Victims of Sexual Violence: Court Delays

Debate between Charlotte Nichols and Alex Davies-Jones

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) on securing this very important debate. We have heard some incredibly powerful and moving stories. I know that everyone in this House, despite our political differences, is united in one purpose: that more must be done to bring victims the swift justice they deserve. And more must be done to properly support them throughout the justice process.

As we have heard, for too many victims in this country justice delayed does mean justice denied. As my hon. Friend stated, only last week the new statistics laid bare the scale of the backlog in our Crown court, which is now at a record high. There were 73,000 cases awaiting trial or a sentencing hearing as of September this year. That number has doubled since 2019. Sexual offence cases, including rape, were on average taking 356 days from arrival at the Crown court to completion—a significant increase on the average for sexual offence cases pre-covid.

As politicians, we often reel out statistics, but behind each one of those statistics are real people: real victims, including people who have endured rape and sexual abuse, who are not just waiting months for trial, but years. For some, that seemingly endless wait is quite understandably too much to bear. Left without hope of the justice that they deserve and facing a long road to the closure that they need, many drop out of their cases all together, and when they do, their attackers get away without consequences, free to offend again.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The Minister is making a very important point about victim attrition, but one thing that concerns me is the fact that court delays also mean that when cases are heard, the testimony of victims—including victim-survivors in these cases—will be of much poorer quality given the length of time that has passed, and more cases will end with a not guilty verdict for people who should very much be behind bars. Is the Department looking into that, and are there statistics for what the backlog has meant for the conviction rate?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is right: there are concerns about that, and I hear them, as does the Department. It is true that some of the special measures that were intended to empower victim-survivors giving testimony are potentially having a negative impact. I will say more about that later, but I can say to my hon. Friend that the Department and I are very alive to it.

My aim is to get out there and meet as many victims and survivors as possible to hear directly about their experiences, some of which are unimaginably awful. One victim-survivor of rape told me that her case took years to finally get to trial, and she used words similar to those of my hon. Friend’s constituent—words that I will never forget. She said that the entire experience made her “want to die”. No one should ever feel that way about our justice system. I am proud that this Government were elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, finally making this a priority after years of neglect. It will not be easy, but I believe that we are up to the challenge. However, if we are to have any hope of doing so, we must improve the way in which the justice system responds to these crimes, and that must include ensuring that victims’ cases are heard swiftly by the courts.

As I have said, this Government inherited a criminal courts system that was stretched to breaking point. We have taken the crucial first steps to bear down on that caseload, including funding 106,500 Crown court sitting days in this financial year. We have also extended sentencing powers in magistrates courts to 12 months when they are dealing with offences that can be heard in either a Crown court or a magistrates court, which will free up 2,000 Crown court days and provide more capacity to hear the most serious cases. However, the number of cases entering Crown courts shows no signs of letting up, so if victims are going to see justice more swiftly, we cannot simply do more of the same; we have to go further.

Delivering the Government’s bold plan for change and making our streets safer will take a once-in-a-generation reform of our courts system, which is why the Lord Chancellor announced last week that she had commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to carry out an independent review of the criminal courts, looking specifically at how we might speed up the hearing of cases. Sir Brian’s review will examine how our courts can operate more efficiently, but it will also look at much more fundamental reform—considering, for instance, the introduction of an intermediate court, in which cases that are too serious to be heard by a magistrate alone could be heard by a judge alongside magistrates. We expect Sir Brian to report on his initial findings in spring next year.

This marks a crucial step towards our ambition of bearing down on the overall caseload and bringing down waiting times for all victims, witnesses and defendants. As I have said, however, we know that victims of sexual violence endure particularly long waits for justice, and, as the House will know, we have therefore made a commitment to fast-track rape cases through the system. We are considering the best way of doing so, and we are keen to build on the work that has already been done by the senior judiciary. I saw one of their initiatives at first hand during my visit to Bristol Crown court over the summer, and was struck by how tirelessly those judges and court staff are working to keep cases moving. It was inspiring to see.

This is a tough challenge, and whatever we do, waiting times will not come down overnight. If we are to keep victims engaged while they continue to face lengthy waits, partners across the criminal justice system and victim support services must pull together, as indeed they are. The Ministry of Justice provides ringfenced funding for independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, as well as for community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence services. That is in addition to the core funding that we provide for police and crime commissioners to allocate at their discretion.

