Oral evidence: The Work of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, HC 361

Oral evidence, 11 October 2017.

Chair

Good afternoon and welcome to this session of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on the work of the Department. We are delighted to have the Secretary of State with us this afternoon. For the benefit of people in the room and anyone else watching the proceedings live, there is a very high probability that we will be disturbed by a vote in the House of Commons during the course of the session. If that happens the Committee proceedings will be suspended but we will return to continue our questioning as soon as possible after the vote. Secretary of State, if I could start with the announcement that you have made today on the Government’s internet safety strategy, a very important document in its own right and coming out in the new legislation as well. In the Conservative party manifesto there was considerable emphasis on the sanctions regime for non-compliance with future codes of conduct and, indeed, some of the law at the moment. Many people will be aware that sometimes these social media platforms are supporting content that is not just in breach of the law but in breach of their own community guidelines. Do you believe there has to be some clear underpinning sanctions to any future regime of good governance and good compliance from the social media companies?

Karen Bradley

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I am glad that I could extend the name of this Committee to Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to take you from the CMS Committee to the DCMS Committee. I think that is a great achievement for me. You talk about the internet safety strategy. I think it is worth putting into context where it sits inside the digital charter, because it is a pillar of the digital charter that we talked about in the manifesto. Then perhaps I can come on to how we envisage it perhaps working in the future. The digital charter, which builds on the digital strategy that we launched earlier this year—you can see why digital is now in our name because digital comes up quite a lot—is about making the UK the best place to run a digital business, to use digital in your business, to exploit the opportunities the internet provides but to do so in the safest way possible. I do want to be clear: I mean the UK to be the safest place to be online, not the internet, as I misspoke earlier on Radio 4. As part of that, the internet safety strategy is clearly a very important part of how we make sure we keep people safe online. This Green Paper that we are releasing today is the first stage in that internet safety strategy. So this is the consultation paper. This is the normal way Government would carry out business, a Green Paper followed by a White Paper and then potentially legislation if that is needed. So today we are starting the discussion. What do we need to do? How do we best do it? I would welcome comments from industry, from interested parties, from academia, from elsewhere about how we actually make this work. I rule nothing out. I would like to do as little legislatively as is possible because I think legislation is a blunt instrument that often does not deliver what you want it to deliver, but I don’t rule out bringing in new laws if that is what is required. I think the sanctions you are talking about refer to the code of conduct. Of course, the code of conduct does have statutory underpinning. We did legislate for a code of conduct in the Digital Economy Act but we now need to flesh out how that code of conduct will work and how exactly we do hold internet companies to account.

Chair

That includes—as it says in the Green Paper—if necessary a sanctions regime to ensure compliance?

Karen Bradley

That is right. The first part of the process is to get to the point at which we can say with confidence that the UK is the safest place to be online. As I say, I rule nothing out. I would like to do things as quickly as possible and that generally does not involve legislation, but if it is felt it is needed then clearly we will be ready and willing to do whatever we need to do.

Chair

What is your general impression of things as they are at the moment? You could run this process and simply codify a series of protocols and practices that already exist, or it could herald something which is tougher and puts greater obligations on the companies. What is your view on where we are?

Karen Bradley

I think you are right, there has been an awful lot of good work and we perhaps have not given internet companies credit for some of the good work they have done, but there is no doubt that they need to do more. There is no doubt they need to go further. I sense a real willingness within the internet companies. I think I said earlier on the radio that there is a number of leading people from internet companies, people who have set up tech companies, perhaps in their 20s, who have said to me that they, when they set their internet company up, believed in freedom and liberty and they wanted to make the internet this place that would revolutionise the world and they didn’t think of the consequences for people who were more vulnerable. Now they have teenagers themselves, they are recognising the limitations. Let’s be clear, the internet is a force for good. Remember when we had pen pals? It would be four or five weeks before you heard anything, it was such a slow process, there wasn’t any real connection, you were just almost ticking the box on a school process. Now, a pen pal is someone you can Skype and you can be on Facetime with, and you can speak to, it is an amazing thing for young people. Incredible opportunity. For all our retailers, previously your marketplace was literally your physical marketplace, now the marketplace is the whole world thanks to digital. That is an incredible thing. We are this year going to see more devices connected to the internet, data connections to the internet, than there are people on the planet. This is an amazing opportunity but we have to do it in a safe way. That I why I say this is the start of the process in terms of consulting. I would like to see progress as quickly as possible. I am very much open to internet companies that want to come forward with suggestions and ideas, and I would like to hear from the Committee as well and from all interested parties so we can get this right and we can genuinely say that we are harnessing all the benefits of the internet but we are doing it in the safest way possible.

Chair

I suppose what I am getting at is, are you satisfied with the status quo?

Karen Bradley

No, clearly not, that is why we have published the Green Paper today. Clearly, we need to do more.

Chair

Last week the Home Secretary said that it was not enough for companies to take down harmful content but they should be acting to stop it going up in the first place. Do you sympathise with that view too?

Karen Bradley

I do. When I was working in the Home Office I used to work on the indecent images of children. Now, we have seen the internet companies being proactive. It was not quick. I am not saying to you that the internet companies immediately ran forward and said, “Yes, here we are faced with 4 billion pieces of content every day, we want to actively monitor it and stop it going up in the first place” but there are technological solutions to these problems. We have seen it with indecent images of children, the fantastic work the Internet Watch Foundation does on its hash clearing house, where it is proactively looking and stopping those images going up before they are ever available for anybody who wants to view them. The only way we are going to stop the exploitation is if we stop the source material. We need to prevent as much as we need to pursue the bad guys. So, absolutely, the status quo is not good enough, we do need to do more. It is quite clear that there has been unacceptable behaviour and it should be case that what goes on on your computer screen should be no different from the way someone would behave to you if they met you in the street. That is where we want to get to. There is no one silver bullet to do that. There is no one answer to the problem; if there was we would have all done it by now. But we have to start and we have to make progress on this and I want to work with the internet companies, I want to work with parents, I want to work with schools and I want to work with academia, I want to work with people who have great ideas with technological solutions to stop that content being there in the first place.

Chair

I know other colleagues want to come in on this but if I could just ask a couple more questions. The Green Paper, quite rightly I think, has its focus on stopping the distribution of harmful content but there are other types of content, which while not inducing the same amount of physical harm, is still serious. As you know, the Committee is investigating the impact of fake news on our media and on our democracy. A number of us were recently involved in a discussion about the way copyright infringement is exercised online and through closed groups, to make that easier as well. Do you feel that should be part of this strategy as well? Should a future code for the social media platforms include their social responsibilities to act against other sorts of content that could be considered harmful to society as well?

Karen Bradley

I am very interested to see the Committee’s results of the inquiry on fake news and you are right also to highlight the point about copyright infringement. That is a piece of work we are doing in the Department about how we protect intellectual property. How do we make sure that those content providers get properly rewarded for producing excellent content? We are never going to succeed as a country if we cannot let our creative minds produce amazing, incredible content that they get rewarded for. We are absolutely cognisant of that. At this stage the internet safety strategy is about harmful content. We need to make sure we don’t get too much scope-creep on it at this stage. We need to get some positive outcomes from it, get some tangible deliverables and make progress, but use the learning we have had from indecent images of children, which is helping us on extremist content, which is helping us on harmful content, which will then help us on other content that is perhaps undermining society and democracy. One of the things I get a lot in the tea room is you just need to ban anonymity. Well, for example, anonymity is a force for good in an oppressive regime. You need to be able to be anonymous to be able to speak freely where you are oppressed but in a liberal democracy it needs a different treatment. I would say that we need to work with the internet companies to get to a point where in a liberal democracy the internet is the force for good that it needs to be; it is not undermining that liberal democracy.

Chair

Effectively what you are doing is you are creating a schedule of social responsibility that companies have and a requirement that they act to fulfil them or if not face sanctions for failing to do so.

Karen Bradley

I don’t know if you would call it a schedule.

Chair

A list? In your answer you listed a number of things out and we could add to that list as well, but that is effectively what it is, isn’t it? You are saying to the companies, “You have a social responsibility to act against this sort of content, to take it down and act against the people putting it up where necessary, and if you don’t do that then ultimately there will some form of sanction imposed on you”.

Karen Bradley

That is what we want to consult on with the code of conduct.

Chair

But that is what it is, isn’t it? What is in the code of conduct is out for consultation but, in essence, that is what it is, isn’t it?

