Creative Education Access Bill [HL]

Lord Storey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Featherstone on winning the ballot—or getting in the top 20. I have every confidence that this Bill will go the distance, because my noble friend has a track record. She fought to make sure that the equal marriage Bill got through Parliament. She brought it to Parliament and made sure that it got through, and I think she will be successful in this as well. I look forward very much to hearing the maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Mackenzie of Sherwood.

“It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge”.


I did not say that; Albert Einstein did. He went on to say that education should inspire curiosity. For very young children, the best way to learn is through play: at the sand tray or water tray, they can learn to co-operate, share and even discuss; with construction toys, they can learn to assemble and to develop new skills. But, as we get older, it very much becomes fact-based. There is nothing wrong, in my view, with learning facts, but it should also be about asking why and challenging. Education should not be about just regurgitating a whole series of information, but using the facts to understand and think critically.

Of course, in creative education, the approach is for students to use their imagination and critical thinking to develop new ideas and solutions to problems, and to build new thoughts instead of just memorising those facts—core concepts such as divergent thinking, for example. One of my favourite films is “The History Boys”, where these disaffected young lads have a teacher who is a bit of a rebel but who motivates them—by drama, by reading out aloud, and by challenging. Those should be almost the hallmarks of our own education system.

When we think of the cultural side of creative education, we think particularly of the arts. As we know and have heard from virtually every Peer, the Government introduced the infamous EBacc, which specified which suite of subjects should be taken in schools at GCSE. Not one of those subjects, of course, was a creative arts subject—surprisingly, given how much the creative industries earn for the economy—so head teachers and chief executives of multi-academy trusts, under budgetary pressures, or themselves perhaps not realising the value of arts subjects, decided in many schools to reduce the number of creative subjects taught, or to even abandon them completely to save money.

Schools also face the difficulty of getting a qualified teacher in these subjects, whether it be music, dance, drama, or design and technology. The EBacc, as my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter rightly said, wreaked havoc on the creative and performing arts in England. The results are there for us all to see. In music, there is a severe and worsening shortage of teachers. The number of music trainees fell by 51% between 2010 and 2024-25, and, over the decade, the number of entrants to study music dropped by 41%. Arts and design saw qualified teachers drop by 27%. In design and technology, it went from 15,000 teachers to 6,300 teachers, and it is believed to be heading to 4,500 teachers. It is the same picture for drama and dance. There are fewer qualified teachers and fewer students taking GCSEs in the creative arts than ever before—and so, of course, fewer students going to university and fewer graduates going into teaching to create those creative subjects. It is very much a vicious circle created by government.

Of course, the same is not true of the independent sector. The answer from government has been, “Oh, we have created these local various hubs”. I am sure hubs are important—I have to say that I have never been to a hub, so I am talking blind here—but I want every school to be a hub of creative arts.

I want to give noble Lords an example of something that changed my life in terms of the arts. When I was leader of Liverpool City Council—I am sorry to go on about this—we bid to become European Capital of Culture, and we won that bid, but we created a programme called Creative Partnerships, which was to give money directly to communities. One of the grants that was given was actually life-changing for those young students. It was to an 11 to 16 church secondary school in the city centre. There was appalling deprivation in the area, with high levels of anti-social behaviour, truancy and absenteeism.

The boys wanted to make a film—and why not? We gave them a grant with which they employed a film director. The film was produced. I think that it was called “It’s All OK”. The premiere was black tie and red carpet. I went along. The film was okay, but what was important were the skills that they had learned. The teacher was Miss Jones. After the success of that film and the work they collaboratively did together, they said, “We’d like to become teachers ourselves”. It was an 11 to 16 school. “We don’t want to go to an FE college. We want to stay in our community, in our school”. Miss Jones offered to come in on a Saturday morning and teach those lads to do drama and English. Of those boys, three became teachers. Through the arts, through pump-priming, that happened.

I have listened in this debate to so many wise words from colleagues. It is not just about what happens in schools but giving young people right across the board the opportunity in the arts. I developed my passion in the arts by going to the Floral Pavilion in New Brighton and seeing a number of shows, then being taken by my parents to the Playhouse, the country’s oldest rep theatre. I remember seeing Vivien Leigh and being inspired by actors. I used to take my pupils to museums and art galleries. But if you are in a deprived community, how do you do that? How do you afford that? As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, we can bring theatre companies into schools, which is good, but it is not the only way of doing it. We must find ways of providing those opportunities for all children.

Noble Lords have said so many wise words. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said. I too failed my 11-plus, so we have something in common. I agree that art can be life-changing. I love the analogy of the parachute that works best when it is open. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on the importance of design technology in creating skills. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—I never know whether it is Earl or Lord these days—is right that in many schools there is now an institutional bias against the arts. We must get back not just arts teaching but all the paraphernalia that goes with it—the equipment, the materials, the kiln for doing pottery, et cetera.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, made the point about the pipeline drying up if we are not careful. That is so important. My noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter raised the BBC, which does fantastic arts programmes, from the Proms to Glastonbury, but my worry is that every time it makes cuts, everybody blames the BBC. It is not the BBC that is making the cuts. We are making the cuts because we are not funding the BBC properly. Can the Government get a move on with this, because it will be death by a thousand cuts if we are not careful.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee was right to talk about the expressive arts and absolutely right that it is not just about passing exams. The noble Baroness, Lady Gill, also talked about learning a musical instrument. She is absolutely right. It can open up new horizons. One oboe can change the world for you.

I end where I started, with my noble friend Lady Featherstone, whose words link to what the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, said. Schools might be the only place where somebody can pick up a musical instrument or perform in a play. Young people from every background deserve the right to have creative art running right through their school.

