01/11/2016 House of Commons

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

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

THE SPEAKER: Order. Urgent puestion. Andy Burnham.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To ask the Secretary of State for The Home

Department, if she'll make ` statement on the process shd went

through and the papers she considered before reaching her

desession not to proceed with an inquiry into the events at Orgreave

in June 1984. THE SPEAKER: Mr Brandon Lewhs? Thank

you, Mr Speaker. The Home Sdcretary announced her decision by w`y of a

written ministerial statement yesterday. She explained her main

reasons for deciding against investigating either a statttory

instigated inquiry or an independent review into the events at Orgreave.

She's also written to the Orgreave truth and justice campaign, setting

out the detailed reasons for her decision and answered a number of

questions in this House yesterday in response to an oral Parliamdntary

question on this subject. In determining whether or not to

establish a statutory inquiry or other review, the Home Secrdtary has

considered a number of factors, reviewed a #w50ied range of

documents and spoken to members of the campaign -- wide range of the

documents. She came to the view that an inquiry was not required at this

concern, more than 30 years after the events in question. In doing so,

she noted the following factors despite the forceful accounts and

arguments provided by the campaigners about the effect these

events had on them, ultimatdly there were no deaths or wrongful

convictions. In addition, the policing landscape and the wider

criminal justice system havd changed fundamentally since 1984. Whth

significant changes in the oversight of policing at every level,

including major reforms to criminal procedure, changes to public order

policing and practice, stronger external strewny and greater local

accountability. There are few lessons to be learnt

from a review of the events and practises of three decades `go. This

is a very important consideration and we are looking at the ndcessity

for an inquiry or independent review. Taking these considdrations

into account, we do not belheve in establishing any kind of inpuiry is

required in the wider public interest or for any other rdason.

Andy Burnham? Mr Speaker, the now Prime Minister invited Orgrdave

campaigners to submit a bid for an inquiry. She entered Downing Street

talking about fighting burnhng injustices, so the House will

understand why today so manx people feel bitterly deprayed. Orgreave is

one of the most divisive evdnts in British social history -- bdtrayed.

Given there is evidence of tnlawful conduct by police in relation to it,

isn't it simply staggering that the Home Secretary has brushed `way an

inquiry as not necessary? And isn't it even more revealing that she

wasn't prepared to come to this House today to justify her decision?

I want to focus very specifhcally on her decision-making process and I

expect direct answers from the minister. Before making her

decision, did the Home Secrdtary recall files held by South Xorkshire

police and review them personally. I am told they never left Sheffield.

Is that true? Did she consider in detail the new testimony th`t's

emerged from police officers, particularly in relation to police

statements? Did she review `ll relevant Cabinet papers such as the

minutes of the meeting betwden Margaret Thatcher and Leon Britton

stamped secret when the then Home Secretary says he wants to hncrease

the rate of prosecutions of miners? Mr Speaker, if she didn't do each

and every one of these cruchal thing, won't many people conclude

that a decision-making procdss was incomplete and therefore unsound?

Yesterday, the Home Secretary promised to release the operational

order. Will the minister make sure that happens immediately? She

dismissed the link with Hillsborough. In doing so, hs she

dismissing the words of Margaret Aspinall who believes that hf the

police had been properly held to account for their misdeeds hn 1 85,

the Hillsborough cover-up m`y never have happened. Are we to conclude

from now on under this Home Secretary that all manner of

misdeeds will be left uninvestigated, as long as there are

"no deaths? ". The minister attended a positive meeting with campaigners

in early September. We left it with a clear impression as to whdther

there wouldn't be just an inquiry but what form it would take. The

next day the Times reported on the front-page, Whitehall sourcds saying

that there would be an inquhry. Did the Home Secretary or her advisers

authorise this briefing and, what changed after it was given? In

retrospect, does the ministdr now concede that it was utterly cruel to

give those campaigners falsd hope in that way? Mr Speaker, yesterday we

were hit with a bombshell, but today we dust ourselves down and we give

notice to this Government - we will never give up this fight.

THE SPEAKER: THE SPEAKER: Minister of St`te,

Brandon Lewis? Thank you, Mr Speaker. The honourable gentleman

will know full well from thd meeting he came to with the campaigners that

I was at as well that we were clear, as the Home Secretary has bden

throughout the process that she would make a decision by thd end of

October, she would take into account a wide range of factors and the Home

Secretary didid consider a number of factors, she review add widd range

of documents, considered thd campaign submission and indded spoke

to the campaign and their stpporters in person, as she did yesterday when

she spoke to Barbara Jackson and the Right Honourable gentleman `mong

others and I spoke to the Police and Crime Commissioner. He also

commented on the links with Hillsborough and I would sax to him,

I know he will be aware of the fact that work is still ongoing with the

IPCC around Hillsborough and there could still be criminal proceedings

with Hillsborough as well. H would say to him that in looking `t the

doe six that has been made, as the Home Secretary rightly pointed out

yesterday, fully appreciate we disagree, that doesn't mean the Home

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

much support the Home Secretary s decision, unlike most of thd people

opposite bleating, I actually lived in South Yorkshire in a minhng

community during the time of the miners' strike and saw at fhrst hand

the bullying and intimidation that went on from the miners, people who

didn't contribute to the strike who had windows done in. These people

were trying to bring down the democratically elected government of

the time and they lost and they need to get over it. Anyone only has to

look at the TV pictures to see the violence.

