(Solihull) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Digital, Culture, Media
and Sport if he will make a statement on the Government’s plans for
online harms legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport ()
I thank my hon. Friend for their question on this important
issue.
The Government are taking significant action to tackle the issue
of online harm and make this country the safest place in the
world to go online. There is widespread consensus that online
platforms must do more to make sure that their services are safe
for all users, particularly children, while also promoting
freedom of expression online. Strikingly, far fewer parents now
believe that the benefits of their child being online outweigh
the risks, with the proportion falling from 65% of parents in
2015 to 55% last year. That is a worrying trend that we must
address. We can keep the benefits of the digital economy only if
we can improve trust and confidence in technology and tackle what
erodes it.
The “Online Harms” White Paper proposed a statutory duty of care,
enforced by an independent regulator. Since its publication, we
have consulted on our proposals and announced our intention to
legislate in the Queen’s Speech. The evidence given during the
consultation will help us to get the balance right between an
open and vibrant internet and one where users are protected from
harm.
Yesterday, as set out in a written ministerial statement, the
Government published our initial consultation response. The
response set out our proposed direction of travel following the
consultation, and we will publish a full response in the spring,
before bringing forward legislation in this Session. I wish to
bring to the attention of the House four specific points raised
during the consultation.
First, we must ensure that in aiming to make the internet safer
we do not inadvertently stifle legitimate debate. We will place
safeguards in legislation, giving companies and the regulator the
responsibility to protect users’ rights, including freedom of
expression, online. We will introduce greater transparency about
content removals so that users can appeal if their content is
taken down.
Secondly, we know that greater protections are needed to keep
young people safe online. The new regulatory framework will
require companies to take steps to prevent children from
accessing age-inappropriate content and protect them from other
harms.
Thirdly, some consultation responses raised concerns that the
regulation would place undue burdens on sites where opportunities
for harm to occur are limited. Our legislation will be
proportionate and risk-based, affecting only those companies in
respect of which there is a risk of harm. The duty of care will
apply only to businesses facilitating the sharing of
user-generated content, for example, through comments or video
sharing, and only around 5% of UK businesses provide these
functions.
Finally, the regulator will ensure that in-scope companies have
appropriate systems and processes in place to protect users from
harm, especially children and the most vulnerable. We are minded
to appoint Ofcom to regulate online harms, building on its
experience and expertise to make further progress on this
important issue. We also yesterday appointed Ofcom to regulate
video-sharing platforms under the audiovisual media services
directive, which aims to reduce harmful content on these sites.
That will provide quicker protection for some harms and
activities and will act as a stepping stone to the full online
harms regulatory framework.
We will publish our full consultation response in the spring,
setting out further details of our plans ahead of legislation
and, alongside this, the Home Office will publish voluntary
interim codes of practice to set out what companies should do to
prevent terrorist use of the internet, or child sex exploitation
and abuse on their platforms.
We are confident that this publication and the other plans that
we are driving forward will help to make Britain the safest place
to be online and the best digital economy in the world. No other
country in the world is working faster to foster tackling this
vital issue.
I thank the Minister for his initial response. A regulator is
nothing without the ability genuinely to disrupt the business
practices of a firm that it is regulating. What assurances can he
give the House that the proposed Ofcom plus regulator can
genuinely bring social media companies to account with simply a
bit of public shaming and fines? Does he agree that there needs
to be a tech levy set at 2% of UK revenues in order properly to
fund this super-regulator?
Will the Minister confirm that there will be a legal duty on
companies to inform users of their personal privacy rights? Would
not the new regulatory framework benefit from pre-legislative
scrutiny by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, as
well as from allowing the Committee a veto over the appointment
or dismissal of the head of the regulator, in exactly the same
way that the Treasury Committee has over the head of the Office
for Budget Responsibility? Will the Minister assure the House
that legislation will be forthcoming this calendar year, as we
have been waiting a very long time for this?
