Online Safety Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate - 13th sitting
Tuesday 21st June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Ms Rees, and I congratulate Committee members on evading this morning’s strike action.

I am delighted that the shadow Minister supports the intent behind these clauses, and I will not speak at great length given the unanimity on this topic. As she said, clause 118 allows Ofcom to impose a financial penalty for failure to take specified steps by a deadline set by Ofcom. The maximum penalty that can be imposed is the greater of £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue. In the case of large companies, it is likely to be a much larger amount than £18 million.

Clause 119 enables Ofcom to impose financial penalties if the recipient of a section 103 notice does not comply by the deadline. It is very important to ensure that section 103 has proper teeth. Government amendments 154 to 157 make changes that allow Ofcom to recover not only the cost of running the service once the Bill comes into force and into the future but also the preparatory cost of setting up for the Bill to come into force.

As previously discussed, £88 million of funding is being provided to Ofcom in this financial year and next. We believe that something like £20 million of costs that predate these financial years have been funded as well. That adds up to around £108 million. However, the amount that Ofcom recovers will be the actual cost incurred. The figure I provided is simply an indicative estimate. The actual figure would be based on the real costs, which Ofcom would be able to recoup under these measures. That means that the taxpayer—our constituents —will not bear any of the costs, including the set-up and preparatory cost. This is an equitable and fair change to the Bill.

Clause 120 sets out that some regulated providers will be required to pay a regulatory fee to Ofcom, as set out in clause 71. Clause 120 allows Ofcom to impose a financial penalty if a regulated provider does not pay its fee by the deadline it sets. Finally, clause 121 sets out the information that needs to be included in these penalty notices issued by Ofcom.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I have questions about the management of the fees and the recovery of the preparatory cost. Does the Minister expect that the initial fees will be higher as a result of having to recoup the preparatory cost and will then reduce? How quickly will the preparatory cost be recovered? Will Ofcom recover it quickly or over a longer period of time?

[Chris Philp]

The Bill provides a power for Ofcom to recover those costs. It does not specify over what time period. I do not think they will be recouped over a period of years. Ofcom can simply recoup the costs in a single hit. I would imagine that Ofcom would seek to recover these costs pretty quickly after receiving these powers. The £108 million is an estimate. The actual figure may be different once the reconciliation and accounting is done. It sounds like a lot of money, but it is spread among a number of very large social media firms. It is not a large amount of money for them in the context of their income, so I would expect that recouping to be done on an expeditious basis—not spread over a number of years. That is my expectation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120

Non-payment of fee

Amendments made: 154, in clause 120, page 102, line 20, after “71” insert:

“or Schedule (Recovery of OFCOM’s initial costs)”.

This amendment, and Amendments 155 to 157, ensure that Ofcom have the power to impose a monetary penalty on a provider of a service who fails to pay a fee that they are required to pay under NS2.

Amendment 155, in clause 120, page 102, line 21, leave out “that section” and insert “Part 6”.

Amendment 156, in clause 120, page 102, line 26, after “71” insert—

“or Schedule (Recovery of OFCOM’s initial costs)”

Amendment 157, in clause 120, page 103, line 12, at end insert—

“or Schedule (Recovery of OFCOM’s initial costs)”.—(Chris Philp.)

Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122

Amount of penalties etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

With your permission, Ms Rees, I will speak to clause stand part and clauses 124 to 127 at the same time. Labour supports clause 123, which outlines the powers that Ofcom will have when applying to the court for business disruption measures. Business disruption measures are court orders that require third parties to withdraw services or block access to non-compliant regulated services. It is right that Ofcom has these tools at its disposal, particularly if it is going to be able to regulate effectively against the most serious instances of user harm. However, the Bill will be an ineffective regime if Ofcom is forced to apply for separate court orders when trying to protect people across the board from the same harms. We have already waited too long for change. Labour is committed to giving Ofcom the powers to take action, where necessary, as quickly as possible. That is why we have tabled amendments 50 and 51, which we feel will go some way in tackling these issues.

