English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Faulks Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 202, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seeks to maintain the current requirement to publish governance changes—it is only governance changes—in local newspapers. I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. There are clearly strongly held views around the Committee.

We have just had two powerful debates about empowering local councils and councillors. We seem to have changed our minds in this regard. The Bill does not prevent local authorities publishing a notice in a local newspaper, should they wish to. Instead, it empowers councils to decide the most appropriate and effective method of notifying their local communities of any changes to the governance model. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I appreciate all his points, but local government is not responsible for the problems of local newspapers; there are many issues affecting them. We all value them immensely, but it is not just local government that is causing those issues.

The Bill’s provision updates the current statutory requirement. It shifts the focus from—

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The noble Baroness maybe somewhat misunderstood what I said. I actually asked her—this is part of the provision in the Bill—what she thought the local authority would think appropriate for the way the information is published. That is a matter for the Government rather than for local newspapers.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is, and this part of the Bill suggests that it is for local government to decide the most effective way to communicate these governance changes to its residents.

The Bill gives councils the flexibility to publish notices of governance change in whatever manner they consider most appropriate for their local circumstances. That may still include local printed newspapers, where they continue to play an important role in our local communities, but it also enables councils to use other channels—such as digital and online newspapers, council websites, and any other local community platforms—to help set out the governance changes. Crucially, the provision does not prevent authorities continuing to use local newspapers if they consider that the best way to reach their residents; it simply allows them to exercise their judgment in choosing the most suitable communication method for their area.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in moving the amendment, took me back to my very first Select Committee appearance as a local government leader, on exactly this issue. Substantial costs are incurred. I am talking not just about governance arrangements but for the breadth of local government statutory notices. It was around £28 million in the last year we have figures for, and some estimates suggest that it may be a great deal higher than that, so a lot of cost is involved.

In practice, this issue of governance arrangements will affect very few councils. More than 80% of councils already operate the leader-and-cabinet model of governance; the majority of the remaining councils will undergo reorganisation and the new councils will automatically adopt the leader-and-cabinet model. This is a proportionate and practical reform for the small number that may need to change their governance arrangements.

King’s Speech

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will not talk about House of Lords reform—I think there will be plenty of time to discuss that. I want to talk about the question of constitutional reform more generally.

The gracious Speech is quite modest in its aspirations, but a new Government, particularly one with a huge majority, can make constitutional changes without too much difficulty. History shows that this is not always a good idea. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was a mistake. Without it, we would not have had the unlawful prorogation of Parliament and the decision of the Supreme Court in the Gina Miller case. A decision to change our relationship with Europe would have commanded much more widespread support if it had required a two-thirds majority. No party even put down an amendment to the referendum Bill, even in your Lordships’ House, to that effect.

Following the landslide in 1997, the previous Labour Government brought in the Human Rights Act. Its implications were not properly scrutinised in White or Green Papers or by pre-legislative scrutiny. I and other part-time judges attended lectures from academics and practising lawyers. The message was that the Act would make little difference. In fact, it had huge implications for the distribution of power away from the Executive and into the hands of the judiciary—not that it was necessarily anxious to exercise such additional power. The attractive invitation to “bring rights home” disguised what was, in fact a significant subcontracting of the law to the European Court of Human Rights and an invitation to our courts to follow the Strasbourg jurisprudence, which was often inconsistent and not easily transferable.

The Labour Government soon found their own legislation thwarting their policy initiatives, particularly in relation to counterterrorism. It resulted in the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, disparaging judges. Sitting on a committee of your Lordships’ House, I heard three former Labour Home Secretaries say that they were so frustrated by the decisions of our courts that they thought they would seek the judges’ advice before drafting legislation to counter terrorism—an invitation that was refused.

In 14 years, the Conservatives huffed and puffed about the HRA and did nothing. Recent decisions of the European court in Strasbourg have included the unsatisfactory use of Rule 39 orders, which broke every principle of natural justice, and a major incursion into national environmental policies based on Article 8. I hasten to add that the British judge dissented. A low point for me was the Government’s arguments, in the dying days, as to the effect of A1P1 of the European Convention on Human Rights—which apparently prevented them from sufficiently penalising big tech for exercising monopoly powers because of their human rights. You can be passionately in favour of the protection of human rights and still consider that the HRA needs, at the very least, amendment.

On asylum, it is goodbye Rwanda, welcome border security command. We will see how that goes. The Home Secretary has said that she will approach the problem using a counterterrorism approach. She should bear in mind the experience of the last Labour Government. How will the reform of planning laws deal with the Article 8 arguments, and will tax reform run into difficulties with A1P1? We have a Government led by a human rights lawyer whom I greatly respect. Would he consider amending the HRA or is it now an article of faith? We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that you cannot have too many lawyers. I would not go quite that far. Lawyers should not dominate the debate. We are legislating for the benefit of the population. It should not be judges who are making many of these decisions.

While speaking of human rights lawyers, I welcome the appointment of the new Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. We have been opponents only in the forensic sense in the past. On one occasion, I was opposed not only by the noble and learned Lord but by the Prime Minister. We lost 3-2 —is it any surprise? I am sure that he will give dispassionate advice to the Government without fear or favour. He may find problems with the elusive question of what international law actually provides in any situation and how we should respond, given that we have a dualist rather than a monist system. I am confident that his approach will reflect a lifelong respect for the rule of law but, echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, what is the Government’s position on the non-binding advisory opinion of the ICJ in respect of the Israel-Palestine debate?

A number of issues will have to be seized in the future. I am confident that your Lordships’ House will continue to play a very important part.