01/11/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.supervised. However, the minister is conducting a review, as we do with

:00:00. > :00:00.all new legislation, that's one aspect that will be looked `t.

:00:07. > :00:11.THE SPEAKER: Order. Urgent puestion. Andy Burnham.

:00:12. > :00:15.Thank you, Mr Speaker. To ask the Secretary of State for The Home

:00:16. > :00:17.Department, if she'll make ` statement on the process shd went

:00:18. > :00:22.through and the papers she considered before reaching her

:00:23. > :00:27.desession not to proceed with an inquiry into the events at Orgreave

:00:28. > :00:33.in June 1984. THE SPEAKER: Mr Brandon Lewhs? Thank

:00:34. > :00:36.you, Mr Speaker. The Home Sdcretary announced her decision by w`y of a

:00:37. > :00:42.written ministerial statement yesterday. She explained her main

:00:43. > :00:46.reasons for deciding against investigating either a statttory

:00:47. > :00:51.instigated inquiry or an independent review into the events at Orgreave.

:00:52. > :00:55.She's also written to the Orgreave truth and justice campaign, setting

:00:56. > :00:59.out the detailed reasons for her decision and answered a number of

:01:00. > :01:03.questions in this House yesterday in response to an oral Parliamdntary

:01:04. > :01:07.question on this subject. In determining whether or not to

:01:08. > :01:11.establish a statutory inquiry or other review, the Home Secrdtary has

:01:12. > :01:15.considered a number of factors, reviewed a #w50ied range of

:01:16. > :01:20.documents and spoken to members of the campaign -- wide range of the

:01:21. > :01:24.documents. She came to the view that an inquiry was not required at this

:01:25. > :01:31.concern, more than 30 years after the events in question. In doing so,

:01:32. > :01:34.she noted the following factors despite the forceful accounts and

:01:35. > :01:38.arguments provided by the campaigners about the effect these

:01:39. > :01:43.events had on them, ultimatdly there were no deaths or wrongful

:01:44. > :01:48.convictions. In addition, the policing landscape and the wider

:01:49. > :01:52.criminal justice system havd changed fundamentally since 1984. Whth

:01:53. > :01:56.significant changes in the oversight of policing at every level,

:01:57. > :02:00.including major reforms to criminal procedure, changes to public order

:02:01. > :02:03.policing and practice, stronger external strewny and greater local

:02:04. > :02:08.accountability. There are few lessons to be learnt

:02:09. > :02:11.from a review of the events and practises of three decades `go. This

:02:12. > :02:15.is a very important consideration and we are looking at the ndcessity

:02:16. > :02:20.for an inquiry or independent review. Taking these considdrations

:02:21. > :02:23.into account, we do not belheve in establishing any kind of inpuiry is

:02:24. > :02:31.required in the wider public interest or for any other rdason.

:02:32. > :02:34.Andy Burnham? Mr Speaker, the now Prime Minister invited Orgrdave

:02:35. > :02:39.campaigners to submit a bid for an inquiry. She entered Downing Street

:02:40. > :02:44.talking about fighting burnhng injustices, so the House will

:02:45. > :02:49.understand why today so manx people feel bitterly deprayed. Orgreave is

:02:50. > :02:53.one of the most divisive evdnts in British social history -- bdtrayed.

:02:54. > :02:58.Given there is evidence of tnlawful conduct by police in relation to it,

:02:59. > :03:02.isn't it simply staggering that the Home Secretary has brushed `way an

:03:03. > :03:06.inquiry as not necessary? And isn't it even more revealing that she

:03:07. > :03:12.wasn't prepared to come to this House today to justify her decision?

:03:13. > :03:15.I want to focus very specifhcally on her decision-making process and I

:03:16. > :03:19.expect direct answers from the minister. Before making her

:03:20. > :03:24.decision, did the Home Secrdtary recall files held by South Xorkshire

:03:25. > :03:29.police and review them personally. I am told they never left Sheffield.

:03:30. > :03:32.Is that true? Did she consider in detail the new testimony th`t's

:03:33. > :03:36.emerged from police officers, particularly in relation to police

:03:37. > :03:41.statements? Did she review `ll relevant Cabinet papers such as the

:03:42. > :03:44.minutes of the meeting betwden Margaret Thatcher and Leon Britton

:03:45. > :03:48.stamped secret when the then Home Secretary says he wants to hncrease

:03:49. > :03:52.the rate of prosecutions of miners? Mr Speaker, if she didn't do each

:03:53. > :03:57.and every one of these cruchal thing, won't many people conclude

:03:58. > :04:00.that a decision-making procdss was incomplete and therefore unsound?

:04:01. > :04:04.Yesterday, the Home Secretary promised to release the operational

:04:05. > :04:06.order. Will the minister make sure that happens immediately? She

:04:07. > :04:11.dismissed the link with Hillsborough. In doing so, hs she

:04:12. > :04:16.dismissing the words of Margaret Aspinall who believes that hf the

:04:17. > :04:21.police had been properly held to account for their misdeeds hn 1 85,

:04:22. > :04:24.the Hillsborough cover-up m`y never have happened. Are we to conclude

:04:25. > :04:28.from now on under this Home Secretary that all manner of

:04:29. > :04:33.misdeeds will be left uninvestigated, as long as there are

:04:34. > :04:38."no deaths? ". The minister attended a positive meeting with campaigners

:04:39. > :04:41.in early September. We left it with a clear impression as to whdther

:04:42. > :04:46.there wouldn't be just an inquiry but what form it would take. The

:04:47. > :04:49.next day the Times reported on the front-page, Whitehall sourcds saying

:04:50. > :04:54.that there would be an inquhry. Did the Home Secretary or her advisers

:04:55. > :04:58.authorise this briefing and, what changed after it was given? In

:04:59. > :05:03.retrospect, does the ministdr now concede that it was utterly cruel to

:05:04. > :05:09.give those campaigners falsd hope in that way? Mr Speaker, yesterday we

:05:10. > :05:14.were hit with a bombshell, but today we dust ourselves down and we give

:05:15. > :05:19.notice to this Government - we will never give up this fight.

:05:20. > :05:24.THE SPEAKER: THE SPEAKER: Minister of St`te,

:05:25. > :05:29.Brandon Lewis? Thank you, Mr Speaker. The honourable gentleman

:05:30. > :05:34.will know full well from thd meeting he came to with the campaigners that

:05:35. > :05:36.I was at as well that we were clear, as the Home Secretary has bden

:05:37. > :05:41.throughout the process that she would make a decision by thd end of

:05:42. > :05:46.October, she would take into account a wide range of factors and the Home

:05:47. > :05:50.Secretary didid consider a number of factors, she review add widd range

:05:51. > :05:54.of documents, considered thd campaign submission and indded spoke

:05:55. > :06:00.to the campaign and their stpporters in person, as she did yesterday when

:06:01. > :06:03.she spoke to Barbara Jackson and the Right Honourable gentleman `mong

:06:04. > :06:06.others and I spoke to the Police and Crime Commissioner. He also

:06:07. > :06:10.commented on the links with Hillsborough and I would sax to him,

:06:11. > :06:15.I know he will be aware of the fact that work is still ongoing with the

:06:16. > :06:18.IPCC around Hillsborough and there could still be criminal proceedings

:06:19. > :06:22.with Hillsborough as well. H would say to him that in looking `t the

:06:23. > :06:26.doe six that has been made, as the Home Secretary rightly pointed out

:06:27. > :06:33.yesterday, fully appreciate we disagree, that doesn't mean the Home

:06:34. > :06:40.Secretary's decision is wrong. THE SPEAKER: Mr Philip Davis? I very

:06:41. > :06:44.much support the Home Secretary s decision, unlike most of thd people

:06:45. > :06:48.opposite bleating, I actually lived in South Yorkshire in a minhng

:06:49. > :06:51.community during the time of the miners' strike and saw at fhrst hand

:06:52. > :06:56.the bullying and intimidation that went on from the miners, people who

:06:57. > :07:01.didn't contribute to the strike who had windows done in. These people

:07:02. > :07:06.were trying to bring down the democratically elected government of

:07:07. > :07:11.the time and they lost and they need to get over it. Anyone only has to

:07:12. > :07:15.look at the TV pictures to see the violence.

:07:16. > :07:20.THE SPEAKER: Order, order. H recognise that this is a Jubb ject

:07:21. > :07:26.that arouses very strong fedling. Order! But, the House knows me well

:07:27. > :07:29.enough by now to know that H will facilitate the fullest posshble

:07:30. > :07:33.questioning on this matter from members in all parts of the House. I

:07:34. > :07:38.ought to be able to say without fear of contradiction that the honourable

:07:39. > :07:42.member for Shipley will be heard. Mr Philip Davies? People only have to

:07:43. > :07:46.look at the TV footage of that event to see the violence the mindrs were

:07:47. > :07:49.carrying out against police officers. Can the minister dxplain,

:07:50. > :07:54.if this matter is so import`nt to the members of zit, why in 03 years

:07:55. > :08:02.they were in Government, thdy did absolutely nothing about thhs

:08:03. > :08:05.particular issue? 30 years. My right honourable friend makes an

:08:06. > :08:09.impassioned point and I wouldn't for a moment want to put words hnto the

:08:10. > :08:15.mouth of the honourable gentleman. He'll be able to explain thd actions

:08:16. > :08:18.he's taken and not taken. For us, this has not been a politic`l

:08:19. > :08:21.decision. The Home Secretarx said it was about look at what is rhght in

:08:22. > :08:25.terms of the wider public interest and in light of the fact thdre have

:08:26. > :08:29.been substantial changes and reforms in the Police Service and actually

:08:30. > :08:32.something that all of us in this House, across this House, should be

:08:33. > :08:37.hopefully getting behind is the on theation of driving through and

:08:38. > :08:41.seeing through the future rdforms of the Police Service that are due to

:08:42. > :08:44.come through from the policd and crime bill as well.

:08:45. > :08:47.THE SPEAKER: Diane Abbott? We have noted on this side of the House that

:08:48. > :08:55.the Home Secretary hasn't bothered to come before the House on this

:08:56. > :09:01.occasion to explain her dechsion. Most people in this House whll

:09:02. > :09:15.remember the miners' strike. And what happened at Orgreave w`s

:09:16. > :09:20.totemic. Harold Macmillan s`id in his maiden speech in the Hotse of

:09:21. > :09:26.Lords about the miners' strhke, he said this "breaks my heart to see

:09:27. > :09:32.what is happening in our cotntry today, this terrible strike by the

:09:33. > :09:39.best men in the world who bdat the Keizer and Hitler's armies `nd never

:09:40. > :09:42.gave in. " Does the minister understand that the Home Secretary's

:09:43. > :09:49.decision is a slap in the f`ce to the best men in the world and their

:09:50. > :09:53.friends and supporters? Does the minister understand that thd

:09:54. > :09:59.Orgreave campaigners feel they have been led up the garden path by the

:10:00. > :10:04.Home Secretary? And does thd minister understand that thd Home

:10:05. > :10:10.Secretary's proposition that because there were no deaths, because there

:10:11. > :10:13.were no convictions and the cases only collapsed because the collusion

:10:14. > :10:18.by South Yorkshire officers was revealed, but because there were no

:10:19. > :10:23.deaths and because there were no convictions in justice must stand,

:10:24. > :10:30.on this side of the House, we say to ministers that we will not let this

:10:31. > :10:36.issue go and that in justicd will not be allowed to stand -- hnjustice

:10:37. > :10:39.will not be allowed to stand. I would say to my right honourable

:10:40. > :10:43.friend that she was here yesterday when the Home Secretary herself was

:10:44. > :10:46.here having done the written administrative statement and

:10:47. > :10:49.answered this in oral questhons This forms part of the portfolio I

:10:50. > :10:53.cover for the Home Office, that is why I am here, I would say to the

:10:54. > :10:58.honourable lady that what wd have to look at, and this is a Government

:10:59. > :11:01.that's stood up and brought forward inquiries and not been afrahd to

:11:02. > :11:04.overturn the wrongs of the past but what we have had to look at is the

:11:05. > :11:08.wider public interest which includes looking at actually what ard the

:11:09. > :11:12.lessons to be learnt and how do we change police behaviour basdd on

:11:13. > :11:16.what happened 30 years ago? Bearing in mind that since the time since

:11:17. > :11:19.then, we have not only had the Police and Criminal Evidencd Act, we

:11:20. > :11:22.have had other reforms, not least of all the delivery of local

:11:23. > :11:26.accountability through Police and Crime Commissioners and the changing

:11:27. > :11:30.in police practises, so looking at what are the lessons to be learnt,

:11:31. > :11:35.benefits and outcrops of a public inquiry. The decision the Home

:11:36. > :11:36.Secretary made, although shd clearly disagrees, is absolutely thd right

:11:37. > :11:47.one. In looking at the wider public

:11:48. > :11:51.interest issue, the Home Secretary looks at a wide range of thhngs and

:11:52. > :11:54.it does include the differences between previous cases wherd there

:11:55. > :11:57.were a substantial number of tragic deaths. In this case there were none

:11:58. > :12:01.and no convictions, so what we look at with a public enquiry is what are

:12:02. > :12:04.the lessons to learn and I would suggest she looks at the ch`nges in

:12:05. > :12:08.police practices over 30 ye`rs and she will say there is no benefit and

:12:09. > :12:15.public enquiry benefit going forward from this. Some of us did not read

:12:16. > :12:22.accounts of the miners strike from the benefits of living in London,

:12:23. > :12:27.all with an account in the Guardian newspaper, some of us were there on

:12:28. > :12:30.a daily basis, reporting for Central television and can I completely

:12:31. > :12:33.agree with the very sensibld decision of the Home Secret`ry. But

:12:34. > :12:39.if we were to have an enquiry, but would it not be into the funding

:12:40. > :12:43.activities of the National tnion of Mineworkers who will almost daily

:12:44. > :12:46.basis pushed thousands of their members into the County of

:12:47. > :12:49.Nottinghamshire not only to bring down a democratically electdd

:12:50. > :12:59.government but also to thwart the democratic decision of the liners of

:13:00. > :13:02.Nottinghamshire to work. I thank my right honourable friend for that

:13:03. > :13:07.question and she highlights across all sides that there are strong

:13:08. > :13:11.feelings around Orgreave and we totally understand it. The Home

:13:12. > :13:15.Secretary outlined that not only yesterday but also in the mdeting I

:13:16. > :13:20.attended with her and the Orgreave campaigners and the MPs who were

:13:21. > :13:23.there as well. This is something we appreciate the Home Secretary said

:13:24. > :13:25.yesterday that we appreciatd that the campaigners will be dis`ppointed

:13:26. > :13:28.with the decision made but we have to make a decision about wh`t is in

:13:29. > :13:36.the wider public interest and an enquiry is not. I listened very

:13:37. > :13:42.carefully to what the Home Secretary was saying yesterday, but as I think

:13:43. > :13:46.as has already been indicatdd, the argument that there were no wrongful

:13:47. > :13:50.convictions does not hold w`ter when one realises that the cases

:13:51. > :13:53.collapsed when a decent lawxer revealed collusion on the p`rt of

:13:54. > :13:59.the police. An absence of ddaths that Orgreave is also a red herring

:14:00. > :14:08.because it is not the real hssue, as follows, that further to thd

:14:09. > :14:12.reductions of the June 2015 report which showed striking simil`rities

:14:13. > :14:17.between both the personnel `nd the alleged practices of South Xorkshire

:14:18. > :14:20.Police at Orgreave and Hillsborough. And we all know what went on to

:14:21. > :14:26.happen at Hillsborough. Did the Home Secretary not feel that these

:14:27. > :14:31.striking similarities betwedn personnel and practices at Orgreave

:14:32. > :14:37.and Hillsborough alone justhfied an independent enquiry, even as an

:14:38. > :14:42.opportunity to increase public trust in the police. Moreover, Mr Speaker

:14:43. > :14:47.there is an important issue raised by Orgreave, and it is this. It is

:14:48. > :14:54.the alleged political interference by the then UK Government in

:14:55. > :14:57.operational policing. If political interference by the governmdnt took

:14:58. > :15:01.place in operational policing of this would be a deeply troubling

:15:02. > :15:04.matter and one of huge constitutional significance. Did the

:15:05. > :15:10.Home Secretary give this gr`ve accusation consideration as part of

:15:11. > :15:18.her process leading to her decision? The honourable lady goes to some of

:15:19. > :15:23.the issues around part of the investigation and I would s`y in

:15:24. > :15:27.terms of the IPCC, they thelselves have said that should furthdr

:15:28. > :15:31.evidence emerged through anx means, and the people have further evidence

:15:32. > :15:36.of impropriety by an officer they would look at the evidence. I met

:15:37. > :15:39.with the chairman of the IPCC yesterday where she confirmdd

:15:40. > :15:42.yesterday that if new evidence came forward they would look at that But

:15:43. > :15:49.I would also say the report published by the IPCC was rddacted

:15:50. > :15:54.on legal advice because it pertains to ongoing Hilbert issues. There are

:15:55. > :15:57.still investigations going on into Hillsborough and there might be

:15:58. > :16:01.criminal procedure is going from those in the IPCC is involvdd in

:16:02. > :16:04.those investigations. It stdeply disappointing that the partx

:16:05. > :16:09.opposite seem to want to divide our society again and they should do

:16:10. > :16:13.well to remember that the mhners in South Derbyshire, Leicestershire and

:16:14. > :16:16.Nottinghamshire wanted to work and we bought the full brunt of

:16:17. > :16:20.secondary picketing. Does the Minister agree with me that it is

:16:21. > :16:23.important that the new Chief Constable of South Yorkshird Police,

:16:24. > :16:28.who was only appointed in the summer, has a chance to bed into his

:16:29. > :16:32.position and start to rebuild his relationships with the local

:16:33. > :16:39.community? My honourable frhend makes a very important point and

:16:40. > :16:44.this was also raised in a v`riation by another member. There is an

:16:45. > :16:47.important issue here. I spoke to South Yorkshire Police yestdrday and

:16:48. > :16:50.they are determined that thdy can build a new relationship with the

:16:51. > :16:53.people of South Yorkshire going forward. They do have new ldadership

:16:54. > :16:56.in the police force and I s`id I would meet with them and I look

:16:57. > :17:05.forward to working with thel to find out how they can develop and have a

:17:06. > :17:08.new approach to make sure pdople acknowledge they have a piece of

:17:09. > :17:14.work to do to re-engage with the community and we will stand with

:17:15. > :17:18.them to support that. I havd to say I find it very painful that people

:17:19. > :17:26.in this chamber are rehashing discredited 30-year-old sme`rs that

:17:27. > :17:31.are doing nothing. It is dohng nothing for community coheshon. Both

:17:32. > :17:34.the Home Secretary yesterdax and the minister now seem to be sayhng the

:17:35. > :17:38.reason we did not have the dnquiry is because nobody died. Is this the

:17:39. > :17:49.new bark that the government is levying on justice? -- bar. I think

:17:50. > :17:53.the honourable lady is, with all due respect, making a dishonest

:17:54. > :17:56.interpretation of what I sahd. There were a ride range of issues to look

:17:57. > :18:01.at in terms of an enquiry -, wide range. There is the issue there were

:18:02. > :18:04.no wrongful convictions and no deaths, but I think this is key and

:18:05. > :18:09.I will stress it again, the fact that one of the lessons we `re

:18:10. > :18:14.looking to learn from an incident 30 years ago, from the police `nd

:18:15. > :18:16.criminal evidence act from 0984 ) through to the police and crime Bill

:18:17. > :18:21.going through the house, thdre has been a dramatic change in the system

:18:22. > :18:24.of policing in this country which means things are different today

:18:25. > :18:30.which means there are no re`sons to have a wider public enquiry at this

:18:31. > :18:34.time. Does the Minister agrde with me that we are in danger of running

:18:35. > :18:39.away with the concept at all police at the time were bad and all

:18:40. > :18:45.striking miners were good? H still remember Arthur Scargill refusing to

:18:46. > :18:50.condemn picket line violencd. I remember the murder of the taxi

:18:51. > :18:53.driver David Wilkie. I remelber the relentless use of the words gap to

:18:54. > :19:02.describe anybody who simply wanted to go to work. -- scab. Shotld we

:19:03. > :19:06.not get a sense of proportion here? My honourable friend makes ` strong

:19:07. > :19:09.point, but I do recognise there are strong feelings on all sides of the

:19:10. > :19:13.debate and there are familids who feel very strongly about thhs and I

:19:14. > :19:16.met with them in September of this year. I do absolutely understand the

:19:17. > :19:20.strength of their feeling and why they feel that way. But we have to

:19:21. > :19:24.look at the wider public interest. The honourable lady who askdd the

:19:25. > :19:28.last question referred to other issues around South Yorkshire, but

:19:29. > :19:32.they are separate issues. This is a decision specifically about

:19:33. > :19:36.Orgreave, not the wider isstes for South Yorkshire, but Orgreave. The

:19:37. > :19:38.Home Secretary has made the right decision and even though we may

:19:39. > :19:43.disagree, there is no benefht in a public enquiry. The minister in his

:19:44. > :19:47.statement today reflects wh`t the Home Secretary said in a wrhtten

:19:48. > :19:51.statement yesterday, which hs that somehow there can be no enqtiry

:19:52. > :19:57.because South Yorkshire polhcing has moved on. This is a new principle of

:19:58. > :20:01.truth and justice. That it can be denied on the face of seriots

:20:02. > :20:07.allegations because of the dubious claims that lessons have bedn

:20:08. > :20:10.learned. And that is why falilies in South Yorkshire and communities feel

:20:11. > :20:17.they have been sold down thd river by this government and this cannot

:20:18. > :20:22.stand. I would say to the rhght honourable gentleman, as I said

:20:23. > :20:26.earlier on, this has to be looked at in the context of this parthcular

:20:27. > :20:29.case. This is a government that the Prime Minister and Home Secretary

:20:30. > :20:32.who have taken independent reviews and enquiries on a range of

:20:33. > :20:36.difficult issues over the l`st six years, looking at issues of the

:20:37. > :20:41.past. This is a decision, ddspite what people on the other benches may

:20:42. > :20:44.wish to make of it, that is not a political decision. It is looking at

:20:45. > :20:48.the particular case around Orgreave in the wider public issue -,

:20:49. > :20:53.interest. And I think the enquiry would not serve that. Would the

:20:54. > :20:57.Minister agree that by far `nd away the worst atrocity of those terrible

:20:58. > :21:03.events were the murder of the taxi driver, David Wilkie? Is he amazed

:21:04. > :21:07.as I was that not once has he is death been mentioned by the members

:21:08. > :21:12.opposite, and would he agred with me that if we have a public enpuiry it

:21:13. > :21:15.should be what the former ldader of the Labour Party called the lies and

:21:16. > :21:22.violence and lack of a ball`d by those strikebreakers? -- ballot

:21:23. > :21:25.Again this highlights the strength of feeling on all sides of the

:21:26. > :21:29.debate around the activities of many years ago, but I would say to the

:21:30. > :21:32.key point of the question about what would happen if there was an

:21:33. > :21:36.enquiry, there will not be ` public enquiry and the decision is that the

:21:37. > :21:44.public interest is not servdd by having an Orgreave enquiry. Why is

:21:45. > :21:52.it that 31 years is too long for an enquiry, and yet 31 years is not too

:21:53. > :22:00.long for this government to hide the Cabinet papers on the strikd and

:22:01. > :22:07.refuse to release them? Why is it so long that we now know that the

:22:08. > :22:14.Thatcher government was going to close 75 pits and not 20? The truth

:22:15. > :22:19.is that this nasty party has now become the nasty government that is

:22:20. > :22:24.more concerned about preserving the Thatcher legacy than it is fighting

:22:25. > :22:38.for truth and justice? I would say to the honourable

:22:39. > :22:45.gentleman that actually, I think, has interestingly interpretdd what

:22:46. > :22:50.I've said. We look at the whder public interest, which incltdes no

:22:51. > :22:55.wrongful convictions, no de`ths and importantly that changing in police

:22:56. > :22:57.structure seen partly by thd last Labour government are predolinantly

:22:58. > :23:02.this government, as well as the work going on. I would ask him to support

:23:03. > :23:06.us in supporting the further work to continue those reforms and to work

:23:07. > :23:10.with South Yorkshire Police to look at their relationship with people

:23:11. > :23:13.going forward. I've spoken to the Police and Crime Commissiondr and he

:23:14. > :23:19.was clear that he was keen to deliver more and has called in an

:23:20. > :23:21.archivist to make sure they can get all the archives from South

:23:22. > :23:26.Yorkshire Police and I'm sure he will want to engage with hil on

:23:27. > :23:32.that. These synthetic indignation from the party opposite cannot mask

:23:33. > :23:34.the fact that in 13 years of a Labour government the issue of

:23:35. > :23:44.Orgreave was completely neglected and forgotten about. Will mx right

:23:45. > :23:47.honourable friend can -- confirm that, notwithstanding the absence of

:23:48. > :23:53.an enquiry, the decision of the Home Secretary, which I support

:23:54. > :23:56.wholeheartedly, that the cldar and necessary changes in governlent and

:23:57. > :24:01.mindset required within the South Yorkshire Police can continte and be

:24:02. > :24:04.delivered? My honourable frhend makes a very good point and an

:24:05. > :24:09.important point. It's important we continue the reforms of the police

:24:10. > :24:13.service going forward, some of which are outlined in the police `nd crime

:24:14. > :24:19.Bill and some are in the reforms the Prime Minister took on and the Home

:24:20. > :24:23.Secretary has been determindd to deliver, in terms of how thd police

:24:24. > :24:27.work compared to 30 years ago. But when I spoke to the piece -, Police

:24:28. > :24:29.and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire yesterday afternoon, I'm

:24:30. > :24:32.determined to work with him and the Chief Constable to make surd they

:24:33. > :24:35.have a good relationship with the people of South Yorkshire going

:24:36. > :24:46.forward and look at how the police force can make sure it is sdrving

:24:47. > :24:50.well, policing by consent. H have represented Orgreave in this house

:24:51. > :24:58.since 1983 and I remember vdry well the events of the miners strike at

:24:59. > :25:05.that particular time. Could I say call for a public enquiry to review

:25:06. > :25:11.the policing in 1985 and is denied now. The minister says that the IPCC

:25:12. > :25:19.is still looking at the isstes. The IPCC deal with serving chief --

:25:20. > :25:25.police officers, and there had been about 16 at the time, and that is

:25:26. > :25:28.not an answer to it. When hd talks about the Home Secretary looking at

:25:29. > :25:32.papers, we need an independdnt individual to look at the p`pers,

:25:33. > :25:36.even if it is not a full public enquiry, surely we should h`ve

:25:37. > :25:39.somebody of an independent nature to look at the enquiries and sde if

:25:40. > :25:46.there is any lesson to be ldarnt by the policing of the miners strike

:25:47. > :25:51.during 1984/ 85. I think thd fact that the IPCC is involved in the

:25:52. > :25:53.work around Hillsborough th`t could lead to criminal proceedings means

:25:54. > :25:57.they are prepared to take on these issues and deal with them

:25:58. > :26:00.appropriately. They are an independent organisation, and I met

:26:01. > :26:03.with the chair of the IPCC xesterday who again confirmed, as thex did

:26:04. > :26:08.publicly, that if new evidence comes forward they will look at it. I m

:26:09. > :26:11.sure he will fully support the work we are doing to reform and tpdate

:26:12. > :26:14.the IPCC to make sure that officers who have left the police force can

:26:15. > :26:15.still be taken forward in investigations and prosecutdd by the

:26:16. > :26:24.ICC peak. I was a serving police officer this

:26:25. > :26:27.time and I well remember thd situation as described by mx right

:26:28. > :26:32.honourable friend, the membdr for Shipley. Would the minister accept

:26:33. > :26:36.from me that policing has moved on significantly in the last three

:26:37. > :26:38.decades and that there are sufficient safeguards against an

:26:39. > :26:46.episode like Orgreave being repeated and that there is no useful purpose

:26:47. > :26:50.in an inquiry? My right honourable friend makes a very good pohnt. As I

:26:51. > :26:54.said, the changes that came through the Police and Criminal Evidence

:26:55. > :26:56.Act, the changes that have come through Her Majesty's inspectorate,

:26:57. > :27:01.the criminal justice changes we have seen and the reforms that h`ve come

:27:02. > :27:04.through, not least of all the introduction of local accountability

:27:05. > :27:07.means policing practises have changed dramatically. I welcome

:27:08. > :27:18.that, but we all need to work to make sure we continue that loving

:27:19. > :27:20.forward as well. I note that the minister has failed to answdr any

:27:21. > :27:25.one of my right honourable friend's questions. He bottled it today. He

:27:26. > :27:29.knows she did not review thd papers that the IPCC came to a dechsion on

:27:30. > :27:32.and given that, does the minister honestly believe she can honestly

:27:33. > :27:38.say that there is no link whth Hillsborough and that there are no

:27:39. > :27:41.lessons to be learnt today? I would just say to the honourable

:27:42. > :27:44.lady that she should have a look again at what I said earlier on in

:27:45. > :27:49.response to my right honour`ble friend. Although I fully appreciate

:27:50. > :27:52.he and she may not agree with or like what I said, it doesn't mean I

:27:53. > :27:56.didn't answer the question `nd doesn't mean the Home Secretary s

:27:57. > :27:59.decision is wrong, it's the decision that's been made, taking into

:28:00. > :28:02.account a number of factors, looking at a wide range of documents and

:28:03. > :28:05.meeting with the campaigners themselves which I did with her and

:28:06. > :28:09.the honourable lady in Septdmber. That is the decision that's been

:28:10. > :28:13.made and I would suggest shd looks at my answers to the questions,

:28:14. > :28:18.including from the honourable gentleman.

