National Citizen Service Bill [Lords]

Debate between Karen Bradley and Philip Davies

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I suspect that a theme of this debate will be the experiences that we have all had in our constituencies with NCS graduates, and the enthusiasm and self-belief that doing NCS projects gives them. I commend my hon. Friend on taking his NCS graduate into his office. I look forward to hearing how that work experience goes.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I have also been impressed when I have visited NCS in Bradford, but I wonder what the Secretary of State’s response is to the National Audit Office report about the NCS, which says that it has not met its participation targets in six years and that the cost works out at an estimated £1,863 for every youngster who is expected to take part. What is the Government response to that NAO report?

[Karen Bradley]

I welcome the NAO report because it is important, with any programme of this type, that we understand value for money and what is being achieved. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that this was a very ambitious target. We have had great success in getting towards that target, but there is still more to do. The Bill is important so that more of the young people such as those he has met in his constituency will have the chance to participate in the NCS.

Sky: 21st Century Fox Takeover Bid

Debate between Karen Bradley and Philip Davies

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I repeat that I cannot comment on the merits of the bid. I can say that, as and when a formal notification is made, there will be 10 days for me to make a decision as to whether to refer the proposed merger.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the Leveson process. I remind him that we have opened an open public consultation on that, which I hope he has responded to—I am sure he has. At the end of the consultation I will look at the responses as a separate matter.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the meeting the Prime Minister held in September. She had a pre-arranged meeting with Wall Street Journal editors. Mr Murdoch dropped in to that meeting. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposed takeover was not discussed.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am not entirely sure that a company controlled by Rupert Murdoch trying to buy another company largely controlled by Rupert Murdoch is of the great public interest that the Secretary of State seems to think it is. This is really all about the Labour party not liking Rupert Murdoch. If Richard Branson was in the same situation Opposition Members would not be saying a word about it. So may I ask the Secretary of State to ignore the siren voices on the Opposition Benches and not treat it with the great importance with which they think it should be treated? After all, the BBC controls huge amounts of TV news and national and local radio news, and we do not hear a peep out of the Opposition about that.

[Karen Bradley]

I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on these matters. I just repeat that I will not be making any comments on the merits or otherwise of the bid.

Press Matters

Debate between Karen Bradley and Philip Davies

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

Nobody is reneging on any promises. We are having a consultation. We want to hear from all sides, and we will make a decision after that.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State bear most in mind the weakening and poor health of local and national newspapers, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and make sure that they will always be protected in being able to expose people in authority? They should be protected from rich bullies who, by the very threat of legal action against them, may force newspapers not to print stories that would be in the public interest. Not doing that may suit many people in this House, but it would do a gross disservice to the public at large.

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend is right. We all know of instances when local newspapers have perhaps printed something with which we did not necessarily agree, but I defend the right for them to do so.

BBC

Debate between Karen Bradley and Philip Davies

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman has, I know, had long-term issues—that might be the best way of putting it—with the BBC and a view of bias, but I am sure he would agree that he enjoys many BBC programmes on radio and television. We should cherish and really want to protect that. When it is at its best, it is Britain at its best. The Rio Olympics was a prime example of when the whole of Britain came together. The proposals are in line with civil service obligations on pay transparency, but the first disclosures will across bigger bands than we have in the civil service.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

If the BBC is so universally wonderful and popular as we have heard, why does it need the criminal law in place to coerce people to pay for it? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that if the BBC wants to take public money, it should be transparent and that if it does not want to be transparent, it should not take public money?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend knows that we carried out the Perry review on decriminalisation, which found that there was a need for a criminal sanction under the system. This is one of the issues that will continue to be looked at. The BBC, of course, needs to be transparent to show that it is producing value for money for the licence payer.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Debate between Karen Bradley and Philip Davies

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Is the Minister trying to make the case that the Home Office is doing a good job? Given the figures in The Times yesterday, that would be an extraordinary claim to make. Is it her case that the Home Office is doing a good job, because most hon. Members in the Chamber think it is failing miserably?

[Karen Bradley]

I have the highest respect for my hon. Friend, but I am sure he would not expect me to agree with his comments. The officials and people in the Home Office, including my team, are incredibly dedicated and determined. This Government and the previous coalition Government have been dealing with the failures of the Labour Government, who for 13 years made it more and more difficult to deport foreign national offenders. We have taken steps to make a difference and will continue to do so—we will continue to do all we can.

In the short time I have, I should like to make one further point. I realise that some of my hon. Friends will disagree with me on this—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, who makes his position clear with his tie. I am absolutely clear that European Union co-operation, and discussion and working with our European Union counterparts, enables us to deport foreign national offenders effectively, through information sharing, including through the Schengen information system and the European criminal records information system. We are also working through the serious offending by mobile European criminals—SOMEC—scheme to share information. We have talked about free movement. I agree that free movement is not an unconditional right. I want free movement of criminal information before any criminal gets to our shores, so we know exactly who they are and that we can stop them from causing trouble and committing crimes on our shores.