The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
()
Mr Speaker, we now conduct a huge proportion of our lives online.
People in the UK spend an average of four hours and two minutes
on the internet every day, and we know that for children it is
even longer. That technology has improved our lives in countless
ways but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House know, too
many people are still exposed to the worst elements of the web:
illegal content, racist and misogynistic abuse, and dangerous
disinformation.
Those interactions may be virtual, but they are causing real
harm. More than three quarters of UK adults express concerns
about logging on, while a declining number of parents believe the
benefits for their children of being online outweigh the risks.
Trust in tech is falling. That is bad for the public and bad for
the tech companies, so today the Government are taking decisive
action to protect people online.
Through our full response to the online harms White Paper, we are
proposing groundbreaking regulations that will make tech
companies legally responsible for the online safety of their
users. That world-leading regime will rebuild public trust and
restore public confidence in the tech that has not only powered
us through the pandemic, but will power us into the recovery.
I know that this legislation is highly anticipated on both sides
of the House. I want to reassure hon. Members that, when drafting
our proposals, I sought to strike a very important balance
between shielding people, particularly children, from harm and
ensuring a proportionate regime that preserves one of the
cornerstones of our democracy—freedom of expression. I am
confident that our response strikes that balance.
Under our proposals, online companies will face a new and binding
duty of care to their users, overseen by Ofcom. If those
platforms fail in that duty of care, they will face steep fines
of up to £18 million or 10% of annual global turnover. A number
of people, including Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell,
have expressed concerns about that point; I want to reassure him
and Members of this House that the maximum fine will be the
higher of those two numbers, and platforms will no longer be able
to mark their own homework.
To hold major platforms to their responsibilities, I can also
announce to the House that they will be required to publish
annual transparency reports to track their progress, which could
include the number of reports of harmful content received and the
action taken as a result. This will be a robust regime, requiring
those at the top to take responsibility. I can therefore confirm
that we will legislate to introduce criminal sanctions for senior
managers, with Parliament taking the final decision on whether to
introduce that. Of course, we hope not to use those powers, and
for tech companies to engineer the harm out of their platforms
from the outset, but people should have no doubt that they remain
an option and we will use them if we need to.
Together, those measures make this the toughest and most
comprehensive online safety regime in the world. They will have a
clear and immediate effect: a 13-year-old should no longer be
able to access pornographic images on Twitter; YouTube will not
be allowed to recommend videos promoting terrorist ideologies;
and antisemitic hate crime will need to be removed without delay.
Those are just a few examples, but the House will take a keen
interest in the details of the legislation, so I shall lay out a
few key areas of action.
Our first focus is on illegal content, including child sexual
abuse, terrorism and posts that incite violence and hatred.
Sadly, many Members present today have been the target of online
abuse, some of which might have been illegal, such as threats of
violence. Unfortunately, that is particularly true for female
Members of the House. This is not a problem suffered only by
people in the public eye; close to half of adults in the United
Kingdom say that they have been exposed to hateful content online
in the past year.
Under the new laws, all companies in scope will need to take
swift and effective action to remove criminal posts—if it is
illegal offline, it is illegal online. Users will be better able
to report this abhorrent content and can expect to receive more
support from platforms. Crucially, the duty of care will apply
even when communications are end-to-end encrypted. Encryption
cannot serve as a protection blanket for criminals. Given the
severity of certain threats, Ofcom will also be given powers to
require companies to use technology proactively to identify and
remove illegal content involving child sexual abuse or
terrorism—that is a power of last resort.
Of course, not all harmful content is illegal. Every day, people
are exposed to posts, images and videos that do not break any
laws, but still cause a significant amount of harm. We all know
that cyber-bullying can ruin a child’s life, but I want first to
address one particularly horrific form of legal content. Sadly,
too many Members present will be aware of cases in which children
are drawn into watching videos that can encourage self-harm. Some
find themselves bombarded with that content, sometimes ending
ultimately in tragedy. It is unforgivable that that sort of
content should be circulating unchecked on social media. Given
the severity of its consequences, I believe that there is a
strong case for making it illegal.
I can therefore announce that the Government have asked the Law
Commission to examine how the criminal law will address the
encouragement or assistance of self-harm. This is an incredibly
sensitive area. We need to take careful steps to ensure that we
do not inadvertently punish vulnerable people, but we need to act
now to prevent future tragedies.
Many Members are particularly concerned about the effect online
harm has on children. We have reserved our strongest and toughest
protections for them. All companies will need to consider
seriously the risks their platforms may pose to children and to
take action. They will no longer be able to abdicate
responsibility by claiming that children do not use their
services when that is manifestly untrue—we all know examples of
that—and we also expect them to prevent children from accessing
services that pose the highest risk of harm, including online
pornography. Cutting-edge age assurance or verification
technologies will be a vital part of keeping children safe
online.
At the same time, we are going further than any other country to
tackle other categories of legal but harmful content accessed by
adults. Major platforms will face additional obligations to
enforce their own terms and conditions against things such as
dangerous vaccine misinformation and cyber-bullying. Where the
platforms fall short, they will face the legal consequences.
I know that some hon. Members are worried that the regulations
may impose undue burdens on smaller, low-risk companies, so I can
reassure them that we have included exemptions for such
companies. As a result, less than 3% of UK businesses will fall
within the scope of the legislation.
