Online Safety Bill
Public Bill Committee, 26 May 2022.
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I understand that the Government wish to move a motion to amend the programme order agreed by the Committee on Tuesday. The Football Association is unable to attend and, following the technical difficulties on Tuesday, we will replace it with Barnardo’s.
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
Before we hear oral evidence, I invite Members to declare any interests in connection with the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
I need to declare an interest, Ms Rees. Danny Stone from the Antisemitism Policy Trust provides informal secretariat in a personal capacity to the all-party parliamentary group on wrestling, which I co-chair.
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
That is noted. Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
We will now hear oral evidence from Mat Ilic, chief development officer at Catch22; William May, chief executive at Full Fact; and Professor Lorna Woods and William Perrin of the Carnegie UK Trust. Before calling the first Member, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee agreed. For this session, we have until 12.15 pm. I call Alex Davies- Jones to begin the questioning.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q187 Good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for joining us today. One of the main criticisms of the Bill is that the vast majority of the detail will not be available until after the legislation is enacted, under secondary legislation and so on. Part of the problem is that we are having difficulty in differentiating the “legal but harmful” content. What impact does that have?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
On a point of order, Ms Rees. There is a gentleman taking photographs in the Gallery.
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
There is no photography allowed here.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Thank you. Does anybody else want to comment?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q That brings me on to my next point, William, relating to concerns about the powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State and about the independence of the regulator and the impact that could have. Do you have any comments on that?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you. Mr Moy, you brought up the issue of misinformation and disinformation being removed from the scope of the Bill. Can you expand on your thoughts on that point?
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
Thank you. I am going to bring Maria Miller in now.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q This evidence session is underlining to me how complicated these issues are. I am really grateful for your expertise, because we are navigating through a lot of issues. With slight trepidation I open the conversation up into another area—the issue of protection for children. One of the key objectives of the legislation is to ensure a higher level of protection for children than for adults. In your view, does the Bill achieve that? I am particularly interested in your views on whether the risks of harm to children should be set out on the face of the Bill, and if so, what harms should be included. Can I bring Mat in here?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Can I bring Lorna in here? We are talking about moving from content to the drivers of harm. Where would you suggest that should be achieved within the Bill?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Thank you, witnesses, for your time this morning. I am going to focus initially on journalistic content. Is it fair that the platforms themselves are having to try to define what journalistic content is and, by default, what a journalist is? Do you see a way around thisQ ?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Is there a body that sets out a framework around journalistic standards that the Bill could possibly refer to?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q What would you change about clauses 15 and 16? Is there an argument that they should not be there at all?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Thank you. How could the Bill protect people who are involved in elections, be they parliamentary candidates, people standing in local elections, staff, or election officers? Could that be worked on, and where would it go in the Bill?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Thank you. Just to finish, you are right that the point people have made is, “Why should MPs or elected officials be any different from anybody else?” I understand that. What worries me, from some of the work I have done, is that this is about not just the safety of human beings but the impact on democracy. Threatening and abusive behaviour directed at elected politicians can affect the way they feel about doing their job, and that worries me. Do you think it should be a specific stand-alone offence to send harmful or threatening communications to elected people—MPs, councillors, Mayors or police and crime commissioners? Do you think that warrants a separate, stand-alone offence?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Thank you.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you to the witnesses for joining us and giving us such thorough and clear responses to the various questions. I want to start on a topic that William Perrin and William Moy touched on—the exemption for recognised news publishers, set out in clause 50. You both said you have some views on how that is drafted. As you said, I asked questions on Tuesday about whether there are ways in which it could be improved to avoid loopholes—not that I am suggesting there are any, by the way. Mr Perrin and Mr Moy, could you elaborate on the specific areas where you think it might be improved?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q How would you change it to address that, if you think it is an issue?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Okay, thank you. I am not sure that I can take anything specific away from that. Perhaps that illustrates the difficulty of legislating. The clause, as drafted, obviously represents the best efforts, thus far, to deal with an obviously difficult and complicated issue.
We heard some commentary earlier—I think from Mr Moy—about the need to address misinformation, particularly in the context of a serious situation such as the recent pandemic. I think you were saying that there was a meeting, in March or April 2020, for the then Secretary of State and social media firms to discuss the issue and what steps they might take to deal with it. You said that it was a private meeting and that it should perhaps have happened more transparently.
Do you accept that the powers conferred in clause 146, as drafted, do, in fact, address that issue? They give the Secretary of State powers, in emergency situations—a public health situation or a national security situation, as set out in clause 146(1)—to address precisely that issue of misinformation in an emergency context. Under that clause, it would happen in a way that was statutory, open and transparent. In that context, is it not a very welcome clause?
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
Minister, we have just got a couple of minutes left, so perhaps this should be your last question.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Yes. On clause 13(4), the actions listed there are quite wide, given that they include not just “taking down the content”—as set out in clause 13(4)(a) —but also
“(b) restricting users’ access to the content;
(c) limiting the recommendation or promotion of the content;
(d) recommending or promoting the content.”
