Dame Diana Johnson
MP for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham · Labour · United Kingdom
“Longer-term funding is subject to future spending reviews. The Department and NHS England are committed to prioritising funding for sepsis in future spending bids. The framework is a 10-year plan. I do not pretend that we will deliver everything overnight, but it sets clear targets to reduce deaths by a quarter over the next 10 years.”
“It is not acceptable that when someone has been through the worst experience of their life, they are just left to get on with it. That is why we are committed to improving access to post-discharge support and rehabilitation, with priority actions set out in the framework.”
“I encourage everyone who has not yet come forward to do so, and to ensure that they obtain both doses of the vaccine for proper protection. The framework commits to improving vaccine access. The shadow Minister put a number of questions to me. I will respond in writing, as I am conscious of the time.”
“No one knows a child better than his or her parents or carers, which is why listening to patients, carers and families is vital to supporting sepsis recognition and escalation. Too many cases have shown the devastating consequences when deterioration concerns are not heard.”
“During Sepsis Awareness Month, I pay tribute to the charities, such as the UK Sepsis Trust and Sepsis Research FEAT, that do so much to support families, raise awareness and fund research.”
“That will include research calls that cover sepsis improvement priorities, whether it is vaccination and screening, faster and more accurate diagnosis or innovative treatments. It is true that the most recent data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that sepsis deaths went down in 2024.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,801 lines we hold for Dame Diana Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 97.
“Should online companies not have an executive who meets the criteria to be designated as their content manager, they will have the opportunity to inform the police as such. Prior to the issuing of a civil penalty notice, the company and the content manager will have the opportunity to make representations to the police. Finally, penalty notices may of course be challenged in the courts. I fully expect online companies to act responsibly and take down harmful illegal content when made aware of it. The measures will be used in the rare cases where reckless companies choose to continue hosting such content. Taken together, this is a comprehensive package of measures that will further help to restrict the supply of weapons, particularly to children, and to keep our communities safe. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.”
“The notices will require them to take down specified illegal content relating to knives or offensive weapons. If the specified content is not taken down within 48 hours, the company and an executive designated as their content manager would be liable to civil penalty notices of up to £60,000 and £10,000 respectively. Additionally, should a company fail to designate an appropriate UK-based executive when required to do so by the police, it would be liable for a civil penalty notice of up to £60,000. These measures provide important safeguards. Both online companies and their designated executives will have the opportunity to request that the content removal notice be reviewed. The police must comply with such requests.”
“Commander Clayman’s review set out the extent of the problem related to the online sale of knives and offensive weapons, particularly where it relates to knives illegally being made available to young people. That report recommended that social media platforms be required to remove such prohibited material within 48 hours of police notification. These new clauses deliver on that recommendation. The Home Office consulted widely on these measures. We engaged directly with tech companies and also held a public consultation. Tech companies and associations, charities, councils and members of the public responded to the consultation, and our response to that was published recently. Collectively, the new clauses will grant the police the power to issue content removal notices to online marketplaces, social media platforms and search engines.”
“Government new clauses 72 to 86 and new schedule 1 introduce civil penalties for online companies and their senior managers should they fail to take down illegal knife and offensive weapons content when notified of it by the police. Knives and weapons that are illegally marketed to encourage violence or to promote their suitability for use in violent attacks are commonly sold online and then used in senseless attacks. We know that the boys who murdered Ronan Kanda did so using weapons that had been illegally sold online. Many of those types of knives are marketed on social media and other platforms, meaning that those companies indirectly profit from their sale.”
“These new clauses on bulk and suspicious sales come directly from the police—from Commander Clayman’s report and his concern about the grey market. The police clearly believe that these new measures are necessary for them to use this intelligence to tackle our problems with knife crime. Obviously, that fits with the Government’s manifesto commitment to halve knife crime over the next 10 years. That information and intelligence will be sent to a central unit in the first instance. We will provide guidance to the police on the use of that information. We expect that the information that is not connected to other relevant intelligence linking it to criminality will be deleted and not subject to further investigation. I turn now to the sanctions on online executives.”
