Key Facts

• Clause 140 introduces a super-complaints mechanism.
• An external redress process is recommended by multiple stakeholders.
• The Enterprise Act 2002 sets a 90-day deadline for the Competition and Markets Authority response.
• Clause 140 allows the Secretary of State to define eligible entities for making super-complaints through regulations with an affirmative procedure.
• Clause 141 sets out how the complaints process will be made, but uses a negative procedure for regulations.
• Amendment 153 aims to ensure Ofcom provides a timely response within 90 days to super-complainants.
• The current drafting does not specify any time limits for responding to super-complaints.
• Clauses 140 to 142 set out the power to make super-complaints, the procedure for making them and guidance published by Ofcom.
• The regulations under clause 140(3) specify eligible entities representing users or members of the public using an affirmative procedure.
• Clause 141 allows setting time limits via regulation through a consultation process.
• Clause 143 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to set out strategic priorities for online safety matters.
• Clause 144 sets out consultation and parliamentary procedure requirements before designating a statement of strategic priorities.
• The Government have heard points about parliamentary scrutiny and will convey them to higher authorities.
• New clause 10 allows Ofcom to act independently in response to threats to public health, safety, or national security.
• Clause as it stands requires a direction from the Secretary of State for Ofcom to take action under similar circumstances.
• Concerns have been raised about lack of constraints on Secretary of State's powers under existing clause.
• Clause 146 grants significant powers to the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom.
• New clause 10 would allow Ofcom to take action on threats without needing a direction from the Secretary of State.
• The example of Snapchat's Snap Map feature is cited as an instance where media literacy duties could have been more proactive in addressing public safety concerns.
• Under section 11 of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom already has power to issue media literacy guidance without needing Secretary of State permission.
• Clause 146 gives the Secretary of State powers to issue directions only in cases where there is a present threat to public health or safety and national security.
• The Minister argues that these specific powers for the Secretary of State are necessary due to information access limitations related to national security.
• Clause 147 enables the Secretary of State to give guidance to Ofcom.
• Consultation with Ofcom is required before issuing, revising or replacing guidance.
• The guidance must be strategic in nature and does not infringe on day-to-day operations.
• Amendment 112 aims to include physical harm in the definition of harm for the purposes of the harmful communications offence.
• Amendment 113 seeks to add a provision for physical harm resulting from epileptic seizures triggered by intentional flashing images sent online.
• Zach is an energetic young boy from Leadbeater's constituency who was trolled online and sent flashing images designed to trigger his epileptic condition.
• The amendment aims to cover physical harm caused by online bullying, not just psychological distress.
• Professor Sander supports the amendment, stating that physical and psychological impacts of epilepsy trolling can vary between individuals.
• Zach's law would ensure that harmful communications causing physical harm are covered under clause 150 without needing proof of serious psychological distress.
• Amendment 112 aims to bring physical harm into the scope of clause 150 but goes beyond epilepsy trolling.
• Clause 150 covers psychological harm but not physical harm as mentioned in Clause 187.
• The new offence will be specific to epilepsy and will address issues raised by MPs persistently lobbying on this matter.
• Amendment 113 aims to create an offence for epilepsy trolling.
• The Epilepsy Society provided input on the drafting of the amendment.
• The Government intends to legislate for a specific new offence covering epilepsy trolling but has not yet determined which Bill it will be included in.
• Amendment 113 proposed new language for clause 150 regarding physical harm from epileptic seizures triggered by flashing images.
• The amendment was negatived in a vote with Ayes 5, Noes 10.
• Charities have been calling for updates to the Malicious Communications Act 1998 and the Communications Act 2003.
• Professor Clare McGlynn highlighted the case of Gaia Pope to illustrate difficulties in proving intent for prosecution.
• Clause 150 includes a 'public interest' defence which may be misused.
• There is a distinction in harm thresholds between clause 150 (harmful communications) and clause 151 (false communications).
• Clause 150 criminalises communications with real and substantial risk causing serious psychological harm.
• Serious distress is a high threshold—significant rather than trivial.
• Consent is used instead of intent for intimate image abuse, under consideration by the Law Commission.
• Amendment 41 would make it an offence to send unsolicited genital images without consent.
• Research from Bumble shows that 48% of millennial women in the UK have been sent unsolicited sexual images in the last year.
• The Law Commission proposes a motive-based criminal offence which Labour argues is insufficient and creates an unjustified hierarchy of abuses.
• Rees mentions Scotland's approach to teaching consent in schools from an early age.
• The issue involves a generation of men sending non-consensual images to women.
• Women receive unwanted intimate images without seeking or giving consent.
• Research by YouGov shows that half of millennial women have received a penis photo and nine in ten did not want it.
• The Law Commission will bring forward recommendations next month regarding intimate image abuse.
• Clause 156 amends the Sex Offenders Act to outline offences related to sending obscene images with intent to cause harm, distress or humiliation.
• The Legal experts at the Law Commission have been studying the matter for a while.
• Clause 156 needs a delicate balance to criminalize harmful acts without impacting consensual exchanges.
• Maria Miller suggests considering 'reckless' actions in causing harm as per Law Commission's original report.
• Clause 158 includes consequential amendments to existing legislation.
• Schedule 13 amends the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, and other laws.
• Clauses 160 and 161 are proposed to stand part of the Bill.
• Clause 159 ensures joint liability for fees demanded under new schedule 2.
• Labour supports the clauses without seeking amendments, emphasizing the importance of capturing true responsibility among service providers.
• Schedule 14 establishes that decisions or notices can be given jointly to both a regulated provider and its parent company.
• Clauses 162-165 deal with information-related criminal offences and personal liability.
• Corporate officers can be found liable for information offences committed by their company, even if they are not named in the response.
• Clause 164 aims to ensure that senior executives focus on meeting information requirements.
• The Bill protects users regardless of where content originates.
• Companies like Facebook are included in the scope of clause 166.
• Ofcom can request information and interview individuals abroad as part of its investigations.