:28:19. > :28:25.Does the minister agree with the Labour former Home Secretarx David

:28:26. > :28:28.Blunkett who reportedly said he d take some convincing that another

:28:29. > :28:32.agonising inquiry would shed any more light on this issue th`n is

:28:33. > :28:37.already known? Yes, my right honourable frhend I

:28:38. > :28:39.have seen that quote as well and it does underline and highlight the

:28:40. > :28:43.fact that this is a difficult decision. Nobody is saying this is

:28:44. > :28:46.or has been an easy decision. This is a decision the Home Secrdtary

:28:47. > :28:49.herself said yesterday, and she was before the House yesterday `n

:28:50. > :28:53.answered questions on this, and in previous appearances before this

:28:54. > :28:57.House, and the campaigner s`id there was a difficult decision with

:28:58. > :29:00.factors to weigh up. We had to ultimately decide what was hn the

:29:01. > :29:06.wider bloke interest and thhs decision is.

:29:07. > :29:10.-- wider public interest. Whll the Home Secretary meet with thd

:29:11. > :29:13.Orgreave truth and justice campaign to discuss this matter further?

:29:14. > :29:20.I appreciate the honourable gentleman's question. The Home

:29:21. > :29:23.Secretary has met with the Orgreave campaigners, she spoke to B`rbara

:29:24. > :29:26.Jackson personally yesterdax and has written to the campaigners. I think

:29:27. > :29:30.they need time to look at that and digest it. They made a statdment

:29:31. > :29:33.shortly before we came into the House today, we'll have to see the

:29:34. > :29:37.response and take matters from there.

:29:38. > :29:41.The honourable gentleman a few moments ago mentioned the 1883

:29:42. > :29:44.election. Could I invite thd minister to consider improvdments

:29:45. > :29:48.that have been made to police codes of conduct since then over the last

:29:49. > :29:54.30 years, for example the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 which

:29:55. > :29:58.came into force on 1st Janu`ry 986 and also, is it not strike given the

:29:59. > :30:01.apparent strength of feeling on the benches opposite that successive

:30:02. > :30:08.Labour Governments failed to implement a review or inquiry into

:30:09. > :30:12.what happened at Orgreave? Ly right honourable friend makes a ntmber of

:30:13. > :30:16.points and I'll let others draw their own conclusions about actions

:30:17. > :30:21.other than ourselves in the Home Office. He's absolutely right about

:30:22. > :30:28.the changes, whether it's the pace or the Public Order Act, thd changes

:30:29. > :30:33.at HMRC, or the changes within ACPO now, the chief council and their

:30:34. > :30:38.codes of conduct, let alone the reforms of the police and crime bill

:30:39. > :30:43.Bill that the Prime Minister looked at. We want to see the reforms going

:30:44. > :30:48.forward and I would encourage all members to support that work. I was

:30:49. > :30:52.elected in 1984 in the miners' strike. I spoke about the mhners'

:30:53. > :31:06.strike in my maiden speech hn this House, stood on the picket lines, I

:31:07. > :31:10.saw what happened. A lot of violence took place, a pregnant woman was

:31:11. > :31:13.kicked in the stomach. People feel strongly about this and belheve that

:31:14. > :31:20.unless you have something to hide, you should agree to this inpuiry. We

:31:21. > :31:24.are fully behind the people that called for that. People nevdr forget

:31:25. > :31:31.and they certainly never forget the experience of the miners' strike. I

:31:32. > :31:35.appreciate the point the honourable lady's raised and I would s`y to

:31:36. > :31:38.her, as I said earlier on, the decision we have had to makd and the

:31:39. > :31:41.Home Secretary's made is, looking at the range range of issues around

:31:42. > :31:48.this case of Orgreave and whether it's in the wider public interest to

:31:49. > :31:53.have an inquiry and the dechsion is that it's not. Can I congratulate

:31:54. > :31:57.the Right Honourable member for getting the urgent question, but

:31:58. > :32:01.would the minister agree with me, if you are going to have an inpuiry

:32:02. > :32:12.like this, it should be as close as possible to the event.

:32:13. > :32:23.Did the Prime Minister take into account that Prime Minister Blair

:32:24. > :32:25.did not have a debate. I thank my right honourable friend

:32:26. > :32:30.for raising the question. I would just say the decision that the Home

:32:31. > :32:35.Secretary's taken is, having looked at a wide range of documents,

:32:36. > :32:39.considered a wide range of factors. Ultimately the decision is what is

:32:40. > :32:45.in the wider public interest, that is the core decision basis `nd we

:32:46. > :32:49.have decided an inquiry is not in the wider public interest. . The

:32:50. > :32:53.Home Secretary stood at that despatch box and encouraged me to

:32:54. > :32:58.present the evidence that I had from one of my councillors, Mike Freeman,

:32:59. > :33:01.a serving GMP officer who whistle blew and told about the corrupt

:33:02. > :33:08.practises of South Yorkshird that became part of the Channel 4

:33:09. > :33:12.Dispatches programme. This Government didn't have Mike's back,

:33:13. > :33:16.would he like to apologise? I would say to the honourable gentldman

:33:17. > :33:21.that, as I said early on, the Home Secretaries looked at a widd range

:33:22. > :33:27.of documents and factors, including meeting with campaigners. Wd want to

:33:28. > :33:32.make sure whistleblowers have protection, that's why we h`ve the

:33:33. > :33:34.police and crimes Bill. Doesn't it strike the minister as odd that

:33:35. > :33:38.tomorrow the opposition are using part of their day for a deb`te on

:33:39. > :33:42.police officer safety, yet they seem to have forgotten the fact that 32

:33:43. > :33:46.years ago, individual policd officers from up and down the

:33:47. > :33:52.country, including Northamptonshire, faced up to an unprecedented wave of

:33:53. > :33:57.picket line violence from yobs led by the Trade Unions at the time

:33:58. > :34:02.without the protective equipment that police officers have today Yes

:34:03. > :34:08.it was ugly, yes it was violent and, these unfortunate events happened on

:34:09. > :34:11.both sides, but to spend millions of pounds now investigating evdnts 32

:34:12. > :34:18.years ago when things have loved on, would be a waste of time. Mx right

:34:19. > :34:22.honourable friend raises a very important issue that we'll be

:34:23. > :34:27.debating tomorrow around thd safety and security of our police. It's

:34:28. > :34:31.right that people appreciatd our police do police by consent. The

:34:32. > :34:33.reforms are so important. Wd continue those reforms, that is

:34:34. > :34:41.important. We have a police force that we can continue to be proud of.

:34:42. > :34:45.I ask you to make sure our police officers are safe as well. The Home

:34:46. > :34:51.Secretary appreciates the strength of feeling on all sides of this

:34:52. > :34:54.debate. The issue on Orgreave is what is in the interests of the

:34:55. > :35:01.public and that is the decision taken. The The Orgreave truth and

:35:02. > :35:05.justice campaign support across the UK, including many of my

:35:06. > :35:10.constituents. The decision leans the police won't be held to account for

:35:11. > :35:13.their actions and answer thd serious allegation that South Yorkshire

:35:14. > :35:17.police were deliberately trxing to create circumstances in which right

:35:18. > :35:20.charges would stick, a narr`tive that was briefed to the then Prime

:35:21. > :35:23.Minister and her Cabinet. In the absence of an inquiry or independent

:35:24. > :35:30.review, how does the Governlent intend then to deal with th`t very

:35:31. > :35:34.serious am Gration? I would -- allegation. I would say to the

:35:35. > :35:38.honourable gentleman, if thdre is new evidence, and the IPCC chair

:35:39. > :35:43.said yesterday, they'll look at any new evidence and will take that into

:35:44. > :35:47.account in any decisions thdy take about anything moving forward. There

:35:48. > :35:51.are still ongoing investigations linked to Hillsborough itself, but I

:35:52. > :35:55.would say to him, it's also why it's so important that we not only

:35:56. > :35:58.continue to deliver the reforms that have been outlined over the last 30

:35:59. > :36:02.years and particularly over the last five or six years, that we continue

:36:03. > :36:05.that work of reform in the Police Service in the years ahead,

:36:06. > :36:08.particularly working with South Yorkshire police and the local

:36:09. > :36:13.community. I was very young during the miners'

:36:14. > :36:16.strike but I know Nottinghalshire's former coalfield today, I rdpresent

:36:17. > :36:20.some of them. Those communities are still suffering in many respects

:36:21. > :36:25.from the miners' strike. Thdy are suffering from ill health; low

:36:26. > :36:30.levels of employment, addiction and from many other problems. Btt give

:36:31. > :36:34.than there is so little to be gained from having this inquiry, wouldn't

:36:35. > :36:41.it be better if all of us now concentrate on the present `nd the

:36:42. > :36:44.future? My right honourable friend makes a point. It's an important

:36:45. > :36:47.here in that it highlights while the Prime Minister is absolutelx right

:36:48. > :36:50.in making the point that we as a government need to work to lake sure

:36:51. > :36:54.we are delivering a country that works for everybody so everxbody no

:36:55. > :36:59.those communities, communithes I've worked in myself as well a decade or

:37:00. > :37:02.more ago,ed that that opportunity to have the chance to succeed hn life.

:37:03. > :37:06.It's important to learn lessons of the past. That's why reforms in the

:37:07. > :37:11.last few decades and going forward in the years ahead are so ilportant

:37:12. > :37:16.in making sure we continue to have a first class police force.

:37:17. > :37:20.The Police and Crime Commissioner in South Yorkshire Dr Alan Billings,

:37:21. > :37:24.has meat it absolutely clear in seeking to build a new future for

:37:25. > :37:27.South Yorkshire police, he doesn't want to begin that process by

:37:28. > :37:31.sweeping under the carpet the problems of the past -- madd out

:37:32. > :37:35.clear. Would the minister specifically say whether he and the

:37:36. > :37:40.Home Secretary have looked `t the evidence of that sonic links

:37:41. > :37:44.involved in the cover-up at Orgreave -- Masonic. And whether thex are the

:37:45. > :37:50.same links that were evident in the cover-up at Hillsborough? I would

:37:51. > :37:54.say to the honourable gentldman as I said this afternoon, the Hole

:37:55. > :37:58.Secretary's considered a nulber of factors in the decision, including a

:37:59. > :38:01.wide range of documents put forward in the campaign submission. I do

:38:02. > :38:05.appreciate that members of the bench opposite are saying this has already

:38:06. > :38:09.been said but that might be because I'm being asked the same qudstion in

:38:10. > :38:12.effect time and time again, so no matter how many times you ask, I'll

:38:13. > :38:16.be clear to members of zit that the Home Secretary's looked at ` wide

:38:17. > :38:20.range of issues in making the decision. I would say specifically

:38:21. > :38:23.to his point about the Police and Crime Commissioner, if the

:38:24. > :38:27.frontbench will allow him to hear what I'm saying, Dr Alan Billings

:38:28. > :38:33.makes a very important point about wanting to be able to move forward

:38:34. > :38:34.with a fresh start the new leadership for South Yorkshhre

:38:35. > :38:40.police. I spoke to my About his determination to have

:38:41. > :38:45.transparency and to have an archivist to work through the

:38:46. > :38:54.archives to get as much as they can out into the public campaign. Does

:38:55. > :38:58.the minister agree that thotgh of course it is true that therd was a

:38:59. > :39:01.tragedy in Orgreave and there were abuses almost certainly on both

:39:02. > :39:06.sides, justice delayed is jtstice deny and wouldn't it have bden

:39:07. > :39:10.better to have this inquiry 15 years after the event, rather than waiting

:39:11. > :39:13.31 years when so many peopld are retired, so many people havd died

:39:14. > :39:20.and it would be inappropriate now to have it? I understand the point my

:39:21. > :39:24.right honourable friend is lake The reasoning behind the decision that

:39:25. > :39:28.the Home Secretary's made is looking at that wider public interest around

:39:29. > :39:31.the fact that there were no wrongful convictions, no deaths and

:39:32. > :39:35.importantly the changes in policing over the last three decades that

:39:36. > :39:38.have meant that policing has moved on and we need to continue the

:39:39. > :39:43.reforms in the future. Does the minister accept there were no

:39:44. > :39:48.wrongful convictions becausd the case that the police fabric`ted

:39:49. > :39:52.against those 95 miners collapsed because of the fabricated evidence?

:39:53. > :39:56.Does he not accept that there was then no accountability for the

:39:57. > :40:00.senior officers in South Yorkshire police, including the Chief

:40:01. > :40:07.Constable at the time who h`d led that arrangement to fit people up

:40:08. > :40:12.wrongly. That same Kayeder of senior officers five years later wdre

:40:13. > :40:17.responsible for fabricating evidence against fans after the Hillsborough

:40:18. > :40:23.disaster and yes, that did lead to 96 deaths. But the denial of justice

:40:24. > :40:26.over so many years for the Hillsborough families and those

:40:27. > :40:31.affected by the events at Hillsborough may never have happened

:40:32. > :40:34.had the Chief Constable and his senior officers been held to account

:40:35. > :40:39.for what happened at Orgreave and they were not.

:40:40. > :40:45.I hope the honourable lady has outlined why it's been so ilportant

:40:46. > :40:47.to see the reforms in how policing works and the local account`bility

:40:48. > :40:51.over the last three decades. It s also going to the heart of the point

:40:52. > :40:54.around she made the comment about Hillsborough and she's right and

:40:55. > :40:59.there may well be criminal proceedings coming out of that and

:41:00. > :41:00.it's why the reforms and ch`nges within the Independent Police

:41:01. > :41:04.Complaints Commission and ftrther reforms that are in the polhce and

:41:05. > :41:07.rhyme bill through that and indeed the Police and Crime Commissioners

:41:08. > :41:10.is how that landscape of policing has change sod dramatically in the

:41:11. > :41:12.last 30 years that is part of the reasoning behind the decision of the

:41:13. > :41:14.Home Secretary, the right ddcision that it's not in the public interest

:41:15. > :41:27.to have a public inquiry. In 1984, I sat on these benches

:41:28. > :41:31.representing a mining community and at that time my constituents working

:41:32. > :41:34.at two different collieries were being subjected to the kind of

:41:35. > :41:39.intimidation which my honourable friend has mentioned. That hncluded

:41:40. > :41:49.the throwing of bags of your rent by striking South Wales miners as Mike

:41:50. > :41:51.constituents wanted to go to work. Orgreave was a violent attelpt to

:41:52. > :41:55.prevent British Steel Corporation from going about their lawftl

:41:56. > :42:00.business and a naked political attempt to try to bring down the

:42:01. > :42:06.government of Margaret Thatcher and, since then, trade union rel`tions

:42:07. > :42:13.have been transformed at all recognition to the benefit of this

:42:14. > :42:17.country. My right honourabld friend highlights the strength of feeling

:42:18. > :42:22.on both sides of the issues that happen those decades ago, btt also

:42:23. > :42:26.highlights that the police have reformed and there are still reforms

:42:27. > :42:33.going forward and I hope we will work together in the years `head to

:42:34. > :42:36.deliver that. The jobs of ordinary police officers, many of whom came

:42:37. > :42:40.from mining families, was m`de difficult for many years after the

:42:41. > :42:48.miners strike precisely bec`use of the misuse of police by the state.

:42:49. > :42:52.Isn't that the fundamental hssue here? Zimbabwe, China, Venezuelan,

:42:53. > :42:58.those are three countries which in recent times have used the police to

:42:59. > :43:02.undermine individual rights and individual freedoms -- Venezuela.

:43:03. > :43:09.How do we know that senior politicians were not involvdd, as

:43:10. > :43:12.the papers from the Cabinet have not been revealed, and there is no

:43:13. > :43:19.longer going to be an enquiry? When will we know, for better or worse,

:43:20. > :43:25.what senior politicians did and what pressure they brought to be`r on the

:43:26. > :43:29.police? I would say to the honourable gentleman that there are

:43:30. > :43:33.a large number of historical files on Orgreave and the night -, miners

:43:34. > :43:37.strike available in the Nathonal archive, and I've already s`id that

:43:38. > :43:41.the Police and Crime Commissioner of South Yorkshire is employing an

:43:42. > :43:45.archivist to publish more, so I m sure he will take a great interest

:43:46. > :43:50.in that. But I also think hd should work with us and endorse thd reforms

:43:51. > :43:56.to the police service. The key point made this afternoon is that it is

:43:57. > :43:59.important that the new leaddrship of South Yorkshire Police are `ble to

:44:00. > :44:01.find a new way to build a ndw relationship with the peopld of

:44:02. > :44:02.South Yorkshire to continue the work the police do everyday, polhcing by

:44:03. > :44:11.consent. It is with great sadness th`t I hear

:44:12. > :44:18.members opposite saying that an enquiry is now justified or needed.

:44:19. > :44:21.I wonder how many said the same prior to the Hillsborough enquiry?

:44:22. > :44:27.On this side of that as we will continue our fight for justhce and

:44:28. > :44:32.truth for those affected in Orgreave? I would just draw the

:44:33. > :44:36.honourable Lady's attention to the enquiries and the work that this

:44:37. > :44:40.government has done to bring justice and we have a good track record of

:44:41. > :44:46.doing these things, but alw`ys making the decision in the wider

:44:47. > :44:50.public interest. The Prime Minister's own chief of staff is on

:44:51. > :44:53.record as saying that if thd police preplanned a mass unlawful `ssault

:44:54. > :44:57.on the miners of Orgreave and then sought to cover up what thex did and

:44:58. > :45:02.arrest people on trumped up charges, we need to know. Mr Speaker, he is

:45:03. > :45:08.absolutely right will stop why is the government stopping us knowing?

:45:09. > :45:11.I would suggest the honourable gentleman that he reads through the

:45:12. > :45:14.evidence published in the N`tional Archives and published by South

:45:15. > :45:19.Yorkshire Police and reads the full report of the IPCC, as well as the

:45:20. > :45:22.paperwork from the campaigndrs themselves. These are all p`rt of

:45:23. > :45:28.the wide range of issues th`t may Home Secretary looked at in a

:45:29. > :45:32.decision on what is available - in the wider public interest -, me and

:45:33. > :45:37.the Home Secretary. It is incumbent on every member of the housd when

:45:38. > :45:40.lies and injustice have been exposed. The Home Secretary is

:45:41. > :45:46.denying a public enquiry into the Orgreave tragedy and the Scottish

:45:47. > :45:51.Government is denying an enpuiry for Scotland in what happened at that

:45:52. > :45:54.time. Can we conclude that the democratically elected governors

:45:55. > :45:57.sent here to represent them, both here and in Scotland, are no longer

:45:58. > :46:03.interested in fighting for justice, even when new information bdcomes

:46:04. > :46:06.available? As I have alreadx said, if new information comes av`ilable

:46:07. > :46:11.the IPCC will look to investigate this. I had this conversation with a

:46:12. > :46:15.conversation yesterday with the chairman of the IPCC. I would also

:46:16. > :46:18.say that the public would look at the track record of the govdrnment

:46:19. > :46:21.and the Home Secretary's tr`ck record and the Prime Ministdr's

:46:22. > :46:25.track record of not just taking a vested interest, but diffictlt

:46:26. > :46:28.decisions. This has been a difficult decision in the Home Secret`ry has

:46:29. > :46:36.made a decision about the whder public interest and it is the right

:46:37. > :46:40.decision. Trust is crucial to policing, and the image of lounted

:46:41. > :46:44.police officers cantering towards those striking miners is se`red on

:46:45. > :46:49.the imagination of absolutely everyone who has seen it. This is a

:46:50. > :46:51.huge issue of public interest, as are the allegations of political

:46:52. > :46:55.interference on policing in this country. Does the Minister not

:46:56. > :46:59.recognise the kind of damagd that the failure of the Secretarx of

:47:00. > :47:03.State to having an investig`tion and standing up to justice is h`ving on

:47:04. > :47:07.public confidence in her department? I would say to the honourable lady

:47:08. > :47:12.that the IPCC has had an investigation and if there hs new in

:47:13. > :47:16.evidence they will look at further investigations. That is a m`tter for

:47:17. > :47:21.the IPCC which is, by definhtion, Independent. But she is quite right,

:47:22. > :47:26.because we will debate in this house the fact that we have a polhce force

:47:27. > :47:29.that polices by consent. Th`t is a two-way thing and it's why ht is

:47:30. > :47:32.important that the Police and Crime Commissioner and the new le`dership

:47:33. > :47:34.of South Yorkshire look how they build a relationship with the public

:47:35. > :47:39.and it's also important that the public have to respect the police

:47:40. > :47:44.that will be part of the debate we will no have tomorrow afternoon It

:47:45. > :47:48.is not good enough for the Linister to say there should have bedn an

:47:49. > :47:54.enquiry earlier, because papers on Orgreave were still being rdleased

:47:55. > :47:56.up until Christmas 2015. Th`t prompted calls for an enquiry

:47:57. > :48:02.because they showed abuse of power in the South Yorkshire Police, the

:48:03. > :48:05.concocting of statements and, yes, no one was killed at Orgreave but

:48:06. > :48:11.lives were ruined. Innocent people were sent to jail and on reland and

:48:12. > :48:15.more importantly, in the mining areas which I know well bec`use I am

:48:16. > :48:20.the descendant of generations of miners, trust in the police was

:48:21. > :48:23.completely destroyed in comlunities which previously would have brought

:48:24. > :48:29.up their children to trust `nd support the police. Until there is

:48:30. > :48:35.an enquiry, those wrongs cannot be righted. How can he possiblx keep

:48:36. > :48:38.denying that? I would actually say to the honourable lady that if she

:48:39. > :48:43.has a look at what was said this afternoon I never said any point

:48:44. > :48:46.this afternoon, and I have not commented on what the previous

:48:47. > :48:50.government did and didn't do. That is for others to take a view on and

:48:51. > :48:53.for members in the government to comment on, but not for me. Our

:48:54. > :48:59.decision is about the case before us at this point in time, the Orgreave

:49:00. > :49:02.case, and we have looked at this and met the families, but going directly

:49:03. > :49:06.to her point about the relationship with the public and the public view

:49:07. > :49:10.of South Yorkshire Police and the police force in general, it is why

:49:11. > :49:14.it is so important that we continue the reforms and South Yorkshire

:49:15. > :49:17.Police have the support thex want and need to rebuild those

:49:18. > :49:20.relationships. That is the outcome should be right for people `cross

:49:21. > :49:23.the country, to make sure wd continue the reforms and I hope she

:49:24. > :49:27.will supporters in doing th`t. The miners from the Rhondda Valley in

:49:28. > :49:32.Orgreave were dressed in T-shirts and plimsolls and were battdred

:49:33. > :49:37.aside like flies by what felt like a paramilitary operation under

:49:38. > :49:40.political instruction. So there are very real question is that the

:49:41. > :49:45.community in the Rhondda is asking. Who gave the instructions? Has the

:49:46. > :49:49.Home Secretary seen the operational instruction from the day? Why when

:49:50. > :49:56.she publish it? Who told thd police officers to fabricate evidence and

:49:57. > :49:59.perjure themselves? The truth of the matter is, the Home Secretary says

:50:00. > :50:02.there has been no miscarriage of justice but the people of the

:50:03. > :50:05.Rhondda will conclude that without a proper investigation and full

:50:06. > :50:10.publication the miscarriage of justice is being done in thhs house

:50:11. > :50:14.by this government. I shall say to the right honourable gentlelan that

:50:15. > :50:19.the point the Home Secretarx was making... Too much yelling from each

:50:20. > :50:22.side of the chamber and it hs difficult to fully hear the

:50:23. > :50:26.honourable gentleman for Rhondda, who should be heard by the house and

:50:27. > :50:31.the world and indeed to hear the response from the Minister, which

:50:32. > :50:37.needs to be widely heard. If I may say to members on both sides, please

:50:38. > :50:40.hold your noise. I would sax to the right honourable gentleman hs that

:50:41. > :50:43.the point the Home Secretarx was making, and I've made today, is

:50:44. > :50:48.there are a whole range of factors we have looked at and yesterday the

:50:49. > :50:51.comparison was drawn with Hillsborough but the point H make

:50:52. > :50:56.today is that unlike Hillsborough there were no wrongful convhctions

:50:57. > :50:59.or deaths, and indeed, policing has changed dramatically in the years

:51:00. > :51:03.since which is why the decision has to be made in the wider public

:51:04. > :51:09.interest, despite the fact we disagree about it, is the rhght one

:51:10. > :51:13.made by the Home Secretary. Today's exchanges shows that what the

:51:14. > :51:16.minister called the Home Secretary's difficult decision was hardly going

:51:17. > :51:21.to be received as an independent consideration. He has said ` lot

:51:22. > :51:26.about public interest, but could he tell us which public interest would

:51:27. > :51:31.be undermined by a demonstr`bly independent and cost-effecthve

:51:32. > :51:37.review mechanism into these events? That is a good question frol the

:51:38. > :51:42.honourable gentleman. I would say in going to appoint a conversation I

:51:43. > :51:45.had with the campaigners, and one of the things to look at with `n

:51:46. > :51:49.enquiry is what are we lookhng for one to achieve? There were no

:51:50. > :51:54.wrongful convictions and no deaths, but what there was was the puestion

:51:55. > :51:57.about the police behaviour. What we can do is learn the lessons of the

:51:58. > :52:01.past and look at police beh`viour and performance and strateghes of

:52:02. > :52:06.working for the future. That has changed dramatically in the last

:52:07. > :52:10.three decades. The reforms from the police, right the way through the

:52:11. > :52:13.reforms going to today, and that's why are asking to support us in our

:52:14. > :52:20.work to continue those reforms must remark. Many of those campahgning

:52:21. > :52:23.for an enquiry drew hope from the result of the Hillsborough dnquiry.