“To be clear, if the person who is delivering the package has taken all steps to make sure that they have checked the information that is being provided and the identification document, and they are acting reasonably, that is a defence, but there will be a need for training and for people to know what their legal obligations are, particularly when they are delivering, because we know that has been a particular issue. The engagement, particularly with tech executives, that I talked about has also happened with courier firms and delivery businesses, and will continue. I want to go back to the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised about identity checks, just so everybody is clear.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for the general tone of his response on this group of Government new clauses, which come directly from the review that Commander Clayman set out, as well the manifesto commitment we made, particularly around tech executives and holding them to account. There has been a great deal of consultation, particularly around the tech executives, how it would work and engagement with tech companies. I take the shadow Minister’s point about smaller platforms, but there has been that engagement. On the issue around training and enforcement in terms of the new clauses relating to sale and delivery, it is clear that all courier and delivery companies will have to ensure that their staff are trained on these new legal requirements.”
“Gentleman’s mind, but at the moment those are the two documents, and we would expect them to be examined by a delivery driver or courier when the items are delivered.”
“Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I wanted to make it clear that the documents that are being talked about in relation to proving identity are passports and driving licences. I take the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised with me in his intervention, but those are the two documents that will be looked at and provided. We will want to make sure that this works, and in the future, other documents may well need to be added to that list. However, just to be clear, it is those two documents. As I have also said, we would expect that a person who is delivering would look at those documents. I do not really want to get into how those documents can be forged, because that is obviously an issue that is on the hon.”
“(a) On conviction in England and Wales: the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 2 years or a fine or both.’” —(Alex Davies-Jones.) This new clause creates new offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling with penalties corresponding to the penalties applicable to the existing offences for causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving. It also extends the existing offences of dangerous, and careless or inconsiderate, cycling so as to apply to cycling that takes place on public places that are not roads. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“RTA section 27B Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling. (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. (a) On conviction in England and Wales: the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 5 years or a fine or both.’ (9) After the entry relating to ‘RTA section 28’ insert in columns 1 to 4— ‘RTA section 28B Causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. (a) On conviction in England and Wales: the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 5 years or a fine or both. RTA section 28C Causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment.”
“(3) In determining what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard is to be had both to— (a) the circumstances of which the person could be expected to be aware (taking account of, if relevant to the case, the age of the accused), and (b) the circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused. (4) A person (A) is to be regarded as cycling without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by A’s cycling.’ (7) The table in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences) is amended as follows. (8) After the entry relating to ‘RTA section 27’ insert in columns 1 to 4— ‘RTA section 27A Causing death by dangerous cycling. On indictment. Imprisonment for life.”
“(2) In this section ‘serious injury’ means— (a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and (b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.’ (5) In section 29 (careless, and inconsiderate, cycling)— (a) after ‘a road’ insert ‘or other public place’; (b) after ‘the road’ insert ‘or place’. (6) After section 29 insert— ‘29A Meaning of careless, or inconsiderate, cycling (1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 28B, 28C and 29. (2) A person is to be regarded as cycling without due care and attention if (and only if) the way the person cycles falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist.”
“(7) References in this section to something being “dangerous” are references to it resulting in danger of— (a) injury to any person, or (b) serious damage to property. 28B Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence. 28C Causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling (1) A person who causes serious injury to another person by riding a cycle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence.”
“(5) In determining the state of a cycle for the purposes of subsection (4), regard may be had (among other things) to— (a) whether the cycle is equipped and maintained in accordance with regulations under section 81 (regulation of brakes, bells etc, on pedal cycles); (b) anything attached to or carried on the cycle and the manner in which it is attached or carried. (6) In determining what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard is to be had both to— (a) the circumstances of which the person could be expected to be aware (taking account of, if relevant to the case, the age of the accused), and (b) the circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”
“(4) After section 28 insert— ‘28A Meaning of “dangerous cycling” (1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 27A, 27B and 28. (2) A person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if) the condition in subsection (3) or (4) is met. (3) The condition in this subsection is met if— (a) the way that the person rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous. (4) The condition in this subsection is met if it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding the cycle in its current state would be dangerous.”
“(2) Before section 28 (dangerous cycling) insert— ‘27A Causing death by dangerous cycling A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence. 27B Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling (1) A person who causes serious injury to another person by riding a cycle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence. (2) In this section “serious injury” means— (a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and (b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.’ (3) In section 28— (a) in subsection (1) for ‘on a road dangerously’ substitute ‘dangerously on a road or other public place’; (b) omit subsections (2) and (3).”
