Consultation outcome

Introducing personal liability on senior UK based executives of online companies which fail to take action to remove illegal content relating to the sale of knives and other offensive weapons from their platforms: equality impact assessment

Updated 24 April 2025

1. Name and outline of policy proposal, guidance, or operational activity

Title:

Introducing personal liability on senior UK based executives of online companies which fail to take action to remove illegal content relating to the sale of knives and other offensive weapons from their platforms.

Policy:

The tough sanctions for technology executives measure is a government manifesto commitment to personally hold to account executives of online companies that flout the laws regulating the online sale of knives. The measure will support the tightening of controls on online sales of knives and the Government’s mission on halving knife crime in a decade.

The sanctions regime will help to tackle the issue of the ‘grey market’ identified by the police. This is the phenomenon of private sellers who buy knives in bulk from legitimate knife sellers and resell them via social media, often to under-18s. These private sellers are marketing knives and other offensive weapons in ways which encourage violence or promotes their suitability for use in violent attacks. Some of these knives and weapons are eventually used attacks and homicides. The sanctions will provide the police with a mechanism to ensure companies remove illegal content which markets offensive weapons and knives in in ways which encourage violence or promotes their suitability for use in violent attacks. The measure complements the Online Safety Act and the codes of practice prepared by Ofcom.

Upon the identification of content illegally marketing prohibited weapons or knives, the police will have the power to issue Content Removal Notices to online platforms and a designated UK based executive of that company. These will require companies to take down specified illegal content relating to the sale of knives and other offensive weapons. The online company and appointed executive will be respectively liable for penalty notices of £60,000 and £10,000 if the company fails to remove the specified content (subject to various safeguards).

The Government ran a public consultation between 13 November and 11 December 2024. This was open to the public and targeted at the police, Crown Prosecution Service, online platforms and marketplaces, businesses, voluntary sector and community groups, retailers, and other organisations with a direct interest in the proposals.

The proposal: Personal liability measures on senior executives of online companies

• We intend to give the police the power to issue the online platforms and marketplaces with a Content Removal Notice setting out the details of the illegal sale and marketing of offensive weapons and knives and require the platform, marketplace, or search service to take down this specific content. The notice would relate to specific pieces of content which relates to section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and the Knives Act 1997^{[footnote 1]}.

• The measure will require online platforms, marketplaces, and search services to designate a UK based senior executive who would be responsible for the removal of the content identified within the notice. If the relevant company fails to designate a senior executive responsible, then it will be subject to a Civil Penalty Notice of £60,000.

• The Content Removal Notice would first be sent to the company concerned with the online platform or marketplace and they would be required to take down the specific illegal content within a specified time. This first notice would also be copied to the senior executive for their information. The notice will set out the name of the police force serving the notice, the name and rank of the officer who authorised the notice, the police station address, the name and address of the company and a description of the content that must be removed. The company would have 48 hours to either take down the content and confirm to the police that this has been done.

• If the platform or marketplace fail to remove the specific illegal content within 48 hours, then the police would serve a second Content Removal Notice. This would be sent to the relevant senior executive as well as the online company. It will also warn the relevant senior executive that they may be personally liable for a Civil Penalty Notice of £10,000. The relevant senior executive would then have to ensure that the platform takes the specific illegal content down within 48 hours.

• Should a company fail to comply with two Content Removal Notices, the police will then issue a Civil Penalty Notice, of £10,000, to the named UK executive.

• Should a company fail to comply with a request from the police to nominate a UK based executive, the police will have the power to issue the company with a Civil Penalty Notice of £60,000.

• Throughout this process, there opportunities for the company and named senior executive to request for the Content Removal Notice to be reviewed and for the Civil Penalty Notice to be challenged. These are:

  • The opportunity to request that police review whether the service or the content of the notice were defective in any way and whether content specified for removal is in fact illegal. An officer of the rank of Superintendent or above other than the one who issues the Content Removal Notice will have 48 hours to review the notice. During this time, the notice is still considered to be issued and valid, but the content does not need to be removed until the police have conducted the review and responded. The police will have 48 hours to provide a written outcome to the company. If the police stand by their original decision, then the company must remove the content within 48 hours of the response.