The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right that
regulation without teeth is not a valuable form of regulation. We
will be talking to Ofcom about what it believes the most
effective form of regulation will be, and we will obviously be
feeding in our own thoughts as well. The decision that we made
yesterday allows us to start having those formal conversations,
and Ofcom to start talking to the industry as well. In the same
vein, I agree with my hon. Friend that a levy has been much
discussed. He mentions one figure. We will obviously have to
discuss with Ofcom what it considers to be the level of resources
that it needs, and I do not use that as a way of trying to weasel
out of what he suggests by any means. It is a very interesting
suggestion.
There will be, of course, a legal duty on companies to be more
transparent with their customers. We are talking about
transparency already in some working groups that I have been
chairing. My hon. Friend mentions pre-legislative scrutiny. It
is, of course, a tradition, although not a necessity, that full
pre-legislative scrutiny in one Session would require the Bill to
be introduced in the following Session, and this Government are
not content to introduce that kind of delay. However, he did in
fact mention pre-legislative scrutiny by his Committee, rather
than in the formal way, and it is an interesting suggestion. I
look forward to working closely with him on what the best form of
scrutiny looks like.
Similarly, another interesting suggestion is what role my hon.
Friend’s Committee might play when it comes to the regulator of
this. We have compared regulation of financial services when we
have been thinking about this, and he is right to make a
comparison. It is another interesting suggestion. I look forward
to working with him and his Committee—I hope. [Interruption.] I
will put my phone on speaker on the Dispatch Box. I look forward
to working with him, to be serious, because this is an area where
I hope we can form genuine cross-party consensus on what is the
right way forward without introducing a moment’s delay.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will allow up to 45 minutes on this urgent question, but
first we will hear from .
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central)
(Lab)
Molly Russell was only 14 when she killed herself after viewing
posts on Instagram. David Turnball was 75 when he lost his
pension through an unregulated financial product that was
prominently advertised by Google. Last year TikTok live-streamed
a teenager’s suicide. Misinformation on the coronavirus is
spreading on social media. An online abuse offence against a
child is recorded every 16 minutes. When we talk about online
harms, these are real people, real stories, real pain and real
hurt.
Before becoming an MP, I was an engineer. I helped build out the
internet. I am proud of my work, which enabled people to better
communicate and connect, but it has been clear for years that the
internet requires regulation. Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of
the internet, has said it; the National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children has said it; and Facebook has
said it.
This response on online harms is overdue, weak and ultimately
ineffective. Social media companies will have a duty of care,
which Ofcom will regulate—good. Tech companies always had a duty
of care, in my opinion, but the first online suicide was over 10
years ago, and still victims await legislation. When will these
proposals be law?
Instead of creating a new regulator, the Government have given
responsibility to Ofcom. I like Ofcom—I used to work for it—but
in the last ten years it has had the BBC, postal services and
more added to its remit. What additional resource will it have?
What powers of enforcement will it have? Companies will regulate
complaints themselves, although we are told that it will be
transparent—how? The transparency working group has been
mentioned, so could we have some transparency on that?
New online harms are emerging. Just a few weeks ago the smart
doorbell system Ring was hacked, putting children at risk.
Algorithms, facial recognition and artificial intelligence are
not addressed—why not? In a week’s time the European Union will
announce measures for digital services regulation. Has the
Minister spoken with the EU about alignment, and if not, why not?
Online harms cause untold damage in the real world. If the
Minister cannot give clear answers to these questions, victims
past and present will have lost out in another wasted year.
I welcome the tone of the hon. Lady on this. These are hugely
important issues that affect real people. We call them online
harms, but they are profoundly real for the people affected. She
is right that legislation is overdue; Parliament should have
acted many years ago to address the issue. But the reality is
that the duty of care that, in her opinion, social media
companies have to their users will be put into law by this
Parliament. That is progress, and I think we should welcome it.
We will bring forward the legislation in this Session. We will
produce the full consultation response by the spring. We will be
going as fast as possible. The hon. Lady wants us to go faster. I
welcome the tone that she has struck, but I know that she would
not want us to rush and then introduce half-formed legislation
that would not work. If we committed to pre-legislative scrutiny,
we would be introducing the legislation in the next Session, and
that is too long a delay.
