Online Safety Bill

Debate between John Nicolson and Debbie Abrahams

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Everyone wants to be safe online and everyone wants to keep their children safe online but, from grooming to religious radicalisation and from disinformation to cruel attacks on the vulnerable, the online world is far from safe. That is why we all agree that we need better controls while we preserve all that is good about the online world, including free speech.

This Bill is an example of how legislation can benefit from a collegiate, cross-party approach. I know because I have served on the Select Committee and the Joint Committee, both of which produced reports on the Bill. The Bill is ambitious and much of it is good, but there are some holes in the legislation and we must make important improvements before it is passed.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman, with whom I served on the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, agree, having listened to the evidence of the whistleblower Frances Haugen about how disinformation was used in the US Capitol insurrection, that it is completely inadequate that there is only one clause on the subject in the Bill?

[John Nicolson]

Yes, and I shall return to that point later in my speech.

The Secretary of State’s powers in the Bill need to be addressed. From interested charities to the chief executive of Ofcom, there is consensus that the powers of the Secretary of State in the legislation are too wide. Child safety campaigners, human rights groups, women and girls’ charities, sports groups and democracy reform campaigners all agree that the Secretary of State’s powers threaten the independence of the regulator. That is why both the Joint Committee and the Select Committee have, unanimously and across party lines, recommended reducing the proposed powers.

We should be clear about what exactly the proposed powers will do. Under clause 40, the Secretary of State will be able to modify the draft codes of practice, thus allowing the UK Government a huge amount of power over the independent communications regulator, Ofcom. The Government have attempted to play down the powers, saying that they would be used only in “exceptional circumstances”, but the word “exceptional” is nebulous. How frequent is exceptional? All we are told is that the exceptional circumstances could reflect changing Government “public policy”. That is far too vague, so perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify the difference between public policy and Government policy and give us some further definition of “exceptional”.

While of course I am sure Members feel certain that the current Secretary of State would exercise her powers in a calm and level-headed way, imagine if somebody intemperate held her post or—heaven forfend—a woke, left-wing snowflake from the Labour Benches did. The Secretary of State should listen to her own MPs and reduce her powers in the Bill.

Let me turn to misinformation and disinformation. The Bill aims not only to reduce abuse online but to reduce harm more generally. That cannot be done without including in the Bill stronger provisions on disinformation. As a gay man, I have been on the receiving end of abuse for my sexuality, and I have seen the devasting effect that misinformation and disinformation have had on my community. Disinformation has always been weaponised to spread hate; however, the pervasive reach of social media makes disinformation even more dangerous.

The latest battle ground for LGBT rights has seen an onslaught against trans people. Lies about them and their demand for enhanced civil rights have swirled uncontrollably. Indeed, a correspondent of mine recently lamented “trans funding” in the north-east of Scotland, misreading and misunderstanding and believing it to involve the compulsory regendering of retiring oil workers in receipt of transitional funding from the Scottish Government. That is absurd, of course, but it says something about the frenzied atmosphere stirred up by online transphobes.

The brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine, with lies spewed by the Russian Government and their media apologists, has, like the covid pandemic, illustrated some of the other real-world harms arising from disinformation. It is now a weapon of war, with serious national security implications, yet the UK Government still do not seem to be taking it seriously enough. Full Fact, the independent fact-checking service, said that there is currently no credible plan to tackle disinformation. The Government may well argue that disinformation will fall under the false communications provision in clause 151, but in practice it sets what will likely be an unmeetable bar for services. As such, most disinformation will be dealt with as harmful content.

We welcome the Government’s inclusion of functionality in the risk assessments, which will look not just at content but how it spreads. Evidence from the two Committees shows that the dissemination of harm is as important as the content itself, but the Government should be more explicit in favouring content-neutral modes for reducing disinformation, as this will have less of an impact on freedom of speech. That was recommended by the Facebook whistleblowers Sophie Zhang and Frances Haugen.

