A Westminster committee has found that BBC Chair Richard Sharp made ‘significant errors of judgement’ when failing to declare his role in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and should reflect on the potential damage caused to trust in the corporation.
In a report published today, the Committee says that his omissions denied MPs the opportunity to fulfil their scrutiny role, as they were left without the full facts to make a judgement on his suitability when he appeared before the Committee for a pre-appointment hearing in January 2021.
The report calls on Mr Sharp to now consider the impact his actions will have on the trust in him, the BBC and the public appointment process and for the Government and all those involved to ensure future processes are not clouded by partial disclosure.
The Committee also notes that the issue of why the Cabinet Secretary believed Mr Sharp had been giving financial advice to Mr Johnson, which Mr Sharp denies, remains unresolved. The Cabinet Office should clear up the confusion immediately.
Digital Culture Media and Sports Committee Acting Chair, Damian Green MP, said: “The public appointments process can only work effectively if everyone is open and transparent, yet Richard Sharp chose not to tell either the appointment panel or our Committee about his involvement in the facilitation of a loan to Boris Johnson.
Such a significant error of judgment meant we were not in the full possession of the facts when we were required to rule on his suitability for the role of BBC Chair.”
Neither the BBC nor Richard Sharp have so far responded to the report.
The Government response to the Women and Equalities Committee report on menopause and the workplace is a “missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce.”
Published today, the UK Government’s response rejects five of the Committee’s recommendations outright, including the recommendation to consult on making menopause a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and pilot a specific menopause leave policy.
In a letter to Health Minister Maria Caulfield, the Chair of the Committee Caroline Nokes expressed concern that the Government has “ignored the significant evidence base” for equality law reform and called on the Government to review its position.
The Committee also highlights the low cost but high impact opportunities for model workplace menopause policies and menopause leave, which the Government has dismissed.
In the letter, the Committee highlighted it was “extremely disappointing that the Menopause Taskforce has not met since prior to the summer recess, and that the industry roundtable on HRT supplies has been delayed a number of times.”
The Committee’s report, published in July 2022, argued that the overlooked impact of menopause is causing the UK economy to ‘haemorrhage talent’.
It also argued that the current law does not sufficiently protect women experiencing menopause and does not offer proper redress to those who suffer menopause related discrimination, with evidence that many women have to demonstrate their menopausal symptoms amount to a disability to get redress.
Though the Government said it has accepted, partly accepted or accepted in principle six of the recommendations, it comes under criticism from the Committee for not actually committing to any new work in response to the report.
Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP, said: “This belated response to our report is a missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce, and leaves me unconvinced that menopause is a Government priority.
“For too long women have faced stigma, shame and dismissive attitudes when it comes to menopause. The evidence to our inquiry was crystal clear that urgent action was needed across healthcare and work settings to properly address women’s needs, yet Government progress has been glacial and its response complacent.
“Its refusal to even consult on reforming equalities law doesn’t make sense and we urge it to look again.”
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack has made an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
Oral statement by Scottish Secretary Alister Jack to the House of Commons yesterday in relation to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill:
Mr Speaker, today I will make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 preventing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
This Order will mean the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament will not submit the Bill for Royal Assent.
This Government believes however that transgender people deserve our respect, our support and our understanding.
My decision is centred on the legislation’s consequences for the operation of reserved matters, including equality legislation across Scotland, England and Wales.
The Scottish Government’s Bill would introduce a new process for applying for legal gender recognition in Scotland.
The changes include reducing the minimum age a person can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate from eighteen to sixteen, and removing the need for a medical diagnosis and evidence of having lived for two years in their acquired gender.
The Bill would amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which legislated for a single gender recognition system across the UK and which received a Legislative Consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament.
The approach taken in the Scottish Government’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill was the subject of intense debate in the Scottish Parliament.
A number of significant amendments were tabled right up until the end of the Bill’s passage.
And the Minister for Women and Equalities corresponded with and met with the Cabinet Secretary Shona Robison to discuss the UK Government’s concerns, before the Bill had reached its final stage.
Mr Speaker, I have not taken this decision lightly.
The Government has looked closely at the potential impact of the Bill and I have considered all relevant policy and operational implications, together with the Minister for Women and Equalities.
And it is our assessment that the Bill would have a serious adverse impact, among other things, on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.
Those adverse effects include impacts on the operation of single-sex clubs, associations and schools, and protections such as equal pay.