Karen Bradley

I guess you could portray it in that way but I am open to hearing if people have other suggestions for how best to describe it. I am not wedded to any one solution here. It is how we get to the right end result. It is the end that I am interested in.

Chair

Is that how you see it, though? You could put it in that way but what you have described is a list of obligations the companies will have and if they fail to meet those obligations then down the line there will be sanctions imposed on them.

Karen Bradley

It may well look like that but that is what we are consulting on, to find out how exactly it will look and how we make sure that we do deliver.

Ian C. Lucas

The UK is especially strong with artists, musicians, film and they are saying to me that there is quite an urgent situation in terms of continuing to have the UK as one of the best places in the world to do business within their particular field. You seem to be giving a lower priority to protecting them on the internet to the other avenues you have been discussing.

Karen Bradley

Absolutely not. There is no lower priority, I just think we have to tackle these things in different ways. So the issue about copyright protection is something that we have been looking at in the Department for a long time, working across Government with colleagues from BEIS and other Government Departments. As I said earlier, if a creative brain cannot provide creative content that they can get monetary reward for, they will not provide that content. It is interesting; I had meetings only this week with a number of the creative industries on exactly this point, how best we do it. We have taken some steps. We have worked on the optimisation, the algorithms, so that you don’t get the pirated sites as the first things that come up when you put things into a search engine, which wasn’t the case previously, but there is a lot more to do. We are looking very carefully and I think this comes to a point I suspect you may be alluding to about the status of the internet companies and whether they are a mere conduit or publisher, which I know came up yesterday in your session. We need to get the balance right. We need to get the balance right that we have a free vibrant internet that we can harness all the benefits from while protecting the intellectual property that is ultimately the thing that differentiates the United Kingdom from other parts of the world. We can commoditise anything but it is our creativity, our innovation that makes people want to buy British and we need to make sure that we are doing that. This means that we have to protect content so if it goes up on a pay wall it stays behind that pay wall, for example, because it quite rightly should do.

Ian C. Lucas

What is your view, what is the balance? We had the chair and the chief executive of Ofcom here yesterday and I heard two different views from them. The chair certainly felt that the internet should be treated as publishers; the platform should be treated as publishers. Is that your view?

Karen Bradley

I am looking at this because I am not sure that the “publisher” definition in UK law would necessarily work in the way that I think people would like it to work. I think it would end up being very restrictive and making the internet not work in the way we wanted it to work. I am looking at this as part of another piece of work we are doing in the Department, but I want to be clear, there is no order of priority here, we happen to have launched the internet safety strategy today but that doesn’t mean that is more or less important than the work we are doing on copyright protection. We are obviously looking to sign a sector deal for the creative industries and one of the very important parts of that is how we protect intellectual property.

Ian C. Lucas

But shouldn’t platforms be responsible for what is on their sites?

Karen Bradley

If you go down the route of a full publisher you would end up taking out some of the things that make the internet work and make the internet the vibrant place it is, but being a mere conduit, which is what they legally are at the moment, is clearly giving concern. So I am looking at what the balance is, how we get this right so that we have the right status for companies, so we protect intellectual property while making sure that the internet thrives.

Chair

From what you said, though, you clearly regard the companies as more than just mere conduits?

Karen Bradley

I am looking at this matter. We have teams looking at this, we are discussing this matter with both the internet companies and those representatives from the creative industries who are concerned about protection of copyright, protection of their content. It probably would not be right for me to say anymore at this stage but I am acutely aware of the issue and I am making sure that we do address it.

Chair

If the result of that is that the platforms are seen as more than just conduits there may be some new definition in law, even if it is not that of a publisher.

Karen Bradley

As with the internet safety strategy, nothing is ruled out.

Simon Hart

You were saying to Ian Lucas that if you defined social media platforms as publishers there would be some way that would have a negative impact on the way in which the internet is intended to work. Expand on that. I know that at some point—

Karen Bradley

If I give you the example of a newspaper website and they have an obligation to moderate the comments that are underneath any of their articles, so you don’t get a free and open discussion because there is a degree of moderation going on to ensure that the information that is there is appropriate. Now, we want to have that level of appropriateness there but also within the internet, within social media, you have much more freedom to express yourself than you perhaps do when you are regulated by a regulator like Ofcom in the case of a broadcaster. I think we just have to be really careful.

Simon Hart

I take your point on that if we could say with certainty that the platforms never moderate the comments on their platform but they do, they have already taken that step. They already do occasionally step in and remove material, which, in their view, is inappropriate. So they have already become publishers.

Karen Bradley

I would disagree with that. I think they will remove content when it is reported or if it is illegal. So things like indecent images of children they will proactively remove, likewise radicalisation material, they will act to remove.

Simon Hart

So a picture of a woman breastfeeding, which is removed by Facebook, does that fit into that category?

Karen Bradley

That was an example of where the internet companies perhaps did not understand or interpret what was an acceptable photograph, an image, to be on Facebook. But I think we need to be careful here that what we do is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut, a piece of legislation where we say under UK common law these platforms are now publishers, which could impact on freedom of speech, civil liberties and the ability of people to enjoy the benefits that the internet brings. We have to do this in a way that does not allow harm.

Simon Hart

A second question on that. The Germans have legislated up to a point in this area and apply significant fines in the event of certain material not being taken down. They have obviously taken a view that that strikes the right balance. Have we looked at that? Is that a problem for us, the German model?

Karen Bradley

We are looking at it, of course, but they have a different legal system and they have a different way of interpreting the legal system. We cannot just take what one country has done and do it. We cannot put the genie back in the bottle. The internet is there, the internet exists, there are things going on on the internet, some of which is like the wild west and that is why we need to do things like the internet safety strategy. We need to work with likeminded partners, likeminded countries and work with the internet provider companies themselves to get to the right result. We are looking at what the Germans have done. We are acutely aware of what is going on around the world, we want to get this right for Britain.

Simon Hart

My last question on the anonymity point that you made earlier on is that while it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that anonymity helps those people who might want to expose all sorts of injustices in the country, would it not be sensible for the platform at least to be able to identify perpetrators so they have the data even if it is not for all of us to consume, but in the event of something untoward happening there is at least a trail that the law enforcement agencies can follow?

Karen Bradley

They absolutely can do that. That is the case. Let us be clear, on something like Twitter, you can now block all anonymous people. If you want to block anonymous people from being your followers or from contacting you, you can do that as a user of Twitter. These are things that have happened and we should applaud the internet companies when they do make positive changes like that, which reflect the fact that in a liberal democracy anonymity can be harmful.

Simon Hart

But it is not about me blocking people I don’t like, it is about the police being able to identify people and take the necessary action quickly. That is what it is about.

Karen Bradley

But, again, when you register on Twitter you have to provide a certain amount of information. So while you may be anonymous to the general public on Twitter, the internet companies will have that information.

Simon Hart

But you can make it up.

Karen Bradley

Well, there will be an ISP, they have to provide certain information but in terms of the relationship law enforcement have with them, I do not want to go into that because that is obviously a matter for the Home Office and you might want to get the Home Secretary in for that particular question.

Chair

Thank you very much. We will move on to the Sky-Fox merger. I appreciate you are limited in what you can say but I have some procedural questions that the Committee would like some help with. First, in terms of the process down the line, once the CMA has published its finding in relation to the proposed Sky-Fox merger, what further steps would be taken by the Department to reach a final determination?

Karen Bradley

It is very difficult for me to say at this stage what further steps the Department will take because it depends on what the CMA report finds. They have 24 weeks. I asked them to start looking at this on 14 September. After 24 weeks they will report to me and they will give me recommendations based on the evidence. I will then follow the processes, as I have throughout, set out in the Enterprise Act 2002 and I will come to a decision based on their recommendations and the evidence before me. It would be difficult for me to say at this stage what that would look like because I simply do not know what they will recommend.

Chair

From what you have said it sounds like basically you will receive their advice, we do not know what that advice will be, and then you reach a determination on whether or not the deal should be allowed to go ahead or not, is that correct?

Karen Bradley

Yes.

Chair

That is the basic process?

Karen Bradley

Yes. The basic process is the final decision is a decision of the Secretary of State. That is a process that Parliament legislated for and I am following that process but it is very much based on the evidence. It is not based on any personal emotion or feelings or views about anybody involved. I have to be mindful of the fact that there are two parties who would like to merge for good commercial reasons while at the same time I am cognisant of the obligations of full media mergers in the Enterprise Act about ensuring that the public interest tests are met to make sure we continue with a media that works for the country.

