Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill

Debate between Wendy Morton and David Nuttall

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I should have covered this point in my speech, and I apologise for not having done so. I do not think we should go solely by that parameter. What if a local Facebook group contains 5,000 local interested residents? Surely that constitutes publication to interested people. It is just as valid as publishing material in a newspaper that no one reads.

[Wendy Morton]

That is a fair point, but what I am driving at is the difference between a small “invite only” Facebook group, which the Bill will not cover, and a broader, open Facebook group. The Bill is about transparency and openness, not about “invite only” groups.

The definition is also unlikely to include material sent as a direct message via Twitter, Facebook or email. It might be expected to include people such as Guido Fawkes, a blogger whom most of us know of, but not a campaign group such as 38 Degrees or SumOfUs.

I believe that the aim of amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, is to clarify the fact that the Bill would cover all journalists who might wish to publish their articles in a newspaper or on the internet, irrespective of whether there were charges. Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the Bill, as drafted, would include an article in a newspaper or magazine or on the internet, either on a website or in a blog, whether paid for or free, through use of the words “journalistic material” and “for publication”. In fact, by specifying where such material is published, he may be limiting the potential forums in which it is placed, as a blog or a tweet may not be part of a specific website.

The issue is important, because it is necessary to keep up with the times and use terminology that incorporates the many and varied realms of the internet, such as Twitter and the “blogosphere” . Some Members may fear that that might mean that anyone could say that they blog or tweet, but the onus would be on such people to show that their work had been made available in a sufficiently public forum in order to prove their credentials as citizen journalists before access could be given.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend refers to a “sufficiently public forum.” How many members of the public would be required to meet that criterion?

[Wendy Morton]

What I am trying to set out here is the difference between information that goes on to a private forum—such as open Facebook sites, direct emails and Twitter—and the more open social media that citizen bloggers would be proving that they are on. At its heart, this Bill is about giving citizen bloggers access to local government accounts, so that they can put information into the public domain and the electors can then conduct further scrutiny if they so wish.

Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill

Debate between Wendy Morton and David Nuttall

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 13th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on the very assured way in which he introduced the debate on quite a technical subject, which has the capacity to be quite dry but which he brought to life in an entertaining way while dealing with all the technical aspects in a confident manner.

I venture to suggest that this Bill is ideally suited for the private Members’ Bill procedure. It does not seek to impose any cost on the taxpayer and deals with a relatively narrow area of the law, dealing with a problem that has arisen that could not really have been foreseen when the original legislation was drafted because of the developments in technology, the advances in software and the reduction in the price of the equipment, which I will come to. All those developments have left a gap in the legislation that the Bill seeks to fill.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend think that another opportunity for the provisions in this Bill would have been the Digital Economy Bill?

[Mr Nuttall]

It would seem that the nature of what is in this Bill could have been included in the Digital Economy Bill—maybe the Minister will explain why it was not when he addresses us—given that the matter undoubtedly needs to be addressed.

I rise to support the Bill and I have no wish to try to scupper it. I do have some concerns about the precise detail, which I will come to but, in broad principle I agree that the Bill is needed.