I would suggest that those actions are pretty wide, as drafted.
One of the witnesses—I think it was Mr Moy—talked about what were essentially content-agnostic measures to impede virality, and used the word “friction”. Can you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by that in practical terms?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you. Would you accept that the level of specificity that you have just outlined there is very difficult, if not impossible, to put in a piece of primary legislation?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q But a piece of legislation has to do more than express a preference; it has to create a statutory duty. I am just saying that that is quite challenging in this context.
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
Order. I am afraid that we have come to the end of our allotted time for questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for all their evidence.
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
We will now hear from Danny Stone, chief executive of the Antisemitism Policy Trust; Stephen Kinsella, founder of Clean up the Internet; and Liron Velleman, political organiser at HOPE not hate. We have until 1 pm for this panel.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Good morning, witnesses. Thank you for joining us today. Does the Bill give Ofcom discretion to regulate on the smaller but high-risk platforms?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thanks, Danny. So in your opinion, you would rather see a risk-based approach, as opposed to size and functionality.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Does anybody else want to come in on small platforms? Liron?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q One of our concerns with the Bill, which we raised with the regulator, Ofcom, in Tuesday’s evidence session, is what would happen in the interim if one of those smaller categorised platforms was to grow substantially and then need to be recategorised. Our concern is about what would happen in the interim, during the recategorisation process, while that platform was allowed to disseminate harmful content. What would you like to see happen as an interim measure during recategorisation, if that provision remained in the Bill?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you. The Antisemitism Policy Trust has made the case that search services should be eligible for inclusion as a high-risk category. Is that still your position? What is the danger, currently, of excluding them from that provision?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. The Bill contains duties to protect content of “democratic importance” and “journalistic content”. What is your view of these measures and their likely effectiveness?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q I think someone has alluded to this already, but should the comments section on news publisher platforms be included in the scope of the Bill?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Thank you. Stephen, just to finish—
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
Just a short question.
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Yes, sorry. Is there a body that sets a framework around journalistic standards that the Bill could refer to?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Thank you.
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
May I ask about anonymity? It is mentioned in the Bill, but only once. Do you think there is a need for more expansive coverage of this issue? Do you think people should be able to use the internet while remaining anonymous, and if not, to whom would users disclose their identity? Would it be to the platform, or would it be more publicly than that?Q
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q May I ask a quick supplementary about positive verification, before others contribute? A contributor to a previous session said there was a reluctance—a genuinely held reluctance—by some to be verified. In that way, it suppressed democratic engagement. Do you recognise that as an issue or a fault line in the verification argument?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q Would that be an argument for their identity verification being at platform level, rather than any wider public identity?
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
Thank you. We have time for a question from Navendu Mishra before we bring the Minister in.
Navendu Mishra (Labour, Stockport)
Mr Stone, do you think that the Bill gives sufficient protection to groups who suffer disproportionate abuse online because of protected characteristics? Do you think that those protections should be clarified in the Bill?Q
Navendu Mishra (Labour, Stockport)
Q So it could be clarified?
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
Would any other witness like to contribute? No.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you again to the witnesses for joining us this morning. I will start with Stephen Kinsella. You have spoken already about some of the issues to do with anonymity. Can you share with the Committee your view on the amendments made to the Bill, when it was introduced a couple of months ago, to give users choices over self-verification and the content they see? Do you think they are useful and helpful updates to the Bill?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
indicated assent.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Yes, and thank you for the work that you have done on this issue, together with Siobhan Baillie, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, which the Government adopted. Some of the areas that you have referred to could be dealt with in subsequent Ofcom codes of practice, but we are certainly happy to look at your submissions. Thank you for the work that you have done in this area.
Danny, we have had some fairly extensive discussions on the question of small but toxic platforms such as 4chan and BitChute—thank you for coming to the Department to discuss them. I heard your earlier response to the shadow Minister, but do you accept that those platforms should be subject to duties in the Bill in relation to content that is illegal and content that is already harmful to children?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q I understand; thank you. Liron, in an earlier answer, you referred to the protections for content of democratic importance and journalistic content, which are set out in clauses 15 and 16. You suggested and were concerned that they could act as a bar to hateful, prohibited or even illegal speech being properly enforced against. Do you accept that clauses 15 and 16 do not provide an absolute protection for content of democratic importance or journalistic content, and that they do not exempt such content from the Bill’s provisions? They simply say that in discharging duties under the Bill, operators must use
“proportionate systems and processes…to ensure that…content of democratic”—
or journalistic—
“importance is taken into account”.
