Online Safety Bill

Debate between Julian Knight and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Some colleagues have been in touch with me to ask my view on one overriding matter relating to this Bill: does it impinge on our civil liberties and our freedom of speech? I say to colleagues that it does neither, and I will explain how I have come to that conclusion.

In the mid-1990s, when social media and the internet were in their infancy, the forerunners of the likes of Google scored a major win in the United States. Effectively, they got the US Congress to agree to the greatest “get out of jail free” card in history: namely, to agree that social media platforms are not publishers and are not responsible for the content they carry. That has led to a huge flowering of debate, knowledge sharing and connections between people, the likes of which humanity has never seen before. We should never lose sight of that in our drive to fairly regulate this space. However, those platforms have also been used to cause great harm in our society, and because of their “get out of jail free” card, the platforms have not been accountable to society for the wrongs that are committed through them.

That is quite simplistic. I emphasise that as time has gone by, social media platforms have to some degree recognised that they have responsibilities, and that the content they carry is not without impact on society—the very society that they make their profits from, and that nurtured them into existence. Content moderation has sprung up, but it has been a slow process. It is only a few years ago that Google, a company whose turnover is higher than the entire economy of the Netherlands, was spending more on free staff lunches than on content moderation.

Content moderation is decided by algorithms, based on terms and conditions drawn up by the social media companies without any real public input. That is an inadequate state of affairs. Furthermore, where platforms have decided to act, there has been little accountability, and there can be unnecessary takedowns, as well as harmful content being carried. Is that democratic? Is it transparent? Is it right?

These masters of the online universe have a huge amount of power—more than any industrialist in our history—without facing any form of public scrutiny, legal framework or, in the case of unwarranted takedowns, appeal. I am pleased that the Government have listened in part to the recommendations published by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in particular on Parliament’s being given control through secondary legislation over legal but harmful content and its definition—an important safeguard for this legislation. However, the Committee and I still have queries about some of the Bill’s content. Specifically, we are concerned about the risks of cross-platform grooming and bread- crumbing—perpetrators using seemingly innocuous content to trap a child into a sequence of abuse. We also think that it is a mistake to focus on category 1 platforms, rather than extending the provisions to other platforms such as Telegram, which is a major carrier of disinformation. We need to recalibrate to a more risk-based approach, rather than just going by the numbers. These concerns are shared by charities such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, as the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said.

On a systemic level, consideration should be given to allowing organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation to identify where companies are failing to meet their duty of care, in order to prevent Ofcom from being influenced and captured by the heavy lobbying of the tech industry. There has been reference to the lawyers that the tech industry will deploy. If we look at any newspaper or LinkedIn, we see that right now, companies are recruiting, at speed, individuals who can potentially outgun regulation. It would therefore be sensible to bring in outside elements to provide scrutiny, and to review matters as we go forward.

On the culture of Ofcom, there needs to be greater flexibility. Simply reacting to a large number of complaints will not suffice. There needs to be direction and purpose, particularly with regard to the protection of children. We should allow for some forms of user advocacy at a systemic level, and potentially at an individual level, where there is extreme online harm.

On holding the tech companies to account, I welcome the sanctions regime and having named individuals at companies who are responsible. However, this Bill gives us an opportunity to bring about real culture change, as has happened in financial services over the past two decades. During Committee, the Government should actively consider the suggestion put forward by my Committee—namely, the introduction of compliance officers to drive safety by design in these companies.

Finally, I have concerns about the definition of “news publishers”. We do not want Ofcom to be effectively a regulator or a licensing body for the free press. However, I do not want in any way to do down this important and improved Bill. I will support it. It is essential. We must have this regulation in place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call John Nicolson.

Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Debate between Julian Knight and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight [V]]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We have seen, writ large, the vital role that DCMS sectors play in all our constituencies the length and breadth of the country. I thank the Minister for his warm words, and for his ongoing commitment and that of his fellow Ministers and their advisers. I wish, however, that there was Treasury representation right now on the Treasury Bench, because, as we all know, and as has been highlighted by my Committee, DCMS is the most beholden of all Departments to the Treasury.

