Online Safety Bill

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We will stick with a time limit of six minutes, but I put everybody on notice that we may have to move that down to five.

[Adam Afriyie]

I very much welcome the Bill, which has been a long time in the making. It has travelled from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and now to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins); I say a huge thank you to them for their work. The Bill required time because this is a very complex matter. There are huge dangers and challenges in terms of committing offences against freedom of speech. I am glad that Ministers have recognised that and that we are very close to an outcome.

The Bill is really about protection—it is about protecting our children and our society from serious harms—and nobody here would disagree that we want to protect children from harm online. That is what 70% to 80% of the Bill achieves. Nobody would disagree that we need to prevent acts of terror and incitement to violence. We are all on the same page on that across the House. What we are talking about today, and what we have been talking about over the past several months, are nips and tucks to try to improve elements of the Bill. The framework appears to be generally correct. We need to drill down into some of the details to ensure that the areas that each of us is concerned about are dealt with in the Bill we finally produce, as it becomes an Act of Parliament.

There are several amendments tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members. I can only canter through them cursorily in the four minutes and 30 seconds remaining to me, but I will put these points on the record in the hope that the Minister will respond positively to many of them.

Amendments 48 and 49 would ensure that providers can decide to keep user-generated content online, taking no action if that content is not harmful. In effect, the Government have accepted those amendments by tabling amendment 71, so I thank the Minister for that.

My amendment 50 says that the presumption should be tipped further in favour of freedom of expression and debate by ensuring that under their contractual terms of service, except in particular circumstances, providers are obliged to leave content online. I emphasise that I am not talking about harmful or illegal content; amendment 50 seeks purely to address content that may be controversial but does not cross the line.

Covid-19

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

It strikes me that, as MPs, it is our duty to make difficult decisions. We must face head-on the life and death challenges that very few people would wish to face in their daily lives. We must make contested judgments, and this debate and the response to covid is a case in point. Whether it is going to war with Iraq, which was before my time in this House, military operations in Syria or the very painful issues surrounding Brexit, we have a duty to reflect carefully and responsibly when confronted with complex challenges. It seems to me that our response to covid demands a similar level of reflection to reach our best judgments.

There are a multitude of variables involved in this decision making. Given that thousands of lives are being lost to covid, thousands of lives are being lost with covid, and thousands of lives are being lost by our response to covid, it is no easy judgment. Businesses are being forced to close across my constituency and across the country—businesses that people have spent their lives building up. Jobs and livelihoods are being wiped out. Civil liberties are certainly under threat, freedom of speech is threatened, freedom of assembly has been all but washed away in the short term, and even Parliament—even with your efforts, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the efforts of Mr Speaker—is not necessarily functioning as it should during a crisis such as this.

Looking back, I suspect hon. Members will agree that the first lockdown was absolutely the right thing to do. In March this year we were confronted with an unknown enemy: a deadly virus determined to secure its own survival by infecting as many people as possible, with sometimes fatal consequences. With incomplete information from China at the time, we did not know the fatality rate. We did not know the vectors and means of transmission, or which age groups were worst affected, or about its ability to mutate or the type of mutation that may take place. We did not have a ready treatment available for the symptoms.

That was back in March, but today we know so much more. We know that healthy children are hardly affected by the virus, and that is a godsend, considering illnesses and diseases from the past. We know now that the overwhelming majority of adults are reasonably safe: perhaps 80% will not necessarily even notice any symptoms. We know that people over the age of 65 and those with pre-existing conditions are, sadly, most likely to suffer the serious effects of the virus. We know that the virus is transmitted by touch and by being in close proximity to others, and that washing hands and maintaining social distance largely prevent transmission.

We also have far more PPE than we had when we started, thanks to the efforts of the Government. Even if we have overdone it with PPE and end up at the end of this pandemic with millions, if not billions, of pounds’ worth of spare excess PPE, that will be a good sign: it will be a sign that we prepared effectively, and it may be of use to other nations in the future.

We also know that modern treatments can halve the death rate. We know that vaccines, particularly the two new ones, can stop the illness by generating antibodies. We know that our NHS, if fully staffed, can treat those affected, provided that the inflow of patients is moderated over time.

We can see from data that the tiered local approach is having an impact. Data that we have seen over the past week or two is to do not with the current lockdown but with the previous regional measures. That is a good thing, because we can see that we can control this virus to some degree.

Of course, there is still much more that we do not know. That is why we will be forced to make a judgment at the end of this month, but that judgment must be an informed judgment. I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to giving Parliament a say on future restrictions and regulations. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s desire to try to avoid restrictions in future, if it is considered safe to do so, and I very much welcome the Minister’s comments earlier about the progress we have made in tackling the disease so far and our prospects to do so in the not-too-distant future.

To move forward I believe we need to recognise the costs of the restrictions in addition to the benefits of future restrictions. I urge the Government to do three things. First, I ask them to prepare a clear cost-benefit analysis of any future proposed regulations, in terms of both the health and the economic costs and benefits in the short and the long term. Clearly, the two are intricately connected, but it is very important that MPs in this House—the decision makers—have clear sight of the overall costs and benefits.

Secondly, I ask the Government to ensure that the latest data is available from the NHS on hospitalisations, intensive care unit beds and their occupancy, and death rates from all causes, very carefully categorised, perhaps against a five-year baseline. This summer we have seen that the modelling can, let’s face it, get a bit out of control and, on occasion, be more like conjecture than reality. When we make the decision at the end of this month, it is important that we are in a better position to see the real data and perhaps to reflect on it ourselves.

Thirdly, I urge the Government—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but the six minutes are up. I know that before I call you, Mr Hanvey, you will be conscious of the time constraints on other people.

Business without Debate

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Nigel Evans

Friday 3rd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it recorded in Hansard that it was a Government Whip who objected to the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have not the faintest idea. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will wait until Hansard is published. It is an accurate reflection of what is said in the House.

[Adam Afriyie]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday the House resolved unanimously that, if needed, the Government would allow time to amend the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. If an amendment Bill does not come to Committee within the next few weeks, there will not be enough time even to leave that option open. Have you received information from the Leader of the House or news of a statement from the Leader of the House on this subject?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No, I have not received from the Leader of the House any statement or indication that a statement is to be made, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.