That is not an absolute protection; it is simply a requirement to take into account and perform a proportionate and reasonable balancing exercise. Is that not reasonable?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Okay, thank you. My last question touches on those issues and is for each of the panel in turn. Some people have claimed—I think wrongly—that the provisions in the Bill in some way threaten free speech. As you will have seen in the article I wrote in The Times earlier this week, I do not think, for a number of reasons, that that is remotely true, but I would be interested in hearing the views of each of the panel members on whether there is any risk to freedom of speech in the work that the Bill does in terms of protecting people from illegal content, harm to children and content that is potentially harmful to adults.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you. You made a very important point: there is nothing in the Bill that requires censorship or prohibition of content that is legal and harmless to children. That is a really important point.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Good. Thank you, Stephen. Liron?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Good. Thank you. I hope the Committee is reassured by those comments on the freedom of speech question.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q I will use the small amount of time we have left to ask one question. A number of other stakeholders and witnesses have expressed concerns regarding the removal of a digital media literacy strategy from the Bill. What role do you see a digital media literacy strategy playing in preventing the kind of abuse that you have been describing?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q The shadow Minister’s question is related to the removal of what was clause 103 in the old draft of the Bill. As she said, that related to media literacy. Does the panel draw any comfort from three facts? First, there is already a media literacy duty on Ofcom under section 11 of the Communications Act 2003—the now deleted clause 103 simply provided clarification on an existing duty. Secondly, last December, after the Joint Committee’s deliberations, but before the updated Bill was published, Ofcom published its own updated approach to online media literacy, which laid out the fact that it was going to expand its media literacy programme beyond what used to be in the former clause 103. Finally, the Government also have their own media literacy strategy, which is being funded and rolled out. Do those three things—including, critically, Ofcom’s own updated guidance last December—give the panel comfort and confidence that media literacy is being well addressed?
Christina Rees (Labour/Co-operative, Neath)
Thank you. As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. That concludes this morning’s sitting.
Examination of Witness
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Thank you all for joining us.
We will now hear oral evidence from Stephen Almond, the director of technology and innovation in the Information Commissioner’s Office. Mr Almond, thank you for coming. As I have introduced you, I am not going to ask you to introduce yourself, so we can go straight into the questions. I call the shadow Front-Bench spokesman.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Thank you for coming to give evidence to us this afternoon, Mr Almond. There has been a lot of debate about the risk end-to-end encrypted platforms pose to online safety. What need is there to mitigate that risk in the Bill?Q 224
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q On that point around technological advances and enabling people to access the internet, people have raised concerns that tech-savvy children will be able to use VPNs, Tor Browser and other tricks to easily circumnavigate the measures that will be in the Bill, especially around age verification and user identity. How do you respond to that, and how do you suggest we close those loopholes, if we can?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q One final question from me. I would like to discuss your thoughts on transparency and how we can make social media companies like Meta be more transparent and open with their data, beyond the measures we currently have in the Bill. For instance, we could create statute to allow academics or researchers in to examine their data. Do you have any thoughts on how this can be incentivised?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
May I ask a supplementary to that before I come on to my main question?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Absolutely.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Thank you so much for coming along. You spoke in your initial comments to my colleague about encryption. The challenges of encryption around child abuse images have been raised with us previously. How can we balance the need to allow people to have encrypted options, if possible, with the need to ensure that this does not adversely affect organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation, which does so much good in protecting children and rooting out child abuse imagery?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q My main question is about child safety, which is a prime objective for the Government in this legislation. Do you feel that the Bill’s definition of “likely to be accessed by children” should be more closely aligned with the one used in the ICO’s age-appropriate design code?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Do you think any further aspects of the age-appropriate design code should be incorporated into the Bill?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Working closely with Ofcom is really good, but do you think there needs to be a duty to co-operate with Ofcom, or indeed with other regulators—to be specified in the Bill—in case relations become more tense in future?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Thank you for joining us, Mr Almond. You stated the aim of making the UK theQ
“safest place in the world to be online”.
In your view, what needs to be added or taken away from the Bill to achieve that?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q There has been much talk about trying to future-proof the Bill. Is there anything you could recommend that should be in the Bill to try to help with that?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Under clause 40, the Secretary of State can modify codes of practice to reflect public policy. How do you respond to criticism that this provision risks undermining the independence of the regulator?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q You have no concerns about that.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Mr Almond, welcome to the Committee. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. Can I start with co-operation? You mentioned a moment ago in answer to Maria Miller that co-operation between regulators, particularly in this context the ICO and Ofcom, was going to be very important. Would you describe the co-operative work that is happening already and that you will be undertaking in the future, and comment on the role that the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum has in facilitating that?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. From the perspective of privacy, how satisfied are you that the Bill as constructed gives the appropriate protections to users’ privacy?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you. My final question is this: do you feel the Bill has been constructed in such a way that it works consistently with the data protection provisions, such as UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
That is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Mr Almond, we are trying to get a pint into a half-pint pot doing this, so we are rushing a bit. If, when you leave the room, you have a “I wish I’d said that” moment, please feel free to put it in writing to us. We are indebted to you. Thank you very much indeed.