“(3) The following provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023 apply for the purposes of this Chapter as they apply for the purposes of that Act— (a) section 226 (determining who is the provider of a particular user-to-user service or search service); (b) section 236(5) and (6) (references to content being present).”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause contains definitions of terms used in the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 87 Dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling “(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).”
“(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, a reference to ‘removing’ content— (a) in relation to content present on a relevant user-to-user service, is a reference to any action that results in the content being removed from the service, or being permanently hidden, so users of the service in any part of the United Kingdom in which the content is unlawful weapons content cannot encounter it; (b) in relation to content which may be encountered in or via search results of a relevant search service, is a reference to taking measures designed to secure, so far as possible, that the content is no longer included in the search content of the service that is available in any part of the United Kingdom in which the content is unlawful weapons content; and related expressions are to be read accordingly.”
“New Clause 86 Interpretation of Chapter “(1) In this Chapter— ‘appointment notice’ has the meaning given by section ( Notice requiring appointment of content manager )(1); ‘authorised officer’ in relation to a content removal notice, means the member of a relevant police force, or officer of the National Crime Agency, who gave the notice; ‘chief officer’— (a) in relation to a police force in England and Wales, means the chief officer of police of the force; (b) in relation to any other relevant police force, means the chief constable of that force; ‘contact details’, in relation to an individual, means the individual’s— (a) full name; (b) telephone number; (c) email address; (d) residential address, or other service address, in the United Kingdom; ‘content’ has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 236(1) of that Act); ‘content manager’, in relation to a service provider, means the individual for the time being appointed as the content manager of the provider (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section ( Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances ) or ( Replacement of content manager )); ‘content removal notice’ has the meaning given by section ( Content removal notices )(4); ‘coordinating officer’ means the individual designated as such under section ( Coordinating officer )(1); ‘decision notice’ means a notice given under section ( Content removal notices: review )(7); ‘encounter’, in relation to content, has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 236(1) of that Act); ‘entity’ has the same meaning as in that Act (see section 236(1) of that Act); ‘initial 48-hour period’, in relation to a content removal notice, means the 48-hour period specified in the notice as mentioned in section ( Content removal notices )(5)(c); ‘issuing force’— (a) in relation to a content removal notice given by a member of a relevant police force, means that force; (b) in relation to a content removal notice given by a National Crime Agency officer, means the National Crime Agency; ‘relevant police force’— (a) in relation to England and Wales, means— (i) a police force in England and Wales, or (ii) the Ministry of Defence Police; (b) in relation to Scotland, means— (i) the Police Service of Scotland, or (ii) the Ministry of Defence Police; (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, means— (i) the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or (ii) the Ministry of Defence Police; ‘relevant search service’ and ‘relevant user-to-user service’ have the meanings given by section ( ‘ Relevant user-to-user services ’ , ‘ relevant search services ’ and ‘ service providers ’ ); ‘required information’ has the meaning given by section ( Notice requiring appointment of content manager )(3); ‘review notice’ has the meaning given by section ( Content removal notices: review )(2)(a); ‘search content’ and ‘search results’ have the meanings given by section 57 of the Online Safety Act 2023; ‘senior authorised officer’, in relation to a relevant police force, means— (a) the chief officer of the relevant police force, or (b) a member of the relevant police force of at least the rank of inspector authorised for the purposes of this Chapter by the chief officer; ‘senior authorised officer’, in relation to the National Crime Agency, means— (a) the Director General of the National Crime Agency, or (b) an officer of the Agency who— (i) holds a position in the Agency the seniority of which is at least equivalent to that of the rank of inspector in a relevant police force, and (ii) is authorised for the purposes of this Chapter by the Director General; ‘service address’ has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see section 1141 of the Companies Act 2006); ‘service provider’ has the meaning given by section ( ‘ Relevant user-to-user services ’ , ‘ relevant search services ’ and ‘ service providers ’ ).”