  • The opportunity for the designated senior executive to make representations to the police before they are issued with a Civil Penalty Notice. They would have 28 days from the issuing of the notice of intent to make representations with supporting evidence as to why they should not be issued with a Civil Penalty Notice. An officer if the rank of Superintendent or above must consider their representations ahead of issuing a Civil Penalty Notice.

  • The right for the designated executive to appeal to the county court when issued with a Content Removal Notice.

Policy objectives:

• The Government has committed to halving knife crime within the next decade as part of their plans to make streets safer. As of the year ending September 2024, the police recorded an increase in knife crime of violent offences by 4% compared with the previous year. There are now 55,008 offences recorded in the year to September 2024 compared with 52,969 offences recorded in the year to September 2023^{[footnote 2]}. As part of the measures being taken, the Government has committed to introduce tough sanctions for executives of online companies who flout the law on knives.

• In October 2025, the Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for Knife Crime, to conduct an end-to-end review into the sale of knives online. The now published review identified a number of recommendations to prevent knives being sold illegally online. .

• The Government has also committed to banning Ninja swords and will amend the relevant secondary legislation, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 to introduce this ban. This will mean that it will be an offence to manufacture, sell, hire, making offers for sale or hire, expose or having in one’s possession for the purpose of sale or hire, or lend to give to any other person or possesses a Ninja sword. The Government also consulted on banning Ninja swords in parallel to the consultation on this measure.

• The Government has also committed to introducing tougher age verification controls on the online sale and deliver of knives following the Southport case to prevent under-18s from being able to buy knives online.

2. Summary of the evidence considered in demonstrating due regard to the Public-Sector Equality Duty.

The duty

The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person in relation to a ‘protected characteristic’. The act lists ‘protected characteristics’ as:

• age

• disability

• gender reassignment

• marriage and civil partnership

• maternity and pregnancy

• race (which includes colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins)

• religion or belief (which includes an absence of religious belief)

• sex

• sexual orientation

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires public bodies, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;

• advance equality of opportunity between persons who share the relevant protected characteristic and person who do not share it; and

• foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

In order to assess the impact of this policy on people with protected characteristics, this document conducts assessments on the potential impact of the proposed legislation.

This Equality Impact Assessment is primarily predicated on desk research, extensively looking at the impacts that this policy may have on those with protected characteristics.

This desk research has not found any specific data on the make-up and characteristics of the executives of online companies. The only available data source which has been found of some relevance has been the Digital Sector Economic Estimates: Employment series which is published by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. These employment estimates provide an overview of those working in the Digital Sector and the UK overall and a measure of the number of jobs supported by industries within the Digital Sector, and of the characteristics of those filling these jobs by demographic group. The latest available data was Economic Estimates: Employment in the Digital Sector – January 2023 to December 2023 published by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology^{[footnote 3]}

The Government launched a consultation on “Knives and offensive weapons: personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms and marketplaces. The consultation commenced on 13 November and closed on 11 December 2024. The consultation asked for view on the Government’s overall approach and proposals for how the regime will function.

The consultation was open to the public and we also contacted over 150 stakeholders directly on the day of publication, inviting them to provide input and raised awareness of the consultation through the media, Parliament and various stakeholder groups. This did not lead to any additional information or data being supplied on the make-up and characteristics of the digital sector workforce and specifically about senior executives.

3a. Consideration of limb 1 of the duty: Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act.

Age

Direct discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any direct discrimination against a person based on age, as a result of this proposed policy.

Indirect discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any indirect discrimination against a person based on age, as a result of this proposed policy.