No. 10 North

Lord Storey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On the second point, it will not necessarily increase but we will make sure that invoices and costs are reported in the normal way. On the noble Lord’s first point, I wrote down that he is from Pendle, just in case he went for an anti-Manchester perspective. From my perspective, I went to No. 10 North and spoke to the people working there. They are passionate about rewiring the state and making sure it works for people in every part of the country. Clearly, having the same conversations with the same people in Whitehall, in the same way, is not necessarily going to deliver anything other than the same results. No. 10 North carries the authority of the Prime Minister to drive forward his objectives, bringing decision-making long held by Ministers in Whitehall closer to the communities we all serve.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that 14 of the 15 cities with higher than average productivity are in the south; the only exception is Edinburgh. No cities in the north, no cities in the Midlands —not even Birmingham or the famed Manchester. Will the Minister ensure that, to get value for money, she reports annually on how the Downing Street of the north is making a difference to our cities in the north and the Midlands particularly?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We intend that No. 10 North will make a difference for every part of the country. The noble Lord rightly identifies that not every part of the country has benefited equally from economic success in the past. People will not be able to stop us shouting about the success of No. 10 North in terms of delivery once we get going, but I am very happy to come back to your Lordships’ House and talk about it in more depth over the coming months.

Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Storey Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, in preparing for what will, in general, be a very short contribution—with one or two questions for the Minister —I went back to 1955 and the establishment of ITV in Britain. When it was established, it came in the form of a great number of companies all over the country—admittedly running analogue services, but nevertheless very much based on the regions that those companies wished to represent, with a real flavour.

I emanate from Newcastle, where I had Tyne Tees Television on channel eight—it was a very good television company—and subsequently moved to Yorkshire, where Yorkshire Television still is a substantial regional company, together with the BBC and the regions that have been set up for it. I was also involved as a director of ausb company that applied for a commercial radio licence in the early 1970s. Again, that was very much a company based not only on regional interests: the content to be put out was required at that time by the IBA to be sufficiently broad, not simply playing records one after another. Over many years, I have seen a drop in the regional nature of productions. Luckily, in a region such as ours, in Yorkshire, we are still left with local programming—from the BBC and ITV, of course, as well as some commercial radio stations—although, as I say, this has been massively diminished.

I have a great concern about this whole question of regional output being maintained. With the current threat to ITV—it looks as if it could be sold to a contractor that may not feel so strongly about having the regional identities of different programme-makers and companies—we might lose Yorkshire Television, Tyne Tees, Granada and companies in the south of England. I am really worried about this.

In that context, I want to ask the Minister one or two quick questions. The Minister referred to the fact that we are moving away from free-to-air TV to on-demand services, but, as she knows—indeed, as we all know—on-demand services have to be paid for. I know that free-to-air TV is also paid for in certain ways, but we have here a situation where a different audience, who can financially afford to move to one of these on-demand services, will be established. Therefore, there does not seem to be a level playing field here.

As far as the regional component is concerned, therefore, I would like to know whether there has been any comment from Ofcom, from the Government or from elsewhere about the balance that has to be drawn between regional programming on free to air and those for which a subscription is necessary. Is that going to be clearly defined between the two so that we continue to have sufficient regional programming, hopefully through the retention of regional television stations? That is an important question.

Secondly, I am confused about the question of repeats. They can be counted against quotas in some cases, but what is the position where a programme is first seen free to air and then consigned to on demand, or never intended for free to air showings? What happens with the repeat situation there?

The third question concerns the definition of regions. As I said, it was very clear in 1955, when the television regions were created, although there have been consolidations since. Are we simply stating, as the Minister did, that anything regional just means outside London? Is there no division here between different regions as to what components? I think there is in the case of the Welsh, with S4C, for instance, where there is a separate arrangement, but is there anything that determines different regions, as opposed to one amorphous thing?

The other thing I would like to ask about is the difference between programmes that are commissioned and paid for by a PSB and those that are simply bought in from an intermediary company. There is a reference here to intermediary companies. Are those intermediary companies subject to the same rules as to regional content as those that are actually commissioned directly by a PSB? I think that is important too, because we have, burgeoning around our country— I know there is one in Sunderland, for instance—companies that are now producing a lot of good regional material. Where that goes and how it is utilised is another matter. Are we therefore looking at the emanation of the regional programmes or the actual putting out of those programmes, either free to air or on an on-demand service? I hope those odd questions are of help.

I finish by saying again that I am deeply worried. Most of us in this House benefit from appearing from time to time, if we wish to, on regional programmes. Certainly, the BBC is very good at giving the views of politicians and so on, and allowing them to speak. ITV does this, but not quite as regularly as it used to do in the regions. I just do not want anything to happen here that further diminishes the way in which the public can enjoy programmes that have a clear regional content or regional basis. I hope that these measures will not affect that and I hope that the Minister will not mind me asking her those questions.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

The Minister is right that how people access television has dramatically changed. We need to move with that change. I presume that in the consultation on this SI, the PSBs were broadly in favour —I think the Minister said this. Will the Minister give her thoughts on the fact that when Ofcom implemented uprating spend quotas by 2% each year to reflect inflation—and, secondly, the requirement for coproduction to have a minimum of 25% PSB funding—it kept the former and will review this every three years but have dropped the latter. I think that might be something we need to consider.