I will try to answer some of the many entirely legitimate
questions that the hon. Lady asked. She is right that the NSPCC
and Facebook have welcomed this. The industry is ready and ripe
for regulation, and we should work together to deliver it. Like
the Chair of the Select Committee, she asked what additional
resources and enforcement powers Ofcom would have. We will ensure
that Ofcom has the resources and the enforcement powers that it
says are going to be the most effective. I hope that will be a
transparent and open conversation.
The hon. Lady mentioned the internet of things, which is an
important area. Harms that derive from being online are not
limited to social media; they now extend to the doorbells she
mentioned and a whole host of other things. She will know that
this Government have already committed, through what we call
“secure by design”, to legislate on that. I look forward to our
bringing that forward by whatever vehicle as soon as we possibly
can. That is why we have talked about it already.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the digital services regulation. Of
course, we work in consultation with countries around the world.
This is a global industry. Britain is taking the lead; it is
right that an open and liberal democracy takes the lead on these
difficult decisions. We will do this as fast as we possibly can.
We will not be delayed by the activities of other countries, but
we will work with them.
(Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Science and Technology Committee in the last Parliament
conducted a significant inquiry into the impact of social media
on young people’s health, so I welcome the fact that the Minister
has committed to the principal recommendation of the Committee’s
report—that Ofcom should be given the responsibility for
regulation in this area. But may I press him on the timing of the
statutory powers for Ofcom? There is no time to lose, as the
Committee’s report and Members today have made clear. I welcome
the fact that the legislation will be introduced in this Session.
When it comes to pre-legislative scrutiny, I hope that he will
take into account the precedent set by the Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy Committee in relation to the Domestic Gas and
Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill, which was introduced very quickly
within a Session and included all the recommendations of the
Committee. There is a big opportunity for the work of both the
Science and Technology Committee and the Digital, Culture, Media
and Sport Committee to inform rapid legislation that will give
great comfort to our constituents.
I have a great deal of time for the Science and Technology
Committee, having served on it myself. This is an important area
that cuts across a number of different Select Committees. If we
are going to pay attention to the Digital, Culture, Media and
Sport Committee, it is right that we should also look at how we
can work with others—while not slowing things down—because this
is a very important issue. We will continue that conversation
with my right hon. Friend as soon as possible. As I said earlier,
we will work with Ofcom to ensure its powers are in legislation
as quickly as possible, but also that those powers are developed
enough to ensure that they are really effective and persist
beyond the current generation of technology, because we surely
try to make legislation that does not need to be remade every
year.
(Ochil and South Perthshire)
(SNP)
It is important that we respond to the new cross-border
challenges that have arisen as a result of our society moving
increasingly online. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of
the Scottish Government’s internet safety plan for children, and
I hope that he will co-operate with the devolved Administrations
on this issue.
The consultation on this area closed last summer, and it has to
be said that a delay of concrete proposals until spring does not
suggest an atmosphere of urgency. Will the Minister commit to no
further delays in Government action past the spring deadline and
ensure that the tech companies do not dictate the pace of reform?
Moreover, will he confirm whether the Government will be giving
Ofcom powers to make directors of social media companies
personally liable—including facing prosecution for harmful
content—and that these proposals have not been removed from the
Government’s plans in the face of lobbying by tech execs? Does he
agree that, although tightening regulations in this way is
necessary, we also need regulations to close the loopholes that
are seeing dark money being funnelled to political parties and
campaigns in this country in a manner which, if it had happened
in other states, would have the whole House of Commons united in
condemnation?
I look forward to working with the Scottish Government on their
plans. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a devolved
matter, but it is important that we listen to all voices. What we
did yesterday kicked off a process that I hope will be very
collaborative, and we will work with as many stakeholders as we
can possibly find.