I am pleased to say that we are maintaining the 2024-25 funding levels for sexual violence and domestic support next year. The CPS recently announced its victims transformation programme, which has a focus on improving the justice process for victims of rape and serious sexual offences. Pre-trial meetings with prosecutors are now being offered to all victims of adult rape and serious sexual offences, and there will be greater access to independent sexual violence advisers as well as dedicated victim liaison officers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) has mentioned, victims’ experience of court is affected by the interactions that they have there and with the staff.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As an MP for a constituency in a devolved nation, I am acutely aware of the need to ensure that we have a joined-up approach. Although justice and policing are devolved to Northern Ireland, I will happily discuss this issue with colleagues to see how we can best approach it, because somewhere in our United Kingdom a rape or sexual violence victim-survivor is currently suffering an insufferable wait, and we need to do more to protect all victims across the country.

As I have said, we need to look at victims’ experience of court. As part of the same programme, over 500 CPS staff who will meet victims have received trauma-informed training. We will also continue to deliver trauma-informed training at Snaresbrook, Leeds and Newcastle Crown courts, with over 400 professionals trained so far, including court staff and police. Witness waiting rooms and in-court technology have been upgraded in those courts so that victims can give their best evidence, watch proceedings away from the courtroom, or simply wait in a comfortable and private space. Attending court can be terrifying, and I know that many victims, quite understandably, fear bumping into the perpetrator when they do.

[Charlotte Nichols]

The Minister just made a point about victims being able to watch proceedings from another room, which is often not the case in rape trials, where the victim is considered a witness rather than a participant in the case. I know that the Department is looking at things like transcripts. Will they become more readily available, so that victims who, for whatever reason, do not feel like they can participate while the trial is taking place can read what happened after the trial as part of the process of closure?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend makes another important point. We are currently offering a pilot on transcripts. I will mention that again in my speech, but it is about how much more comfortable we can make the whole terrifying process for victims and survivors when they are in our court system. What more can we do to make their experience as comfortable—if that is the appropriate word—as it can be? As I have said, we know that it can be utterly terrifying.

There are also concerns about the way that victims’ evidence is currently presented to the jury. I hear those concerns loud and clear, particularly where the approach can reduce the chance of securing a conviction. The Department is conducting a thorough impact evaluation and looking at section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999—the mechanism by which victims can give their testimony in advance of trial—to see whether it affects the case outcome, court effectiveness and the timeliness of cross-examination. We will publish the findings of our review in the new year.

Victims of rape and sexual offences can request transcripts of Crown court sentencing remarks for free through our one-year pilot, which is running until May next year. I encourage all eligible victims and survivors to find out whether that could be helpful, and to please take up the offer.

[Charlotte Nichols]

Just for clarification, will transcripts be available only for victim-survivors who have secured a successful conviction? Given what we are talking about, it is important that people who were not able to secure a conviction can still access transcripts as part of the important process of closure.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My understanding is that any victim who is eligible is able to apply for transcripts, regardless of whether a conviction has been secured, but I will seek clarification for my hon. Friend on that matter.

This is a landmark mission, and we have further to go to support victims of rape and sexual offences—both at court and across the whole of their journey through the system. I am proud that, as well as fast-tracking rape cases through the courts, we plan to begin rolling out our free, independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape from next year. Those advisers will be a real step forward for victims, and offer legal advice at any point between report and trial. We will also introduce specialist rape and sexual offence teams in every police force. We will make sure that police officers receive stronger training on violence against women and girls, and ban anyone with a history of violence against women and girls from joining the police force.

Wherever they are in their journey through the system, I want to make sure that every victim knows their rights and that agencies are held accountable for delivering those rights. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 lays the foundation for ensuring that victims know the rights they should receive under the victims code and that agencies are held accountable for delivering them. The Act also places a duty on local commissioners in England to collaborate in the commissioning of support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence. We will consult on a revised victims code and the duty to collaborate guidance early next year. I am working with my officials to ensure that we have the right data and systems to monitor compliance with the new code. We have also pledged to increase the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, so that there is more accountability when victims’ needs are not being met.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend asked me about the impact of adjournments on victims and survivors. I want to reassure her that I am looking at every possible solution and pulling every lever at my disposal across the criminal justice system to ensure that we leave no stone unturned in ensuring that the victims of these abhorrent crimes receive the swift justice that they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Charlotte Nichols and Alex Davies-Jones

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

T6. The criminal injuries compensation scheme is a vitally important part of the justice system but among the gaps in the framework we inherited is interim support for victims of crime under 18 before they can access their award. This is profoundly affecting three of my young constituents who were victims of rape, and their families, in dealing with the consequences. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can do more for child victims of the most serious offending and ensure the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is fit for purpose?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The previous Government undertook a review of the scheme; it ran three consultations respectively. When the election was called in May no response to those consultations had been published. We are considering the support we provide to victims including child victims, and we are advising on a new victims’ code in the new year specifically to look at that issue, including any response to the review, and we will set out our plans in due course.