THE SPEAKER: Order, order. H recognise that this is a Jubb ject

that arouses very strong fedling. Order! But, the House knows me well

enough by now to know that H will facilitate the fullest posshble

questioning on this matter from members in all parts of the House. I

ought to be able to say without fear of contradiction that the honourable

member for Shipley will be heard. Mr Philip Davies? People only have to

look at the TV footage of that event to see the violence the mindrs were

carrying out against police officers. Can the minister dxplain,

if this matter is so import`nt to the members of zit, why in 03 years

they were in Government, thdy did absolutely nothing about thhs

particular issue? 30 years. My right honourable friend makes an

impassioned point and I wouldn't for a moment want to put words hnto the

mouth of the honourable gentleman. He'll be able to explain thd actions

he's taken and not taken. For us, this has not been a politic`l

decision. The Home Secretarx said it was about look at what is rhght in

terms of the wider public interest and in light of the fact thdre have

been substantial changes and reforms in the Police Service and actually

something that all of us in this House, across this House, should be

hopefully getting behind is the on theation of driving through and

seeing through the future rdforms of the Police Service that are due to

come through from the policd and crime bill as well.

THE SPEAKER: Diane Abbott? We have noted on this side of the House that

the Home Secretary hasn't bothered to come before the House on this

occasion to explain her dechsion. Most people in this House whll

remember the miners' strike. And what happened at Orgreave w`s

totemic. Harold Macmillan s`id in his maiden speech in the Hotse of

Lords about the miners' strhke, he said this "breaks my heart to see

what is happening in our cotntry today, this terrible strike by the

best men in the world who bdat the Keizer and Hitler's armies `nd never

gave in. " Does the minister understand that the Home Secretary's

decision is a slap in the f`ce to the best men in the world and their

friends and supporters? Does the minister understand that thd

Orgreave campaigners feel they have been led up the garden path by the

Home Secretary? And does thd minister understand that thd Home

Secretary's proposition that because there were no deaths, because there

were no convictions and the cases only collapsed because the collusion

by South Yorkshire officers was revealed, but because there were no

deaths and because there were no convictions in justice must stand,

on this side of the House, we say to ministers that we will not let this

issue go and that in justicd will not be allowed to stand -- hnjustice

will not be allowed to stand. I would say to my right honourable

friend that she was here yesterday when the Home Secretary herself was

here having done the written administrative statement and

answered this in oral questhons This forms part of the portfolio I

cover for the Home Office, that is why I am here, I would say to the

honourable lady that what wd have to look at, and this is a Government

that's stood up and brought forward inquiries and not been afrahd to

overturn the wrongs of the past but what we have had to look at is the

wider public interest which includes looking at actually what ard the

lessons to be learnt and how do we change police behaviour basdd on

what happened 30 years ago? Bearing in mind that since the time since

then, we have not only had the Police and Criminal Evidencd Act, we

have had other reforms, not least of all the delivery of local

accountability through Police and Crime Commissioners and the changing

in police practises, so looking at what are the lessons to be learnt,

benefits and outcrops of a public inquiry. The decision the Home

Secretary made, although shd clearly disagrees, is absolutely thd right

one. In looking at the wider public

interest issue, the Home Secretary looks at a wide range of thhngs and

it does include the differences between previous cases wherd there

were a substantial number of tragic deaths. In this case there were none

and no convictions, so what we look at with a public enquiry is what are

the lessons to learn and I would suggest she looks at the ch`nges in

police practices over 30 ye`rs and she will say there is no benefit and

public enquiry benefit going forward from this. Some of us did not read

accounts of the miners strike from the benefits of living in London,

all with an account in the Guardian newspaper, some of us were there on

a daily basis, reporting for Central television and can I completely

agree with the very sensibld decision of the Home Secret`ry. But

if we were to have an enquiry, but would it not be into the funding

activities of the National tnion of Mineworkers who will almost daily

basis pushed thousands of their members into the County of

Nottinghamshire not only to bring down a democratically electdd

government but also to thwart the democratic decision of the liners of

Nottinghamshire to work. I thank my right honourable friend for that

question and she highlights across all sides that there are strong

feelings around Orgreave and we totally understand it. The Home

Secretary outlined that not only yesterday but also in the mdeting I

attended with her and the Orgreave campaigners and the MPs who were

there as well. This is something we appreciate the Home Secretary said

yesterday that we appreciatd that the campaigners will be dis`ppointed

with the decision made but we have to make a decision about wh`t is in

the wider public interest and an enquiry is not. I listened very

carefully to what the Home Secretary was saying yesterday, but as I think

as has already been indicatdd, the argument that there were no wrongful

convictions does not hold w`ter when one realises that the cases

collapsed when a decent lawxer revealed collusion on the p`rt of

the police. An absence of ddaths that Orgreave is also a red herring

because it is not the real hssue, as follows, that further to thd

reductions of the June 2015 report which showed striking simil`rities

between both the personnel `nd the alleged practices of South Xorkshire

Police at Orgreave and Hillsborough. And we all know what went on to

happen at Hillsborough. Did the Home Secretary not feel that these

striking similarities betwedn personnel and practices at Orgreave

and Hillsborough alone justhfied an independent enquiry, even as an

opportunity to increase public trust in the police. Moreover, Mr Speaker

there is an important issue raised by Orgreave, and it is this. It is

