Asked by: Elliot Colburn (Conservative - Carshalton and Wallington)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps her Department is taking to support local football clubs.
Answered by Stuart Andrew - Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
By 2025, we will have invested over £320 million into grassroots football and multi-sport facilities across the UK. Furthermore, as announced in the King’s Speech, the Government will bring forward legislation to establish a new Independent Football Regulator, to ensure that English football is sustainable for the benefit of fans and local communities.
Asked by: Elliot Colburn (Conservative - Carshalton and Wallington)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the Answer of 21 May 2021 to Question 3171 on Social Media: Antisemitism and with reference to the priority harms to be set out in secondary legislation under the planned Online Safety Bill announced in the Queen's Speech 2021, whether he plans to include in those priority harms (a) anti-Semitic abuse, (b) homophobic abuse, (c) abuse on the grounds of disability and (d) abuse on the grounds of other protected characteristics defined in the Equality Act 2010.
Answered by Caroline Dinenage
We know that groups with protected characteristics or with particular mental or physical health conditions are currently more likely to experience harm and abuse online. We are continuing to work with stakeholders, Parliamentarians and Ofcom to identify specific priority harms and to determine how to formulate these in legislation. The list of primary harms will need to capture online abuse, both where it is legal and where it constitutes a criminal offence.
Asked by: Elliot Colburn (Conservative - Carshalton and Wallington)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what steps he is taking to ensure that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism is included in any discussions with a potential regulator on holding social media companies accountable for content hosted on their platforms.
Answered by Caroline Dinenage
The Government is committed to tackling racism, including the spread of antisemitic content online. On 12 May 2021, we published the draft Online Safety Bill, which sets out new expectations on companies to keep their users safe online. Under a new legal duty of care, in-scope companies, including social media, will need to tackle illegal antisemitic content and activity on their services.
In addition, companies providing high-risk, high-reach services will need to assess the risk to adults of legal but harmful content on their services and set clear terms and conditions stating what legal but harmful material they accept (and do not accept) on their service. Companies will have to do this for both priority harms which the government will set out in secondary legislation and for any emerging harms they identify in their risk assessments.
These duties will apply to antisemitic hate speech, which does not meet the threshold of a criminal offence. Companies will need to enforce their terms and conditions consistently and transparently, and could face enforcement action if they do not. All companies in scope will be required to have effective and accessible user reporting and redress mechanisms.
From now onwards we will be working with stakeholders and parliamentarians alike on identifying priority harms, and they will be subject to the usual secondary legislation processes. Ofcom will be responsible for advising the government regarding the list of priority categories of harm, based on evidence of the prevalence and impact of harmful content. Government will not be bound to follow this advice.
Asked by: Elliot Colburn (Conservative - Carshalton and Wallington)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of differentiating the regulatory response of illegal and legal but harmful content in the up-coming Online Harms Bill; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Caroline Dinenage
The government is clear that the new regulatory framework must be targeted where the potential for impact is greatest. As announced in the full government response to the Online Harms White Paper, published in December, the Online Safety Bill will require all companies in scope to tackle illegal material on their services. All companies will also be required to assess the likelihood of children accessing their services and provide additional protections for them.
Only companies who provide services with the largest audiences and high-risk features will have a legal responsibility to take action with respect to content or activity on their services which is legal but harmful to adults.
We know that online behaviour or content which may not be illegal can still cause serious harm, but we are clear that requirements must be proportionate and reflect the importance of free expression online. An overly broad scope risks imposing disproportionate regulatory burdens and could dilute efforts to tackle the most serious illegal activity including CSEA and terrorist content.
Asked by: Elliot Colburn (Conservative - Carshalton and Wallington)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, when he plans to publish the Government's response to its consultation on decriminalising TV licence evasion.
Answered by John Whittingdale
We believe that it is right to look again at whether the criminal sanction remains appropriate for TV licence fee evasion given ongoing concerns about whether the criminal sanction is unfair and disproportionate.
In February 2020, the Government launched a public consultation on decriminalising TV licence evasion. The consultation closed in April after receiving over 150,000 responses. We will listen carefully to those that have responded before setting out our next steps.