Amendment 50 would give Ofcom the ability to take action against a schedule of non-compliant sites, while still preserving the right of those sites to oppose the application for—and/or appeal through the courts against any—orders to block access or support services. The Bill currently requires Ofcom to seek a separate court order for each service against which it wishes to take enforcement action in the form of blocking access or services. That is the only effective mechanism for overseas websites. UK-based services will be subject to enforcement notices and financial penalties that can be enforced without having to go to court. That creates a disadvantage for UK sites, which can be more easily enforced against.

Given that there are 4 million to 5 million pornographic websites, for example, the requirement for separate court orders will prevent Ofcom from taking action at scale and creating a level playing field for all adult sites. Under the Bill, Ofcom must take action against each offending website or social media company individually. While we acknowledge that the Government have stated that enforcement action can be taken against multiple offending content providers, in our opinion that is not made clear in the Bill.

Moreover, we are concerned that some pornography websites would seek to avoid the Bill’s requirements by changing their domain name—domain hopping. That was threatened last year when Germany moved to issue a blocking order against major providers of internet pornography. That is why Ofcom must be granted clear enforcement powers to take swift action against multiple websites and content providers in one court action or order.

This group of amendments would also provide clarity and ease of enforcement for internet service providers, which will be expected to enforce court orders. Labour wants the Bill to be genuinely effective, and amendments 50 and 51 could ensure that Ofcom has the tools available to it to take action at pace. We urge the Minister to accept these small concessions, which could have a hugely positive impact.

Amendment 51 would give Ofcom the ability to take action against a schedule of non-compliant sites, while preserving the right of those sites to oppose an application for an order to block access or support services, or to appeal through the courts against any such order.

It will come as no surprise that Labour supports clause 124, which sets out the circumstances in which Ofcom may apply to the courts for an interim service restriction order. We particularly support the need for Ofcom to be able to take action when time is not on its side, or where, put plainly, the level of harm being caused means that it would be inappropriate to wait for a definite failure before taking action.

However, we hope that caution is exercised if Ofcom ever needs to consider such an interim order; we must, of course, get the balance right in our approach to internet regulation more widely. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could outline his understanding of the specifics of when these orders may be applied. More broadly, Labour agrees that Ofcom should be given the power to act when time demands it, so we have not sought to amend clause 124 at this stage.

Labour also supports the need for Ofcom to have the power to apply to the courts for an access restriction order, as outlined in clause 125. It is vital that Ofcom is given the power to prevent, restrict or deter individuals in the UK from accessing a service from a non-compliant provider. We welcome the specific provisions on access via internet service providers and app stores. We all know from Frances Haugen’s testimony that harmful material can often be easily buried, so it is right and proper that those are considered as “access facilities” under the clause. Ultimately, we support the intentions of clause 125 and, again, have not sought to amend it at this stage.

We also support clause 126, which sets out the circumstances in which Ofcom may apply to the courts for an interim access restriction order. I will not repeat myself: for the reasons I have already outlined, it is key that Ofcom has sufficient powers to act, particularly on occasions when it is inappropriate to wait for a failure to be established.

We welcome clause 127, which clarifies how Ofcom’s enforcement powers can interact. We particularly welcome clarification that, where Ofcom exercises its power to apply to the courts for a business disruption order under clauses 123 to 126, it is not precluded from taking action under its other enforcement powers. As we have repeatedly reiterated, we welcome Ofcom’s having sufficient power to reasonably bring about positive change and increase safety measures online. That is why we have not sought to amend clause 127.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Thank you for chairing this morning’s sitting, Ms Rees.

I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypridd that these clauses are necessary and important, but I also agree that the amendments are important. It seems like this is a kind of tidying-up exercise, to give Ofcom the ability to act in a way that will make its operation smoother. We all want this legislation to work. This is not an attempt to break this legislation—to be fair, none of our amendments have been—but an attempt to make things work better.