Examination of Witnesses
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Moving, I hope, seamlessly on, we are now going to hear oral evidence from Sanjay Bhandari, who is the chairman of Kick It Out, and—as the Committee agreed this morning—after Tuesday’s technical problems, if we do not have further technical problems, we are going to hear from Lynn Perry from Barnardo’s, again by Zoom. Is Lynn Perry on the line? [Interruption.] Lynn Perry is not on the line. We’ve got pictures; now all we need is Lynn Perry in the pictures.
I am afraid we must start, but if Lynn Perry is able to join, we will be delighted to hear from her. We have Mr Bhandari, so we will press on, because we are very short of time as it is. We hope that Lynn Perry will join us.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Good afternoon, Mr Bhandari; thank you for joining us. What response have you as a football charity seen from the social media companies to the abuse that has been suffered by our sports players online? We all saw the horrendous abuse that our football heroes suffered during the Euros last year. What has been the reaction of the social media companies when this has been raised? Why has it not been tackled?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you for that. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which we will hear from later this afternoon, has identified that, as well as a vast majority of abuse being directed on public profiles, it is also done via direct messaging, in private and sometimes on those smaller high-harm platforms. There are concerns raised by others that this would not be covered by the Bill. Do you have any thoughts on that and what would you like to see?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Lynn Perry is on the line, but we have lost her for the moment. I am afraid we are going to have to press on.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q I want to focus on one particular issue, which is anonymity. Kick It Out has done so much with the FA to raise awareness of that issue. I was interested in your views on how the Bill treats that. The Bill mentions anonymity and pseudonymity, but it does so only once. Should the Bill take a clearer stance on online anonymity? Do you have any views on whether people should be able to use the internet fully anonymously, or should they disclose their identity to the platform? Do you have any thoughts on that? You have done a huge amount of work on it.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
That is very helpful; thank you.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
I saw you nodding, Ms Perry. Do you wish to add anything?
Kirsty Blackman (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)
Lynn, does the Bill ensure that children are kept as safe as possible online? If not, what improvements need to be made to it so that they are?Q
Kirsty Blackman (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)
Q How much of an impact will the Bill have on the likelihood of children being subjected to online grooming and predatory behaviour?
Kirsty Blackman (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)
Q In terms of online gaming, and predators moving children from more mainstream to less regulated platforms, do you think there are improvements in the Bill that relate to that, or do you think more can be done?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q If I could address one question to each witness, that would be fantastic. I do a lot of work with women in sport, including football. Obviously, we have the Women’s Euros coming up, and I have my Panini sticker album at the ready. Do you think the Bill could do more to address the pervasive issue of online threats of violence and abuse against women and girls, including those directed at women in sport, be they players, officials or journalists?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Q Ms Perry, do you want to add anything to that?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Do you have any thoughts on the Bill committing to a statutory user advocacy body representing the interests of children? If you do, how do you think that that could be funded?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Yes, the idea of having a statutory user advocacy body that would represent the interests of children. This is something that has been talked about. Is that something you have any thoughts about?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Should the Bill commit to that?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Picking up that last point about representation for particular groups of users including children, Ms Perry, do you agree that the ability to designate organisations that can make super-complaints might be an extremely valuable avenue, in particular for organisations that represent user groups such as children? Organisations such as yours could get designated and then speak on behalf of children in a formal context. You could raise super-complaints with the regulator on behalf of the children you speak for. Is that something to welcome? Would it address the point made by my colleague, Kim Leadbetter, a moment ago?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q I am glad you welcome that. I have a question for both witnesses, briefly. You have commented in some detail on various aspects of the Bill, but do you feel that the Bill as a whole represents a substantial step forward in protecting children, in your case, Ms Perry, and those you speak for, Sanjay?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Before I turn to Ms Perry with the same question about the Bill’s general effect, Sanjay, you mentioned the terrible incidence of abuse that the three England footballers got after the penalties last summer. Do you think the social media firms’ response to that incident was adequate, or anywhere close to adequate? If not, does that underline the need for this legislation?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Yes. There are strong powers in the Bill for Ofcom to do precisely that. Ms Perry, may I ask you same general question? Do you feel that the Bill represents a very substantial step forward in protecting children?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you, Ms Perry. Finally, Mr Bhandari, some people have raised concerns about free speech. I do not share those concerns—in fact, I rebutted them a Times article earlier this week—but does the Bill cause you any concern from a free-speech perspective?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Ms Perry, I am very pleased that we were finally able to hear from you. Thank you very much indeed—you have been very patient. Thank you very much, Mr Bhandari. If either of you, as a result of what you have heard and been asked today, have any further thoughts that you wish to submit, please do so.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
