Online Safety Bill

Anna Firth Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Miriam Cates]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. What he says is entirely correct.

The key to this does, of course, lie in the implementation. One of the capabilities of the BBFC is to disrupt the business model and the payment provision of the adult online industry. I ask the Minister to consider whether he can direct Ofcom to examine the way in which the BBFC deals with offline and streamed pornography, and whether Ofcom could learn some lessons from that. There is still a disparity between the kind of pornography that is allowed offline, on DVD or streamed services, and the kind that appears online. Offline, certain acts are illegal and the BBFC will not classify the content: any act that looks non-consensual, for example, is illegal and the material cannot be distributed, whereas online it proliferates.

The Bill should have been the perfect vehicle to expand those rules to all online services offering pornographic content. Sadly, we have missed that opportunity, but I nevertheless welcome the Government’s recently announced porn review. I hope it can be used to close the online/offline gap, to insert verification checks for people appearing in pornographic videos and to deal with related offences. Many of those people did not consent and do not know that they are in the videos.

We also need to take account of the complete lack of moderation on some of the sites. It was recently revealed in a court case in the United States that 700,000 Pornhub sites had been flagged for illegal content, but had not been checked. Pornhub has managed to check just 50 videos a day, and has acknowledged that unless a video has been flagged more than 15 times for potential criminal content, such as child rape, it will not even join the queue to be moderated and potentially taken down. The children and the trafficked women who appear in those videos are seeing their abuse repeated millions of times with no ability to pull it down.

The Bill has been controversial, and many of the arguments have concerned issues of free speech. I am a supporter of free speech, but violent pornography is not free speech. Drawing children into addiction is not free speech. Knowingly allowing children to view horrific sex crimes is not free speech. Publishing and profiting from videos of children being raped is not free speech. It is sickening, it is evil, it is destructive and it is a crime, and it is a crime from which too many profit with impunity. A third of the internet consists of pornography. The global porn industry’s revenue is estimated to be as much as $97 billion. The Bill is an important step forward, but we would be naive to expect this Goliath of an industry to roll over and keep children safe. There is much more to be done which will require international co-operation, co-operation from financial institutions, and Governments who are prepared to stand their ground against the might of these vested interests. I very much hope that this one will.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

I want to speak briefly about Lords amendments 195 and 153, which would allow Ofcom, coroners and bereaved parents to acquire information and support relating to a child’s use of social media in the event of that child’s tragic death. Specifically, I want to speak about Archie Battersbee, who lived in my constituency but lost his life tragically last year, aged only 12. Archie’s mum, Hollie, was in the Public Gallery at the beginning of the debate, and I hope that she is still present. Hollie found Archie unconscious on the stairs with a ligature around his neck. The brain injury Archie suffered put him into a four-month coma from which, sadly, doctors were unable to save him.

To this day, Hollie believes that Archie may have been taking part in some form of highly dangerous online challenge, but, unable to access Archie’s online data beyond 90 days of his search history, she has been unable to put this devastating question to rest. Like the parents of Molly, Breck, Isaac, Frankie and Sophia, for the last year Hollie has been engaged in a cruel uphill struggle against faceless corporations in her attempt to determine whether her child’s engagement with a digital service contributed to his death. Despite knowing that Archie viewed seven minutes of content and received online messages in the hour and a half prior to his death, she has no way of knowing what may have been said or exactly what he may have viewed, and the question of his online engagement and its potential role in his death remains unsolved.

Lords amendment 195, which will bolster Ofcom’s information-gathering powers, will I hope require a much more humane response from providers in such tragic cases as this. This is vital and much-needed legislation. Had it been in place a year ago, it is highly likely that Hollie could have laid her concerns to rest and perhaps received a pocket of peace in what has been the most traumatic time any parent could possibly imagine.

I also welcome Lords amendment 153, which will mandate the largest providers to put in place a dedicated helpline so that parents who suffer these tragic events will have a direct line and a better way of communicating with social media providers, but the proof of the pudding will obviously be in the eating. I very much hope that social media providers will man that helpline with real people who have the appropriate experience to deal with parents at that tragic time in their lives. I believe that Hollie and the parents of many other children in similar tragic cases will welcome the Government’s amendments that allow Ofcom, coroners and bereaved parents to access their children’s online data via the coroner directing Ofcom.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness Kidron, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) and to the Bereaved Families for Online Safety group, who have done so much fantastic work in sharing their heartrending stories and opening our eyes to what has been necessary to improve the Online Safety Bill. I also, of course, pay tribute to Ian Russell, to Hollie and to all the other bereaved parents for their dedication to raising awareness of this hugely important issue.