Amendments 50 and 51 are fairly similar to the one that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children proposed to clause 103. They would ensure that Ofcom could take action against a group of sites, particularly if they were facing the same kind of issues, they had the same kind of functionality, or the same kind of concerns were being raised about them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I repeat the point I made to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton a moment ago. This is simply an obligation to consult. The clause gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to offer an opinion, but it is just that—an opinion. It is not binding on Ofcom, which may take that opinion into account or not at its discretion. This provision sits alongside the requirement to consult the Information Commissioner’s Office. I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that it represents unwarranted and inappropriate interference in the operation of a regulator. Consultation between organs of state is appropriate and sensible, but in this case it does not fetter Ofcom’s ability to act at its own discretion. I respectfully do not agree with the shadow Minister’s analysis.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Apologies, Ms Rees, for coming in a bit late on this, but I was not aware of the intention to vote against the clause. I want to make clear what the Scottish National party intends to do, and the logic behind it. The inclusion of Government amendment 7 is sensible, and I am glad that the Minister has tabled it. Clause 129 is incredibly important, and the requirement to publish guidance will ensure that there is a level of transparency, which we and the Labour Front Benchers have been asking for.

The Minister has been clear about the requirement for Ofcom to consult the Secretary of State, rather than to be directed by them. As a whole, this Bill gives the Secretary of State far too much power, and far too much ability to intervene in the workings of Ofcom. In this case, however, I do not have an issue with the Secretary of State being consulted, so I intend to support the inclusion of this clause, as amended by Government amendment 7.



Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 130 sets up a committee to advise Ofcom on misinformation and disinformation, which is the only direct reference to misinformation and disinformation in the entire Online Safety Bill. However, the Bill gives the committee no identifiable powers or active role in tackling harmful misinformation and disinformation, meaning that it has limited practical purpose. It is also unclear how the advisory committee will fit with Ofcom’s wider regulatory functions.

The remaining provisions in the Bill are limited and do not properly address harmful misinformation and disinformation. If tackling harmful misinformation and disinformation is left to this clause, the Bill will fail both to tackle harm properly, and to keep children and adults safe.

The clause risks giving a misleading impression that action is being taken. If the Government and Ofcom proceed with creating the committee, we need to see that its remit is strengthened and clarified, so that it more effectively tackles harmful disinformation and misinformation. That should include advising on Ofcom’s research, reporting on drivers of harmful misinformation and disinformation, and proportionate responses to them. There should also be a duty on Ofcom to consult the committee when drafting relevant codes of practice.

That is why we have tabled amendment 57. It would change the period by which the advisory committee must report from 18 months to six. This is a simple amendment that encourages scrutiny. Once again, the Minister surely has little reason not to accept it, especially as we have discussed at length the importance of the advisory committee having the tools that it needs to succeed.

Increasing the regularity of these reports from the advisory committee is vital, particularly given the ever-changing nature of the internet. Labour has already raised concerns about the lack of futureproofing in the Bill more widely, and we feel that the advisory committee has an important role and function to play in areas where the Bill itself is lacking. We are not alone in this view; the Minister has heard from his Back Benchers about just how important this committee is.

Amendment 58 would require Ofcom to produce a code of practice on system-level disinformation. Again, this amendment will come as no surprise to the Minister, given the concerns that Labour has repeatedly raised about the lack of provisions relating to disinformation in the Bill. It seems like an obvious omission that the Bill has failed to consider a specific code of practice around reducing disinformation, and the amendment would be a simple way to ensure that Ofcom actively encourages services to reduce disinformation across their platforms. The Minister knows that this would be a welcome step, and I urge him to consider supporting the amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I want to briefly agree with the sentiments of the Opposition Front Bench, especially about the strength of the committee and the lack of teeth that it currently has. Given that the Government have been clear that they are very concerned about misinformation and disinformation, it seems odd that they are covered in the Bill in such a wishy-washy way.

The reduction of the time from 18 months to six months would also make sense. We would expect the initial report the committee publish in six months to not be as full as the ones it would publish after that. I do not see any issue with it being required to produce a report as soon as possible to assess how the Act is bedding in and beginning to work, rather than having to wait to assess—potentially once the Act is properly working. We want to be able to pick up any teething problems that the Act might have.

We want the committee to be able to say, “Actually, this is not working quite as we expected. We suggest that Ofcom operates in a slightly different way or that the interaction with providers happens in a slightly different way.” I would rather that problems with the Act were tackled as early as possible. We will not know about problems with the Act, because there is no proper review mechanism. There is no agreement on the committee, for example, to look at how the Act is operating. This is one of the few parts of the Bill where we have got an agreement to a review, and it would make sense that it happen as early as possible.