Chair

I notice you said that the process is evidence based. We discussed this at some length yesterday with Ofcom. Sharon White, in her evidence to the Committee, said that she did not feel that the advice that she had given to you changed at all during summer but your position did, certainly in regards to referring on the grounds of broadcasting standards. So if Ofcom’s advice to you had not changed, what was it that changed your mind?

Karen Bradley

You will recall in the process that I had asked Ofcom to report by 20 June, which they did. I came to the House a couple of weeks later to say on the basis of the advice Ofcom had given me I was minded to follow their recommendations insofar as to refer to the CMA on the basis of the public interest test regarding media plurality but not on commitment to broadcasting standards because they were unequivocal in their advice that there were no grounds. But Ofcom also recommended that there were undertakings in lieu that would mitigate the media plurality concerns and I did not accept them because they were behavioural, not structural, and I did not feel, looking at the evidence before me and the laws in the Enterprise Act, that that was sufficient. I then asked for further representations and further evidence. There were points that were made in those representations, of which we had about 43,000—I think 30-something were new substantive pieces of evidence—but there were concerns about the thresholds that should be applied for referral to the Competition and Markets Authority—that the threshold that had been applied in Ofcom’s advice may have been too high and that actually it was a lower threshold for whether it should go to the CMA. The legal advice I received was that that lower threshold did give cause for concern. There were also concerns about some of the non-fanciful—the fact that Ofcom said there were non-fanciful concerns that they had identified. Even though they didn’t feel that those non-fanciful concerns warranted a further investigation by the CMA, I had enough concern that the fact they were non-fanciful concerns about commitments to broadcasting standards should mean that, so there is complete confidence in whatever decision is taken by all parties and by all interested people, the CMA should look at this.

Chair

That is understood and I think your comments to the House were very clear on this as well. I think as a process it is quite interesting, because if the regulator is coming in front of the Committee and saying, “Yes, there was other information to be looked at but the substance of our recommendation never changed” but your discussion and the action the Department took did, what external factors had a bearing on that? From what you are saying, it sounds like it was separate legal advice that you sought through the process that differed in its interpretation from Ofcom.

Karen Bradley

It was because of the representations we received, the substantive evidence that was provided. I did not have sight of the evidence that Ofcom had looked at. I asked Ofcom to give a comment on this further substantive evidence; was this evidence they had looked at previously? The fact that they came back and agreed that the threshold that should be applied to this test was lower and that there were non-fanciful concerns, I felt, in a quasi-judicial capacity—and bearing in mind that I have to give due consideration to the fact I may end up in front of a court of law at any time on this matter—and I didn’t feel that I would feel comfortable answering in a court of law, “Why did you not refer on the basis of this?” would be a sufficiently clear answer. I felt that it needed to be looked at with more scrutiny and that is something that is at the discretion of the Secretary of State because it is a decision ultimately for the Secretary of State and nobody else.

Chair

Yes. Final question from me on this. The chief executive of Ofcom has one view, you have a different view. Ofcom felt very strongly yesterday that it should always be at the discretion of the Secretary of State and not the decision of the regulator. It does beg the question that if there is that difference of opinion, difference of interpretation, should the guidelines on which Ofcom work be reviewed because that disparity clearly exists?

Karen Bradley

I do not think that there needs to be a change in guidelines or anything like that. We are talking about a very specific process set out in legislation. Where there is sometimes a slight confusion is the difference between the fit and proper test that Ofcom have versus the tests that were applied about commitment to broadcasting standards on the public interest test in the Enterprise Act 2002. In terms of the fit and proper test, this is an ongoing test that Ofcom does as the independent regulator. Absolutely rightly, the independent regulator should make the decisions about who is fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence. But this specific issue, which only occurs during a media merger, is one where Ofcom provides advice but the decision is ultimately for the Secretary of State. So I do not think we should muddy the waters by confusing the two. I am not saying you are—

Chair

I did not mention the fit and proper test at all. Finally, how long do you have to respond to the CMA’s final recommendation to you?

Karen Bradley

There is nothing in statute about how long there is. There is nothing in statute but throughout the process—I should also say that I have also followed throughout the recommendation from Leveson in his report about how we should approach media mergers in terms of transparency, but also mindful that we do need to do this in sufficiently quick order so that all parties that are affected by this do not have to wait too long.

Chair

Thank you very much. Brendan O’Hara is next but he will have to wait until after the vote. Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House. On resuming—

Chair

If I could call the meeting back to order. Apologies for the delay for people who were not voting. Hopefully, we will have a bit of clear time now until the next interruption. Secretary of State, before we resume the questioning, we were interrupted on the point of discussing the steps taken after the CMA reports back to you on the Sky merger and the amount of time you have to respond. I was wondering whether you could clarify that for us.

Karen Bradley

Of course. I have 30 working days to respond, and I have to, within that time, say whether I am going to let the merger go through or whether I will block it on public interest grounds. I hope that helps the Committee.

Chair

Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Brendan O’Hara.

Brendan O'Hara

I only have the one question, your interrogation was so thorough, Chair. What I would like to know is, on the issue of media plurality I can absolutely understand why a referral to the Competition and Markets Authority was appropriate. Could you explain to me, though, what expertise does the CMA have to judge on the issues of broadcast standards that the independent regulator, Ofcom, doesn’t have?

Karen Bradley

The CMA is the expert in mergers. They have media experts and they are able to do the detailed work over the 24-week period, calling on whichever experts they feel are appropriate in order to be able to fulfil the requirements as set out in the Act. So I am confident that the CMA will look at this thoroughly and will be able to give appropriate advice.

Brendan O'Hara

I can understand on media plurality and the merger absolutely but on the issue of broadcast standards, and whether we agree or disagree with what Ofcom came back with, they are the independent regulator. They are the expert in the field. I just wonder what more the CMA could bring to that issue of standards that Ofcom could not.

Karen Bradley

I think let’s wait and see what their report holds but I felt there was sufficient uncertainty, based on the Ofcom report, the further evidence I received and the legal advice I received, I want to make sure that we have explored this as thoroughly as possible. The CMA are the experts. They can call whichever experts they feel are appropriate to enhance what they are doing. They have 24 weeks to work on it and I look forward to seeing what they come back with.

Brendan O'Hara

The experts that they could call could include Ofcom so would you expect Ofcom to present evidence to the CMA as part of an investigation?

Karen Bradley

That is entirely down to the CMA to make the decision as to who they feel it is appropriate to call. I do not interfere in that process. I wait to see what their recommendations are.

Paul Farrelly

Karen, I want to move on to the press now but just as a link to this. I think one of the most remarkable things that came out of yesterday’s session with Ofcom was when questions were asked about how Ofcom had felt about information provided by Fox and two of the Murdoch brothers—the answer that came back was that because providing false or inaccurate information was tantamount to committing a criminal offence Ofcom took it as read that the information they provided was always accurate. I think during our press phone hacking inquiries we learned, if we needed to learn, to be rather more sceptical than that so I hope you will bear that in mind in terms of what is provided to the CMA and your reflections afterwards. Just on the press, it will be three weeks today that you commenced your—the first anniversary of the start of your consultation over section 40 and Leveson 2 so I just wondered whether you could give us an idea on how you are getting on and when you are going to come to some conclusions.

Karen Bradley

We expect to publish the consultation responses shortly. I cannot give you a date at the moment but it will be shortly and then obviously you will see the consultation responses at that point.

Paul Farrelly

It was shortly in September when you told me the same thing in the House so—

Karen Bradley

Yes. You will bear in mind that we have had a recess. I want to make sure I do present these things to the House first so it will be—all I can say is shortly.

Paul Farrelly

Will we be celebrating the first anniversary by then or not?

Karen Bradley

Wait and see.

Paul Farrelly

Okay. One of the real upsides of having debates during elections is that you have to read the manifestos just in case people in the audience might have read them so I duly did my duty and read the Conservative manifesto and right towards the end I came across this just in summary. “We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.” In the final paragraph of that little section, “We will repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2014”. It is only today I realised that that Act does not exist because it is the Crown and Courts Act 2013 so you can—

Karen Bradley

You must have an old copy of the manifesto.

Paul Farrelly

If there is a better copy I will be glad to read it. So for those of us unfamiliar about the manifesto drafting process could you just explain how those pledges were formed in the manifesto and your role in them?

Karen Bradley

I stand by the manifesto. I was elected on the basis of the manifesto but I will be bringing forward the consultation responses and at that point I will go through the due process as required under the consultation.