The Government shares the concerns of many members of the public and civic society groups regarding the potential impact of the Bill on women and girls.
The Bill also risks creating significant complications from having two different gender recognition regimes in the UK and allowing more fraudulent or bad faith applications.
The Government is today publishing a full Statement of Reasons, alongside the order, which will set in full the adverse effects the Government is concerned about (see below – Ed.).
Mr Speaker, I would like to address the claims put forward by those who would seek to politicise this decision and claim that this is some kind of “constitutional outrage” and you can hear them Mr Speaker, you can hear them.
The section 35 power was included in the Scotland Act, which established the Scottish Parliament.
This the first time the power has been exercised and I acknowledge that this is a significant decision.
The powers in Section 35 of the Scotland Act are not new, and this Government has not created them. They have existed as long as devolution itself.
And we should be clear that the power was included in the Act by the architects of devolution for a reason. Donald Dewar himself noted that the power struck an “important balance”.
The section 35 power provides a sensible measure to ensure that devolved legislation does not have adverse impacts on reserved matters, including on equalities legislation such as the Equality Act 2010.
This is not about preventing the Scottish Parliament from legislating on devolved matters but about ensuring that we do not have legal frameworks in one part of the UK which have adverse effects on reserved matters.
And we should be clear that this is absolutely not about the UK Government being able to veto Scottish Parliament legislation whenever it chooses, as some have implied.
The power can only be exercised on specific grounds – and the fact that this is the first time it has been necessary to exercise the power in almost twenty-five years of devolution emphasises that it is not a power to be used lightly.
In the instance of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, I have concluded that the bill would have serious, adverse effects on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.
As I set out in my correspondence with the First Minister yesterday, I would prefer not to be in this situation.
The UK Government does all we can to respect the devolution settlement and to resolve disputes.
It is open to the Scottish Government to bring back an amended Bill for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament.
So to conclude, Mr Speaker, I have set out to the Scottish Government that should they choose to do so, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told the BBC that the Scottish government will seek a judicial review of the Westminster government’s decision at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
There’s every possibility that this constitutional wrangle will end up in the UK’s Supreme Court.
‘This is a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament‘ – First Minister Nicola Sturgeon
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack has made an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said last night: “I have decided to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
“After thorough and careful consideration of all the relevant advice and the policy implications, I am concerned that this legislation would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation.
“Transgender people who are going through the process to change their legal sex deserve our respect, support and understanding. My decision today is about the legislation’s consequences for the operation of GB-wide equalities protections and other reserved matters.
“I have not taken this decision lightly. The Bill would have a significant impact on, amongst other things, GB-wide equalities matters in Scotland, England and Wales. I have concluded, therefore, that this is the necessary and correct course of action.
“If the Scottish Government chooses to bring an amended Bill back for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.
“I have written today to the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer informing them of my decision.”
Reacting to the announcement last night, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: “This is a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament and it’s ability to make it’s own decisions on devolved matters.
“@scotgov will defend the legislation & stand up for Scotland’s Parliament. If this Westminster veto succeeds, it will be first of many”
The Scottish Secretary will address Westminster later today to further explain the reasons for this unprecedented decision. Doubtless Holyrood, too, will have much to say.
Survey shows public backing for senior tech managers to be held legally responsible for safety and liable if products cause serious harm to children
MPs, bereaved parents, and 2,192 campaigners in Scotland back calls to strengthen Online Safety Bill’s response to protecting children on social media
NSPCC estimates over 21,000 online child sexual offences recorded by police since legislation was delayed last summer
Four out of five (84%) adults in Scotland want senior tech managers to be appointed and held legally responsible for stopping children being harmed by social media, according to new polling of UK adults, of which 200 live in Scotland.
The survey by YouGov also found that 72% of those with an opinion in Scotland would want senior managers prosecuted for failures that resulted in serious harm to children.
The NSPCC, who commissioned the research, said the findings show overwhelming public support for tougher enforcement measures in the UK Government’s Online Safety Bill.
Currently, the legislation would only hold tech bosses responsible for failing to give information to the regulator Ofcom, and not for corporate decisions that result in preventable harm or sexual abuse.
The move is being supported by Ruth Moss, whose 13-year-old daughter Sophie died by suicide after viewing suicidal and self-harm posts and being groomed on social media.
The Edinburgh nurse has been campaigning with the NSPCC for several years for robust new legislation that would force tech bosses to make their sites safe for children.
