Online Safety: Children and Young People

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dan Aldridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. In my previous role as head of public policy at the British Computer Society, the one thing that my colleagues and I talked about a lot was the lack of focus on education in the Online Safety Act. I commend the previous Government for passing that legislation, which was very brave. The Act has tried to do some wonderful things, but what is missing is that we have failed to empower a generation of young people to act safely online, to be able to take back the power and say, “No, I am not going to do that.” We have failed in that so far. How do we build that in for the future?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I would like to bring to the attention of Members that we have had a huge number of interventions and we are 20 minutes into the debate. The Minister and Opposition spokesperson will get up at just after half past 3. It is a matter for the speaker whether she takes more interventions, but that does mean that the amount of time for those who have asked to speak will be significantly more restricted than I originally planned. That is just a housekeeping matter to be aware of. There is also an issue about the length of interventions: they are getting a bit long. On a matter of this importance, I do not want to restrict interventions and contributions, but I ask Members to please bear that in mind.

[Lola McEvoy]

Okay, I will make progress. On the live location element, which I have discussed, I am not sure that there is any advantage in children using that, unless it is a specifically regulated live location app where the parents have given consent for their child.

I do not know whether chatting to strangers on games is suitable for children. Adding peers to a group and enjoying playing with them on games is fine, but there could be strangers from other countries, with no indication of their age. One child told me that he had found out, after about three weeks, that the person he had been playing with was a 50-year-old man on another continent. That man was probably mortified, as was the child, and they stopped playing together. Why are we leaving it up to them? That is such a high-risk strategy for those apps; we need to think about that.

It is down to Parliament to decide what is safe for our children, and to enforce it. Asking platforms to mark their own homework and police themselves will undoubtedly lead to more children seeing inappropriate, harmful content and sharing it with others. I would like the Government to strengthen the children’s codes, and consider changing the onus from reactive safety measures that make apps safe for children, when we suspect they are children, to proactively making apps or platforms safe for all children in the first place, and creating adult-only apps that require strong age verification, because adults can consent to giving their data.

A number of ways to protect children online are being debated, as I am sure we will hear this afternoon. I feel strongly that retrofitting apps once children have been exposed to harmful content or strangers, or have shared things they should not, is not the safest or most effective way to do this. A number of options around age verification are on the table, but I would like the Government to consider that being a child is tough and that children have a right to make mistakes. The issue is that those mistakes involve mass communications to peers and a permanent digital footprint, because someone has consented, aged 13, to give away their data.

We need to see whether any child can consent to give away their data, and therefore whether apps that identify their audience as children should be allowed to keep data at all. Should children be in chatrooms with strangers across the world? Should children be allowed to share their live location with strangers or people they have accepted as contacts? Should children be allowed to view unregulated livestreams or addictive-by-design content? Those questions have been raised not only by children themselves but by parents and national advocacy charities and leaders in this space. There is a consensus that we have to take action on this issue, so let us make the most of it.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I could talk for hours on this subject, Mr Dowd, but, do not worry, I will not. There are a number of things that I would like to say. Not many Members present sat through the majority of the Online Safety Bill Committee as it went through Parliament, but I was in every one of those meetings, listening to various views and debating online safety.

I will touch on one issue that the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) raised in her excellent and important speech. I agree with almost everything she said. Not many people in Parliament have her level of passion or knowledge about the subject, so I appreciate her bringing forward the debate.

On the issue of features, I totally agree with the hon. Member and I moved an amendment to that effect during the Bill’s progress. There should be restrictions on the features that children should be able to access. She was talking about safety by design, so that children do not have to see content that they cannot unsee, do not have to experience the issues that they cannot un-experience, cannot be contacted by external people who they do not know, and cannot livestream. We have seen an increase in the amount of self-generated child sexual abuse material and livestreaming is a massive proportion of that.

Yesterday, a local organisation in Aberdeen called CyberSafe Scotland launched a report on its work in 10 of our primary schools with 1,300 children aged between 10 and 12—primary school children, not secondary school children. Some 300 of those children wrote what is called a “name it”, where they named a problem that they had seen online. Last night, we were able to read some of the issues that they had raised. Pervasive misogyny is everywhere online, and it is normalised. It is not just in some of the videos that they see and it is not just about the Andrew Tates of this world—it is absolutely everywhere. A couple of years ago there was a trend in online videos of young men asking girls to behave like slaves, and that was all over the place.