We agree that misinformation and disinformation are very important matters that really need to be tackled, but there is just not enough clout in the Bill to allow Ofcom to properly tackle these issues that are causing untold harm.

[Dan Carden]

When I spoke at the very beginning of the Committee’s proceedings, I said that the legislation was necessary, that it was a starting point and that it would no doubt change and develop over time. However, I have been surprised at how little, considering all of the rhetoric we have heard from the Secretary of State and other Ministers, the Bill actually deals with the general societal harm that comes from the internet. This is perhaps the only place in the Bill where it is covered.

I am thinking of the echo chambers that are created around disinformation and the algorithms that companies use. I really want to hear from the Minister where he sees this developing and why it is so weak and wishy-washy. While I welcome that much of the Bill seeks to deal with the criminality of individuals and the harm and abuse that can be carried out over the internet, overall it misses a great opportunity to deal with the harmful impact the internet can have on society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Clearly, resourcing of the upper tribunal is a matter decided jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, and, in this case, the Senior President of Tribunals. Parliament would expect the resourcing of that part of the upper tribunal to be such that cases could be heard in an expedited matter. Particularly where cases concern the safety of the public—and particularly of children—we expect that to be done as quickly as it can.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 138 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 140

Power to make super-complaints

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 140, page 121, line 1, after “services” insert “, consumers”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 144, in clause 140, page 121, line 2, after “users” insert “, consumers”.

Amendment 145, in clause 140, page 121, line 4, after “services” insert “, consumers”.

Amendment 146, in clause 140, page 121, line 5, after “users” insert “, consumers”.

Amendment 147, in clause 140, page 121, line 6, at end insert “, consumers”.

Amendment 148, in clause 140, page 121, line 7, after “users” insert “, consumers”.

Amendment 149, in clause 140, page 121, line 14, after “service” insert “, consumers”.

Amendment 150, in clause 140, page 121, line 18, at end insert “, consumers”.

Amendment 151, in clause 140, page 121, line 19, after “users” insert “, consumers”.

Amendment 152, in clause 140, page 121, line 25, at end insert—

“‘consumers’” means individuals in the United Kingdom acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside the trade, business, craft or profession of the individuals concerned.”

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Committee has been flexible about grouping clauses should it make sense to do so. I ask that the Committee allow me to speak to this set of amendments alone. It does not make sense for me to discuss these amendments and amendment 77 at the same time. If I could separately discuss amendment 77, as it says on the Order Paper, then I would appreciate that.

This group of amendments specifically relate to consumer protection. It is the case that online fraud facilitated through social media platforms and search engines is one of the most prevalent forms of crime today. Reported incidents increased significantly during the pandemic, and often resulted in victims losing life-changing amounts of money. In addition to the financial impact of being scammed, there is the emotional and physical impact. We know it has a significant effect on people’s mental health. I am glad that the Government listened to the Joint Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and changed the legislation to include fraud.

Amendment 143 is about expanding who can make super-complaints, in order to reflect the expansion of the Bill to include fraud. The Bill does not leave a lot of the details around super-complaints to be made in secondary legislation. These amendments specifically allow groups that are acting on behalf of consumers, or those who are making requests on behalf of consumers, to make super-complaints. I am not sure that if somebody is acting on behalf of consumers that fits into the definitions of users of the service and people representing users of the service. Perhaps the Minister can convince me otherwise. If consumers are losing significant amounts of money, or where there is risk of significant numbers of people losing significant amounts of money—for example, where a search engine allows fraudulent advertising to be the top result—including “consumers” in the Bill will allow organisations acting on behalf of consumers to take action. It may be that the Minister can give me some comfort in this, and let us know that organisations acting on behalf of consumers would potentially—if they meet other criteria—be able to put forward a super-complaint.