Ruth Mosssaid: “As far as I’m concerned, where companies wilfully break the law and put the lives of children like my daughter at risk, of course senior managers should be criminally accountable. The consequences of non- compliance are life changing for children like Sophie.
“Criminal liability drives the right behaviours in those with the most responsibility. It works in other industries and there is no reason in my mind as to why big tech executives should be treated any differently.”
The Online Safety Bill has been subject to delays amid intense scrutiny in recent months as the UK Government amended elements relating to adult safety.
The Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan has repeatedly said protections for children would be strengthened and campaigners argue holding tech bosses liable for the safety of young users would send a signal of intent to Big Tech.
2,192 people in Scotland signed an open letter to Ms Donelan calling for the legislation to properly hold senior managers to account for the safety of sites children use.
Rachel Talbot, 15, from Angus in Scotland, who handed the letter into the Culture Secretary with other members of the NSPCC’s Young People’s Board for Change, said: “Far too much pressure is put on young people from such a young age to keep themselves safe online.
“Too many children are exposed to content promoting self-harm and eating disorders. It’s become a norm in our everyday lives.
“We need a Bill that is going to hold big tech firms accountable. Without it, young people are on their own. We’ve been on our own for so long online – and it’s not working.”
Some Conservative MPs are also calling on the Government to amend the Bill to hold senior managers liable for children’s safety when it returns to UK Parliament this month (January 16th).
Senior MPs including former Home Secretary Priti Patel, Sir William Cash and Miriam Cates are backing the amendment which would mean tech bosses would finally be held to account if their platforms contributed to the serious harm, abuse, or death of a child.
Campaigners say the UK risks being out of step as Irish laws passed last month will hold senior tech bosses liable for online safety changes.
But they argued that making the suggested changes would cement the UK as a global authority for children’s safety online.
Miriam Cates MP said: “It’s clear to most people that the big global tech companies are not going to wake up one day and suddenly decide to start protect children from harmful online content.
“We have seen repeated failures of Big tech to protect children from the horrors of sexual exploitation, pornography and content that draws them into self-harm and suicide, and sadly the Online Safety Bill as it stands will not stop this.
“The only way to secure the change we desperately need is to make senior directors personally responsible for failures to protect children and that’s why I urge all MPs to support this amendment to include senior manager liability in the Online Safety Bill.”
The amendment has cross-party support including from the Labour frontbench.
Shadow Culture Secretary Lucy Powell MP said: “Labour has long called for the online safety bill to be strengthened especially when it comes to the liability – including criminal liability – of social media bosses. Without these sanctions there’s a real risk that a UK regulator will be toothless.
“Yet instead of strengthening the laws, the Government has recently gutted and watered down the bill, letting social media companies off the hook and allowing harms, abuse and hate to continue.
“I welcome the campaigning work of the NSPCC to toughen this Bill.”
The NSPCC said senior managers must also be liable for preventing child sexual abuse that is taking place at a record scale online.
The charity estimates that 600 online child sexual abuse crimes will have been recorded by Police Scotland in the time the legislation was delayed in July until it is likely to pass through Parliament on January 16th.
Sir Peter Wanless, NSPCC Chief Executive, said:“2022 was the year the Online Safety Bill faced delay after delay while children faced sexual abuse on an industrial scale and tech bosses sat on their hands as their algorithms continued to bombard young users with hugely dangerous material.
“This year must be the year legislation delivers the systemic change for children online that our polling shows families up and down the UK want.
“The Government can do this by delivering bold, world-leading regulation that ensures the buck stops with senior management for the safety of our children.”
“Problems in the energy supply market were apparent in 2018 – years before the unprecedented spike in prices that sparked the current crisis, and Ofgem was too slow to act.“
In a report published today Westminster’s Public Accounts Committee calls on the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem to say how they will make “the energy retail market work in the best interests of customers during the transition to net zero” after finding that failures at the energy regulator have come “at a considerable cost to billpayers”.
Since July 2021, 29 energy suppliers have failed, affecting around 4 million households. Customers have been left to pay the £2.7 billion cost of supplier failures. This means an extra £94 per household, a cost that will very likely increase.
The Committee found that this was due to “Ofgem’s failure to effectively regulate the energy supplier market”.
Ofgem “did not strike the right balance between promoting competition in the energy suppliers market and ensuring energy suppliers were financially resilient”.