In this House we have always ardently championed freedom of
expression. Robust and free debate is what gives our democracy
its historic strength. So let me be clear: the purpose of the
proposed regime is not to stop adults accessing content with
which they disagree. It is not our job to protect people against
being offended. I will not allow this legislation to become a
weapon against free debate. Therefore, we will not prevent adults
from accessing or posting legal content. Companies will not be
able arbitrarily to remove controversial viewpoints, and users
will be able to seek redress if they feel that content has been
removed unfairly.
Nor will I allow this legislation to stifle media freedoms or
become a charter to impose our world view and suppress that of
others. I can confirm that news publishers’ own content on their
sites is not in scope, nor are the comments of users on that
content. This legislation is targeted exactly where it needs to
be and tightly focused on delivering our core manifesto pledge to
empower adult users to stay safe online while ensuring that
children are protected.
We have engaged extensively to get to this point and this process
is by no means over. We want all parliamentarians to feed into
this significant piece of work and will continue to listen to
their concerns as we go through pre-legislative scrutiny and
beyond. However, I am confident that today’s measures mark a
significant step in the continual evolution of our approach to
life online, and it is fitting that this should be a step that
our country takes. The world wide web was, of course, invented by
a Brit, and now the UK is setting a safety standard for the rest
of the world to follow. I commend this statement to the House.
12:55:00
(Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his
statement. Let me start by saying that the Opposition welcome any
moves to protect children and the vulnerable online. There are
plenty of questions about gaps in the Government’s response
relating to protecting children online, but the emphasis on
children in this statement is very welcome.
We have been calling on the Government to introduce this
legislation for almost two years. The publication of the online
harms White Paper seems almost a lifetime ago. The legislation is
long overdue, and I would like the Secretary of State to tell us
when in 2021 the House can expect to see the Bill, because until
it is on the statute book, the real harm that he just described,
which has been able to flourish online through a lack of
regulation, will continue. Ireland has already published its
legislation. France has produced legislation dealing with hate
speech. Germany has had legislation in place since 2018, and the
European Commission is expected to publish its proposed Digital
Services Act today.
The Secretary of State has said that the UK will lead the way
with this legislation, but I am afraid that the response today is
lacking in ambition. It feels like a missed opportunity. This is
a once-in-a-generation chance to legislate for the kind of
internet we want to see that keeps both children and adult
citizens safe and allows people to control what kind of content
they see online. Instead, the Government have been timid, or
maybe the Secretary of State was persuaded by Sheryl Sandberg and
in his
meeting with them last month to water down the original
proposals. Social media platforms have failed for years to
self-regulate. The Secretary of State knows that, everyone in
this House knows that, and the public know that.
On legal but harmful material, why are companies being left to
set their own terms and conditions and then judged on their own
enforcement of those terms and conditions? It is exactly the
wrong incentive. It will actively encourage less strict terms and
conditions, so the platforms can more easily say that they are
being properly enforced. When the Secretary of State says that
companies will no longer be marking their own homework, I am
afraid that he is wrong, because that is exactly what they will
be doing.
The financial penalties described are welcome, but the Government
have given in to big tech lobbying on criminal liability for
senior executives for repeated breaches being properly built into
the forthcoming legislation and implemented straight away.
Rather, that will be left hanging to a possible future date
through additional secondary legislation. Ireland’s legislation
will include criminal sanctions rather than the vague threat that
the Secretary of State has decided on. Will he explain what is to
be gained by waiting? Never mind one last chance—repeat offenders
have had chance after chance after chance.
The Secretary of State has referred to the novel concept of age
assurance. Is that the same as age verification—the age
verification that has been accepted by both the platforms and
users as being unenforceable—or is it something different?
We know that online harms can easily become real harm.
Encouragement and assistance of self-harm is one example, as the
Secretary of State has mentioned. Harmful anti-vaccination
disinformation impacting on public health is another. The
Government have said today that they are asking the Law
Commission to examine how criminal law will address the issue of
encouragement or assistance of self-harm, but the Government
could have asked the Law Commission to do that nearly two years
ago when the White Paper was published. They have not done the
hard work of deciding what should perhaps be illegal, which would
have made their response today a better one.
There are also other notable absences from the response,
including those on financial harm and online scams. This is a
growing area of concern for millions of people across the United
Kingdom, so why has this been ignored in the response? The
Secretary of State has referred to failing public trust in tech.
He says that he wants to rebuild it, but, sadly, today’s
statement does not live up to that aspiration.
I am rather sorry that the hon. Lady seems intent on seeing the
negative in everything. This is a groundbreaking piece of
legislation. Let me go through some of the points that she
raises. She talks about our being timid in the face of tech
lobbying. First of all, I can assure her that, although I have
discussed end-to-end encryption in respect of national security
issues, I have not discussed with Sheryl Sandberg or any online
harm provisions. That is simply not the case. Indeed I think that
she will find from the reaction of some tech firms that they are
struck by the scale of the fines that we are proposing. These
would be some of the largest fines ever imposed. It is up to 10%
of the global revenue of a company such as Facebook, which shows
how enormous the maximum fine could be.