We will hear oral evidence first from Eva Hartshorn-Sanders, who is the head of policy at the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. We shall be joined in due course by Poppy Wood. Without further ado, I call the shadow Minister.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you for joining us this afternoon. I have quoted a lot of the stats that the Centre for Countering Digital Hate has produced on online abuse directed at individuals with protected characteristics. In the previous panel, I mentioned that the vast majority is done via direct messaging, sometimes through end-to-end encryption on platforms. What are your concerns about this issue in the Bill? Does the Bill adequately account for tackling that form of abuse?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Part of the issue is that the regulated service providers have to rely heavily on the use of AI to facilitate monitoring and take down problematic content in order to comply with the Bill, but, as several stakeholders have said, algorithmic moderation is inadequate for recognising the nuance and subtleties, in order to actively and effectively take down the content. What more would you like to see in the Bill to counteract that issue?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
You mentioned that there is not adequate transparency and openness on how these things work. What systems would you like to see the Bill put the place to ensure the transparency, independence and accountability of Ofcom, but also the transparency and openness of the tech companies and the platforms that we are seeking to regulate?Q
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
May I say, for the sake of the record, that we have now been joined by Poppy Wood, the UK director of Reset.tech? Ms Wood, you are not late; we were early. We are trying to make as much use as we can of the limited time. I started with the Opposition Front Bencher. If you have any questions for Poppy Wood, go ahead.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
I do—thank you, Sir Roger. I am not sure if you managed to hear any of that interaction, Poppy. Do you have any comments to make on those points before I move on?Q
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
That is fine. I will just ask you what you think the impact is of the decision to remove misinformation and disinformation from the scope of the Bill, particularly in relation to state actors?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
We have heard a lot from other witnesses about the ability of Ofcom to regulate the smaller high-risk platforms. What is your view on thatQ ?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q I want to touch on something we have not talked about a lot today, which is enforcement and the enforcement powers in the Bill. There are significant enforcement powers in the Bill, but do our two witnesses here which those enforcement powers are enough. Eva?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
No, I am talking about director liability and the enforcement on companies.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Is there more that could or should be added to the Bill?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Poppy, do you have anything to add?
Kirsty Blackman (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)
Q I have a question for the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. I raised some of your stats on reporting with Meta—Facebook—when they were here, such as the number of reports that are responded to. They basically said, “This is not true any more; we’re now great”—I am paraphrasing, obviously. Could you please let us know whether the reporting mechanism on major platforms—particularly Facebook—is now completely fixed, or whether there are still lots of issues with it?
Kirsty Blackman (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)
Q I have a quick question for Poppy, although I am afraid it might not have a quick answer. How much of an impact does the algorithmic categorisation of things—the way we are fed things on social media—have on our lives? Do you think it is steering people towards more and more extreme content? Or is it a totally capitalist thing that is not harmful, and just something that sells us things every so often?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
May I ask a follow-up question on that? Poppy, you referenced risk assessments. Would you value and welcome more specifics around quality standards and minimum requirements on risk assessments? My main question is about privacy and anonymity, but I would appreciate a word on risk assessments.Q
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q Do you think Ofcom has the resources that it would require to push for an independent audit of risk assessments?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q What are your thoughts on the balance between privacy and anonymity?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q Eva, there is just one reference to anonymity in the Bill currently. Do you think there is an opportunity to express a fuller, more settled opinion and potentially expand on that juxtaposition?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Thank you to the witnesses for joining us this afternoon. May I ask for your views on the clauses on journalistic content exemption and democratic content exemption? Do you think that these measures are likely to be effective?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Thank you, Poppy. Eva?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q That is really helpful; thank you. You raised the point about the abuse that was directed at election officials in America. Do you think it should almost be a stand-alone offence to send harmful or threatening communications to elected people—MPs, councillors, mayors or police and crime commissioners—or possibly even election officials, the people who are involved in the democratic process, because of the risk that that abuse and threats could have on democracy?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Poppy, do you have any thoughts on that?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Should there be more in the Bill with a specific reference to violence against women and girls, abuse and threats, and misogyny?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you. Minister.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you for joining us this afternoon and for giving us your evidence so far. At the beginning of your testimony, Ms Hartshorn-Sanders, I think you mentioned—I want to ensure I heard correctly—that you believe, or have evidence, that Instagram is still, even today, failing to take down 90% of inappropriate content that is flagged to it.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q That clearly illustrates the problem we have. Two parts of the Bill are designed to address this: first, the ability for designated user representation groups to raise super-complaints—an issue such as the one you just mentioned, a systemic issue, could be the subject of such a super-compliant to Ofcom, in this case about Instagram—and, secondly, at clause 18, the Bill imposes duties on the platforms to have proper complaints procedures, through which they have to deal with complaints properly. Do those two provisions, the super-complaints mechanism for representative groups and clause 18 on complaints procedures, go a long way towards addressing the issue that you helpfully and rightly identified?