Children are seeing a different online world from the one that we experience because they have different algorithms and have different things pushed at them. They are playing Roblox and Fortnite, but most of us are not playing those games. I am still concerned that the Online Safety Act does not adequately cover all of the online gaming world, which is where children are spending a significant proportion of their time online.

A huge amount more needs to be done to ensure that children are safe online. There is not enough in place about reviewing the online safety legislation, which Members on both sides of the House pushed for to ensure that the legislation is kept as up to date as possible. The online world changes very rapidly: the scams that were happening nine months ago are totally different from those happening today. I am still concerned that the Act focuses too much on the regulation of Facebook, for example, rather than the regulation of the online world that our children actually experience. CyberSafe Scotland intentionally centred the views and rights of young people in its work, which meant that the programmes that it delivered in schools were much more appropriate and children were much better able to listen and react to them.

The last thing that I will mention is Girlguiding and its girls’ attitude survey. It is published on an annual basis and shows a huge increase in the number of girls who feel unsafe. That is because of the online world they are experiencing. We have a huge amount of responsibility here, and I appreciate the hon. Member for Darlington bringing the debate forward today.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will keep this to an informal four-minute limit. Regrettably, if Members speak beyond that, I will have to introduce a formal figure.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Some 20 years ago, I started a new job with an as yet unbranded mobile network operator. At the time, the network had no masts, no handsets and no customers. Text messaging was just catching on, the BlackBerry was in its infancy and wireless application protocol was the new kid on the block. For those who do not know what WAP was, it was a bit like having Ceefax on a handset; for those who do not know what Ceefax was, I cannot really help.

My counterparts and I at the four mobile networks were acutely aware that the introduction of 3G would change how we used our phones. I will, however, confess that understanding what that change would look like—all while using dial-up at home—was something of a stab in the dark. Nevertheless, no matter how challenging, we knew that the advent of 3G required the mobile industry to take greater responsibility to protect the safety of our customers, in particular those under the age of 18. The networks moved from walled garden internet, where access was controlled by age verification and personal identification number, to a world where internet was freely available.

The mobile networks published the first self-regulatory code of content on mobile. It was a world first, and something that UK mobile operators were rightly proud of, but the pace of change was rapid; within months, we networks published a further self-regulatory code to govern location-based services, which, as we have heard already, present a clear danger to young people. We knew then that location tracking could be used in grooming and other predatory behaviour. We published the code, but the pace of change over the past 20 years has been unrelenting, and we now arrive at a point at which almost everything we do happens online.

The role of the mobile network is no longer as a gatekeeper to services, but rather as a pipe to over-the-top services such as YouTube, WhatsApp and TikTok. Those services can be more readily controlled by both the service provider and the handset manufacturer. That is not to absolve the networks of responsibility, but to acknowledge that they operate in a mobile value chain. I might pay £25 a month to my mobile network, but if I renew my handset every two years at a cost of £800, I am paying far more to the handset manufacturer than to the mobile network operator. I believe there is a strong argument that those who derive the greatest financial value from that value chain bear far greater responsibility for keeping children and young people safe online than is currently the case.

I turn now to one specific aspect of online harm. Having worked closely with the Internet Watch Foundation during my time in industry, I am fully aware of—and I thank it for—its important work in assessing child sexual abuse image material and removing it from the internet. I have visited and met the IWF teams who have to view and assess some of the most upsetting content. Their work is harrowing and distressing, but, sadly, it is essential.

Last year, the IWF assessed more than 390,000 reports and confirmed more than 275,000 web pages containing images or videos of children suffering sexual abuse. Each page contained hundreds, if not thousands, of indecent images of children. The IWF reported that 2023 was the most extreme year on record, with more category A sexual abuse imagery discovered than ever before, 92% of it self-generated child abuse. That means that the children have been targeted, groomed and coerced into sexual activities via webcams and devices with cameras.

For the first time, the IWF also encountered and analysed more than 2,400 images of sexual abuse involving children aged three to six. Some 91% of those images were of girls, mainly in domestic settings such as their own bedrooms or bathrooms. Each image or video is not just a single act; every time it is viewed or downloaded is another time that that child is sexually abused.