On criminal liability, I want tech firms to comply with this, and
if they do not do so, they will face steep fines. If they still
do not comply, Members should be in no doubt that their senior
managers will face criminal sanction. We will take the power in
this Bill—we will not have to come back to the House for primary
legislation—and enact it through secondary legislation.
The hon. Lady asks about what we have been doing so far. We have
taken many steps already to protect people online. For example,
just a couple of months ago, the Information Commissioner’s age
appropriate design code was put before Parliament. Today,
alongside this full response to the White Paper, we are
publishing, through the Home Office, an interim code of practice
on online child sexual exploitation and abuse, and we will do so
similarly in relation to terrorist content and activity online.
We will expect tech firms to start complying with that now. It is
clear what the Government’s intent is and if those firms fail to
do so, we will have the powers through this legislation to ensure
that that happens.
The hon. Lady asks about letting tech firms mark their own
homework. We are empowering Ofcom to hold these tech firms to
account. First of all, we will make sure that the terms and
conditions are robust, and if they are not, those firms will face
consequences. If they do not enforce those terms and conditions,
they will face consequences, and this House will set out what
those legal but harmful things are through secondary legislation.
We will propose the sort of harms that those tech firms should
guard against. Members of this House will be able to vote on
them, and those firms will have to take action appropriately. I
believe that this marks a significant step forward, and
Opposition Members should welcome this important step in
protecting children, particularly online.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Committee, .
(Solihull) (Con)
It has been two long years since the Digital, Culture, Media and
Sport Committee report on fake news, and it is welcome that, at
long last, the Government have moved to appoint a regulator, to
impose a duty of care and to put in place a substantial fines
regime. However, there are still areas of concern. Can the
Secretary of State outline his thinking on these? Does he accept
that the number of priority categories defined as online harm
needs to be broadened from what is currently envisaged to include
things such as misinformation? The Secretary of State rightly
focused on children, but this is about more than children; it is
about the very status of our society and about looking after
adults.
The Secretary of State also mentioned transparency reports. How
can we ensure that these transparency reports do not become
another exercise in public relations for the tech firms? Will
there be independent outside academic oversight? When it comes to
news publishing exemptions, will that also apply to video
sharing?
Finally, does the Secretary of State also recognise that a system
of dynamic, ongoing enforcement through a financial services
style compliance regime in tier 1 social media companies provides
a good belt and braces for retrospective enforcement action on
what prelegislative scrutiny is planned?
My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and
Sport Committee asks about the involvement of the Committee; we
will of course seek to involve the Committee extensively in the
prelegislative scrutiny. He has already made an important
suggestion about dynamic monitoring, which we will of course
consider as we firm up the legislation.
My hon. Friend talks about a video sharing; the exemption for
news publishers to protect freedom of speech will apply to all
their output and will include that.
My hon. Friend asks about disinformation; if disinformation—for
example, anti-vax content—causes harm to individuals, it will be
covered by the legislation, and I very much expect to set that
out as one of the priority areas that would have to be addressed
in secondary legislation.
(Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his
speech, much of which we SNP Members agree with.
At a time when anti-vax disinformation floods social media, when
hate is spouted at minority groups under the cowardly veil of
anonymity, often without consequence for the perpetrators, and
when more children than ever before are using the internet and
need to be shielded from harmful content, the proposed online
harms Bill is welcome.
We welcome, too, the requirement that companies must accept a
duty of care, and the fact that Ofcom will be the independent
regulator—but it must be a regulator with teeth. As Dame
, Ofcom’s boss,
told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee a short
while ago, Ofcom needs much-enhanced powers to be effective; what
additional powers will she have?
To enjoy maximum support in the House, the Bill must, while
balancing the right to free expression, tackle illegal content as
well as content that is potentially harmful but not illegal. In
particular, companies must protect all children from harm, and
the Government are right to recognise that.
The covid epidemic and lockdown have seen a surge in homophobia
and transphobia online. The TIE—Time for Inclusive
Education—campaign reports a 72% rise in attacks on and
cyber-bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young
people, with organisations such as the so-called LGB Alliance
leading the onslaught. In that context, surely there is a case
for looking again at social media anonymity. Noms de plume are
fine, but we believe that users’ identities should be known to
the social media publishers—they should not be completely
anonymous in all circumstances. Does the Secretary of State agree
with that?
Social media disinformation has been especially pernicious during
the covid pandemic. Experts tell us that the disinformation
during this crisis is unparalleled in the internet era, and the
consequences of online harm can be catastrophic, undermining
public trust, faith in health officials and acceptance of the
value of the vaccine now being rolled out.
In principle, we welcome much in the proposals. Of course, the
proof of the pudding will be in the eating—exactly how tough the
Government are prepared to be in reality, how hard they will be
on the social media companies, and whether they will enforce some
of the proposals—but we welcome it.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the
legislation. He raised some important points. On anonymity, we
have not taken powers to remove anonymity because it is very
important for some people—for example, victims fleeing domestic
violence and children who have questions about their sexuality
that they do not want their families to know they are exploring.
There are many reasons to protect that anonymity.
The hon. Gentleman talks about Ofcom; over the years, we have
seen Ofcom rise to the challenge of increased responsibilities
and I am confident that it will continue to do so. We will of
course look to Ofcom to bring in independent expertise to help it
in that process. It will clearly require a step change from
Ofcom, but Dame and others are
very much alert to that.
