UK Parliament / Open data

Online Safety Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Knight of Weymouth (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 10 July 2023. It occurred during Debate on bills on Online Safety Bill.

My Lords, first, I associate myself with the excellent way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, paid tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on behalf of Bereaved Families for Online Safety, and with the comments she made about the Minister and the Secretary of State in getting us to this point, which were echoed by others.

I have attached my name, on behalf of the Opposition, to these amendments on the basis that if they are good enough for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, it ought to be good enough for me. We should now get on with implementing them. I am also hopeful to learn that the Minister has been liaising with the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to ensure that the amendments relating to coroners’ services, and the equivalent procurator fiscal service in Scotland, will satisfy her sense of what will work for victims. I am interested, also, in the answer to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, regarding a requirement for senior managers to attend inquests. I liked what she had to say about the training for coroners being seeing as media literacy and therefore fundable from the levy.

All that remains is for me to ask three quick questions to get the Minister’s position clear regarding the interpretation of the new Chapter 3A, “Deceased Child Users”. First, the chapter is clear that terms of service must clearly and easily set out policy for dealing with the parents of a deceased child, and must provide a dedicated helpline and a complaints procedure. In subsection (2), does a helpline or similar—the “similar” being particularly important—mean that the provider must offer an accessible, responsive and interactive service? Does that need to be staffed by a human? I think it would be helpful for the Minister to confirm that is his intention that it should be, so that parents are not fobbed off with solely an automated bot-type service.

9.30 pm

Secondly, the requirement to provide a complaints service is clear. The duties on Ofcom in the group are also clear enough. Can he make sure he has summarised on the record the consequences for the provider if they fail in their duties and, in particular, if the platform’s complaints service is insufficient.

Finally, in the circumstance of a complaints service failing a parent, what should they then do? Do they have direct recourse to Ofcom? Will the regulator need

to offer individual parents a channel to report problems if they have satisfied all the provider’s own processes, as set out in these clauses?

Again, I repeat my thanks to all across the House who have worked so hard to get substantial progress on this key issue.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

831 cc1619-1620 

Session

2022-23

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top