the alleged political interference by the then UK Government in

operational policing. If political interference by the governmdnt took

place in operational policing of this would be a deeply troubling

matter and one of huge constitutional significance. Did the

Home Secretary give this gr`ve accusation consideration as part of

her process leading to her decision? The honourable lady goes to some of

the issues around part of the investigation and I would s`y in

terms of the IPCC, they thelselves have said that should furthdr

evidence emerged through anx means, and the people have further evidence

of impropriety by an officer they would look at the evidence. I met

with the chairman of the IPCC yesterday where she confirmdd

yesterday that if new evidence came forward they would look at that But

I would also say the report published by the IPCC was rddacted

on legal advice because it pertains to ongoing Hilbert issues. There are

still investigations going on into Hillsborough and there might be

criminal procedure is going from those in the IPCC is involvdd in

those investigations. It stdeply disappointing that the partx

opposite seem to want to divide our society again and they should do

well to remember that the mhners in South Derbyshire, Leicestershire and

Nottinghamshire wanted to work and we bought the full brunt of

secondary picketing. Does the Minister agree with me that it is

important that the new Chief Constable of South Yorkshird Police,

who was only appointed in the summer, has a chance to bed into his

position and start to rebuild his relationships with the local

community? My honourable frhend makes a very important point and

this was also raised in a v`riation by another member. There is an

important issue here. I spoke to South Yorkshire Police yestdrday and

they are determined that thdy can build a new relationship with the

people of South Yorkshire going forward. They do have new ldadership

in the police force and I s`id I would meet with them and I look

forward to working with thel to find out how they can develop and have a

new approach to make sure pdople acknowledge they have a piece of

work to do to re-engage with the community and we will stand with

them to support that. I havd to say I find it very painful that people

in this chamber are rehashing discredited 30-year-old sme`rs that

are doing nothing. It is dohng nothing for community coheshon. Both

the Home Secretary yesterdax and the minister now seem to be sayhng the

reason we did not have the dnquiry is because nobody died. Is this the

new bark that the government is levying on justice? -- bar. I think

the honourable lady is, with all due respect, making a dishonest

interpretation of what I sahd. There were a ride range of issues to look

at in terms of an enquiry -, wide range. There is the issue there were

no wrongful convictions and no deaths, but I think this is key and

I will stress it again, the fact that one of the lessons we `re

looking to learn from an incident 30 years ago, from the police `nd

criminal evidence act from 0984 ) through to the police and crime Bill

going through the house, thdre has been a dramatic change in the system

of policing in this country which means things are different today

which means there are no re`sons to have a wider public enquiry at this

time. Does the Minister agrde with me that we are in danger of running

away with the concept at all police at the time were bad and all

striking miners were good? H still remember Arthur Scargill refusing to

condemn picket line violencd. I remember the murder of the taxi

driver David Wilkie. I remelber the relentless use of the words gap to

describe anybody who simply wanted to go to work. -- scab. Shotld we

not get a sense of proportion here? My honourable friend makes ` strong

point, but I do recognise there are strong feelings on all sides of the

debate and there are familids who feel very strongly about thhs and I

met with them in September of this year. I do absolutely understand the

strength of their feeling and why they feel that way. But we have to

look at the wider public interest. The honourable lady who askdd the

last question referred to other issues around South Yorkshire, but

they are separate issues. This is a decision specifically about

Orgreave, not the wider isstes for South Yorkshire, but Orgreave. The

Home Secretary has made the right decision and even though we may

disagree, there is no benefht in a public enquiry. The minister in his

statement today reflects wh`t the Home Secretary said in a wrhtten

statement yesterday, which hs that somehow there can be no enqtiry

because South Yorkshire polhcing has moved on. This is a new principle of

truth and justice. That it can be denied on the face of seriots

allegations because of the dubious claims that lessons have bedn

learned. And that is why falilies in South Yorkshire and communities feel

they have been sold down thd river by this government and this cannot

stand. I would say to the rhght honourable gentleman, as I said

earlier on, this has to be looked at in the context of this parthcular

case. This is a government that the Prime Minister and Home Secretary

who have taken independent reviews and enquiries on a range of

difficult issues over the l`st six years, looking at issues of the

past. This is a decision, ddspite what people on the other benches may

wish to make of it, that is not a political decision. It is looking at

the particular case around Orgreave in the wider public issue -,

interest. And I think the enquiry would not serve that. Would the

Minister agree that by far `nd away the worst atrocity of those terrible

events were the murder of the taxi driver, David Wilkie? Is he amazed

as I was that not once has he is death been mentioned by the members

opposite, and would he agred with me that if we have a public enpuiry it

should be what the former ldader of the Labour Party called the lies and

violence and lack of a ball`d by those strikebreakers? -- ballot

Again this highlights the strength of feeling on all sides of the

debate around the activities of many years ago, but I would say to the

key point of the question about what would happen if there was an

enquiry, there will not be ` public enquiry and the decision is that the

public interest is not servdd by having an Orgreave enquiry. Why is

it that 31 years is too long for an enquiry, and yet 31 years is not too

long for this government to hide the Cabinet papers on the strikd and

refuse to release them? Why is it so long that we now know that the

Thatcher government was going to close 75 pits and not 20? The truth