The hon. Gentleman talks about misinformation and disinformation.
There are three things that we have to do to address those.
First, we have to rely on trusted sources. We are so fortunate in
this country to have well-established newspapers and broadcasters
that are committed to public service information. We have seen
that through the covid crisis, which is why we have supported
them through this period. Secondly, we have to rebut false
information. Through the Cabinet Office, we are working 24/7 to
do that. Finally, we have to work with the tech companies
themselves. For example, the Health Secretary and I have recently
secured commitments to remove misinformation and disinformation
within 48 hours and, crucially, not to profit from it. To the
hon. Gentleman’s central concern, I think these measures really
do mark a step change in our approach to tech firms. The old
certainties are changing, and we are taking decisive action.
(Kenilworth
and Southam) (Con)
I welcome the progress that the Government are making in this
area, and my right hon. Friend’s personal commitment and
determination to deliver it, but, as he said, there is further
progress to be made. That progress will only really be made when
we see legislation, which I urge him again to introduce as soon
as possible. In the meantime, I understand the Government’s focus
on the larger platforms where the greatest harms are likely to be
concentrated, but may I urge him, in the design and architecture
of the regulatory system that he is putting in place, to ensure
that it can deal with smaller platforms that grow fast or that
host particularly damaging material, and, of course, that it can
deal with the ever-changing nature of the harms themselves?
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend and other
former Culture Secretaries represented in the House, all of whom
have played a decisive role in helping to shape this important
legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend rightly raises the
point about smaller platforms. What we have sought to do with
these proposals is to exclude very small enterprises—for example,
a cheese retailer that allows its customers to leave comments on
its site. Strictly speaking, that is user-generated material, but
I think we would all agree that we would not want that to be
within scope. However, at the same time, some smaller sites can
be used as a back route— for example, for paedophiles to exchange
information. We will design the legislation proportionately so
that we can upscale the regulation in those sorts of cases.
(Eltham) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the legislation as far as it goes, and agree with the
Secretary of State that it is landmark legislation, rather like
the Gambling Act 2005, which was put through the House by the
previous Labour Government. I remind him that it was largely the
things that were not covered by that legislation that came back
to be the most challenging issues to confront us all. Given that,
let me ask the Secretary of State about the scope of the
legislation: will it cover online harms such as the targeted
advertising of gambling at young people, gambling through social
media or even loot boxes in online gaming, whereby young people
are asked to pay for boxes of which they do not know the content?
As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have already issued a call for
evidence in respect of loot boxes, and will take appropriate
action in response. Many of the issues that he has raised are
covered by our call for evidence on gambling. The scope of this
legislation will cover any platform that allows self-generated
content to be on it; to the extent that gambling websites have
user-generated content on them, they will fall within the scope
of this legislation, potentially.
(Bromsgrove) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He has said that at
the heart of these measures is the protection of our
children—something with which the whole House will agree. He may
know that I am leading an investigation with the Centre for
Social Justice on the epidemic of child sexual abuse and
exploitation that is taking place in our country. I therefore
particularly welcome what he said today about the publication of
the interim code of conduct on online child sexual abuse. But for
it to have any effect, it must have teeth; it must be legally
binding. Will he assure the House that when the online safety
Bill becomes an Act, this code will be a statutory obligation?
I pay tribute to the work that my right hon Friend is doing, both
on this and through the important work of the Centre for Social
Justice. Yes, I can certainly give him that assurance. As I said,
I would expect tech firms to abide by these codes of practice
now—they have been published in interim form—because it is in the
interests of tech firms to clean up their act, and this gives
them a way of doing so. That has been the point across our
approach. Of course, if they fail to do so, we will take the
power in legislation to make it binding regardless, but I hope
that the firms will abide by the codes of practice and I do not
have to use those powers.
(Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Clearly, regulations alone will not be strong enough to tackle
the challenges of the internet. I am sure every single one of us
in this place regards the safety of our children as absolutely
paramount, so may I suggest to the Secretary of State that the
education of our children might empower them to take down or zap
harmful stuff online? What consideration is he giving to
improving the education of children to give them that ability?
Will he also have discussions with his colleague the Secretary of
State for Education to that end, and might he further extend
those discussions to the equivalent Ministers in the devolved
Administrations?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and of course I will
be happy to extend that discussion. I am already doing so with my
right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, but I would happy to
do so with representatives of the devolved Governments. The hon.
Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of
education, and that applies not just to children but to parents.
The more that parents, particularly those who have not grown up
with the internet, understand the risks involved for their
children, the better equipped they are to take action. Probably
the single most important thing that parents can do is better
understand the risks. That is why, in respect of children, we
will be publishing the online media literacy strategy in the
spring to address exactly that.
(Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his important and long-awaited
statement on this piece of legislation. I have a few questions,
though. He mentioned that social media companies would be
required to produce transparency reports on their effectiveness
in dealing with harmful content. Will Ofcom be able to audit
those reports and request data and information from the
companies? Otherwise, those reports will not be very transparent
at all. He also said that there would be a carve-out exemption
for news providers. I agree with that, but how is he defining a
news provider? Some of the most egregious spreaders of
disinformation pretend to be new providers but are actually fake
news websites. It is important that we know that. He also said
that if companies’ terms and conditions did not come up to
standard and they did not meet their duty of care obligations,
they would “face the legal consequences”. Can he say what those
consequences will be?