I want to be absolutely clear that, whatever the hon. Gentleman
might have read in some newspapers, not a single word of the
response that we published yesterday was watered down at the
request of tech companies. We have gone faster than many have
suggested we might have been able to, and we will certainly not
be delaying. My appetite is only for us to go as quickly as we
possibly can.
The hon. Gentleman talked about director liability, which is
something that has been effective—in financial services
regulation, for instance. I look forward to looking at all
possible options when it comes to sanctions. I want them to be as
effective as possible, and nothing is off the table, whatever he
might have read. I will leave his comments on financial matters,
as they are issues that would be covered by other legislation.
(Kenilworth and Southam)
(Con)
My hon. Friend has already helpfully recognised that what the
regulator in this space requires is the legislative authority to
act, the personnel and resources needed to act, and, of course,
the sanctions and powers needed to act. Is it not also right,
though, that the urgency in giving the regulator those things is
not just the need, great though it is, to protect vulnerable
people, but the fact that this country could and should lead
globally on this, and we will only do so if we get on with it?
I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. and learned Friend
did as Secretary of State in leading this agenda. He is
absolutely right. Ofcom needs the powers and resources to get
this job done properly, but it also needs to make sure that we
seize every possible opportunity that comes from the digital
economy. Getting that balance right, alongside freedom of
expression, is the priority that he set as Secretary of State. We
will continue to do that, and we will not go any slower than we
absolutely need to.
(East Ham) (Lab)
Two years ago, in debating the Bill that became the Offensive
Weapons Act 2019, we discussed the problem that weapons that
cannot be lawfully purchased in the UK are nevertheless freely
available to buy online. Will the changes the Minister envisages
address that specific problem?
Obviously, the duty of care is wide-ranging. I am conscious that
we would expect economic harms, for instance, to be picked up
through other legislation. Similarly, the Offensive Weapons Act
itself picks up some other areas. This is one of the issues that
we have to look at to make sure that there are none of the
loopholes that the right hon. Gentleman describes. It is a
valuable point.
(Sevenoaks) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is precisely Ofcom’s experience
in broadcasting and telecoms that make it ideally placed to take
on this regulatory role of duty of care?
Yes, I absolutely do agree. Ofcom is perfectly placed to balance
our absolutely unequivocal commitment to free speech with the
need to regulate an industry that is, as I said, ripe for
regulation.
(St Albans) (LD)
Could the Minister share some more details about the scope of
this announcement? Specifically, does it cover threats to
democracy and abuses of the electoral system that have been
examined in the Lords by Lord Puttnam’s Committee, and will Ofcom
be given future-proofing powers to adjust regulations not only to
take account of technological changes but to protect against
future threats that do not yet exist?
The work that the Cabinet Office is doing on protecting democracy
is a hugely important, albeit complementary, part of the process,
rather than something that is covered by online harms. Our
intention is that the regulations and the codes of practice that
Ofcom will draw up will be as future-proofed as possible, because
we do not want to be coming back time and again having this
debate in a whole series of forums. We need to get on with this.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull () on tabling this urgent
question, and the Government on their response. Today’s focus has
very much been on online content and protecting children, but
will the Minister comment on how the internet continues to be
used by jihadi extremists to recruit future terrorists? The
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill went
through yesterday, so there is more money for counter-terrorism,
policing, probation and rehabilitation. But ultimately, until we
are able to remove harmful online content that is being used for
recruitment, further terrorist attacks, I am afraid, will take
place.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to say
that the online harms Bill is being drawn up jointly with my
colleagues in the Home Office to tackle exactly the areas that he
suggests. The Bill also has a hugely important component on
tackling disinformation, which is related to what he is talking
about, albeit, I appreciate, not the same thing. It is important
that we mount what we might call a full-spectrum response when it
comes to these threats.
(Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Nearly two years ago, the then Secretary of State stood at the
Dispatch Box justifying the cancellation of the second phase of
the Leveson inquiry. His rationale for that was that the harm was
no longer in print media but instead all online. I asked why we
could not deal with both, and he brushed me off, but now it looks
as though we are in danger of the Government not yet having done
either. The Minister says that he does not want to rush things,
but I gently say to him that there is no danger of anyone
accusing the Government of having done that. He gave lots of very
welcome detail today, but has not answered the one really burning
question—when will we see draft legislation?