“(8) In the case of an entity registered or carrying on business outside the United Kingdom, or with offices outside the United Kingdom, the reference in subsection (7), in the definition of ‘proper address’, to the entity’s principal office includes— (a) its principal office in the United Kingdom, or (b) if the entity has no office in the United Kingdom, any place in the United Kingdom at which the person giving the notice believes, on reasonable grounds, that the notice will come to the attention of any director or other officer of that entity.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause makes provision about the ways in which a notice can be given, and the time at which a notice is to be treated as given, under the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”
“(7) In this section— ‘director’ includes any person occupying the position of a director, by whatever name called; ‘email address’, in relation to a person, means— (a) an email address provided by that person for the purposes of this Chapter, or (b) any email address published for the time being by that person as an address for contacting that person; ‘officer’, in relation to an entity, includes a director, a manager, a partner, the secretary or, where the affairs of the entity are managed by its members, a member; ‘proper address’ means— (a) in the case of an entity, the address of the entity’s registered office or principal office; (b) in any other case, the person’s last known address; ‘working day’ means any day other than— (a) a Saturday or Sunday, or (b) a day that is a bank holiday in any part of the United Kingdom under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.”
“(2) A notice may be given to a person by— (a) delivering it by hand to the person, (b) leaving it at the person’s proper address, (c) sending it by post to the person at that address, or (d) sending it by email to the person’s email address. (3) A notice to a body corporate may be given to any officer of that body. (4) A notice to a partnership may be given to any partner or to a person who has the control or management of the partnership business. (5) A notice sent by first class post to an address in the United Kingdom, is treated as given at noon on the second working day after the day of posting, unless the contrary is proved. (6) A notice sent by email is treated as given at the time it is sent unless the contrary is proved.”
“(3) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section. (4) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance or revisions issued under this section. (5) A person mentioned in subsection (2) must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising a function under this Chapter.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause confers power on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police and the National Crime Agency about the exercise of their functions under the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 85 Notices “(1) This section applies in relation to any notice that must or may be given to a person under this Chapter.”
“(7) See Schedule ( Civil penalties for service providers and content managers ) for further provision in connection with penalty notices given under this section.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause confers a power on the police or NCA to impose a monetary penalty of up to £60,000 on a service provider or up to £10,000 on a content manager if they have failed to comply with a content removal notice or a decision notice. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 84 Guidance “(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the persons mentioned in subsection (2) about the exercise of their functions under this Chapter. (2) The persons are— (a) the chief officer, and any other member, of a relevant police force; (b) the Director General of the National Crime Agency and any other officer of the Agency.”
“(5) In this section a ‘penalty notice’ means a notice requiring its recipient to pay a penalty— (a) where the recipient is a service provider, of an amount not exceeding £60,000; (b) where the recipient is a service provider’s content manager, of an amount not exceeding £10,000. (6) In order to take account of changes in the value of money the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for a sum for the time being specified in subsection (5).”
“(3) Subsection (4) applies where, following a review or reviews under section ( Content removal notices: review )— (a) a decision notice has been given to the service provider or to both the provider and the provider’s content manager in accordance with section ( Decision notices requiring removal of unlawful weapons content )(2) or (3) confirming the decision to give the content removal notice, and (b) the period specified in the decision notice under subsection (4) of that section has expired without that notice having been complied with. (4) A senior authorised officer of the issuing force may give a penalty notice— (a) to the service provider, or (b) if the provider’s content manager also received the decision notice, to the content manager or to both of them.”
“New Clause 83 Failure to comply with content removal notice or decision notice: civil penalties “(1) Subsection (2) applies where— (a) a content removal notice has been given to a service provider, or to both a service provider and the provider’s content manager, in accordance with section ( Content removal notices ), and (b) the initial 48-hour period has expired without the notice having been complied with or a review notice having been given. (2) A senior authorised officer of the issuing force may give a penalty notice— (a) to the service provider, or (b) if the provider’s content manager also received the content removal notice, to the content manager or to both of them.”
“(5) In this section, ‘reviewing officer’ has the same meaning as in section ( Content removal notices: review ).”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause provides for the police or NCA, following a review under NC81 which confirms (in full or in part) the decision to give a content removal notice, to give the service provider or content manager a decision notice requiring the removal of the unlawful weapons content concerned. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”
“(4) A decision notice within subsection (2) or (3) must specify the period before the end of which the notice must be complied with, and that period must be whichever of the following is the longest— (a) the period of 24 hours beginning with the time the decision notice is given; (b) the period— (i) beginning with the time the review notice or, if there was more than one, the first review notice, was given under section ( Content removal notices: review ), and (ii) ending with the end of the initial 48-hour period.”