I understand that there are other methods of complaining—it is possible for other complaints to be made. However, given the significant increase in the risk to consumers in the past few years, it would seem sensible that the Minister give some consideration to whether this is adequately covered in the Bill, and whether consumers are adequately protected in this section of the Bill, as well as in the additional flawed clauses that the Minister added between publication of the original draft Bill and the Bill that we have before us today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Clearly, we want the super-complaint function to be as effective as possible and for groups of relevant people, users or members of the public to be able to be represented by an eligible entity to raise super-complaints. I believe we are all on the same page in wanting to do that. If I am honest, I am a little confused as to what the addition of the term “consumers” will add. The term “users” is defined quite widely, via clause 140(6), which then refers to clause 181, where, as debated previously, a “user” is defined widely to include anyone using a service, whether registered or not. So if somebody stumbles across a website, they count as a user, but the definition being used in clause 140 about bringing super-complaints also includes “members of the public”—that is, regular citizens. Even if they are not a user of that particular service, they could still be represented in bringing a complaint.

Given that, by definition, “users” and “members of the public” already cover everybody in the United Kingdom, I am not quite sure what the addition of the term “consumers” adds. By definition, consumers are a subset of the group “users” or “members of the public”. It follows that in seeking to become an eligible entity, no eligible entity will purport to act for everybody in the United Kingdom; they will always be seeking to define some kind of subset of people. That might be children, people with a particular vulnerability or, indeed, consumers, who are one such subset of “members of the public” or “users”. I do not honestly understand what the addition of the word “consumers” adds here when everything is covered already.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister explicitly say that he thinks that an eligible entity, acting on behalf of consumers, could, if it fulfils the other criteria, bring a super-complaint?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, definitely. That is the idea of an eligible entity, which could seek to represent a particular demographic, such as children or people from a particular marginalised group, or it could represent people who have a particular interest, which would potentially include consumers. So I can confirm that that is the intention behind the drafting of the Bill. Having offered that clarification and made clear that the definition is already as wide as it conceivably can be—we cannot get wider than “members of the public”—I ask the hon. Member for Aberdeen North to consider withdrawing the amendments, particularly as there are so many. It will take a long time to vote on them.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister for the clarification. Given that he has explicitly said that he expects that groups acting on behalf of consumers could, if they fulfil the other criteria, be considered as eligible entities for making super-complaints, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 66, in clause 140, page 121, line 8, at end insert—

“(d) causing harm to any human or animal.”

This amendment ensures groups are able to make complaints regarding animal abuse videos.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

Division 42

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 140, page 121, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the tests that complaints have to be of particular importance in order to be admissible.

When I first read clause 140, subsection (2) raised a significant number of red flags for me. The subsection might be reasonable if we did not have giant companies—social media platforms particularly—that significant numbers of people across the UK use regularly. Facebook might be counted as a “single regulated service”, but 85% of UK residents—57.1 million people—had a Facebook account earlier this year. Twitter is used by 28% of people living in the UK, which is 19 million users. TikTok is at 19%, which is significantly less, but still a very high number of people—13 million users. I can understand the decision that a super-complaint picking on one certain company might be a bit extreme, but it does not make sense when we are considering the Facebooks of this world.

If someone is making a complaint about a single regulated service and that service is Facebook, Twitter, TikTok or another large platform—or a new, yet-to-be-created platform—that significant numbers of people use, there is no justification for treating that complaint differently just because it is against a single entity. When a complaint is made against Facebook—I am picking on Facebook because 85% of the UK public are members of it; it is an absolute behemoth—I would like there to be no delay in its being taken to Ofcom. I would like Ofcom not to have to check and justify that the complaint is “of particular importance”.

Subsection (2)(a) states that one of the tests of the complaint should be that it “is of particular importance” or, as subsection (2)(b) notes, that it

“relates to the impacts on a particularly large number of users of the service or members of the public.”

I do not understand what

“large number of users of the service”

would mean. Does a large number of the users of Facebook mean 50% of its users? Does it mean 10%? What is a large number? Is that in percentage terms, or is it something that is likely to impact 1 million people? Is that a large number? The second part—

“large number…of members of the public”—

is again difficult to define. I do not think there is justification for this additional hoop just because the complaint relates to a single regulated service.