I say gently back to the hon. Gentleman that plenty of tech
companies would like us to go slower on this. I understand his
point, but as I have said, no other country in the world is going
faster to tackle online harms. We will submit a full Government
response in the spring, and we will introduce legislation in this
Session.
(Meon Valley) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that we need to urge tech companies
immediately to make it much easier for parents to set parental
controls, to keep their children safer?
Yes, I agree that the role and responsibilities of parents are
hugely important. Some social media companies have made
significant progress in that area and done good work in schools,
but part of our media literacy work will focus specifically on
parents, to ensure that they know exactly what is the right way
for children to use the internet safely.
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
This week saw celebrations to promote the safe and positive use
of digital technology for children and young people on Safer
Internet Day. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the
work of the UK Safer Internet Centre, which works with more than
1,000 schools, children and businesses to make the internet a
safer place for children and young people? Does he agree that the
UK Government must do all they can to support that important
work?
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating all the work that goes on
around Safer Internet Day. The Secretary of State attended the
main conference on Tuesday, and I also appeared, albeit by video
link. We are committed to working with all the charities and
organisations that have made Safer Internet Day such a success,
but with this legislation, we also recognise that it is important
to go further.
(North East
Bedfordshire) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests, as the director of a company that
provides technology solutions to help schools deal with online
harms. Will the Minister applaud the work of teachers and senior
leadership teams in helping young people to avoid the excesses of
online harm? I encourage him to provide focus on protecting
freedom of speech and prioritising the need to tackle the harm
being done to our minors. May I urge him to provide clarity on
the metrics and timetable for this regulation, so that the
creativity of our technology companies can be put to good use as
well as to profitable use?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the extreme contribution of
teachers in this area. They have adapted remarkably quickly to a
changing threat, and I pay tribute to them. He is right to imply
that many of the solutions to challenges posed by technology will
be driven by technology companies themselves, and we have already
worked with companies such as SuperAwesome to ensure that that
happens as much as possible. He is also right that legislation
cannot come soon enough.
(Blaydon) (Lab)
During the consultation period, Samaritans highlighted the need
for international action to create a suicide-safer internet, in
their words. What action do the Government propose to lead that
international co-operation and ensure a reduction in suicides?
The hon. Lady is right that pro-suicide content online has to be
a key target for this sort of legislation. She is also right that
we have to think of this as a global conversation, because these
are often global companies. I would be happy to meet her to talk
about what she thinks is the best way forward, because that is
one of the most egregious consequences of the lack of regulation
online.
(East Hampshire)
(Con)
I very much welcome this world-leading approach, but can my hon.
Friend reassure me that, in bearing down on harms to children and
young people, the legislation will cover not only the promotion
and glamorisation of self-harm and eating disorders but their
prevalence and normalisation on social media and the internet,
which ultimately has greater reach?
I know that my right hon. Friend was particularly interested in
that area when he was Education Secretary, and I pay tribute to
his work. The grey areas that he describes are the hardest and,
in some ways, the most important to tackle, particularly around
self-harm and eating disorders. Again, it is important to balance
this with free speech, but there is no public good in the
promotion of eating disorders, and we have to ensure that this
regulation picks that up.
(Cardiff West) (Lab)
I note what the Minister said about watering down, but there is a
suspicion abroad—not just on the Opposition Benches—that there
has been a change of direction in the Government on this policy
and that things such as penalties and prosecution for directors
and the banning of companies that egregiously breach the new
approach will be dropped in the final proposals. If that happens,
it will mean that this policy is being run not from Westminster
but from the west coast of America.
The hon. Member could not be more wrong. We will deliver a
sanctions regime that is effective. This is a world-leading
approach, and we will take a world-leading approach to sanctions
as well. The response that we published yesterday mentions
director liability—to take just one example—so the suggestion
that it is off the table is simply not correct.