That is why I conclude my remarks with a clear ask to both the online and offline media and broadcast channels of our country: please stop describing these images as “kiddie porn” and “child pornography”. I did a search of some online news channels before I came to this debate; that language is still prevalent, and it has to stop. These images are not pornography. They are evidence of a crime and evidence of abuse. They are not pictures or videos. They are depictions of gross assault, sadism and bestiality against children. They are obscene images involving penetrative sexual activity with teenagers, children and babies. If there is one thing we can agree on in this debate, it is that the media in this country must start describing child sexual abuse material for what it is. Language matters, and it is time the seriousness of the offence was reflected in the language that describes it.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I am going to have to introduce a formal time limit of three and a half minutes.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) on bringing forward this important debate. The internet has undeniably introduced a valuable resource for learning that has transformed society, but technology has also brought with it significant risks that I believe we in this House have an urgent duty to address. Nobody knows that more acutely than all those parents who have tragically lost their children after online abuse, who are bravely represented today here in the Public Gallery by Ellen.

The statistics are sobering. Recent figures from Ofcom reveal that one in five children in the UK has experienced some form of online harm, including cyber-bullying, exposure to inappropriate content and exploitation. The NSPCC reports that more than 60% of young people have encountered online bullying, but I think the risk goes much further than that. We know that the average age at which a child first views pornography is estimated to be 12, with some evidence now suggesting it is as young as eight years old. Free and widely available pornography is often violent, degrading and extreme, and it has become the de facto sex education for young people.

The pornography crisis is radically undermining the healthy development of children and young people, and contributing to increasing levels of sexual inequality, dysfunction and violence. That reality represents how children’s lives are affected by those dangers, and as parliamentarians we have a duty to keep our children safe and free from harm—online as well as offline. Nine in 10 children are now on a mobile phone by the age of 11, and around a quarter of three-year-olds now have their own smartphone. I do not know about you, Mr Dowd, but I find that statistic particularly troubling.

I believe it is crucial to differentiate smartphone use from the broader digital environment. Smartphones, as we know, are engineered to be addictive, with notifications that stimulate the release of dopamine, the same chemical that is linked to pleasure. It is too easy for children to become trapped in a cycle of dependency and peer pressure, addicted to feeds and competing for likes on social media. Addiction is exactly what the tech companies want. Research from the Royal Society for Public Health shows that social media harms mental health—we all know that—particularly among young users. Around 70% of young people now report that social media increases their feelings of anxiety and depression.

The Children’s Commissioner, Rachel de Souza, believes that Ofcom’s children’s codes, which the hon. Member for Darlington talked about, are not strong enough and are written for the tech companies rather than for the children. She says that we need a code that protects our children from the “wild west” of social media. In South Devon I often hear from parents overwhelmed by the digital environment their children are navigating. They want to protect their children, but they feel ill equipped to manage those complexities. Hundreds of them have signed up to the smartphone-free pledge, and are pressuring schools to take part as well. We need to give them support, by backing what they want to do with legislation.

I believe we need a legislative framework that will restrict the addictive nature of smartphones, tighten age restrictions and restrict access to social media platforms for all children under 16. We have to protect them. Those measures are crucial for online child safety, and I believe there is a broad consensus in the House that big tech must be held accountable for the harm it perpetuates. We must abide—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Jess Asato.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It has also been a real honour to be part of this debate, and I have been scribbling away because so much genuine passion has been put into it. Do I have 10 minutes, Mr Dowd?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Yes.

[Victoria Collins]

My cogs are turning—everyone in this debate wants to make a difference, and the time is now. That is the critical point. There is far too much illegal and harmful activity on social media and online, whether that is racist abuse, incitement to violence or the grooming of children—so much has been brought up.

Keeping children safe online is more difficult, but more important, than ever before. Several Members have mentioned that they spoke to their local parent groups and schools. I met children from The Grove school in Harpenden. One child said, “How old do you think I should be to have a smartphone?” And I said, “Well, how old would you like it to be?” He said, “Eleven.” I said, “Why?” He said, “Because that is when my brother got his.” It was really interesting that the teachers said, “We are discussing this as a school right now because the kids are asking those questions.” What also came through was the importance of listening to young people, because they are the ones who are crying out for change and saying that something is not right.

We have heard from many Members, including the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who set up the debate in a way that that none of us could follow, speaking with passion about the people behind this—the parents and the families. That is what we are all here for. We heard from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) about how covid exacerbated problems, which highlighted the importance of discussing this issue now. The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) talked about Ian Russell and Molly; I think most of us are aware of that story. Ian has come to Parliament many times to talk about the impact, and we must never forget his family and so many more behind them. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) spoke of the parallels between this issue and road safety, reminding us that we have to act now because, if we do not, we will look back and realise that we were doing a disservice to so many. We have to keep up on safety.