As ever, my hon. Friend raises some very pertinent questions. On
the powers for Ofcom, it will be able to interrogate data and
equipment. The question around the definition of news publishers
is a challenging one, for the reasons that he sets out.
Essentially, we want to avoid the situation whereby a harmful
source of information sets up as if it were a news publisher.
That will be an important part of our engagement with Members of
the House through the pre-legislative scrutiny, so I hope I will
be able to reassure him on those points.
(Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I welcome today’s announcement and trust that it represents
progress towards making the internet a safer place for my
constituents. In protecting our children, the vulnerable and
wider society online, there can be no half measures. In that
regard, I have a number of areas of concern. The Secretary of
State made reference to cutting-edge age assurance or
verification technologies. Can he explain what exactly is meant
by age assurance and the practicalities of that process? How does
it differ from age verification? What evidence is there that it
is more effective in protecting children from harmful content?
Does he also agree that the prevalence of online scams—and the
thousands of lives across the UK impacted by such scams—makes
their omission from the Government’s response significant? Will
he outline how the Government will address this increasingly
widespread online harm?
On age assurance, we are looking at the sort of emerging
technology whereby, for example, one can look at how children
type and use artificial intelligence to see that it is a child
rather than an adult. Just yesterday, I was at a company called
SafeToNet, which is doing fantastic work—for example, building
into social media platforms through the electronic device that a
child is using, whether that is an iPad or a phone, safety
features that would block pornographic images and so on. The hon.
Lady also asked me about further powers that we are taking.
Forgive me; I have temporarily forgotten the point that she
raised, but I am happy to write to her on that point.
(Wantage) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Large tech platforms
build incredibly complicated models to track our every move,
profile us and suggest products that we might want to buy. They
even now read our messages and suggest how we might like to
reply, and yet when it comes to removing harmful content, they
suggest that it is too difficult for them. Does he agree that
what he is setting out is well within their capabilities, as long
as they have the will?
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Too often, tech
firms say that they cannot do such things, but strangely, when it
is in their commercial interest to do so, they find a way of
doing it. This legislation is setting a clear direction of travel
from Government, so that they know that we will be willing to
take that action to force them to take measures in the public
interest.
(Glasgow Central) (SNP)
First Steps Nutrition Trust has launched a study this month which
shows the impact of online marketing of infant formula. I am all
for impartial information, but that is not what is happening.
Baby clubs, carelines and online influencers have free rein, and
they are undermining breastfeeding and pushing parents to buy
more expensive formula than they can afford. Will the Secretary
of State protect our youngest citizens and prohibit all infant
formula advertising online?
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. The purpose of this
legislation is to deal with user-generated content. If that sort
of thing is being promoted by users, which we can all see is a
popular marketing device, it will fall within scope. It is
similar to the point raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann
() about fraud. If fraud is being promoted through
user generation, that is a harm that can be addressed, but it
does not extend to the whole scale of advertising, which is
beyond the intent of the legislation.
(Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Earlier this year,
Staffordshire police, Stoke-on-Trent City Council and
Staffordshire County Council launched an operation to crack down
on gangs exploiting children through county lines, drug dealing
and other criminality. These children are often groomed and
recruited on online platforms and messaging services. Can my
right hon. Friend confirm that, under the rules outlined in the
online harms consultation, technology firms will be required to
build technology into their platforms that can prevent that sort
of activity?
Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance.
Companies must tackle illegal content on their platforms and
protect children from harmful content and activity online. They
really do need to build the right systems. As I said in answer to
a previous question, I have seen the technology; there is no
excuse anymore not to use it.
(Bristol North West) (Lab)
I want to ask the Secretary of State two questions on the issue
of how we understand what is harmful but perhaps legal. First,
will Ofcom be given the powers that it already has for other
regulated sectors to demand access to information about how a
service is being used and what content is on it? Secondly, why
has the Secretary of State abandoned age verification?
On age verification, we are moving it from what we previously
had, which was not dealing with user-generated content. Most
pornography that children access is on sites that have
user-generated content. Usually, that is the way that children
stumble across it by mistake. It is really important that we
broaden the scope of what we are doing, and that is precisely
what we are addressing through this legislation.
(Bury
South) (Con) [V]
Earlier this year, we witnessed the Wiley scandal, which saw an
antisemitic rant over numerous posts. It took 72 hours and a mass
boycott of social media by the Jewish community and its
supporters before any action was taken by the platforms. Does my
right hon. Friend agree that the law should apply online as it
does offline and that online platforms must do more to stop the
spread of hate speech and illegal content?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman forgot to put on his tie and jacket.
Sadly that will not be addressed by this legislation, Mr Speaker.
[Interruption.] Not that I could—I believe that is a matter for
the House.
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about antisemitic
abuse. I have met organisations about that in framing the
legislation. Most antisemitism is illegal and should be addressed
through the provisions made for illegality. Beyond that, we will
be setting out, as a priority, harms to be addressed through this
legislation.