Where a complaint relates to a very small platform that is not causing significant illegal harm, I understand that Ofcom may want to consider whether it will accept, investigate and give primacy and precedence to that. If the reality is that the effect is non-illegal, fairly minor and impacts a fairly small number of people, in the order of hundreds instead of millions, I can understand why Ofcom might not want to give that super-complaint status and might not want to carry out the level of investigation and response necessary for a super-complaint. But I do not see any circumstances in which Ofcom could justify rejecting a complaint against Facebook simply because it is a complaint against a single entity. The reality is that if something affects one person on Facebook, it will affect significantly more than one person on Facebook because of Facebook’s absolutely massive user base. Therefore this additional hoop is unrealistic.

Paragraph (a), about the complaint being “of particular importance”, is too woolly. Does it relate only to complaints about things that are illegal? Does it relate only to things that are particularly urgent—something that is happening now and that is having an impact today? Or is there some other criterion that we do not yet know about?

I would very much appreciate it if the Minister could give some consideration to amendment 77, which would simply remove subsection (2). If he is unwilling to remove that subsection, I wonder whether we could meet halfway and whether, let us say, category 1 providers could all be excluded from the “single provider” exemption, because they have already been assessed by Ofcom to have particular risks on their platforms. That group is wider than the three names that I have mentioned, and I think that that would be a reasonable and realistic decision for the Government—and direction for Ofcom—to take. It would be sensible.

If the Government believe that there is more information—more direction—that they could add to the clause, it would be great if the Minister could lay some of that out here and let us know how he intends subsection (2) to operate in practice and how he expects Ofcom to use it. I get that people might want it there as an additional layer of protection, but I genuinely do not imagine that it can be justified in the case of the particularly large providers, where there is significant risk of harm happening.

I will illustrate that with one last point. The Government specifically referred earlier to when Facebook—Meta—stopped proactively scanning for child sexual abuse images because of an issue in Europe. The Minister mentioned the significant amount of harm and the issues that were caused in a very small period. And that was one provider—the largest provider that people use and access. That massive amount of harm can be caused in a very small period. I do not support allowing Meta or any other significantly large platform to have a “get out of jail” card. I do not want them to be able to go to Ofcom and say, “Hey, Ofcom, we’re challenging you on the basis that we don’t think this complaint is of particular importance” or “We don’t think the complaint relates to the impacts on a particularly large number of users of the service or members of the public.” I do not want them to have that ability to wriggle out of things because this subsection is in the Bill, so any consideration that the Minister could give to improving clause 140 and subsection (2) would be very much appreciated.

[Barbara Keeley]

We support the SNP’s amendment 77, moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. The super-complaints mechanism introduced by clause 140 is a useful device for reporting numerous, widespread concerns about the harm caused by multiple or single services or providers. Subsection (1) includes the conditions on the subjects of super-complaints, which can relate to one or more services. However, as the hon. Member has pointed out, that is caveated by subsection (2), under which a super-complaint that refers to a single service or provider must prove, as she has just outlined, that it is “of particular importance” or

“relates to the impacts on a particularly large number of users of the service or members of the public.”

Given the various hoops through which a super-complaint already has to jump, it is not clear why the additional conditions are needed. Subsection (2) significantly muddies the waters and complicates the provisions for super-complaints. For instance, how does the Minister expect Ofcom to decide whether the complaint is of particular importance? What criteria does he expect the regulator to use? Why include it as a metric in the first place when the super-complaint has already met the standards set out in subsection (1)?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I think the Committee, and the House, are pretty unanimous in agreeing that the power to make super-complaints is important. As we have discussed, there are all kinds of groups, such as children, under-represented groups and consumers, that would benefit from being represented where systemic issues are not being addressed and that Ofcom may have somehow overlooked or missed in the discharge of its enforcement powers.

I would observe in passing that one of the bases on which super-complaints can be made—this may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley—is where there is a material risk under clause 140(1)(b) of

“significantly adversely affecting the right to freedom of expression within the law of users of the services or members of the public”.