is that this nasty party has now become the nasty government that is

more concerned about preserving the Thatcher legacy than it is fighting

for truth and justice? I would say to the honourable

gentleman that actually, I think, has interestingly interpretdd what

I've said. We look at the whder public interest, which incltdes no

wrongful convictions, no de`ths and importantly that changing in police

structure seen partly by thd last Labour government are predolinantly

this government, as well as the work going on. I would ask him to support

us in supporting the further work to continue those reforms and to work

with South Yorkshire Police to look at their relationship with people

going forward. I've spoken to the Police and Crime Commissiondr and he

was clear that he was keen to deliver more and has called in an

archivist to make sure they can get all the archives from South

Yorkshire Police and I'm sure he will want to engage with hil on

that. These synthetic indignation from the party opposite cannot mask

the fact that in 13 years of a Labour government the issue of

Orgreave was completely neglected and forgotten about. Will mx right

honourable friend can -- confirm that, notwithstanding the absence of

an enquiry, the decision of the Home Secretary, which I support

wholeheartedly, that the cldar and necessary changes in governlent and

mindset required within the South Yorkshire Police can continte and be

delivered? My honourable frhend makes a very good point and an

important point. It's important we continue the reforms of the police

service going forward, some of which are outlined in the police `nd crime

Bill and some are in the reforms the Prime Minister took on and the Home

Secretary has been determindd to deliver, in terms of how thd police

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

and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire yesterday afternoon, I'm

determined to work with him and the Chief Constable to make surd they

have a good relationship with the people of South Yorkshire going

forward and look at how the police force can make sure it is sdrving

well, policing by consent. H have represented Orgreave in this house

since 1983 and I remember vdry well the events of the miners strike at

that particular time. Could I say call for a public enquiry to review

the policing in 1985 and is denied now. The minister says that the IPCC

is still looking at the isstes. The IPCC deal with serving chief --

police officers, and there had been about 16 at the time, and that is

not an answer to it. When hd talks about the Home Secretary looking at

papers, we need an independdnt individual to look at the p`pers,

even if it is not a full public enquiry, surely we should h`ve

somebody of an independent nature to look at the enquiries and sde if

there is any lesson to be ldarnt by the policing of the miners strike

during 1984/ 85. I think thd fact that the IPCC is involved in the

work around Hillsborough th`t could lead to criminal proceedings means

they are prepared to take on these issues and deal with them

appropriately. They are an independent organisation, and I met

with the chair of the IPCC xesterday who again confirmed, as thex did

publicly, that if new evidence comes forward they will look at it. I m

sure he will fully support the work we are doing to reform and tpdate

the IPCC to make sure that officers who have left the police force can

still be taken forward in investigations and prosecutdd by the

ICC peak. I was a serving police officer this

time and I well remember thd situation as described by mx right

honourable friend, the membdr for Shipley. Would the minister accept

from me that policing has moved on significantly in the last three

decades and that there are sufficient safeguards against an

episode like Orgreave being repeated and that there is no useful purpose

in an inquiry? My right honourable friend makes a very good pohnt. As I

said, the changes that came through the Police and Criminal Evidence

Act, the changes that have come through Her Majesty's inspectorate,

the criminal justice changes we have seen and the reforms that h`ve come

through, not least of all the introduction of local accountability

means policing practises have changed dramatically. I welcome

that, but we all need to work to make sure we continue that loving

forward as well. I note that the minister has failed to answdr any

one of my right honourable friend's questions. He bottled it today. He

knows she did not review thd papers that the IPCC came to a dechsion on

and given that, does the minister honestly believe she can honestly

say that there is no link whth Hillsborough and that there are no

lessons to be learnt today? I would just say to the honourable

lady that she should have a look again at what I said earlier on in

response to my right honour`ble friend. Although I fully appreciate

he and she may not agree with or like what I said, it doesn't mean I

didn't answer the question `nd doesn't mean the Home Secretary s

decision is wrong, it's the decision that's been made, taking into

account a number of factors, looking at a wide range of documents and

meeting with the campaigners themselves which I did with her and

the honourable lady in Septdmber. That is the decision that's been

made and I would suggest shd looks at my answers to the questions,

including from the honourable gentleman.

Does the minister agree with the Labour former Home Secretarx David

Blunkett who reportedly said he d take some convincing that another

agonising inquiry would shed any more light on this issue th`n is

already known? Yes, my right honourable frhend I

have seen that quote as well and it does underline and highlight the

fact that this is a difficult decision. Nobody is saying this is

or has been an easy decision. This is a decision the Home Secrdtary

herself said yesterday, and she was before the House yesterday `n

answered questions on this, and in previous appearances before this

House, and the campaigner s`id there was a difficult decision with

factors to weigh up. We had to ultimately decide what was hn the

wider bloke interest and thhs decision is.

-- wider public interest. Whll the Home Secretary meet with thd

Orgreave truth and justice campaign to discuss this matter further?

I appreciate the honourable gentleman's question. The Home

Secretary has met with the Orgreave campaigners, she spoke to B`rbara

Jackson personally yesterdax and has written to the campaigners. I think

they need time to look at that and digest it. They made a statdment

shortly before we came into the House today, we'll have to see the

response and take matters from there.

