My Lords, I thank the Minister for opening the group. This is a slightly novel procedure: he has rebutted our arguments before we have even had a chance to put them—what is new? I hope he has another speech lined up for the end which accepts some of the arguments we put, to demonstrate that he has listened to all the arguments made in the debate.
I will speak mainly to Amendments 220E and 226, ahead of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will be speaking at the end of the group to Amendment 226. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for signing Amendment 220E; I know she feels very strongly about this issue as well.
As the Minister said, this amendment is designed to confirm the IWF’s role as the recognised body for dealing with notice and take-down procedures for child sexual abuse imagery in the UK and to ensure that its long experience and expertise continues to be put to best use. In our view, any delay in establishing the roles and responsibilities of expert organisations such as the IWF in working with Ofcom under the new regulatory regime risks leaving a vacuum in which the risks to children from this hateful form of abuse will only increase. I heard what the Minister said about the parliamentary procedure, but that is a much slower procedure than a designation by Ofcom, so I think that is going to be one of the bones of contention between us.
The Internet Watch Foundation is a co-regulatory body with over 25 years of experience working with the internet industry, law enforcement and government to prevent the uploading of, and to disable public access to, known child sexual abuse, and to secure the removal of indecent images and videos of children from the internet. The organisation has had some considerable success over the last 25 years, despite the problem appearing to be getting worse globally.
In 2022, it succeeded in removing a record 255,000 web pages containing child sexual abuse. It has also amassed a database of more than 1.6 million unique hashes of child sexual abuse material, which has been provided to the internet industry to keep its platforms free from such material. In 2020, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse concluded that, in the UK, the IWF
“sits at the heart of the national response to combating the proliferation of indecent images of children. It is an organisation that deserves to be acknowledged publicly as a vital part of how, and why, comparatively little child sexual abuse material is hosted in the UK”.
9 pm
Our Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill stated back in December 2021—that seems a long time ago now—that the IWF
“made a persuasive case that they should be co-designated by Ofcom to regulate CSEA content, an argument supported by the CPS and by TalkTalk”
in their evidence to the committee. We also concluded that
“it would have been beneficial to see more information … about how such co-designation might be achieved or even”
the processes for and
“a timeline on when such decisions will be taken”.
In fact, the then Minister, Chris Philp MP, backed up the importance of the IWF to the regulatory landscape during the Public Bill Committee in the Commons in June 2022, stating that
“agencies such as the Internet Watch Foundation and others should co-operate closely. There is already very good working between the Internet Watch Foundation, law enforcement and others—they seem to be well networked together and co-operating closely”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 14/6/22; col. 421.]
But I think that is not utterly clear, and that is the reason for putting this forward.
It is clear that Ofcom does not see regulation as a solo effort just by itself; of course, that cannot be the case for something as big and important as this. There is already so much expertise in other organisations such as the IWF. I hope that this amendment will tease out some of the progress being made—or not—in terms of co-designation and the relationship between Ofcom and organisations such as the IWF. What consultation has been carried out with the IWF to date? Are arrangements going to be come to with it in terms of CSEA and other similar material?
Three years have elapsed since we saw the first draft of this Bill, so we have had plenty of time to have those discussions and consultations. When can we expect decisions to be made? What steps will be taken to help organisations such as the IWF to scale up if they do get a response to assistance from Ofcom? What conclusions has Ofcom reached on the role for the IWF in the new regulatory landscape? I very much hope that we will get a more positive response to some of those questions at the end of this debate.
I want to come on to Amendment 226. My noble friend Lady Tyler is not well, unfortunately, and cannot be here today, but she is a strong supporter of this amendment, which deals with child protection and mental health. Mental health is the number one reason why children call Childline. We know that online abuse and harm can have a profound impact on children’s mental health. Online child abuse has a devastating impact on children. It profoundly affects their mental health and their experience of relationships, with many continuing to experience the impact long after the period of abuse. Exposure to legal but harmful content can have an incredibly damaging impact on children’s mental and emotional well-being. Some children told Childline that they were experiencing
“anxiety, intrusive thoughts, low self-esteem and trouble sleeping”
as a result of seeing that harmful material online. That is why we support this amendment to introduce an advocacy body for children.
I heard what the Minister had to say about that: that it was duplicative, and so on. I am sure there are some jolly good reasons that the Minister can adumbrate, but I do not necessarily believe that the Children’s Commissioner believes that that is their specific role in these circumstances. That is why Young Minds and the Molly Rose Foundation, established by Ian Russell after the death of his daughter Molly, have come together with the NSPCC to support the introduction of an advocacy body for children. So I hope that the Minister will be rather more positive than he started out being on Amendment 226.