(Barking) (Lab) [V]
I, too, welcome this statement. In the past two months, Community
Security Trust has identified 90,000 posts mentioning me. Most
were hostile, antisemitic, misogynistic and ageist. Many were
anonymous and, through disinformation, aimed to undermine my
credibility and so silence me. I would ask the Secretary of State
to think again. Does he not agree that anonymity on social media
can no longer be universally protected, although it should be
protected for groups such as whistleblowers and victims of
domestic violence? Will he not agree that where users post
illegal content or harmful abuse, social media companies should
be required to collect and pass on information on the identity of
the user to regulatory bodies and to the police?
The right hon. Lady raises a very important point. As a Member of
Parliament who proudly represents a very large Jewish community,
I know the challenges of antisemitism, and that has been at the
front of my mind in framing this legislation. It is a challenging
area, this point about anonymity. Of course, if there is criminal
conduct that the police and law enforcement agencies are
investigating, they have ways of dealing with that anonymity in
order to bring criminal cases. The reluctance I have had, and the
Government have had, to introduce provision across the board is
about how we lift the veil of anonymity while at the same time
protecting some very vulnerable people who rely on it. But of
course we will continue to keep it under review.
(Staffordshire
Moorlands) (Con)
I fear that we on the Government Benches feel a little like the
ghost of Secretaries of State past for my right hon. Friend. I
welcome this statement and the moves that the Government have
made. Taking him back to the issue of age assurance and age
verification, I am pleased to hear that he is looking at
different types of technology to protect children, but will he
please not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and do
something around age verification as soon as possible?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I should pay tribute
to all her work in this area. Of course we will not allow the
best to be the enemy of the good. We will not be mandating the
use of specific technological approaches. We know that those
technological approaches are available, and Ofcom will be holding
tech companies to account to make sure that they take advantage
of them in order to provide protection for children.
(Blaydon) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State will be aware, Wikipedia, while not a
social network, is edited by its users. It includes highly
dangerous instructional information on suicide generated by those
users. How will that be covered by the forthcoming legislation,
and how will he deal with the international aspect of preventing
harm online?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question; she raises an important
point. We are looking to legislate to make self-harm illegal—to
push it into that category. On international engagement, there is
a coalition of nations around the world that are now moving in
this direction, including the US. The hon. Member for Cardiff
Central () mentioned steps taken in Ireland and elsewhere. We
have constantly led this debate. We started this debate with
these proposals and we are delivering them at a faster pace than
other countries around the world.
(Basingstoke)
(Con) [V]
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. However, we
have to be very clear that the duty of care and the regulator
that he is proposing will not look at or resolve individual
complaints. What is more, we are already seeing some of the smart
movers in the online world starting to change their practices so
that they will evade the regulation that he is talking about.
So, to be really effective this Bill has to sit alongside
stronger and clearer laws that protect the individual from
dreadful online abuse, such as image-based abuse which the
Secretary of State and I have talked about, and which I know he
cares as deeply as I do about resolving. He cannot introduce one
without the other, so can he give me an assurance today that he
will put reforms, particularly with regard to online image-based
abuse, on the same time-footing as the Bill he is talking about
today?
My right hon Friend, another former Culture Secretary, makes an
important point. She and I have discussed this at length. It is
absolutely essential that, alongside the duties of care, we
specifically outlaw certain things: she has made important points
around deep fakes, cyber-flashing and so on. I can confirm that,
working with the Law Commission, we will be looking through this
legislation specifically to outlaw that kind of activity and make
it illegal.
(Ogmore)
(Lab)
As the Secretary of State will undoubtedly be aware, I really
welcome this Bill; I honestly believe that it is well intended,
but fear it is rather muddled and jumbled. I would like to know
when the Bill is coming to the Floor of the House—not
pre-legislative scrutiny, as the Secretary of State has mentioned
in answer to several other Members, but when the Bill is
coming—because we have been waiting two years for just this
statement. I would also like to know why delay culpability has
been delayed; self-governance has not worked for 15 years, so why
delay it? Finally, why not deal with the issues around economic
crime? That is increasing, and I believe it is a mistake not to
deal with the problems of economic crime in society through
platforms.
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.
(East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I welcome these robust proposals, particularly the focus on
children, but they need to lead to robust legislation and robust
practice. I particularly welcome the referral to the Law
Commission about self-harm sites; will my right hon. Friend make
sure they include so-called self-help sites on eating disorders,
which are nothing of the sort and just promote those sorts of
behaviour?
May I also return to the point of the right hon. Member for
Barking (
) about anonymity, because it is key? Whether it is hate
speech, extremism, antisemitism or grooming sites, the
perpetrators hide behind anonymity. When they get taken down,
they reappear under a different name. Is it not possible for them
to have to reveal their identity, and prove their identity to the
platform providers only, so it does not involve whistleblowers
revealing themselves, so that they cannot get away with it, they
cannot keep reposting, and they can be referred to the police
where necessary?
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 (
). 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.
(East Ham) (Lab)
The Work and Pensions Committee is inquiring into pension scams.
Much of that problem is online, boosting the profits of tech
firms and causing immense hardship. , Which?, my
hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central () on the Front Bench and others have called for such
scams to be in scope here. The right hon. Gentleman says they
will be if they are “user-generated”, so can he explain how these
measures will address the very serious problem of financial
online harms?
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.
(Calder
Valley) (Con) [V]
Whether it is on promoting illegal content, anti-vaccine content,
covid denial or conspiracy theories in general, for far too long
now social media platforms have failed to get their own houses in
order, and trust in the industry has fallen. Does my right hon.
