'Result generally reflects the current national opinion'

MP for Ellesmere Port

IT HAS been full steam ahead for Samantha Dixon, my new next-door neighbour as Member of Parliament for the City of Chester, after her landslide by-election victory last week. To achieve 60 per cent of the vote when there was a choice of nine candidates on the ballot paper is no mean achievement, particularly just a month into the new Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak’s time in office, when there would normally be a honeymoon period for a newly elected Leader. This was the Conservative Party’s worst result in Chester since 1832 which has not been as newsworthy as it might once have been simply because the party’s fortunes have sunk so low and the result generally reflects the current national opinion polling.

For Sam and myself it was straight down to business as we all grappled with the content of the long-awaited Online Safety Bill which I know from my postbag is an issue of considerable concern to constituents. This so-called ‘landmark’ legislation which has been five years in the waiting and which has been delayed time after time by the Government. The Online Safety Bill came from a recognition that the algorithms and the power of platforms to push people towards content which, although on its own may not be illegal, cumulatively causes significant harm.

Make no mistake about it, the official Opposition in Parliament supports the principle of creating an Online Safety Act. It cannot come a moment too soon but we are concerned that even now the Government seems intent on watering down the legislation. The whole purpose of the Online Safety legislation is to protect people of all ages, and particularly the young, from harms that they may encounter online. These include videos encouraging people, for example, to self harm but we are concerned that by removing a ‘legal but harmful’ aspect of the Bill the Government have given a free pass to abusers. Instead of keeping users and consumers safe, the Government seems intent on bowing to those with vested interests in the online sector. Replacing the prevention of harm with an emphasis on free speech means the Bill will leave abusers free to abuse, but will not allow other users to be free from abuse. Rather than promoting safety online, the Bill will give abusers a license to troll, and the business models of big tech will give these trolls a platform. Our approach as the official opposition would focus on social media company’s processes for dealing with harmful content. This has the benefit of addressing the things social media companies can control, i.e. how content spreads, rather than what they can’t control i.e. what people post on their platforms. This approach gets to the root cause of issue, and takes on social media companies’ business models, which promote hate and abusive speech, pushing people towards more extreme content because it makes more profit.

Despite the urgency of getting the Bill passed, Ministers are recommitting this Bill to Committee – the first time in decades this procedure has been used – and running down the clock on this legislation passing.