Paul Farrelly

I did not ask you whether you stood by the manifesto. I might ask you that later but I asked you about the process of—

Karen Bradley

I do not think it would be appropriate for me, in my capacity of Secretary of State for Digital, Culture Media and Sport, to comment on what went on internally within a party putting together a manifesto. That would not be an appropriate thing for me to be talking about now.

Paul Farrelly

Why not?

Karen Bradley

Because it is not part of what I am talking to you about here.

Paul Farrelly

It was a factual question about the process of drawing up a manifesto and whether you had a role in it.

Karen Bradley

I am not going to get drawn on how the manifesto was drawn up or otherwise. All I will say is I stand by the manifesto and I will be giving you the consultation responses shortly and go through the due process as required.

Paul Farrelly

So did you have any role in that manifesto?

Karen Bradley

I do not want to get drawn on what did or did not happen in the drawing up of the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2017 election.

Paul Farrelly

Did you spot the typo at least?

Karen Bradley

I do not want to get drawn on that. I am not going to get drawn on it.

Paul Farrelly

I am flogging a not even twitching horse here so I will—can I just then ask, just to flog it a little bit more, did you, at any stage, express any reservations, even though you stand by that, of the fact about those pledges because some people might take it that they pre-empted the conclusions of your consultation?

Karen Bradley

I am not going to get drawn on how or why the manifesto was drawn up or any of the processes that went on.

Paul Farrelly

Did you ask civil servants for any advice on how that might impact on the work of the Department?

Karen Bradley

I am not going to get drawn on those points.

Paul Farrelly

In particular, because you were quite, and rightly, careful in your reference of Sky-Fox on broadcasting standards because you said that you did not want to end up in court and not give a convincing reply to questions as to why—

Karen Bradley

I do not think convincing is the right answer. I think I need to know that if I am going to end up in court that I can give a response that justifies the decision I have taken.

Paul Farrelly

Absolutely correct. So did you, when you saw, if you were not involved in these manifesto pledges, even though you stand by them, did it ever occur to you or anybody in the Department that these might be problematic because by law having a consultation—if anyone claims it had a predetermined outcome you might be in a spot of bother in terms of judicial review in the courts?

Karen Bradley

I think you will find the consultation had finished and closed at the point that the manifesto was drawn up but in terms of the position today I stand by the manifesto pledges and I will be coming forward to the consultation and the due processes that need to go through at that point.

Paul Farrelly

It may have finished but we are coming up to the first anniversary to hear your conclusions.

Karen Bradley

I am not going to be drawn on the process on how the manifesto was drawn up.

Paul Farrelly

Okay. Let’s move to the Select Committee submission to you. We have not had a response. It was a submission to the consultation but we are hoping, I think, Chair, if I am right to say, when you announce the results of the consultations you will also respond to the submission points that were made.

Chair

If I can clarify. I appreciate that the Committee put in a submission to the consultation just like anyone else. So while it is not required that the Department respond in the normal way to a committee paper I think we would be grateful for a response to our submission after the consultation results are out.

Karen Bradley

I know at that point and will ensure that the Committee receives a response to it.

Paul Farrelly

If you have read the submission, or even checked our website, you will be aware that unanimously, cross-party, we recommended partial, with good reasoning, partial commencement of section 40 and to go ahead with Leveson 2 with amended terms of reference to take into account what has gone before. Have you read the submission?

Karen Bradley

I have read the submission. I am aware of the views of the Select Committee and I will respond either at the same time or shortly after I publish the consultation responses.

Paul Farrelly

Okay. We do not need to say that the Conservative manifesto clearly did not agree with the submission, cross-party, from the Select Committee. I do not want to take too long. I just want to go back. There is a danger that people think that with what went on with the press in the past it is all history, all the stables have been cleaned, but there was a case last week regarding an intelligence agent, very serious case, where finally News Corp admitted liability and paid damages to the agent whose computer was hacked and targeted by viruses by private investigators acting on behalf of News International, News Group Newspapers as was. That did not involve the payment of public officials as far as we know but there are other cases still out there, litigation has not finished, where this may come up. The remarkable thing last week is that it took News UK now, so long to admit it and Rebekah Brooks, who used to be the chief executive, is now the chief executive again. Two years it took them to knit it so it rather suggests that bygones are certainly not bygones and that bad behaviour is not completely out of the system. I just wanted to ask you, should more evidence come to light, either through civil cases or through investigations by this Committee, whether you will take that into account in your decision regarding as to whether to commence Leveson 2?

Karen Bradley

I think you have just demonstrated by the fact that there are still court cases ongoing it is possible, through the court system, to uncover these matters. One of the concerns that I had raised at the time that I launched the consultation about whether it was the right thing to do to have another full public inquiry given that the courts are looking at these matters but if you will forgive me, I will publish the consultation’s responses shortly and I will go through due process at that time and I will be happy, when the consultation responses have been published, to perhaps talk to you again about these matters.

Paul Farrelly

Okay. I am sure you will be questioned on them. My final question is, do you think that the reappointment of Rebekah Brooks as chief executive of the new News UK, given what has happened in the past and some of the criminal evidence in her trial where she was acquitted of conspiracy and direct involvement in hacking, makes some fascinating reading about the regime that operated at the papers that she was an editor of and the organisation that she was chief executive of? Do you think her reappointment sends the right signal that the press and indeed the Murdoch media empire have really changed its ways and is committed to a fresh start?

Karen Bradley

I think in my capacity as Secretary of State it is probably best if I do not express personal opinions about appointments of anybody to any organisation that is within sectors that my Department operates in. Again, if you will forgive me, I will refrain from answering that question.

Paul Farrelly

I will leave it there, Chair, having got absolutely nowhere.

Chair

If I may, regards to “shortly” could the Committee expect the response to the consultation before the end of the year?

Karen Bradley

Yes.

Christian Matheson

It is just the one question if I may, Chairman, thank you. Secretary of State, you have just said that you felt there were cases still ongoing and I might have misheard but I do believe that you told me in the House in the last Parliament in answer to a question that all the relevant court cases had finished.

Karen Bradley

That was the criminal cases. So the civil cases are a separate matter. It was the criminal cases we had concerns about because we did not feel we could take any steps until all the criminal cases had come to the end because of potentially prejudicing the prosecution’s arguments.

Christian Matheson

Okay, thank you.

Julie Elliott

I am going to go back to what you have just been answering questions on. The Government produces principles on consultation, which Government Ministers are supposed to adhere to. Point J of those principles of consultation says, “That published responses to consultations should be within 12 weeks of the consultation or provide an explanation why this is not possible”. The consultation closed on 10 January this year so you could have responded before the general election was called. Did you make any statement as to why you weren’t fulfilling the principles of consultation on not responding within 12 weeks?

Karen Bradley

I do not believe any public statement has been made. I will check with the Department whether anything has been said. Obviously we have talked about this in the House of Commons in questions and other matters but you will bear in mind that there was the issue that not only was there general election purdah but there was local election purdah that applied. So we have had a significantly longer period of purdah over this year than we would normally.

Julie Elliott

But the first 12-week period was before that I think because it was in March.

Karen Bradley

I think that there was an issue about when the local government purdah started but, forgive me, if you will allow perhaps I can check exactly the course of events and write to the Committee.

Julie Elliott

Come back to us; fine. So we then have the issue of what was in the Conservative manifesto, which you have said you stand by, which can be interpreted many ways. That could be you agree with it, you do not agree with it; whatever. We leave that to people’s perceptions. However, since the general election there has been no election so there has been no periods of purdah and we are now 39 weeks since the close of the consultation. So there have been periods that you could have reported within the 12-week period, your own Government’s principles of behaviour on consultations, and you still have not responded or given any explanation that I am aware of as to why you have not responded. Could you answer why that is?

Karen Bradley

Processes going through Government sometimes take longer than one would like. I apologise if there has not been sufficient communication about that but sometimes things do take longer than anyone would like. However, I am endeavouring to make sure that the consultation responses are published as soon as possible.

Julie Elliott

So can you tell me, what is the point of the Government having consultation principles if they are clearly just taken no notice of?

Karen Bradley

I do not think it’s fair to say they are taken no notice of.

Julie Elliott

Well, have you taken notice of them?

Karen Bradley

I am always cognisant of the principles.

Julie Elliott

Have you acted on them?