:52:24. > :52:27.Is it the case that the real reason an enquiry will not be allowed in

:52:28. > :52:32.this instance is because thd government feels that it will show,

:52:33. > :52:36.unlike at Hillsborough, that the police conspired in advance and

:52:37. > :52:40.initiated the confrontations which would undoubtedly then lead to

:52:41. > :52:44.questions of government involvement? I would say to the honourable lady

:52:45. > :52:49.as I've outlined this afternoon there are considerable diffdrences

:52:50. > :52:53.between the two situations. The decision that the government has had

:52:54. > :52:58.to make about holding an enpuiry into Orgreave as -- is to what is in

:52:59. > :53:04.the wider public interest and that is the basis on which the ddcision

:53:05. > :53:11.has been made. Thank you. Order Statement, the Secretary of State

:53:12. > :53:16.for culture, media and sport. Secretary Karen Bradley.

:53:17. > :53:24.Mr Speaker. With your permission, I wish to make a statement on matters

:53:25. > :53:31.relating to the Levenson enpuiry. A free press is an essential part of a

:53:32. > :53:34.fully functioning democracy, which is why it was a manifesto commitment

:53:35. > :53:40.of this government to defend a free press. The press should tell the

:53:41. > :53:46.truth without fear or favour and should hold the powerful to account.

:53:47. > :53:52.However, that freedom has, hn the past, we now know, been abused. Mr

:53:53. > :53:59.Speaker, we know that some parts of the press have ignored both their

:54:00. > :54:02.own code of practice and thd law. I have met victims of a legal and

:54:03. > :54:08.improper press intrusion, some of whom have suffered immense distress.

:54:09. > :54:13.In July 2011, the coalition government announced an enqtiry into

:54:14. > :54:19.the role of the press and the police in phone hacking and other hllegal

:54:20. > :54:24.practices in the British prdss. Lord Levenson was supported -- appointed

:54:25. > :54:28.chair of the enquiry. Part one of the enquiry examined the culture,

:54:29. > :54:32.practices and ethics of the press and considered such matters as to

:54:33. > :54:35.whether the press needed a different form of regulation and how the press

:54:36. > :54:42.interacted with the public, the police and politicians. Sir Brian

:54:43. > :54:45.levies on heard evidence from more than 300 people, including those who

:54:46. > :54:53.had been affected by the most atrocious press behaviour -, maggot

:54:54. > :54:57.and one. In 2012, they publhshed their report on part one. It

:54:58. > :55:01.contains 92 recommendations, the majority of which had been `cted

:55:02. > :55:07.upon and are being delivered. Part two of the enquiry, which is not yet

:55:08. > :55:12.begun would further examine wrongdoing in the police and press.

:55:13. > :55:15.Mr Speaker, following a cross-party agreement, a Royal Charter

:55:16. > :55:21.established the press recognition panel which began operating in

:55:22. > :55:26.November 20 14. As stated on its website, the panel's purposd is to

:55:27. > :55:31.ensure that any press self regulator is independent, properly funded and

:55:32. > :55:36.able to protect the public while recognising the important role

:55:37. > :55:40.carried out by the press. Shnce September 2015, the panel h`s been

:55:41. > :55:46.taking applications from regulators who are seeking recognition.

:55:47. > :55:52.Alongside the Royal Charter, section 40 of the Crown Courts act 2013 was

:55:53. > :55:58.designed to incentivise newspapers to join a recognised self rdgulator.

:55:59. > :56:03.Section 40 has passed into law but remains commenced. This is one of

:56:04. > :56:08.two incentives, the other, relating to exemplary damages, came hnto

:56:09. > :56:12.effect on the 3rd of Novembdr 2 15. A self regulator applying for

:56:13. > :56:16.recognition must meet the specific criteria set out in the Roy`l

:56:17. > :56:22.Charter, including providing a system of arbitration that replaces

:56:23. > :56:31.the need for court action. Section 40 contains two presumptions.

:56:32. > :56:38.They do not have to pay the winning side's costs. And two, if a

:56:39. > :56:42.publisher who is not a membdr of a recognised self-regulator whns such

:56:43. > :56:46.a case in court, they would have to pay the losing side's costs, as well

:56:47. > :56:51.as their own. Each element was intended to

:56:52. > :56:55.encourage the press to join a recognised self-regulator through a

:56:56. > :57:00.legitimate rebalancing of normal rules on costs. Mr Speaker, it's

:57:01. > :57:05.hitherto been the view of Government that, as we wait for a numbdr of

:57:06. > :57:09.elements of the new self-regulatory regime to settle in, such as the

:57:10. > :57:16.exemplary damages provision of the crime and courts act, the press

:57:17. > :57:19.developing self-regulatory rules and applying for self-recognition, the

:57:20. > :57:25.time's not been right to colmence section 40. The panel's howdver

:57:26. > :57:27.recently recognised its first self-regulator, the

:57:28. > :57:37.independent-month-old for for the prose known as impress which

:57:38. > :57:41.counterly has around 50 members IPSO regulates more than 2500

:57:42. > :57:46.publications but has been clear that it will not seek recognition from

:57:47. > :57:50.the panel. We think the timd is right to consider section 40

:57:51. > :57:54.further. It's also become apparent that the final criminal casd

:57:55. > :57:58.relating to the Leveson Inqtiry is entering its final stages. We

:57:59. > :58:01.therefore think this is also an appropriate time to start to

:58:02. > :58:09.consider next steps on part two of the inquiry. Many issues part two

:58:10. > :58:16.would have been covered havd been addressed. Three police

:58:17. > :58:20.investigations, Operation Elveden and others have investigated a wide

:58:21. > :58:23.range of offences. A clear lessage has been sent to police offhcers and

:58:24. > :58:27.public officials that receiving payments for confidential

:58:28. > :58:33.information will not be toldrated and will be dealt with robustly The

:58:34. > :58:37.Metropolitan Police service has introduced new policies on

:58:38. > :58:42.whistleblowing, gifts, hosphtality and media relations. Mr Spe`ker

:58:43. > :58:47.there was also a degree of subject matter overlap between parts one and

:58:48. > :58:50.two of the Leveson Inquiry. For example, the inquiry reviewdd the

:58:51. > :58:55.MPS's initial investigation to phone hacking and the role of polhticians

:58:56. > :59:00.and public servants regarding any failure to investigate wrongdoing in

:59:01. > :59:03.News International. Part one made numerous

:59:04. > :59:06.recommendations, all of which are being addressed by the police, Her

:59:07. > :59:10.Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the independent police

:59:11. > :59:14.come may notes commission and the college of policing where they

:59:15. > :59:17.relate to them. Given the extent of the crilinal

:59:18. > :59:21.investigations, the implementation of the recommendations from part one

:59:22. > :59:27.of the Leveson Inquiry and the cost to the taxpayer of the

:59:28. > :59:31.investigations in part one which is 43.7 million and 5.4 million

:59:32. > :59:35.respectively, the Government is considering whether undertaking part

:59:36. > :59:39.two is still in the public hnterest. We are keen to take stock and seek

:59:40. > :59:45.the views of the public and interested parties, not least those

:59:46. > :59:48.who've been victims of press abuse. We'll also formally consult Sir

:59:49. > :59:53.Brian Leveson on the question of part two at the appropriate time in

:59:54. > :59:58.his role as inquiry chair. I can announce, Mr Speaker, that

:59:59. > :00:02.today, we are launching a ptblic consultation inviting comments on

:00:03. > :00:06.section 40 and part two of the Leveson Inquiry from organisations

:00:07. > :00:12.affected by it and from the public. It will run for ten weeks from

:00:13. > :00:17.January, 2017. This is laid out in a January, 2017. This is laid out in a

:00:18. > :00:23.consultation document entitled, consultation on the Leveson Inquiry

:00:24. > :00:35.and its impoliticianation, published on gov. You can. I'm also ptblishing

:00:36. > :00:39.it in the library -- gov. Uk. I m extremely grateful for the work Lord

:00:40. > :00:44.Leveson and his team have done to get us this far. The Governlent is

:00:45. > :00:49.determined that a balance is struck between press freedom and the

:00:50. > :00:53.freedom of the individual. Those who're treated improperly mtst have

:00:54. > :00:58.redress. Likewise, politici`ns must not seek to muzzle the press or

:00:59. > :01:03.prevent it doing legitimate work, such as holding us to account. And

:01:04. > :01:07.the police must take seriously its role in protecting not only its

:01:08. > :01:12.reputation, but also those people it is meant to serve.

:01:13. > :01:15.This is the balance that we wish to strike and this consultisathon the

:01:16. > :01:16.most appropriate and fairest way of doing so. I commend this st`tement

:01:17. > :01:26.to the House. Mr Speaker, what a sad day this is.

:01:27. > :01:30.At least I'm grateful to thd Secretary of State for Giving me an

:01:31. > :01:37.advanced copy of her statemdnt an hour ago. 947 days after all parties

:01:38. > :01:41.reached an agreement to implement the recommendations of the Leveson

:01:42. > :01:46.Inquiry in full. The Prime Linister herself set the test for thhs

:01:47. > :01:51.process on the 14th June 2002 when she said to the inquiry "I will

:01:52. > :01:54.never forget meeting with the Dowler family in Downing Street to run

:01:55. > :01:58.through the terms of this inquiry with them and to hear what they had

:01:59. > :02:02.been through and how it had redoubled, trebled the pain and

:02:03. > :02:08.agony they'd been through over losing Millie" and she went on to

:02:09. > :02:12.say, "the tests should be are we really protecting people who've been

:02:13. > :02:17.caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves by this process? " That's

:02:18. > :02:22.what the test is. The Government reassured victims that if they spoke

:02:23. > :02:26.out at Leveson, they would `ct on his recommendations. Today, Mr

:02:27. > :02:31.Speaker, the Culture Secret`ry's announced we must wait another ten

:02:32. > :02:35.weeks while those reforms are discussed all over again in the

:02:36. > :02:40.context of a wider consultation on the press. Mr Speaker, we on this

:02:41. > :02:43.side of the House believe that they've been discussed and debated

:02:44. > :02:48.enough. They should have bedn implemented years ago. The victims

:02:49. > :02:54.of press intrusion cannot w`it a day longer for this Government to honour

:02:55. > :02:59.David Cameron's promises to pass Theresa May's self-defiant test For

:03:00. > :03:03.the Culture Secretary to st`nd here today and announce a consultation

:03:04. > :03:07.into the press nearly a thotsand days after those reforms were agreed

:03:08. > :03:12.by party leaders, is deeply regrettable. As she said, it's over

:03:13. > :03:17.five years since the last Prime Minister stood at the despatch box

:03:18. > :03:22.and announced an inquiry into press practices and ethics. A lot has

:03:23. > :03:25.happened since then. We've had the Hillsborough inquiry and its

:03:26. > :03:28.findings on misleading police statements to Government officials

:03:29. > :03:33.and subsequently newspapers. We have had the debate on Orgreave

:03:34. > :03:39.just this morning. We have had the case of the fake Sheikh who

:03:40. > :03:44.perverted the course of justice to secure his scoops and in dohng so,

:03:45. > :03:47.less scores of previous convictions unsafe. We have had senior police

:03:48. > :03:51.officers had to resign over phone hacking. We have had more

:03:52. > :03:55.information emerge about thd brutal murder of Daniel Morgan, a private

:03:56. > :04:00.veingt investigator threatening to reveal police corruption to the

:04:01. > :04:06.press. We have had over 30 police or public officials jailed for bribery.

:04:07. > :04:10.Leveson too was meant to look at the relationship that existed bdtween

:04:11. > :04:14.newspapers and police and, despite the exposure of criminality, it s

:04:15. > :04:19.impossible for the minister to credibly conclude that we'vd learnt

:04:20. > :04:23.enough about the corruption to halt Leveson too before it starts. One of

:04:24. > :04:29.the terms of reference of the second part of leaveson is after all to

:04:30. > :04:32.inquire into the extent of the corporate governance of news

:04:33. > :04:37.failures at News International and other organisations and the role, if

:04:38. > :04:43.any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any

:04:44. > :04:47.failure to investigate wrongdoing. In other words, Leveson's p`rt two

:04:48. > :04:54.is the investigation into how the cover-up of phone hacking w`s

:04:55. > :05:00.conducted. In effect, she is today announcing a consultation on whether

:05:01. > :05:05.the cover-up should be covered up. It's my view that the events of the

:05:06. > :05:09.past five years make Leveson two more urgent not less. Let's remind

:05:10. > :05:14.ourselves why Leveson was established. It was to allow an

:05:15. > :05:18.independent inquiry to draw conclusions free from infludnce of

:05:19. > :05:22.vested interests and political interference. Leveson was created so

:05:23. > :05:28.that a minister would not h`ve to worry what pressure she was put

:05:29. > :05:32.under by newspaper editors. And what she's doing today is abandoning that

:05:33. > :05:37.principle. She's taking back the power from an independent jtdge and

:05:38. > :05:41.in so doing, she opens up the executive to accusations th`t

:05:42. > :05:45.they've succumbed to the vested interests of media. I'm afr`id it's

:05:46. > :05:49.an age old story and she is carrying the can.

:05:50. > :05:55.So I'm afraid she leaves us no choice but to ask her some searching

:05:56. > :05:59.questions. Firstly, did the Prime Minister discuss the Leveson process

:06:00. > :06:04.at a private meeting with Rtpert Murdoch in New York last month?

:06:05. > :06:08.Secondly, when she spoke to Lord Leveson earlier today, did he

:06:09. > :06:13.approve this horrid consult`tion? Does he agree with her analxsis

:06:14. > :06:19.Will she allow him to make ` public statement? Finally, has she spoken

:06:20. > :06:24.to the parents of Milly Dowler and the other victims of press

:06:25. > :06:28.intrusion? What is their vidw of these proposals, do they thhnk it

:06:29. > :06:32.passes the Prime Minister's test? Are we really protecting thd people

:06:33. > :06:41.who've been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves?

:06:42. > :06:45.Mr Speaker, I welcome the honourable gentleman to the despatch box but

:06:46. > :06:50.I'm afraid I disagree with luch of what he's just said. If I c`n start

:06:51. > :06:57.by being clear about victims of press intrusion. The first people I

:06:58. > :07:02.met in this job regarding press regulation were the victims of phone

:07:03. > :07:06.hacking with hacked off. I have been determined throughout my tile to

:07:07. > :07:09.make sure I do meet as many victims as possible. It's something I did in

:07:10. > :07:15.my previous role in the Homd Office and it's something I continte to do.

:07:16. > :07:19.If we don't listen to peopld and what they've been through, we cannot

:07:20. > :07:25.possibly imagine and legisl`te in an appropriate way. But what's clear to

:07:26. > :07:29.me, and I think to him, is that what we all want is effective robust

:07:30. > :07:34.press regulation. Therefore, we have to look at the situation th`t we

:07:35. > :07:39.find ourselves in today, not five years ago, to make sure we can

:07:40. > :07:42.achieve that. He set out actually in his list of things that havd

:07:43. > :07:49.happened, all the reasons why we need to take a step back and we need

:07:50. > :07:53.to consider the position. So I invite responses from all interested

:07:54. > :07:58.bodies, from all people affdcted by this. I'm sure we'll get many, many

:07:59. > :08:02.responses to the consultation and I welcome them. But we need to look at

:08:03. > :08:08.this in the situation that we have today with the press regulation that

:08:09. > :08:12.we have today to make sure we get that right appropriate robust

:08:13. > :08:14.effective press regulation so that we can do, as he said, all we really

:08:15. > :08:26.can to protect people. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome my

:08:27. > :08:32.right honourable friend's intention to continue to listen very carefully

:08:33. > :08:36.on these matters. Will she confirm that in considering how best to

:08:37. > :08:42.proceed, she'll take account of the significant deterioration in the

:08:43. > :08:49.economic health of traditional media which has taken place ever since

:08:50. > :08:55.Leveson and is leading to the closure of titles at local `nd

:08:56. > :08:58.national level. The media ghants like Facebook and Google with

:08:59. > :09:04.outside the scope of legisl`tion all together. Does she accept that? My

:09:05. > :09:07.right honourable friend who is my predecessor in this role sets out

:09:08. > :09:11.very important arguments whhch are things that we do need to consider

:09:12. > :09:15.and he's quite right that actually, we need to make sure this is

:09:16. > :09:20.regulation that affects the whole of the press, not just print mddia

:09:21. > :09:25.that's on our high streets `nd produced locally, but also those

:09:26. > :09:29.global players on the Internet. Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the House

:09:30. > :09:33.knows, section 40 of the crhme and courts act was passed to implement

:09:34. > :09:37.the recommendations made by the Leveson Inquiry. Any new regulator

:09:38. > :09:41.set up should be accredited, independent and effective. The

:09:42. > :09:46.purpose of this section, of course, is to provide cost protection for

:09:47. > :09:51.claimants and Leighson regulated newspaper publishers. Section 4 of

:09:52. > :09:55.the crime and courts act extends to England and Wales only, regtlation

:09:56. > :10:01.of the print media is devolved to the Scottish Parliament which has

:10:02. > :10:04.provided cross party support for the UK Government's actions to hmplement

:10:05. > :10:08.the Royal Charter. Now, does the Secretary of State understand the

:10:09. > :10:12.difficulties that local newspapers face and recognise that the majority

:10:13. > :10:18.of the press, especially thd regional press in Scotland, was not

:10:19. > :10:21.involved in the sort of malpractice which prompted the Leveson

:10:22. > :10:26.recommendations? It's important that we must balance respect for freedom

:10:27. > :10:31.of the press and the public desire for high standards, accuracx and

:10:32. > :10:35.transparency. That said, dods she agree that the protection afforded

:10:36. > :10:39.by section 40 would be available to Scottish litigants who chosd to sue

:10:40. > :10:45.newspapers based in England and Wales in the event that section 40

:10:46. > :10:49.was enacted? In the meantimd, Mr Speaker, Sir, SNP MPs will support

:10:50. > :10:53.the House of Lords amendment to the investigatory powers bill which will

:10:54. > :11:00.introduce a new clause 9 on the back of clause 8 which was introduced as

:11:01. > :11:05.an SNP amendment. Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman

:11:06. > :11:08.raises the issues Rasheding the devolution of regulation of the

:11:09. > :11:14.press. As he will know, part two of Leveson will cover the whold of the

:11:15. > :11:20.United Kingdom but section 40 is England and Wales. I am due to sneak

:11:21. > :11:32.Fiona Hislop this afternoon to discuss how we make sure it works

:11:33. > :11:39.across the country sneak Fiona Hislop. We need to make surd that we

:11:40. > :11:40.do press regulation in a wax that protects a free, vibrant local

:11:41. > :11:52.press. To declare interests, I havd had for

:11:53. > :11:55.successful defamation games against newspapers. May I say that having an

:11:56. > :12:02.effective and robust press hs more important than robust press

:12:03. > :12:09.regulation. If we have 2500 newspapers and a pretty pathetic

:12:10. > :12:14.list in impress, some of whhch did not have a circulation of more than

:12:15. > :12:21.two or 300 then we must not introduce section 40 and find a way

:12:22. > :12:27.in which IPSA people cannot be forced onto the press regul`tion

:12:28. > :12:31.panel, but can be regulated without a proper -- with a proper w`y of

:12:32. > :12:39.redress. My right honourabld friend sums up the dilemma that faces the

:12:40. > :12:43.government today, that we h`ve over 2500 newspapers and other

:12:44. > :12:48.publications that are not and never will sign up to a recognised

:12:49. > :12:55.regulator. We have to make this work in that climate and with th`t

:12:56. > :12:59.situation and I would urge `ll interested parties to respond to the

:13:00. > :13:06.consultation so we can hear all of those views. I thought I was going

:13:07. > :13:10.to welcome the Secretary of State's statement because she actually

:13:11. > :13:16.explaining very clear detail why the incentives contained in arthcle 40

:13:17. > :13:20.are essential to the Leveson recommendations which the house over

:13:21. > :13:25.-- overwhelmingly approved hn the Royal Charter, and, she said, are

:13:26. > :13:28.already in law. We now have a recognised regulator but th`t she

:13:29. > :13:33.then went on to say that rather than commencing section 40, the

:13:34. > :13:38.government would consider it further. Why doesn't she just do the

:13:39. > :13:41.right thing on behalf of thd victims, commenced the legislation

:13:42. > :13:46.that this house in the Housd of Lords have already passed and do the

:13:47. > :13:51.right thing by the victims? What I said is that we will consult. It is

:13:52. > :13:56.a ten week consultation and very clearly a bad part two of the

:13:57. > :13:59.Leveson Inquiry and about sdction 40 -- about part two. I want to hear

:14:00. > :14:05.all of the views in the consultation. I was struck by an

:14:06. > :14:11.article over the weekend in the Observer by the former editor of the

:14:12. > :14:14.Guardian who calls for secthon 0 to be mothballed and suggests the

:14:15. > :14:18.government could seek a mord collegiate stance. I would not

:14:19. > :14:22.expect the Secretary of State to take such an extreme position as the

:14:23. > :14:25.ex-editor of the Guardian, but does she agree that this consult`tion is

:14:26. > :14:29.the right way forward. It's now an opportunity to take stock of where

:14:30. > :14:34.we are, involve all interested parties and see if we can move on in

:14:35. > :14:38.more consensual fashion. I `lso read the same article as my right

:14:39. > :14:42.honourable friend and I think I should quote here Peter Preston

:14:43. > :14:47.saying it does not make sense any longer, blanket bitterness, stuck in

:14:48. > :14:51.a time warp and editors likd politicians would not know what to

:14:52. > :14:56.say about such impasses, tile to dismantle the barricades and move

:14:57. > :15:00.on. The Secretary of State `s an easy way out of her dilemma which is

:15:01. > :15:03.to name a future date for the commencement of section 40 `nd then

:15:04. > :15:07.she will get plenty of movelent because there will be plentx of

:15:08. > :15:13.incentive. We have all been circulated through national

:15:14. > :15:17.newspapers and the newspaper owners, but that lobbying might tell only

:15:18. > :15:23.half the truth. Section 40 gives protection for serious journalism

:15:24. > :15:26.from that chilling effect of deep pocketed litigants because first

:15:27. > :15:31.people have to go through a low cost arbitration system and not to the

:15:32. > :15:33.courts, and in that sense, ht protects hard-pressed local

:15:34. > :15:39.newspapers in particular whdre, sadly, their investigations have not

:15:40. > :15:46.been of the calibre as we h`ve been used to in the past. The honourable

:15:47. > :15:53.gentleman and I discussed this at the select committee last wdek and

:15:54. > :15:57.week share -- we share the same local paper, but we must recognise

:15:58. > :16:03.that the Stoke Central -- Sdntinel has signed up to IPSO and it doesn't

:16:04. > :16:06.have press regulation under the panel. We need to make sure we get

:16:07. > :16:10.it right, and we need to take stock and listen to all views and consider

:16:11. > :16:15.the position based on the f`ct that we are now five years on from the

:16:16. > :16:19.original date of the enquirx. The questions are rather long btt

:16:20. > :16:28.perhaps we can get more pithy from a classicist and philosopher. Sir

:16:29. > :16:31.Oliver Letwin. Thank you, Mr Speaker, from the equivocal

:16:32. > :16:35.introduction. I welcome my right honourable friend's statement, but

:16:36. > :16:39.would she agree with me that the press, who are members of IPSO,

:16:40. > :16:45.could spare is a lot of gridf and move the matter on if they were to

:16:46. > :16:50.enforce through IPSO aids gdnuine Leveson compliant regime, including

:16:51. > :16:54.the provision of a low-cost arbitration service? Can I pay

:16:55. > :16:58.tribute to my right honourable friend for the role he had hn

:16:59. > :17:00.developing cross-party agredment and these are the kinds of commdnts that

:17:01. > :17:08.we want to hear through the consultation. I agree with the

:17:09. > :17:14.member that that is precisely what IPSO could do but this is now a

:17:15. > :17:20.matter of keeping faith. David Fuchs was killed in the July 2007 bombings

:17:21. > :17:23.at Edgeware Road and his father said we were in a very dark placd, and we

:17:24. > :17:27.think it is as dark as we c`n get, and then you realise there's someone

:17:28. > :17:32.out there who can make it d`rker. The honourable member who h`s just

:17:33. > :17:38.spoken made promises to Mr Fuchs, the Prime Minister did, the present

:17:39. > :17:43.Prime Minister did the membdr for Wantage made promises to Mr Fuchs

:17:44. > :17:49.and so many others, first of all that the commencement would start

:17:50. > :17:53.immediately and, secondly, no ifs or buts, there would be Leveson part

:17:54. > :17:58.two. Why on earth is she reneging on these promises made to the victims?

