Before the Minister sits down, I think that it is entirely appropriate for him to say—I have heard it before—“Oh no, nothing was taken down. None of this is believable. No individuals were targeted”. However, that is not the evidence I have seen, and it might well be that I have been shown misinformation. But that is why the Minister has to acknowledge that one of the problems here is that indicated by Full Fact—which, as we know, is often endorsed by government Ministers as fact-checkers. It says that because the Government are avoiding any scrutiny for this unit, it cannot know. It becomes a “he said, she said” situation. I am afraid that, because of the broader context, it would make the Minister’s life easier, and be clearer to the public—who are, after all, worried about this—if he accepted the ideas in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. We would then be clear and it would be out in the open. If the FOIs and so on that have been constantly put forward were answered, would that not clear it up?
Online Safety Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Fox of Buckley
(Non-affiliated)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 July 2023.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Online Safety Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
831 c2133 Session
2022-23Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-10-31 07:59:39 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-07-17/23071772000001
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-07-17/23071772000001
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-07-17/23071772000001