Disability

According to the Economic Estimates: Employment in the Digital Sector – January 2023 to December 2023 published by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology this indicates that the proportion of filled jobs held by disabled people in the Digital Sector was at 13.7% (approximately 256,000 filled jobs) compared to 17.0% of employment in the UK overall (approximately 5.7 million filled jobs). We have not been able to identify the proportion of disabled people who have executive level jobs within the digital sector. As a result, we have no evidence to suggest that the policy would discriminate against any person based on a disability^{[footnote 4]}. The Content Removal Notice would be served via email, but the police would require the online company to provide details on the reporting route into them and to the designated senior executive. We expect the online company to confirm to the police whether the designated senior executive required any adaptations or adjustments in how the police communicated the notice to them. There are also checks and balances within the system as the designated senior executive has the right to object to the issuing of Content Removal Notices as well as the right to make representation if the police propose to issue them with a Civil Penalty Notice. The police would need to ensure that that Content Removal Notice was properly served on the designated senior executive.

Direct discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any direct discrimination against a person based on a disability, as a result of this proposed policy.

Indirect discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any indirect discrimination against a person based on a disability, as a result of this proposed policy.

Gender reassignment

Direct discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any direct discrimination against a person based on the intention of or having undergone a gender reassignment, as a result of this proposed policy.

Indirect discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any indirect discrimination against a person based on the intention of or having undergone a gender reassignment, as a result of this proposed policy.

Marriage and civil partnership

Direct discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any direct discrimination against a person based on their marital or civil partnership status, as a result of this proposed policy.

Indirect discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any indirect discrimination against a person based on their marital or civil partnership status, as a result of this proposed policy.

Pregnancy and maternity

We expect the online company or designated senior executive to confirm to the police whether the designated senior executive is the appropriate person to take action to remove illegal content. For example, we expect the police to be notified if the name executive is unavailable for extended periods of time and another executive will need to be designated. Extended absences could be due to maternity leave or other time off related to pregnancy and maternity. There are also checks and balances within the system as the designated senior executive has the right to object to the issuing of Content Removal Notices as well as the right to make representation if the police propose to issue them with a Civil Penalty Notice. The police would need to ensure that that Content Removal Notice was properly served on the designated senior executive.

Direct discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any direct discrimination against a person based on being pregnant or being a new parent, as a result of this proposed policy.

Indirect discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any indirect discrimination against a person based on being pregnant or being a new parent, as a result of this proposed policy.

Race

According to the Economic Estimates: Employment in the Digital Sector – January 2023 to December 2023 published by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology this indicates that the proportion of filled jobs in the Digital Sector held by people in the Asian or Asian British ethnic group was 10.9% (approximately 207,000 filled jobs) compared to 7.9% for the UK overall (approximately 2.7 million filled jobs). The proportion of filled jobs in the Digital Sector held by people in the Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups was 2.5 % (approximately 47,000 filled jobs) compared to 1.6% in the UK overall (approximately 545,000 filled jobs).

The estimates also indicated that the proportion of filled jobs held by the White ethnic group was 81.6% (approximately 1.5 million filled jobs) compared to 85.0% in the UK overall (approximately 28.9 million filled jobs); whilst the proportion of filled jobs held by the Black, African, Caribbean or Black British ethnic group was 2.6% (approximately 50,000 filled jobs) compared to 3.5% in the UK overall (approximately 1.2 million filled jobs).

Direct discrimination

We have not been able to identify the proportion of people, based on race, who have executive level jobs within the digital sector. As a result, we have no evidence to suggest that the policy would discriminate against any person based on race.

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any direct discrimination against a person based on their race, as a result of this proposed policy.

Indirect discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any indirect discrimination against a person based on their race, as a result of this proposed policy.

As per the above, as many jobs in this field are disproportionately represented by people of white and Asian heritage, there may be some indirect discrimination. However, the consultation did not provide us with any additional data or information. There are checks and balances built into the measure as both the company and the designated senior executive would have the right to ask the police to review the Content Removal Notice. Content Removal Notices would only be issued where the police had identified illegal knife-related content. The senior executive would also have the right to make representations to the police if they notified that the police intended to issue them with a civil penalty notice for failing to comply. This process will be applied to any designated senior executive regardless of race.

Religion or belief

Direct discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any direct discrimination against a person based on their religion or beliefs, as a result of this proposed policy.

Indirect discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any indirect discrimination against a person based on their religion or beliefs, as a result of this proposed policy.