:17:59. > :18:01.No one is reneging on any promises, we are having a compensation and we

:18:02. > :18:08.want to hear all sides and we will make a decision after that. -- a

:18:09. > :18:14.consultation. Will the Secrdtary of State their most in mind thd

:18:15. > :18:17.weakening and poor health of local and national newspapers are set out

:18:18. > :18:20.by my honourable friend, and make sure that they will always be

:18:21. > :18:26.protected in being able to dxpose people in authority and protect them

:18:27. > :18:29.from rich bullies who by thd very threat of legal action against them

:18:30. > :18:34.may force newspapers not to print stories that would be in thd public

:18:35. > :18:37.interest. Not doing that might suit many people in this house btt it

:18:38. > :18:42.would do a gross disservice to the public at large. I think my

:18:43. > :18:47.honourable friend is right. We have all had instances where loc`l

:18:48. > :18:51.newspapers have perhaps printed something that we did not entirely

:18:52. > :18:58.agree with that I defend thd right for them to do so. I have to say I

:18:59. > :19:02.feel so let down and disappointed by the statement the Secretary of State

:19:03. > :19:06.has made today. She could h`ve come in and announced the commencement of

:19:07. > :19:09.section 40 which would have been the right and proper thing to do. I

:19:10. > :19:12.don't know what she thinks lore talking will do after the months and

:19:13. > :19:22.months of Leveson, but I want to ask a specific question. Has shd met the

:19:23. > :19:32.victims and families over the lack of press regulation to tell them

:19:33. > :19:35.more delay would happen? As I responded to her honourable friend

:19:36. > :19:40.on the front bench, I have let victims and will continue to meet

:19:41. > :19:43.victims and I'm going to make sure that I have correspondent and

:19:44. > :19:46.engagement with all but I w`nted to come to this house and make the

:19:47. > :19:58.announcement because I think that Parliament needs to hear thhs first.

:19:59. > :20:01.Thank you, Mr Speaker, I max declare a hereditary interest rather than

:20:02. > :20:05.I'd direct one. I want to commend my right honourable friend's excellent

:20:06. > :20:11.statement. She is clearly rhght to be reviewing this because the system

:20:12. > :20:16.cannot be working where Impress funded by a degenerative libertine

:20:17. > :20:23.who was embarrassed by free newspapers a few years ago, has only

:20:24. > :20:25.50 described as, and IPSO, representing a vast swathe of the

:20:26. > :20:28.press and she is quite right to review this and also to defdnd the

:20:29. > :20:33.freedom of the press, which is more important than the press behng

:20:34. > :20:37.responsible. Can I thank my honourable friend for his comments.

:20:38. > :20:40.This is why we are having a consultation. I want to hear all

:20:41. > :20:43.responses and look at this hn the light of today, not five, tdn, 5

:20:44. > :20:55.years ago. One of the common threads bdtween

:20:56. > :20:58.the injustices and covered hn recent years is an unhealthy and collusive

:20:59. > :21:03.relationship between the police and press. Part two of the Leveson

:21:04. > :21:08.Inquiry was intended to exaline this in detail and it is seen as

:21:09. > :21:10.essential by Hillsborough c`mpaign to bring accountability and yet the

:21:11. > :21:13.Secretary of State as effectively announced today that she is

:21:14. > :21:17.consulting on a decision to reject it. Can she not see that thhs will

:21:18. > :21:23.leave campaigners feeling bhtterly let down, and doesn't it sotnd like

:21:24. > :21:29.for all of the second government cover-up in just two days -, for all

:21:30. > :21:33.the world. I disagree with the honourable gentleman, who I have

:21:34. > :21:36.enormous respect for. In thhs case, he is simply wrong. We are

:21:37. > :21:39.consulting about what is thd right thing to do today. He must recognise

:21:40. > :21:44.there have been significant changes in terms of the way that thd police

:21:45. > :21:50.behave and the way that thex are accountable. Much of which was

:21:51. > :21:54.uncovered during the Hillsborough enquiry. I want to look at the

:21:55. > :21:58.position today to get the rhght result for those who have bden

:21:59. > :22:01.convicted for dash of press intrusion in the past and m`ke sure

:22:02. > :22:08.those people in the future have the appropriate regulation and

:22:09. > :22:13.appropriate redress. -- convicted of press intrusion. I really wdlcome

:22:14. > :22:18.the comments my right honourable friend made about effective and

:22:19. > :22:22.robust regulation. It is crxstal clear that IPSO does neither of

:22:23. > :22:27.these, and can she make surd that low-cost arbitration is at the top

:22:28. > :22:32.of her list? The point my honourable friend makes is an important one. We

:22:33. > :22:36.do want to see all people, no matter what their background, being able to

:22:37. > :22:44.get appropriate redress and arbitration. Arbitration th`t is

:22:45. > :22:48.effective and works. The secretary of state says she wants to come up

:22:49. > :22:53.to date with what is going on now and not just look back at the

:22:54. > :23:00.tragedies of ten years ago. She needs only to look at the c`se of

:23:01. > :23:06.Fatima Mangini, to see that the same people were being complained about,

:23:07. > :23:12.who were the judges and jurx in the regulator, IPSO. That is thd

:23:13. > :23:15.problem. I don't want to colment on individual cases that have been

:23:16. > :23:20.brought to any regulator. What I want to see is robust regul`tion.

:23:21. > :23:24.Does the Secretary of State accept that the current status quo is not

:23:25. > :23:27.acceptable, regardless of consultation because we havd not

:23:28. > :23:33.seen the establishment of a robust system of arbitration that gives

:23:34. > :23:36.access to justice, one of the key recommendations of Leveson. My

:23:37. > :23:38.honourable friend makes a good and important point and one I w`nt to

:23:39. > :23:45.hear more about during the consultation. The press recognition

:23:46. > :23:50.panel set up in the wake of the phone hacking scandal stated that

:23:51. > :23:54.urgent action is required if the poster Leveson regulation is to be

:23:55. > :23:58.given a chance to survive. Surely today's procrastination is tacked --

:23:59. > :24:05.tantamount to political intdrference by the government. I don't `ccept

:24:06. > :24:08.that point. We have commencdd the exemplary damages point and we have

:24:09. > :24:11.a recognise regulator, so now is the time to take stock and see what

:24:12. > :24:17.further work needs to be done - a recognised regulator. As a

:24:18. > :24:22.journalist of 17 years, I w`s shocked that 14 of us voted against

:24:23. > :24:25.the Royal Charter all those years ago, and I question whether

:24:26. > :24:31.democracy was at risk. Can H remind members of the opposite sidd and

:24:32. > :24:38.maybe one or two on this, and - that phone hacking is already an

:24:39. > :24:42.illegal offence and you go to jail. Local newspapers who had very little

:24:43. > :24:46.to do with the major newspapers scandal, they feel that if they have

:24:47. > :24:49.to pay a large cost for winning their case they will close down

:24:50. > :24:53.their newspapers and they whll not challenge those who should be

:24:54. > :24:57.challenged. My honourable friend again makes a very, important point.

:24:58. > :25:04.This is why we are consulting and taking stock. The Secretary of State

:25:05. > :25:08.says press regulation is fahling, but this government set this system

:25:09. > :25:11.up that is now failing. Is ht not the case that this government has

:25:12. > :25:15.been engaging in political gymnastics on this issue since the

:25:16. > :25:19.very beginning to arrive at the very point we are today, where sdction 40

:25:20. > :25:22.and part two will be scrappdd. That has always been the governmdnt

:25:23. > :25:27.attention that it will pay lip service to the issue and not the

:25:28. > :25:32.victims -- intention. This hs a full and open consultation on whhch no

:25:33. > :25:37.decisions have been taken. Hs it right to stand up for indepdndent

:25:38. > :25:41.regulation arbitration, but the consultation she announced today

:25:42. > :25:45.will delay at best section 40. Does she not agree with me that ht would

:25:46. > :25:49.be reasonable to accept the Baroness's amendments this `fternoon

:25:50. > :25:54.in relation to the Investig`tory Powers Bill, clause eight? H don't

:25:55. > :25:57.agree with that point. The Investigatory Powers Bill is a

:25:58. > :26:01.matter of national security and nothing should get in the w`ke of

:26:02. > :26:06.surpassing that built into `n act of Parliament to make sure we have the

:26:07. > :26:14.right powers for our law enforcement to keep safe. Section 40 should be

:26:15. > :26:17.lamented now, not just becatse this part of statute and part of Leveson,

:26:18. > :26:21.because it is necessary to `ddress what in part two and the punishment

:26:22. > :26:26.of offenders act, but the effect of the act brought in by the previous

:26:27. > :26:29.coalition government means ht's not possible for victims to eashly sue

:26:30. > :26:34.people, so they will continte to be vilified and humility.

:26:35. > :26:41.I would welcome comments on that particular issue in this

:26:42. > :26:45.consultation. Like my right honourable frhend I

:26:46. > :26:49.too, believe in a free press, but I also believe in a responsible press.

:26:50. > :26:54.And would she not agree with with me one of the great virtues of the

:26:55. > :26:57.Leveson Inquiry is it took this whole contention issue out of the

:26:58. > :27:02.hands of politician and by going through this consultation, to which

:27:03. > :27:04.she will respond shee,' in danger of embroiling politicians in the issue

:27:05. > :27:12.again and that low-cost arbhtration has to be part of the soluthon? I

:27:13. > :27:17.think the very fact that we are having a debate this afternoon about

:27:18. > :27:20.section 40, tied up with thd matter of national security, which the

:27:21. > :27:24.Investigatory Powers Bill, leans we do need to take stock and work out

:27:25. > :27:30.exactly what is the best thhng to do. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

:27:31. > :27:34.Academically research has shown conclusively that the false lies,

:27:35. > :27:38.printed on a daily basis in most of our front pages of newspapers, are

:27:39. > :27:42.against migrants and minority communities, has led to the rise of

:27:43. > :27:48.violence and prejudice towards them and when complaints are madd, all we

:27:49. > :27:53.get is a two line correction at the back of the page and it has been

:27:54. > :27:57.singularly failed to be dealt with. These are the points that I would

:27:58. > :28:05.like to hear in the consult`tion so we can make a decision, basdd on the

:28:06. > :28:10.evidence. THE SPEAKER: Bob Stewart. Thank you,

:28:11. > :28:13.Mr Speaker. . THE SPEAKER: He was standing, therefore, I did think he

:28:14. > :28:17.wanted to contribute. It isn't surprising if he then rises to his

:28:18. > :28:21.feet that I call him. Mr Bob Stewart. I was just surprisdd I was

:28:22. > :28:31.called so early. I'm normally further down the list!

:28:32. > :28:35.Touche. Order, I must say the capacity of honourable and right

:28:36. > :28:39.honourable members for misgtided self-pity is unlimited. Mr Bob

:28:40. > :28:46.Stewart Thank you, Mr Speakdr, I will get to it now. We all `gree in

:28:47. > :29:03.this House to unanimously agreed to support Leveson part 1. Well, most

:29:04. > :29:06.of us did. Is this consultation therefore, simply a tactic to get

:29:07. > :29:10.the press on board. My honotrable friend is usually at the top of my

:29:11. > :29:14.list, Mr Speaker, but I want to assure him this is an open, frank

:29:15. > :29:22.consultation, where we want it hear all views so we can make a decision

:29:23. > :29:27.based on the information we find ourselves in today to get the robust

:29:28. > :29:31.regulation that we all want to see The Secretary of State deliberatedly

:29:32. > :29:34.refused to answer the very precise questions that my right honourable

:29:35. > :29:38.friend put to her from the front bench. Would she say, having spoken

:29:39. > :29:43.to Lord Leveson, what is Lord Leveson's views about her statement

:29:44. > :29:47.today? And will she allow hhm to speak publicly about his vidws? I

:29:48. > :29:52.apologise, if the honourabld gentleman doesn't think I answered

:29:53. > :29:55.the question. But to be cle`r - I discussed this matter with the

:29:56. > :29:59.honourable gentleman earlier, the conversation I had with Lord Leveson

:30:00. > :30:08.is a private conversation, H am not going to comment on it in ptblic.

:30:09. > :30:14.Mr Speaker, I should say I spent is a years as a zhushtist at the - as

:30:15. > :30:19.a zhushist at the Telegraph. We feel profound sympathy for the vhctims

:30:20. > :30:23.but overall isn't is not th`t a good, free, boisterous press holds

:30:24. > :30:27.the Government to account at a rbl reasonable, local and national level

:30:28. > :30:30.and if we get that wrong by allowing it to become unsustainable or

:30:31. > :30:36.impractically regulated, we will lose far more than we are t`lking

:30:37. > :30:44.about today? My honourable friend makes the point very well. We want

:30:45. > :30:48.to see a robust, free, strong press that does hold us to account. We

:30:49. > :30:56.won't like it when they hold us to account, but they think thex should

:30:57. > :30:59.have the right to do so. My local family-owned newsp`per the

:31:00. > :31:04.Newark Advertiser knows what it is like to be vexatiously sued by a

:31:05. > :31:08.politician when it was sued to try to ruin the local family, the

:31:09. > :31:12.politician lost and it is one of the leading cases in this area of law.

:31:13. > :31:15.But, of course had these rules been in place, the family would still

:31:16. > :31:19.have been ruined and my loc`l newspaper still put out of business.

:31:20. > :31:21.In this consultation will the Secretary of State pay parthcular

:31:22. > :31:24.attention to local newspapers and above all, to independent thtles

:31:25. > :31:31.like mine? I can confirm we will.

:31:32. > :31:36.Thank you, Mr speaker, I'm sure the Secretary of State, like me, will be

:31:37. > :31:39.amazed by the spectacle of ` Parliament where it is the

:31:40. > :31:43.Opposition demanding more restrictions on the press btt will

:31:44. > :31:48.she reassure me we'll balance any future system against the ndeds of

:31:49. > :31:51.local nor, particularly when update list business e-mail, run bx members

:31:52. > :31:55.of this House, have a larger circulation? My honourable friend

:31:56. > :32:00.touched on point my right honourable friend touched on earlier, that we

:32:01. > :32:04.are an entirely different ndws world, than we were ever before We

:32:05. > :32:08.have digital media, we have global players and we have local players

:32:09. > :32:12.that can get to people throtgh social media and through thd

:32:13. > :32:17.internet in a which that is totally unregulated. We need to makd sure we

:32:18. > :32:20.look at all those issues, all those matters and get the right

:32:21. > :32:29.regulation. How many marks would she give IPSO

:32:30. > :32:34.out of ten? I haven't yet bden asked, so I will restrain from doing

:32:35. > :32:37.so at this stage. Believing that my right honourable

:32:38. > :32:41.friend's heart is in the right place, I wonder whether the irony in

:32:42. > :32:46.her repeated statement this afternoon that the right thhng to do

:32:47. > :32:50.for today was intended or unintended and I wonder what assurance she

:32:51. > :32:55.could give me, that she will commence section 40 if therd is no

:32:56. > :33:00.other way of getting to low,cost arbitration? I can assure mx

:33:01. > :33:04.honourable friend that I will look at all of the consultation responses

:33:05. > :33:11.and I will make a decision based on the evidence. THE SPEAKER: Order,

:33:12. > :33:16.presentation of Bill. Oh, yds, we will come to the honourable

:33:17. > :33:23.gentleman in a moment. The wine will mature, don't worry. Presentation of

:33:24. > :33:26.Bill, Joe Churchill. Health and social care, nathonal

:33:27. > :33:31.data guardian bill. The second reading, what day? Friday 2nd,

:33:32. > :33:38.December. Friday 2nd Decembdr, thank you. Hear, hear.

:33:39. > :33:44.THE SPEAKER: Points of order. Point of order Mr Tom Watson. Mr Speaker,

:33:45. > :33:49.I misattributed a quote earlier I was in error about which PM's

:33:50. > :33:51.promise has not been kept. Ht is David Cameron's promise that isn't

:33:52. > :33:55.being kept, not the current Prime Minister's.

:33:56. > :34:00.THE SPEAKER: Thank you. I wanted to right it as early as I

:34:01. > :34:03.could. I'm extremely grateftl to the honourable gentleman as will the

:34:04. > :34:12.House be and the matter is now firmly on the record.

:34:13. > :34:15.Point of order? Thank you. Last Thursday, the Chief Executive of

:34:16. > :34:20.HMRC gave evidence to the Treasury Select Committee in which hd said

:34:21. > :34:24.that never again would HMRC outsource to a private contractor

:34:25. > :34:28.anything to do with tax credits Now, this represents a signhficant

:34:29. > :34:33.U-Turn in Government policy. Do you think, Mr Speaker, that it would not

:34:34. > :34:36.have been appropriate for a minister to come to this House and ptt that

:34:37. > :34:49.statement to the House? Not least because it was the day after we d

:34:50. > :34:53.had a full Opposition Day ddbate on Concentrix, there are still concerns

:34:54. > :34:56.and whether they will receive compensation for the early release

:34:57. > :35:00.that is being negotiated. So will you feigned way to encouragd the

:35:01. > :35:03.minister to come back beford the house to give a statement on the

:35:04. > :35:08.outstanding questions that will remain but also about this decision

:35:09. > :35:12.to no longer outsource in rdgards to tax credits. I don't think ht is for

:35:13. > :35:16.me to engage in public exhatltation and it is for minister's to decide

:35:17. > :35:22.whether to make an oral statement and written. That said, the

:35:23. > :35:25.honourable lady has made an interesting observation abott what

:35:26. > :35:29.appearses to represented a change of heart - appears to represent a

:35:30. > :35:35.change of heart and indeed of intended policy. In such

:35:36. > :35:42.circumstances, it is commonplace and invariably appreciated by the House,

:35:43. > :35:45.if a minister chooses to cole to it, formally, to announce that, and to

:35:46. > :35:50.be open to questioning on the matter. The honourable lady has made

:35:51. > :35:54.her point with her usual force and eloquence. It will have been heard

:35:55. > :36:00.on the Treasury bench. I thhnk at this stage, I will say, let's await

:36:01. > :36:03.the development of events. If there are no further points of

:36:04. > :36:13.order now, I have a feeling one is brewing and we will hear it' erelong

:36:14. > :36:17.at a time when the honourable member thinks a site in relation to

:36:18. > :36:20.forthcoming business but we have a Ten Minute Rule Motion, Mr Lartin

:36:21. > :36:24.Vickers. Thank you Mr Speakdr I beg leave of the House to introduce a

:36:25. > :36:28.Bill to make provision about the access to education, school

:36:29. > :36:32.admissions and support for special educational needs, with particular

:36:33. > :36:37.reference to children diagnosed with autism and for connected purposes.

:36:38. > :36:42.Mr Speaker, the Equality Act, 2 10 exists to protect people of all ages

:36:43. > :36:46.from discrimination. For disabled people, it should prevent them from

:36:47. > :36:49.being treated unfairly becatse of their disability but sadly there is,

:36:50. > :36:54.in some respects, still a long way to go. Like I suspect every other

:36:55. > :36:57.member, I have had parents of disabled children advice thd my

:36:58. > :37:01.surgery. Like all parents, they want the best for their children. But as

:37:02. > :37:06.a result of the barriers thdy have to overcome, they are, I thhnk even

:37:07. > :37:09.more driven and determined than most, as too often the systdm makes

:37:10. > :37:12.it difficult to ensure their children get the very best,

:37:13. > :37:16.particularly when it comes to education.

:37:17. > :37:22.It is an irony dhat Equalitx Act is being used to discriminate `gainst

:37:23. > :37:26.children with autism. The N`tional Autistic Society believe too many

:37:27. > :37:30.schools do not fully understand their duties towards childrdn and

:37:31. > :37:33.young people with this condhtion. The law requires they make

:37:34. > :37:36.reasonable adjustments for their disabled pupils so they achheve

:37:37. > :37:41.their full potential. Reasonable adjust am means that ensuring a

:37:42. > :37:46.disabled child can do what their non-disabled peers can do. There

:37:47. > :37:51.appears to be a loophole in the law that does not consider challenging

:37:52. > :37:55.behaviour linked to a child's disability as an impairment F their

:37:56. > :37:58.disability could result in aggressive behaviour towards others

:37:59. > :38:02.in the school, the law on dhsability discrimination does not help them. -

:38:03. > :38:05.if their disability. And sole governing bodies use tendency of

:38:06. > :38:11.physical abuse to others as a reason not to meet the needs of an autistic

:38:12. > :38:14.child and excludes them. Of course governors have a duty to others in

:38:15. > :38:18.the school but it can somethmes be too easy to refuse admission, rather

:38:19. > :38:22.than facilitate a solution. Mr Speaker, I now wish to give a

:38:23. > :38:32.specific example from my own constituency. Mr and Mrs Ch`se from

:38:33. > :38:36.north East Lincolnshire took the decision to remove their sfron

:38:37. > :38:41.primary school due to a look of appropriate provision being place. -

:38:42. > :38:46.from their primary school. @nd a lack of advice from school `nd

:38:47. > :38:51.themselves with regards to the help that could be put in place.

:38:52. > :38:54.Explaining their decision to withdraw their son they said "Our

:38:55. > :38:58.decision was the last straw and a very hard decision to make, however

:38:59. > :39:02.we could no longer sit back and watch our son's lack of education

:39:03. > :39:08.continue. So throughout the summer holidays we pushed the LEA `nd SEN

:39:09. > :39:12.assessment team for an out of area specialist school placement for our

:39:13. > :39:15.son and due to the fact there is nothing else in the area, hhs

:39:16. > :39:21.placement was agreed, eventtally and he started at an independent

:39:22. > :39:25.family-run school in Brig that provides specialist settings for

:39:26. > :39:27.boys on the autistic spectrtm." Mr Speaker, although this may be

:39:28. > :39:32.difficult to replicate on a wider scale, it is not impossible. Mr and

:39:33. > :39:35.Mrs Chase continued, "The fhrst two weeks went very well but we

:39:36. > :39:39.experienced some blips as this setting is very different to a

:39:40. > :39:44.mainstream school. And our son is still trying to become familiar with

:39:45. > :39:48.the differences in environmdnt, figuring out where the boundaries

:39:49. > :39:52.are, how to fit in with his peer group and also start to man`ge a

:39:53. > :39:58.full school day and realise, also, he must do this five days a week."

:39:59. > :40:02.Mr and Mrs Chase state, "Without the right kind of ethos and staff

:40:03. > :40:06.attitude, specialist units can become very institutional and more

:40:07. > :40:10.like mini correctional facilities, which often can do more dam`ge than

:40:11. > :40:14.good to children with these conditions." Mr and Mrs Chase's son

:40:15. > :40:18.was permanently excluded whdn his primary school became an ac`demy.

:40:19. > :40:21.They challenged the decision through an independent panel review who

:40:22. > :40:24.concluded that the school h`d made a premature decision on permanent

:40:25. > :40:28.exclusion and asked them to reconsider. But the independent

:40:29. > :40:34.panel had no power to reinstate their son. Mr and Mrs Chase believe

:40:35. > :40:39.that and again, I quote "Our main worry as parents of a disabled

:40:40. > :40:44.schield with some very challenging behaviours, caused by disabhlities

:40:45. > :40:47.is that the regulation 4 (1( from the Equality Act, disabled children

:40:48. > :40:51.are being villainised, they are being made out to be the bad guys,

:40:52. > :40:57.particularly in disability discrimination cases. Our children's

:40:58. > :41:01.rights to an education also special educational needs provision due to

:41:02. > :41:08.their disabilities are being washed by way by this regulation, schools

:41:09. > :41:12.are getting away by poor spdcialist educational needs provision and poor

:41:13. > :41:17.allocation of the additional monies allocated to special needs children.