Regional productions outside London, as the Minister said, have been hugely important, but it is about not just productions but the commissioning. Sadly, the commissioning arrangements still largely have London at the centre. I do not know whether the Minister has the current figures for the percentage of regional productions, because it would be interesting to know. If she does not have them, perhaps she can send them —mind you, we can get them from the Library.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely. I will get in touch with Ofcom about the noble Lord’s point, which was well made. As somebody who has spent a large part of my life in London and the south-east, the one thing I would say is that outside the M25 is not the same as outside London, but, at the moment, it is quite clear that not all the remaining production takes place in Hertfordshire, for example, albeit some of it will. I take some comfort from that, but the noble Lord made the point extremely well. We will get in touch with Ofcom, and I will share the letter with him and others taking part in this debate.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

We have seen the model that happened with commercial radio, where they said, “Yes, we’re going to keep local news”, but the local news is commissioned from London and does not involve local people or local journalists; they just literally opt out. We do not want to see the same happen with Herefordshire, Hertfordshire or wherever hurricanes happen; we want to make sure it is actually made in that region.

Media Bill

Lord Storey Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Storey]

71: Clause 42, page 83, leave out line 25 and insert—
“(a) be made using a process OFCOM shall create within six months of the passing of the Media Act 2024 to enable application on a continuous basis, and”

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendments 71, 73 and 74 are concerned with local radio. For a moment I just want to remind people of the importance of local radio. In my own city of Liverpool, in the halcyon days there were two local newspapers, the Echo and the Daily Post, then along came Radio Merseyside—originally it was in two small almost cupboards in council buildings—and then, to a great fanfare, commercial local radio was established. The two print local newspapers and the two broadcast stations became an ecosystem. In those days, there were personalities presenting local news, current affairs and phone-in questions, and even attending local events. They had a local government reporter and they would vie with each other to get the best scoops and the best news.

Who would have thought in those wonderful days that now you would switch on your local commercial radio station and get a programme made in London, presented by somebody living in London, with production staff from London? You then discover that the local allowed input is probably just under a minute of local news and, if you are lucky, the weather and traffic news. Is that what local news is really about? Is that what we want in our country? I was fascinated to hear the Minister the other day quite rightly talking about the great successes of our PSBs, how they have embraced the whole country and how we have seen the establishment of production and of television studios in all parts of the country.

I wish the same was true of local radio. It is as if there are two furniture removal vans, one marked “radio”, which is heading towards London, and the other marked “television”, which is moving out of London and into the whole of our country. I received a letter from Radio Banbury, saying that a complaint was made that the former local radio station for Salisbury is no longer providing local news as required by its licence. The station is now owned by Bauer and runs as Greatest Hits Radio. Ofcom decided to take no action. One particular comment from Ofcom is of real interest:

“The Licensee explained that from 2 January 2024 it had planned to trial a ‘county’ bulletin for its stations in Wiltshire because it considered that the city-focused news bulletins for Salisbury ‘sounded jarring and parochial against industry-leading shows such as Ken Bruce and Simon Mayo’”.


As much as I like Ken Bruce and Simon Mayo, and think that there is definitely a role for commercial radio to cover the whole country, it should not be at the expense of our local radio stations. I hope the Minister considers my amendments very carefully. They are about saying that local stations that have been bought, almost ruthlessly, by Bauer or Global now get around the local news requirement by putting on a few minutes of local news, which is not really what this should be about.

The existing legislation within Section 314 of the Communications Act 2003 is being amended by the Media Bill so that the provision of local news and information is the only local requirement. It appears to regionalise the requirement, whereas existing FM licensees are held to a much tighter editorial area. A multiplex service covers a much larger area than the traditional FM coverage area. Under the current legislation, Ofcom allows local commercial licence holders to be compliant with just one 20-second local news story per hour. There is evidence that some stations have already moved to the regional model. Occasionally, traffic news is the only other evidence of information.

Existing legislation requires locally produced programming. FM licence holders are required to produce three hours each weekday from within their broadcast area. In recent years Ofcom has designed regions, aligned to the ITV regions, and the locally produced requirement is reached as long as the programme is produced within the region.

In reality, this means that stations as far apart as Banbury, Aylesbury and Winchester all share a local programme from Southampton. Often, there is no difference in the content, albeit the presenters are different. Aside from news bulletins, the content and music match that of all other stations in the network. The Media Bill removes the requirement for locally produced programming. It will leave local FM licensees allowed to operate as pseudo-national stations all day, every day, with the exception of 20-second regional news stories.

Ofcom last readvertised FM licences in 2019-20, allowing a fast-track process where current licence holders were not challenged. In 2020, the DCMS allowed unchallenged licence extensions for up to 10 years as long as the station committed to broadcasting on digital radio. At the same time, huge consolidation took place in the radio industry, with the main groups, Bauer and Global, purchasing radio stations across the country. For groups, paying to be on a digital radio multiplex is far cheaper and less risky than reapplying for their FM licence; most already have their service on DAB anyway. The result is that the vast majority of existing FM licences are held by the two big groups and are safe until 2030. At the same time, Ofcom is refusing to allow new applicants for FM licences.

If we want thriving local radio and if we want easy-listening competition for Radio 1 or 2, this is not the way to go about it. I am sure that, in our communities, we all want a radio station that is local.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, first, I need to apologise to noble Lords that I was not present at Second Reading. I am grateful to a number of local radio stations, and especially to Rob Persani of Rutland radio, which is where the Vale of Catmose is, for bringing to my attention the issue in Amendment 72. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who have put their names to the amendment. I also want to thank my noble friend the Minister for the meeting yesterday with the Secretary of State and the MP for Rutland and Melton, Alicia Kearns.

I support Amendments 71 and 73 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. The purpose of Amendment 72, however, is to ensure that Ofcom issues licences where there is no digital coverage. I accept that the wording of the amendment would need redrafting on Report to more clearly define the test needed where there are areas of no coverage. Applying for licences needs to be in the system outlined in Amendments 71 and 73. Ofcom does not need to run expensive competitions any more for FM licences, and it is not surprising that no new FM licences have been issued since 2009 if it has to run such a competition. As has been outlined, if you have a DAB licence, your FM licence is now automatically renewed. That simple process of renewal online with the payment of a fee could apply to new licences, rather than the expensive competition process that we had previously.

