Huo Raymond: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHuo Raymond: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15171. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I would like to start my contribution by congratulating the judges and legislators in the UK on their great leadership in developing both the case law and the statutory law to keep pace with the developments of the internet and online media. The UK High Court recently ruled that Sally Bercow did libel Lord McAlpine via Twitter and she has agreed to pay him damages. The court found that her statement on Twitter constituted a serious libel both in its natural meaning and as an innuendo. For the victims Lord McAlpine and his family the defamatory statement caused considerable unnecessary pain and suffering. The judgment is one of great public interest and it provides a warning to and guidance for people who use social media.In April this year the UK Parliament passed its Defamation Act 2013 which is likely to come into force early next year. The new legislation contains provisions that will reform the law of defamation particularly in relation to internet service providers and publishing on the internet. Probably the most important change for online content is in section 8 under which the new single publication rule replaces the longstanding multiple publication rule which was established in an 1849 case. In the modern world this centuries-old law has been interpreted recently by the courts to mean that each new hit on a web page constitutes a fresh publication and accordingly a new cause ofaction. The limitation period for defamation of 1 year therefore effectively refreshes on a rolling basis as long as the article remains online. As Labour’s associate spokesperson on justice I think it is reasonable for me to say that our legislation in respect of online publication and social media is lagging behind the reality and our legal regime is not robust enough.The introduction of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill is something positive for us to start with. The purpose of this bill is to mitigate the harm caused to individuals by digital communications and to provide victims with a quick and efficient means of redress. I am not quite sure how the bill would provide victims with a quick and efficient means of redress. It appears that the bill creates a new civil enforcement regime and also creates new criminal offences. Harmful digital communications—cyber-bullying and digital harassment—can take many forms such as communicating through emails text messages blog sites and social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The victims of harmful digital communications are often children and young people who are particularly vulnerable and who require appropriate protections. The victims of harmful digital communications include politicians and business people etc. as well.As part of the civil enforcement regime this bill sets out 10 new communication principles to guide the functions of the court and the approved agency. Again how will these principles enhance the means of redress? I look forward to the progress of this bill and also the input and submissions from the stakeholders. With regard to criminal offences the bill creates a new offence of posting a harmful digital communication with the intention to cause harm. So overall the enforcement regime as introduced is largely civil so there is a problem with cost—