My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, observed, we have approached this group in an interesting way, having already heard the Minister’s feelings about the amendment. As I always think, forewarned is forearmed—so at least we know our starting point, and I am sure the Minister has listened to the debate and is reflecting.
I start by welcoming government Amendment 98A. We certainly value the work of various commissioners, but this amendment does not provide for what I would call a comprehensive duty. It needs supplementing by other approaches, and these are provided for by the amendments in this group.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan, Lady Benjamin and Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lady Healy and others, have made a powerful case for the Internet Watch Foundation being the designated expert body. I too wish to pay tribute to those who tackle online child sexual exploitation and abuse. They do it on behalf of all of us, but most notably the children they seek to protect, and their work is nothing short of an act of service.
Amendment 220E is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. Despite the recommendation by the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill in December 2021 for the Internet Watch Foundation’s role in the future regulatory landscape to be clearly identified within the timescale set, it would require a role to be agreed with Ofcom, which has not yet happened. Perhaps the Minister can give the Committee some sense of where he feels Ofcom is in respect of the inclusion of the Internet Watch Foundation.
9.30 pm
This amendment is designed to confirm IWF’s role as the recognised body dealing with notice and takedown procedures of child sexual abuse imagery in the UK. It would ensure that its long experience and expertise continue to be put to best use, which I am sure the Committee wants to see.
We have already heard evidence that the severity of child sexual abuse is becoming ever worse. In the past two years, category A child sexual abuse—the most severe form, including the rape and sexual torture of babies and toddlers—has doubled. In 2022 there were 51,369 web pages containing category A material, compared with 25,050 web pages in 2020. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, reminded us in linking to the earlier debate, girls are now appearing in 96% of the imagery removed from the internet—up almost 30 percentage points from a decade ago. The abuse of boys is also on the rise. In the last year, the IWF has seen a 138% increase in images involving boys, often linked to sexual extortion, and often self-referred by children through the world-leading Report Remove portal.
I turn to Amendment 226 in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight. The number one message here is that user advocacy is the missing piece in this regulatory regime. Ofcom will be navigating extremely complex child safeguarding issues. These will develop at a rapid pace, yet there are no formal mechanisms in the Bill for Ofcom to gather insight directly from children and from safeguarding experts. These amendments seek to put this right.
As many noble Lords have said, it is essential that we hear from children and young people. Of course, I understand that the role of statutory consultees, such as the Children’s Commissioner, is extremely important. As noble Lords have already indicated, this role is narrowly focused on the codes of practice, at the very start of the regulatory cycle, rather than providing ongoing, real-time information and an understanding of children’s experiences, as we are trying to do. These will show how effectively—or not—platforms are complying with their new duties.
I am grateful to leading children’s charities—5Rights, Barnardo’s and YoungMinds—as well as to the organisations that have been set up by bereaved parents campaigning for child safety online. These include the Molly Rose Foundation and the Breck Foundation. All these groups have joined with the NSPCC to call for the introduction of an advocacy body for children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, spoke from her own experience through 5Rights of the value of the contribution of children in tackling online harms. I hope that the Minister will draw on this extremely valuable experience when thinking about what Amendment 226 seeks to do.
My other point in this regard is that we know from other regulated settings that user advocacy is extremely effective. Those user advocacy organisations assist regulators rather than getting in the way, and they assist them by identifying areas of harm or user detriment. Importantly, they can provide something of a counter- balance to lobbying from regulated sectors. For example, Citizens Advice is a consumer advocate in the essential service market, while Transport Focus speaks up for transport users.
Given the scale of online harm and the vulnerability of child users, I put it to the Minister that similar advocacy arrangements should be introduced in the Bill, otherwise we are going to be in the invidious position of children at risk of sexual abuse online
receiving fewer statutory user advocacy protections than, say, users of a Post Office or passengers on a bus. I am sure that is not the intention, but we must make sure that we are not in that place.
All the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson would ensure that relevant voices were heard. There are repeated debates in your Lordships’ House about the need to consult and to get the right people around the table. All these amendments seek to do that, so I hope the Minister will take them in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to strengthen the arm of those who seek to protect children.