Sex

According to the Economic Estimates: Employment in the Digital Sector – January 2023 to December 2023 published by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology this indicates that in 2023, the proportion of filled jobs held by women in the Digital Sector was at 29.1% (approximately 550,000 filled jobs) compared to 47.9% in the UK overall (approximately 16.3 million filled jobs).

We have not been able to identify the gender of people who have executive level jobs within the digital sector. As a result, we have no evidence to suggest that the policy would discriminate against any person based on their sex^{[footnote 5]}. There checks and balances built into the measure through the right to review process in relation to the issuing of Content Removal Notices. Both the online company and the designated senior executive can ask the police to review the notice. The senior executive would also have the right to make representations to the police if they notified that the police intended to issue them with a civil penalty notice for failing to comply. This process will be applied to any designated senior executive regardless of sex.

Direct discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any direct discrimination against a person based on their sex, as a result of this proposed policy.

Indirect discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any indirect discrimination against a person based on their sex, as a result of this proposed policy.

As per the above, as more men than women occupy jobs in this field – there may be some indirect discrimination against men, however the consultation did not provide us with any data or information to confirm that there would be any indirect discrimination. As above the measure would have checks and balances within it through the right to review and appeals processes and this would be applied to any designated senior executives regardless of sex.

Sexual orientation

Direct discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any direct discrimination against a person based on their sexual orientation, as a result of this proposed policy.

Indirect discrimination

There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any indirect discrimination against a person based on their sexual orientation, as a result of this proposed policy.

3b. Consideration of limb 2: Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

Age

There is no evidence for people of a certain age to be disproportionately impacted by the policy to introduce personality liability measures on senior executives of online companies who fail to take action to remove illegal content related to offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives on their platforms and marketplaces, compared with people who may be either older or younger.

Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need for advancing equality between different age groups.

Disability

There is no evidence for people with disabilities to be disproportionately impacted by the policy to introduce personal liability measures on senior executives of online companies who fail to take action to remove the illegal content related to offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives on their platforms and marketplaces, compared with people who do not have any disabilities.

Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need for advancing equality between those who have a disability and those who do not.

Gender reassignment

There is no evidence for people who have undergone or are planning to undergo gender reassignment to be disproportionately impacted by the policy to introduce personal liability measures on senior executives of online companies who fail to take action to remove the illegal content related to offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of and prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives on their platforms and marketplaces, compared with people who have not or are not planning to undergo gender reassignment.

Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need for advancing equality between those who have or will undertake gender reassignment and those who have not and will not.

Marriage and civil partnership

There is no evidence for people in a marriage or civil partnership to be disproportionately impacted by the policy to introduce personal liability measures on senior executives of online companies who fail to take action to remove the illegal content related to offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives on their platforms and marketplaces, compared with people who are not in a marriage or civil partnership.

Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need for advancing equality between those who are in marriages or civil partnerships and those who are not.

Maternity and pregnancy

There is no evidence for people who are pregnant or new parents to be disproportionately impacted by the policy to introduce personal liability measures on senior executives of online companies who fail to take action to remove the illegal content related to offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives on their platforms and marketplaces, compared with people who are not pregnant or new parents.

Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need for advancing equality between those who are either pregnant or are parents and those are not.

Race

There is no evidence for people who are from ethnic minority groups to be disproportionately impacted by the policy to introduce personal liability measures on senior executives of online companies who fail to take action to remove the illegal content related to offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives on their platforms and marketplaces, compared with people who are not from an ethnic minority group.

Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need for advancing equality between people of different races.

Religion or belief

There is no evidence for people who follow a religion or a specific belief to be disproportionately impacted by the policy to introduce personal liability measures on senior executives of online companies who fail to take action to remove the illegal content related to offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives on their platforms and marketplaces, compared with people who do not follow a religion or follow a specific belief.

Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need for advancing equality between people of different faiths or beliefs.

Sex

There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed policy will disproportionately impact males more than females or vice versa. The policy aims are to ensure that online companies take swift action to remove illegal content related to the offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives, reinforced by introducing personal liability measures on senior executives where their companies fail to take action.