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Meta claimed in evidence to the Committee on Tuesday that it gave researchers good access to its data. Do you think that is true?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Q Ms Wood, do you want to comment on any of this before we move on?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you. Last brief question, Minister.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Goodness! There is a lot to ask about.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Sorry, we are running out of time.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q I appreciate that; thank you, Sir Roger. Ms Wood, you mentioned misinformation in your earlier remarks—I say “misinformation” rather than “state-sponsored disinformation”, which is a bit different. It is very difficult to define that in statute and to have an approach that does not lead to bias or to what might be construed as censorship. Do you have any particular thoughts on how misinformation could be concretely and tangibly addressed?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you. I am sorry, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted to this session. Ladies, if either of you wishes to make a submission in writing in the light of what you have not answered or not been able to answer, please do. Ms Wood, Ms Hartsholm-Sanders, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
We shall now hear from Owen Meredith, chief executive of News Media Association, and Matt Rogerson, director of public policy at Guardian Media Group.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Good afternoon, both, and thank you for coming this afternoon. We have heard a lot about the journalistic content exemption. What is your view of the current measures in the Bill and their likely consequences?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q What further would you like to see?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q You would like to see a full exemption. Matt, do you have any thoughts on that?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Currently, is the definition of journalistic content used in the Bill clear, or do you find it ambiguous?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q We have heard a lot of concern about disinformation by state actors purporting to be journalists and using that exemption, which could cause harm. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Mr Meredith, do you wish to add to that?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you. Maria Miller.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
A great deal of the discussion we are having about this Bill is its scope—what is covered and what is not covered. Many of us will look regularly at newspapers online, particularly the comments sections, which can be quite colourful. Should comments on newspaper publisher platforms be included in the scope of the Bill?Q
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Can I just probe on that slightly? You say the comments are the responsibility of the editor. Does that mean that if something is published on there that is defamatory, it would then be attributed to the editor?Q
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Kim Leadbeater?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses. I just want to clarify something. We were talking about the journalistic content definition as it is. You are saying that you do not think it is reasonable to expect service providers to identify journalistic content using the definition contained in the Bill. Do you think the Bill should be clearer about what it means by journalistic content and journalism?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q I suppose there are two separate clauses there. There is the news publisher clause and the journalistic content clause. Just so I am clear, you are happy with the news publisher clause?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q What about the journalistic content clause? This is an expression that was new to me—this idea of a citizen journalist. I do not even know what that means. Are we confident that this clause, which talks about journalistic content, is the worrying one?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q As journalists, does that worry you?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Sorry, as representatives of journalists.
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q My only concern is that someone who just decides to call themselves a journalist will be able to say what they want.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Can I start by clarifying a comment that Owen Meredith made at the very beginning? You were commenting on where you would like the Bill to go further in protecting media organisations, and you said that you wanted there to be a wholesale exemption for recognised news publishers. I think there already is a wholesale exemption for recognised news publishers. The area where the Government have said they are looking at going further is in relation to what some people call a temporary “must carry” provision, or a mandatory right of appeal for recognised news publishers. Can I just clarify that that is what you meant?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you. Can I move on to the question that Kim Leadbeater asked a moment ago, and that a number of Members have raised? You very kindly said a moment ago that you thought that clause 50, which sets out the definition of “recognised news publisher”, works as drafted. I would like to test that a bit, because some witnesses have said that it is quite widely drawn, and suggested that it would be relatively easy for somebody to set themselves up in a manner that met the test laid out in clause 50. Given the criticism that we have heard a few times today and on Tuesday, can you just expand for the Committee why you think that is not the case?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you. So you are categorically satisfied about the risks that we have heard articulated; that maleficent actors would not be able to set themselves up in such a way that they benefit from this exemption.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Thank you; that is very helpful. I have only one other question. In relation to questions concerning freedom of speech, the Government believe, and I believe, that the Bill very powerfully protects freedom of speech. Indeed, it does so explicitly through clause 19, in addition to the protections for recognised news publishers that we have discussed already and the additional protections for content of journalistic and democratic importance, notwithstanding the definitional question that have been raised. Would you agree that this Bill respects and protects free speech, while also delivering the safety objectives that it quite rightly has?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Yes, but with the amendment committed to on Second Reading, you would say that the Bill does meet those freedom of speech objectives, subject to the detail.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Thank you. That is very helpful. Mr Rogerson?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q From a general free speech perspective—which obviously includes the press’s freedom of speech, but everybody else’s as well—what do you think about the right enshrined in clause 19(2), where for the first time ever the platforms’ have to have regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of speech is put on the face of a Bill? Do you think that is helpful? It is a legal obligation they do not currently have, but they will have it after the passage of the Bill. In relation to “legal but harmful” duties, platforms will also have an obligation to be consistent in the application of their own terms and conditions, which they do not have to be at the moment. Very often, they are not consistent; very often, they are arbitrary. Do you think those two changes will help general freedom of speech?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
