Local Authorities: Tourism

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Barran

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I fear that I may have to consult my colleague in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government about houses in multiple occupation. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that Birmingham is rather far from the sea but could we return to those sunny shores? In the discussions referred to by my noble friend on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, we received from the then Minister, now the Chief Whip, the assurance that Birmingham City Council was undertaking detailed work and taking expert advice on various options for revenue-raising to offset the costs of the Games, including the use of existing powers on the introduction of a new tax such as a hotel tax. He went on to say that:

“Her Majesty’s Treasury await the conclusion of that analysis and stand ready to look at the details of any proposals put forward by the council”.—[Official Report, 24/7/19; cols. 784-85.]


That does not seem to square with what the noble Baroness said. Is that still the Government’s position? Further, when will we hear the results of those discussions?

[Baroness Barran]

The Government’s position is that we are still in discussions. I understand that my honourable friend the Minister for Sport has been in discussions with Birmingham City Council very recently and that those conversations are continuing. As we said originally, we will review its suggestions.

Online Pornography: Age Verification

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Barran

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the House will be aware of my long-standing view that it is wrong in principle for the Government to require private companies, such as the BBFC, to carry out statutory functions. We had considerable reservations about the original approach taken by the Government in the Digital Economy Act, with its reliance on age verification as a surrogate for requiring companies to do much more to protect children and other vulnerable people online, but we support the duty of care approach set out in the recent White Paper.

However, yesterday’s announcement will undoubtedly mean that children will be exposed to unsuitable material for two or three years more than originally planned. This is shocking. A few months ago, we were told that the delays were due to an “administrative oversight”. Is that still the reason that the Government use? When will the report on that incident be made available?

[Baroness Barran]

I am glad that the noble Lord supports the duty of care approach, as set out in the online harms White Paper. I think all sides of the House can agree that a voluntary approach has not worked to date. In terms of the administrative oversight, that is still the reason for the original delay.