Karen Bradley

But in this case we have to make sure we go through due process in terms of consulting all parties, making sure that before consultation responses are published, because of the sensitive nature of this particular issue, and again I am happy to apologise for not making public statements on that—

Julie Elliott

I would just like an answer to the question of; have you acted on your own Government’s principles of consultation? It is a straightforward yes or no—

Karen Bradley

I try my best to act on those principles.

Julie Elliott

Have you acted on them?

Karen Bradley

I try my best to act on those principles. In this case we have clearly not lived up to your expectations and I apologise for that.

Julie Elliott

I want to go back before I come forward. So when the Leveson Inquiry was running and when Parliament supported the Royal Charter all sides agreed that a response to the need for independent press regulation should be on a cross-party basis. David Cameron said that the relationship between politicians and parts of the press had been too close. Would you agree with that?

Karen Bradley

It was a comment that was made by the previous Prime Minister.

Julie Elliott

Once the Royal Charter had been supported by Parliament that was supposed to be the end of politicians interfering in press regulation. Would you agree with that?

Karen Bradley

Yes.

Julie Elliott

Would you think that your consultation was interfering then in that process?

Karen Bradley

No, I do not think it is interfering. I think that at the time I announced the consultation, we have to be mindful of the different environment that the press operates in today. When the Leveson Inquiry reported and when Parliament legislated there was an assumption that the press would be regulated by regulators that applied for recognition under the Press Recognition Panel. That did not happen. Over 90% of the press is not regulated by a regulator that comes under the Press Recognition Panel. We have to accept that that is the situation and try to work within that. When the Leveson Inquiry reported we simply did not see the same volume of online news sources, which are not regulated by either Ofcom or the Press Recognition Panel or anybody else. So the reason for the consultation was to say; given the situation today are we doing the right thing to continue with a process that was set out six years ago? Do we need to do something different because ultimately what we want to get to is the end where people do not have—

Julie Elliott

It was set out four years ago not six years ago. So let us come forward—

Karen Bradley

The inquiry started six years ago and we need—the ends are that I want to make sure that people are not victims of unacceptable press intrusion. I want to make sure we get to a point where we can say that that’s the case.

Julie Elliott

I am going to come on to that but the vote in Parliament, where you voted for the amendment that was laid by your Prime Minister at that time, David Cameron, and Theresa May, who is the current Prime Minister, their names were on that amendment when it went through Parliament. You voted for that. I voted for that. Five hundred and thirty Members of the House voted for it. Only 13 people voted against. That was in March 2013. That was not six years ago. That was four years ago. But moving on to where we are now, which you have brought up, so we know IMPRESS is progressing well. It is attracting more members. It has been recognised properly as properly independent, as Parliament intended, and it has awarded damages this year in the first ever low cost arbitration at a libel case, as Parliament intended, but the ability of IMPRESS to attract more members is being held back by your Government’s refusal to bring section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act into force. So potential members are waiting for section 40 so that membership of IMPRESS and its arbitration service will give them protection against court costs, as Parliament intended, as you voted for in your own Government’s amendments. What is your response to that now then?

Karen Bradley

I agree I did vote for it and I think we all, at that time, hoped that the press would set up regulators that applied for recognition under the Press Recognition Panel but that has not happened and will not happen for well over 90% of the press. That includes local newspapers that are struggling enough. That includes many online organisations that simply were not considered when that vote happened in 2013. So I have to look at the situation today and look at how we best make—

Julie Elliott

So if we look at the situation today, if we look at members of IMPRESS that are a recognised regulator, how should they get the protection against legal costs now in 2017? When should that happen?

Karen Bradley

When we publish the consultation responses we will respond to that point.

Julie Elliott

So you have no view on that?

Karen Bradley

I want to wait for the consultation responses to be published before making any further comment.

Julie Elliott

Can I ask what made you tear up the cross-party agreement that we had in the result of Leveson that we voted on in 2013?

Karen Bradley

Nobody has torn up any agreement. We have consulted on what is the right thing to do in the world we are living in today, not the world we wanted it to be in 2013 and not the world it was in 2013. What is the world today and how can we best make sure—what I am interested in is that we have a free and vibrant press and that people are not subjected to unacceptable press intrusion. That is the challenge we face.

Julie Elliott

What was very clear in all of the debate in Parliament at the time; Government should be totally removed from the issue of press regulation. That was absolutely agreed by all sides barring the 13 people who voted against it. In effect by putting yourself in charge of the consultation process, you were a Government Minister, you are Secretary of State, you have put yourself front and centre of press regulation. Is that not tearing up what was cross-party agreement?

Karen Bradley

No, I do not accept it was tearing up cross-party agreement.

Julie Elliott

So what is it?

Karen Bradley

It is acknowledging and accepting the fact that the reality of the world is not perhaps what we wanted it to be in 2013. It is a different situation and the vast majority of newsprint press will never—have refused to sign up to a regulator that will seek recognition on the Press Recognition Panel because they believe that that is Government intrusion in the press. They may be right. They may be wrong. But that is the situation that we face ourselves with and I want to make sure that given that situation we take the appropriate steps to make sure that unacceptable press intrusion does not happen.

Julie Elliott

Listening to what you said, so if section 40 was implemented, as we all agreed it should be, if it was implemented hypothetically, what harm could that do? Could you implement it and see what happened? What harm is implementing something that everybody agreed on, which we all voted on, what harm could that do? What negative response could happen from that? It might not work. That is absolutely true but that would not cause any harm. It would not put us in a worse place than we are now.

Karen Bradley

If you speak to particularly local press, and the editor of my local newspaper has spoken to me about this, they are very concerned that the cost sharing provisions would mean that they could not—

Julie Elliott

Is your local paper a newspaper? I do not know what your local newspaper is? Is it owned by one of the big groups?

Karen Bradley

It is owned by Trinity Mirror, yes.

Julie Elliott

Exactly. Thank you.

Karen Bradley

And they—

Julie Elliott

I have no more questions on this.

Karen Bradley

No, and they have been very clear that they are concerned that that—

Julie Elliott

Yes. I have no further questions on this.

Karen Bradley

Would you let me answer the question you put to me?

Julie Elliott

You have answered the question. Your local paper is owned by one of the big organisations. We produced, at the last meeting I think it was on this issue, letters that had come directly from the heads of these organisations to local press.

Karen Bradley

That is why we did the consultation because local press were very concerned and I received a number of representations about whether they were financially viable and whether they would be able to do sufficient investigative journalism that they are known for and have pride of. We all know that 63% of the public believe their local press, I believe it is, as opposed to about 20% for the national press. I want to see vibrant local press succeeding and they are concerned that full implementation of section 40 will stop them doing that. That is why I took up the head of the consultation and I will produce the consultation responses shortly.

Chair

We are going to move on topic-wise after the vote but Paul Farrelly has one quick question on this.

Paul Farrelly

Just one question. We share the same local newspaper.

Karen Bradley

It is a different one I was talking about but we do share one of the local ones, The Trinity Mirror.

Paul Farrelly

We share The Sentinel and perhaps just before we go to the vote can I say to the Secretary of State, in case she does not already know from her colleagues and former colleagues, one of the reasons we came to a unanimous view around this Committee before making our submission was that people were quite affronted by the use, by national media corporations, of local newspaper editors, including the editor of The Sentinel newspaper—

Karen Bradley

I am talking about The Leek Post & Times, Paul.

Paul Farrelly

It is the same organisation.

Karen Bradley

Different editor.

Paul Farrelly

To lobby and try to press MPs giving only one half the story.

Karen Bradley

That is why we put a consultation forward. We will be giving the responses shortly.

Paul Farrelly

You have a sharp mind, Secretary of State, so you will very well recognise that the case that was being given by those editors was lobotomised.

Chair

Okay. We will have to leave it there. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. On resuming—

Chair

After that recent Division I invite everyone back to the session and we were just continuing with some questions on press regulation and Chris Matheson.

Christian Matheson

Thank you, Chair. I just want to draw a couple of threads together if I may, Chair, just before we move on from this section because we talked about press regulation, we also talked about the Sky-Fox proposed merger. Secretary of State, in your own mind are the two linked?

Karen Bradley

I do not think that you should see them as linked. The major mergers that are on the table on the moment will be judged on the basis of the evidence that is available today, not on what may or may not come out of future inquiries. If I may, Chair, before I start. I apologise. I definitely have a clunky brain today after a morning media round but I did want to just put on the record about the delay to the consultation responses because, as I stood up, it suddenly dawned on me exactly what the problem had been, which was that the consultation itself was judicially reviewed. A judicial review application went in so we were unable to look at any of the consultation responses until the JR had completed. That was the legal position. We received over 140,000 responses. So we had to wait until the JR process had been completed before we were allowed to start doing the work to code the 140,000 responses.