I commend your ingenuity in levering an appeal for more digital competition into this discussion. Thank you.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
One final quick question from the Opposition Front Bench.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Mr Rogerson, you mentioned that platforms and tech companies currently have a list of approved broadcasters that they are enabled to use, to ensure they have that content. Isn’t it true that one of those broadcasters was Russia Today, and it was only because Ofcom intervened to remove it from social media that it was taken down, but under the current provisions in this Bill, Ofcom would not be able to do that and Russia Today would be allowed to spread disinformation on social media platforms?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q But under the new Bill, as journalistic content, it would be allowed to remain on those social media platforms.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Mr Meredith, Mr Rogerson, thank you very much. If you have any further comments that you wish to make, you are free to put them in writing.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
We will now hear from Tim Fassam, the director of government relations and policy at PIMFA, the Personal Investment Management & Financial Advice Association, and from Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which? We will be joined by Martin Lewis, of MoneySavingExpert, in due course. Thank you to the witnesses for joining us. I call the Opposition Front Bench.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you for joining us this afternoon. As a constituency MP, I am sure I am not alone in saying that a vast amount of my casework comes from members of my community writing to me to say that they have been scammed online, that they have been subject to fraud and that they feel horrendous about it. They feel shame and they do not know what to do about it. It is the single biggest crime in the UK, with victims losing an estimated £2.3 billion. In your opinion, does the Bill go far enough to tackle that?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
One moment—I think we have been joined by Martin Lewis on audio. I hope you can hear us, Mr Lewis. You are not late; we started early. I will bring you in as soon as we have you on video, preferably, but otherwise on audio.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Thank you, both. You mentioned that search is a concern, especially because it is currently out of scope of the Bill in terms of this issue. Another issue is that when people do use search to look for a financial service or something that they wish to purchase, the cookies are remembered. The algorithms on social media platforms are then triggered to promote specific adverts to them as a result of that search history or things they have mentioned via voice control to their home help devices. That is a concern. Digital advertising that you see on third-party websites is also not within scope. That has been raised as well. Do you have any thoughts on those pointsQ ?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Mr Lewis, I am living in hope that we may be able to see you soon—although that may be a forlorn hope. However, I am hoping that you can hear us. Do you want to come in and comment at all at this point? [Interruption.] Oh, we have got you on the screen. Thank you very much for joining us.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
I can’t think why it has been.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you, Mr Lewis. My final question is not necessarily about financial services advertising. With the rise of influencer culture, specifically on social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, we are seeing a failure to disclose adverts correctly and the potential for harmful advertising. Slimming products, for example, that are not particularly safe, especially for children, are being targeted at children. What more would you like to see this Bill do to tackle some of that? I know the ASA has taken action against some prolific offenders, but what more would you like to see in this Bill to tackle that and keep children safe from adverts that are not marked as such?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Mr Lewis, do you have anything to add?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you. Do I have any questions from Government Back Benchers? No. Does anyone have any further questions?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Yes, I do. If nobody else has questions, I will have another bite of the cherry.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
The Minister is going to come in in a minute.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q I would just like to query your thoughts on a right to redress for victims. Do you think that having an ombudsman in the Bill would be appropriate, and what would you like to see to support victims of fraud?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q May I ask, directly related to that, about the complaints procedure? What would you like to see in terms of changes there, to make it more unified, more universal and simpler? It has been suggested that it is not robust enough, not dynamic enough and not fast enough.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Mr Lewis, you were nodding.
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q I thank the witnesses for coming. In terms of regulation, I was going to ask whether you believe that Ofcom is the most suitable regulator to operate in this area. You have almost alluded to the fact that you might not. On that basis, should we specify in the Bill a duty for Ofcom to co-operate with other regulators—for example, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, Action Fraud or whoever else?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q I thank the witnesses for joining us this afternoon, and particularly Martin Lewis for his campaigning in this area.
I will start by agreeing with the point that Martin Lewis made a minute or two ago—that we cannot trust these companies to work on their own. Mr Lewis, I am not sure whether you have had a chance to go through clause 34, which we inserted into the Bill following your evidence to the Joint Committee last year. It imposes a duty on these companies to take steps and implement systems to
“prevent individuals from encountering content consisting of fraudulent advertisements”.
