Safer Phones Bill: Government making “ponderous progress” as measures watered down
Commenting on news that the Safer Phones Bill was watered down to gain government support, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Science, Innovation and Technology Victoria Collins MP said:
So far, the Government has made ponderous progress on children’s online safety. I’m disappointed that they’ve seemingly succeeded in pushing for the Safer Phones Bill to be watered down – a bill that had such promise when it was first proposed.
There’s a mounting crisis in children’s mental health, driven in large part by addictive algorithms. Parents and families across the country are crying out for change when it comes to support in the online world.
We’re picking up the baton where the Government have dropped it – starting with our amendments to the Data Bill on the digital age of consent. We’ll keep fighting to make sure young people are properly protected.
Lib Dems demand publication of legal advice on seizing frozen Russian assets
The Liberal Democrats have written to the UK Attorney General, calling on him to publish the legal advice provided to the Government regarding seizing the frozen Russian assets held in the UK.
The call comes as pressure mounts on the Government to seize the assets and use them to fund support for Ukraine – made all the more critical by President Trump’s reckless decision to suspend military aid and intelligence sharing with the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Ben Maguire, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Attorney General, has written to the UK Attorney General Richard Hermer demanding he publish the legal advice underpinning the Government’s decision making around the potential seizure of the assets.
The complex legal nature of the seizure of the assets in full has been used by Ministers to explain their reluctance to date to seize the assets. Maguire has urged the Government to “make his reasoning public” – calling for “proper scrutiny” of the decision as Ukraine’s military capacity to resist Putin is undermined by the White House.
Trump’s decisions to cut aid to Ukraine and ban the UK from sharing military intelligence with the besieged nation have “crippled” Zelensky’s defence effort, Maguire said.
Ben Maguire MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Attorney General, said:
Zelensky’s besieged nation has been crippled by Trump’s callous approach to Ukraine’s defence. From cutting aid to banning intelligence sharing at the drop of a hat, it’s clear we need a plan B to halt Putin’s brutal invasion.
We know that the UK holds billions in frozen Russian assets – capital that could transform Kyiv’s defence effort and counteract the reckless decisions coming from the White House. We’ve rightly seized the interest on these assets, but it’s time for Britain to go further and faster.
That’s why I’m calling on the UK Attorney General to make his reasoning public, and publish his legal advice to the Government on seizing the frozen assets in full. We need the chance to properly scrutinise the decision-making on this crucial issue, so the UK can then make the right choice for Ukraine.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How the war impacted on Ravensworth
The Englishman in the High Castle
Slow consulting
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
David Le Grice
Geoffrey Payne
Simon McGrath
13 Comments
I’m sorry to see there is no press release about the privatised Royal Mail’s announcement today that the cost of a first class stamp is to go up to £ 1.70. Back in 2010, before privatisation, a first class stamp cost 41 pence.
If that first class stamp back in 2010 had gone up at the same rate as inflation it would now be only 62 pence. Privatisation has clearly been a disaster and it’s a pity no apology has been made by the former Cabinet Minister responsible for it.
The decisions aren’t reckless. They have purpose. They aren’t desirable from our pov, but they are calculated.
The disaster for the Royal Mail has not been privatisation but the internet. A universal letter post is no longer commercially viable anywhere in the world. Denmark will be ending its service this year. Others will follow soon.
I wonder if the Royal mail has been conveniently selective in its choice of figures about declining letter deliveries. Maybe I’m looking at the historical figures wrongly (see the link) but it looks as if the (genuine) recent decline has been from a still relatively recent (1970s/1908s) rapid and high increase to a historically very high level. We now seem to be seeing numbers at levels where in the past a (much) more frequent, reliable and cheaper service was being provided? https://postalmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/11_Letters_delivered_by_Royal_Mail_1920_2010.pdf
@ Peter Davies,
It’s true that the Royal Mail handles fewer letters than previously but the number of small packages and parcels has increased. It’s own website reports:
“Since 2017, the average size of a parcel handled by Royal Mail has increased by more than 25%, and the number of large parcels (bigger than a shoebox) handled has more than doubled.”