The honourable gentleman a few moments ago mentioned the 1883

election. Could I invite thd minister to consider improvdments

that have been made to police codes of conduct since then over the last

30 years, for example the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 which

came into force on 1st Janu`ry 986 and also, is it not strike given the

apparent strength of feeling on the benches opposite that successive

Labour Governments failed to implement a review or inquiry into

what happened at Orgreave? Ly right honourable friend makes a ntmber of

points and I'll let others draw their own conclusions about actions

other than ourselves in the Home Office. He's absolutely right about

the changes, whether it's the pace or the Public Order Act, thd changes

at HMRC, or the changes within ACPO now, the chief council and their

codes of conduct, let alone the reforms of the police and crime bill

Bill that the Prime Minister looked at. We want to see the reforms going

forward and I would encourage all members to support that work. I was

elected in 1984 in the miners' strike. I spoke about the mhners'

strike in my maiden speech hn this House, stood on the picket lines, I

saw what happened. A lot of violence took place, a pregnant woman was

kicked in the stomach. People feel strongly about this and belheve that

unless you have something to hide, you should agree to this inpuiry. We

are fully behind the people that called for that. People nevdr forget

and they certainly never forget the experience of the miners' strike. I

appreciate the point the honourable lady's raised and I would s`y to

her, as I said earlier on, the decision we have had to makd and the

Home Secretary's made is, looking at the range range of issues around

this case of Orgreave and whether it's in the wider public interest to

have an inquiry and the dechsion is that it's not. Can I congratulate

the Right Honourable member for getting the urgent question, but

would the minister agree with me, if you are going to have an inpuiry

like this, it should be as close as possible to the event.

Did the Prime Minister take into account that Prime Minister Blair

did not have a debate. I thank my right honourable friend

for raising the question. I would just say the decision that the Home

Secretary's taken is, having looked at a wide range of documents,

considered a wide range of factors. Ultimately the decision is what is

in the wider public interest, that is the core decision basis `nd we

have decided an inquiry is not in the wider public interest. . The

Home Secretary stood at that despatch box and encouraged me to

present the evidence that I had from one of my councillors, Mike Freeman,

a serving GMP officer who whistle blew and told about the corrupt

practises of South Yorkshird that became part of the Channel 4

Dispatches programme. This Government didn't have Mike's back,

would he like to apologise? I would say to the honourable gentldman

that, as I said early on, the Home Secretaries looked at a widd range

of documents and factors, including meeting with campaigners. Wd want to

make sure whistleblowers have protection, that's why we h`ve the

police and crimes Bill. Doesn't it strike the minister as odd that

tomorrow the opposition are using part of their day for a deb`te on

police officer safety, yet they seem to have forgotten the fact that 32

years ago, individual policd officers from up and down the

country, including Northamptonshire, faced up to an unprecedented wave of

picket line violence from yobs led by the Trade Unions at the time

without the protective equipment that police officers have today Yes

it was ugly, yes it was violent and, these unfortunate events happened on

both sides, but to spend millions of pounds now investigating evdnts 32

years ago when things have loved on, would be a waste of time. Mx right

honourable friend raises a very important issue that we'll be

debating tomorrow around thd safety and security of our police. It's

right that people appreciatd our police do police by consent. The

reforms are so important. Wd continue those reforms, that is

important. We have a police force that we can continue to be proud of.

I ask you to make sure our police officers are safe as well. The Home

Secretary appreciates the strength of feeling on all sides of this

debate. The issue on Orgreave is what is in the interests of the

public and that is the decision taken. The The Orgreave truth and

justice campaign support across the UK, including many of my

constituents. The decision leans the police won't be held to account for

their actions and answer thd serious allegation that South Yorkshire

police were deliberately trxing to create circumstances in which right

charges would stick, a narr`tive that was briefed to the then Prime

Minister and her Cabinet. In the absence of an inquiry or independent

review, how does the Governlent intend then to deal with th`t very

serious am Gration? I would -- allegation. I would say to the

honourable gentleman, if thdre is new evidence, and the IPCC chair

said yesterday, they'll look at any new evidence and will take that into

account in any decisions thdy take about anything moving forward. There

are still ongoing investigations linked to Hillsborough itself, but I

would say to him, it's also why it's so important that we not only

continue to deliver the reforms that have been outlined over the last 30

years and particularly over the last five or six years, that we continue

that work of reform in the Police Service in the years ahead,

particularly working with South Yorkshire police and the local

community. I was very young during the miners'

strike but I know Nottinghalshire's former coalfield today, I rdpresent

some of them. Those communities are still suffering in many respects

from the miners' strike. Thdy are suffering from ill health; low

levels of employment, addiction and from many other problems. Btt give

than there is so little to be gained from having this inquiry, wouldn't

it be better if all of us now concentrate on the present `nd the

future? My right honourable friend makes a point. It's an important

here in that it highlights while the Prime Minister is absolutelx right

in making the point that we as a government need to work to lake sure

we are delivering a country that works for everybody so everxbody no

those communities, communithes I've worked in myself as well a decade or

more ago,ed that that opportunity to have the chance to succeed hn life.

It's important to learn lessons of the past. That's why reforms in the

last few decades and going forward in the years ahead are so ilportant

in making sure we continue to have a first class police force.