:41:18. > :41:21.Schools are beingp given a loophole and a law to out disabled children

:41:22. > :41:22.which it is their responsibhlity to educate and it is due to thd

:41:23. > :41:29.regulation." I appreciate this is emotivd

:41:30. > :41:33.language but members must ptt themselves in the shoes of parents

:41:34. > :41:38.and find barriers being placed in front of them. They want to prevent

:41:39. > :41:41.their children being discrilinated against and surely that must have

:41:42. > :41:46.been the intention of the epuality act. In fairness I must emphasise I

:41:47. > :41:48.recognise some schools and local authorities make far better

:41:49. > :41:54.provision than others. Teaching assistants are often allocated to

:41:55. > :41:58.work with autistic children. Indeed my own daughter has performdd this

:41:59. > :42:02.task in a primary school in my constituency. In March of this year

:42:03. > :42:07.the House of Lords select committee on the inequality act published a

:42:08. > :42:12.report evaluating the impact on disabled people of the 2010 act

:42:13. > :42:15.Evidence was presented to the committee by the charity Independent

:42:16. > :42:22.parental special-education `dvice, and the Alliance for inclushve

:42:23. > :42:24.education. I quote from section 501 of the report, where it states that

:42:25. > :42:30.they were concerned that thd exclusion had resulted in schools

:42:31. > :42:33.moving straight to exclusion of pupils with challenging beh`viour

:42:34. > :42:37.without first considering whether reasonable adjustments could prevent

:42:38. > :42:40.it. They continued by pointhng out that challenging behaviour results

:42:41. > :42:45.because reasonable adjustments have not been made. Recommendation 5 3 of

:42:46. > :42:48.their report says that schools should be encouraged and supported

:42:49. > :42:54.to make the kind of adjustmdnts that can help to address the education

:42:55. > :42:57.inequalities faced by disabled children and young people, hncluding

:42:58. > :43:03.those whose disability gives rise to challenging behaviour. This is

:43:04. > :43:06.undermined by regulation for one of the equality act, disabilitx

:43:07. > :43:12.regulations 2010, and we recommend that the regulations are amdnded so

:43:13. > :43:19.that a tendency to physical abuse of other persons ceases to be treated

:43:20. > :43:22.as not amounting to the purposes of the definition of disabilitx. The

:43:23. > :43:27.government responded as follows Our code of practice makes it clear that

:43:28. > :43:34.teachers should look beyond challenging behaviours to whether

:43:35. > :43:38.there are disabilities, and put appropriate supports in place. The

:43:39. > :43:41.guidance sets out that earlx intervention measures should include

:43:42. > :43:45.an assessment of whether appropriate provision is in place to usd

:43:46. > :43:49.multi-agency assessment for pupils who display persistent disrtptive

:43:50. > :43:56.behaviour which could include pupils who have an identified spechal

:43:57. > :44:00.educational needs. Schools should arrange assessment when concerns

:44:01. > :44:03.arise rather than waiting for a specific trigger. Although they

:44:04. > :44:07.remain strong public policy reasons behind the excluding behaviours the

:44:08. > :44:10.government has listened to the issues raised by the committee and

:44:11. > :44:14.will consider how the exemption around a tendency to physic`l abuse

:44:15. > :44:20.of other persons applies to those under 18 in an educational context.

:44:21. > :44:25.Mr Speaker, as we all know, guidance and what actually happens c`n

:44:26. > :44:28.sometimes be very different. I recognise that much good work takes

:44:29. > :44:33.place, but parents of autistic children can sometimes have an

:44:34. > :44:39.uphill task in ensuring a ftll and comprehensive education is lade

:44:40. > :44:46.available. Society has made great straight in recent years in how we

:44:47. > :44:49.educate and care for the disabled but there is still some way to go.

:44:50. > :44:53.My bill seeks to remedy one of the loopholes and I hope the Minister,

:44:54. > :44:57.who I know cares deeply abott these issues, will work with me and

:44:58. > :45:01.various charities and support groups to ensure that the difficulties

:45:02. > :45:05.faced by my constituents and thousands of others is minilised and

:45:06. > :45:13.eventually eliminated. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. The question is that

:45:14. > :45:22.the honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. As many hn favour

:45:23. > :45:31.say aye. To the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Jim Gannon, Fiona

:45:32. > :45:36.Bruce, Mr Barry Sherman, Melanie Ahn, Kit Malthouse, Mr David

:45:37. > :45:37.Nuttall, Mr David Burrows, Justin Tomlinson, Raymond Justin and myself

:45:38. > :46:06.Mr Speaker. School admissions, special

:46:07. > :46:12.educational needs Bill. Second reading, what they. 16th of December

:46:13. > :46:22.2016. 16th of December 2016, thank you. Order. We come now to the

:46:23. > :46:33.investigatory Powers Bill programme number three motion. The qudstion is

:46:34. > :46:38.as on the order paper. As m`ny in favour say aye. To the contrary no.

:46:39. > :46:45.I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. The clerk will proceed to

:46:46. > :46:52.read the orders of the day. Investigatory Powers Bill,

:46:53. > :46:55.consideration of Lords amendments. Thank you. Before we come to the

:46:56. > :47:00.first group of amendments M`y I say that, as the house knows, there are

:47:01. > :47:05.377 Lords amendments to the investigatory Powers Bill which were

:47:06. > :47:14.passed to this house yesterday evening. I must inform the house

:47:15. > :47:17.that none of the Lords amendments is certified. It says here are

:47:18. > :47:25.certified, that's quite wrong. None takes the singular. The Scottish

:47:26. > :47:29.parliament passed the legislative consent permission on the 17th of

:47:30. > :47:35.October, copies of which ard available online and in the vote

:47:36. > :47:38.office. I must also inform the house that two of the Lords members

:47:39. > :47:45.engaged Commons financial privilege if they are agreed to either will

:47:46. > :47:53.cause the customary entry to be entered in the journal. Point of

:47:54. > :47:57.order. Mr Speaker, you've m`de reference to the convention and the

:47:58. > :48:02.legislative consent motion being available. The legislative consent

:48:03. > :48:07.motion from the Scottish Parliament is dated the 6th of October.

:48:08. > :48:11.Amendment 15, one of the most important amendments we will come on

:48:12. > :48:16.to consider was passed on the 1 th of October. And deals with ` matter

:48:17. > :48:22.referred to by Lord Howe as being outside the ordinary of the Bill and

:48:23. > :48:26.a considerable advance from what was in the rest of the text. I `m

:48:27. > :48:32.therefore concerned that amdndment 15 by their Lordships is not

:48:33. > :48:38.approved by the Convention or covered by the legislative, then

:48:39. > :48:41.measure we received from Scottish parliament. I know that strhctly

:48:42. > :48:45.speaking this is a matter of the government, not for the House of

:48:46. > :48:48.Commons, and I fear it is a discourtesy to the Scottish

:48:49. > :48:52.parliament if we were to proceed to legislate on a reserved matter to

:48:53. > :48:55.the Scottish Parliament, devolved matter, which media policy hs, and

:48:56. > :49:00.it would be helpful for your guidance and perhaps ruling on where

:49:01. > :49:05.we should go with the convention and perhaps the government to clarify

:49:06. > :49:13.its position. Might I just lention in passing that his exegesis of the

:49:14. > :49:19.legislation and his courtesx and regard for the principle of courtesy

:49:20. > :49:24.and respect of other parlialents are impeccable, as is invariablx the

:49:25. > :49:29.case. As the honourable gentleman will know, and I welcome thhs

:49:30. > :49:34.opportunity to clarify the position, and it does require clarification,

:49:35. > :49:38.section two of the Scotland act 2016 enshrined in legislation thd

:49:39. > :49:41.statement that, and I quote, the Parliament of the United Kingdom

:49:42. > :49:45.will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without

:49:46. > :49:51.the consent of the Scottish Parliament, unquote. That does not

:49:52. > :49:56.prevent the house from conshdering amendments which the Scottish

:49:57. > :50:01.parliament have not consentdd to. We are just about to come to the first

:50:02. > :50:05.debate on a group of Lords amendments which, as the honourable

:50:06. > :50:10.gentleman rightly observes, includes Lords amendment number 15, `nd it

:50:11. > :50:16.is, I believe, with that th`t he is overwhelmingly concerned. The

:50:17. > :50:19.government has given notice of its intention to dissipate with Lords

:50:20. > :50:25.amendment number 15 among others. We will have to wait in order to learn

:50:26. > :50:32.from the debate why the Minhster takes the view. So I'm giving you

:50:33. > :50:38.notice to the honourable gentleman that the house will certainly expect

:50:39. > :50:42.an explanation on that mattdr. And whether the house as a whold does, I

:50:43. > :50:45.feel absolutely certain that the honourable gentleman and melber for

:50:46. > :50:50.North East Somerset will. If the honourable gentleman's thought about

:50:51. > :50:54.Scottish consent had not already occurred to ministers or those

:50:55. > :50:59.advising them, I surmise from the attentive attitudes of the puite

:51:00. > :51:04.honourable members on the front bench, including much of he`ds and

:51:05. > :51:15.expressions of sagacity, th`t it will have done so now. I hope that

:51:16. > :51:18.will do at least for now. The first Amendment to be taken, and once

:51:19. > :51:21.again can I thank the honourable member for North East Somerset,

:51:22. > :51:28.because he has done the house a service. These conventions latter.

:51:29. > :51:32.And he's reminded us of that point. The first Amendment to be t`ken is

:51:33. > :51:35.Lords amendment 11 with which we will consider the Lords amendments

:51:36. > :51:43.and motions on selection paper to move to disagree with Lords

:51:44. > :51:49.amendment 11, I'd call the Linister smiling beatifically, the Mhnister

:51:50. > :51:55.of State Mr Ben Wallace. Th`nk you, Mr Speaker. The investigatory Powers

:51:56. > :51:58.Bill will provide a world ldading framework for the use of

:51:59. > :52:01.investigatory Powers by law enforcement and the securitx and

:52:02. > :52:04.intelligence agencies. It whll strengthen safeguards for the use of

:52:05. > :52:08.those powers including the introduction of a double lock for

:52:09. > :52:12.the most intrusive powers. Ht will create a powerful new body

:52:13. > :52:14.responsible for oversight of them. This is the most important piece of

:52:15. > :52:19.legislation this government will bring before the house. Mr Speaker,

:52:20. > :52:23.with permission, I will turn first to the amendments tabled in the

:52:24. > :52:29.other place I Baroness Holl`nds As with just heard from my right

:52:30. > :52:31.honourable of friend, the government will hold a landmark public

:52:32. > :52:35.consultation relating to thd governments of the press and its

:52:36. > :52:39.relationship with public, police and politicians. This consultathon will

:52:40. > :52:43.give everyone with an interdst in these matters and opportunity to

:52:44. > :52:47.have their say on this vital issue which affects each and everx one of

:52:48. > :52:51.us in the country. I hope the whole house will welcome the annotncement

:52:52. > :52:53.which shows the government has macro commitment to addressing issues and

:52:54. > :52:59.recommendations set out in the Levenson report in the most

:53:00. > :53:03.appropriate way. This is an emotive subject for members of this house

:53:04. > :53:07.and the other place. Set out the government 's position at the report

:53:08. > :53:10.stage. I hope the house will indulge me as I set out key points for

:53:11. > :53:14.honourable and right honour`ble members. As I said at the start of

:53:15. > :53:18.my remarks, the investigatory Powers Bill is one of the most important

:53:19. > :53:21.pieces of legislation this government will bring forward. It

:53:22. > :53:24.will provide a world leading framework for the use of

:53:25. > :53:27.investigatory Powers by law enforcement and security entities.

:53:28. > :53:31.And in doing so protect this nation from some of the most seriots crimes

:53:32. > :53:34.and threats. We should not forget that this bill will also strengthen

:53:35. > :53:37.the safeguards for the use of those powers and it would create `

:53:38. > :53:41.powerful new body is possible for that oversight. We had yestdrday in

:53:42. > :53:46.the Lords from peers on all sides the importance of this bill and the

:53:47. > :53:49.careful cross-party scrutinx that has got it into the very good shape

:53:50. > :53:54.in which it comes back to this house today. So this bill will provide

:53:55. > :53:58.vital tools for our law enforcement and security and intelligence

:53:59. > :54:00.agencies. It is not and was never intended to provide for the

:54:01. > :54:04.regulation of the press. Wh`tever the merits of the provisions and

:54:05. > :54:07.reduced by Baroness Hollands, this is not the place them. Their

:54:08. > :54:11.inclusion is distraction from the very important aims of the bill

:54:12. > :54:20.Moreover they threaten to undermine an important provision in the bill.

:54:21. > :54:22.I thank the Minister for giving way. While I entirely accept this is not

:54:23. > :54:26.the place to deal with thesd matters, I hope that he will

:54:27. > :54:30.recognise this very strong feeling on these benches that the issues in

:54:31. > :54:35.relation to Levenson do need to be dealt with as a matter of some

:54:36. > :54:38.urgency. Was I accept that we should therefore not accept this p`rticular

:54:39. > :54:41.amendment today, I very much hope that he and other ministers will

:54:42. > :54:45.ensure that these matters are brought to the house at the earliest

:54:46. > :54:49.possible opportunity so that they can be fully and properly ddalt

:54:50. > :54:54.with. I'm grateful to my right honourable friend and I do of course

:54:55. > :54:56.recognise the strength of fdelings about press regulation, but I also

:54:57. > :55:00.recognise the strength of fdelings about making sure we give otr

:55:01. > :55:05.security services and policd forces the tools to tackle the paedophiles,

:55:06. > :55:07.the serious organised criminals and the terrorists that actuallx

:55:08. > :55:13.threaten this state and my constituents. I'm in favour of most

:55:14. > :55:16.of the other provisions of the bill, that's not the point we are debating

:55:17. > :55:20.now. We are debating why thd government is relating on its

:55:21. > :55:24.promise made on the 18th of March 2013, part of the package, that we

:55:25. > :55:28.would commence section 40 of the crime" spill. Does the Minister not

:55:29. > :55:33.realise that if we keep on getting speeches as we just have from the

:55:34. > :55:36.Secretary of State for culttre, media and sport, suggesting that

:55:37. > :55:39.they will kick this down thd road yet further, that their Lordships

:55:40. > :55:44.are simply going to send thhs back again and again and again whth

:55:45. > :55:47.probably even larger majorities I know the honourable member hs a

:55:48. > :55:53.patient individual but ten weeks is not a long time to wait to dngage in

:55:54. > :55:57.a consultation. If he says three and a half years, what is ten wdeks on

:55:58. > :56:00.top of that? Prior to Barondss Hollands amendments, clause eight

:56:01. > :56:05.provided a basis for individuals to bring civil claims relating to the

:56:06. > :56:10.misuse of private telomere premier location systems. That could include

:56:11. > :56:15.an employer misusing a network to spy on his or her employees. That is

:56:16. > :56:18.an important safeguard, it hs one number of people in this hotse

:56:19. > :56:21.argued forcefully and convincingly for, including the honourable and

:56:22. > :56:25.learned member for Edinburgh South West. It was in large part on the

:56:26. > :56:28.basis of how arguments the government amended the bill to

:56:29. > :56:32.include this provision. Perhaps I could address the point of order

:56:33. > :56:36.that was raised by my right honourable friend on this issue One

:56:37. > :56:38.of the government 's contentions of why this amendment should bd

:56:39. > :56:44.rejected is because it goes against the grain of legislating ovdr the

:56:45. > :56:47.will of the Scottish parlialent As a former member of the Scottish

:56:48. > :56:50.Parliament I recognise the importance of the Soul motion and I

:56:51. > :56:55.would only urge the SNP that they should agree with us on that,

:56:56. > :56:59.support voting down that amdndment, because of course they can't pick

:57:00. > :57:04.and choose when devolution hs appropriate or not. Either they wish

:57:05. > :57:06.us to go through the procedtres of the legislative consent mothon and

:57:07. > :57:09.give the courtesy to the Scottish Parliament that it deserves, or are

:57:10. > :57:12.they saying that in principle they do accept that there are sole

:57:13. > :57:15.occasions when we could leghslate without going to the motion in the

:57:16. > :57:25.Scottish Parliament? I'm grateful to my honourable friend

:57:26. > :57:31.for making way. He makes a crucially important point. If the SNP do not

:57:32. > :57:34.require the sole consent to be given, implicitly as we havd an

:57:35. > :57:38.unwritten constitution and we operate by convention they would be

:57:39. > :57:42.giving media policy back to the United Kingdom Parliament. H think

:57:43. > :57:47.it is a very, very important point of principle, Madame Deputy Speaker

:57:48. > :57:51.and on that... He has asked me a he request, I can only remind him of

:57:52. > :57:55.what the Speaker said when the Speaker was in the Chair,

:57:56. > :58:00.legislative consent is not required until the Bill has been amended The

:58:01. > :58:03.minister will know that well. Legislative conto those aspdcts of

:58:04. > :58:06.the which will which requird legislative consent were not sought

:58:07. > :58:11.from the Scottish Government until the bill was passed from thhs House.

:58:12. > :58:14.He is setting up a false tr`p. He will remember the phrase from the

:58:15. > :58:20.Scottish Parliament, my head does not zip up the back and my head does

:58:21. > :58:24.not zip up the back and I whll not be falling into his trap but the SNP

:58:25. > :58:30.will be giving their support to the Lords' amendment on this occasion?

:58:31. > :58:35.Well, I think we can debate Zippy another time! Madame Deputy Speaker,

:58:36. > :58:38.I think it is an important hssue of principle here, throughout `ll the

:58:39. > :58:42.bills I have been involved hn, we have gone out of our way in this

:58:43. > :58:47.House to make sure it is thd upfront approval of the Scottish Parliament

:58:48. > :58:52.that we seek from the Scotthsh Government, and LTM before we start

:58:53. > :58:57.down path of picking or choosing what we support or don't support. I

:58:58. > :59:00.am revery grateful what the honourable lady said may well be

:59:01. > :59:04.true but this is the last opportunity either to apre-or reject

:59:05. > :59:08.this amendment. - apre-or rdject. If it goes back to the House of Lords

:59:09. > :59:12.and all the other amendments we make are agreed there is no further

:59:13. > :59:16.opportunity to amend it. So to legislate now, without consdnt,

:59:17. > :59:20.would make the law. My honotrable friend is not for the fist time

:59:21. > :59:23.absolutely right on this pohnt. This is the last amending opporttnity of

:59:24. > :59:28.this bill and that is, you know there is no going back. And should

:59:29. > :59:34.the honourable lady wish to go back, we shall hear her optionings. The

:59:35. > :59:36.minister is in the unfair position because he didn't pilot the bill

:59:37. > :59:41.through committee. I was on the committee and he can check with his

:59:42. > :59:46.colleague but clause 8 upon the back of which this amendment ridds, the

:59:47. > :59:52.Government accepted as a result of an SNP amendment to reintro dues the

:59:53. > :59:57.tart or to use the Scots pardon delek that is in rip up. So this

:59:58. > :00:03.further amendment is riding on the back of an amendment which `rose

:00:04. > :00:06.from the historic event of the Government accepting an SNP

:00:07. > :00:10.rejection, which I was delighted about and will mention at any

:00:11. > :00:14.opportunity In the words of the honourable lady this is an `mendment

:00:15. > :00:18.on the accepted amendment that does not make the amendment accepted as

:00:19. > :00:21.an LCM position, we cannot lake that assumption. We shall reflect on the

:00:22. > :00:28.point made by Mr Speaker whhch was that this House does not normally

:00:29. > :00:36.legislate on policy that is not agreed to by the Scottish P`rliament

:00:37. > :00:37.in advance. I give... I think we've developed a fascinating

:00:38. > :00:41.constitutional suggestion that amendment made by SNP members of

:00:42. > :00:46.this House are senior to legislative concept motions given by thd

:00:47. > :00:52.Scottish Parliament. They sdem raising their status Madame Deputy

:00:53. > :00:56.Speaker I'm keen to move on. I would say how the Scottish Nation`l Party

:00:57. > :01:00.vote today in the lobbies whll be a clear sign on whether they will be

:01:01. > :01:03.embracing a new principle on how we should choose to legislate on issues

:01:04. > :01:09.in Scotland. But as I said darlier this clause was never intended to

:01:10. > :01:11.provide a basis for claims `gainst newspapers for voice mail

:01:12. > :01:16.interceptions, so-called phone hacking, civil claims wb brought in

:01:17. > :01:21.respect of such activity and this bill in any case makes such activity

:01:22. > :01:23.is criminal offence which is surely right for such erroneous

:01:24. > :01:28.interferences with privacy. If there is a problem to be addressed this is

:01:29. > :01:32.not the way to do it and thhs is not the bill in which to do it. Mr

:01:33. > :01:36.Speaker, this is the wrong clause in the wrong bill at the wrong time.

:01:37. > :01:39.! Governance of the press is an important issue and it is rhght that

:01:40. > :01:41.such an issue is subject to full consultation and dedicated scrutiny

:01:42. > :01:45.and consideration. It should not be just tapped on to one of thd most

:01:46. > :01:51.important cross-party bills this House has debated. This bill is

:01:52. > :01:54.about the security of the n`tion. It is a bill to keep all our

:01:55. > :01:58.constituents safe. Members should ask themselves if it is appropriate

:01:59. > :02:05.to jeopardise this bill for the sake of opportunism in the other place.

:02:06. > :02:08.It is on this basis that I beg. . I'm grateful to my right honourable

:02:09. > :02:12.friend for giving way. The solution will be for the Government to accept

:02:13. > :02:16.the amendment and the bill will be secured as all of us in this place

:02:17. > :02:20.are broadly supportive of the stated intentions in the bill and lany of

:02:21. > :02:24.us have sat through this at great length for a very long time now My

:02:25. > :02:28.honourable friend says here hear hear and she is right to do so.

:02:29. > :02:31.Would he accept that the only objection the Government sedm to be

:02:32. > :02:35.putting forward to this is the fact that this measure is in the wrong

:02:36. > :02:38.place. Which seems to me to be a fairly slim argument to be laking

:02:39. > :02:43.and could he assure people like me, who perhaps are waivering on this

:02:44. > :02:46.particular matter, that the terms of reference of the consultation which

:02:47. > :02:49.our right honourable friend announced earlier on would be

:02:50. > :02:52.sufficiently robust and givd a steer of the Government's good intentions

:02:53. > :02:57.around section 40, because then we might be tempted just to be a little

:02:58. > :03:02.bit more patient in the hopd that that consultation will result in an

:03:03. > :03:06.outcome that will make the Baroness's amendments redundant

:03:07. > :03:09.# I hear my honourable friend's

:03:10. > :03:12.comments and part of is sayhng because we are being black lailed we

:03:13. > :03:17.should give into the blackm`il. I think this is a bill that ddals with

:03:18. > :03:20.giving powers to our security forces, our Security Servicds, and

:03:21. > :03:24.our police to deal with somd horrendous crimes and threats to the

:03:25. > :03:28.security of the nation. And, you know that doesn't mean to s`y that

:03:29. > :03:31.just because someone has put an amendment or tapped it on that isn't

:03:32. > :03:34.really anything to do with this bill, predominantly that we should

:03:35. > :03:39.just give N the fist thing we should do is let us have the debatd about

:03:40. > :03:42.press regulations in the proper forum. My right honourable friend

:03:43. > :03:44.the Secretary of State that is brought forward a ten-week

:03:45. > :03:47.consultation period. Everyone in this House will know that the

:03:48. > :03:51.Government has been put on notice that at the end of the ten-week

:03:52. > :03:54.consultation their concerns need to be listened to and engaged with and

:03:55. > :03:59.the Government come up with a position and I think if that is the

:04:00. > :04:02.case, then I think, you know, this is not the end of Parliament with

:04:03. > :04:06.this bill, there are plenty of other times in Parliament when other

:04:07. > :04:09.legislation, that maybe mord appropriate, do come through. Can I

:04:10. > :04:12.thank the minister for that reainsurance and can I welcome the

:04:13. > :04:17.Government's approach particularsly on the critical Which? This intil

:04:18. > :04:28.about, the balance between security and -- bsh which is the bal`nce

:04:29. > :04:31.between security. And can I urge the Government not to allow this bill,

:04:32. > :04:35.about the national security fundamentally to be conflighted with

:04:36. > :04:39.or held up by the very diffdrent and much-wider question of medi`

:04:40. > :04:44.regulation being urged on us by the other place. Madame Deputy Speaker I

:04:45. > :04:47.think the whole House will hear my honourable friend's comments. He is

:04:48. > :04:52.a dedicated campaigner for prif sane for - actually both parts of this -

:04:53. > :04:55.for privacy and for. Both p`rts he believes in. He has been consistent

:04:56. > :04:59.throughout. When he says thhs, I think the House should listdn, he

:05:00. > :05:02.would like it make sure that a bill with good oversight is passdd

:05:03. > :05:06.correct lane then the freedom to move on to press regulation is

:05:07. > :05:10.debated and shaped in the rhght and different forum. So, therefore,

:05:11. > :05:15.Madame Deputy Speaker it is on this basis that I beg to prove mx motion

:05:16. > :05:21.that this House should reject the amendment passed in the othdr place

:05:22. > :05:27.in relation to clause 8, # `nd 73. - 8ing, 9 and 273. The question is

:05:28. > :05:32.this House disagrees the Lords in their amendment number 11. Diane

:05:33. > :05:35.Abbott. Thank you very much, madam deputy speaker I rise to spdak to

:05:36. > :05:40.this group of amendments but in particular to amendment 15. I would

:05:41. > :05:45.like to begin by paying tribute to the work of my friend and colleague

:05:46. > :05:49.the member for Lee and my friend and colleague, my learned friend, the

:05:50. > :05:53.member for Holborn and St P`ncras who does so much work on a

:05:54. > :06:01.cross-party basis to bring the bill to the position it is now in.

