← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Online Anonymity — [Esther McVey in the Chair]
13 January 2021
Lead MP
Siobhan Baillie
Responding Minister
Caroline Dinenage
Tags
NHSEconomyDemocracy & ElectionsCulture, Media & SportMental Health
Word Count: 8167
Other Contributors: 2
At a Glance
Siobhan Baillie raised concerns about online anonymity — [esther mcvey in the chair] in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
The lead MP asks the Government to address anonymity fully when considering online harms legislation. She suggests that proper consultation is necessary and urges the debate on the Law Commission's proposals regarding criminal law provisions that apply to individuals engaged in abusive behavior online.
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 MP is concerned about the negative impacts of online anonymity on society, including hate speech, misinformation, bullying, and misogyny. She cites a report indicating that adults spend an average of 4.2 hours daily online, with children spending even more time on their screens. During the pandemic, screen time has likely increased further, causing many to feel less confident about going online due to concerns over safety and credibility of information. The MP highlights specific examples such as cyberbullying affecting children during lockdowns, political disinformation campaigns undermining democratic processes, and personal experiences of abuse directed at her for being a mother while serving as an MP.
Chi Onwurah
Lab
Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West
Cited the challenge of online anonymity for bullying and negative self-perception among young people, highlighted the impact on MPs and constituents, and advocated for a balance between protecting whistleblowers and preventing abuse. Proposed measures such as 'know your customer' checks and identity verification requirements to increase friction against cyber-crime and abuse. Asked the Minister to clarify whether exceptions to the online harms legislation would be enabled through trade deals with the US, and summarised that online anonymity is not currently directly addressed in the proposed legislation but could be if there was thought to be sufficient reason.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
Madders expressed concerns about the abuse and harassment prevalent on online platforms, particularly Twitter. He highlighted a statistic that 47% of teenagers had seen something they wished they had not during the first lockdown. Madders noted that while he uses Twitter to communicate quickly with a wide audience, it also has downsides due to its lack of regulation and norms, leading to an environment where users can hide behind anonymity for abusive behavior.
Government Response
Caroline Dinenage
Government Response
It is a great pleasure to serve under the stewardship of Esther McVey. I thank Damian Hinds and Siobhan Baillie for their contributions, and acknowledge that online anonymity is an important issue. Anonymous abuse online has risen due to increased reliance on digital platforms during the pandemic; this includes anti-vax content and encouragement of self-harm or suicide. The Government recognises the role of anonymity in protecting vulnerable individuals while addressing harmful anonymous abuse through legislation like the Online Harms White Paper consultation, which sets out expectations for companies to keep users safe online. Companies will need to remove illegal content, assess child access risks, and tackle legal but harmful content. The regulatory framework will include sanctions up to 10% of global turnover, ensuring Ofcom has enforcement power. The Government is committed to tackling all online harms while maintaining freedom of expression, and will continue working with parliamentarians for pre-legislative scrutiny to ensure robust legislation.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.