Friend agree that the measures he is proposing today will ensure
a new age of accountability for tech that in turn will restore
trust in the industry?
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.
(Stockport) (Lab)
This is a global problem that requires a global response. Will
the Secretary of State confirm what co-operation protocols are in
place to block offending platforms across multiple countries?
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.
(Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Even the most vigilant parents struggle to keep up with the
latest apps, websites and ways to get around parental controls.
While parental responsibility will always remain key, these
proposals help parents to deliver that. However, I think people
will be concerned to know that the proposals have teeth,
especially when it comes to the very wealthy companies that are
involved. Can the Secretary assure us that they do have teeth,
and that he will be able to act in a way that means something to
these companies?
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.
(Aberdeen South) (SNP)
A constituent of mine in Aberdeen has been in contact to say that
in recent months they have had to respond to three instances of
children in primary school accessing Pornhub on mobile phones. I
am sure the Secretary of State shares my profound concern about
that, but we do not want warm words; we want action, so will he
confirm if and when online age verification checks will finally
be put in place?
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.
(Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
I welcome the statement. Bearing in mind that the perpetrators of
online harms and abuse know no international boundaries, does the
Secretary of State agree that, as a member of the Council of
Europe, which is a key pillar for the protection of human rights
online, we have an important ally in the ECHR, which rules on
applications alleging violations? What plans does he have to work
with our international partners? Particularly given the speed at
which technology moves, how can he be sure that his proposals
will keep pace with technological advances and escalating
international activity? Bearing in mind the high-profile
international cases involving people with autism, can he offer
better international protection for individuals caught up
inadvertently in incidents?
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.
(Wallasey) (Lab)
Online activity is really important to extremists of all kinds in
furthering their aims. Fake news—disinformation—is the currency
of authoritarian forces, undermining our democracy; and on their
business models, currently tech companies profit from that. What
action would the Bill take to defend our democratic values if it
was on the statute book now? How would it solve this threat?
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.
(Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today.
Organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation have over 24
years’ experience in tackling threats to children online; indeed,
the foundation played a huge role in reducing the percentage of
vile, indecent images of children from 18% of such images held on
UK servers across the globe, down to 1% today. Can my right hon.
Friend assure me that organisations like the foundation will be
fully involved, so that we may harness their expertise in the
regulatory framework that he brings forward?
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.
(Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I was very pleased to hear the Minister mention misogynistic
abuse. In October 2019, the Joint Committee on Human Rights
published a report on democracy, freedom of expression and
freedom of association, in which we found that in relation to its
hateful conduct policy, Twitter has omitted sex from the list of
protected characteristics; that means that shocking misogynistic
images and violent abuse and threats against women are often
found not to be in violation of Twitter’s policies.
Does the Minister agree with the Committee’s recommendation that
Twitter should remedy that omission, so that the protected
characteristic of sex is protected by its hateful conduct policy?
Does he agree that all the protected characteristics deserve
equal protection in any online harm legislation?
The short answer is yes. I agree with the hon. and learned Lady;
misogyny should and will be addressed. The point of the
legislation is that Ofcom will hold tech companies to account, to
make sure that they have policies that deal effectively with
misogyny, that they enforce those policies, and that if they fail
to do so they will face the financial consequences. We reserve
criminal powers to act as well.
(Ceredigion)
(PC)
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, hate speech and
harmful content are not static entities and are constantly
changing and adapting. With that in mind, how will the
legislation be future-proofed to ensure that regulations remain
effective in tackling harmful content as its nature inevitably
evolves?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Several other hon.
Members have raised the point about future-proofing, and I
apologise for not addressing it in my answers so far. Ofcom will
be given the discretion to deal with emerging threats, through
codes of conduct and so on, but we will also use secondary
legislation and identification of priority harms. We are not
including those in primary legislation to enable us, over time,
to update those priority harms as new threats emerge.
(Kensington)
(Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that senior managers of social
media companies must be held responsible if they fail to protect
children and vulnerable people?
Yes, I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for her question. These
kinds of financial penalties we are proposing will cause all
senior executives to sit up and think. The last thing one would
want to do in a senior management position in such a company is
to expose it to such a high level of fine, but we will still,
ultimately, reserve the criminal sanction as well, in the way I
have set out.
(Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Select Committee on Home Affairs has spent many years being
deeply frustrated by the weak responses of social media companies
to our urging them to take action against hateful extremism and
online child abuse, so I welcome the measures the Secretary of
State has announced. The Government response states that
“the regulator will have the power to require companies to use
automated technology…to identify illegal child sexual
exploitation and abuse content or activity on their services,
including, where proportionate, on private channels.”
Will he confirm that that means major platforms will need to use
this automated technology on the end-to-end encrypted private
channels? What proportionality test is he applying here, given
that child sexual abuse is clearly so abhorrent and wrong in all
circumstances? When will it ever be disproportionate to pursue
this?