So much of this debate has been about identifying the issues with online safety, such as what the algorithms are sending us, location and chat features, the content and so much more. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about self-generated explicit content and the pervasive misogyny that so many have mentioned. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) mentioned young pornography being a crime and that we need to get the language right. That is key. Sexual inequality and violence are pervasive because of that content.

The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington spoke about the addictiveness of phones, and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) highlighted the fact that mobile phone use is impacting short-sightedness. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington mentioned sleep and asked what we are doing about the 21 hours a week spent on phones. So much of this is about what I call “digital mental health”, which refers to what is happening as a whole, beyond the algorithm and the impact of the content. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned self-harm, and I will certainly keep in mind the term “generational rewiring”, which the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington used.

When it comes to legislation, we have not acted fast enough and we have not gone far enough. As has been said, we need to move towards safety by design, but we also need legislation that is reactive and agile enough to keep up with the change. As Liberal Democrats, we were proud to push for the Online Safety Act to go further, and we successfully called for it to include online fraud and scams, as well as to outlaw cyber-flashing.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North talked about online games, and the fact that we need to stay up to date. The hon. Member for Gosport mentioned holding Ofcom to account. The hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) talked about grooming laws, and how we need blunt and sharp elements in the instruments that we use. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) reminded us that behind all this, we must get the technicalities right in the Online Safety Act, highlighting that this is not just about the content, but about keeping up with the speed and agility of the change.

As a Liberal Democrat, I would like to highlight what we are calling for. The importance of being proactive has been mentioned many times, and that means calling for safety by design. We are also calling for an independent advocacy body for children’s safety online. We would like to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and online activity, such as revenge porn, threats and incitement to violence on social media. We would also like to include a digital Bill of Rights to protect everyone’s rights online. That includes balancing the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and participation. The regulation of social media must respect the rights and privacy of those who use it legally and responsibly, but should not have a laissez-faire approach.

Another important element is education. The hon. Member for Darlington said that we cannot tackle all of this content. We cannot get all of this right, but it is important that we also empower young people and parents to be able to say what is right and wrong, and to help them to feel empowered to make a change, whether that is by using tools, or by speaking up and saying, “Actually, this is not right.” We should make sure that they feel they have that voice.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned that big tech needs to be held accountable—absolutely. We have to make sure that those who are building the platforms are the ones who ensure their safety by design, and that they keep up with that.

I close with a reminder that keeping young people safe online is more difficult, but more important, than ever before. We must act sooner rather than later and use all the tools at our disposal, whether that is through Ofcom and regulatory changes, by incentivising companies or by educating parents and children. Frankly, from the debate I have heard today, I have hope that if we work together, we can make sure that those changes are enacted swiftly and are kept up to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Feryal Clark]

I am short of time, so I will have to proceed.

For example, Ofcom recently announced plans to launch a further consultation on the illegal content duties once the first iteration of those duties is set out in spring next year. That iterative approach enables Ofcom to prioritise getting its initial codes in place as soon as possible while it builds on the foundations set out in that first set of codes.

My hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised the issue of violence against girls and women. In line with our safer streets mission, platforms will have new duties to create safer spaces for women and girls. It is a priority of the Online Safety Act for platforms proactively to tackle the most harmful illegal content, which includes offences such as harassment, sexual exploitation, extreme pornography, internet image abuse, stalking and controlling or coercive behaviour, much of which disproportionately affects women and girls. All services in scope of the Act need to understand the risks facing women and girls from illegal content online and take action to mitigate that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) set out powerfully the issues around child sexual exploitation and abuse. Child sexual abuse is a vile crime that inflicts long-lasting trauma on victims. UK law is crystal clear: the creation, possession and distribution of child sexual abuse images is illegal. The strongest protections in the Online Safety Act are against child sexual abuse and exploitation. Ofcom will have strong powers to direct online platforms and messaging and search services to combat that kind of abuse. It will be able to require platforms to use accredited, proactive technology to tackle CSEA and will have powers to hold senior managers criminally liable if they fail to protect children.

I am running short of time, so I shall make some final remarks. While we remain resolute in our commitment to implementing the Online Safety Act as quickly and effectively as possible, we recognise the importance of these ongoing conversations, and I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to today’s debate. I am grateful to the brave parents who continue to fight for protections for children online and shine a light on these important issues. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), asked a host of questions. I will respond to him in writing, because I do not have time to do so today, and I will place a copy in the Library.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I call Lola McEvoy to briefly respond to the debate.