Commercial radio stations used to come in all shapes and sizes, so it is sad to learn, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, outlined, of the demise of local radio. “Much in little” is Rutland’s motto, and there are about 41,000 people living there, plus tourists. Rutland radio is a great way to find out what is happening in the local area, especially as you drive around, but it has areas where digital has no reach.

The vision of Ofcom for the digital switchover for local radio is called small-scale DAB—smaller areas where it issues what are called polygon licences. I assume for the purpose of Amendment 72 that, as with the internet, His Majesty’s Government’s policy is that everyone should have radio access. Looking at SS-DAB and FM, even if small-scale DAB was the answer technically, it is not small scale enough to work economically.

Instead of the one frequency that you need for an FM station—at a cost, I am informed, of around £15,000 plus your annual fee to Ofcom—under a polygon licence a station such as Banbury radio, as the noble Lord just mentioned, would have to buy three such licences for that small-scale area delineated by Ofcom, at triple the cost. The local economy of advertising, which is what supports those local FM radio stations, just cannot sustain that; the areas envisaged by small-scale DAB are just too big.

I am grateful that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will cover the more technical issues relating to small-scale DAB, but, as I have outlined, it does not reach everywhere. In a place such as Rutland, it comes in and out when you drive between the villages and the two towns—yes, villages and two market towns is Rutland. Alicia Kearns MP recited to us yesterday how the digital signal goes out for lengthy periods when driving around. SS-DAB is fine for areas of greater population, but those areas do not need it. Apparently, there are pockets all around the country where you cannot get digital radio. No one is sure precisely where all those are, but it would be interesting to know from His Majesty’s Government whether they have looked at where the gaps are and what the internet coverage is in those areas. I suspect that there is quite a lot of correlation, but it is merely a suspicion.

Internet radio is also not the solution for those areas. Statistics from the UK Consumer Digital Index from Lloyds Bank show that 2.1 million people in the UK are offline, and 4.7 million people do not access the internet. Age UK did a survey of over-65s, and 2.7 million people, which is about 22% of that age group, are not accessing the internet. That could be due not to lack of coverage but to disability, cognition failure or vision problems. They will continue to rely on digital or FM radio.

It was rather prescient that, only yesterday, we raised with the Secretary of State that national resilience needs FM. In the national resilience strategy, it turns out that FM is the most resilient form of communication, so we will not be switching off FM in the near future. In the event of power outage or solar flares, it is the most resilient. Today, it just so happens that the Deputy Prime Minister is outlining the preparedness of household strategies to boost national resilience. The advice is to boost your analogue capabilities and buy a wind-up radio—but to receive what? FM, of course.

Why not allow those who want a new licence to broadcast on an FM frequency that will remain for the foreseeable future? All the commercial risk is on the operators. It will not cost His Majesty’s Government a penny. Also, the more people who continue using FM radios, the more resilient households are. They will know that their FM radio works and will not be scrambling around in the back of the wardrobe to dust it off in an emergency—but perhaps I am only the person who, on reading the national resilience strategy, is wondering where the batteries are for that torch that I bought, and where the candles are that I bought when the Deputy Prime Minister last talked to me about resilience.

Finally—and to give my second “it just so happens”—your Lordships’ House has just had a repeat of an Urgent Question from the other place on South West Water. In areas with no digital coverage and an emergency that is not a power outage, sometimes there is time to communicate with your population—for example, if there is flooding or a forest fire. But if you need to tell the public, “Stop drinking your tap water”, that is an immediate message. I hope that His Majesty’s Government are looking at how South West Water managed to communicate with all its customers in the local area. Sadly, as we renew only 0.1% of our mains water network each year, instead of the 1% average on the continent, I think that such incidents will be more frequent.

Many in your Lordships’ House will know of “Rutland Weekend Television” by Eric Idle, but the local coverage of Rutland radio and other local stations is not a comedy; it is essential. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have some good news to tell your Lordships’ House on this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will write on that point, having consulted the noble Lord, Lord Grade, to make sure that I give the correct definition.

I am afraid that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, will have understood, I am not able to accept his amendments and hope that he will be content not to press them.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 71 withdrawn.

Media Bill

Lord Storey Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the Bill. As has been said, we have waited a long time for it, so it is important to get it right; we will not have this opportunity again for some time. We have seen new technology, changed consumer habits, different ways to access media and increased global competition. At the time of the last media Bill, streaming was only a brave or madcap idea, so it is imperative to do it right. I welcome the Government’s ambition to support our media to enable them to compete and continue to serve their audiences with high-quality content. We are also fortunate to have a Minister who gets it.

I welcome the Bill’s efforts in granting greater flexibility and prominence to public service broadcasters; protecting our well-trusted radio services, which I will come to later; and further diversifying, and ensuring greater inclusivity of, our media landscape. However, I also want to draw attention to a number of concerns. I was not aware of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. However, the UAE Government’s recent proposed bid to take over the Telegraph and the Spectator has indeed raised questions and concerns about the ownership of UK news companies and assets, particularly their acquisition by organisations in foreign jurisdictions that may differ in their regard for the freedom of the press.

Many foreign owners of media outlets have had a positive effect, bringing considerable investment, and have kept an arm’s-length approach. That being the case, we should be concerned about the motivations of a foreign Government and investors trying to get their hands on a media title or titles. Trust in news media has already plummeted, and the buying of British news organisations by a foreign Government is likely to lead to an even greater decrease in trust.