Tackling Image-based Abuse

Debate between Charlotte Nichols and Alex Davies-Jones

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I could not agree more. This is about all of us playing our part and saying that we will not stand for it—we will not be passive bystanders and we will challenge these views to tackle it. It will not happen overnight. It will take time, but I believe we can do it. Women deserve to feel safe, whether that is online or out in the physical world. Men who abuse, harass and discriminate should have nowhere to hide.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her work on this policy so far, which is among the most meaningful things that has happened since we came into office, particularly the removal of the intent provisions. We have seen too many women unable to get justice because of a technicality, including a horrific case in my constituency that the Minister is well aware of. We are talking a lot about the online space today, so can she clarify that, where intimate image abuse is part of the commission of an offline offence of voyeurism or rape, for example, that will factor into the work that she is doing?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am well aware of the horrific case in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am pleased that we have been able to go further on intent versus consent with some of these crimes. The right to banter should not trump the right to feel safe; I have said that before in this place and I will say it again. Women have the right to feel safe everywhere and we are looking at all offences in that regard, but it will take a whole system effort. My colleagues and I across Government know that, and that is why we are working together to get to the root causes of violence and misogyny to create the lasting change that we all want and need to see.

Finally, we need to ensure that when someone has been the victim of intimate image abuse, they get the support that they need and know that they as victims and survivors have done nothing wrong. A key part of that is the invaluable work of victim support organisations such as the intimate image abuse helpline, which is funded by Government and was set up by the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). Not only do these services provide high quality support and advice to victims of intimate image abuse, but they work with law enforcement and others to improve the response to these awful crimes. Representatives from the helpline recently gave evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee on this very issue, and I am grateful to them for all that they do to support victims. Their work is more valuable and more needed than ever.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time—she is being very generous. Just to clarify, non-contact offences, including intimate image abuse, are not currently covered in the criminal injuries compensation framework. Could conversations be had with her ministerial colleagues about providing financial support for victims to access things such as therapy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) brought up as a really important feature of the debate?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I was about to come on to therapy, support services and other things that the Ministry of Justice funds to support victims and survivors. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East mentioned redress, and compensation can be made available from the perpetrators directly through the civil courts. That has been pursued previously, and it is available to victims and survivors to get the redress that they need by claiming that compensation.

On victim support, the Ministry of Justice funds many other services to help victims cope and recover from the impact of crime. For example, we have the rape and sexual abuse support fund, which supports more than 60 specialist support organisations. As others have mentioned, we also have Refuge, which the Government fund to deliver a specific tech abuse function. It has been at the forefront of the response to tech abuse. We also provide police and crime commissioners with annual grant funding to commission local, practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types, not just intimate image abuse.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will aim to improve support to victims of sexual abuse, including intimate image abuse, by placing a duty on local commissioners to collaborate when commissioning support services so that victims and survivors get the support that they actually need. That brings me back to the key point: collaboration, with everyone pulling together and playing their part. That is what we need if we are going to truly see a shift. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East for securing the debate and I thank everyone for coming and showing support. It really is important that we have good representation in Parliament. We are absolutely committed to tackling violence against women and girls, as are this Government, and we are just at the start of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Professional Wrestling: Event Licensing and Guidance

Debate between Charlotte Nichols and Alex Davies-Jones

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of professional wrestling event licensing and guidance.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. The all-party parliamentary group on wrestling is without a doubt one of the most joyous and exciting in this institution. I am proud to be an active vice-chair, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher)—our co-chairs—and to our group secretary, Danny Stone. They have brought serious and appropriate discussion of wrestling into this place, where too often in the past it was mocked.

Among our number we have fans of World Wrestling Entertainment, All Elite Wrestling, Impact, New Japan Pro-Wrestling and, most importantly, British promotions such as the all-women show EVE, PROGRESS, Revolution Pro Wrestling, NORTH, TNT and Renaissance, as well as start-ups such as the all-new women’s promotion, Galzilla, which literally hatched from an egg on the stage at the amazing Wrestival festival in London this year. Those wrestling promotions span the country, as do wrestling schools. In my constituency of Warrington North, we have our own wrestling academy, the Warrington Wrestling Academy, and I look forward to many Warringtonians making their way to the major leagues in years to come.