Project Gigabit

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford]

Absolutely; I agree. As Conservatives, I am very happy to work with the DUP on any matters that are in our interest together. It just goes to show that this is not just a regional issue—it covers the whole of the United Kingdom. We need to support small businesses.

That brings me to a number of those compound challenges that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) also talked about. According to a Lloyds bank report, 11 million people—nearly 21% of the UK population—are digitally disadvantaged. In Surrey, an estimated 200,000 people face digital exclusion. It is the same in Hampshire, particularly in Headley Down, Grayshott and Liphook. Even in more populated areas, such as Farnham town, broadband speeds are far below the national average, affecting businesses, schools, and families. For many of my constituents, the lack of reliable broadband creates barriers to accessing healthcare, education and job opportunities. It also isolates people socially, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable. I pay tribute to two county councillors in my constituency, Debbie Curnow-Ford and David Harmer, who are working hard to help with that.

In hard-to-reach areas such as Dippenhall and Moor Park, alternative technologies offer some hope. Satellite-based internet, for example, could provide connectivity to rural areas where traditional infrastructure is not economically viable. Competitive bidding within Project Gigabit has already allowed smaller telecom providers to target these underserved regions, breaking Openreach’s historical monopoly.

Earlier this week I met representatives from CityFibre, which operates in parts of Hampshire, including Bramshott, Liphook and Headley Down. Their involvement shows how opening the market to competition fosters innovation and provides tailored, affordable broadband packages to meet local needs. That diversification is critical for ensuring fair and affordable access for all.

Diversifying the network also encourages local internet service providers, such as Grayshott Gigabit in my constituency. It is an award-winning full fibre broadband service and the winner of the Internet Service Providers’ Association UK award in 2024 for best rural provider. Those smaller-scale operatives can only continue to expand if they have continued Government support.

While I recognise that the new Labour Government have pledged to deliver nationwide gigabit broadband by 2030, I want to hold them to account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) pointed out when he was the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, we must avoid recreating the digital divide seen in Wales, as referenced earlier, where only 76% of premises have gigabit access, compared with nearly 90% in England.

The Labour Government must ensure that rural areas are not left behind. We cannot repeat past mistakes, in which funding and resources disproportionately favoured urban centres, leaving rural communities to fend for themselves. To address those challenges, I join colleagues in writing to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology with the following requests: that the full £5 billion allocated to Project Gigabit is retained; that the funding is divided proportionately between urban and rural areas; and that rural areas where broadband is not commercially viable are prioritised for future investment.

As I have said, Project Gigabit has already transformed lives and communities, but there is much more to do. We owe it to constituents such as Victoria, the residents of Dippenhall and the families in Moor Park to deliver the connectivity that they deserve. Let us ensure that no community, urban or rural, is left behind in the digital age. It is time to close the digital divide once and for all.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

While it is a pleasure to speak in the debate today, I am hoping it is one that we do not need to keep having. Like many of us, I represent a rural community, and if there is one thing I am desperate to fix, it is sorting out t’internet for my constituents. I make no apologies for my local dialect because up north, we all joke about the rubbish internet signal in rural Yorkshire. It is a huge barrier for many.

There are unique perplexities in the geography of my constituency of York Outer; anyone who has seen it on a map will know that. Some call it a doughnut and some call it a Polo mint. Effectively, it is sweeping Yorkshire countryside with vibrant villages and closely knit communities. However, we see one challenge, and that is the focus of today’s debate: broadband.

Those unique perplexities do not just extend to the constituency’s map; there are cases within it. Take Haxby and Huntington. Forgive me the pun: because of the way my constituency is wired, quite literally, there are roads where a house on one side has fantastic connectivity, but on the other side the internet is terribly slow, and the last time that side got an update, Teletext was on the TV.

A quick roll-out of good internet really matters for our mission of economic growth, so I welcome the more than £500 million in the Budget, committed for 2025-26, to deliver Project Gigabit and the shared rural network. It will play a pivotal role in delivering full gigabit broadband coverage by 2030. However, the focus of my remarks is to feed back on an important experience for one of my constituents, and on why an important upgrade in York Outer is needed.