Julie Elliott

When did that complete?

Karen Bradley

I think it was June but again, forgive me, I will write to the Committee exactly when it was, but I think it was June, and then we have to start the process of coding.

Julie Elliott

That is still four months.

Karen Bradley

Yes, but the—

Julie Elliott

Thank you.

Chair

Perhaps the Secretary maybe could write to confirm when the work started and when it stopped; when it will be completed.

Karen Bradley

If I can write and set it out in full, yes. That is right, yes.

Christian Matheson

I just want to come back to this link or perhaps no link between the issue of press regulation and Leveson and the issue of the Sky-Fox merger because on the one hand you have, in this instance, a company ruled by a family that have been caught out apparently in cases of hacking people’s phones and a lack of governance within their company and on the other hand you have another company that is under their control that is looking to—what is a major purchase within the broadcast media area. Do you not draw a link between those two?

Karen Bradley

Each merger has to be assessed on the basis of the rules set out in the Enterprise Act and intervention can only exist by the Secretary of State under the rules set out in the Enterprise Act based on the evidence and information that is available at the time of the merger. There is another potential media merger on the cards with Trinity Mirror and Northern Star, which again, as Secretary of State, I will look at on the basis of the information and evidence that is available at that time, as will the regulators, if they are called upon to look at these matters so a consistent approach is applied to all media mergers but they can only be looked at by the evidence that is in existence at the time of the merger.

Christian Matheson

So you had the opportunity during the Sky-Fox merger to order Ofcom to consider the public interest in respect of corporate governance and you chose not to.

Karen Bradley

I do not think that is strictly the case. I asked them to look at the matter of corporate governance as a point regarding the commitment to broadcasting standards.

Christian Matheson

But not corporate governance on its own.

Karen Bradley

But that is not one of the tests that is available under the public interest test under the Enterprise Act.

Christian Matheson

Could you have made a separate test under order to do so?

Karen Bradley

It would have been very difficult because with the merger that we were looking at you have to apply the rules that are in existence at the time the merger application goes ahead. You cannot change the law retrospectively and say, “We are going to apply a new test to this particular merger because we do not like it”, for instance. I am not saying that is the case but that simply is not acceptable. We are talking about a commercial decision where parties believe commercially that this would be good for their businesses. You cannot, therefore, change the rules, change the goalpost, after they have decided that.

Christian Matheson

Okay. Can I just ask you finally, because I know the Chair is very keen to move on with all the interruptions, the Prime Minister met Rupert Murdoch in New York just over a year ago, do you know what they discussed?

Karen Bradley

All meetings that Ministers, Cabinet Ministers and others have with media individuals operating in the media are reported. I have no further information.

Christian Matheson

Do you know if there were officials present?

Karen Bradley

Again, I have no further information other than the public record.

Christian Matheson

Right. So she has not discussed with you the issues that she discussed then?

Karen Bradley

What I can say to you is that I have not discussed the merger and my quasi judicial role in that merger with the Prime Minister in terms of the decisions I take. She has not tried to influence me. She has not had conversations with me about it.

Christian Matheson

Okay. I was not talking particularly about the merger, more about the general media issues that she would have discussed with Mr Murdoch. Have you had a discussion about that?

Karen Bradley

That is not a discussion I have had with the Prime Minister.

Christian Matheson

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Rebecca Pow

Thank you very much, Chairman, and welcome, Secretary of State. We are going to move on to a completely different subject, which is really to deal with the workforce, overseas workers basically, EU workers in particular, in demand by the creative industry and tourism industry. I just wonder, Secretary of State, to start with, they have had witnesses who have talked about this issue before on this Committee and there was a feeling that the official figures of the number of people we rely on to work in these industries in this country has been somewhat underestimated by this Government. The question is, does the Government fully understand how important EU workers are to the industry?

Karen Bradley

There are a number of different sectors that—in fact all the sectors that DCMS represent do rely on a workforce from outside the UK. A workforce, it has to be said, from beyond the European Union as well as within the European Union. Creativity is fostered by difference and so it is very important that we allow that creativity to flourish in the United Kingdom by making sure we have people of different backgrounds, different interests, different experiences and that includes people from overseas. The brightest and the best are exactly what we want to have in the United Kingdom. I have—

Rebecca Pow

So it is important that we know how many. My figures I have were that DCMS said 6% of EU workers work within these creative and tourism industries but the industry themselves said it is more like between 10% and 40% but around about 25%, which is 700,000 people.

Karen Bradley

I think it depends on the sector you are looking at. For example, yesterday I met the hospitality sector. The hospitality sector, I think, probably has a higher proportion than perhaps you would see in some of the tech sectors maybe in terms of European Union nationals. I do not want to get into the figures. We accept that there is a large proportion. If you talk to any of the institutions that I represent, any of the arm’s length bodies that the Department has within its remit, they would all tell you that there are significant numbers of overseas nationals working in their organisations but I would not want to get into the figures and whether there is a discrepancy between them. You have to look at each individual sector. You also have to look at the different skills.

Rebecca Pow

Is DCMS doing a piece of work to inform us exactly how many people we are talking about so that then we can address how we are going to get them in if we need to get them in?

Karen Bradley

That work is being done in conjunction with the Home Office to make sure we understand exactly what the labour market is that we need to have. We also need to see how many UK nationals are employed; how many UK nationals could take jobs that are not being done at the moment by UK nationals. Are these low skilled jobs that could be done by UK nationals and there simply isn’t the supply of them at the moment or are they highly skilled jobs? For example, if you look at the hospitality industry you need people to do the lower skilled work, you need large numbers of people, but whether they come from the European Union, whether they come from the UK, whether they come from the rest of the world is not perhaps the most important point. It is that there is a large quantity of them. But at the other end, if you look at the front of house in a five-star hotel in London you need to have language skills, many language skills, interpersonal skills and so on, which are very highly skilled and we need to make sure we have the right people to do those jobs. So it is not a one size fits all but we are absolutely aware of the concerns throughout many of the sectors to make sure we have the right creativity, the right numbers of people and that we have the right skills.

Rebecca Pow

Secretary of State, I was wondering when you might know that though because I was previously on the Defra Select Committee and a survey of these numbers was being carried out by the Immigration Minister. When will we know those figures because in order then to go forward with plans for Brexit we need to—we have 280,000 businesses relying on all these people. Don’t we need more than generalisations by now, going ahead with our Brexit plans?

Karen Bradley

I do not think that is fair. I do not think we are talking generalisations. I think we have to segment the sectors. That is what we have been doing. We have been working with the Home Office. The Migration Advisory Council are looking at the overall UK labour market and how many of those jobs are currently filled by EU nationals, how many are filled by non-EU nationals that are not UK nationals. The Prime Minister was clear in her Florence speech that we want to maintain the ability for EU nationals to live and work in the United Kingdom and for them to bring the skills that they have to the United Kingdom and certainly in the sectors I represent it is absolutely vital that we do have the ability to attract the brightest and best.

Rebecca Pow

That is great to hear and I gather Sir Peter Bazalgette came to this Committee previously and he pointed out the specific need to have people speaking a multiple range of languages and we simply do not seem to have them in the UK right now. Are you aware that we need to be able to get those people in so that say a tourist industry has a German speaking person to talk to the German tourists coming in and the French person—all of those things are going to be really important.

Karen Bradley

If I could give you some examples of exactly that, as I did say about the front of house in a five-star hotel, you would need somebody with multiple language skills. We do not have, at the moment, sufficient of those within the native workforce to be able to fulfil those jobs. I was at Marylebone Station recently where they have fantastic ambassadors from Bicester Village speaking Arabic, speaking Mandarin so that visitors to the United Kingdom can go to the second most visited now tourist location in the United Kingdom, Bicester Village, and they can get on the train and they can visit there in comfort and safety. We are absolutely doing that. That work is going on. We are very aware that there does need to be that and I want to thank Peter Bazalgette for his fantastic review, which I was at the launch of recently with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Rebecca Pow

Okay, thank you. On that note then could you just inform us what sort of conversations you might be having about immigration arrangements, about visas for these people that we are going to have to address how we are going to get them in and out?