Fans often remark that, in the UK, one could go to a wrestling event nearly every night of the week, if one wanted to do so, and pack out the weekends with entertainment. Shows run in schools, gyms, entertainment venues and even fields. Of course, to run events safely and to a standard, there is a licensing requirement—or at least there should be.

In April 2021, the APPG released what constitutes the first ever thorough, systemic parliamentary analysis of wrestling. One of its key themes is the categorisation of wrestling as either theatre or sport. That might appear a simple matter, but wrestling involves serious athleticism alongside dramatic performance. There are competitions, albeit predetermined ones. Both Sport England and Arts Council England have funded wrestling, but neither particularly wants the responsibility of being a home for English wrestlers or wrestling.

Our APPG took the view—a novel one, I think—that for wrestling schools, the designation should be sporting, whereas promotions should be classed as theatrical. As the report made clear, defining promotions as theatrical entertainment opens up conversations about licensing, representation, governance, and improved policies and procedures. On the matter of policies and procedures, we were pleased to work recently with Loughborough University, with support from the PlayFight wrestling school, on the first ever parliamentary conference on wrestling, and we are developing a guide to better practice, which we hope will be informed by those in the industry, to help others across the British wrestling world.

We were told during the all-party group’s inquiry that the lack of a definition, whether as sport or art, created a minefield when it came to insurance and licensing. We have concerns that for promotions, the licensing system may still be somewhat of a minefield, particularly when people are navigating different licensing schemes. We know for certain that there are issues in this wholly unregulated industry. Concerns were raised with us about poor or, in some cases, illegal practices, ranging from tax malpractice and fraud to dangerous health and safety arrangements and sexual harassment. We were repeatedly warned about a lack of adequate medical supplies and supervision. The inquiry received one submission that drew on a wider understanding of promotions in the north of England and suggested that expertise to identify and treat injuries was “only intermittently present” at shows.

I am particularly grateful to Professor Claire Warden at Loughborough for her insights. She highlighted how the approaches of local councils can differ remarkably in just a few miles, even if the language used in licensing forms is similar. In Leicester, for instance, wrestling is considered “regulated entertainment”—in itself interesting, given the wholly unregulated nature of wrestling in actuality—alongside the performance of a play, exhibition or music, or an indoor sporting event. Boxing is the only sport mentioned on the list.

In Nottingham, wrestling is licensed under the “regulated entertainment” classification, but with a caveat that, although no licence is required for Greco-Roman or freestyle, combined fighting sports are licensable as boxing or wrestling entertainment, rather than an indoor sporting event. Similarly, Derby City Council, which has a whole section on boxing, wrestling and fighting sports, seems to compare wrestling to mixed martial arts rather than theatre.

Manchester thinks about numbers, acknowledging that a licence is not required for a play, dance, film, indoor sporting event or, indeed, boxing or wrestling, defined as a

“contest, exhibition or display of Greco-Roman wrestling or freestyle wrestling between 8am and 11pm,”

where attendance is 1,000 or fewer. By including the sense that wrestling might be a “display” rather than a contest, it opens up potential for confusion about whether professional wrestling is included. Surely all Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling is a contest, as that is what actively defines them as different from professional wrestling.

There are difficulties, too, in other areas. I appreciate that this is a devolved matter, but we are told it can be difficult to run shows in Edinburgh, for example, because wrestling is classed as sport for licensing purposes, and therefore performances in theatres and other venues can apparently be very difficult.

What that means in actuality is confusion and potentially dangerous situations. There are examples of licensing schemes causing problems. In Derby, one venue had a licence for live music and sports events, but the council required a temporary licence for wrestling, which was seen as separate from sport. The council refused the licence to the venue, owing to fears about congestion—notably, not about safety or the suitability of the athletes or venue.

Another interesting story emerged in 2011, when the Royal Albert Hall, a venue famous for holding wrestling shows since the beginning of professional wrestling, faced local opposition to its request to add boxing and wrestling to the list of permitted activities. The complaints seemed entirely focused on

“problems with antisocial behaviour, public safety, noise and disturbance, and degradation of the surrounding area.”

Again, safety was not mentioned, but there was the sense, as there is so often, that wrestling appeals to people less socially acceptable to residents than, say, Proms-goers.

