The transcripts in this evidence could really do with the FWR fine toothcomb.
e.g.
Nadine Dorries: If we put societal harms into the Bill, I am afraid we would not be able to make it work. We have looked at it. We have explored it. We have probed it. Legally, it is just a non‑starter, I am afraid.
Chris Philp: It is worth stressing that where the content is—
Nadine Dorries: Here he goes.
Chris Philp: Thank you for your kind remarks earlier. I agree that we make a good double act. Where the content is illegal, that is in scope of the first pillar. Equally, if it can be demonstrated that the disinformation/misinformation content causes physical or psychological harm to individuals, again that will fall into the scope of the third pillar—the legal but harmful. It is worth saying that, to that extent, the content could be included if it meets one of those two criteria.
In addition to that, outside legislation, we have the cross‑Whitehall counter disinformation unit, which is led from DCMS but draws from the Cabinet Office, the FCDO and others.
Lord Knight of Weymouth: Will that become permanent? There is a question as to whether that is a temporary or permanent unit.
Chris Philp: I think Sarah is responsible for it, so she is well placed to answer.
Sarah Connolly: I am responsible for it. It has been stood up now continuously for just over two years. Unless the Minister or Secretary of State want to tell me anything otherwise, I do not think we are intending to close it imminently.
Chris Philp: We certainly want to continue with its work, which is more important now than ever. I spoke at a conference a couple of days ago with representatives from 15 like‑minded countries across North America and Europe about how we need to work together to counter disinformation, and our unit’s work is critical to that.
Lord Knight of Weymouth: Thank you. Within this area, my perception is that a lot of the problematic content comes through in private groups within these social media platforms. Are you confident that there are enough powers for the regulator to be able to access private messaging, private groups, which is where a lot of this harmful content is being perpetrated?
Nadine Dorries: I will hand that question over to Minister Hinds. Would you be happy to take that?
Damian Hinds: Yes, sure. Lord Knight, you are absolutely right about the central role of private channels and a further trend in that direction. The provisions in the Bill on Ofcom’s powers and on the responsibilities of the platform do not change as a result of content being on a private platform, or private part of the platform, versus a public part.
There are three stages. There is public, there is private, and then there is private and encrypted, and therefore impossible even for the platform itself to see. But the responsibilities are the same in each of those cases. The bespoke technology, systems and processes, approaches and solutions may be different, but the responsibility remains.