“(3) If the officer confirms the decision to give the content removal notice but in relation to only some of the content to which it relates, the decision notice must— (a) identify the content to which the confirmation relates (the ‘confirmed content’), and (b) require its recipient to secure that— (i) the confirmed content is removed, and (ii) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer.”
“New Clause 82 Decision notices requiring removal of unlawful weapons content “(1) This section applies where the reviewing officer— (a) has carried out a review or reviews under section ( Content removal notices: review ), and (b) confirms the decision to give the content removal notice to the service provider, the provider’s content manager or both of them (in each case whether as mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b) of that section). (2) If the reviewing officer confirms in full the decision to give the content removal notice, the decision notice must require its recipient to secure that— (a) the content to which the content removal notice relates is removed, and (b) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer.”
“(7) The reviewing officer must give each recipient a notice (a ‘decision notice’)— (a) setting out the outcome of the review or reviews, and (b) giving reasons.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause makes provision for the police or the NCA to review the decision to give a service provider or their content manager a content removal notice under NC80 where the recipient of the notice requests a review. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”
“(4) On receipt of a review notice, a review of the decision to give the content removal notice must be carried out— (a) if the authorised officer is a member of a relevant police force, by another member of that force who is of a higher rank; (b) if the authorised officer is a National Crime Agency officer, by another officer who holds a more senior position in the Agency. The individual carrying out the review is referred to in this section as ‘the reviewing officer’. (6) On completing the review or (in a case where two review notices are given) both reviews the reviewing officer must, in respect of each recipient, either— (a) confirm in full the decision to give the content removal notice, (b) confirm the decision to give the notice, but in relation to only some of the content to which it relates, or (c) withdraw the notice.”
“(3) The grounds on which a recipient may request a review include, in particular, that— (a) content to which the notice relates is not unlawful weapons content; (b) content to which the notice relates is insufficiently identified for the recipient to be able to take the action required by the notice; (c) the provider that received the notice is not, in fact, the provider of the relevant user-to-user service or relevant search service to which the notice relates; (d) the individual who received the notice as the service provider’s content manager is not, in fact, that provider’s content manager; (e) the notice was otherwise not given in accordance with this Chapter.”
“Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 81 Content removal notices: review “(1) A person who is given a content removal notice (a ‘recipient’) may, before the end of the initial 48-hour period, request a review of the decision to give the notice. (2) A request under subsection (1) is to be made by the recipient giving— (a) a notice (a ‘review notice’) to the authorised officer, and (b) a copy of the review notice to the other recipient (if applicable).”
“(7) In this section— ‘authorised officer’ means— (a) a member of a relevant police force who is authorised for the purposes of this section by the chief officer of the force, or (b) a National Crime Agency officer who is authorised for the purposes of this section by the Director General of the National Crime Agency; ‘relevant part of the United Kingdom’ means— (a) where the authorised officer is a member of a relevant police force in England and Wales, England and Wales; (b) where the authorised officer is a member of the Police Service of Scotland, Scotland; (c) where the authorised officer is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland; (d) where the authorised officer is a member of the Ministry of Defence Police or a National Crime Agency officer, any part of the United Kingdom.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause confers power on the police or an officer of the National Crime Agency to give a service provider and (if there is one) the provider’s content manager a notice requiring them to remove unlawful weapons content from the services they provide.”
“(6) The authorised officer may withdraw a content removal notice from a recipient by notifying the recipient to that effect (but withdrawal of a notice does not prevent a further content removal notice from being given under this section, whether or not in relation to the same content as the withdrawn notice).”
“(5) A content removal notice must— (a) identify the content to which it relates; (b) explain the authorised officer’s reasons for considering that the content is unlawful weapons content in the relevant part (or parts) of the United Kingdom; (c) explain that the notice must be complied with before the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time the notice is given; (d) explain that each recipient has the right to request a review of the decision to give the notice and how a request is to be made (see section ( Content removal notices: review )); (e) set out the potential consequences of failure to comply with the notice; (f) contain the authorised officer’s contact details; (g) be in such form, and contain such further information, as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.”
