Online Safety

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:30

Asked by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for online safety posed by small, high-risk online platforms, such as 8Chan.

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)]

The Government are extremely concerned about the impact of small but risky services that host hateful and harmful content. The Online Safety Act will require such services to remove illegal content and, where relevant, protect children from legal but harmful material. Ofcom has established a Small but Risky supervision task force in recognition of their unique risks. The regulator will identify, manage and enforce against such services where they fail to comply with their duties.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer, but will he set out whether the Government expect Ofcom to take enforcement action against small but high-harm sites that are identified as problems? Have they made an assessment of the likely timescales for enforcement action, including the use of service disruption measures?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that important question. Where there is evidence of non-compliance, Ofcom has set out that it will move quickly to enforcement, and that action will follow in spring this year, because companies will have had three months to get their positions sorted out—I think that 16 March is the date by which they have to do it. Ofcom will be able to apply fines, including global levies, and it will be able to apply to the courts for business disruption measures and have the flexibility to submit these applications urgently.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister’s response is somewhat baffling. Given the amendment to the Bill as it passed through the House, as a result of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, it was quite clear that high-risk smaller platforms would be included in category 1 and bear all the consequences. Yet, despite the Secretary of State’s concerns, which were expressed in a letter last September, the Government have not insisted that Ofcom include those platforms in category 1. What does that mean? Why are the Government not taking proper legal advice and insisting that these smaller, high-risk platforms bear all the duties of category 1 services?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Category 1, in the way that the Bill was ultimately approved, was for large sites with many users. The possibility remains that this threshold can be amended. It is worth remembering that category 1 imposes two additional duties: a duty that the company must apply its service agreements properly and a duty that users can make it possible for themselves not to see certain things. For many of the small and harmful sites, those things would not apply anyway, because users have gone there deliberately to see what is there, but the full force of the Act applies to those small companies, which is why there is a special task force to make sure that that is applied properly.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, Ofcom’s illegal harms code states that it has removed some of the code’s measures from smaller sites, due to evidence that they were not proportionate, but it is not clear which measures have been removed and why. Can the Minister provide further detail on which small sites are impacted and what measures they will not be required to follow?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

My understanding of this is that the Online Safety Act applies to all small companies and nobody is exempt. The things that would not apply would be the specific things in category 1, or indeed in category 2A and 2B, which are to do with the ability to apply and monitor a service contract, and the ability to ensure that users can exempt themselves from seeing certain activities. Those would not apply, but everything else does apply, including all the force of the Act in terms of the application to illegal content and the priority harms that have been identified.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I must admit that, probably like many noble Lords, I had to do a bit of research into 8chan and the others as part of this. In fact, I got a bit worried that I might get into trouble doing it on House of Lords servers. What I saw was that, before 8chan, there was 2chan and then 4chan, and 8chan is now 8kun. It is like whack-a-mole: while we can try to do all the technical moves, it is very difficult. So, coming at it from the other end of the telescope, the user end, I think we have done a lot of good things about getting messaging out about anti-fraud and I wonder whether there are things we can learn from that, to educate and equip young people, teachers and parents so that they are aware, and attacking it from that end as well.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord does not get caught out from his search terms. Of course, he is absolutely right that part of this is about education and making people aware of what is there. I suspect that, as this gets introduced over the course of this year and enforcement starts, awareness will rise, and it will be incredibly important to include education as well.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister kindly tell the House how the Government can ensure that the people who are putting their dates of birth online are actually the people who are putting their dates of birth online? How do we ensure that accuracy?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. I am not able to give him a technical answer on exactly how that is done. There are verification systems in place to ensure that, and indeed there are more detailed verification systems coming online in terms of children’s ages. That is something that Ofcom is pursuing, but I will find a more detailed answer for him.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister quite rightly mentioned children in his initial Answer, and we all want to protect children primarily, but will he also recognise the harm that can be done to vulnerable adults? I think particularly of those with addiction problems, eating disorders and people with learning disabilities, who are not as safe online as we are. Can he say whether the Government have made an assessment of the different types of harms that are on these smaller sites that fall outside the regulations? Have they broken down this type of harm by distinct categories and will they make this information available?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The so-called Small but Risky task force that was set up in response to an exchange of letters between the Secretary of State and the CEO of Ofcom is undertaking a review of all the risks of these small units. I do not know the detail of whether it has broken it down into the categories suggested by the noble Baroness but I think that is an extremely good idea and I hope it will do it, because it is an important activity.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, having recognised the Herculean task that Parliament has given Ofcom in terms of regulating platforms—Ofcom is set to become probably the world’s most formidable regulator in this space, with commensurate expertise—I will trot out a quick cliché and say, let us not allow the best to be the enemy of the good but support Ofcom as it navigates this very complex environment. Picking up what the Minister mentioned earlier about education, can he update the House on Ofcom’s plans for what is clunkingly called “media literacy”, because prevention is better than cure and the more we can educate children, and indeed adults, on the perils of the internet and how to navigate it safely, the better it will be? It seems almost to be a bit of an orphan within Ofcom’s responsibilities.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord is right that Ofcom has a very large task ahead of it. It is a very professional organisation and one that takes all its duties very seriously. I cannot comment in detail on what it is doing on the media side, but I know that that is part of what it intends to do. I will pick up on something else he said: the urgency now is to get this implemented and the danger is that we add lots of things to it now. We must get on and do this. It is very important to get this working. We know that the enforcement starts just after March and that the new codes for children will come out in early summer. Getting this moving is the key priority, and working out how to stop the really unacceptable activity that goes on on some of these sites.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, is the Minister sensitive to the dangers to free speech of overfetishising online safety and to the censorship recently admitted to by the head of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg? This is all under the cloak of Governments demanding the clamping down on online harms. Are the Government advising Ofcom to ensure that any overzealousness, however well intentioned, should be reined in for the protection of free speech in a democratic society?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Well, the issue of Meta is one for the US. It applies there and not here. The rules of the Online Safety Act apply across all companies and we expect all companies to adhere to them. They are carefully calibrated and designed to ensure the safety of users and to protect them from sometimes disgraceful content.