Obviously, the cultural recovery fund is very welcome, but the time for backslapping has now stopped—we need to refocus. Insurance will allow our live events to trade, not aid. The Minister made reference to the film and TV recovery plan and the insurance there, which, for me, is an example of why this is needed. We need pilots up and running for live events in double-quick time, and we need a root-and-branch review of tourism, as outlined, but with proper investment to follow. We need to get on and negotiate with our partners across the EU on EU visa arrangements and access for our creative industries. There is really no time to lose.

Above all else today, we need to understand a very simple thing: the DCMS sectors, and those who work within them, are not mendicants, forever holding out their hands; they are entrepreneurial and they are actually what we do best.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will briefly suspend the House for three minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next debate.

Scamming: Vulnerable Individuals

Debate between Julian Knight and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman as worried as I am about the number of people who respond to communications? He mentioned the lottery. Once people have responded to one communication, they will receive many more. I heard of one person who received up to 10 or 20 a day. Moreover, the communications are coming from abroad, which means that they cannot be intercepted and stopped. It is causing a great deal of heartache to very vulnerable people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) responds to that intervention, let me point out that, while I appreciate that he is making some extremely important points and the House is very attentive, a great many other Members wish to speak, not just in the current debate but in the next. I am sure that he will conclude his speech very soon.

[Julian Knight]

I am actually on my last paragraph, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you for the reminder.

The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) is absolutely correct. If the Post Office is alerted to the position, it will stop mail and set up a separate “scam mail box”, which is a very good initiative.

Fraud is a detestable crime which preys on our worst fears and best instincts, and I hope that, together with the police and other organisations and across the Government, we can start to stamp it out.

Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill

Debate between Julian Knight and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 30th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) on securing the debate and drawing up the Bill. It seems many hours since you spoke, but I remember that you spoke powerfully and are clearly a strong advocate for carers and for your local NHS. I also think that Government Members will be grateful for the fact that you also paid tribute to the actions of—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I always let Members get away with this mistake once, and sometimes twice, but the hon. Gentleman has used the word “you” three times. “You” refers to the Chair, and the hon. Lady is the hon. Lady. I am having to say this every day and it is a long time since the general election, so people really ought to be able to take it on board by now. The hon. Gentleman is not the only person making this mistake, so he should not feel bad about it.

[Julian Knight]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will now address only the Chair using that particular word.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley, but unfortunately I cannot support the Bill. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and many other Members who have spoken, I support the fairer hospital parking that she is trying to achieve. I want to share my experience in Solihull as a campaigner for fairer hospital parking, as it has direct relevance to how we approach the issue as a country and to the Bill.

Many hon. Members have mentioned their hospitals and the experience they had when parking charges were introduced. For my constituents in Solihull, parking charges were introduced not only to bring extra revenue into the NHS and front-line services but to ensure that hospital car parks were free for the use for which they are intended. We have had many difficulties in Solihull because the hospital is located near the town centre and, as that is a popular area, people have used the car park all day while they have been shopping. Many people who needed to use the facility at the hospital were therefore unable to do so and might have parked illegally, receiving fines at a later date. Hospital parking charges, although very unpleasant, are in many cases necessary, particularly at sites close to town centres. As we live in a very densely populated country, there are not many hospitals that are so far from town centres that it would be an easy win not to have any charges whatsoever. The car parks might still be misused in the way that I have explained.

Over time, hospital parking charges have grown exponentially. At the moment, in the three hospitals that make up the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust—Solihull, Good Hope and the Heartlands—charges can be up to £5.75, but for just one hour they can be £2.75. Again, people have to guess how long they will stay, which is unfortunate. I have looked at the contracts that our local hospitals have signed and in my view there is an excessive charge on the provider from the private companies involved. I am not happy with many aspects of these contracts.