Turning now to media literacy, the changing nature of the media landscape has been widely discussed, especially the importance of countering misinformation and disinformation. Naturally, increasing media literacy provides an answer to those challenges. Conversations need to be had about who should be responsible for raising levels of media literacy. I firmly believe that the Government have an important role in increasing trust in and future-proofing our media by educating consumers to be critical and media literate. During consideration of the Bill in the Commons, Labour’s John McDonnell tabled a proposed new clause on media literacy, which he did not push to a vote. However, I encourage the House to pick up that clause. We should indeed seize the opportunity the Bill provides to place a duty on PSBs to develop their media literacy strategies, which in turn will enable consumers to navigate the media competently and cut through misinformation.

It would be a good idea to introduce a requirement for PSBs to be involved in improving media literacy among their audiences, and for Ofcom to be responsible for monitoring that requirement. If the aim is to ensure that the Bill will stand the test of time, we need to adapt to the expansion of social media, especially the rise of artificial intelligence and complex algorithms. With the rise of those phenomena, the role of PSBs in providing impartial and accurate information has become even more significant. However, if PSBs are to combat misinformation, their role goes beyond merely providing impartial and accurate information; it also entails trying to improve levels of media literacy, particularly of their younger consumers.

It is time for a greater recognition of the threats posed by AI and misinformation. Increasing media literacy is an important step towards understanding the challenges faced in interpreting media, and, consequently, a step towards combating phenomena such as echo chambers and filter bubbles. There definitely is a role for PSBs to play in that regard.

Unfortunately, we cannot easily regulate or halt the large-scale changes in the media landscape; however, we can educate people to navigate and understand those changes. As I have mentioned, streaming has become a natural way to watch programmes. Many families subscribe to one or two providers, as well as having the PSBs. Netflix and Amazon use the British Board of Film Classification to rate their programmes, while Disney has a different classification system, which can cause confusion for parents. It is important that we use the same classification system across the board, and it seems logical to me that we use the BBFC, which is known and understood.

We used to have a vibrant local independent commercial radio sector. Gradually, the sector has lost local skilled workers as local technicians, DJs and presenters have been made redundant. Programmes are aggregated, syndicated and made in London, with just a little bit of local news, weather and traffic on the hour. That is not local radio; that is the big providers taking over local radio and using it as a national network. What a great pity we have allowed that to happen. I wish that the Government and Ofcom had been far more rigorous in that regard.

I end by asking what the Government’s view is on GB News, a news channel that is not balanced or impartial. Can the Minister remind me how many complaints against the channel Ofcom has currently decided to investigate? Can we imagine the outcry if there were a “Labour Red Rose News Channel” or a “Lib Dem Liberty News Channel”, with the presenters being politically partisan in their views? It just would not happen. Interestingly, while Ofcom has investigated GB News on a number of occasions, this week a group of senior broadcasting veterans said that the broadcasting regulator was failing to enforce impartiality rules properly for a channel that sometimes uses Conservative MPs to interview their own parliamentary colleagues.

We have a media that is admired throughout the world, creates jobs, innovates, and is part of our amazing creative industry sector. The Bill will enhance it and keep it safe for the next 10 or 20 years.

S4C

Lord Storey Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Secretary of State and the whole department are treating this issue with the utmost seriousness. The department has been in regular contact with S4C and will remain so. An interim appointment of a chairman will be announced in due course, following consultation with the board; that is consistent with the board’s standing orders. We will move swiftly to launch the process to appoint a new chairman of the channel. That will be a fair and open process run in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Capital Law report makes quite concerning reading. Were anti-bullying and harassment policies in place, and if so, why were they not acted on? My worry is this: with the leadership of an important organisation such as S4C, to whom do the rest of the staff make their complaints? If they feel that the leadership are not acting properly, where do they go to raise their concerns? Is there a whistleblowing policy that could have been used, for example?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Serious concerns have been raised, including in the report from Capital Law, which the noble Lord mentions. It is clear that a significant amount of work is now required to rebuild trust in and at the channel. All members of the board of S4C are required to comply with the code of conduct for board members of public bodies, as well as the seven Nolan principles of public life. We are very clear about that expectation, and on the need for the channel to act under its new leadership on the concerns which have been raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, would it not help if Welsh-speaking Members could ask questions in Welsh in this Chamber?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am afraid I would not be able to provide much of an answer, other than to say “diolch yn fawr”.

Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale to RedBird IMI

Lord Storey Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The public interest intervention notices which the Secretary of State issued trigger the requirement for the Competition and Markets Authority to report to her on jurisdictional and competition matters and for Ofcom to report to her on the specified media public interest considerations. She has asked them to submit their reports by 9 am on 11 March 2024.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones tabled an amendment on Monday on the issue of media plurality. The Minister’s reply was that:

“The Government are currently reviewing the recommendations on changes to the media public interest test in Ofcom’s 2021 statement”.—[Official Report, 29/1/24; col. GC 291.]


That is over two years ago. Following on from the previous contribution, when does the Minister now expect to respond, and can he not expedite this? Of course, cynics say that he will now be able to do this because it is the Daily Telegraph; if it was the Guardian or the Independent, we would be waiting much longer.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

As the noble Lord said, the Government are currently reviewing the recommendations on changes to the media public interest test that were set out in Ofcom’s 2021 statement on media plurality to ensure that we fully understand the implications of such changes, including on the industry, whatever the title. I am confident that this work will be completed soon, which will allow the Government to respond in due course.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Storey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, put it very well:

“Kids are born digital, they’re digital kids now … And it is, I think, really important to set some hard rails around it”.


The truth is that in the area of app stores, Google and Apple, which, as we have heard, have a more than 95% share of the market, are just not voluntarily upholding their responsibilities in making the UK a safe place for children online. There is an air of exceptionalism about the way they behave that suggests they think the digital world is somehow different from the real world. I do not accept that, which is why I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Harding and others—Amendments 19, 22, 298, 299 and other connected amendments.

