Statutory transparency is important to give enough information to identify where problems arise and the need for an investigation and as a corollary the use of the information powers. We suggested a number of amendments to the draft Bill in this regard last year.

There are three aspects to transparency: what information should be given; by whom; and disclosed where. As regards the first, Schedule 8 listing the headings for public transparency reports now gives OFCOM the possibility of specifying “any other measures … which relate to online safety matters”, rather than a closed list as before. The obligations apply, however, only to Category 1, 2A and 2B – and we still do not know which providers will fall within these categories – and as a corollary which services fall outside. As a consequence, the extent of the limitation on transparency is unclear.

There is no requirement to publish risk assessments or actions relating to compliance with safety duties (with the exception of the impact assessments Category 1 providers must carry out in relation to freedom of expression and privacy of users) – even to OFCOM (though it can presumably ask for that information if it is investigating). So, while it might now have clearer powers of enforcement around deficient risk assessments, it is unclear how it will know that there is a problem. Presumably the transparency reports are envisaged as filling this gap.

While OFCOM must publish its own transparency reports, these will be based on the providers’ reports and seemingly therefore also not cover providers which are not obliged to report.

Transparency will be vital to civil society groups seeking to make informed and effective use of the super complaints mechanism. To what extent does this limitation affect their ability to do so?

The Government’s aspirations for the regime to be world leading would better be met by publication of risk assessments for high-risk companies. These would prove invaluable to regulators around the world seeking to contain online harms.