Government asks for young people's views on what matters to them
Children and young people are being asked by the government to give their views on what matters to them.Those aged 10-21 years old, and up to 25 years old for those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), are being invited to take part in a survey to hear what support services and opportunities they need. Young people will be able to give their views on things like what services should be available in their area and how money should be spent. The online survey is open now and closes on16 April.
The survey is part of a period of consultation to ask young people what they want as part of the government's National Youth Strategy. In-person groups and workshop sessions are also taking place so young people give their views directly. A youth advisory board made up of 13 young people has been appointed alongside a group made up of experts across different sectors as well.
Plans for a National Youth Strategy were announced in November 2024 alongside an announcement that £85 million would go towards youth facilities, including £26 million for youth clubs. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said:"We are handing power back to young people and their communities, giving them a genuine opportunity to help make the policies that affect their lives."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Telegraph
Labour faces embarrassing defeat over foreign state ownership of newspapers
The House of Lords is preparing to inflict an embarrassing defeat on Labour over its ' deeply problematic ' plans to let foreign powers become part-owners of British newspapers. Peers including a former chancellor, a former director of public prosecutions and the current chairman of the press regulator are in open revolt over proposals by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, to relax an outright ban on foreign state shareholdings to allow passive stakes of up to 15pc. The basic principle was expected to be reluctantly accepted by Parliament, in part to end the destabilising uncertainty at The Telegraph caused by a blocked takeover bid bankrolled by the United Arab Emirates. However, a loophole that it is feared could allow foreign powers to team up to gain sway over Britain's free press has stoked a rebellion capable of defeating the Government. As proposed, the legislation would enable foreign states to own up to 15pc if they are not cooperating with each other. Lord Young, the journalist and founder of the Free Speech Union campaign group, has spearheaded an open letter to Ms Nandy demanding she tighten the proposed laws. It has dozens of signatures from Conservative peers of all stripes, including former Cabinet ministers Lord Lamont, Lord Baker and Lord Lilley, as well as crossbenchers including Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions. The letter to Ms Nandy said her proposals to allow multiple foreign powers to own shares in a single newspaper were 'deeply problematic'. It added: 'It has to be assumed that if different state actors are intent on exerting influence through their shareholding, then some may be prepared to do so covertly and in collusion with other states. 'To guard against this risk, the draft regulations should ensure that the cap in the percentage of shares that can be owned in a British newspaper enterprise is a total cap.' The letter was also signed by Lord Faulks, the chairman of the press regulator Ipso; Baroness Fleet, the former editor of The Evening Standard; and Lord Goodman, the former editor of the Conservative Home website. Other prominent backers included Lord Brady, the former chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers; Baroness Deech, the chairman of the House of Lords appointments commission; Lord Swire, the former Foreign Office minister; and Baroness Spielman, the former head of Ofsted. Lord Roberts, the Churchill biographer, has also signed and has written in The Telegraph that the legislation 'must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press'. The letter marks a significant escalation of opposition to the legislation in the Lords. Baroness Stowell, who last year played a critical role in forcing the Government to block the UAE bid for The Telegraph, was among the first to raise concerns over multiple state shareholdings in a letter to Ms Nandy last week. She did not sign Lord Young's letter, but warned the Government it faced defeat if it pressed ahead, even though the Conservative leadership in the Commons had signalled it did not oppose the proposed laws. The Liberal Democrats have tabled a rare 'fatal motion' to veto the statutory instrument which may become the focus of the Lords rebellion. Lady Stowell said: 'I really hope the Government reconsiders these proposals quickly. 'It would not be acceptable for multiple foreign states to own stakes of up to 15pc in the same newspaper, yet for reasons unclear, that is a scenario Lisa Nandy wants to allow. 'Unless she closes this obvious loophole, I can see peers swinging behind a fatal motion to block this legislation. It would be a rare step to take, but I know colleagues feel very strongly about this crucial matter of press independence.' The Conservatives are the biggest group in the Lords. Alongside the Liberal Democrats and some crossbenchers they could readily defeat the Government and spark a battle with the Commons. Lady Stowell is among the parliamentarians to have said she would accept a limit of 15pc with reservations, were it not for the risk of cumulative shareholdings. The figure is three times the limit proposed last year by Rishi Sunak's government. Ms Nandy decided to lift it following lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail. Both media moguls have sought sovereign wealth investment in the past. Lord Rothermere previously considered a takeover bid for The Telegraph with financial backing from the Gulf. Mr Murdoch relied on the support of a Saudi royal shareholder to fight off the investor rebellion sparked by the phone-hacking scandal. Lobbyists for Lord Rothermere and Mr Murdoch argued that a 5pc cap on foreign state investment would cut news publishers off from a significant source of potential investment in digital growth at a time of upheaval as print newspapers decline. The row over cumulative shareholdings threatens to further delay a conclusion to the two-year saga over ownership of The Telegraph. RedBird Capital, the US private equity firm that was the minority investor in the blocked UAE takeover, has agreed in principle to become controlling shareholder in a £500m deal. IMI, the media investment vehicle owned by UAE royal Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is expected to retain up to 15pc. However, the deal has not been finalised and is likely to require a settled legal position before it can face regulatory scrutiny. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport declined to comment. Full list of signatories Lord Biggar Baroness Meyer Lord Moylan Lord Jackson of Peterborough Baroness Eaton Lord Brady Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Baroness Finn Baroness Fleet Baroness Noakes Baroness Bray of Coln Lord Strathcarron Baroness Lea of Lymm The Earl of Leicester Lord Borwick Lord Roberts of Belgravia Baroness Deech Lord Sherbourne Lord Mackinlay Lord Ashcombe Baroness Coffey Baroness Foster of Oxton Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Lord Evans of Rainow Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Buscombe Lord Sharpe of Epsom Lord Mancroft Lord Robathan Baroness Nicholson Lord Wrottesley Baroness Cash Lord Goodman Lord Shinkwin Baroness Altmann CBE Edward Faulks KC Lord Swire Baroness Fox of Buckley Baroness Spielman Lord Lamont Lord MacDonald of River Glaven Lord McInnes of Kilwinning Lord Hamilton of Epsom Lord Reay Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Lilley Lord Baker of Dorking Lord McLoughlin Baroness Morrissey
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Telegraph
Britain losing influence as Russian and Chinese media outspend BBC
Britain is losing influence to Russia and China as the hostile states' spending on media eclipses the BBC. Foreign Office officials have privately warned that the UK is at 'high risk' of losing global influence 'without harder-edged approaches'. They said: 'The UK still retains top rankings for strong influence within G20 countries, based on trustworthiness and independence of institutions – critical prerequisites for achieving hard goals of investment and security cooperation – but is losing influence in the Global South and emerging powers to Russia and China.' The comments, which were made in a presentation to the Government's soft power council (a body designed to help boost UK growth and security) earlier this year, were obtained through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by soft power research agency CreativePower. The soft power council was launched in January with the aim of boosting Britain's global influence. It is chaired by Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, while members also include former ITV chairman Sir Peter Bazalgette, V&A boss Tristram Hunt and PR executive and former Remain campaigner Roland Rudd. While the officials did not explicitly mention the BBC, a separate report by CreativePower found that cuts to the BBC's World Service were opening the door to Russian and Chinese propaganda. Russia and China are believed to be spending as much as £8bn a year on growing media audiences, primarily in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. The BBC has significant reach in those regions, but the amounts being spent by hostile states dwarf the budget of the World Service, which stood at £366m last year. The report said the heavy media spending 'demonstrates the value foreign states place on controlling global narratives', adding that they were ready to move in as soon as the BBC cedes ground. The research warned the World Service was facing a 'perfect storm of competition, demand and decline'. It added that the service was 'at a crossroads' and faced a choice 'to either pursue sustained growth or accept managed decline'. In January, the BBC said it would cut 130 jobs from the World Service as part of a plan to strip out £6m of costs. While the Government this year increased its funding of the World Service from £104m to £137m, this was still £20m below the BBC's demands. Mr Lammy is now looking to slash the budget further as part of the spending review and has reportedly asked BBC bosses to find savings of up to £70m. The CreativePower report argued that the World Service should not be funded by the licence fee but should instead receive 'long-term, stable funding' primarily from the Government. It added that ministers and the BBC should draw up a strategy for growth for the World Service, including pursuing audiences on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok and developing a more coherent strategy for international TV news. The BBC combined its UK and international news channels in a cost-cutting measure in 2023. However, the move has proved controversial, and Lord Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary and national security adviser, said the BBC was 'making a mistake with its TV news channel'. It came as Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the culture select committee, wrote to the Government asking for reassurances over the future funding of the World Service and urging ministers not to overlook the role it plays in national security. She said: 'Through its foreign language services, it is on the frontline of the global fight against mis- and disinformation, but unless it is properly funded, we risk handing the microphone away and giving free reign to media backed by hostile states to become the dominant voice around the world. 'Ministers have told us that the World Service bolsters UK security. Cutting its funding now would undoubtedly make us all less safe.'