Despite problems with the financial resilience of energy retailers emerging in 2018 Ofgem did not tighten requirements for new suppliers until 2019, and for existing suppliers until 2021. By this point wholesale gas and electricity prices increased to unprecedented levels.
The price cap “is providing only very limited protection to households from increases in the wholesale price of energy”, and Ofgem expects prices could “get significantly worse through 2023”. The Committee says BEIS and Ofgem should “review the costs and benefits of the price cap from a consumer’s perspective” to inform decisions about the future of energy price controls.
The position of vulnerable customers, who already pay higher energy prices, is “unacceptable”.
Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “ “It is true that global factors caused the unprecedented gas and electricity prices that have caused so many energy supplier failures over the last year, at such terrible cost to households. But the fact remains that we have regulators to set the framework to shore us up for the bad times.
“Problems in the energy supply market were apparent in 2018 – years before the unprecedented spike in prices that sparked the current crisis, and Ofgem was too slow to act.
“Households will pay dear, with the cost of bailouts added to record and rising bills. The PAC wants to see a plan, within six months, for how Government and Ofgem will put customers’ interests at the heart of a reformed energy market, driving the transition to Net Zero.”
The Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry examines the Government’s policies and procedures relating to asylum seekers and the impact these have on their human rights.
This will include the UK’s approach the availability of “safe and legal” routes for asylum seekers, the treatment of those arriving outside of these routes, and attempts to relocate asylum seekers outside the UK. It will also examine the treatment of asylum seekers once in the UK, including treatment in short-term holding facilities, conditions in detention, accommodation, restrictions on movement, and the right to work.
The inquiry also assesses whether the UK’s current legal framework is adequate to meet its human rights obligations to those who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.
Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “The UK has a long-standing obligation to provide a place of sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution.
“We have launched this inquiry to examine whether the current approach to asylum meets the UK’s human rights obligations. Are the current routes for asylum seekers to come to the UK adequate, and is it right for those excluded from “safe and legal routes” to be punished for coming to the UK even if they have fled conflict or persecution?
“Can the UK outsource its asylum obligations to third countries and still ensure the human rights of those seeking asylum are protected?
“We want to look beyond fearful headlines about the cost of hotel accommodation or the numbers of asylum seekers arriving, to consider the experience of those going through the asylum system and the way they are treated.
“Fundamentally, is the way asylum seekers are treated appropriate and lawful, or is the UK Government falling short of the human rights standards designed to protect them, and all of us?
“Given the terrible conditions we have witnessed at Manston and the new Home Secretary’s seeming delight at the prospect of further flights to Rwanda, this inquiry could not be more timely.”
Background
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 14 that “everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”.
The Refugee Convention built on this with the establishment of a regime of international refugee protection, which was ratified by the UK in 1954. The Convention defines a refugee as a person outside their country of nationality or habitual residence, due to well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and unable or unwilling to return to that country for fear of persecution.
In addition, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Amongst other things, it prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR), as well as slavery and forced labour (Article 4 ECHR). It also provides for a right to liberty and security (Article 5 ECHR) and a right to private and family life (Art 8 ECHR).
Asylum seekers often come from countries affected by violence, conflict, and human rights abuses, and a portion of those who leave come to the UK.
In 2022, the number of new asylum applications rose to 63,089, from 48,540 in the previous year. As of June 2022, there were 122,213 asylum claims pending an initial decision, out of which 89,231 cases had been pending an initial decision for more than 6 months. Most asylum claims in the UK are successful – in 2021, the estimated overall grant rate where a final outcome has been reached was 77%.
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 made significant amendments to the legislative framework for the asylum system. Changes include the introduction of new powers to remove asylum seekers, the creation of a two-tier system for asylum claims, and the inadmissibility of claims by persons with a connection to safe third States.
The Government has also sought through the UK Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership to send certain asylum seekers to Rwanda to make claims for asylum in Rwanda.
Terms of reference
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is looking into the rights of asylum seekers in the UK, with a view to identifying human rights concerns. To inform its work, the Committee invites submissions of no more than 1,500 words from interested groups and individuals. The deadline for submissions is 15 December 2022. We would welcome evidence covering the following questions:
1. Is it compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations to deny asylum to those who do not use what the Government calls “safe and legal routes”? 2. What “safe and legal routes” currently exist for asylum seekers in the UK? Should new routes be introduced?