Karen Bradley

Obviously we are working with the Home Office as are other Government Departments who are drawing up the immigration plans that they have. I do not want to pre-empt anything the Home Office will announce but I can assure you that DCMS is part of that work.

Rebecca Pow

One of the concerns, forgive me if I am treading on something the Chairman might be asking you about later, but on immigration, to get your tier 2 visa, you have to be earning £30,000 and many people who work in these industries don’t earn that much—say you were in an orchestra—yet they are a crucial part of the industry. Will there be some special dispensations or caveats or are you even thinking about that yet?

Karen Bradley

We are absolutely thinking about it. Let me give you an example of some of our great opera houses. They do not have understudies because if somebody is taken ill they fly in somebody from Paris or Berlin on the day to perform. I am absolutely aware that this is the way that the business models operate in these incredibly important sectors to the UK economy and I am making sure, working with the Home Office, that immigration is assessed and the negotiations we have with the European Union with regards to the arrangements for EU nationals reflect the way that the business model works, where we have such expertise and brilliance in the creative industries here in the UK.

Rebecca Pow

There was one area I was particularly interested in, which is our textile industry. In fact 70% of the very skilled cutters and machine workers and seamstresses all come from the EU but they again do not earn £30,000 or whatever the limit is. So will they all be included in this assessment and analysis?

Karen Bradley

We have been working with all of them. I have met the fashion industry and discussed exactly that point with them. But there are some real tragedies here. For example, there is nowhere in the United Kingdom anymore that make zips. That may seem very trivial but what a shame that we have outsourced these kind of things to other countries because of the nature of the business. What we will have to look at as well is making sure that we do allow these businesses to continue to thrive and the British fashion industry is a great success story. We also need to think about, how can we upskill our native workforce? How can we provide the training courses? How can we get these industries started again in the United Kingdom and get these opportunities for people? I see opportunities from this.

Rebecca Pow

Yes, I could not agree more but also if we are sorting out a visa system, which clearly you are thinking about and planning, I would like to ask the Minister if you are bearing in mind it needs to be as simple as possible so that companies, in particular small and medium sized companies that do not have human resources departments and things, can handle the getting through of these people that they need.

Karen Bradley

I do not want to start pre-empting any ideas that there is a visa system that has been designed or anything like that. The Home Office is working on the immigration system and they will make announcements about how that immigration system will operate. What I can say though is that DCMS has been involved in those discussions. I have met representatives of all the industries that we represent as a Department to understand exactly where their concerns are. We started off with round tables on Brexit doing big high-level stuff and we kept saying, “Let’s get more and more granular. Let’s get down to the detail. Let’s get down to the point that you need to import your zips from Italy and you need to be able to make sure they are imported on the day.” That is the kind of thing we need to understand and that is what we have been working on to make sure we are designing a system that works for these industries.

Rebecca Pow

Just to finish off, Chairman, while you say they have not designed a system yet it is not that far away, 2019. These companies would be very much like all the other companies we are hearing about, they do not want this to be fudged; nothing has been sorted out when suddenly the deadline hits. They need to be knowing that there is going to be a system in place. Are you planning all that?

Karen Bradley

If I can repeat what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s Questions, the intention is that by March 2019 we know what the end state will look like in terms of our relationship and we will then have an implementation period when EU nationals will be free to come and live and work in the United Kingdom, as they do at the moment, but with a simple registration system as happens in many European Union countries so that we can start to understand how free movement is applying.

Rebecca Pow

Thank you very much.

Karen Bradley

So that there is only one change to business I should say.

Chair

A couple of quick questions on this and then we move on. Paul Farrelly.

Paul Farrelly

Is the Department, under the various scenarios, preparing an impact statement?

Karen Bradley

An impact statement on?

Paul Farrelly

Of the Brexit, on the Department, the activities that the Department is responsible for.

Karen Bradley

We are not preparing an explicit impact statement but we have, for instance, put out a position paper on data, which you will have seen over the summer, about what we would like our future relationships to be in terms of free-flow of data.

Paul Farrelly

So you are not preparing an impact statement at all?

Karen Bradley

Not explicit impact statements but we are working on all the contingencies, all the arrangements. We are looking at all the scenarios and we are making sure we are planning for every scenario.

Ian C. Lucas

Do you want to see a reduction of EU nationals working in the UK?

Karen Bradley

That is not what I have said. What I want to see is that we have the right people who are able to do the jobs that we need to make sure we have the very best industries we have and I have to say that if the person who is going to be the most amazing engineer at AI lives in Australia rather than Austria I do not mind. I want to make sure we get that right person in.

Ian C. Lucas

Do you want to see a reduction in the number of EU nationals working in the UK?

Karen Bradley

I am not making any statement as to the number of EU nationals or other countries. I also want to see more people from different backgrounds working and more women working in some of these sectors. We simply do not have enough women. More people from ethnic minorities. More people with disabilities. I want to make sure we have the right people working in the sectors. I am not making a comment about where they come from originally.

Ian C. Lucas

So would you like more people? Would you like more EU nationals than we have already have?

Karen Bradley

I do not want to get into speculation about what the numbers will be like. What I do want to see is more and more people working in these sectors and more and more opportunities for our young people working in these exciting sectors, to have the brightest and best from around the world, making sure that they are the world-leading sectors that they are today and continue to be.

Ian C. Lucas

You do not want to answer my question, do you, Secretary of State?

Karen Bradley

I am not going to start speculating on numbers. What I am going to say is I want to support these sectors. I want to see them grow. I want to see them employ more people. I am not going to say where I want these people to come from. I want these to be thriving, successful sectors.

Brendan O'Hara

One question. Freedom of movement is generally regarded as being absolutely vital for the creative industries. Have you met anyone from the creative industries sector who believes that restricting freedom of movement would be beneficial to the cultural, social and creative wellbeing of these nations?

Karen Bradley

Yes.

Brendan O'Hara

Can you elaborate as to who?

Karen Bradley

I am not going to say who.

Brendan O'Hara

Can I just put forward for the record that you have met a significant player in the creative industry sector who believes that restricting freedom of movement will be beneficial to the cultural, social and creative wellbeing of these countries?

Karen Bradley

I have met a number of people in the creative industries, and I am not going to say who they are because it would not be appropriate for me to say, who have told me that they are not worried about loss of freedom of movement because they believe the sectors will thrive.

Brendan O'Hara

I did not say people who were not worried, although I find that absolutely staggering. Have you met anyone who says it would be in the best interest of the wellbeing of the social, the creative and the cultural interests of these nations to restrict freedom of movement?

Karen Bradley

I have met people who have said that this does not concern them. They are not worried about it. They believe the sector will thrive.

Brendan O'Hara

I understand what you are saying but I am asking you: have you met anyone who has said it will be beneficial?

Karen Bradley

Yes, I have.

Brendan O'Hara

Not taking a neutral stance but people who believe it will be beneficial?

Karen Bradley

Yes, beneficial to them because they want to access people from across the world.

Brendan O'Hara

I find that, as someone who has come from the creative industries, as someone who spent 25 years in the creative industries, absolutely astonishing.

Karen Bradley

I am sorry to disappoint you but there are people there.

Brendan O'Hara

You have severely disappointed me.

Karen Bradley

I am not going to get into who they are.

Chair

The Secretary of State has given her answer. We will have to break one more time, I am afraid, but I hope we can complete the session when we are back. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. On resuming—

Chair

Secretary of State, thank you for re-joining us. Hopefully that was the last interruption we will have from the voting in the House of Commons. I hope we can now continue to wrap up the questions from the Committee. There are a couple more questions on immigration, the EU and the impact of Brexit that members want to come in on.

Karen Bradley

Chair, could I perhaps finish what we started talking about? It was a slightly strange exchange but the point I am making about people welcoming it—and it may surprise you, Brendan, but there are people who have—

Brendan O'Hara

“Astonishes” more than “surprises”.

Karen Bradley

They take the view that creativity is not solely within the 27 member states of the European Union, that there is creativity across the world, and they are excited about the opportunity for a global Britain to have relationships and to be able to use the creativity, the expertise and the innovation there is from the whole world. They do not believe that the end of free movement will hamper their creativity. They believe there is an opportunity from that. Clearly they want to have the most frictionless movement of people able to come and work in the United Kingdom, but from across the whole world. That is the sentiment I was trying to express.