:06:02. > :06:06.However, in the opinion of those of us on this side of the Housd there

:06:07. > :06:07.is still some unfinished business to be investigated concerning the

:06:08. > :06:14.relationship between various authorities and the media. @nd this

:06:15. > :06:17.is why the Labour Party fully supports these amendments,

:06:18. > :06:20.particularly amendment 15 to the Investigatory Powers Bill. The

:06:21. > :06:27.minister has told us about his landmark consultation. We on this

:06:28. > :06:32.side remain baffled as to why you need landmark consultation when you

:06:33. > :06:37.already have the Leveson Report all the time, all the effort, all the

:06:38. > :06:42.expertise that has been poured into that t seems to me that the

:06:43. > :06:47.minister's vaunted landmark consultation is merely a st`lling

:06:48. > :06:52.exercise. I'm gritful to thd honourable lady for giving way. -

:06:53. > :06:58.grateful. Is she in a motion, due to the fact she is new to her position

:06:59. > :07:01.as the minister is to his. H sat on the bill committee and she's right

:07:02. > :07:05.to comment on the work learned friend did to bill that cross-party

:07:06. > :07:08.consensus on which could be a difficult bill to land in the

:07:09. > :07:12.circumstances. If the amendlents which we are debating at thd moment

:07:13. > :07:18.are ultimately rejected by this place, and the other place case of n

:07:19. > :07:21.as it were, will it still bd the position of the Opposition to

:07:22. > :07:27.continue to support the bill or will she use that as a crutch upon which

:07:28. > :07:32.to base the withdrawal of hdr support? I'm grateful to thd member

:07:33. > :07:40.for his intervention. But on this side we are not in the habit of

:07:41. > :07:47.artifice or crutches. Let us see what members in the other place do

:07:48. > :07:51.with this and then I will bd very clear with you as to what otr

:07:52. > :07:53.position is. On this side of the House we've consistently called for

:07:54. > :07:57.the Leveson recommendations to be implemented in full and it hs our

:07:58. > :08:07.opinion that the public has waited long enough for this, as we all

:08:08. > :08:13.know, in 2013, following extensive consultation, victims of prdss

:08:14. > :08:16.intrusion, a new set of self-regulation was agreed by what

:08:17. > :08:20.was then the three main polhtical parties so. It is so dispointed that

:08:21. > :08:25.members inform the other pl`ce have had to table an amendment and we

:08:26. > :08:32.have to debate this amendment just to get this Government to honour its

:08:33. > :08:38.promises and it is disappointing, also, that the member called

:08:39. > :08:43.amendment, a legitimate amendment, passed in good faith in the other

:08:44. > :08:48.place, he chooses to deem those amendment blackmail. What khnd of

:08:49. > :08:59.way is that to talk about otr friends in the other place? Isn t

:09:00. > :09:03.the point here that these alendments almost exactly replicate legislation

:09:04. > :09:08.that was introduced by Consdrvatives in another bill and are now in act

:09:09. > :09:12.in statute law in this country, so it would be bizarre and he hs treem

:09:13. > :09:15.for the Government to be saxing they shouldn't become law. So if the

:09:16. > :09:20.Government wants its bill, ht can have it today, all it has to do is

:09:21. > :09:22.say, yes, we agree to you whll a the amendments? I'm grateful to my

:09:23. > :09:26.friend for his important intervention. Nobody is tryhng to

:09:27. > :09:30.hold up this bill, nobody is trying to halt this bill. If the Government

:09:31. > :09:37.wishes to have this bill all it has to do is agree to these amendments.

:09:38. > :09:39.In that spirit, Madame Deputy Speaker, perhaps the honour`ble lady

:09:40. > :09:45.could ask the question of mx honourable friend, which is - should

:09:46. > :09:55.the bill not contain the amdndment of the Baroness, would she support

:09:56. > :09:58.the bill? I don't deal in supposition, let us see what members

:09:59. > :10:02.in the other place do with this bill and at that point, we will debate it

:10:03. > :10:08.and you will hear Her Majesty's Opposition's position.

:10:09. > :10:12.I think I have auto' heard the honourable lady say, in othdr

:10:13. > :10:17.places, what a future Labour Government would deliver. That's

:10:18. > :10:21.surely a supposition. She should deal with a supposition frol the

:10:22. > :10:29.despatch box. When you heard me say those things, I was not yet Shadow

:10:30. > :10:33.Home Secretary. There were concerns that section 40

:10:34. > :10:38.had not been commenced in the summer of 2015. The member for approximate

:10:39. > :10:42.madden the then Secretary of State for Culture media and sport was

:10:43. > :10:48.asked about it at the culture Media and Sport Select Committee `nd

:10:49. > :10:52.refused to be drawn. He said, at a conference in 2000 is 15 th`t he was

:10:53. > :10:56.not minded to commence secthon 0. On this side we believe this is a

:10:57. > :11:01.breach of the cross-party agreement and breaks the promises madd to the

:11:02. > :11:07.House, and perhaps even mord important, breaks the promises made

:11:08. > :11:11.to victims. Just last week the PLP produced its first an actual report

:11:12. > :11:17.and stated that the Leveson system had not even been brought into

:11:18. > :11:28.effect. Only after section 40 is in place will this system be in place.

:11:29. > :11:32.Described its non-commencemdnt of an interference in the freedom of the

:11:33. > :11:38.press because it allowed thd government to hold section 40

:11:39. > :11:44.commencement as a sort of D`mocles over the press. Last Monday the

:11:45. > :11:49.Secretary of State for culttre, media and sport indicated she had no

:11:50. > :11:53.intention of commencing section 40. Following day newspapers ran stories

:11:54. > :11:58.saying the government had dhtched section 40, crediting a govdrnment

:11:59. > :12:04.source. So the minister cannot be surprised that we are presshng this

:12:05. > :12:08.issue this afternoon. It is entirely reprehensible that the government is

:12:09. > :12:13.resisting implementing what is widely regarded as a key provision

:12:14. > :12:16.of the Levenson enquiry. Whhlst the government refuses to fulfil its

:12:17. > :12:22.commitments, we on this sidd of the house will not back down from

:12:23. > :12:31.measures to assist victims of press abuses and their families. Can I say

:12:32. > :12:39.that for all of the differences we may have, I totally underst`nd the

:12:40. > :12:43.importance she attaches to section 40 I would just gently say that

:12:44. > :12:47.there will be amply time and I will want to join her in scrutinhsing

:12:48. > :12:51.that but it would be wrong, and can I suggest irresponsible, to hold up,

:12:52. > :12:54.let alone frustrate this bill on account of legitimate concerns which

:12:55. > :12:58.can be dealt with separatelx and discreetly. We are not attelpting to

:12:59. > :13:03.hold up this bill, or the government has to do is accept the amendments.

:13:04. > :13:09.Section 40 of the crime and Courts act remains unimplemented ddspite

:13:10. > :13:15.widespread support in princhple on all sides of the house and the

:13:16. > :13:20.support of both frontbenchers. This amendment that the government wants

:13:21. > :13:26.to vote down was proposed to the Lords by a crossbencher, Baroness

:13:27. > :13:33.Hollis, and overwhelmingly passed by 282 - 180 votes. That's one of the

:13:34. > :13:38.reasons I'm so shocked. And it would implement, as my honourable friends

:13:39. > :13:42.have said, the same provisions as are contained in section 40 of the

:13:43. > :13:46.crime and Courts act in rel`tion to claims against media organisations

:13:47. > :13:51.over the phone hacking and other unlawful interception. This

:13:52. > :13:58.amendment goes further, howdver Unlike section 40 of the crhme and

:13:59. > :14:02.Courts act, this provision does not require SQL approval, which we

:14:03. > :14:07.regard as an improvement. So it automatically implements section 40

:14:08. > :14:10.in relation to phone hacking claims. This would restate the very clear

:14:11. > :14:16.intention of Parliament, has previously expressed in 2013, and I

:14:17. > :14:19.repeat this amendment would not be necessary if the government had

:14:20. > :14:26.fulfilled its stated commitlent to implement section 40. Part two of

:14:27. > :14:29.the Levenson enquiry is sought to investigate the original police

:14:30. > :14:33.investigation and corrupt p`yments to police officers, and considered

:14:34. > :14:38.the implications for the relationships between journ`lists,

:14:39. > :14:42.politicians and the police. Today we find we will have to undergo further

:14:43. > :14:47.weeks of consultation. Prevhously ministers had said that party would

:14:48. > :14:53.begin after the criminals around phone hacking had concluded. Then

:14:54. > :14:59.they said it would take place once all the criminals had concltded

:15:00. > :15:02.Contrast this with the provhsions affecting journalists and the press

:15:03. > :15:09.in the investigatory Powers Bill put before us. There is no protdction of

:15:10. > :15:12.journalistic sources. They can collect and retain data for 12

:15:13. > :15:17.months and share with other bodies including overseas agencies. It

:15:18. > :15:22.would be a simple matter to establish who whistle-blower is in

:15:23. > :15:25.any public or other bodies simply by trawling the journalist's Internet

:15:26. > :15:30.history to the detriment of the whole of society, and be detrimental

:15:31. > :15:36.to the fundamental press frdedoms. The contradiction here is on the one

:15:37. > :15:41.hand there is a free for all in ignoring the thinking behind

:15:42. > :15:45.Levenson and yet the failurd to implement section 40. Some of the

:15:46. > :15:51.most irresponsible practices of the press can go unchecked and with no

:15:52. > :15:54.recourse, except of course for the ultra rich and those who can afford

:15:55. > :15:57.libel lawyers. For the propdr functioning of the press it should

:15:58. > :16:05.be able to hold all of thosd in power to account. This is of course

:16:06. > :16:12.wholly in the public interest. Taking the two together, thd

:16:13. > :16:14.government stands accused of allowing muckraking, savage attacks

:16:15. > :16:20.on the vulnerable, defending those who cannot legally afford to

:16:21. > :16:24.themselves is given free rehn. Proper journalism in the public

:16:25. > :16:27.interest, holding the powerful to account, giving an outlet to

:16:28. > :16:30.whistle-blowers, investigathng matters in the public interdst are

:16:31. > :16:39.to be fatally undermined. This, in its current shape, runs the risk of

:16:40. > :16:43.seeming like a charter against valuable and public interest

:16:44. > :16:52.journalism, but for the worst type of journalistic excesses. I beg to

:16:53. > :16:57.move amendment 15. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to focus on Lords

:16:58. > :17:01.amendment 15 in a number of different aspects of it. First of

:17:02. > :17:06.all in what it is seeking to do where I think it is fundamentally

:17:07. > :17:10.wrong headed. It provides for an increase in the penalty that will be

:17:11. > :17:14.opposed to newspapers where an accusation of phone hacking is made

:17:15. > :17:19.in a case that is brought against them. This is very difficult,

:17:20. > :17:25.because if you think that in the ordinary course of events a

:17:26. > :17:28.newspaper will want to protdct its sources, a newspaper, in trxing to

:17:29. > :17:34.protect its source for a story would not be able to prove the negative

:17:35. > :17:39.that phone hacking was not hnvolved, even when it hadn't been involved.

:17:40. > :17:44.And therefore you have the hmmediate risk that newspapers are reluctant

:17:45. > :17:49.to print investigative storhes because they would not be able to

:17:50. > :17:57.avoid this double penalty of extra costs in the event that thehr story

:17:58. > :18:04.was true. This is the particular outrage of amendment 15. Thd press

:18:05. > :18:10.could report the story accurately, fairly, honestly, and still, if

:18:11. > :18:14.taken to court by an aggressive litigant, find that they had to pay

:18:15. > :18:19.the costs of the litigant. This is an absolute charter for the very

:18:20. > :18:23.rich to believe the press into not publishing stories about thdm. It is

:18:24. > :18:26.not going to help the poorest in society who will not be abld to

:18:27. > :18:31.afford the official fees to get the case going. But for anybody with any

:18:32. > :18:35.funds, they will be able to use this as an absolute opportunity to bully

:18:36. > :18:42.the press into not reading `nything about them that is disagree`ble I

:18:43. > :18:47.think my honourable friend for making an excellent speech, as

:18:48. > :18:51.always. Does he agree with le that the reasonable price, those who do

:18:52. > :18:56.not have the resources, will be particularly vulnerable to the

:18:57. > :18:59.regional press. My honourable friend is absolutely right, region`l press

:19:00. > :19:06.will simply not be able to print stories that are critical of almost

:19:07. > :19:09.anybody. And perhaps MPs don't want critical stories printed ag`inst

:19:10. > :19:12.them, but we would be able to bully our local papers by saying that we

:19:13. > :19:17.will bring a court action against them, by the way we think you might

:19:18. > :19:25.have been hacking our telephones, and then they risk double costs It

:19:26. > :19:29.is ruinous. Because these costs run into hundreds of thousands of

:19:30. > :19:34.pounds. Even at the biggest newspaper groups they will find that

:19:35. > :19:39.level of cost very difficult to absorb. What this therefore does is

:19:40. > :19:43.actually gets rid of the frde press. We have oppressed that will be

:19:44. > :19:47.afraid to go after the rich and powerful, afraid to go after leading

:19:48. > :19:53.politicians who have friends who can loaned the money. It will bd a

:19:54. > :19:58.supine press. I'm listening to his comments with a great deal of

:19:59. > :20:02.interest. I feel he is perh`ps over egging things just a little bit

:20:03. > :20:07.insofar as there is of course a very large organisation behind the

:20:08. > :20:12.apparent number of small media outlets that he is referring to He

:20:13. > :20:16.probably like me will have received a note this morning from news media

:20:17. > :20:25.Association pressing the case of smaller newspapers. But in truth it

:20:26. > :20:28.represents a smoke screen for the interests of larger press

:20:29. > :20:32.organisations. Does he not share my concern that we need to disdntangle

:20:33. > :20:36.the very, very small press outlets that we heard about early on from

:20:37. > :20:42.regional press which tends to be controlled by large operations?

:20:43. > :20:47.That's what the amendment does, it includes all the press. The

:20:48. > :20:51.Farrington Gurney parish magazine will be included. Every single

:20:52. > :20:57.publication will be included and will be under this threat. Of course

:20:58. > :21:03.I'll give weight. I think the honourable gentleman for giving way.

:21:04. > :21:07.I would hesitate to criticise the wisdom of the member for Sotth West

:21:08. > :21:09.Wiltshire, but from the journalistic perspective I would humbly submit

:21:10. > :21:15.that nobody in the modern mddia world feels they are working in an

:21:16. > :21:20.enormous environment with endless oodles of cash swilling abott. This

:21:21. > :21:24.will be a chilling effect across national, local and regional media.

:21:25. > :21:27.The honourable gentleman is right and even those newspapers that are

:21:28. > :21:31.part of bigger media groups, big media groups will not be willing to

:21:32. > :21:35.fund indefinitely loss-making newspapers. We will find th`t the

:21:36. > :21:38.journalism that is the core not only of the print media but most of what

:21:39. > :21:44.people get online which isn't covered by this anyway is coming

:21:45. > :21:50.from a narrowly profitable print media. And if that ceases to have

:21:51. > :21:54.any chance of being profitable, then where is all this Internet content

:21:55. > :21:57.coming from that people are reading for free? Where are the re-sources

:21:58. > :22:04.to provide us with investig`tions into wrongdoing? And wrongdoing is

:22:05. > :22:08.revealed year in, year out. Not just of politicians, but of insthtutions,

:22:09. > :22:11.great footballing institutions investigated by the Sunday Times,

:22:12. > :22:17.how are they going to do th`t if they get sued and have to p`y double

:22:18. > :22:23.damages just on the allegathon that hacking has taken place? Thhs is a

:22:24. > :22:26.real threat to press freedol. Madam Deputy Speaker, press freedom is of

:22:27. > :22:33.the greatest possible value. One of the reasons our society, Unhted

:22:34. > :22:41.Kingdom, is such a stable polity is because of the freedom of the press.

:22:42. > :22:44.That it shines a light on corruption, on criminality, and on

:22:45. > :22:49.wrongdoing. It holds people to account. It brings them to book Why

:22:50. > :22:55.do we give this house and absolute protection on whatever is s`id in

:22:56. > :22:58.here that it cannot be contdsted in any court outside Parliament? We

:22:59. > :23:01.give ourselves that protecthon because we so value freedom of

:23:02. > :23:05.speech. And we should be extending that is widely as possible, not

:23:06. > :23:10.holding it narrowly to oursdlves but allowing the country at large to

:23:11. > :23:14.enjoy that same benefit. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the other place,

:23:15. > :23:19.you have people who have had a rude story printed about them th`t they

:23:20. > :23:23.did not like to a greater or lesser extent, a big scandal, a lesser

:23:24. > :23:26.scandal, something that caused offence, something that upsdt their

:23:27. > :23:30.spouse, you don't know what it may have been. At the chippy spdeches

:23:31. > :23:34.made in the other place when they have come under the spotlight of the

:23:35. > :23:39.press, and I'm afraid we get that in this place as well, ought not to be

:23:40. > :23:42.used to take away our fundalental, constitutional protection of

:23:43. > :23:45.something that is of the grdatest importance. It should not bd done by

:23:46. > :23:49.the back door by attacking something onto a completely different in a

:23:50. > :23:53.hissy fit that it has not bden brought in by the Secretary of State

:23:54. > :23:57.under existing legislation. It is quite wrong way to proceed. And that

:23:58. > :24:04.brings me onto the second p`rt of what I want to say. The first part

:24:05. > :24:11.is overwhelmed overwhelming importance, the freedom of the press

:24:12. > :24:14.is absolute. As my honourable friend the Dorset would like me to say

:24:15. > :24:18.England free rather than England's sober, should be at the heart of how

:24:19. > :24:24.we understand the press. But the constitutional aspects in rdlation

:24:25. > :24:29.to how we legislate are also very important. In this house we have

:24:30. > :24:33.very, very strict rules implemented fairway by the clerks and the

:24:34. > :24:36.speaker in relation to the scope of bills. And we can't attack on random

:24:37. > :24:41.things that we feel would bd nice to have. The House of Lords behng a

:24:42. > :24:45.self-governing place, they can tackle things on, and they have lost

:24:46. > :24:50.the self restraint that thex used to have of following the consthtutional

:24:51. > :24:53.norms in relation to legisl`tion. They did it in the last session of

:24:54. > :24:57.Parliament in relation to boundaries and they are doing it now. But I am

:24:58. > :25:04.concerned that the SNP are not worried about the small convention.

:25:05. > :25:09.I'm very hesitant to give the honourable gentleman any kind of

:25:10. > :25:13.lecture on constitutional procedure, but I think I can give him full

:25:14. > :25:17.comfort for the points he h`s raised if he would care to consult the

:25:18. > :25:25.devolution guidance note nulber ten which specifically states that

:25:26. > :25:29.during the passage of legislation departments should approach the

:25:30. > :25:33.Scottish executive about government amendments, changing of govdrnment

:25:34. > :25:36.amendments, changing or introducing provisions or any other such

:25:37. > :25:39.amendments which the governlent is minded to accept. No consultation is

:25:40. > :25:44.required for other amendments tabled. And ministers resisting

:25:45. > :25:47.non-government amendments should not rest solely on the argument that

:25:48. > :25:51.they lack the consent of thd Scottish Parliament unless there is

:25:52. > :25:54.advice to that effect from the Scottish executive, and the

:25:55. > :25:58.departmental guidance note goes on to explain what happens in `

:25:59. > :26:00.situation such as this and says that the Scottish executive can be

:26:01. > :26:07.expected to deal swiftly with issues which arise during the pass`ge of a

:26:08. > :26:09.bill. So with great humilitx I want... The honourable gentleman is

:26:10. > :26:19.mistaken in the point he is making. Order. The honourable lady will have

:26:20. > :26:26.opportunity shortly to make a full speech. I must urge members to make

:26:27. > :26:31.short interventions. We havd only 55 minutes left in this part of this

:26:32. > :26:35.gate I will talk about that point and swiftly come to a concltsion.

:26:36. > :26:40.The amendment was passed on 11th October there. Has been no response

:26:41. > :26:44.and this is the very last opportunity to decide whethdr or not

:26:45. > :26:49.this goes into law or not. Hf it does pass into law, they thd

:26:50. > :26:54.Scottish Parliament will have had no opportunity to give its consent to

:26:55. > :26:58.effectively a repatriation of power from the Scottish Parliament to the

:26:59. > :27:03.United Kingdom Parliament. Ht is quite right the Government would not

:27:04. > :27:08.have asked of such a consent because it is not a Government amendment but

:27:09. > :27:12.the SNP members here might well have wanted to seek the guidance of their

:27:13. > :27:15.friends in the Scottish Govdrnment to determine whether this w`s

:27:16. > :27:20.something that was acceptable, and to get a consent to come from that.

:27:21. > :27:24.I may let the honourable lady come back to this in her own spedch but

:27:25. > :27:28.these forms are very import`nt. I wouldn't pretend that I'm anything

:27:29. > :27:34.other than a unionist, but H believe the union will do well if wd observe

:27:35. > :27:36.the norms and court sis between the various Parliament and that that

:27:37. > :27:39.Parliament must be exceptionally careful about overriding those

:27:40. > :27:45.things that have been Dell hnvolved and media policy is one that clearly

:27:46. > :27:50.has been devolved. - have bden devolved and therefore, we should

:27:51. > :27:55.tread on those areas light lane the SNP should be cautious about using

:27:56. > :28:00.this in a politically opportunistic way, however convenient that may be,

:28:01. > :28:06.because there will come a thme when it is politically convenient for the

:28:07. > :28:09.Treasury bench not to use the convention to get a backbencher to

:28:10. > :28:12.put forward an amendment th`t then goes through that doesn't nded the

:28:13. > :28:16.Government to ask for permission, at a very late stage in the

:28:17. > :28:21.proceedings, perhaps even an amendment to a Lords' amendlent and

:28:22. > :28:25.then through it goes, convention can be brushed aside, the SNP h`ve said

:28:26. > :28:29.that's perfectly all right. That's the way to do it. That's wh`t they

:28:30. > :28:34.want to say but then they are leaving the coninvestigations in

:28:35. > :28:37.disrepute, they are leading to rows between the constituent parliaments,

:28:38. > :28:40.basically disrespect from one Parliament to another and that

:28:41. > :28:50.constitutionally becomes very serious, so I think, for a one day

:28:51. > :28:56.win, the SNP may be risking a constitutional embroilio.

:28:57. > :29:00.Thank you, Madame Deputy Spdaker, I rise tow gift Scottish National

:29:01. > :29:05.Party support to this group I have a mendments. - to give the Scottish

:29:06. > :29:10.National Party support. Mad`me Deputy Speaker, much was promised of

:29:11. > :29:13.Lords when the Bill left thhs house answer when had concerns about the

:29:14. > :29:18.intrusion on civil liberties and the intrusion on data. I regret to say

:29:19. > :29:21.but not surprised to say th`t the Lords' amendments as a whold have

:29:22. > :29:25.not lived up to the expectations that some members of this House had.

:29:26. > :29:28.Whilst there is undoubtedly been some improvement in the safdguards

:29:29. > :29:32.afforded by the bill and we intend to support those later, these came

:29:33. > :29:37.as a ultimate rf Government amendments in the Lords that largely

:29:38. > :29:39.were as a result of Opposithon suggestions and suggestions from the

:29:40. > :29:43.Intelligence and Security Committee but we don't think they go far

:29:44. > :29:46.enough. I will give specific examples later at the moment we are

:29:47. > :29:49.dealing with this group of `mendment which I think some people c`ll for

:29:50. > :29:55.convenience, the Leveson amdndments, I want it knock firmly on the head

:29:56. > :30:02.any suggestion that the Scottish National Party or Scottish

:30:03. > :30:05.Government are making any concessions in relation to the Seul

:30:06. > :30:11.convention, you no doubt wotld be sore prized if we did and wd are

:30:12. > :30:14.not. - surprised. However, tnlike the minister who spoke earlher, we

:30:15. > :30:20.are following proper procedtre as laid down in the devolution guidance

:30:21. > :30:23.notes number 10 which deals with post devolution primary leghslation

:30:24. > :30:29.affecting Scotland T states, quite specifically, as I already said in

:30:30. > :30:32.my intervention. - it states. As I said in my intervention, it makes

:30:33. > :30:36.thep following comments on amendments of paragraph 17 `nd 8 of

:30:37. > :30:40.the notes. I will read it in full. It is very important. It saxs,

:30:41. > :30:44."During the passage of legislation, departments should approach the

:30:45. > :30:47.Scottish Executive about Government amendments, changing or introducing

:30:48. > :30:52.provisions requiring consent. Or any other such amendments which the

:30:53. > :30:55.Government is mindful to accept "Cope clearly that I mendment is not

:30:56. > :31:00.a Government amendment and we have heard it is not an amendment which

:31:01. > :31:06.the Government is minded to accept but in that situation, paragraph 17

:31:07. > :31:09.of guidance note 10 says "It'll be for the Scottish Executive or the

:31:10. > :31:13.Scottish Government as it is now to indicate the view of the Scottish

:31:14. > :31:18.Parliament." And then goes on importantly to say "No constltation

:31:19. > :31:23.is required for other amendlents tabled so it is not income bant for

:31:24. > :31:29.the UK Government to consult the Scottish Government about Opposition

:31:30. > :31:31.amendments." It also goes on to say, "That ministers resisting

:31:32. > :31:35.non-Government amendments should not rest solely on the argument that

:31:36. > :31:37.they lack the consent of thd Scottish Parliament, unless there is

:31:38. > :31:41.advice to that effect from the Scottish Government." I know as a

:31:42. > :31:45.matter of fact there is no `dvice to that effect from the Scottish

:31:46. > :31:49.Government because I spoke with the minister concerned at the wdekend,

:31:50. > :31:52.Madame Deputy Speaker. Paragraph 18 says "The Scottish Government or

:31:53. > :31:58.Government as it is now, can be expected to deal swiftly with issues

:31:59. > :32:01.that arise during the passage of a bill and to recognise the

:32:02. > :32:06.legislative time tables, for example, when forced to consider

:32:07. > :32:10.accepting amendments at short notice, nevertheless, since the last

:32:11. > :32:14.opportunity for amendments hs the third reading in the Lords or report

:32:15. > :32:18.stage in the Commons, the absence of consent should not be a bar to

:32:19. > :32:24.proceeding with the bill in the interim. That's what the guhdance

:32:25. > :32:29.note says. The point made, hs salacious. This is not a Government

:32:30. > :32:35.amendment or an amendment which the Government is minded to accdpt. This

:32:36. > :32:38.is an Opposition amendment. It is perfectly open for the SNP to

:32:39. > :32:43.support this at this stage without making any concession. It is only

:32:44. > :32:47.when the amendment or in thd event that the amendment is passed by this

:32:48. > :32:50.House that the Government t would then be incumbent upon the

:32:51. > :32:54.Government to go to the Scottish Government or Scottish Parlhament to

:32:55. > :33:01.get a legislative consent motion so. This, Madame Deputy Speaker is a

:33:02. > :33:06.complete red herring. ! I'm grateful N the event such a legislathve

:33:07. > :33:09.consent motion were refused would the honourable lady therefore expect

:33:10. > :33:14.the Queen to refuse the roy`l consent to the bill that's the only

:33:15. > :33:17.way to stop it becoming law. I can assure the honourable gentldmen we

:33:18. > :33:21.will not come to this, if this amendment is passed by the House,

:33:22. > :33:24.the Scottish Government will grant a legislative consent motion to this,

:33:25. > :33:28.because the SNP, which is the Opposition here at Westminster, and

:33:29. > :33:33.Government in Scotland has discussed this issue in detail over the

:33:34. > :33:36.weekend and I've discussed ht with the Scottish Government minhster and

:33:37. > :33:40.I have a position which I'm now about to set out. I'm conschous of

:33:41. > :33:46.the time so I'll keep it as brief as possible. As I said earlier, this

:33:47. > :33:51.amendment from the Lords rides on the back of clause 8 which H'm proud

:33:52. > :33:55.to say comes from an SNP suggestion for an amendment in the bill in

:33:56. > :33:58.committee. We have heard thd effect of the Lords' amendment and it is my

:33:59. > :34:03.respectful submission that ht is a good effect. No newspaper should be

:34:04. > :34:07.involved in telephone hacking and if it is involved in telephone hacking,

:34:08. > :34:11.then it should face the consequences. Just to make the SNP

:34:12. > :34:14.position clear, section 40 of the crime and courts act of which we

:34:15. > :34:20.have heard much in the chamber today, was, of course passed in

:34:21. > :34:22.March 2013 as part of implelenting the recommendation made by the

:34:23. > :34:25.Leveson Inquiry, that any ndw regulator, set up by the prdss

:34:26. > :34:32.should be accredited as inddpendent and effective. The purpose of

:34:33. > :34:33.section 40 is to provide cost protection for claimants and

:34:34. > :34:36.Leveson-regulated newspaper publishers. It was passed in this

:34:37. > :34:40.House with cross-party agredment, including the support of?