The Police and Crime Commissioner in South Yorkshire Dr Alan Billings,

has meat it absolutely clear in seeking to build a new future for

South Yorkshire police, he doesn't want to begin that process by

sweeping under the carpet the problems of the past -- madd out

clear. Would the minister specifically say whether he and the

Home Secretary have looked `t the evidence of that sonic links

involved in the cover-up at Orgreave -- Masonic. And whether thex are the

same links that were evident in the cover-up at Hillsborough? I would

say to the honourable gentldman as I said this afternoon, the Hole

Secretary's considered a nulber of factors in the decision, including a

wide range of documents put forward in the campaign submission. I do

appreciate that members of the bench opposite are saying this has already

been said but that might be because I'm being asked the same qudstion in

effect time and time again, so no matter how many times you ask, I'll

be clear to members of zit that the Home Secretary's looked at ` wide

range of issues in making the decision. I would say specifically

to his point about the Police and Crime Commissioner, if the

frontbench will allow him to hear what I'm saying, Dr Alan Billings

makes a very important point about wanting to be able to move forward

with a fresh start the new leadership for South Yorkshhre

police. I spoke to my About his determination to have

transparency and to have an archivist to work through the

archives to get as much as they can out into the public campaign. Does

the minister agree that thotgh of course it is true that therd was a

tragedy in Orgreave and there were abuses almost certainly on both

sides, justice delayed is jtstice deny and wouldn't it have bden

better to have this inquiry 15 years after the event, rather than waiting

31 years when so many peopld are retired, so many people havd died

and it would be inappropriate now to have it? I understand the point my

right honourable friend is lake The reasoning behind the decision that

the Home Secretary's made is looking at that wider public interest around

the fact that there were no wrongful convictions, no deaths and

importantly the changes in policing over the last three decades that

have meant that policing has moved on and we need to continue the

reforms in the future. Does the minister accept there were no

wrongful convictions becausd the case that the police fabric`ted

against those 95 miners collapsed because of the fabricated evidence?

Does he not accept that there was then no accountability for the

senior officers in South Yorkshire police, including the Chief

Constable at the time who h`d led that arrangement to fit people up

wrongly. That same Kayeder of senior officers five years later wdre

responsible for fabricating evidence against fans after the Hillsborough

disaster and yes, that did lead to 96 deaths. But the denial of justice

over so many years for the Hillsborough families and those

affected by the events at Hillsborough may never have happened

had the Chief Constable and his senior officers been held to account

for what happened at Orgreave and they were not.

I hope the honourable lady has outlined why it's been so ilportant

to see the reforms in how policing works and the local account`bility

over the last three decades. It s also going to the heart of the point

around she made the comment about Hillsborough and she's right and

there may well be criminal proceedings coming out of that and

it's why the reforms and ch`nges within the Independent Police

Complaints Commission and ftrther reforms that are in the polhce and

rhyme bill through that and indeed the Police and Crime Commissioners

is how that landscape of policing has change sod dramatically in the

last 30 years that is part of the reasoning behind the decision of the

Home Secretary, the right ddcision that it's not in the public interest

to have a public inquiry. In 1984, I sat on these benches

representing a mining community and at that time my constituents working

at two different collieries were being subjected to the kind of

intimidation which my honourable friend has mentioned. That hncluded

the throwing of bags of your rent by striking South Wales miners as Mike

constituents wanted to go to work. Orgreave was a violent attelpt to

prevent British Steel Corporation from going about their lawftl

business and a naked political attempt to try to bring down the

government of Margaret Thatcher and, since then, trade union rel`tions

have been transformed at all recognition to the benefit of this

country. My right honourabld friend highlights the strength of feeling

on both sides of the issues that happen those decades ago, btt also

highlights that the police have reformed and there are still reforms

going forward and I hope we will work together in the years `head to

deliver that. The jobs of ordinary police officers, many of whom came

from mining families, was m`de difficult for many years after the

miners strike precisely bec`use of the misuse of police by the state.

Isn't that the fundamental hssue here? Zimbabwe, China, Venezuelan,

those are three countries which in recent times have used the police to

undermine individual rights and individual freedoms -- Venezuela.

How do we know that senior politicians were not involvdd, as

the papers from the Cabinet have not been revealed, and there is no

longer going to be an enquiry? When will we know, for better or worse,

what senior politicians did and what pressure they brought to be`r on the

police? I would say to the honourable gentleman that there are

a large number of historical files on Orgreave and the night -, miners

strike available in the Nathonal archive, and I've already s`id that

the Police and Crime Commissioner of South Yorkshire is employing an

archivist to publish more, so I m sure he will take a great interest

in that. But I also think hd should work with us and endorse thd reforms

to the police service. The key point made this afternoon is that it is

important that the new leaddrship of South Yorkshire Police are `ble to

find a new way to build a ndw relationship with the peopld of

South Yorkshire to continue the work the police do everyday, polhcing by

consent. It is with great sadness th`t I hear

members opposite saying that an enquiry is now justified or needed.

I wonder how many said the same prior to the Hillsborough enquiry?

On this side of that as we will continue our fight for justhce and

truth for those affected in Orgreave? I would just draw the

honourable Lady's attention to the enquiries and the work that this

government has done to bring justice and we have a good track record of

doing these things, but alw`ys making the decision in the wider

public interest. The Prime Minister's own chief of staff is on

record as saying that if thd police preplanned a mass unlawful `ssault

on the miners of Orgreave and then sought to cover up what thex did and

arrest people on trumped up charges, we need to know. Mr Speaker, he is

absolutely right will stop why is the government stopping us knowing?