“(2) The authorised officer may give a content removal notice to— (a) the provider of the relevant user-to-user service, or (b) the provider of the relevant search service. (3) If the authorised officer gives a content removal notice to a service provider in a case where the coordinating officer has the contact details of the provider’s content manager, the authorised officer may also give the notice to that manager. (4) A content removal notice is a notice requiring the service provider and (if applicable) the provider’s content manager (each a ‘recipient’) to secure that— (a) the content to which it relates is removed (see section ( Interpretation of Chapter )(2)), and (b) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer.”
“24) (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc certain knives), (b) an offence within subsection (1)(b), or (c) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of Northern Ireland.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause defines “unlawful weapons content” for the purposes of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory note for NC72. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 80 Content removal notices “(1) This section applies where an authorised officer is satisfied that content— (a) present on a relevant user-to-user service, or (b) which may be encountered in or via search results of a relevant search service; is unlawful weapons content in a relevant part of the United Kingdom.”
“(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in Scotland if it is content that constitutes— (a) an offence within subsection (1)(a) or (b), or (b) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of Scotland. (3) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in Northern Ireland if it is content that constitutes— (a) an offence under Article 53 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160) (N.I.”
“New Clause 79 Unlawful weapons content “(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in England and Wales if it is content that constitutes— (a) an offence under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc a dangerous weapon), (b) an offence under section 1 or 2 of the Knives Act 1997 (marketing of knives as suitable for combat etc and related publications), or (c) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of England and Wales (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc an offensive weapon).”
“(2) The coordinating officer may give the service provider a notice (a ‘penalty notice’) requiring the provider to pay a penalty of an amount not exceeding £60,000. (3) In order to take account of changes in the value of money the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (2). (4) Schedule ( Civil penalties for service providers and content managers ) makes further provision in connection with penalty notices given under this Chapter.” — (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause confers a power on the coordinating officer to impose a monetary penalty of up to £60,000 on a service provider that fails to comply with various requirements imposed by an appointment notice or under NC75, NC76 and NC77. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”
“New Clause 78 Failure to comply with content manager requirements: civil penalty “(1) This section applies if the coordinating officer has given a service provider an appointment notice and— (a) the period specified in the notice as mentioned in ( Notice requiring appointment of content manager )(4)(a) has expired without the provider having complied with the notice, (b) the provider has failed to comply with a requirement under section ( Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances ), ( Replacement of content manager ) or ( Duty to notify changes in required information ), (c) the provider, in purported compliance with a requirement to provide, or give notice of a change in, required information (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section ( Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances )(2)(b), ( Replacement of content manager ) or ( Duty to notify changes in required information )(2)) makes a statement that is false in a material particular, or (d) the provider makes a statement that is false in giving the confirmation mentioned in section ( Notice requiring appointment of content manager )(1)(a)(ii) or ( Replacement of content manager )(5)(b).”
“(4) The notice must be given before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the change occurred.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause requires a service provider that has given the coordinating officer required information (as defined in NC74) to inform the officer of any changes in that information. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”
“Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 77 Duty to notify changes in required information “(1) This section applies where a service provider has, in accordance with an appointment notice or under section ( Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances )(2)(b) or ( Replacement of content manager )(5)(a)(ii)provided the coordinating officer with required information. (2) The service provider must give notice to the coordinating officer of any change in the required information. (3) The notice must specify the date on which the change occurred.”
“(5) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which an appointment ceases to have effect under subsection (4)— (a) either— (i) appoint another individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2) as the provider’s content manager for the purposes of this Chapter, and (ii) provide the coordinating officer with the new content manager’s contact details, or (b) if there is no longer such an individual, confirm that is the case to the coordinating officer.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This new clause makes provision for the appointment by a service provider of a replacement content manager, including in a case where the original content manager ceases to meet the appointment conditions (and so that appointment ceases to have effect).”
“(4) If the individual appointed as a service provider’s content manager ceases to meet any of the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2), the appointment ceases to have effect.”
“New Clause 76 Replacement of content manager “(1) This section applies where a service provider has appointed an individual as the provider’s content manager (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances) or this section). (2) The service provider may replace the provider’s content manager by appointing another individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2) as the provider’s new content manager for the purposes of this Chapter. (3) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which an appointment is made under subsection (2), provide the coordinating officer with the new content manager’s contact details.”