If I could just say one last thing, I have been slipped from the Education Committee to attend this debate today and I would like to give an advert for the Committee’s new inquiry, which was launched on Monday, into the effects of screen time on education and wellbeing. This Bill is not the end of the matter—in many ways it is just the beginning—and I urge all Members please to engage with this incredibly important inquiry by the Education Committee.

[Paul Scully]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contribution to the debate today and, indeed, right through the passage of this complex Bill.

First, let me turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh). I understand that the intention of his amendments is to restrict the reach of the new online safety regulatory regime in a number of ways. I appreciate his concern to avoid unnecessarily burdensome business, and I am sympathetic to his point that the Bill should not inhibit sectors such as the life sciences sector. I reassure him that such sectors are not the target of this regime and that the new regulatory framework is proportionate, risk-based and pro-innovation.

The framework has been designed to capture a range of services where there is a risk of significant harm to users, and the built-in exemptions and categorisations will ensure it is properly targeted. The alternative would be a narrow scope, which would be more likely to inadvertently exempt risky science or to displace harm on to services that are out of scope. The extensive discussion on this point in both Houses has made it clear that such a position is unlikely to be acceptable.

The amendments to the overarching statement that would change the services in scope would introduce unclear and subjective terms, causing issues of interpretation. The Bill is designed so that low-risk services will have to put in place only proportionate measures that reflect the risk of harm to their users and the service provider’s size and capacity, ensuring that small providers will not be overly burdened unless the level of risk requires it.

The amendment that would ensure Ofcom cannot require the use of a proactive technology that introduces weaknesses or vulnerabilities into a provider’s systems duplicates existing safeguards. It also introduces vague terms that could restrict Ofcom’s ability to require platforms to use the most effective measures to address abhorrent illegal activity.

Ofcom must act proportionately, and it must consider whether a less intrusive measure could achieve the same effect before requiring the use of proactive technology. Ofcom also has duties to protect both privacy and private property, including algorithms and code, under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Fourth sitting)

Anna Firth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q I think the question I am trying to ask is: you are not honestly saying that you are going to stop innovating because of this Bill, if becomes an Act?

Tom Morrison-Bell: No. We are really committed to the UK, which is a special market for us. We employ 6,500 people here. But those checks and balances are important to make sure that you know that your decision is right or wrong, not just whether due process has been followed.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

Q I am sure we all agree that we want to put consumers at the heart of the regime. I want to put to you the very specific and powerful example that we have heard this afternoon, which I do not think you have really answered, from a British start-up in Cornwall selling electronic books. If it does it on an app, it will have to pay up to 30% in payment processing charges, and the payments can be delayed by as much as two months. If it does it with a web-based approach, where there is competition for payment processing—it uses Stripe, for example—it will pay 3% to 4% in processing charges and receive those payments within seven days. How can it possibly be in the best interests of my residents and businesses in Southend-on-Sea not to address that huge distortion in the market, with a huge monopoly and another system where there is more free competition?

Tom Morrison-Bell: With respect, I think that if you look at the broader Play system as a whole, 99% of all users of the Play store—those developers—pay 15% or less on their fees. By and large, the fees are staggered. That means that companies that make less money get to enjoy the benefits of the ecosystem in the same way as larger companies, which may pay larger fees.

On the payments point specifically, we are in discussions with the CMA, as I said. There are two different billing models, which are being agreed on and are out for market testing, so there is ongoing discussion in a constructive way with the CMA that will bring forward those two new payment methods.

[Anna Firth]

Q But why do you prohibit other payment providers from operating?

Tom Morrison-Bell: I do not think we do. This is what the CMA process is going to yield: something called user choice billing or developer choice billing. In developer choice billing, developers can pick their billing system; with user choice billing, it is users who have the choice.

[Anna Firth]

Q So you agree that it needs reform.

Tom Morrison-Bell: It is being reformed. The developers will have those choices, and those choices are being scrutinised by the CMA to make sure that they are good for consumers, that they are good for companies like the ones you mentioned, and that they are appropriate in the ecosystem.

[Vicky Ford]

Q If you are so keen at Google to work with the CMA and other competition authorities to get issues resolved quickly, why did Kelkoo tell us this morning that its issue is unresolved and has been going on since 2009, and why did the EU Commission need to make the announcement today about the investigation into ad tech procedures that it started two years ago, minus a handful of days? It seems to me that Google does not actually get these differences resolved in anything like a timely way.

Tom Morrison-Bell: I think there are a few things to unpack there. With respect, the Kelkoo case refers to the Google Shopping case with the European Commission. The remedy that was agreed by the European Commission as the competition authority was rolled out by Google in 2017, around 60 days after the finding was heard. The appeals are still going on, because there are different points of law that are being considered, but the remedy—