Brendan O'Hara

Would you not agree, though, that we were never, ever restricted from accessing a worldwide talent pool? That pool was always available to us. What Brexit is in great danger of doing is putting up barriers where there were none. They are not taking down barriers to other people and other opportunities, they are putting up barriers. I suppose my question then is: do you believe that the restriction of freedom of movement would be beneficial to the cultural, social and creative wellbeing of these nations?

Karen Bradley

I want to see an immigration system that allows the brightest and best from across the world to come to the United Kingdom and work and contribute to our creative industries, to work in our fantastic film studios, to work in our music industry and to work in our computer games industry. I want to see those people from around the world and I am working with the Home Office to design an immigration system that will allow all that talent to be accessed without the barriers but in a way that works for the industry. This is a change. The British people voted to leave the European Union. That means we leave the single market and we leave the customs union but we have to look at the opportunities that affords to make sure that the creative industries thrive and are the world leader we are and continue to be.

Brendan O'Hara

But no barriers are coming down. Barriers are going up. On that point, what do you want that immigration to look like? What are you arguing for in Cabinet on behalf of the creative and tourist industries?

Karen Bradley

It would not be appropriate for me to discuss Cabinet conversations here. It also would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt the Home Office’s work on this. All I can say, as I have said previously, is that I am working closely with the Home Office, as are my officials, to make sure we reflect all of this in the work we are doing and build on the strength that we have in our creative sector across the whole country so that we can continue to thrive.

Brendan O'Hara

Thank you.

Chair

On that, Secretary of State, would it be fair to say, if one were to take what you have said so far on the subject, that it may be possible to have a sector-by-sector specific visa or immigration system respecting the different needs of different areas of the creative sector and the tourism industry?

Karen Bradley

That is a possibility, but again I am not going to pre-empt anything the Home Office may be saying.

Giles Watling

Yes. So far, as far as I can see, this conversation has all been one way, about the flow of people in here. Speaking as one who worked and lived overseas both in Europe and elsewhere around the world in pursuit of creative industry work, I just wondered: is the DCMS planning and making provision, as we move towards Brexit, for securing freedom of movement the other way as well, as part of the whole negotiation?

Karen Bradley

Of course that is the point that the Prime Minister talked about in Questions earlier, that we have to look at all EU nationals. These are UK nationals in Europe and these are EU nationals in the United Kingdom. We need to make sure that we respect the rights, that we preserve those rights and that we value the contributions that have been made across the board. We need to make sure we get that for all EU nationals—we are all EU nationals at the moment—so that that is preserved for UK nationals as much as it is for EU nationals here in the UK.

Giles Watling

In my view it is absolutely vital that we keep this up because that is how we sell what we are to the rest of the world. I regard that as a priority and I hope your planning is including that because we might start creating zips and selling them again.

Karen Bradley

It is.

Paul Farrelly

Just on that point, perhaps, given what you have said, Karen, the proprietors of Cash’s Tags may now look at the prospects for investment in the zip industry. The scales have fallen from my eyes about the motivation of a mutual next-door neighbour.

Chair

I should probably say that other providers of tags are available as well.

Karen Bradley

They are not in Staffordshire, though.

Paul Farrelly

The follow-up point is that what you have just been saying, Karen, regarding accessing talent from around the world and not just the European Union only makes sense if by virtue of restricting the numbers coming from the European Union it then allows you the opportunity to free up, liberate or make more liberal the visa requirements as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Is that what you are saying?

Karen Bradley

I am saying that we are looking at an immigration system that works for the whole world. Look, I am not going to say to you that the creative industries are 100% in favour. It is quite clear the creative industries were predominantly for Remain, but the country did not vote for Remain. The country voted to leave. I have to make sure I reflect the concerns that those industries and sectors have about the changes that leaving the European Union will pose to their businesses and ensure that we take the opportunity that this affords us to get to an immigration system and a way of working across the whole world with free trade arrangements that benefit our creative industries. That is what I am working to do. This is going to require change, of course it is, but I want to make that change that is beneficial to these industries in the best way we can.

Paul Farrelly

That does not answer the question, Chair, but I will not press it further.

Chair

Thank you. Just a couple of other issues related to Brexit and the sector, particularly looking at tourism, the airline sector and the tour and package holiday operators. They obviously have long timelines. They will soon be marketing holidays for the post-Brexit period, post-spring 2019. When do you think they can start to receive some sort of certainty about the way in which the aviation industry will operate and, in particular, the arrangements for open skies and a single aviation market post-Brexit?

Karen Bradley

Clearly that is a matter for DfT, who are leading on that particular issue, but you are right to comment on, for example, the packaged tour market, who need to start booking now for hotels for occupancy in summer 2019. That is why the Florence speech from the Prime Minister was so important in being clear that there will not be a cliff edge. When we leave the European Union in March 2019, that does not mean that everything will change overnight. We will have brought all European laws into UK law through the Withdrawal Bill and we would like to have an implementation period so that there is only one change for business and we can manage that as best we can.

Chair

Obviously there are package operators that sell both inbound and outbound holidays and it is crucial for them that there is some kind of certainty around those issues.

Karen Bradley

I was in Sweden recently and met tour operators there. We are one of the biggest tour markets for Swedish holidaymakers and I met them exactly on that point.

Chair

Yes. Just going back on to the visa system and the salary level, obviously there are some industries where skilled work is maybe earning less than the required amount to secure Tier 2 visas. There are other sectors where people may be earning a lot more but are still considered relatively low-skilled for their sector. Football would be one of those. Have you had representations from the Premier League and other people within football about the way a visa system might apply to professional football as well?

Karen Bradley

I am sure you will not be surprised to discover that the Premier League, the English Football League and the FA have all made representations to me, as have a number of other sporting bodies.

Chair

In regards to those football bodies you mentioned, do they agree with each other?

Karen Bradley

There are some areas in which they agree. There are others where they slightly differ. We are working with all of them on those matters.

Chair

OK. Thank you. Moving on to some other issues relating to Brexit, particularly broadcasting, I want to bring in Brendan O’Hara again.

Brendan O'Hara

Thank you, Chair. The governance of the BBC—sorry, is this specifically about the BBC, Chair?

Chair

This was regarding country of origin and broadcasting, if you wanted to come in.

Brendan O'Hara

No, it was not—

Chair

Do you want to move on to the BBC?

Brendan O'Hara

No, I was going to come in on Channel 4 relocation, if that is permissible.

Chair

We will leave that. We will go on to Creative Europe as part of the Brexit section and we will come on to Channel 4 in a moment. I know, Giles, you wanted to come in on Creative Europe.

Giles Watling

Yes. It concerns me, the funding stream that the arts get in this country, and of course you are well aware of the £1.4 billion or so that is in the Creative Europe scheme that is disseminated across Europe to help in the arts. As we move towards Brexit, this may significantly reduce. First, is it your impression that it will significantly reduce in the UK? Secondly, is the Government going to be prepared to meet any prospective shortfall in that funding should those EU sources no longer be available?

Karen Bradley

On all EU funding the Chancellor was clear that the Treasury will ensure that where match funding is required the funding is available for projects up until the point at which the funding stream would have ended for those that we are already committed to. In terms of Creative Europe, Creative Europe is a Council of Europe matter.

Giles Watling

Yes.

Karen Bradley

We are a member as a result of our membership of the EU but it is a Council of Europe scheme and therefore I would not expect our membership or otherwise of the EU to result in a reduction, necessarily, of funding from Creative Europe. The Prime Minister did say in the Florence speech that we are looking at those funds that have cultural benefit across Europe to see which ones we do want to continue and remain a part of. We are obviously considering Creative Europe as part of that work.

Giles Watling

You do not see any cliff edge for the arts? The arts community I know are concerned about what is coming up. You do not see any sudden cliff edge and withdrawal of funding that is vital lifeblood to the arts?

Karen Bradley

I would hope we would not see any cliff edge at all for funding. As I say, the Treasury are committed to underwriting any issues if there are shortfalls in funding of previously committed funding streams. As I say, Creative Europe is a Council of Europe fund anyway. Our membership is via the EU at the moment but it is Council of Europe. We are not leaving Council of Europe.

Giles Watling

Right. Thank you, Secretary of State.

Chair

Thank you very much. I have just received information that apparently Klestro, which was established 18 years ago in 1999 in London, is the largest zip manufacturer in the UK.

Karen Bradley

I have been given false information by the British fashion industry. We need to make sure the British fashion industry learn about this zip manufacturer and start using them.

Chair

Exactly. It is good to see we have made progress on zips even as the session has gone on.

Karen Bradley

Excellent. I am very pleased to hear it. I was concerned.