(Bassetlaw)
(Con)
What discussions has the Minister had, particularly with social
media companies, about them removing harmful online content as
quickly as possible?
We talk extensively to social media companies big and small—I
draw my hon. Friend’s attention, although I am sure he is aware
of it already, to their welcoming of our response—and we will
continue to work with them. They have done good work already, but
the fact that we are introducing legislation demonstrates that we
do not think they have gone far enough yet.
(Swansea West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Five years ago, I introduced a private Member’s Bill that would
have made it illegal for explicit private and sexual pictures to
be shared online without consent. Subsequently, a ban on
so-called revenge porn was introduced. Thousands of victims are
now coming forward to the police yet only a handful of cases are
going to court because victims cannot have anonymity and have to
prove malicious intent. Will the Minister ensure this is
criminalised and that these obstacles are not in place, so that
victims can get their just deserts and criminals can be punished?
The hon. Member is right. Whether it is sexting or revenge porn,
far too much has happened since his private Member’s Bill that
has not been positive. Our proposed legislation will be one way
of tackling a part of that, but other important complementary
pieces of draft legislation, to be introduced via the Ministry of
Justice and the Home Office, will close all the loopholes with
regard to the kind of behaviour he mentions.
(Kensington)
(Con)
My hon. Friend has said he will ensure that Ofcom has the right
resources and powers. Can he also assure the House that it has
the right skills to keep abreast of all the changes in technology
and potential new harms?
My hon. Friend is right to imply that this is partly new for
Ofcom. We will not only give it the resources it needs in the
immediate future but make sure that it has a genuine plan to keep
pace with technology so that we are no longer in the position we
are in now, to some extent, of shutting the stable door after the
horse has bolted.
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
There is currently a divide between online gaming and online
gambling, and this is resulting in children being groomed as the
next generation of gamblers via the likes of loot boxes and
skins. What are the UK Government doing to protect those children
online?
This came up earlier in DCMS oral questions, and we are looking
at gambling through the review of the Gambling Act 2005, but the
hon. Member is right that, in terms of gambling and gaming, the
duty of care that we will introduce through our proposed
legislation will range widely and will make sure that children in
particular are protected online.
(Dudley South) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the regulatory
regime that he proposes will be fair and proportionate and will
expect the most out of those with the capacity, resources and
market share to take substantive action to tackle online harms on
their platforms?
My hon. Friend is right that we need to make sure that the
companies themselves step up to the plate, which they have not
yet done enough, but the fact that we are doing this through
legislation is an important indicator that we do not think it is
simply down to the companies; the Government have to act.
(Strangford) (DUP) rose—
(Bristol West) (Lab)
rose—
Mr Speaker
We must now bring in .
I wondered if it would be me or the hon. Member for Strangford
(), Mr Speaker.
Will the Minister take the opportunity of the regrettable delay
in bringing forward draft legislation to consider adopting a
rebuttable principle that anything deemed illegal offline,
whether the sale of guns, child pornography or whatever, should
be similarly illegal online? Will he consider that principle in
the legislation?
The principle that the hon. Member describes is one that has long
been at the heart of the thinking of Governments of all colours.
What we are doing now is not only making sure that what is
illegal offline is illegal online in theory, but through this
legislation making sure that that is also the case in practice in
terms of enforcement. I absolutely agree with what she is seeking
to achieve.
(Warrington South)
(Con)
My hon. Friend will know that the online space is crucial for SME
incubation. Does it remain the Minister’s estimation that a very
small percentage of UK businesses will be affected by our new
online harms proposals, and that the vast majority of small firms
will not need to worry about adapting to this new legal
framework?
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.
Will the Minister in particular underline the fact that there is
a duty of care for digital users that extends not simply to
monetary impropriety but to ensuring that digital forums are not
seen as a mechanism for bullying under the freedom of expression
banner. Will the duty of care be enshrined in law and enforced
vigorously?
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.