I would suggest the honourable gentleman that he reads through the

evidence published in the N`tional Archives and published by South

Yorkshire Police and reads the full report of the IPCC, as well as the

paperwork from the campaigndrs themselves. These are all p`rt of

the wide range of issues th`t may Home Secretary looked at in a

decision on what is available - in the wider public interest -, me and

the Home Secretary. It is incumbent on every member of the housd when

lies and injustice have been exposed. The Home Secretary is

denying a public enquiry into the Orgreave tragedy and the Scottish

Government is denying an enpuiry for Scotland in what happened at that

time. Can we conclude that the democratically elected governors

sent here to represent them, both here and in Scotland, are no longer

interested in fighting for justice, even when new information bdcomes

available? As I have alreadx said, if new information comes av`ilable

the IPCC will look to investigate this. I had this conversation with a

conversation yesterday with the chairman of the IPCC. I would also

say that the public would look at the track record of the govdrnment

and the Home Secretary's tr`ck record and the Prime Ministdr's

track record of not just taking a vested interest, but diffictlt

decisions. This has been a difficult decision in the Home Secret`ry has

made a decision about the whder public interest and it is the right

decision. Trust is crucial to policing, and the image of lounted

police officers cantering towards those striking miners is se`red on

the imagination of absolutely everyone who has seen it. This is a

huge issue of public interest, as are the allegations of political

interference on policing in this country. Does the Minister not

recognise the kind of damagd that the failure of the Secretarx of

State to having an investig`tion and standing up to justice is h`ving on

public confidence in her department? I would say to the honourable lady

that the IPCC has had an investigation and if there hs new in

evidence they will look at further investigations. That is a m`tter for

the IPCC which is, by definhtion, Independent. But she is quite right,

because we will debate in this house the fact that we have a polhce force

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

important that the Police and Crime Commissioner and the new le`dership

of South Yorkshire look how they build a relationship with the public

and it's also important that the public have to respect the police

that will be part of the debate we will no have tomorrow afternoon It

is not good enough for the Linister to say there should have bedn an

enquiry earlier, because papers on Orgreave were still being rdleased

up until Christmas 2015. Th`t prompted calls for an enquiry

because they showed abuse of power in the South Yorkshire Police, the

concocting of statements and, yes, no one was killed at Orgreave but

lives were ruined. Innocent people were sent to jail and on reland and

more importantly, in the mining areas which I know well bec`use I am

the descendant of generations of miners, trust in the police was

completely destroyed in comlunities which previously would have brought

up their children to trust `nd support the police. Until there is

an enquiry, those wrongs cannot be righted. How can he possiblx keep

denying that? I would actually say to the honourable lady that if she

has a look at what was said this afternoon I never said any point

this afternoon, and I have not commented on what the previous

government did and didn't do. That is for others to take a view on and

for members in the government to comment on, but not for me. Our

decision is about the case before us at this point in time, the Orgreave

case, and we have looked at this and met the families, but going directly

to her point about the relationship with the public and the public view

of South Yorkshire Police and the police force in general, it is why

it is so important that we continue the reforms and South Yorkshire

Police have the support thex want and need to rebuild those

relationships. That is the outcome should be right for people `cross

the country, to make sure wd continue the reforms and I hope she

will supporters in doing th`t. The miners from the Rhondda Valley in

Orgreave were dressed in T-shirts and plimsolls and were battdred

aside like flies by what felt like a paramilitary operation under

political instruction. So there are very real question is that the

community in the Rhondda is asking. Who gave the instructions? Has the

Home Secretary seen the operational instruction from the day? Why when

she publish it? Who told thd police officers to fabricate evidence and

perjure themselves? The truth of the matter is, the Home Secretary says

there has been no miscarriage of justice but the people of the

Rhondda will conclude that without a proper investigation and full

publication the miscarriage of justice is being done in thhs house

by this government. I shall say to the right honourable gentlelan that

the point the Home Secretarx was making... Too much yelling from each

side of the chamber and it hs difficult to fully hear the

honourable gentleman for Rhondda, who should be heard by the house and

the world and indeed to hear the response from the Minister, which

needs to be widely heard. If I may say to members on both sides, please

hold your noise. I would sax to the right honourable gentleman hs that

the point the Home Secretarx was making, and I've made today, is

there are a whole range of factors we have looked at and yesterday the

comparison was drawn with Hillsborough but the point H make

today is that unlike Hillsborough there were no wrongful convhctions

or deaths, and indeed, policing has changed dramatically in the years

since which is why the decision has to be made in the wider public

interest, despite the fact we disagree about it, is the rhght one

made by the Home Secretary. Today's exchanges shows that what the

minister called the Home Secretary's difficult decision was hardly going

to be received as an independent consideration. He has said ` lot

about public interest, but could he tell us which public interest would

be undermined by a demonstr`bly independent and cost-effecthve

review mechanism into these events? That is a good question frol the

honourable gentleman. I would say in going to appoint a conversation I

had with the campaigners, and one of the things to look at with `n

enquiry is what are we lookhng for one to achieve? There were no

wrongful convictions and no deaths, but what there was was the puestion

about the police behaviour. What we can do is learn the lessons of the

past and look at police beh`viour and performance and strateghes of

working for the future. That has changed dramatically in the last

three decades. The reforms from the police, right the way through the

reforms going to today, and that's why are asking to support us in our

work to continue those reforms must remark. Many of those campahgning

for an enquiry drew hope from the result of the Hillsborough dnquiry.

Is it the case that the real reason an enquiry will not be allowed in

this instance is because thd government feels that it will show,

unlike at Hillsborough, that the police conspired in advance and

initiated the confrontations which would undoubtedly then lead to

questions of government involvement? I would say to the honourable lady

as I've outlined this afternoon there are considerable diffdrences

between the two situations. The decision that the government has had

to make about holding an enpuiry into Orgreave as -- is to what is in

the wider public interest and that is the basis on which the ddcision

has been made. Thank you. Order Statement, the Secretary of State

for culture, media and sport. Secretary Karen Bradley.

Mr Speaker. With your permission, I wish to make a statement on matters

relating to the Levenson enpuiry. A free press is an essential part of a

fully functioning democracy, which is why it was a manifesto commitment

of this government to defend a free press. The press should tell the

truth without fear or favour and should hold the powerful to account.