That clause is another place in the Bill where freedom of expression is expressly picked out and supported. If freedom of expression is ever threatened in a way that we have not anticipated and that the Bill does not provide for, there is a particular power here for a particular free speech group, such as the Free Speech Union, to make a super-complaint. I hope that my hon. Friend finds the fact that freedom of expression is expressly laid out there reassuring.

Let me now speak to the substance of amendment 77, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. It is important to first keep in mind the purpose of the super-complaints, which, as I said a moment ago, is to provide a basis for raising issues of widespread and systemic importance. That is the reason for some of the criteria in sections (1)(a), (b) and (c), and why we have subsection (2)—because we want to ensure that super-complaints are raised only if they are of a very large scale or have a profound impact on freedom of speech or some other matter of particular importance. That is why the tests, hurdles and thresholds set out in clause 140(2) have to be met.

If we were to remove subsection (2), as amendment 77 seeks to, that would significantly lower the threshold. We would end up having super-complaints that were almost individual in nature. We set out previously why we think an ombudsman-type system or having super-complaints used for near-individual matters would not be appropriate. That is why the clause is there, and I think it is reasonable that it is.

The hon. Lady asked a couple of questions about how this arrangement might operate in practice. She asked whether a company such Facebook would be caught if it alone were doing something inappropriate. The answer is categorically yes, because the condition in clause 140(2)(b)—

“impacts on a particularly large number of users”,

which would be a large percentage of Facebook’s users,

“or members of the public”—

would be met. Facebook and—I would argue—any category 1 company would, by definition, be affecting large numbers of people. The very definition of category 1 includes the concept of reach—the number of people being affected. That means that, axiomatically, clause 140(2)(b) would be met by any category 1 company.

The hon. Lady also raised the question of Facebook, for a period of time in Europe, unilaterally ceasing to scan for child sexual exploitation and abuse images, which, as mentioned, led to huge numbers of child sex abuse images and, consequently, huge numbers of paedophiles not being detected. She asks how these things would be handled under the clause if somebody wanted to raise a super-complaint about that. Hopefully, Ofcom would stop them happening in the first place, but if it did not the super-complaint redress mechanism would be the right one. These things would categorically be caught by clause 140(2)(a), because they are clearly of particular importance.

In any reasonable interpretation of the words, the test of “particular importance” is manifestly met when it comes to stopping child sexual exploitation and abuse and the detection of those images. That example would categorically qualify under the clause, and a super-complaint could, if necessary, be brought. I hope it would never be necessary, because that is the kind of thing I would expect Ofcom to catch.

Having talked through the examples from the hon. Lady, I hope I have illustrated how the clause will ensure that either large-scale issues affecting large numbers of people or issues that are particularly serious will still qualify for super-complaint status with subsection (2) left in the Bill. Given those assurances, I urge the hon. Member to consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I welcome the Minister’s fairly explicit explanation that he believes that every category 1 company would be in scope, even if there was a complaint against one single provider. I would like to push the amendment to a vote on the basis of the comments I made earlier and the fact that each of these platforms is different. We have heard concerns about, for example, Facebook groups being interested in celebrating eight-year-olds’ birthdays. We have heard about the amount of porn on Twitter, which Facebook does not have in the same way. We have heard about the kind of algorithmic stuff that takes people down a certain path on TikTok. We have heard all these concerns, but they are all specific to that one provider. They are not a generic complaint that could be brought toward a group of providers.

[Chris Philp]

Would the hon. Lady not agree that in all those examples—including TikTok and leading people down dark paths—the conditions in subsection (2) would be met? The examples she has just referred to are, I would say, certainly matters of particular importance. Because the platforms she mentions are big in scale, they would also meet the test of scale in paragraph (b). In fact, only one of the tests has to be met—it is one or the other. In all the examples she has just given, not just one test—paragraph (a) or (b)— would be met, but both. So all the issues she has just raised would make a super-complaint eligible to be made.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am glad the Minister confirms that he expects that that would be the case. I am clearer now that he has explained it, but on my reading of the clause, the definitions of “particular importance” or

“a particularly large number of users…or members of the public”

are not clear. I wanted to ensure that this was put on the record. While I do welcome the Minister’s clarification, I would like to push amendment 77 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.