(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Baroness correctly identifies that sometimes our debate does not necessarily keep up with developments. One of the major protections we have in place is the Online Safety Act, which applies to online services that allow users to share content and interact with each other. As I have said in previous responses, the Government keep up to date with developments and keep all options under review.
My Lords, is it not the case that gamblers face bigger problems from offshore unregulated sites? What will the Government do to make sure that those are held accountable, given that there has been a massive growth in recent years on such sites?
My noble friend is referring to what we are doing to tackle the illegal market. As Members of your Lordships’ House will be aware, as part of the Budget the Treasury announced an increase for remote duty but at the same time increased funding to tackle the illegal market. We will be working with the licensed sector on how we increase enforcement—obviously, this will be led by the Gambling Commission—to make sure that we focus on tackling the illegal market, which is an element of the risk that people associate with online activity.
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberIt would be inappropriate for me to comment on any live merger case, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware. Under the Enterprise Act this is a quasi-judicial process, and it is for the DCMS Secretary of State alone to exercise her statutory powers, based on the evidence and following the established regulatory process. As for publication, I will write to the noble Lord to clarify the points he raises.
My Lords, do we not need to review the whole issue of ownership of newspapers in the UK? Bearing in mind that papers such as the Express and the Mail are nothing more than propaganda, do we not need some balance in a democracy, to make sure that people who are rich do not influence our politics too much?
My noble friend raises an interesting point. The ownership of our media is an interesting area. The tradition of having a broad church of opinions expressed through our media is important, and is one of the cornerstones of our democracy.
(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Lord makes many points that sound entirely reasonable. We are clear that we need serious investment in our media and we hope that the certainty that these SIs will provide, albeit with considerable protections around them, will enable media groups to obtain that investment.
My Lords, is it not the case that a lot of our media and our press are controlled by the right wing? Do we not need a regulator that will start to protect the public from the propaganda that we see from the right-wing press on a daily basis?
I would find it very difficult to disagree with my noble friend.
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberOn the business rates question, I will throw back to the noble Lord this Government’s fiscal inheritance. We recognise that grass-roots venues have faced a challenging set of circumstances in recent years, and that is why we are committed to working with industry to maximise the uptake and impact of the voluntary ticket levy.
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Lord gives a powerful example of the valuable work that charities undertake. It is hugely difficult for this Government to find ways of filling the £22 billion black hole. The Charities Minister has met representatives and we are keen to work with and hear from individual charities where they have concerns, so if the noble Lord has specific examples that he would like to share with me, I ask him to get in touch.
My Lords, has the Minister received an apology from the Opposition for crashing the economy, driving public services to the worst state they have ever been in and for not coming forward with any solutions as to how we can address these problems? They left us to make difficult decisions that we do not want to make, but it is their mess.
My noble friend makes an important point. I have not personally received an apology. I would not necessarily expect such an apology to come to me; I would expect it to be made to the nation.
The noble Baroness raises a really interesting point. It goes some way from the original Question so I will be honest and say, rather than answering it on the hoof, that I would be very happy to sit down with her and talk through the issue that she raises in more detail.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the rules for what was permitted to be put out on social media were written before it was controlled by two billionaires, who seem to be determined not to have any fact checking in their processes? Can the Minister assure us that when we are drawing up and making our rules, we make sure that people are not allowed to put things out on social media that have not been fact checked?
As my noble friend the Leader of the House said yesterday, the new approach taken by Meta, which I think my noble friend Lord Watts refers to, relates to the United States and not Europe, where fact checking will remain. As my noble friend said, all platforms will want to ensure that their information is as accurate as possible. I know that noble Lords across the House will agree with that point.
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, it seems to me that it would be good for the Opposition to visit Germany, where there is a great relationship between trade unions and employers and the productivity rate is much higher, and compare it with the failed policy of the last Government.