Relocation of asylum seekers
3. Is the policy of relocating asylum seekers to third countries consistent with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Detention
4. Are the rules on detention and processing, and the treatment of detained asylum seekers, consistent with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Electronic tagging
5. Is the electronic tagging of asylum seekers a necessary and proportionate interference with their human rights?
Legal aid, accommodation, and subsistence
6. Is the support available to asylum seekers under the legal aid, accommodation, and subsistence rules compliant with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Right to work
7. How do the rules on right to work impact on the human rights of asylum seekers?
Modern slavery
8. Is the UK’s legal framework for tackling modern slavery and human trafficking effective, and is it compatible with our human rights obligations? Are there changes that should be made?
9. Is there any evidence that modern slavery laws are being abused by people “gaming” the system?
Nationality and Borders Act 2022
10. To what extent has the enactment of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 had an impact on the human rights of asylum seekers?
We understand that the issues raised in this work may be sensitive or upsetting and the following organisations may be able to offer support or further information:
Asylum Aid – free legal aid advice and representation to asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. Call 020 7354 9631 Email advice@asylumaid.org.uk
British Red Cross – support to refugees and asylum seekers in the UK including emergency assistance to those who are destitute, and family reunion and resettlement services. Call 0808 196 3651
London Destitution Service – Refugee Council – support for asylum seekers or rejected asylum seekers who are destitute, and support to vulnerable and homeless asylum seekers who have lost contact with their asylum application and have no legal representation. Call 02073466700 Email destitution@refugeecouncil.org.uk
Migrant Help – free 24/7 helpline providing independent advice and support to asylum seekers in the UK in your own language. Call 0808 8010 503 Webchat; Online Enquiry Form
Samaritans – for everyone, 24 hours a day, every day. Call 116 123
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has issued the following statement after the deadline for the re-formation of the Northern Ireland Executive passed:
As of earlier today, an Executive can no longer form and I am duty-bound by law to call new elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly as set out in the New Decade, New Approach agreement as soon as practicably possible and within 12 weeks.
I believe strongly that people in Northern Ireland deserve locally-elected decision-makers who are working for them, to address the issues that matter most to people here.
Having spoken with the various Party leaders this week, I know no one in Northern Ireland is calling for an election – but nearly all Parties signed up to the Agreement that put us in this position only a couple of years ago.
Today I also met the Chief Electoral Officer to discuss operational considerations to inform my decision about the election date.
It was particularly disappointing to see yesterday that the Assembly was still unable to elect a Speaker, despite all the time that has passed.
At a time when so many are struggling with the cost of living and fearful of what is to come, I understand people’s frustration that MLAs continue to draw a full salary when they are not performing all the duties they were elected to do.So, I will be considering my options to act on MLA pay.
Right now, the Executive no longer has Ministers in post to act for the people of Northern Ireland.
That means no Ministers to deliver the public services you rely on. That means no Ministers to manage the budget pressures affecting the funding of your hospitals, your schools, your doctors and nurses.
So in the absence of an Executive I will take limited but necessary steps to protect public finances and the delivery of public services.
I have already met the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, Jayne Brady, to discuss this and gather evidence on the state of Stormont’s financial position. I shall hopefully receive more detailed information about this next week.
Then I’ll soon outline our plan of action to make sure that the interests of the people of Northern Ireland are protected.
And to those who have called for “joint authority” of Northern Ireland in recent days, let me say this: this won’t be considered.
The UK Government is absolutely clear that the consent principle governs the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We will not support any arrangements that are inconsistent with that principle.
Elderly, disabled and other vulnerable people will get better support to stay safe online and avoid being misled by disinformation thanks to a funding boost from the government to mark UNESCO Global Media and Information Literacy Week.
Funding awarded to improve media literacy among vulnerable and ‘hard-to-reach’ groups
Will support projects across the UK to ensure everyone can protect themselves from online disinformation
Part of the government’s Online Media Literacy Strategy to help people be safe online
Elderly, disabled and other vulnerable people will get better support to stay safe online and avoid being misled by disinformation thanks to a funding boost from the government to mark UNESCO Global Media and Information Literacy Week.
More than £1 million has been granted to 17 UK organisations to pilot new ways of boosting media literacy skills for people at risk of experiencing online abuse and being deceived into believing false information, such as vaccine disinformation, deepfake videos or propaganda created by hostile states.
Research shows some people struggle to engage and benefit from the range of media literacy education on offer, due to limited experience or overconfidence in using the internet, as well as a lack of awareness of how to access resources and their unavailability outside of schools and colleges.
