Carnegie UK Online Harms Newsletter 38

Headlines

The full-scale, line-by-line scrutiny of the Online Safety Bill is now underway with four sessions a week (Tuesdays and Thursdays) scheduled until the end of June. The pace, as necessitated by a very long Bill, has been swift and the Committee covered the first 39 clauses in its first week of business. The opening statements from the Government (represented by Digital Minister, Chris Philp) and the Opposition (led primarily by Alex Davies-Jones and Barbara Keeley for Labour and John Nicolson and Kirsty Blackman for the SNP) are worth a read.
Clauses 1-16 were covered on the first day: notable points of debate in the morning session included the extent to which the Bill is future-proofed (Philp says yes), whether cross-platform risk is dealt with (Philp points to “by means of the service” in clause 8) and transparency with regard to risk assessments; the afternoon session focused on senior oversight and accountability for children’s risk assessments and intersectionality (Labour’s proposed amendments to clause 10 were not put to a vote).
The second day covered clauses 17-39, with a focus on complaints and report handling, plus the various merits of user advocacy and/or ombudsman services in the morning, along with a short debate on the freedom of expression protections; and in the afternoon the focus was on fraud, including a vote on the Government’s amendment in relation to the strengthening the duties on fraudulent advertising on search engines; see amendment numbers 91-4) and on the Bill’s codes of practice, including calls from Maria Miller and Alex Davies-Jones for a violence against women and girls code, as per that drafted by Carnegie UK and a coalition of other organisations, to be included in the Bill.
So, what can we deduce from the first week’s hearings? The Chairing of the Committee (jointly shared by Sir Roger Gale and Christina Rees) is vital to its pace and, crucially, to the coherence of the order in which amendments are considered and the clarity of the debate and argument that follows. Committee members made frequent references to the complexity of the Bill, so following along as debates bounce around related clauses will be a challenge. Secondly, while the Government has already tabled a few amendments (the most notable accepting calls for parity between search and social media above), its opening position in relation to Opposition amendments has so far been not to accept them – even when it agrees with them in principle and/or they would clarify complexity or strengthen the Bill. (See Hansard of sixth session, column 254, where Philp, suggests that the transcripts of the Committee’s debate will help clarify any uncertainty in the legislation and guide future regulatory decisions in lieu of amending the Bill to the same effect.) Finally, the quality of the debate in the Committee has so far been detailed and rigorous, however the more contentious aspects of the Bill will be debated further down the track; and the impact of the recent no confidence vote is not yet clear. (For a flavour of what might lie ahead, see this insightful thread by former No10 Adviser Nikki Da Costa.)