There are major holes in the app stores’ child safety measures, which mean that young teens can access adult apps that offer dating, random chats, casual sex and gambling, even when Apple and Google emphatically know that the user is a minor. I will give an example. Using an Apple ID for a simulated 14 year-old, the Tech Transparency Project looked at 80 apps in the App Store that are theoretically limited to 17 and older. It found that underage users could very easily evade age restrictions in the vast majority of cases. There is a dating app that opens directly into pornography before ever asking the user’s age; adult chat apps filled with explicit images that never ask the user’s age, and a gambling app that lets the minor account deposit and withdraw money.

What kind of apps are we talking about here? We are talking about apps such as UberHoney; Eros, the hook-up and adult chat app; Hahanono—Chat & Get Naughty, and Cash Clash Games: Win Money. The investigation found that Apple and other apps essentially pass the buck to each other when it comes to blocking underage users, making it easy for young teens to slip through the system. My day-to-day experience as a parent of four children completely echoes that investigation, and it is clear to me that Apple and Google just do not share age data with the apps in their app stores, or else children would not be able to download those apps.

There is a wilful blindness to minors tweaking their age. Parental controls on mobile phones are, to put it politely, a joke. It takes a child a matter of minutes to circumvent them—I know from my experience—and I have wasted many hours fruitlessly trying to control these arrangements. That is just not good enough for any business. It is not good enough because so many teenagers have mobile phones, as we discussed—two-thirds of children have a smartphone by the age of 10. Moreover, it is not good enough because they are accessing huge amounts of filthy content, dodgy services and predatory adults, things that would never be allowed in the real world. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England revealed that one in 10 children had viewed pornography by the time they were nine years old. The impact on their lives is profound: just read the testimony on the recent Mumsnet forums about the awful impact of pornography on their children’s lives.

To prevent minors from accessing adult-only apps, the most efficient measure would be, as my noble friend Lady Harding pointed out, to check users’ ages during the distribution step, which means directly in the app store or on the web browser, prior to the app store or the internet browser initiating the app or the platform download. This can be done without the developer knowing the user’s specific age. Developing a reliable age-verification regime applied at that “distribution layer” of the internet supply chain would significantly advance the UK’s objective of creating a safer online experience and set a precedent that Governments around the world could follow. It would apply real-world principles to the internet.

This would not absolve any developer, app or platform of their responsibilities under existing legislation—not at all: it would build on that. Instead, it would simply mandate that every player in the ecosystem, right from the app store distribution layer, was legally obliged to promote a safer experience online. That is completely consistent with the principles and aims of the Online Safety Bill.

These amendments would subject two of the biggest tech corporations to the same duties regarding their app stores as we do the wider digital ecosystem and the real world. It is all about age assurance and protecting children. To the noble Lord, Lord Allan, I say that I cannot understand why my corner shop requires proof of age to buy cigarettes, pornography or booze, but Apple and Google think it is okay to sell apps with inappropriate content and services without proper age-verification measures and with systems that are wilfully unreliable.

There is a tremendous amount that is very good about Tim Cook’s commitment to privacy and his objections to the data industrial complex; but in this matter of the app stores, the big tech companies have had a blind spot to child safety for decades and a feeling of exceptionalism that is just no longer relevant. These amendments are an important step in requiring that app store owners step up to their responsibilities and that we apply the same standards to shopkeepers in the digital world as we would to shopkeepers in the real world.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I enter this Committee debate with great trepidation. I do not have the knowledge and expertise of many of your Lordships, who I have listened to with great interest. What I do have is experience working with children, for over 40 years, and as a parent myself. I want to make what are perhaps some innocent remarks.

I was glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford raised the issue of online gaming. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I think Liverpool is the third-largest centre of online gaming in terms of developing those games. It is interesting to note that over 40% of the entertainment industry’s global revenue comes from gaming, and it is steadily growing year on year.

If I am an innocent or struggle with some of these issues, imagine how parents must feel when they try to cope every single day. I suppose that the only support they currently have, other than their own common sense of course, are rating verifications or parental controls. Even the age ratings confuse them, because there are different ratings for different situations. We know that films are rated by the British Board of Film Classification, which also rates Netflix and now Amazon. But it does not rate Disney, which has its own ratings system.

We also know that the gaming industry has a different ratings system: the PEGI system, which has a number linked to an age. For example PEGI 16, if a parent knew this, says that that rating is required when depiction of violence or sexual activity reaches a stage where it looks realistic. The PEGI system also has pictures showing that.

Thanks to the Video Recordings Act 1984, the PEGI 12, PEGI 16 and PEGI 18 ratings became legally enforceable in the UK, meaning that retailers cannot sell those video games to those below those ages. If a child or young person goes in, they could not be sold those games. However, the Video Recordings Act does not currently apply to online games, meaning that children’s safety in online gaming relies primarily on parents setting up parental controls.

I will listen with great interest to the tussles between various learned Lords, as all these issues show to me that perhaps the most important issue will come several Committee days down the path, when we talk about media literacy. That is because it is not just about enforcement, regulation or ratings; it is about making sure that parents have the understanding and the capacity. Let us not forget this about young people: noble Lords have talked about them all having a phone and wanting to go on pornographic sites, but I do not think that is the case at all. Often, young people, because of peer pressure and because of their innocence, are drawn into unwise situations. Then there are the risks that gaming can lead to: for example, gaming addiction was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. There is also the health impact and maybe a link with violent behaviour. There is the interactive nature of video game players, cyber bullying and the lack of a feeling of well-being. All these things can happen, which is why we need media literacy to ensure that young people know of those risks and how to cope with them.

The other thing that we perhaps need to look at is standardising some of the simple gateposts that we currently have, hence the amendment.