The Independent
6 days ago
- The Independent
Why is Labour's pick to be football regulator leading to cries of foul play?
L isa Nandy, secretary of state for culture, media and sport (DCMS), has decided to recuse herself from the final decision on the appointment of the first official football regulator, David Kogan, the government's preferred nominee. At a relatively late stage in proceedings, Kogan revealed in his confirmation hearing at the DCMS select committee that he had donated 'very small' amounts of money to both Keir Starmer and Nandy. This has led to allegations about a conflict of interest and, now, Nandy's unusual decision to stand aside from the decision-making process. Much more than the 'freebies scandal' in Labour's first days back in power, this is the most prominent case of anything like 'sleaze' or ' cronyism ' touching the Starmer administration. How did this happen? It's not entirely obvious. Had Kogan found a way to make his financial support for Starmer and Nandy clear at the earliest possible opportunity, then his embarrassment, and that of ministers, might have been avoided. Or perhaps Starmer and, more apposite, Nandy might have done so. Why didn't she? We don't know. Arguably, leaving it so late made it look like he had something to hide, but there's no reason to think that he's been given any special treatment by the Labour government. Indeed, Kogan was first 'tapped up' for the transfer by the Conservatives, who first proposed creating such a post. Who is David Kogan? He's well qualified to be the football regulator, to be fair. He's had a long career in the media, having worked for the likes of the BBC, Wasserman Media Group and Magnum Photos, and was later the chief media rights adviser to the Premier League between 1998 to 2015. He has also worked with the English Football League, the International Olympic Committee and the US National Football League. The select committee, despite their misgivings, saw fit to endorse his nomination. The committee chair, Caroline Dinenage, however, noted that: '[His] past donations to the Labour Party will inevitably leave him open to charges of political bias in a job where independence is paramount.' In response, Nandy delegated final approval of Kogan to Stephanie Peacock, a junior DCMS minister. How 'Labour' is Kogan? Very. As a young man, he was co-author of The Battle for the Labour Party (1982). The book, written alongside his uncle Maurice Kogan, is one of the best contemporary accounts of the party's traumas during the Thatcher ascendancy. He has made nine donations to the Labour Party, totalling some £33,000 since 2022, including a payment of £5,000 for Rachel Reeves's activities. He was also chair of LabourList until last month. What are the opposition parties doing about it? Making a small fuss. The Tory spokesperson, Louie French, says that it is a 'potential breach of the Governance Code on Public Appointments' that 'must urgently be investigated' and 'represents a clear discourtesy to both this House and the DCMS select committee'. What does it mean for Nandy? It's not ideal. A few months ago, she was rumoured to be up for the sack by Starmer for her performance, or else dropped if her sprawling department is dismantled in some future reshuffle. She's already been demoted by Starmer while in opposition; she was once shadow foreign secretary after finishing third in the 2020 leadership contest (also behind Rebecca Long-Bailey). Never on the hard left – she was Owen Smith's campaign manager for his futile bid to usurp then-leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2016 – the MP for Wigan has consistently acted as a bit of an advocate for the soft left/northern interests within the party. It's probably fair to conclude that she and her leader have gradually drifted away from one another. On the backbenches, she could easily become an informal leader of dissent and a bigger problem for the leadership than some in Downing Street seem to consider her now. Will Kogan get the job?
