Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Storey and Earl of Effingham

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, it is not often that you are involved in a Bill and everyone agrees what the outcome should be and realises that the issue is more important than anything else. I commend the Government for coming into office and realising straightaway that, if we are to get economic growth, we need the skills to provide it. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was quite right to say that it is not only about having a set of skills and saying that this is what we as a nation need; we need it regionally as well. The needs of the north-east will be very different from those of, for example, the north-west or the south-east.

I hope we can now get on with the job of delivering this. I thank those with whom we have worked closely: the noble Baroness, who has jetted back from Australia, where she has picked up some ideas on skills; and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who has been stalwart in bringing us together. I particularly thank the Minister for always giving of her time to listen to us—to both disagree and agree. Finally, I must not forget to thank the Bill team for their work, and Adam Bull in the Lib Dem Whips’ Office.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have been involved in the passage of the Bill. His Majesty’s Official Opposition remain concerned that the Government have removed the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Other noble Lords also expressed concerns that Skills England will be overly focused on administration, resulting in it being unable to prioritise its central strategic tasks. By allowing a year to pass between the creation of Skills England and the abolition of IfATE, we would create sufficient time for the effective transfer of functions and ensure that Skills England could take on its role successfully.

We would suggest that it is a mistake for the Government to ignore these concerns. In both your Lordships’ House and the other place, there has been cross-party support on this issue, and we cannot hide our disappointment that the Government remain unconvinced on this focal point. We on these Benches are worried that the transition period as planned will have a damaging impact on apprentices.

At the same time, we recognise that this is a manifesto commitment. We will, of course, while challenging constructively, work with His Majesty’s Government to progress their skills programme, and we do not intend to push this issue any further. We will continue to remain vigilant on the transition to Skills England and ensure that it is working for the very people it aims to help. Should our concerns increase, we will endeavour to raise them in your Lordships’ House. It is now up to the Government to ensure that Skills England is able to run effectively and does not become overwhelmed with the weight of the accreditation and assurance process.

We are indeed grateful that His Majesty’s Government have listened to some of the key points that have been raised across your Lordships’ House, and the Bill has been strengthened accordingly. A report on the exercise of functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State has now been included, which is important for accountability. The Government have listened to the concerns about the Secretary of State preparing apprenticeship plans and assessments, and will, as such, publish information about the relevant matters that have been taken into account.

We thank the Minister for her engagement throughout consideration of the Bill, and we thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions and worked constructively on its scrutiny.

Local Digital Television Programme Services (Amendment) Order 2024

Debate between Lord Storey and Earl of Effingham

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, this was Jeremy Hunt’s big idea 10 years ago, when he said that Birmingham in the USA had several local TV stations and Birmingham in the UK had none. BBC licence fee money was used—I think it was £25 million—to establish local television, and there was an ongoing budget of £5 million a year. Jeremy Hunt’s idea of 34 local TV stations, from Manchester to Maidstone and Bristol to Belfast, was given a prime spot on Freeview TV, but, of course, the stations soon struggled financially, not least because of Covid, as all media outlets did.

Now we see a sector which is not local television; there is no way in the world that having repeats of old films and travelogues is local television. Yes, there is some local news—10 minutes on weekdays—but, in fact, on many occasions, they run next to each other so that they have more time to put on repeats of old films.

I welcome the fact that we are going to extend the current licence for 12 months to give Ofcom the time to set this all up, but, during that period, I hope that we look and make a proper, realistic and honest appraisal of what local television should be. To me, local television is not a syndicated 10-minute news bulletin with hardly any, if any, local television programming.

The only thing I think is true is the point that the Minister makes that it gives people an opportunity to develop skills in that particular media field, but I would like some research on this. For example, I wonder how many local people are involved in Local TV Liverpool. I think it is no longer called that—what is it called now? I think it is called That’s TV, because the same programme is syndicated across different cities of the UK.

If we are serious about Jeremy Hunt’s original idea of local television, then let us explore whether that model works financially. If it does not, then the money—if there is any still going—would be better spent on extending other local provision, whether in local newspapers or radio.

Over the years, we have seen a sort of pretence that we need to support local news. We have seen local commercial radio stations syndicated in London, with all the skills and the same programmes being developed in London. We have seen local journalism decline and decline, and we have seen the BBC’s local radio stations have their budgets cut as well. It has always seemed bizarre to me that, on the one hand, the BBC and the licence payers are paying for local democratic reporters, which are given to national newspapers, for example, yet at the same time we are seeing local radio cut to the bone. The time has come now to be really honest about this, and this extension will give us time to properly explore that.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, local television services currently reach up to 15 million households. These services are provided by 34 local TV services, which are licensed by Ofcom. The provision of local television brings news, current affairs and creative arts programmes directly to communities in a way that national broadcasters cannot.

Under the current legislative regime, the licences for these services would expire, meaning that Ofcom would be required to launch a whole new round of licensing negotiations, creating disruption to those who consume these services and potentially damaging the broadcasting stations involved.

Under our watch, in 2023 we launched a public consultation on how to deal with the relicensing of the local television services. The responses to that consultation informed the drafting of this statutory instrument, which was laid before Parliament on 7 May this year but was, naturally, held up by the general election.

His Majesty’s Official Opposition therefore welcome the Government’s action in bringing forward this order once again. Without it, these crucial local television services would be thrown into disarray. By allowing the automatic extension of the current licences, we are providing greater certainty to the industry while also allowing Ofcom to run the renewal process for the future. Once Ofcom has assessed the state of the current providers, it will be able to renew the licences up to 2034, thereby allowing for the ongoing continuation of the local television services.

However, this order raises a few questions. First, the Explanatory Memorandum highlights that there are a number of barriers to entry for the local television market. What steps are the Government taking to reduce those barriers and ensure open competition in future licensing rounds? Secondly, the Minister will be aware that the previous Government published a White Paper in 2022, titled Up Next. Does His Majesty’s Government have any plans to take forward the recommendations from that policy document? If not, do they have their own proposals for ensuring that the local regulatory regime is up to date? We look forward to the Minister’s response.