A similar opinion seems to be held by residents around Headingley in Leeds, despite the fact that it is a sporting venue. In that case, the council’s licensing committee unanimously refused the application, saying that the event was

“very different in nature and duration to rugby matches held regularly at the venue.”

Wrestling Resurgence, a midlands-based promoter, sent us the various procedures it puts in place when obtaining a licence from Nottingham City Council—specifically, that a medic must be present—but argued that

“some form of ‘fit and proper persons’ test should be in place for prospective promotions, similar to ownership tests in football, or that at minimum some basic standardised requirements put in place.”

The company highlighted the disparity in licensing requirements, saying:

“In Nottingham, where we run events, it is a requirement that wrestling event organisers ensure a medical professional is present at all times during a performance. This is something that is not required in Leicester.”

We certainly think that medics are a must, but, as Wresting Resurgence says,

“A national approach to licensing would be very welcomed.”

It is quite right—it would.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I am proud that she is the vice-chair of the APPG that I proudly co-chair. On Monday, I attended a very special conference at Loughborough University with Professor Claire Warden, focusing on concussion in professional wrestling. The point about licensing was raised time and again, as was the utmost importance of having a registered professional medic available at events. That should be part of the requirements, given the nature of the sector and performances, because concussion is likely. That is why such provisions are vital. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Charlotte Nichols]

I could not agree more. I know that British wrestling is doing a lot of work with the Rugby Football League, for example, on concussion protocols. Unfortunately, despite the pre-determined nature of what happens in a wrestling ring, injuries and accidents are common, so medics should be there to make sure that such risks can be mitigated as far as possible.

The evidence I mentioned fed into the APPG’s inquiry and our recommendation that:

“For any sized promotion, having even limited safety measures in place should be part of the key requirements for running an event, either through requirements to use council property, the TENs licence or a governing body and in the absence of the latter, we recommend that the Home Office brings forward proposals to broaden TENs licence guidance to include health and safety and other minimum standards protocols for wrestling suppliers. We recognise that the legislation is different in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but we request that both devolved administrations assess whether their current licencing rules adequately cover wrestling promotions”.

In June 2021, we wrote to the then Minister of State at the Home Office, Lord Stephen Greenhalgh, to seek his assistance with the implementation of the recommendation in the APPG’s report, which was welcomed at the Dispatch Box by the Government. We asked about the possibility of widening the temporary events notice licence guidance to include health and safety, and other minimum standards protocols, for wrestling suppliers, and sought guidance on arrangements for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The APPG followed up on the letter, but to no avail, so I am delighted that the Minister will be able to update us today on what progress there has been and what plans might be in place.

I hope the Minister can also demonstrate a degree of updated thinking. Cam Tilley, who wrestles under the moniker Kamille Hansen—and who is a former researcher in this place—pointed out to us, through the dissertation that she has just finished on related issues, that these matters have already been discussed in this House. In the 1960s, questions were posed about the prohibition of wrestling performances by women, with the reply that there was no evidence to suggest that the issue was widespread enough to merit action and that this was ultimately a matter for local authorities to decide on as part of their licensing powers. However, London County Council had already fallen into the mode of effectively banning women’s wrestling in venues that it had licensed in the previous decades.

In 2002, during a debate on what would become the Licensing Act 2003, the other place was told:

“we know that boxing and wrestling and their audiences present a significant issue with regard to public safety. As the noble Baroness said, the relationship between wrestling and its audience is particularly engaging, and its showmanship can engage the audience very directly. But, as has been known for many decades, boxing also engages passions. From time to time, boxing bouts have aroused as much vigour in the audience as in those participating in the ring—in some cases, rather more than occurs in the ring.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2002; Vol. 642, c. 391.]

Wrestling and boxing are far from the same; I speak as someone who has now been to multiple wrestling shows, large and small. That is not to say that boxing is always violent or problematic, but the lumping together of boxing and wrestling for licensing purposes has certainly caused problems. Wrestling has no concussive intent—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said, of course concussive injuries occur—whereas the sole intent of boxing is to knock out the opponent. To conflate the two for licensing purposes makes very little sense.

We were told that some years ago that Tower Hamlets turned down wrestling events on advice from the local police, who had taken a decision based on boxing events. Similarly, we were told that in the past inter-promotional wars were waged between those wrestling companies that had clocked the importance of boxing-related restrictions on a licence and those that had not, with one company forcing another to forfeit a licensing opportunity.