We, therefore, do not see there to be reason for an advancement of equality between males and females.

Sexual orientation

There is no evidence for people of a particular sexual orientation to be disproportionately impacted by the policy to introduce personal liability measures on senior executives where their companies fail to take action to remove illegal content related to the offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives, compared with people of another sexual orientation.

Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need for advancing equality between people of different sexual orientation.

3c. Consideration of limb 3: Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

Age

There is no evidence to suggest that introducing personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms and marketplaces who fail to action to remove illegal content related to the offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives will negatively impact community relations based on age. The consultation did not provide any additional data nor information.

We, therefore, do not see there to be reason to promote opportunities to foster good relations between people based on age.

Disability

There is no evidence to suggest that introducing personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms and marketplaces who fail to take action to remove illegal content related to the offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives will negatively impact community relations based on disability. The consultation did not provide any additional data nor information.

We, therefore, do not see there to be reason to promote opportunities to foster good relations between people based on disability.

Gender reassignment

There is no evidence to suggest that introducing personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms and marketplaces who fail to take action to remove illegal content related to the offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives will negatively impact community relations based on gender reassignment. The consultation did not provide any additional data nor information.

We, therefore, do not see there to be reason to promote opportunities to foster good relations between people based on gender reassignment.

Maternity and pregnancy

There is no evidence to suggest that introducing personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms and marketplaces who fail to action to remove illegal content related to the offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives will negatively impact community relations based on pregnancy or early parenthood. The consultation did not provide any additional data nor information.

We, therefore, do not see there to be reason to promote opportunities to foster good relations between people based on pregnancy or early parenthood.

Race

There is no evidence to suggest that introducing personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms and marketplaces who fail to remove illegal content related to the offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives will negatively impact community relations based on race. The consultation did not provide any additional data nor information.

We, therefore, do not see there to be reason to promote opportunities to foster good relations between people based on race.

Religion or belief

There is no evidence to suggest that introducing personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms and marketplaces who fail to take action to remove illegal content related to the offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives will negatively impact community relations based on religion or beliefs. The consultation did not provide any additional data nor information.

We, therefore, do not see there to be reason to promote opportunities to foster good relations between people based on religion or beliefs.

Sex

There is no evidence to suggest that introducing personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms and marketplaces who fail to take action to remove illegal content related to the offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives will negatively impact community relations based on sex. The consultation did not provide any additional data nor information.

We, therefore, do not see there to be reason to promote opportunities to foster good relations between people based on sex.

Sexual orientation

There is no evidence to suggest that introducing personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms and marketplaces who fail to take action to remove illegal content related to the offering for sale, hire, lending or donation of prohibited offensive weapons or illegal marketing of knives will negatively impact community relations based on sexual orientation. The consultation did not provide any additional data nor information.

We, therefore, do not see there to be reason to promote opportunities to foster good relations between people based on sexual orientation.

4. Summary of foreseeable impacts of policy proposal, guidance or operational activity on people who share protected characteristics