I start on a specific issue that I would like to pick up with the Minister separately, if he would be so kind as to meet me. I have a Ministry of Defence site in my constituency, in the area of Strensall, that recently missed out on a roll-out of hyperfast connectivity. There are nearly 100 military houses on that site that need an upgrade, and they need it badly. For context, some of the people there are suffering with speeds of less than 10 megabytes per second on copper cables, compared with some residential houses opposite that now have speeds of up to 1,200 megabits per second, and—colleagues, wait for this—at the same cost! Serving families deserve so much better. I am not sure whether it is the Defence Infrastructure Organisation or Openreach that is responsible for the project, but I would love to get it fixed, if possible, with the Minister’s help. If I could meet him, that would be brilliant.

I will draw on another case study. I have heard from residents in Haxby about Project Lightning, a 2019 initiative to bring full-fibre to the village. Although the work was completed, unfortunately some houses were missed out. The cost of that is felt by one couple who recently told me that they work from home, but are now struggling to join calls with clients. They cannot both go on calls with clients at the same time, and that is affecting their fantastic small business.

I have also had constituents write to me about the need for upgrades in Hopgrove, just four miles from York city centre. I am hopeful that Project Gigabit and the Government’s work on the internet roll-out more broadly can help my constituents, something I would like to discuss in detail another time. I am supportive of the Government’s work to roll out Project Gigabit, and my case studies hopefully illustrate a glimpse of why it is so important.

Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this debate, allowing me to raise those important constituency cases.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you for your forbearance. Please try to keep to three minutes. I call Tim Farron.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

The Minister chunters from his seat, but in his speech, please can he assuage that concern? The way to do so is to provide transparent data on the prioritisation of funding and the roll-out.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister.

Space Sector: Government Support

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will call Mr Alistair Carmichael to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the space sector.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I welcome the Minister to his place and to his new role, and I wish him every success in it. When we talk about the UK space sector, it is worth reflecting that, when the Minister and I first arrived here as fresh-faced and enthusiastic newbies in 2001—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

That is a very fair point. All the new Ministers arriving in DSIT have been very keen to provide as much strategic clarity as possible about our direction of travel. Perhaps one could say that the advantage of having a decent majority in Parliament is that one can lay out a strategy for a period of time, rather than just running to catch up with one’s tail. Likewise, I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that it is that clarity of strategic objectives that shows, “Yes, this is what we are doing; that is not our priority.” That makes it much easier for inward investment into the UK to make secure investments for the long term.

Some of the things that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said about business taxation are important as well. The aim is to create an environment in which people can invest securely, knowing where they are going, that the Government will have their back and that the strategy will not change every six months. I note the points made by the National Audit Office. I think the previous Government were very much trying to point in this direction, but perhaps they did not quite land it; maybe there was an anomaly at some point in the process of developing the long-term strategy.

Some hon. Members might not initially think of space as significant to the daily lives of their constituents, but I think it is worth pointing out something that is part of our lives: sat-nav. We all used to have rows in the car, trying to work out where we were going. Sat-nav now does the work for us—although I note that none of the sat-nav operators seems to understand how to say the name of my street in Wales or, frankly, any of the roads or towns in Wales—but this is not just about sat-nav for personal life; it is also about Earth observation, which makes it much easier to predict weather patterns. I had an interesting conversation the other day with a wine operator from the south-east, who was saying that that is really important for them to work out when they should harvest to ensure that there is the right amount of sugar in the grapes and so on. Similarly, data coming from satellites will enable the Government and many operators to provide services more effectively, efficiently and cheaply, and in a way that is more intuitive for ordinary consumers.

In all those fields, space is a really important part of how Government do their business, and how we better facilitate a strong economy and better society. Of course, it is not just the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology that has a very significant interest in space. I pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence, which has been a major player in the field; obviously, it is a NATO operational domain, apart from anything else. The MOD is investing £6.5 billion over a decade, including £5 billion for satellite communications through Skynet and £1.5 billion through the defence space portfolio. Many other Departments—the Department for Business and Trade, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and so on—are also engaged in this work.

Skills were mentioned earlier. The UK Space Agency has been funding £19.6 million since 2022 in this skills field, because if people want to invest, they are going to do so on the basis that we have a skilled workforce in the UK that is available not just today but in five, 10, 15 and 20 years’ time.

I will say a few things about the launch sector, which is obviously of primary interest to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. Roughly 200 companies are engaged in the launch sector in the UK. As I said, some are involved in rockets; we have also referred to subsystems, spaceports, mission control, apps and all the technology that goes into making all of this possible. Roughly 1,500 people in the UK are involved, and they are fairly well paid, so that is a significant part of our economy with significant opportunity for growth. It brought in something like £336 million last year and had a GVA of £153 million. Over the past six years, the Government have invested something like £91 million in our launch capabilities—the right hon. Gentleman referred to the £10 million loan to SaxaVord.

