All 3 Debates between Karen Bradley and Paul Farrelly

Tue 12th Sep 2017
Tue 1st Nov 2016
Press Matters
Commons Chamber

1st reading: House of Commons

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Karen Bradley and Paul Farrelly
Thursday 14th September 2017

(7 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley Portrait Karen Bradley
- Hansard - -

As I said earlier, I visited the Edinburgh festival—as did the Arts Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen)—this summer and I had a fantastic time. I was not aware of any issues with the UKVI blocking performers, but perhaps the hon. Lady can write to me on the specifics. She is talking about a situation where we already have free movement, so I am not sure how that particular issue affects leaving the European Union. All I would say is that I am mindful of the concerns about free movement and want to make sure we have as flexible a visa system as possible for performers from throughout the world.

Paul Farrelly Portrait Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As the Secretary of State will be aware, international broadcasters based in London are very concerned about Brexit and their future. They are already looking at relocating to continental Europe, which will affect jobs and investment. What steps has the Secretary of State taken to reassure those companies that they will not face a great switch-off on exit day?

Karen Bradley Portrait Karen Bradley
- Hansard - -

I think the hon. Gentleman said broadcasters based in London. I am concerned about broadcasters based across the whole United Kingdom. I am, of course, aware of the concerns about the country of origin principle and I am working hard to ensure we get the most favourable deal for UK broadcasters, so that they can continue to thrive in the world-class industry we have at the moment.

Sky/Fox Merger

Debate between Karen Bradley and Paul Farrelly
Tuesday 12th September 2017

(7 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley Portrait Karen Bradley
- Hansard - -

That was one of the points made in the representations I received between my statement in June and my statement today, and it is one of the matters I would like the CMA to consider. Broadcasters in the United Kingdom are subject to the United Kingdom broadcasting code. I want to be clear, through the work of the CMA, about the impact that partisan reporting, which may occur in other jurisdictions, might have on the impartiality we expect of our broadcasters here in the UK.

Paul Farrelly Portrait Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Five years on, it seems as if little has changed. The newspapers have been cast off, but Rebekah Brooks is back having been reappointed by the Murdochs, and Fox wants to take over Sky. There are a lot of loose ends to be tied up on corporate behaviour and governance, including evidence given to the Select Committee. One is the second part of the Leveson inquiry, which might well reveal more. May I press the Secretary of State on this matter, not least because the Conservative manifesto pre-empted the conclusions of her consultation? When will we learn whether an amended Leveson 2 will go ahead, as the Select Committee unanimously recommended?

Karen Bradley Portrait Karen Bradley
- Hansard - -

If I may repeat myself, Mr Speaker, I will come to the House with the responses to the consultation, and our views on that consultation, in due course.

Press Matters

Debate between Karen Bradley and Paul Farrelly
1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st November 2016

(8 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill 2016-17 View all Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text

A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.

There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.

For more information see: Ten Minute Bills

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Karen Bradley Portrait Karen Bradley
- Hansard - -

I read that same article, and I should read out what Peter Preston says:

“It doesn’t make sense any longer. Blanket bitterness stuck in a time warp. Most editors, like most politicians, with a soupçon of perspective, would know what to say about such impasses. Time to dismantle the barricades. Time to move on.”

Paul Farrelly Portrait Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Secretary of State has a very easy way out of her dilemma, which is to name a future date for the commencement of section 40. She will then get plenty of movement, because there will be plenty of incentive. We have all been circulated things by local newspapers, at the behest of national newspaper owners, but does the Secretary of State agree that that lobbying tells only half the truth? Section 40 gives protection for serious journalism from the chilling effect of deep-pocketed vexatious litigants, because such people would first have to go through a low-cost arbitration system and not to the courts? In that sense, it protects hard-pressed local newspapers in particular, whose investigations have, sadly, not been of the calibre that we have been used to.

Karen Bradley Portrait Karen Bradley
- Hansard - -

The hon. Gentleman and I discussed that at the Select Committee last week. We share a local paper in the Stoke Sentinel, which has communicated with both of us, but he must recognise that the Stoke Sentinel and others have signed up to IPSO, which does not have recognition under the Press Recognition Panel. We need to ensure that we get this right, which is why we need to take stock, listen to all views and consider the position based on the fact that we are now five years on from the original date of the inquiry.