Action on child sexual exploitation/abuse material delayed by IT failure
Welcome
It’s time for another update from my work in Parliament. This time the consequences of a government IT project not being ready in time, more government stonewalling over its use of X and another example of just how slowly regulation often moves.
IT problems hit plans to tackle child sexual abuse material
The Online Safety (CSEA Content Reporting by Regulated User-to-User Service Providers) (Revocation) Regulations 2025 may sound like a rather dry, technical matter.
But the basic story is that action to improve the reporting of child sexual exploitation/abuse material is being delayed because the necessary IT system is not ready.
If the system isn’t ready, such a delay may be regrettable but also necessary.
However, it is odd - and unsatisfactory - that, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (on which I sit), said:
We note a striking contrast between the EM [Explanatory Memorandum] for the instrument that was intended to implement the new system, which promoted its benefits, and the EM for these Regulations that downplays the impact of the delay. The two sets of arguments cannot both be correct…
We asked for more details on the progress of the project and its current estimated cost relative to the original budget. … On cost, the Home Office said only that “the cost of the project for financial years 2022/23 through to 2024/25 stands at just over £15 million”. However, regrettably, the Home Office did not provide the original budget, and we note that the £15 million excludes any expenditure in the current financial year and into 2026/27.
Going over the top in trying to talk down the impact of the delay, while also refusing to be clear about the financial costs? That hardly inspires confidence.
More stalling from the government over its use of X
My questions to the government about its continued focus on using Elon Musk’s X continue to be stonewalled.
Here are the latest pair of answers:
I feel some Freedom of Information requests coming on…
More slow moving regulation
I’ve written before about slow moving regulation:
The debates in politics, media, academia and the think tank world are about more or less regulation. While what I see close up now in Parliament is a big question about the speed, the horribly lethargic sluggishness, of regulation.
We hear lots about how the government is going to deliver ‘at pace’ or how AI is going to speed up the state. But we don’t hear about the snail’s pace of regulation making.
Here is another example of this regulatory lethargy. The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025 are welcome. They will increase the compensation payments made to people with this type of cancer.
Except that a review of compensation payments was committed to in 2013-14 and is only now implemented in 2025, over a decade on.
One bit of good news though. The government has now committed to reviewing the figures every two years.
I do though wonder about the value of having to manually review these figures every few years rather than - as we do with some other financial limits, allowances etc. - having an uprating formula that is applied by default as inflation eats away at their nominal value.
More on this to come I am sure as more Statutory Instruments hit my inbox.
Previous editions included…
From my other newsletters…
Thank you
I hope you enjoyed reading this, and if you did please do encourage others to read it too:
Best wishes,
Mark
My privacy policy and other legal information are available here. Links to purchase books online are usually affiliate links which pay a commission for each sale.
Quotes from social media messages are occasionally lightly edited for punctuation and clarity.
If you are subscribed to other email lists of mine, please note that unsubscribing from this one won’t automatically remove you from the others. If you wish to be removed from all my lists, simply reply to this email to let me know.
You and I both perturbed by the government and Ofcom's absence from action on X. The algorithms are playing subliminal games and dancing right wing tweets then evapirating them and removing things if like to comment on from view. That's political interference not social media.
Your concern about regular review of medical payments generally may be an opportunity to suggest taking account of inflation always, but making the reviews about medical advances: holding everyone to account, on treatment cost falling and access being passed on.