:34:41. > :34:43.??FORCEDLINEBREAK MPs who wdre there, back in 2013, rather less,

:34:44. > :34:51.Madame Deputy Speaker than there are now, but what my colleagues

:34:52. > :34:56.supported in the bill - Including the support of SNP MPs.

:34:57. > :35:01.They've foed announced a consultation further kicking it into

:35:02. > :35:03.the long grass. As correctlx has been said, section 40 extends to

:35:04. > :35:07.England and Wales only becatse regulation of print media is

:35:08. > :35:11.devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliament have

:35:12. > :35:14.provided cross-party support for the UK Government's action to ilplement

:35:15. > :35:17.the royal charter and the Scottish Government will continue to monitor

:35:18. > :35:21.the current press regulations and work with other parties in Scotland

:35:22. > :35:25.and Westminster, to ensure dffective regulation of the media on `

:35:26. > :35:29.non-political basis. Now, M`dame Deputy Speaker, the majoritx of the

:35:30. > :35:34.press, particularly the reghonal press in Scotland, were not involved

:35:35. > :35:35.in the sort of malpractice which prompted the Leveson

:35:36. > :35:39.recommendations, therefore, it is the view of the Scottish Government

:35:40. > :35:43.and the Scottish National P`rty that any policy in this area in Scotland

:35:44. > :35:48.must be proportionate and mtst balance both the freedom of the

:35:49. > :35:53.press and also the public ddsire for high standard, be a radios sane

:35:54. > :35:57.transparency. That said - accuracy and transparency. That said, the

:35:58. > :36:00.protection from section 40 would be available to Scottish litig`nts who

:36:01. > :36:06.choose to sue newspapers based in England and Wales. Regretly Madame

:36:07. > :36:10.Deputy Speaker, there were ` number of major newspapers, based hn

:36:11. > :36:13.England, who were involved hn the sort of malpractice which prompted

:36:14. > :36:18.Leveson and it is right, thdrefore, that such protection should be

:36:19. > :36:23.afforded. The limited amendlents which we are discussing tod`y will

:36:24. > :36:26.not affect small or regional newspapers adversely at all, because

:36:27. > :36:30.they haven't been involved hn phone hacking and I assume they h`ve no

:36:31. > :36:34.plans to become involved in phone hacking. So, the Scottish N`tional

:36:35. > :36:39.Party MPs today are going to support these amendments to provide cost

:36:40. > :36:45.protection across the UK, for claimants and Leveson regul`ted news

:36:46. > :36:49.publishers and claims for unlawful interception of communications,

:36:50. > :36:53.including phone hacking. Mr Madam deputy speaker, as a result of these

:36:54. > :36:57.amendments, I hope some good at least will come from this bhll's

:36:58. > :37:00.passage through Parliament. In the event this House is minded to

:37:01. > :37:06.support them. I want to be crystal clear, that nothing I have said this

:37:07. > :37:11.afternoon involves any concdssion whatsoever about the prime sane the

:37:12. > :37:14.importance of the Seul convdntion, of course now enshrined on

:37:15. > :37:20.legislation. If anybody is hn any doubt they should go awane read

:37:21. > :37:27.carefully the guidance notes of which I have quoted at some length

:37:28. > :37:30.this afternoon. Is the honotrable Hain learned lady is she thdrefore

:37:31. > :37:35.saying that on memorandum ntmber 10 she refers to, she is happy to

:37:36. > :37:38.accept that principle, wherd amendments come forward in future

:37:39. > :37:41.that are not Government amended or not minded by the Government to

:37:42. > :37:46.accept that that principle leans we do not have, to should it come from

:37:47. > :37:50.a friendly or unfriendly about backbencher, we do not have a

:37:51. > :37:53.consult with the Scottish Government for legislative conp sent motion. He

:37:54. > :37:59.is no doubt aware what I did for a career when I came here. I have no

:38:00. > :38:04.intention of making any concession which goes beyond the four walls of

:38:05. > :38:09.what I said already. I will be as brief as I possibly can Fist of all

:38:10. > :38:15.let me say how much I have dnjoyed this afternoon's debate. Having been

:38:16. > :38:22.locked up as a minister for the last six years, I haven't had thd benefit

:38:23. > :38:26.of hearing the wise constitttional pronouncements of the now prone

:38:27. > :38:30.member for North East Somerset. Very few honourable friends will be able

:38:31. > :38:37.to see him as he is sunbathhng at the moment.

:38:38. > :38:42.I have to say, I found myself in an Alice in Wonderer land world, where

:38:43. > :38:45.the honourable lady I think the member for Hackney and Stokd

:38:46. > :38:48.Newington I think from the front bench was praising the Housd of

:38:49. > :38:52.Lords and my honourable fridnd from the member from North East Somerset

:38:53. > :38:56.was attacking T I really didn't where to turn. That was the first

:38:57. > :38:59.thing that interested me. The second thing that interested me was the

:39:00. > :39:03.extraordinarily complex constitutional argument going on

:39:04. > :39:07.about the various powers of the Westminster Parliament and the

:39:08. > :39:12.Scottish Parliament. But I think we have come to a clear conclusion

:39:13. > :39:17.some constitutional clarity, that this House can now amend legislation

:39:18. > :39:20.which then goes into force hn Scotland, without waiting for a

:39:21. > :39:24.legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament and it hs a

:39:25. > :39:29.welcome concession, an interesting concession from the Scottish

:39:30. > :39:33.National Party. And the third - oh, the honourable lady wishes le to

:39:34. > :39:36.give way. The honourable gentlemen should try very hard not to

:39:37. > :39:40.misrepresent what I have sahd. I have not made any concession. I have

:39:41. > :39:47.quoted from the established procedures already laid down. My

:39:48. > :39:50.friend the member for North East Somerset has pointed out th`t the

:39:51. > :39:54.Scottish Government has had plenty of time to let this House know its

:39:55. > :39:59.views on the amendment. It hasn t done so, and the honourable lady is

:40:00. > :40:02.going to support - and I have to say she cannot answer the questhon that

:40:03. > :40:07.was put Miyamoto honourable friend the minister, which is - wh`t would

:40:08. > :40:10.happen - which was put by mx honourable friend the minister,

:40:11. > :40:13.which is what would happen hf, having passed the amendment the

:40:14. > :40:16.Scottish Parliament refused the legislative consent motion. It was

:40:17. > :40:21.put Miyamoto honourable fridnd from North East Somerset. It was that

:40:22. > :40:24.point I knew I was on to solething I was going to ask her the sale

:40:25. > :40:28.question. She didn't either of them and wouldn't answer me, so H won't

:40:29. > :40:32.take her intervention. The third thing that is interesting about this

:40:33. > :40:36.debate is we have spent the entire debate talking about the regulation

:40:37. > :40:40.of the press in a bill calldd the Investigatory Powers Bill which is

:40:41. > :40:43.about regulating the work of the security services, very important

:40:44. > :40:48.work that needs to be passed by this House as I understand it by the end

:40:49. > :40:53.of the year, so I will not support this amendment, I will be stpporting

:40:54. > :40:57.the Government really, Madale Deputy Speaker I will be brief for four

:40:58. > :41:01.reasons, as my honourable friend the minister put it, this is thd wrong

:41:02. > :41:05.amendment in the wrong bill at the wrong time of this is not a bill to

:41:06. > :41:10.debate press regulation and I don't know, I don't know where thd

:41:11. > :41:13.honourable laidity member for Stoke Newington is getting her

:41:14. > :41:19.instructions from but clearly she will come back, having taken this

:41:20. > :41:22.phone call, this phone call and no doubt elucidate us perhaps on the

:41:23. > :41:23.complex issue of Scottish and Westminster relations. I will give

:41:24. > :41:33.way. Does he agree with me that that is

:41:34. > :41:38.helped in this extremely pink bill in clause 232, although we cannot

:41:39. > :41:43.tell what the consultation will come up with, there are four opthons in

:41:44. > :41:48.the document I have just re`d, we can come back in five years' time

:41:49. > :41:53.and if we are concerned abott implementation of section 40 in the

:41:54. > :41:57.review of the act, we might be able to revisit some of the Baroness

:41:58. > :42:02.Hollis type amendments from the other place. I have read thd bill

:42:03. > :42:06.and I particularly spent sole time pondering whether clause 232 could

:42:07. > :42:11.help us in this circumstancd. I came to the conclusion that it couldn't.

:42:12. > :42:15.A five-year review on an amdndment that has nothing to do with the bill

:42:16. > :42:20.that has been passed in the other place did not strike me as something

:42:21. > :42:23.the drafters of this bill and I m sure the Minister will clarhfy, had

:42:24. > :42:28.in mind when they put in pl`ce this five-year review. What they wanted

:42:29. > :42:33.in that clause was a review of the very important measures which govern

:42:34. > :42:37.the operation of the security services and how they are able to

:42:38. > :42:43.carry out investigations. Rdgardless of 1's fees, this is absolutely the

:42:44. > :42:48.wrong way to do it. It is, to coin a phrase, a way of opening up a back

:42:49. > :42:51.door in order to implement this legislation when it should be the

:42:52. > :42:55.government that has a debatd in this house on whether it is appropriate

:42:56. > :43:00.to implement section 40. And that brings me to my next point which is

:43:01. > :43:03.the statement made earlier hn the house by the Secretary of State for

:43:04. > :43:08.culture, who made it clear that there will be a consultation on the

:43:09. > :43:13.implementation of section 40. And I think, to quote the former dditor of

:43:14. > :43:20.the Guardian in this house, once in the chamber is bad enough, to quote

:43:21. > :43:23.him twice maybe the misforttne, but I would remind the house wh`t he

:43:24. > :43:28.wrote on Sunday in the Observer that he would like to see sdction 14

:43:29. > :43:34.mothballed. As I said earlidr that may perhaps go too far. But the tone

:43:35. > :43:37.of his very thoughtful article was that this position that we have come

:43:38. > :43:44.to in terms of potential regulation of the press has been circulspect

:43:45. > :43:46.and perhaps tactical rather than strategic. And there is an

:43:47. > :43:52.opportunity for this house going forward to talk about a reghme that

:43:53. > :43:57.actually works. As my right honourable friend the member for

:43:58. > :44:00.Morden said in the earlier statement, for example, the current

:44:01. > :44:03.system of press regulation htself does not take into account wholly

:44:04. > :44:07.unregulated arenas of places like Facebook and so on where so many

:44:08. > :44:10.people go to get their news. And that brings me to my third point

:44:11. > :44:13.which is of course a more gdneral point on press recognition `nd

:44:14. > :44:20.that's what we're debating because of this amendment, which is to give

:44:21. > :44:25.Ipso time to settle down. It has something like 2500 members and a

:44:26. > :44:28.camp attention to take into account this issue of how so much of the

:44:29. > :44:34.information we now get is available in the unregulated sphere of the

:44:35. > :44:38.Internet. My fourth point echoes the excellent points made by my

:44:39. > :44:41.honourable friend, the membdr for North East Somerset, about the

:44:42. > :44:46.impact of newspapers. I said many times to the Minister that our

:44:47. > :44:50.newspapers, in particular local and regional newspapers, faced `n

:44:51. > :44:54.imperfect storm of their audience migrating to the Internet and their

:44:55. > :44:58.revenue, classified advertising revenue, migrating onto the Internet

:44:59. > :45:02.as well. It is absolutely the case, and I take issue with the honourable

:45:03. > :45:05.lady from the front bench of the SNP, it is quite right that regional

:45:06. > :45:10.newspapers were not affected by the phone hacking scandal, they did not

:45:11. > :45:14.participate. But it is also right to say that they are the ones who have

:45:15. > :45:18.been contacting members in this house to point out how secthon 0

:45:19. > :45:21.could have an impact on thel. That is why my right honourable friend

:45:22. > :45:27.the Secretary of State's consultation is so welcome. Could my

:45:28. > :45:30.honourable friend explain to me how small press outlets will be impacted

:45:31. > :45:35.by the Hollis amendments since, as the honourable lady from thd SNP

:45:36. > :45:41.rightly pointed out, small papers don't hack. This is decisivdly the

:45:42. > :45:44.point, and I was very intrigued by what the honourable lady sahd. She

:45:45. > :45:51.said they had unpacked and therefore they won't be affected. This is not

:45:52. > :45:54.some retrospective piece of legislation that will imposd costs

:45:55. > :45:58.on newspapers that have hacked, it is a piece of legislation that would

:45:59. > :46:03.impose costs on newspapers hn the future. Again, I hate to sotnd

:46:04. > :46:07.utterly feeble in holding on to the coat-tails of my honourable friend,

:46:08. > :46:11.the member for North East Somerset, but I could not put the argtment

:46:12. > :46:14.better than he put it. The key point about this course, and I wotld

:46:15. > :46:18.probably be opposing it even if it was in the right bill, is that it

:46:19. > :46:23.gives anybody who wants to try it on, to use perhaps a slightly casual

:46:24. > :46:25.phrase for this chamber, thd opportunity to try it on with a

:46:26. > :46:30.newspaper who wants to protdct their source. They will claim and allege

:46:31. > :46:33.that the information has cole from the newspaper by means of phone

:46:34. > :46:38.hacking or by means of the interception of e-mail and ht is

:46:39. > :46:42.then up to the newspaper, as my honourable friend said, to prove a

:46:43. > :46:47.negative, to prove that it wasn t hacking or e-mail intercepthon.

:46:48. > :46:54.Common sense dictates the only way they can do that is effectively to

:46:55. > :46:57.give up their source. It is also, I have to say, in answer to mx

:46:58. > :47:02.honourable friend from Wiltshire, it is precisely the regional ndwspapers

:47:03. > :47:06.who could be hit by this because they are the ones for whom ` small

:47:07. > :47:10.claim, effectively won in the tens of thousands rather than thd

:47:11. > :47:15.hundreds of thousands, can still cause immense financial dam`ge. We

:47:16. > :47:19.all, as members of this house, no, that our regional papers have been

:47:20. > :47:24.through a torrid time. I know that ten years ago when I started as the

:47:25. > :47:31.member of Parliament in one to charm all of the major towns have their

:47:32. > :47:34.own dedicated reporter. I'vd seen the desiccation of journalism in my

:47:35. > :47:38.constituency. I praise my local newspapers for holding on as much as

:47:39. > :47:41.they can to their journalists. I certainly will not be supporting

:47:42. > :47:48.this amendment and I will bd supporting the government in the

:47:49. > :47:53.lobbies this evening. I was struck by the Minister, not physic`lly but

:47:54. > :48:00.I was struck by the Minister's accusation that I was an impatient

:48:01. > :48:04.man. It felt just a little bit patronising, and it reminded me of

:48:05. > :48:07.being in the theatre once and there was a couple in front of me just as

:48:08. > :48:12.the curtain was about to rise who were having a terrible row, and the

:48:13. > :48:17.woman said at the end, and the worst of it is, you are so blasted

:48:18. > :48:30.patronising. And the man kissed her on the four head and corrected her

:48:31. > :48:35.pronunciation. But his only argument was that this was the wrong bill,

:48:36. > :48:39.that was his only argument, that this is the wrong bill. And

:48:40. > :48:42.interestingly the Minister hn the House of Lords, when these

:48:43. > :48:48.amendments were carried, sahd that the clear message given out by this

:48:49. > :48:52.debate will not be lost on ly right honourable friend the Secretary of

:48:53. > :48:56.State for culture, media and sport, as she considers these mattdrs.

:48:57. > :48:59.Well, that was then. But today we have seen that the Secretarx of

:49:00. > :49:03.State for culture, media and sport is not interested whatsoever in what

:49:04. > :49:07.their Lordships have to say on this matter even though they havd carried

:49:08. > :49:13.this crossbench amendment, carried by a majority of very nearlx 10 in

:49:14. > :49:19.the House of Lords, she has decided to data effectively try and unwind

:49:20. > :49:25.the whole of the Levenson provisions. That is the problem we

:49:26. > :49:30.face. Let me go back to March 2 30, it was an extraordinary day, Lord

:49:31. > :49:33.Levenson produced his report on the 29th of November 2012, the Prime

:49:34. > :49:39.Minister came here for the first time in our history to seek a

:49:40. > :49:43.standing order 24 motion so that we could urgently debate something

:49:44. > :49:47.namely the regulation of thd press. And the Royal Charter that had been

:49:48. > :49:52.agreed over the weekend in 48 hours of negotiations in the office of the

:49:53. > :49:56.Leader of the Opposition, and this Royal charter which can onlx be

:49:57. > :49:59.amended by a two thirds majority in this house and a two thirds majority

:50:00. > :50:02.in the House of Lords, so it is there to stay, I would suggdst,

:50:03. > :50:10.which would set up the press recognition panel. And accolpanying

:50:11. > :50:13.that was to be an amendment to the crime" bill. Incidentally those who

:50:14. > :50:20.argue that this is the wrong bill, why on earth was it right bdcause

:50:21. > :50:23.this isn't a bill which is to do with press revelation? Why on earth

:50:24. > :50:26.was it like to put in an amdndment to the crime and courts bill in this

:50:27. > :50:30.case which was to do with press regulation? Which incidentally the

:50:31. > :50:36.honourable member for Wantage himself advocated. I'm very grateful

:50:37. > :50:40.to the honourable gentleman for giving way. Isn't he, I dard say,

:50:41. > :50:46.inadvertently, making the point which underscores rather th`n

:50:47. > :50:50.undermines the Minister's position? He is drawing attention to the fact

:50:51. > :50:56.that when this place acts in haste in response to an event, as heinous

:50:57. > :51:00.as it might be, it very oftdn gets it wrong. That's why the

:51:01. > :51:03.announcement which was made by the Secretary of State for culttre,

:51:04. > :51:08.media and sport earlier tod`y, now that there has been a passage of

:51:09. > :51:14.time since the brouhaha abott it, that is the proper way to ddal with

:51:15. > :51:19.what is a serious issue that that honourable gentleman draws the

:51:20. > :51:29.house's attention to, not t`ck something onto a bill. What the

:51:30. > :51:34.honourable gentleman meant was the intervention was too long. The

:51:35. > :51:38.honourable gentleman will h`ve the opportunity to make a long speech if

:51:39. > :51:42.he likes to, but we must have short interventions. I don't think he will

:51:43. > :51:46.be allowed a very long speech because there is not much more time.

:51:47. > :51:49.The honourable member is colpletely and utterly wrong, he has dragged

:51:50. > :51:54.himself into a hermeneutical circle and he will never get back out of

:51:55. > :51:58.it. The Secretary of State for culture, media and sport, when the

:51:59. > :52:04.amendment was tabled, which was carried incidentally, by 530-13

:52:05. > :52:12.which then eventually becamd section 40 of the crime" act, she s`id today

:52:13. > :52:15.marks a turning point, we c`n move on from simply talking about the

:52:16. > :52:19.Levenson report to start acting on it with a new package. The package

:52:20. > :52:23.includes a Royal Charter announced by the prime ministers that seeks to

:52:24. > :52:27.maximise incentives for reldvant publishers to be part of thd new

:52:28. > :52:31.press regulator, and one short clause reinforcing the point that

:52:32. > :52:36.politicians cannot tamper the Charter which is the subject of the

:52:37. > :52:40.debate in the other house. Why was the all-party deal? This gods to the

:52:41. > :52:44.point the member raised. Because the Levenson enquiry exposed re`l

:52:45. > :52:48.failings both in the press `nd the regulatory system and many of us

:52:49. > :52:53.felt that we, the elected politicians of this country, have

:52:54. > :52:56.failed. Whether out of parthsan ambition, out of deference, out of

:52:57. > :53:00.cowardice, or out of a genuhne determination to do everythhng in

:53:01. > :53:04.our power to protect the frdedom of the press, but we have nonetheless

:53:05. > :53:08.failed. We have developed relationships with the press and the

:53:09. > :53:11.media that were so cosy that ordinary people no longer trusted us

:53:12. > :53:17.to make the best decisions hn the national interest in these hssues.

:53:18. > :53:20.We were on trial as much of the press itself was. And that's why we

:53:21. > :53:23.all agreed that we had to fhnd a better way forward. Above all we

:53:24. > :53:28.knew that there had to be a genuinely independent systel of

:53:29. > :53:32.redress. As the Right Honourable member for North Thanet put it,

:53:33. > :53:35.somebody I would not normally and often agree with, he said it

:53:36. > :53:40.couldn't just be an updated version of the Press Complaints Comlission.

:53:41. > :53:44.God forbid it is, he said, because that would be doomed to failure Yet

:53:45. > :53:51.without the commencement of section 40 I would argue that is prdcisely

:53:52. > :53:56.what we have got. Ipso is the press complex commission in all btt name.

:53:57. > :53:59.It is not independent in terms of its finances, the membership of its

:54:00. > :54:03.board or the decisions it m`kes It is entirely Contra mice as the

:54:04. > :54:07.recent decisions have shown. The press marks its own homework and

:54:08. > :54:14.surprise surprise it always gives itself gold stars. We wanted, the

:54:15. > :54:16.whole of the house, 530 members of the house, wanted it to be

:54:17. > :54:20.independent of government and independent of the press as well.

:54:21. > :54:26.I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman for giving way. If he

:54:27. > :54:30.doesn't like Ipso, how can he think impresses any better? It's `pproved

:54:31. > :54:34.by the state and funded by one irritated celebrity. It's not my

:54:35. > :54:39.business to decide whether, which of the two is good or not, the whole

:54:40. > :54:43.point is that we set up, by Royal Charter, which can only be changed

:54:44. > :54:48.by a two thirds majority here and there is a body that would take that

:54:49. > :54:52.at arms length from us. My `nxiety about the decision that has been

:54:53. > :54:55.made today by the Secretary of State for culture, media and sport, is

:54:56. > :54:59.that she is bringing it right back into her inbox and I think that is

:55:00. > :55:05.wholly mistaken. The press would be best advised not to encourage that.

:55:06. > :55:09.Since that day in 2013, Conservative ministers repeated their colmitment

:55:10. > :55:13.to the package time again. The right Honourable member for Basingstoke on

:55:14. > :55:17.the 18th of March 2013, Davhd Cameron that same day, Viscount

:55:18. > :55:21.Younger of Leckie on that s`me day. The right Honourable member for

:55:22. > :55:25.Wantage on the 10th of April 20 0 13. The right Honourable melber for

:55:26. > :55:29.Basingstoke again, six times on the 16th of April 2000 and 13. The right

:55:30. > :55:35.Honourable member for West Dorset on the 16th of April 2000 13. Now the

:55:36. > :55:39.Attorney General, on the 25th of April 2000 13.

:55:40. > :55:48.The right Honourable member for Wantage again on the 4th of December

:55:49. > :55:51.2013. David Cameron in the Spectator on Boxing Day, a nice littld

:55:52. > :55:57.Christmas present. Lord Gardner again on the 2nd of April 2000 4.

:55:58. > :56:01.The Right Honourable member for Bromsgrove and then the Secretary of

:56:02. > :56:10.State for culture, media and sport on the 20th of January 2015, and

:56:11. > :56:13.indeed the government as late as June 2015 constantly reaffirming

:56:14. > :56:14.that they were in favour of the commencement of section 40 of the

:56:15. > :56:25.crime and Courts act. They want the Government to get on

:56:26. > :56:29.with it. That is what these amendments are here for, thhs is a

:56:30. > :56:33.question to be honest of kedping faith. Promises were made to the

:56:34. > :56:37.victims of phone hacking and press intrusion, people like the family of

:56:38. > :56:41.the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler whose voice mail messages wdre

:56:42. > :56:43.hacked by the News of the World giving the family the desperate

:56:44. > :56:48.false hope their daughter w`s still alive. People like the family of

:56:49. > :56:53.Madeleine McCann whose mothdr Kate said she felt mentally raped by her

:56:54. > :56:57.treatment at the hands of the press. That means he was have Leveson . It

:56:58. > :57:03.was never meant to be that there would be a decision on whether to do

:57:04. > :57:07.Leveson 2, once the legal c`ses were complete, it was meant to bd Leveson

:57:08. > :57:12.2 would happen once the leg`l cases were out of the way. It also meant

:57:13. > :57:16.commencement of section 40, there is no earthly reason why this could not

:57:17. > :57:21.already have been commenced. And what everybody wants is redress

:57:22. > :57:26.True redress, because in relation to privacy, and in relation to

:57:27. > :57:30.correction, it is phenomenally difficult to get no win no fee

:57:31. > :57:35.agreements with lawyer, bec`use the, the awards you might get at the end

:57:36. > :57:40.are relatively minor, lawyers simply don't want to take that risk. So

:57:41. > :57:45.there is a real danger now, everyone more than there was five ye`rs ago,

:57:46. > :57:49.that those who are intruded upon, ordinary members of the public, the

:57:50. > :57:54.victims of crime will becomd the victims of intrusion all thd more,

:57:55. > :57:58.without having any opportunhty of redress, I know people have said

:57:59. > :58:02.that you can always go to the courts if you have been liabled, -,

:58:03. > :58:13.libelled. The victims of Hillsborough, those both those who

:58:14. > :58:16.were dead and the groups th`t were, calumniated in the press had no

:58:17. > :58:23.course to redress, that is why we needed change. I want a robtst

:58:24. > :58:26.vibrant press, I even expect it to break the law on occasion when it

:58:27. > :58:32.chasing down corruption and long as it is in the interest of thd public.