[Baroness Wyld (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I support Amendments 19, 22 and so on in the name of my noble friend Lady Harding, on app stores. She set it out so comprehensively that I am not sure there is much I can add. I simply want to thank her for her patience as she led me through the technical arguments.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Storey Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I speak in this Second Reading debate with little detailed knowledge of the digital world. I will probably be taking up my noble friend Lord Allan’s offer. I am not on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat; I have occasionally dabbled on Twitter. What I do have is 40-plus years’ experience as a teacher and head teacher. I have seen first-hand how children can have their lives turned upside down and how they have been physically and emotionally scarred by the effects of social media and the online world.

Yesterday, we heard from a study by the Children’s Commissioner for England how children as young as nine are being exposed to online pornography; how a quarter of 16 to 21 year-olds saw pornography while still at primary school; and how, by the age of 13, 50% had been exposed to it. You might say, “So what?” Do we want to hear that 79% of 18 to 21 year-olds have seen pornography involving sexual violence while they were still children? Do we want to hear that a 12 year- old boy had strangled a girl during a kiss because he thought that was normal? Do we want to hear that half of young people say girls expect sex to involve physical aggression? This all comes, by the way, from the Children’s Commissioner’s report.

The Online Safety Bill, as we have heard, has been a long time coming. The Government’s aim in introducing the Bill is to make Britain the best place in the world to set up and run a digital business, while simultaneously ensuring that Britain is the safest place in the world to be online. But does the Bill really achieve that for children? Childhood is about loving and learning. It is about innocence and enjoying the wonders of life. It is not about having that innocence and wonder shattered by some perverse online content.

My interest in this Bill is how we as a society can restore childhood to our children. The Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, must cite the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and General Comment 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment. Citing this in the Bill would mean that regulated services would have regard to children’s existing rights. The limited scope of the Bill means that, as the 5Rights Foundation points out, children will still be exposed to harmful systems and processes, including blogs and websites that promote and encourage disordered eating, online games which promote violence, financial harms such as gambling, and parts of the metaverse which have yet to be developed. The Bill will not be future-proofed. Regulating only certain services means that online environments and services which are not yet built or developed are likely not to be subject to safety duties, which will quickly make the Bill out of date.

Turning to age verification, as a teacher it always worries me that children as young as seven or eight are on Facebook. In fact, 60% of UK children aged eight to 12 have a profile on at least one social media service. Almost half of children aged eight to 15 with a social media profile have a user age of 16 plus, and 32% of children aged eight to 17 have a user age of 18. Without age assurance, children cannot be given the protections needed to have an age-appropriate experience online. Some 90% of parents think that social media platforms should enforce minimum age requirements. We should do whatever we can to protect children from harm. The Bill will establish different types of content which could be harmful to children:

“primary priority content that is harmful to children … ‘priority content that is harmful to children’ and ‘content that is harmful to children’”.


I say that any content that is harmful to children should be dealt with.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has said, media literacy is hugely important to this Bill and should be included. Media literacy allows children to question the intent of media and protect themselves from negative impacts, be it fake news, media bias, mental health concerns or internet and media access. Media literacy helps children and young people safely consume the digital world. I was a bit disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, did not ask what a Liberal Government would do, but I can tell him that we would be dealing with this issue.

Yesterday, the Princess of Wales launched a campaign to highlight the importance of childhood. Children need to enjoy their childhood and grow up in a supportive, caring environment. They need good role models, not influencers. Children are very vulnerable, innocent and susceptible. We must do all in our power to ensure that online is a safe place for them, and to be able to say to the daughter of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that we did finally do something about it.

Arts Council England: Regional Distribution of Funding

Lord Storey Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Storey]

That this House takes note of the regional distribution of Arts Council England funding and its impact on regions outside of London.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord McNally for securing this debate. I am sure that the House hopes that he will recover from Covid quickly. I also thank the Government Whips’ Office for being so understanding.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, Liverpool city’s logo was “City of Change and Challenge”. It was very much the era of tearing down and starting again, not always for the better. During this period, the Everyman Theatre was born, embodied by the enormous talents of Martin Jenkins, subsequently to become a leading BBC drama producer, Terry Hands, later to become an associate of the RSC, and Peter James, who, after opening the new Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, went on to the Lyric Hammersmith. Those early days for the theatre were confined to Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The entire theatre personnel were always involved in final preparations for a production: sawing, laying wires, painting and everything needed for the opening night of a show.

Despite its burgeoning reputation, the theatre continued to lead a hand-to-mouth existence for several years before Arts Council funding made it secure. Its presence on Hope Street, along with the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, led to a cultural renaissance of the area, which, thanks to Arts Council funding, has seen this once deprived community grow from strength to strength. It is now called the Georgian Quarter of the city and overflows with venues and restaurants. Importantly, it is a centre for the arts, because as well as the Everyman and the Philharmonic there is the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts and the Unity Theatre—all thanks to the initial Arts Council funding. Art can and does regenerate communities.

In the 1970s, Prescot, a small town on Merseyside, saw huge job losses at the Pilkington glass manufacturer and British Insulated Callender’s Cables. Both major industries closed down and moved overseas. Over the years, Prescot has slowly declined. Now, it is the theatre that is coming to the rescue of the community, with the Shakespeare North Playhouse, the Prescot Shakespeare theatre of the north, having opened. Arts Council funding will be crucial as the theatre becomes part of the regeneration story of that community.

So the issue of regional distribution of Arts Council England funding touches on two different but equally significant matters. First, there is the economic factor of granting places other than London their fair share of opportunities for growth and development. From this perspective, cultural institutions constitute powerful engines of economic growth, which they are more than capable of being. Secondly, there is the cultural factor. Historically, as Darren Henley, the chief executive officer of Arts Council England, admitted, cities other than London have been underserved in this regard. The concentration of cultural investment in London results in the creation of a kind of black hole, siphoning creative industries, talent and institutions from around the United Kingdom into the capital.