The nature of the mail is changing but there is no evidence that the internet has been “a disaster” for RM. Being able to order online quite easily is the main reason for the increase in small parcel traffic.
Logistically it would be more efficient if we had fewer organisations responsible for deliveries. Instead we numerous vans into our residential areas delivering on behalf of the RM, Fedex, UPS, DPD, Yokel, Hermes, DHL, Parcelforce etc
“M, Fedex, UPS, DPD, Yokel, Hermes, DHL”…….. all of whom employ van drivers dashing around the roads of this country at breakneck speeds and on zero hours contracts instead of by civilised pensioned employees.
Relying solely on the internet is producing a disenfranchised society affecting particularly the elderly and those on low incomes who can’t afford computers et al. The banks are equally culpable with their branch closure programmes.
“Logistically it would be more efficient if we had fewer organisations responsible for deliveries.” We used to just have one with a monopoly and it was extremely inefficient.
The parcel service however is not covered by the universal service agreement. That is a universal requirement to collect and deliver letters in parts of the country that are not economical in return for a monopoly on letter delivery. The problem is that the monopoly is now worth less than the obligations it is meant to pay for. That imbalance will only grow.
Peter Martin “It’s true that the Royal Mail handles fewer letters than previously.” Implying that their current difficulties are for that reason understandable. Depends on how you define previously? Possibly you missed my earlier point. It is true that over recent years the Royal Mail handles fewer letters than recently. But that doesn’t appear to be the case if you look back but a few decades when they managed to carry the universal service obligation with similar levels of letter carrying which they are now “reduced” to. How did they achieve it then (pre a lot of mechanisation, staff reductions, stamp cost increases etc. etc.) and not now?
@Chris. A couple of thoughts: What happened 40-50 years ago doesn’t seem that relevant to whether reduction in letter volumes today is making it more expensive to deliver each letter. You would expect that sharp rise in letters during the 1970s-80s should have allowed a reduction in inflation-adjusted postal charges at the time, but I don’t know whether that did happen.
Those stats you link to only go up to 2010, and there’s been a continuing sharp drop since then. The statistic I’ve seen is about 6 Bn letters in 2023-24 which would represent levels lower than anything seen since the 1950s – a time when there were far fewer houses in the UK to deliver to. I would also imagine our housing stock is typically harder to deliver to now than it would have been 50+ years ago due to the trend for new houses to be built on cul-de-sacs that are easily accessible only by car – compared to the rows of terraced houses, often without even front gardens, that were typically being built 100+ years ago.
Simon R. Thanks for engaging with the point. I agree one answer might have something to do with changing demography/geography though a higher proportion of the population now lives in more easily served urban areas? Other answers might relate to labour costs and availability though there has been extensive mechanisation of e.g. sorting offices? Another point might be the “need” to pay “international” scale salaries at the top end, run a profit and pay dividends – no objection in principle to such things but were these necessary in what was a monopoly industry? As you suggest, looking back 50 years may no longer be relevant, especially given the advent of emailing etc but worth asking the questions?
@ Peter Davies,
“We used to just have one with a monopoly and it was extremely inefficient.”
It was so “inefficient” that a first class stamp in pre-privatisation days was 41p , or 62p if we use David Raw’s inflation adjustment, whereas it will shortly be £1.70
In the “inefficient” days staff weren’t employed on zero hours contracts, with no job security. They accumulated pension rights. They had paid holidays and sick leave.
We shouldn’t unquestioningly accept the narrative that the Nationalised Industries are more inefficient. The evidence from many privatisations: gas, electricity, water, rail, bus services, as well as the mail doesn’t support this.
>” We shouldn’t unquestioningly accept the narrative that the Nationalised Industries are more inefficient”
Particularly given the Conservatives efforts to hamper them. In the case of Royal Mail, deliberately preventing them investing and forming beneficial partnerships in response to “market forces”, whilst at the same treating them as a cash cow for the treasury.
I suspect the real problem with nationalised industries is an institutionalised mindset that automatically believes if it’s government owned/run it can’t be any good.
@Peter Martin. Again you are confusing parcel post and letters. The letters service which has raised its prices so much is still a monopoly. The “numerous vans” are delivering parcels and the competition means you get a much better service.