Public Inquiries
Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts(2Â weeks, 3Â days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that seeking justice should not and must not have an expiry date. The hearts of all of us across your Lordships’ House go out to them, and we extend our sympathy. I understand there have been ongoing discussions and that my noble friend Lord Coaker has met with some of the bereaved families, and I think that there are ongoing discussions within the MoD as well.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord is right in the sense that we think that it is really important that people understand when and why the Government would accept the need for a public inquiry. They are a really important way to investigate issues of concern, particularly around state failures, so that we learn lessons and that events do not happen again. As was reflected in the work of your Lordships’ House’s the Statutory Inquiries Committee, a public inquiry is not always necessarily going to provide the answers and resolution that people expect. One of the things that the Government are doing through the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, in particular through the duty of candour, is to make sure that, among the different types of reviews and inquiries, a statutory inquiry is not the one that has protected characteristics in relation to the responsibility of public servants to tell the truth. The Bill will extend the duty, and we hope this means that people will not necessarily see the need to have a full public inquiry to get answers.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister explain the way that people are chosen to sit on these various inquiries? The reason I ask this is that we had a Select Committee on obesity, which is very much a medical problem. Yet, although there were eight medical Peers available at the time, not one of them was asked to sit on the committee. Would the Minister look into ways of correcting that sort of anomaly, so that rather more balanced outcomes could be produced?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is generally a matter for the House, but I think that your Lordships’ House has noted the point.
Channel 4: Funding and Governance
Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts(5Â years, 3Â months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that I have often quoted both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Media and Data, who have both been absolutely clear about wanting to see a thriving PSB sector, which is particularly important in a time of misinformation and disinformation.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, what means are open to the public and the authorities to encourage Channel 4 to report the news in an accurate and unbiased way and thereby triumph over the present, frequently prejudiced environment of the media?
Baroness Barran (Con)
If my noble friend or any members of the public have concerns about the accuracy of any broadcaster, including Channel 4, they can send those concerns to Ofcom.
Office of Communications: Chair
Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts(5Â years, 6Â months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. Work is already starting within Ofcom to recruit the appropriate skills and experience that will be needed to deliver on the online safety regime, including the recent recruitment of a head of emerging technologies from Google.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister give the House any valid reasons why the committee wants the power of veto over such appointments?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am afraid I do not follow my noble friend’s question, so, if I may, I will write to him.
Online Harms Consultation
Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts(5Â years, 9Â months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s first point, I understand why she asks about it and we have given the matter careful consideration. Platforms will need to prove that children are not accessing their content by sharing any existing age verification or assurance information, by reviewing the data on their users. They will need to evidence that in a robust way to satisfy Ofcom. I shall take back the point regarding the Christchurch video. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State talked about how he valued the expertise of both Houses, so I hope that is a warm note regarding scrutiny.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
Because of its focus on user-generated content, it is quite clear that the online harms Bill greatly weakens the protection afforded to children in relation to assessing pornographic websites. This House determined that they should be provided through Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, mentioned. Who has pressed the Government not to implement Part 3? What should I tell a concerned father who contacted me this morning, saying, “The Government promised to protect children from pornographic websites, not just user-generated content on pornographic websites”?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand my noble friend’s concern but, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the vast majority of pornographic content that children come across is on social media rather than online pornography sites, and those online sites are often intertwined with user-generated content. So we are confident that the vast majority of content will not be accessible to children.
Charities: Funding
Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts(5Â years, 11Â months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand the noble Baroness’s concern, but the Government have already focused on prioritising charities. The £750 million support package that we announced in the spring was the first sector-specific support package that the Government announced. Since then, billions have gone to charities and social enterprises, principally through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. We have also been active, working with philanthropists, raising an extra £85 million recently for charities across the board.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree—and in her answers so far it would seem she does—that there are many honest, law-abiding citizens who wish their donations to charity to remain secret for perfectly legitimate reasons, not least of which is their wish to avoid boasting about their generosity?