Dementia Research in the UK

Debate between John Nicolson and Debbie Abrahams

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point about her own experience with her mum’s frontotemporal dementia and the importance of ensuring that we understand, from different cultural perspectives and different ethnicities, the impact of dementia and how we care for our loved ones who have it.

I want this debate to be about hope. That is so important. My hon. Friend has just spoken about her mum, and it was very hard for my mum. She could not speak and could barely move. She could not feed herself. It was a very sad state. However, there is huge optimism and reasons for hope, and that is what I want this debate to be about. I firmly believe that, as with many other conditions, research will find a cure for dementia.

We have one of the best life sciences sectors in the world, as we have seen over the past few years with the work that the University of Oxford and others have undertaken with the covid vaccination programme. Our researchers are rarely talked about, but they are our unsung heroes and we should be immensely proud of the work they do and the significant contribution they make to the economy. I believe it is a matter of when, not if, we will see the breakthroughs that are desperately needed for therapies in dementia research.

However, that is fundamentally dependent on adequate investment. Despite the ever-increasing prevalence of dementia, research into it is consistently and disproportionately underfunded. There is news from the United States of treatments such as aducanumab, which has just been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is expected to help people when they are diagnosed with dementia. This is a great and exciting opportunity for the Government to support the field and cement the UK’s place as a world leader in dementia research.

As my hon. Friend has just mentioned, we know that during the 2019 general election the Conservative party promised to double dementia research funding from £83 million to £166 million a year over a 10-year period—the “dementia moonshot”. Similarly, the Labour party has committed to that. We have cross-party consensus, but we are still waiting for the Government to bring forward any of that additional funding. Last year, in fact, there was a 10% fall in the amount of funding provided to dementia research, so it received only £75 million instead of £83 million. That is a huge missed opportunity to expand our research capabilities in that area, to support the inspiring academics working in the field and to provide hope to the millions of people affected by dementia across the UK. It also does not make economic sense, as I will move on to later.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

My mum died of dementia at the start of the covid outbreak. She formed a great attachment to Madam Deputy Speaker, of whom she was very fond, and Madam Deputy Speaker was very fond of her. Her name was Marion. She went from being a sparkling presence to somebody who, at the start of the pandemic, was locked in for her own protection and I was not able to go and see her. I had never before understood the whole idea of somebody turning their face to the wall, but she just stopped eating and drinking, and within a week, she was dead. I hope that when the story of the pandemic is written, we will remember all those people who died because of it and who will never be recorded as having died of covid. They died through loneliness, which is so important for us all to remember.

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Debate between John Nicolson and Debbie Abrahams

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

After the previous speech, which I will come on to, I welcome the opportunity to use a slightly different tone in this debate—certainly when it comes to the evidence. I start by offering warm congratulations to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on bringing the Bill forward. She rightly deserves credit for her work, and her conciliatory tone is to be commended. She is absolutely right that, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) was saying, this debate is about continuing the listening process and trying to improve a flawed system. The Bill does just that.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South outlined her personal views, but she put them to one side and, like so many Members, spoke about the car crashes that are happening in the sanctions system. I want to provide two examples that I received just last night and this morning—that is how frequently such things are happening. Nearly a million people were sanctioned last year. It is not an insignificant number. The two cases are exactly the same. Both people were due to go in for surgery just days before a work capability assessment and were signed off for eight weeks. When they asked whether they had to go to the assessment, they were told that they did or else they would be sanctioned. It is absolute nonsense. This sort of thing is going on up and down the country, and I will come on to some other examples.

The hon. Lady was right to highlight the unfortunate narrative that was indicative of the Government until fairly recently. The shirker/scrounger language set a tone and tried to shift the public’s perception.

[John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady share my enormous concern—it sounds as though she does—with that scrounger tone? My father was the manager of the largest social security office in Scotland, and he always said that the problem was not people claiming what they were not entitled to; it was all the people who did not claim what they were entitled to because of the sense of shame and the narrative propagated by Government Members.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Reflecting his father’s experience, many jobcentre advisers have been saying similar things and that they are absolutely horrified by what they are experiencing.