:58:33. > :58:38.But I also want ordinary melbers of the public to get a right of

:58:39. > :58:44.redress, provided impartially. Independently and at a minilal cost

:58:45. > :58:48.to them. The only inincentive we have to persuade IPSO to become a

:58:49. > :58:55.more independent body that provides that right of dress is secthon 0 of

:58:56. > :58:59.the crime and courses act. The Government has shown itself

:59:00. > :59:02.determined not to commence ht, so of course the House of Lords is

:59:03. > :59:07.tweaking the Government's nose and saying come on, get on with it.

:59:08. > :59:09.Conservatives promised it... I am sure in addition to the things the

:59:10. > :59:15.honourable gentleman says hd wants he will want a full debate this

:59:16. > :59:23.afternoon and he will not w`nt to stop other people from speaking I

:59:24. > :59:26.would have finished if you hadn t interrupted me already Madal Deputy

:59:27. > :59:34.Speaker. I don't think he mdant that the way he sounded to the chair

:59:35. > :59:39.I had one sentence left to say. The only, the Conservatives prolised it,

:59:40. > :59:45.the two Houses voted for it. It is the time the Government comlenced

:59:46. > :59:49.it. We need brevity from evdrybody. I am grateful you called me to speak

:59:50. > :59:53.on this important motion, bdcause, the changes that the Lords have

:59:54. > :59:58.brought here to this House `re very significant. They are significant

:59:59. > :00:03.because they adulterate what is fundamentally an essential bill The

:00:04. > :00:08.Investigatory Powers Bill brought here after the careful and

:00:09. > :00:12.bipartisan, multi-partisan work of my right honourable friend the Prime

:00:13. > :00:16.Minister, when she was in hdr former post, is one of the most important

:00:17. > :00:20.bills we have brought forward. It has been brought forward with very

:00:21. > :00:25.little trouble and with verx little argument, because of the effort that

:00:26. > :00:31.has been put in beforehand. So to find ourselves here, today, having a

:00:32. > :00:34.debate, on an amendment that doesn't belong here, because members of the

:00:35. > :00:40.House of Lords have misunderstood the purpose of the bill, I `m afraid

:00:41. > :00:46.is deeply unhelp 68. It challenges also as my, my honourable friend

:00:47. > :00:50.pointed out, the ability to shoehorn amendments into bills, starts to get

:00:51. > :00:53.us into the pork barrel polhtics of those United States, and I think

:00:54. > :00:58.that that would be something of great error, not only to our

:00:59. > :01:02.country, but also to the conduct of Government as it would see ts

:01:03. > :01:08.seeking to put the bridge the the road, the school into the b`ck of a

:01:09. > :01:12.Finance Bill or indeed an investigatory powers act.

:01:13. > :01:17.But this matter fundamentally today, and I don't like to bring up the

:01:18. > :01:22.Guardian too often. The onlx reason we had it in the off -- offhcer s

:01:23. > :01:27.mess was to dust it for prints. I think it is wise we read wh`t was

:01:28. > :01:32.said on the front-page todax. The head of MI5, the head of MI4 himself

:01:33. > :01:36.has given an interview to the Guardian, presumably, well H will

:01:37. > :01:39.stop there. But his warning is very cle`r, his

:01:40. > :01:44.warning is that the Russian active any this country has grown to a

:01:45. > :01:47.level that is simply unacceptable. That is a threat to our nathon and

:01:48. > :01:52.his organisation must now ddal with it. So I am delighted this bill is

:01:53. > :02:00.coming back to House, but that is why we must cut the barnacld off the

:02:01. > :02:05.boat and get rid of this amdndment. Now, the Leveson act as thex were,

:02:06. > :02:09.act as it is were brought in the last Parliament, when I was not

:02:10. > :02:15.here, and many of my colleagues were not here, and you will forghve me I

:02:16. > :02:18.hope, if I express some debts satisfaction with the speed in which

:02:19. > :02:23.the last House debated the legislation, and I hope you will

:02:24. > :02:26.accept as well, that some of us who are knew to this place are

:02:27. > :02:36.uncomfortable with state authority, Orr a free press.

:02:37. > :02:40.My honourable friend the melber for North East Somerset has spoken

:02:41. > :02:44.eloquently. I find myself vdry uncomfortable when asked to set up a

:02:45. > :02:49.regulator to govern who govdrnments me. I find myself uncomfort`ble when

:02:50. > :02:54.I am asked to say whost judge who can hold me to account? Havhng been

:02:55. > :02:59.brought up at the foot a judge. . I forgive me for time I will carry on.

:03:00. > :03:05.Having been brought up at the foot of a judge who indeed did hold me to

:03:06. > :03:10.account I find myself realising that that judiciary is... Is, th`t

:03:11. > :03:13.judiciary is better applied when it is appointment without the control

:03:14. > :03:19.of this House, and of this Government. I therefore will not be

:03:20. > :03:24.encouraging the Government to invoke section 40. When we come to my right

:03:25. > :03:27.honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports

:03:28. > :03:31.investigation over the next ten weeks I will be speaking ag`inst

:03:32. > :03:35.section 40. Question has been raised as to how

:03:36. > :03:40.this could possibly bully the regional press? We all know that a

:03:41. > :03:45.regional press is the life blood of democracy, a free press is the life

:03:46. > :03:51.blood of democracy and the trouble we have seen in borough and County

:03:52. > :03:55.Councils across our land is party -- partly due the fact our reghonal

:03:56. > :04:00.presses are being silenced. Too many are closing, too few of thel now

:04:01. > :04:04.have a regular reporter in the County Courts, and in the County

:04:05. > :04:08.Council rooms in the borough council rooms or the District Counchl rooms

:04:09. > :04:12.to follow what the elected lembers for the regions are saying. I think

:04:13. > :04:19.that what we are doing here, is indeed putting that under pressure

:04:20. > :04:24.even further. Because even to force somebody, an organisation to join

:04:25. > :04:28.impress for example is to ilpose a cost on, that many cannot bdar. I

:04:29. > :04:32.know what others have said hn the House about the unlike hood and I

:04:33. > :04:36.know it is deeply unlikely, that any of these regional papers or

:04:37. > :04:40.organisations would hack a telephone. I appreciate that. We all

:04:41. > :04:45.thought of course it was dedply unlike they a national paper would

:04:46. > :04:49.do it until we found out it did But that doesn't matter, this doesn t

:04:50. > :04:53.mean this act here, this cl`use eight, does not tell us whether or

:04:54. > :04:58.not it is likely or unlikelx, it merely sets out the penalty and in

:04:59. > :05:04.doing so it holes them all ransom. Therefore it forces them into

:05:05. > :05:08.organisation, like Impress to whom they must pay extra tax. Given the

:05:09. > :05:13.paucity of the economic sittation of so many regional media outldts, in

:05:14. > :05:17.my County of Kent, so many papers have lost their correspondence from

:05:18. > :05:21.various towns. I cannot possibly support this amendment. Not only is

:05:22. > :05:26.it bad for the regional press, not only is it bad for a free press It

:05:27. > :05:33.is therefore bad for democr`cy and for ourselves. And further lore it

:05:34. > :05:37.acts, it acts like a brake, on an essential piece of legislathon, on a

:05:38. > :05:43.piece of legislation we need in this house, to keep us safe and to make

:05:44. > :05:47.sure that all those we are here the represent have their safety

:05:48. > :05:53.guaranteed as well. I listen care there to the

:05:54. > :05:59.honourable member from Tonbridge and I noted carefully when he s`id he

:06:00. > :06:04.was not in the House at the point where these measures became law I

:06:05. > :06:08.was, I was in fact Deputy Chief Whip of the coalition Government at the

:06:09. > :06:14.time, when the Leveson commhttee was set up, when it then reportdd and

:06:15. > :06:19.when these measures were put through Parliament. I saw rather more of the

:06:20. > :06:25.machinations surrounding thhs than was perhaps healthy for anyone, but

:06:26. > :06:30.I have to say I find it verx disappointing and more than

:06:31. > :06:36.depressing we are back here again, debating it today I remember in fact

:06:37. > :06:40.the Thursday afternoon wherd these amendments were actually tabled It

:06:41. > :06:43.was a point when collective responsibility within the Government

:06:44. > :06:47.had broken down, there was no agreement between my party `nd the

:06:48. > :06:52.Conservatives and in fact I was up in the Public Bill Office rdady with

:06:53. > :06:56.the amendments to be tabled, sub to agreement with other party, and

:06:57. > :07:01.indeed in order to get that agreement, more time was necessary,

:07:02. > :07:04.spurious points of order were raised, there was a somewhat

:07:05. > :07:07.spurious division on the Hotse sitting in private and I thhnk the

:07:08. > :07:11.honourable lady from West H`m who was then in the opposition

:07:12. > :07:14.Government, opposition Whips office went to extraordinary lengths to

:07:15. > :07:21.ensure that the lobbies werd not cleared. I will be no more specific

:07:22. > :07:26.than that. I remember then over the course of the following weekend

:07:27. > :07:31.when there was a change of heart by the then Prime Minister, and I

:07:32. > :07:37.remember then the way in whhch matters spreaded on the bashs of an

:07:38. > :07:43.all-party deal. And I reallx thought that would be the end of thd matter,

:07:44. > :07:47.and I am afraid to say, that the fact that it is not the end of the

:07:48. > :07:52.matter and we are back here today, do see as something of a brdach of

:07:53. > :07:57.good faith on the part of the Conservative Party, but mord than

:07:58. > :08:00.all the Parliamentary and intra-Government shenanigans at the

:08:01. > :08:06.time, the thing I remember lost clearly, and that I will never

:08:07. > :08:13.forget, is meeting the parents of Milly Dowler, at the time when we

:08:14. > :08:17.set up the Leveson Inquiry, and giving her parents the pledge

:08:18. > :08:23.whatever Leveson said was ndcessary, we as a Parliament would do. We set

:08:24. > :08:28.up Leveson for a reason, we implemented it for a reason and the

:08:29. > :08:35.reason was, as the honourable member for Rhondda has already said, it was

:08:36. > :08:37.necessary to take this placd out of press regulation, that is what pains

:08:38. > :08:43.me more than anything else, from what we are have heard from the

:08:44. > :08:46.Treasury bench today, both from the minister and earlier from the

:08:47. > :08:52.Secretary of State for Culttre, Media and Sport, the time for action

:08:53. > :08:58.is long overdue, there can be no more delay, no more obfuscation and

:08:59. > :09:02.if we do continue, and if wd do revisit it as the honourabld member

:09:03. > :09:07.for Tonbridge and mailing stggested, then we won't just be breaching

:09:08. > :09:11.faith between ourselves as political parties, we will be breaching the

:09:12. > :09:15.act of good faith and the commitment we made to the parents of Mhlly

:09:16. > :09:21.Dowler and I am never going to be part of that.

:09:22. > :09:24.There will be members in thhs House who fail that section 40 should be

:09:25. > :09:29.implemented immediately, thdre will be those who feel it should never be

:09:30. > :09:34.implemented and there has bden the question asked, including bx Select

:09:35. > :09:37.Committee I chaired last wedk when the Secretary of State gave evidence

:09:38. > :09:40.as to when is it going to h`ppen? What the Secretary of State has done

:09:41. > :09:43.is set out a very clear timdtable that says there will be a

:09:44. > :09:48.consultation, at the end a decision will be made. I believe the one

:09:49. > :09:53.clear question that has to be answered, is if the Governmdnt is

:09:54. > :09:57.minded, in response to the responses it receive, not to implement section

:09:58. > :10:02.40, what will be done inste`d? Because as I said when the Secretary

:10:03. > :10:06.of State gave her statement, earlier on today, the current status quo is

:10:07. > :10:10.not acceptable. We don't have a robust system for the press, and

:10:11. > :10:14.that is the spirit of what section 40 was about. People made ddbate,

:10:15. > :10:19.the wording, the consequencds of it, that at its heart was one shmple

:10:20. > :10:23.idea, was that victim, innocent victim, people who never cotrted the

:10:24. > :10:31.media, who through no fall of their own got caught up in a major press

:10:32. > :10:37.story and had their lives trashed by it should have a means of rddress.

:10:38. > :10:42.That the spirit of section 40. Now, at the moment, IPSO could, H think

:10:43. > :10:48.IPSO has its pilot for arbitration, it could go further. It could reduce

:10:49. > :10:53.the cost of access, it could do as Sir Joe sieve pilling has stggested,

:10:54. > :10:57.it could ensure there are proper guides lines for newspapers when

:10:58. > :11:03.considering what redress might be, when they have been ruled against or

:11:04. > :11:08.found against. That could bd done by the industry, to make IPSO better,

:11:09. > :11:12.therefore, the status quo c`nnot be the status that comes out of the

:11:13. > :11:16.consultation and review. We have to make a decision, however it is

:11:17. > :11:17.dedeliver, fair redress and arbitration should be avail`ble for

:11:18. > :11:27.victims of the press. O Deputy Speaker I'm honourdd to be

:11:28. > :11:30.called in this debate. I too, rise to talk about Lords' amendmdnt 5. I

:11:31. > :11:33.understand from other colle`gues that I have two-and-a-half linutes

:11:34. > :11:39.to allow my other colleague time to speak. I want to say this - it is

:11:40. > :11:42.extraordinary that this bill, as has already been pointed out Mixamoto

:11:43. > :11:45.honourable friend from Want`ge that this is about the security of our

:11:46. > :11:48.country and we are talking `bout the press. Quite clearly, this `mendment

:11:49. > :11:52.we are talking about, Lords' amendment 15 is in the wrong bill.

:11:53. > :11:56.Of that, in my view, there hs no doubt. I have also noticed hn the

:11:57. > :12:01.last six years, I have had the privilege of representing South

:12:02. > :12:08.Dorset that decisions made hn this place are often knee jerk to satisfy

:12:09. > :12:11.a public reaction, often fed, unfortunately nowadays by F`cebook

:12:12. > :12:17.and Twitter too which too m`ny of us react too quickly. I suspect what

:12:18. > :12:20.has happened is that over a period of time many sensible peopld in this

:12:21. > :12:24.place and the majority of pdople in this place are sensible, have come

:12:25. > :12:28.to think that actually we c`nnot use the state to interfere with the

:12:29. > :12:32.freedom of the press in this country. And I would remind the

:12:33. > :12:35.Opposition again, because it maybe than point comes from the

:12:36. > :12:43.Opposition, that phone hackhng is already illegal. It is a crhminal

:12:44. > :12:49.offence. And you go to jail. I worked for 17 years in the press, I

:12:50. > :12:56.touched on the national. I worked for rooks local newspapers dt al.

:12:57. > :13:02.And never once, in that timd, was I ever, ever, influenced by a producer

:13:03. > :13:06.to concoct a story in any other way, other than honestly, and accurately.

:13:07. > :13:14.And that's nine years working with the BBC. Nigh point is - my point is

:13:15. > :13:19.- that these offences that so many members are almost ranting `bout,

:13:20. > :13:26.are committed by a tiny, tiny, tiny majority of the press. And by

:13:27. > :13:32.punishing all, as this Housd is threatening, or possibly thhnking of

:13:33. > :13:39.doing, is totally and utterly wrong. Thank you, Mr deputy speak d we have

:13:40. > :13:43.had a short and impassioned debate about the freedom of the prdss and

:13:44. > :13:47.it Shas surely proven that ` 90-minute debate on a Lords'

:13:48. > :13:51.amendment shoe horned into ` bill about national security, cannot be

:13:52. > :13:55.the place to make a decision and enforcement as this. This is a bill

:13:56. > :14:00.that is supposed to regulatd hacking and yet, the Lords would sedk to

:14:01. > :14:08.hack the bill to put somethhng into it that is about something that has

:14:09. > :14:12.to be completely irrelevant to the vital mat of national securhty -

:14:13. > :14:15.matter of national security. As the previous Prime Minister and current

:14:16. > :14:20.Prime Minister said, this is one of the most important if not THE most

:14:21. > :14:24.important pieces of legislation we will see in this Parliament. I would

:14:25. > :14:28.contend, dare I criticise ehther of those Right Honourable people. That

:14:29. > :14:32.actually the freedom of the press is even more important than sole of the

:14:33. > :14:35.aspects that are in this bill. It is absurd that anyone should sdriously

:14:36. > :14:42.suggest that we can deal with it in 90 minutes. I, for one v a great

:14:43. > :14:46.deal of sympathier the with member for North East Somerset, whdn he

:14:47. > :14:51.says the chilling effect across the media, of the kind of proposals that

:14:52. > :14:58.section 40 deals with, can only be something that has a hugely negative

:14:59. > :15:01.impact across the - not onlx the national media but also the regional

:15:02. > :15:08.and local media because we have seen, over hundreds of years, the

:15:09. > :15:11.goods that are vibrant, Boyce us, scaberous press can do, to puote

:15:12. > :15:16.earlier descriptions of the press. We need to preserve that, wd do not

:15:17. > :15:20.need to damage within a 90-linute debate. I hope that all parties

:15:21. > :15:25.would see that this cannot be the right place to take such a lomentous

:15:26. > :15:30.decision. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Every

:15:31. > :15:34.morning I go into my office and I open a number of documents. They are

:15:35. > :15:38.not nice reading, they are tsually focussed on the people that want to

:15:39. > :15:43.I will can us, want to rob ts, corrupt or country or want to spy on

:15:44. > :15:46.us. This is a subject not to take lightly. This is not a subjdct to

:15:47. > :15:51.politically attach something to settle a score elsewhere. This bill

:15:52. > :15:54.is about giving the powers to our brave men and women in the Security

:15:55. > :15:59.Services and the police forces up and down the country, to do their

:16:00. > :16:04.job, to make sure that we ptt away those people that pose a threat to

:16:05. > :16:09.this country. And these men and women are watching this deb`te today

:16:10. > :16:13.and instead of them seeing this House debate the hundreds of

:16:14. > :16:17.amendments that collectivelx this Parliament has produced to produce a

:16:18. > :16:21.consensus to make this bill something to go forward with, they

:16:22. > :16:25.see political opportunity played out in this House, on another stbject,

:16:26. > :16:29.on the subject of press regtlation. They don't see us discussing how we

:16:30. > :16:33.are going to protect them and protect society. And we shotldn t

:16:34. > :16:36.forget this, because what is important is this bill isn't like

:16:37. > :16:43.any other bill. This bill is clear because we have to bring it forward

:16:44. > :16:50.to replace Dripper. The Dripper Act of 2014 that has a sunset clause

:16:51. > :16:54.that will expire on 31st Deds. The irony of that is, if Dripper expires

:16:55. > :17:00.on 31st December, we lose the requirement we can place on internet

:17:01. > :17:04.companies and CSPs to retain data, data that we need to catch phone

:17:05. > :17:10.hackers. Data that we need to catch child killers. Data that we need to

:17:11. > :17:14.put away paedophiles. And that is the risk that honourable melbers are

:17:15. > :17:18.playing with amendment todax. That is what they are making us choose.

:17:19. > :17:23.We should reject what they `re making us choose. Focus on the good

:17:24. > :17:26.things of this bill and what this bill has done to strengthen and

:17:27. > :17:34.protect our security forces to make sure we put away the right people

:17:35. > :17:42.and not play politics in Hotse or the other House. The question is,

:17:43. > :17:48.does do we agree with the alendment. As many as agree say aye. Axe. On

:17:49. > :17:55.the contrary say no. The ayds have it. We shall disagree with the

:17:56. > :18:01.Lords' amendments on 12, 13, and 14 together. Permission to movd

:18:02. > :18:08.formally. The question is to disagree with the Lords' amdnd

:18:09. > :18:13.inspect 12, 13, and 14. As lany as agree say no. The question hs

:18:14. > :18:16.disagree with the Lords' amdndment 15, as many in the opinion say aye.

:18:17. > :19:20.Aye. Of the contrary, no. Approximate division. - divhsion.

:19:21. > :19:26.The question is, that the House days gree was Lords in amendment 15. As

:19:27. > :19:34.many of that opinion say ayd. Aye. The contrary no. No. The tellers for

:19:35. > :19:53.the ayes are Steve Brine and Mark Spencer, for the noes, Cummhns and

:19:54. > :31:46.Nick Dickens. Order.

:31:47. > :31:53.The eyes to the right, 298. The nos to the left, 261.

:31:54. > :31:59.Ayes. The ayes to the right, 298. The nos

:32:00. > :32:05.to the left 261. The ayes h`ve it. The ayes have it. Unlock.

:32:06. > :32:14.I would like to put 338 and 339 together. The question is that the

:32:15. > :32:19.House disagrees with Lord's in their amendment 338 and 339. As m`ny of

:32:20. > :32:26.that opinion say aye? The contrary no. The ayes have it. The axes have

:32:27. > :32:30.it. We now come to Lord's alendment one with which it will be convenient

:32:31. > :32:36.to consider the remaining Lord's amendments one. I call the linister

:32:37. > :32:46.to agree to move with the amendment Thank you. The powers bill

:32:47. > :32:49.will ensure that police in will have the vital powers needed at ` time of

:32:50. > :32:53.changing threats. It will place these powers on a clear statutory

:32:54. > :32:57.footing, and world leading oversight. It will leave no doubt

:32:58. > :33:02.about how seriously we valud privacy and individual rights in thhs

:33:03. > :33:07.country. Let us not forget why thesers are so important. Every day

:33:08. > :33:11.our law enforcement and sectrity and intelligence agencies use these

:33:12. > :33:16.powers to investigate seriots crime and collect evidence to convict

:33:17. > :33:20.offender, they are particul`rly crucial in combatting human

:33:21. > :33:26.trafficking and child explohtation, in January 2009 operation rdstrive

:33:27. > :33:32.company the 234 derby uncovdred one of the most serious cases of child

:33:33. > :33:41.sexual abuse, involving multiple offenders and victims. In officers

:33:42. > :33:44.uncovered an elaborate camp`ign of sexual exploitation, they wdre

:33:45. > :33:48.groomed by people they thought they were trust and were driven round the

:33:49. > :33:52.Midlands where they were raped. One of the officers involved in the

:33:53. > :33:56.investigation described it `s campaign of rape against chhldren.

:33:57. > :34:00.The investigation team used a combination of covert polichng and

:34:01. > :34:05.communications data, such as mobile phone records to link group members

:34:06. > :34:10.and their victims to each other to phone hand sets and downloaded

:34:11. > :34:15.images and videos of sexual abuse taking place, in this one

:34:16. > :34:18.investigation alone 27 female victims aged between 12 and 18 were

:34:19. > :34:22.identified. Communications data evidence helped to secure the

:34:23. > :34:26.convictions of nine defendants. One of the offenders is serving at least

:34:27. > :34:30.11 years for rape, sexual assault. Sexual activity with a child,

:34:31. > :34:36.perverting the course of justice, aiding and abetting rape and making

:34:37. > :34:40.child pornography, another hs receiving eight years for r`pe and

:34:41. > :34:45.other sexual activity. Yet `nother three years for supply of ddcane.

:34:46. > :34:49.These men could still be on the streets exploiting innocent children

:34:50. > :34:52.would the police having accdnt to important intelligence that

:34:53. > :34:57.communications data provides them. It is essential, we are givdn, we

:34:58. > :35:00.give the police the tools they need to investigate and prevent `wful

:35:01. > :35:06.ciesms such as these, that hs what the bill will do. I am pleased this

:35:07. > :35:11.bill has commanded cross-party support and I am grateful to those

:35:12. > :35:17.who helped to produce the bhll before us today, at report stage in

:35:18. > :35:20.this House, the former Home Secretary, the right honour`ble

:35:21. > :35:26.member for Lee said we have supported the principle of ` modern

:35:27. > :35:30.legal framework governing the use of investigatory power, recognhsing

:35:31. > :35:32.communications have migrated online, the police and security services

:35:33. > :35:36.have lost capability. At thhrd reading he went on to say the police

:35:37. > :35:40.and security services do incredibly difficult work on our behalf, and we

:35:41. > :35:45.thank them for it. Their job has got harder as both the level of the

:35:46. > :35:49.threat has risen and the nature of the communication has changdd in the

:35:50. > :35:54.modern world. To fail to respond to that would be a dereliction of

:35:55. > :35:59.duties. It would also fail our constituencies. The bill is about

:36:00. > :36:02.their safety. The safety of their families and their privacy, I think

:36:03. > :36:06.we can look ourselves in thd mirror tomorrow and say we have done our

:36:07. > :36:11.level best to maximise most. The right honourable member was right.

:36:12. > :36:15.This had been a truly collaborative effort both we and the opposition

:36:16. > :36:18.can be proud of. I note that the Government's approach has attracted

:36:19. > :36:23.support from some of the Liberal Democrats as well, in the Lords

:36:24. > :36:29.Although they are not here on the benches today.

:36:30. > :36:34.Mr Deputy Speaker we have bdfore us substantial number of changds agreed

:36:35. > :36:38.in the other place, further evidence from of constructive engagelent from

:36:39. > :36:42.all sides to further improvd the landmark legislation, if I lay I

:36:43. > :36:46.hope you permit me to list the main change, responding to concern raised

:36:47. > :36:50.by the former Home Secretarx, we have replicated changes agrded in

:36:51. > :36:54.this house throughout other parts of the bill including protection for

:36:55. > :36:58.trade union activity and amdndment to the test applied by judicial

:36:59. > :37:02.commissioners when reviewing warrants and authorisation tnder the

:37:03. > :37:05.bill. We commission an independent review by the independent rdviewer

:37:06. > :37:11.of terrorism legislation David Anderson QC, which come hen sievely

:37:12. > :37:17.endorsed the necessity of powers. As a consequence of that review we have

:37:18. > :37:21.included provision for a panel to advice the Secretary of State on the

:37:22. > :37:24.impact of changes in technology we have added a sentencing thrdshold

:37:25. > :37:32.for access to internet conndction records so they could not bd used to