We are ongoing in our commitment, and that commitment has not been shaken by any anomalies that might have been seen on launch. I did feel a bit worried that my first engagement with space was something going not entirely to plan, but I do not think that there is a causal relationship between that and my arriving in post.

In relation to Shetland, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to work with the devolved Administration. I am very keen to have conversations with our colleagues in Scotland, my counterparts in Scotland, and of course with the Scotland Office. We need to work as a united Government to achieve what we want in the field.

As I say, I have spoken to Frank Strang and I am very keen, at the earliest opportunity, to visit both Grantown-on-Spey and Shetland. I cannot say when the next attempted launch may be, but Members are absolutely right: it is not a failure to have an event that does not go entirely to plan, when all of the contingency plans do click in correctly and properly so that there is no harm or danger to life. We see it as a blip, not as a final problem, and it does not undermine our long-term commitment.

There are a couple of points to be made about value for money, which goes to the point about clarity of strategy. We are going to have a very tough spending review—I think everybody might have sussed that by now; the messaging has been strong enough on the subject—and that will undoubtedly be true in this field too. We need to be absolutely clear about what we are seeking to achieve, and about what the whole consortium of businesses and players in the space field want to achieve, so that we get really good value for money for the UK economy. It would be a terrible dereliction of a significant economic and strategic opportunity for the UK if we were somehow or other to abandon this field or diminish our commitment.

I hope that I have reassured the right hon. Member—just as I reassured him on 28 October 2009, when we were both in favour of the abolition of the death penalty everywhere in the world—that the UK Government are not stinting in our commitment to space and to the strategic and economic opportunities that it affords us.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you. On the subject of space, Minister, can I say that your tie is stellar?

Question put and agreed to.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Fifth sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I completely understand where the Minister is coming from, but the Labour Front Bench is trying to push this question of transparency and I am concerned about what the Minister just said. The hon. Member for Broadland talked in relation to another issue about the courts becoming involved. The last thing we want is to create a need for clarification from the courts. Is there not a danger that, unless this area is transparent and the statements are more significant than just a summary, we will get into needing clarification by the courts?

[Paul Scully]

Third parties can clearly get involved and approach the DMU, which I will cover in a minute, so we do not necessarily need to get to court stage. I have talked about some of the specifics that will be in the summary notices, which will have quite a considerable amount of detail anyway. We do not want to add extra resource requirements that take away from the core tasks of the DMU.

The summary statements are just one of the ways in which the DMU will inform and involve stakeholders in its decision making. The DMU will be required to publicly consult before making major decisions, which include designating a firm with strategic market status in a digital activity, making pro-competition orders, and imposing conduct requirements. It will also be required to publish guidance on how it will take those decisions.

Should a third party be unsatisfied with the DMU’s summary statement, they can request the full notice through a freedom of information request. As a public authority, the CMA is required under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to provide the public with information it holds when requested to do so, subject to the relevant exemptions, which include a requirement to protect commercially sensitive information. We agree that public transparency for the new digital markets regime is vital. The drafting ensures that the right information will be made publicly available. I hope I have set out our position to hon. Members and that they feel able to withdraw their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Member will know I am also fond of her and her voice. I think it is important to clarify exactly what we are debating, and why we are reasoning as we are. I will happily refer to certain clauses if that would please the hon. Member, but it is important that we outline exactly why we have come to the rationale that we have on the Bill as it stands before us.

Potential examples of prescriptive conduct requirements include having effective processes for handling complaints, trading on fair and reasonable terms, or giving users options or default settings. Conversely, some examples of prohibitive conduct requirements may be preventing abuse of dominance practices, such as treating its own products more favourably, using data unfairly, tying practices, restricting interoperability, refusal to grant access and so on.

We particularly welcome subsection (5), which provides that the CMA may impose conduct requirements only for certain objectives. However, we have concerns about subsection (10), which says that a conduct requirement

“(a) comes into force at a time determined by the CMA, and

(b) ceases to have effect—

(i) in accordance with a decision of the CMA”—

as Members can read in the Bill.

For swift implementation, it is right that the Bill’s approach allows for conduct requirements to be written alongside an SMS designation investigation, but we need a statutory time limit for the initial set of conduct requirements to be implemented. As it is likely that the DMU will have considered the three conduct objectives before the SMS designation decision is made, the DMU should be required to impose the initial set of conduct requirements either at the same time as the SMS designation or within three months of its date.