Protected characteristic group	Potential for positive or negative impact?	Explanation	Action to address negative impact
Age	No impact – see section 3	There is not enough evidence to suggest that one group will be disproportionately impacted over another based on age.	The consultation did not provide any further data or evidence to show any negative impact.
Disability	No impact – see section 3	There is not enough evidence to suggest that one group will be disproportionately impacted over another based on disability.	The Content Removal Notice would be served via email, but the police would require the online company to provide details on the reporting route into them and to the designated senior executive. We expect the online company to confirm to the police whether the designated senior executive required any adaptations or adjustments in how the police communicated the notice to them. There are also checks and balances within the system as the designated senior executive has the right to object to the issuing of Content Removal Notices as well as the right to make representation if the police propose to issue them with a Civil Penalty Notice. The police would need to ensure that that Content Removal Notice was properly served on the designated senior executive.
Gender Reassignment	No impact – see section 3	There is not enough evidence to suggest that one group will be disproportionately impacted over another based on gender reassignment.	The consultation did not provide any further data or evidence to show any negative impact.
Marriage and Civil Partnership	No impact – see section 3	There is not enough evidence to suggest that one group will be disproportionately impacted over another based on marital/civil partnership status.	The consultation did not provide any further data or evidence to show any negative impact.
Pregnancy and Maternity	No impact – see section 3	There is not enough evidence to suggest that one group will be disproportionately impacted over another based on pregnancy or maternity.	We expect the online company or designated senior executive to confirm to the police whether the designated senior executive is the appropriate person to take action to remove illegal content. For example, we expect the police to be notified if the name executive is unavailable for extended periods of time and another executive will need to be designated. Extended absences could be due to maternity leave or other time off related to pregnancy and maternity. There are also checks and balances within the system as the designated senior executive has the right to object to the issuing of Content Removal Notices as well as the right to make representation if the police propose to issue them with a Civil Penalty Notice. The police would need to ensure that that Content Removal Notice was properly served on the designated senior executive.
Race	No impact – see section 3	There is not enough evidence to suggest that one group will be disproportionately impacted over another based on race.	Given the representation of people of White and Asian heritage in the Digital sector workforce there could be the risk of #### Indirect discrimination. There are though checks and balances built into the measure as online companies and the designated senior executives would have the right to ask the police to review Content Removal Notices and senior executives would have the right to make representations to the police before any civil penalty notice was issued by the police for failing to comply. Any review would be carried out at Superintendent level or above. In addition, before any Content Removal Notice can be issued the police have to be satisfied that the content is illegal knife related content,
Religion or Belief	No impact – see section 3	There is not enough evidence to suggest that one group will be disproportionately impacted over another based on religion or belief.	The consultation did not provide any further data or evidence to show any negative impact.
Sex	No impact – see section 3	There is not enough evidence to suggest that one group will be disproportionately impacted over another based on sex.	More men than women occupy jobs in this sector then there could be the risk of #### Indirect discrimination. There are though checks and balances built into the measure as online companies and the designated senior executives would have the right to ask the police to review Content Removal Notices and senior executives would have the right to make representations to the police before any civil penalty notice was issued by the police for failing to comply. Any review would be carried out at Superintendent level or above. In addition, before any Content Removal Notice can be issued the police have to be satisfied that the content is illegal knife related content,
Sexual Orientation	No impact – see section 3	There is not enough evidence to suggest that one group will be disproportionately impacted over another based on sexual orientation.	The consultation did not provide any further data or evidence to show any negative impact.

5. In light of the overall policy objective, are there any ways to avoid or mitigate any of the negative impacts that you have identified above?

As stated above, there may be a risk of indirect discrimination against individuals with protected characteristics around race and sex given the general make-up of the Digital sector workforce. There are checks and balances within the measure to ensure that this is applied to all senior executives regardless of any protected characteristics. A right to review and appeals process has been built into the measure to ensure proportionality. The reviews would be undertaken by the police but at a senior level at Superintendent level or above.

6. Review date

We will keep the Equality Impact Assessment under review during the passage of the legislation in case any evidence or data comes to light on any impacts of the protected characteristics.

7. Declaration

I have read the available evidence, and I am satisfied that this demonstrates compliance, where relevant, with Section 149 of the Equality Act and that due regard has been made to the need to: eliminate unlawful discrimination; advance equality of opportunity; and foster good relations.

SCS sign off:

Name/Title: Nick Hunt, SCS1

Directorate/Unit: Crime Directorate/Firearms and Weapons Policy Unit

Lead contact: Simon Eglington

Date: xx February 2025

For monitoring purposes all completed EIA documents and updated EIAs must be sent to the PSED@homeoffice.gov.uk

Date sent to PSED Team: 19/12/2024

1. section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and a weapon listed in the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 (S.I 2019 of 1988), sections.1(1)(a) and (b) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and section 1 and 2 of the Knives Act 1997. ↩

2. Crime in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics ↩

3. Economic Estimates: Employment in the Digital Sector, April 2023 to March 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

4. Economic Estimates: Employment in the Digital Sector, January 2023 to December 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

5. Economic Estimates: Employment in the Digital Sector, January 2023 to December 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