The Media Literacy Taskforce Fund is one of two funding schemes created to target ‘hard-to-reach’ and vulnerable groups by investing in community-led projects to ensure everyone has the opportunity to improve their media literacy skills and protect themselves from online disinformation.
Social enterprise Freshrb will work with young people to develop their own podcasts exploring online dis- and misinformation to be aired on local radio. Another project run by charity Internet Matters will provide media literacy training for dozens of care workers and leavers in the Greater Manchester area.
Elderly people from diverse backgrounds in Leeds will have access to digital media skills training online and in community centres as part of the Leeds Older People’s Forum. Parent Zone is working with eight local councils including Calderdale, Luton and Middlesborough to deliver media literacy resources tailored to parents and carers of teenagers.
A separate scheme, the Media Literacy Programme Fund, will deliver training courses, online learning, tech solutions and mentoring schemes to vulnerable internet users.
Digital Secretary Michelle Donelan said: “With the rise of online disinformation, teaching people to identify fact from fiction has never been more important to public safety.
“As well as bringing forward new laws to tackle the root causes of these problems, we are funding organisations to give people the skills to stay safe online so everyone can benefit from all the internet has to offer.”
NewsGuard, which will work with ageing-focused charities to, deliver workshops to older adults to support them in spotting mis- and disinformation online;
The Economist Educational Foundation will work with disadvantaged schools and boost teachers’ skills through news literacy training and support students to engage with the news and think critically about what they’re consuming online;
Online Safety charity Glitch will deliver workshops and training to vulnerable and marginalised women to support their media literacy skills including tackling online abuse.
All the schemes are part of the government’s plans to deliver the Online Media Literacy Strategy, a national action plan to empower people to stay safe online by giving them the skills they need to think critically about what they see and read on the internet.
Launched in July 2021, the three-year strategy supports media literacy organisations to deliver education and initiatives in a more wide-reaching and effective way. The year two plan, published in April, is backed by more than £2 million in targeted funding, including today’s announcement.
This is in addition to the £250,000 grant funding delivered to five organisations working with schools to adapt media literacy resources for teachers working with disabled students in our year one action plan.
The announcement coincides with the UNESCO Global Media and Information Literacy Week, a global initiative celebrating the progress countries have made toward making media literacy education more accessible to its citizens by implementing national media and information literacy policies.
The grant funding complements the measures in the groundbreaking Online Safety Bill, which supports a safer online environment by requiring tech firms to protect children from harmful content and tackle criminal activity on their platforms.
A new report by Westminster’sinfluential Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has urged the Government to publish a draft Digital Markets Bill that would help deter predatory practices by big tech firms ‘without delay’.
Proposals for a Digital Markets Competition and Consumer Bill were trailed by the Government in the Queen’s Speech. It announced measures that would empower the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) Digital Markets Unit (DMU) to rein in abusive tech giants by dropping the turnover threshold for immunity from financial penalties from £50 million to £20 million, and hiking potential maximum fines to 10% of global annual income.
The Committee concluded that fines have been viewed as ‘a small business cost’ by large companies, adding that there is ‘strong evidence of abuses of market dominance’ within digital markets. It warned that ‘consumers and others are at risk’ until a Bill is published and passed.
BEIS Committee Chair Darren Jones said: “The Competition, Consumer and Digital Markets Bill has wide support and should be prioritised, especially given the difficulty the Government currently has at passing other laws which are more controversial.
“There are many areas in the economy where stronger competition is required in the interests of consumers, small business and economic growth and this bill is an essential stepping stone to driving this issue forward.”
The report also called on the Government to ‘end [the] uncertainty’ caused by its failure to publish final guidance on the post-Brexit subsidy control regime, which the Committee found had left subsidy awarding bodies ‘in limbo’. The guidance needs to be published as soon as possible, MPs said.
Passed in April, and due to come into full force in early January, the Subsidy Control Act omits key details of the regime for public authorities to follow when awarding money. These gaps are due to be filled in by final guidance, which authorities will need if they are to have confidence when preparing bids for funding from the Shared Prosperity Fund. The Fund is a replacement for money formerly awarded through EU structural funding.
Mr Jones added: “The Government promised to replace previous EU funding into projects across the country as part of its Brexit and levelling up offers to the public. This has not yet been delivered and without full guidance and proper financing of the new subsidy schemes, funds that help deliver projects will be further delayed.
“The public will no doubt be disappointed to have not yet seen the so called ‘Brexit opportunities’ that were promised to level up their local community.”