Both those perspectives reveal the decades-old practice of neglect that results in many cities suffering from a cultural deficit, denying them the prestige and economic rewards of successful artistic institutions. Worse still, this means that hundreds of thousands of people, particularly those who are underprivileged or living on tighter budgets, have virtually no opportunity to access arts and benefit from them. That is a serious problem. Study after study shows that interaction with the arts positively influences people’s mental health, helps with depression and anxiety, and builds bridges between cultures and worldviews. In other words, it is a vital part of the existence of a civilised society, and no one should be denied it.

The current disparities between the capital and other cities and between the wealthy and the underprivileged can be resolved only locally through education; by teaching young people how to enjoy the arts, helping them to develop the tenderness needed to do so, and assisting them in the recovery of the wealth of experience waiting behind the doors of theatres, operas, philharmonics, museums and galleries. However, in order to do so, such places must first exist within reach of those people, which in many cities and towns is simply not the case. For that reason, I very much welcome Arts Council England’s decision to increase funding granted to artistic organisations outside London, as well as its encouragement for London-based organisations to relocate to less culturally overserved cities. That is a much-needed policy change and will help to address some of the most pressing inequalities in our country.

At the same time, it is incredibly important that this historic change is carried out carefully and prudently. It is a fact that decades of preferential treatment made London one of the most culturally and artistically fascinating places in Europe, and indeed in the world. It is a source of immense soft power, an economic and creative powerhouse, and the pride of our country. We must ensure that levelling up does not come at the cost of defunding high-quality arts in our capital city, which would result in London lagging behind other European capitals. Rather, its wealth of expertise and talent should be leveraged to support other cities in developing their own cultural industries, not sacrificed on the altar of misunderstood equality.

It has been said many times in this Chamber, but perhaps it needs to be repeated once again, that, in levelling up, we want to help other regions to develop and grow, not to drag London down just because it is simpler to do so. Unfortunately, it appears that Arts Council England’s latest funding allocations have partially fallen victim to the easier version of levelling up. Such cuts come at the worst time, as the creative sector’s recovery continues to be hampered by soaring costs due to the cost-of-living crisis. Take, for example, the funding of £17 million that has been allocated to move English National Opera. That amount is far from what is needed to undertake a relocation on this scale, let alone to invest in and improve on the existing infrastructure. In effect, it is removing funding from the ENO and forcing it to move out of London at a few weeks’ notice, with no consultation or concrete plan for the transition. Arts Council England seems to pursue an oversimplified vision that lets it use a narrative of “levelling up” without doing any real long-term work to make it succeed in practice.

It is true that most British cities need and deserve better access to opera, especially so since Arts Council England cut the funding of the Welsh National Opera and Glyndebourne touring, effectively cancelling two very successful undertakings that bring opera to people throughout England. At the same time, however, simply transplanting a 100 year-old institution with hundreds of employees from London to another city as a solution is not the best way to proceed.

If Manchester suffered from a deficit of green areas, would the Government propose to dig out a decades-old tree from Hyde Park and move it 160 miles north? Of course, it would be theoretically possible to do so, but it would also be ridiculously expensive and inefficient, and the tree in all likelihood would not survive the operation. The same can be said of English National Opera. It is firmly rooted in London, thriving in the ecosystem that was carefully cultivated for years and at the same time sustaining a symbiotic relationship with its audience. The very proposition to move it is controversial; to attempt to do so with virtually no preparation would be simply an act of lunacy.

What is more, without English National Opera, London will have just one major opera company, the Royal Opera House, which offers a different opera experience, perhaps at the luxury end of the market. Berlin and Paris each have three opera companies; Vienna has four. Not only does this mean fewer opportunities to engage with opera and art, but it threatens the jobs of over 600 skilled art workers, including musicians and technical and support staff, who are embedded in the wider London cultural scene. This reduces opportunities for new rising stars who, in turn, will be more likely to work abroad, and puts an already challenged industry at even greater risk.

I ask Arts Council England to reconsider its approach to operas, especially since it casts a shadow on an otherwise well-designed and much-needed set of proposals. The overall direction of the policy is most welcome, and I am very much looking forward to the long-term benefits that it will bring to our towns and cities. I only hope it will not come at the expense of some of the most accessible and progressive operas this country has known. Instead, I am hopeful that the steadfast support that they have received—with 77,000 people so far signing a petition—will be enough to convince Arts Council England, and indeed the Government, to reinstate the funding and continue their mission. I also hope that the expertise and experience of these institutions will be used to replicate their success, not lost in a misguided attempt to make funding distribution look more appealing on paper.

We are so fortunate in the UK to have such a wealth of world-leading arts institutions They are good for the soul of the nation, they sustain a burgeoning creative arts sector and they can lead to the regeneration of whole communities. I remember how, when Liverpool won European Capital of Culture in 2008, it was the rocket fuel to drive the city economically and culturally forward. Arts Council England needs always to ensure that the rocket fuel is distributed equitably and fairly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Peers for their contributions; we seemed to speak almost with one voice. I got an early Christmas present from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in that it was the first time I agreed with everything she said, so I thank her for that.

I am grateful for the Minister’s thorough reply. However, I suspect that, because of the position in which he finds himself, he is not able to deal directly with many of the questions that were asked of him—particularly on touring. I was quite interested in his comment on English National Opera; he said that they were speaking but that he could not say more. I understand that, but I hope that that speaking becomes a serious conversation, in which the points that have been made today are answered. I thank all noble Lords.

Motion agreed.