The constant association of wrestling with boxing is deeply problematic. The concern is always that the local licensing process is so complex and likely to lead to rejection that wrestling shows are occurring around the country in unregulated venues or without licensing. We in the APPG would like to see some consistency in approaches to licensing, enhanced confidence for promoters so that they can hold a show, and certainty for all about how wrestling should be categorised by local authorities and what the requirements are or should be. I hope that the Minister can begin to set out that pathway to clarity for us today.

ONLINE SAFETY BILL (Third sitting)

Debate between Charlotte Nichols and Alex Davies-Jones

Committee stage (re-committed clauses and schedules)
Thursday 15th December 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Labour welcomes clause 207, which outlines the commencement and transitional provisions for the Bill to effectively come into existence. The Minister knows that Labour is concerned about the delays that have repeatedly held up the Bill’s progress, and I need not convince him of the urgent need for it to pass. I think contributions in Committee plus those from colleagues across the House as the Bill has progressed speak for themselves. The Government have repeatedly claimed they are committed to keeping children safe online, but have repeatedly failed to bring forward this legislation. We must now see commitments from the Minister that the Bill, once enacted, will make a difference right away.

Labour has specific concerns shared with stakeholders, from the Age Verification Providers Association to the Internet Watch Foundation, the NSPCC and many more, about the road map going forward. Ofcom’s plan for enforcement already states that it will not begin enforcement on harm to children from user-to-user content under part 3 of the Bill before 2025. Delays to the Bill as well as Ofcom’s somewhat delayed enforcement plans mean that we are concerned that little will change in the immediate future or even in the short term. I know the Minister will stand up and say that if the platforms want to do the right thing, there is nothing stopping them from doing so immediately, but as we have seen, they need convincing to take action when it counts, so I am not convinced that platforms will do the right thing.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

If the Government’s argument is that there is nothing to stop platforms taking such actions early, why are we discussing the Bill at all? Platforms have had many years to implement such changes, and the very reason we need this Bill is that they have not been.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Exactly. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point that goes to the heart of why we are here in the first place. If the platforms were not motivated by commercial interest and we could trust them to do the right thing on keeping children safe and reducing harm on their platforms, we would not require this legislation in the first place. But sadly, we are where we are, which is why it is even more imperative that we get on with the job, that Ofcom is given the tools to act swiftly and tries to reduce the limit of when they come into effect and that this legislation is enacted so that it actually makes a lasting difference.

Ofcom has already been responsible for regulating video-sharing platforms for two years, yet still, despite being in year 3, it is only asking websites to provide a plan as to how they will be compliant. That means the reality is that we can expect little on child protection before 2027-28, which creates a massive gap compared with public expectations of when the Bill will be passed. We raised these concerns last time, and I felt little assurance from the Minister in post last time, so I am wondering whether the current Minister can improve on his predecessor by ensuring a short timeline for when exactly the Bill can be implemented and Ofcom can act.

We all understand the need for the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North just pointed out. That is why we have been supportive in Committee and throughout the passage of the Bill. But the measures that the Bill introduces must come into force as soon as is reasonably possible. Put simply, the industry is ready and users want to be protected online and are ready too. It is just the Government, sadly, and the regulator that would be potentially holding up implementation of the legislation.

The Minister has failed to concede on any of the issues that we have raised in Committee, despite being sympathetic and supportive. His predecessor was also incredibly supportive and sympathetic on everything we raised in Committee, yet failed to take into account a single amendment or issue that we raised. I therefore make a plea to this Minister to at least see the need to press matters and the timescale that is needed here. We have not sought to formally amend this clause, so I seek the Minister’s assurance that this legislation will be dealt with swiftly. I urge him to work with Labour, SNP colleagues and colleagues across the House to ensure that the legislation and the provisions in it are enacted and that there are no further unnecessary delays.

ONLINE SAFETY BILL (Second sitting)

Debate between Charlotte Nichols and Alex Davies-Jones

Committee stage (re-committed clauses and schedules)
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Charlotte Nichols]

I am sure that, like me, the shadow Minister will be baffled that the Government are against our proposals to have to opt out. Surely this is something that is of key concern to the Government, given that the former MP for Tiverton and Honiton might still be an MP if users had to opt in to watching pornography, rather than being accidentally shown it when innocently searching for tractors?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It goes to show the nature of this as a protection for all of us, even MPs, from accessing content that could be harmful to our health or, indeed, profession. Given the nature of the amendment, we feel that this is a safety net that should be available to all. It should be on by default.