There is a clear duty to stop them from doing this, rather as you were asking a minute ago when you described the presentation. Does that strong requirement in clause 34, to stop individuals from encountering fraudulent advertisement content, meet the objective that you were asking for last year?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Q Mr Fassam, do you have the answer?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Mr Fassam, I will address those two questions, if I may. Search is covered by clause 35 and user-generated content is subject to the Bill’s general provisions on user-generated content. Included in the scope of that are the priority illegal offences defined in schedule 7. Among those are included, on page 185—not that I expect you to have memorised the Bill—financial services offences that include a number of those offences to do with pretending to carry out regulated financial activity when in fact you are not regulated. Also included are the fraud offences—the various offences under the Fraud Act 2006. Do come back if you think I have this wrong, but I believe that we have search covered in clause 35 and promoted user-generated content covered via schedule 7 page 185.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q In clause 35 there is the drafting point that we are looking at. It says “minimise the risk” instead of “prevent”. You are right to point out that drafting issue. In relation to the user-generated stuff, there is a duty on the platforms to proactively stop priority illegal content, as defined in schedule 7. I do take your drafting point on clause 35.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q I want to pick up on Martin Lewis’s point about enforcement. He said that he had to sue Facebook himself, which was no doubt an onerous, painful and costly enterprise—at least costly initially, because hopefully you got your expenses back. Under the Bill, enforcement will fall to Ofcom. The penalties that social media firms could be handed by Ofcom for failing to meet the duties we have discussed include a fine amounting to 10% of global revenue as a maximum, which runs into billions of pounds. Do the witnesses feel that level of sanction—10% of global revenue and ultimately denial of service—is adequately punitive? Will it provide an adequate deterrent to the social media firms that we are considering?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Mr Lewis, as you were named, I think you had better start.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q I have one final question that again relates to the question of reporting scams, which I think two or three witnesses have referred to. I will briefly outline the provisions in the Bill that address that. I would like to ask the witnesses if they think those provisions are adequate. First, in clause 18, the Bill imposes on large social media firms an obligation to have a proper complaints procedure so that complaints are not ignored, as appears to happen on a shockingly frequent basis. That is at the level of individual complaints. Of course, if social media firms do not do that, it will be for Ofcom to enforce against them.
Secondly, clauses 140 and 141 contain a procedure for so-called super-complaints, where a body that represents users—it could be Which? or an organisation like it—is able to bring something almost like a class action or group complaint to Ofcom if it thinks a particular social media firm has systemic problems. Will those two clauses address the issue of complaints not being properly handled or, in some cases, not being dealt with at all?
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q That is a really important point—you made it earlier—about the complaints process being hidden. Clause 18(2)(c) says that the complaints system must be
“easy to access, easy to use (including by children) and transparent.”
The previous paragraph (b) states that the system must
“provides for appropriate action to be taken by the provider of the service in response to complaints of a relevant kind”.
The Bill is saying that a complaints process must do those two things, because if it does not, Ofcom will be on the company’s back.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Well, your organisation, as one that represents firms in this space, could in fact be designated as a super-complainant to represent your members, as much as someone like Which? could be designated to represent the man on the street like you or me.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Last word to Rocio Concha.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
Q Yes, that is a very good question. Please do write to us about that. Clause 140, on super-complaints, refers to “regulated services”. My very quick, off-the-cuff interpretation is that that would include everything covered and regulated by the Bill. I notice that there is a reference to user-to-user services in clause 18. Do write to us on that point. We would be happy to look at it in detail. Do not take my comment as definitive, because I have only just looked at it in the last 20 seconds.
Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)
I am very grateful. Thank you.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Ms Concha and Mr Fassam, thank you very much. Do please write in if you have further comments. Mr Lewis, we are deeply grateful to you. You can now go back to your day job and tell us whether we are going to be worse or better off as a result of the statement today—please don’t answer that now.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you all very much.
Examination of Witness
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
We now have Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee. Thank you for joining us.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Good afternoon, Frances. Thank you for joining us.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
No problem. Could you give us a brief overview of how, in your opinion, platforms such as Meta will be able to respond to the Bill if it is enacted in its current form?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q You have just answered my question on AI and algorithmic intention. When I questioned Meta in Tuesday’s oral evidence session, they were unable to tell me how many human moderators they had directly working for them and how many had abided by a UK standard and code of conduct. Do you see the lack of human moderators being a problem as the Bill is enacted by platforms such as Meta?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q One final question from me, because I know others will want to come in. How do you think platforms such as Meta—I know we have used Meta as an example, but there are others—can be incentivised, beyond the statutory duty that we are currently imposing, to publish their data to allow academics and researchers into their platforms to examine exactly what is going on? Or is this the only way?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Turning to the issue of child safety and online abuse with images involving children, what should be added to or removed from the Bill to improve how it protects children online? Have you got any thoughts on that? Some groups have described the Bill’s content as overly broad. Would you make any comments on how effective it will be in terms of online safety for children?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q You say that transparency is so important. Can you give us any specifics about particular areas that should be subject to transparency?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Specifically for children.
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Frances, do you think that the Bill needs to set statutory minimum standards for things such as risk assessments and codes of practice? What will a company such as Facebook do without a minimum standard to go by?
Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Batley and Spen)
Q Thank you. You alluded earlier to the fact that the Bill contains duties to protect content of democratic importance and journalistic content. What is your view on those measures and their likely effectiveness?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q Good afternoon, Frances. I want to ask you about anonymity and striking a balance. We have heard variously that anonymity affords some users safe engagement and actually reduces harm, while for others anonymity has been seen to fuel abuse. How do you see the balance, and how do you see the Bill striving to achieve that?