The right hon. Lady raises important points. On private channels,
companies will be expected to use emergent technology to check
for this sort of thing happening. The point about proportionality
is that clearly we cannot expect them to individually, through
human activity, spot this kind of thing; they will have to rely
on artificial intelligence and so on. So as the regulator becomes
confident that those technologies work, it will expect the firms
in question to use it. There is a slightly separate issue about
end-to-end encryption, and she will be familiar with the sort of
conversations the Home Secretary and I are having with Facebook,
for example, on that. Encryption cannot be used as an excuse to
get out of being subject to this legislation, and we would expect
firms that use end-to-end encryption still to take measures to
protect against child abuse and exploitation, for precisely the
reasons the right hon. Lady sets out.
(Henley)
(Con)
In 2007, the Council of Europe produced a convention, which I
understand we have signed, that deals with the online abuse of
children. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and other
members of the Council of Europe to strengthen that convention,
in order to make sure that the regulators are genuinely robust
and can deal with this problem?
Yes, of course I would be delighted to do so. As Members will
know, child abuse, sadly, knows no boundaries—the child abuse
viewed by people in this country is often generated around the
world—so it is important that we have a co-ordinated approach.
(Hove)
(Lab)
Will this Bill tackle the website craigslist, which profits from
perpetrators who place adverts that sexually exploit young
people? If they are acting like pimps, is it not about time we
started treating them as such?
Yes, of course the scope of this Bill covers any websites that
host user-generated content. Within that, all sites that are
subject to this legislation will have to take measures to protect
children—this is across the board, not just the category 1
providers—so I would expect that to happen.
(East Hampshire) (Con)
This is world-leading, and I very much welcome what the Secretary
of State has had to say today. Ultimately, I suspect we will need
to move towards global norms and even global institutions, but
today I am particularly encouraged by what he has said about
so-called “legal but harmful” material, confirming that this is
not just about platforms setting their own terms and conditions.
I welcome the role he outlined for Parliament in the secondary
legislation. As the Government set that secondary legislation,
may I encourage him to have in mind harms such as self-harm and
eating disorders, which are growing so rapidly among young
people? I am talking about not only the active encouragement and
assistance of those things, but the prevalence of normalisation
of them on the internet and therefore in young people’s lives.
I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance, and he is right
in what he says. The nub of this proposed legislation is to deal
with that legal but harmful issue and ensure that those duties of
care are in place. On the law and children, we would expect
companies to do this already, but this will ensure that they take
action to enforce the law as it stands. The new area of
regulation being created is in respect of “legal but harmful” and
of course we will engage extensively with hon. Members in
identifying that in secondary legislation.
(Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Many problems are down to systems, not individual posts, when
sharing disinformation. How will the legislation deal with the
systems? What responsibility will cross-posting sites have for
the content propagated through their channels?
The hon. Lady has hit on exactly the essence of the problem and
what we have sought to do through the legislation. The reason we
are imposing a duty of care is precisely because we know that
such things evolve over time and that each company needs to take
appropriate steps. Clearly, we cannot individually identify every
single harm or every single action. Instead, we are setting it
out as a duty of care to ensure that flexibility.
(Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]
I welcome the new regulations and my right hon. Friend’s
reassurance that smaller businesses and new entrants to the
market will not be disadvantaged. Can he tell me what criteria
will be used to determine when a business meets the threshold for
the new regulations to apply?
My hon. Friend is entirely correct to raise that point.
Essentially, the criteria will be if the purpose of the website
is not in any way related to user-generated content, but that is
just a small by-product. I used the example—it might be seen as
slightly frivolous, but it is a way to illustrate it—of the
online cheese retailer. Many small businesses, which are
essentially retail or other activities, may allow reviews and so
on. It is perfectly reasonable that we should say from the start
that they are not subject to it. In practice, they would not be
anyway because they will not fall within the codes of conduct. It
is my experience with regulation that the more we can exclude
from the beginning, the better, because it removes that worry,
which frequently comes from small businesses that have one or two
people, not massive compliance departments that can deal with it.
(Orkney
and Shetland) (LD) [V]
May I welcome the return of pre-legislative scrutiny? If ever
there were an instance that required it, this is certainly it.
Can I press the Secretary of State on the duty of care that he
has outlined in relation to private messaging? From what he said
a few minutes ago to the Chair of the Select Committee, the right
hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (), he seems to expect companies such as Facebook to
police content and behaviour on apps such as WhatsApp. I do not
see how they can do that without undermining the idea of
end-to-end encryption, which is very important for people’s
privacy and security. How will he do that in practice without
relying on technology that has not yet been invented?
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about privacy.
Clearly, if it was up to individuals within those companies to
identify content on private channels, that would not be
acceptable—that would be a clear breach of privacy. That is why
we will rely on technology and AI and so on to identify trends
that can be used to spot that kind of thing. I urge him to go
along to some of these tech companies and see the advances that
they are making, because it is very instructive.
As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon.
Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (), end-to-end encryption takes a whole other level of
challenge. The Home Secretary and I are actively engaging with
Facebook, for example, to discourage it from using end-to-end
encryption unless it can put appropriate protections in place.
Those conversations are ongoing.
(Meriden) (Con)
Earlier this year I participated in a roundtable with the Board
of Deputies of British Jews, and I advocated for this, so I
welcome the statement, especially the immediate removal of
antisemitic material. There are those who would consider that
this might be a slippery slope to an attack on our freedom of
speech, but does my right hon. Friend agree that instead it
creates a framework to ensure that our fundamental right to
freedom of speech is protected from those who seek to corrupt or
even abuse it ?
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.
