
Mike Wood
Con
Kingswinford
Asked if the regulatory regime proposed would be fair, proportionate, and expected substantive action from larger companies with more resources.
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Bristol West
Asked the Minister to consider adopting a principle that illegal offline activities should be similarly illegal online in legislation.
Asked whether the online space is crucial for SME incubation and inquired about the impact of new online harms proposals on UK businesses, specifically if only a small percentage would be affected.
Responded that no more than 5% of UK businesses will be impacted by the legislation. Stressed the Government's pro-tech stance and commitment to ensuring safe business opportunities for all sizes of enterprises.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Inquired about extending a duty of care for digital users beyond monetary issues to include protection from bullying under the guise of freedom of expression. Questioned if this duty would be enshrined in law and enforced rigorously.
Confirmed that a duty of care is central to the proposed legislation, aimed at protecting children and vulnerable individuals from harmful digital content as described by the hon. Member.
▸
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.