English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Storey and Lord Faulks

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. Good local government and community empowerment need a strong local media to shine a light on the council chamber, to offer scrutiny, and to encourage communities. However, over the past 20 years, we have seen the gradual decline of local news and media. I look at my own city of Liverpool: 20 years ago, there was a morning newspaper, the Daily Post, and in the evening, the Liverpool Echo. There was a very strong BBC local radio station, Radio Merseyside, and there was a local commercial station, Radio City.

Since that time, we have seen BBC local radio cut a considerable number of jobs and commercial radio become syndicated, with jobs going to London and being lost in Liverpool. The answer from the commercial radio sector—it even changed the name—is to provide news on the hour, which is often from London, as well. We have lost that link with the community. There are very few occasions when any investigative journalism is taking place, and it can be hugely important to the well-being of the city of Liverpool.

Sadly, the elected mayor was recently arrested and charged and commissioners were sent in. None of that would have happened if a very small digital news provider had actually done an investigation and seen what was happening. For the good of local government, and because of the importance of community empowerment, we need a strong local media. Do not take my word for it; your Lordships have had two Select Committees that looked at local news, both of which said, “Yes, we need to keep and protect local journalism and local news, and these are some of the ways we can do it”.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, because I had forgotten about this and it is really important. I hope the Government will take note, because it is also about saving local jobs, often in very poor communities. I hope the Government realise that we need a strong, robust local media to support local government, to shine a light on it and to celebrate what is happening there.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I enter this debate to support the three previous speakers. I declare an interest as the chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which regulates almost all local media. In that capacity, I have had the opportunity to visit a large number of regional newspapers, to talk to those who work on them, and to try to understand their circulation and advertising problems, and the difficulty they have surviving. Their financial model is very difficult.

I visited one quite well-known newspaper—I am not prepared to identify it—which used to have 50 people working on it. That newspaper is now put together by five people. It is a considerable challenge for newspapers to provide news and do the sort of investigative journalism that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was talking about.

This amendment would take away the opportunity for journalists to follow up on public notices, which can give rise to interesting news and proper scrutiny. It is not just a formality. The Bill talks about ways that the local authority might think are appropriate to publicise these things, but I ask the Minister what precisely is envisaged. As noble Lords have said and the House has recognised, there is still a considerable appetite for local news. There are lots of people of a certain age who are digitally challenged—I think that is the euphemism used—who like local newspapers and think they are important. They even like them to be delivered to them personally, which can be quite a challenge for local newspapers.

If this is considered some form of subsidy, I respectfully ask: so what? It is a subsidy that is important in view of the role that newspapers play. I cannot believe that the Government really intend to damage local newspapers in the way that this provision will. I ask the Government to think again about this. It may have come about by accident to promote digitalisation, but the collateral damage will be very considerable.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Storey and Lord Faulks

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not speaking before but I have faced two family bereavements. The Government ought to congratulate themselves that the number of young people held in secure accommodation has dramatically reduced. These young people obviously need education. Some 70% are special needs pupils; 20% are statemented. They are also terribly emotionally damaged. They are children; I am not talking about youths or young adults. A 12 year-old child can potentially be hundreds of miles away from the thing they need most—the love of their family and friends. Could the Minister say whether, if this custody provision—we are told it is Europe’s largest—goes ahead, any provision will be made for travel costs for those parents wishing and perhaps hoping to visit their children on a daily basis?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, this has been a lengthy debate in which we have had some important contributions from a number of noble Lords, some of whom have been with us for the whole journey of scrutiny and some of whom have made their first appearance today. I am sorry that more noble Lords were not able to participate in the very considerable number of meetings in which the Government explained what they were doing. We answered many of the questions which have been raised by a number of noble Lords for the first time today. We answered them in correspondence. We also had a number of meetings in which we went through the plans. While I do not wish any disrespect to those noble Lords who have asked a number of questions to which I have already given the answer in various contexts, I hope they will forgive me if I refer significantly to the debates that have already taken place at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and to various letters to all Peers. I will try to keep my remarks as short as is consistent with answering the general burden of the debate.

I was disappointed that my noble friend Lord Marks said that there had been no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. I accept that the scrutiny may not have satisfied him or other noble Lords that the plans are appropriate, but scrutiny there has been.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Storey and Lord Faulks

Monday 21st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

I think, with respect, you could come back to it if we get to that point.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. I was thinking that had this proposal come when we were debating the Children and Families Bill, there would have been uproar all around the House.

As has been said, we have to remember that 70% of young offenders have special educational needs and 20% are currently on what are called educational statements. The word “college” of course means education but the notion that you provide that educational support in what will in fact be Europe’s largest children’s prison is quite concerning, as is the notion that you put 12 year-olds with older youths and take them away from their support systems, their family and friends. We have not as yet decided what the education package is going to be. If it is going to be a genuine education package then there have to be educational psychologists, speech and language specialists and people dealing in mental health issues to make it really effective.

I have two real concerns. First, one of the amendments talks about younger children. There are moments in your professional life where certain events happen and they are almost life-changing in their impact. I remember clearly an 11 year-old boy who came to my school. They discovered that his mother’s partner had been in Winchester prison for child abuse. The boy was immediately taken away from his family and put in a secure children’s home. He was 11 and all the other young people in the home were 15 and 16. With the help of the local MP we got him out of the children’s home within, I think, three to four weeks. That boy had changed beyond belief. He had become a drug pusher; he did not want to support his family any more; he became abusive; he became a bully—all the sorts of things you do not want. That is my concern about putting young children into such institutions—and they are children. At the age of 12, 13 or 14, we are talking about children. The notion of putting children into this kind of institution is, to my mind, terrifying.

My second point is on the need for education support, which I have just mentioned. I recently went to visit a youth offending team on Merseyside comprising a very professional staff who are doing a tremendous job. The team’s concern is that currently it cannot even get information from schools to find out whether the young people concerned have statements or their educational assessments. We will have to pin down what the support provided in a secure college will be and what help is to be given.

I am very concerned about this proposal. If it is going to proceed, the important issues around age, the admittance of girls and of education provision have to be clearly spelt out. If this is about saving money, let us be honest and say so. If this is about a secure unit, let us be clear about that. But if the word “college” is going to be used and it is about supporting young people in their education and preventing reoffending, the issues that have been expressed in this debate have to be clearly and skilfully dealt with.