A central feature of the new regime is to enable the DMU to revise its rules as time goes on, so the deadline should apply only to the initial set of conduct requirements, so as not to hinder the DMU in revising or adding to them subsequently. Amendment 54 would introduce a timeline for the enforcement of conduct requirements set out in the Bill and in CMA guidance.

[Peter Dowd]

Given that subscription traps cost between £28 billion and £34 billion a year, my constituents in Bootle are perfectly entitled to listen to my hon. Friend ram home this point time after time, because £28 billion out of their pockets in someone else’s pocket is not appropriate, not reasonable and not fair, given the current cost of living crisis. My hon. Friend should speak as much and as long as she wants.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is important that we get the Bill right. It is a very technical Bill. It is incredibly wordy—Members will have heard me trip over my words a number of times. It is important that we are able to portray the nature and benefits of the Bill to those listening at home or elsewhere, for the future and for the CMA, so that they understand what we as legislators mean when we speak in this place. That could influence decisions later. It is important for our constituents, who will be positively—we hope—impacted by the Bill. It will enable to have them more choice to hear exactly what we as legislators in this place mean.

The amendment introduces a timeline. It is important and we have given it some serious thought. I hope that the Minister has given it serious thought, too, because it would be helpful to ensure that the CMA is forced to act swiftly, as we have all discussed. I look forward to hearing his comments. I hope that he sees how beneficial this simple amendment could be. It is not meant to trick him; it is meant to make the legislation as positive and as beneficial as it can be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend.

[Peter Dowd]

Does the Minister agree with me that we have to learn lessons from history? The Committee considering the Bill that became the Criminal Finances Act 2017, on which I served, took evidence from the enforcement and regulatory authorities and they said at the time, “Oh yes, we have all the resources we need,” but that proved not to be the case. If the chief executive of the CMA is saying that, let us come back in 12 or 18 months’ time and see whether it is actually correct. Will the Minister agree to a review of it in perhaps 12 or 18 months’ time, when this Bill has bedded in?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to keep all these things in our purview, because if we get this wrong, that just embeds the entrenched power that we are talking about. It is absolutely the case that we have to ensure that the CMA, as an important body—I am thinking of not just the digital markets unit, which we are discussing here, but the entirety of its operation—has the capacity to do its work. As I said, we will clearly continue to look at the resources, capacity and expertise of the digital markets unit.

Amendment 54 would introduce a duty on the DMU to impose conduct requirements within three months of a decision notice being given, as we have heard. I absolutely share hon. Members’ interest in ensuring that conduct requirements are imposed quickly so that businesses and consumers can be protected. Indeed, we anticipate that conduct requirements will be in place from the day a firm is designated—or if not, much sooner than the three months proposed in the amendment. That is because the DMU can develop tailored conduct requirements informed by, and alongside, the designation investigation. That is facilitated by clauses 13(2) and 24(3), which enable the DMU to carry out the public consultation on strategic market status designation alongside the public consultation on any proposed conduct requirements.

Although we expect conduct requirements to be imposed as soon as a firm is designated, the Government have not included a statutory deadline. That is because the DMU needs the flexibility to deal with the complexities of developing targeted obligations. That includes taking the time necessary to consult and consider all the views shared by interested stakeholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Yes.

[Peter Dowd]

Does the Minister agree that this is an exact replica of what happened when ITV tried to stop Sky advertising on ITV platforms, in terms of competition? That was stopped: it was not fair and it was not reasonable. Is this not sort of similar? We cannot give the power to the platform itself to decide what it does or does not do and what people’s access to news is.

[Paul Scully]

No, I do not agree. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I absolutely believe that it does, because the conduct requirements can be tailored to instruct SMS firms on how they should treat consumers and other businesses, including publishers. In the case of publishers, that could, for example, include conduct requirements on SMS firms to give more transparency to third parties over the algorithms that drive traffic, or it could oblige firms to offer third parties fair payment terms for the use of their content. Examples of that have come up time and again, both in evidence and in my conversations with publishing representatives.

Freedom of contract is a crucial principle, but withdrawal of service by an SMS firm could be considered anti-competitive if the behaviour is discriminatory or sufficient notice is not given. In such a scenario, the DMU could take appropriate action through conduct requirements or PCIs. There are plenty of general examples, and the Bill very much accounts for the examples of Australia and Canada. We are just shaping it in a different way, in as flexible—