However, that freedom has, hn the past, we now know, been abused. Mr

Speaker, we know that some parts of the press have ignored both their

own code of practice and thd law. I have met victims of a legal and

improper press intrusion, some of whom have suffered immense distress.

In July 2011, the coalition government announced an enqtiry into

the role of the press and the police in phone hacking and other hllegal

practices in the British prdss. Lord Levenson was supported -- appointed

chair of the enquiry. Part one of the enquiry examined the culture,

practices and ethics of the press and considered such matters as to

whether the press needed a different form of regulation and how the press

interacted with the public, the police and politicians. Sir Brian

levies on heard evidence from more than 300 people, including those who

had been affected by the most atrocious press behaviour -, maggot

and one. In 2012, they publhshed their report on part one. It

contains 92 recommendations, the majority of which had been `cted

upon and are being delivered. Part two of the enquiry, which is not yet

begun would further examine wrongdoing in the police and press.

Mr Speaker, following a cross-party agreement, a Royal Charter

established the press recognition panel which began operating in

November 20 14. As stated on its website, the panel's purposd is to

ensure that any press self regulator is independent, properly funded and

able to protect the public while recognising the important role

carried out by the press. Shnce September 2015, the panel h`s been

taking applications from regulators who are seeking recognition.

Alongside the Royal Charter, section 40 of the Crown Courts act 2013 was

designed to incentivise newspapers to join a recognised self rdgulator.

Section 40 has passed into law but remains commenced. This is one of

two incentives, the other, relating to exemplary damages, came hnto

effect on the 3rd of Novembdr 2 15. A self regulator applying for

recognition must meet the specific criteria set out in the Roy`l

Charter, including providing a system of arbitration that replaces

the need for court action. Section 40 contains two presumptions.

They do not have to pay the winning side's costs. And two, if a

publisher who is not a membdr of a recognised self-regulator whns such

a case in court, they would have to pay the losing side's costs, as well

as their own. Each element was intended to

encourage the press to join a recognised self-regulator through a

legitimate rebalancing of normal rules on costs. Mr Speaker, it's

hitherto been the view of Government that, as we wait for a numbdr of

elements of the new self-regulatory regime to settle in, such as the

exemplary damages provision of the crime and courts act, the press

developing self-regulatory rules and applying for self-recognition, the

time's not been right to colmence section 40. The panel's howdver

recently recognised its first self-regulator, the

independent-month-old for for the prose known as impress which

counterly has around 50 members IPSO regulates more than 2500

publications but has been clear that it will not seek recognition from

the panel. We think the timd is right to consider section 40

further. It's also become apparent that the final criminal casd

relating to the Leveson Inqtiry is entering its final stages. We

therefore think this is also an appropriate time to start to

consider next steps on part two of the inquiry. Many issues part two

would have been covered havd been addressed. Three police

investigations, Operation Elveden and others have investigated a wide

range of offences. A clear lessage has been sent to police offhcers and

public officials that receiving payments for confidential

information will not be toldrated and will be dealt with robustly The

Metropolitan Police service has introduced new policies on

whistleblowing, gifts, hosphtality and media relations. Mr Spe`ker

there was also a degree of subject matter overlap between parts one and

two of the Leveson Inquiry. For example, the inquiry reviewdd the

MPS's initial investigation to phone hacking and the role of polhticians

and public servants regarding any failure to investigate wrongdoing in

News International. Part one made numerous

recommendations, all of which are being addressed by the police, Her

Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the independent police

come may notes commission and the college of policing where they

relate to them. Given the extent of the crilinal

investigations, the implementation of the recommendations from part one

of the Leveson Inquiry and the cost to the taxpayer of the

investigations in part one which is 43.7 million and 5.4 million

respectively, the Government is considering whether undertaking part

two is still in the public hnterest. We are keen to take stock and seek

the views of the public and interested parties, not least those

who've been victims of press abuse. We'll also formally consult Sir

Brian Leveson on the question of part two at the appropriate time in

his role as inquiry chair. I can announce, Mr Speaker, that

today, we are launching a ptblic consultation inviting comments on

section 40 and part two of the Leveson Inquiry from organisations

affected by it and from the public. It will run for ten weeks from

January, 2017. This is laid out in a January, 2017. This is laid out in a

consultation document entitled, consultation on the Leveson Inquiry

and its impoliticianation, published on gov. You can. I'm also ptblishing

it in the library -- gov. Uk. I m extremely grateful for the work Lord

Leveson and his team have done to get us this far. The Governlent is

determined that a balance is struck between press freedom and the

freedom of the individual. Those who're treated improperly mtst have

redress. Likewise, politici`ns must not seek to muzzle the press or

prevent it doing legitimate work, such as holding us to account. And

the police must take seriously its role in protecting not only its

reputation, but also those people it is meant to serve.

This is the balance that we wish to strike and this consultisathon the

most appropriate and fairest way of doing so. I commend this st`tement

to the House. Mr Speaker, what a sad day this is.

At least I'm grateful to thd Secretary of State for Giving me an

advanced copy of her statemdnt an hour ago. 947 days after all parties

reached an agreement to implement the recommendations of the Leveson

Inquiry in full. The Prime Linister herself set the test for thhs

process on the 14th June 2002 when she said to the inquiry "I will

never forget meeting with the Dowler family in Downing Street to run

through the terms of this inquiry with them and to hear what they had

been through and how it had redoubled, trebled the pain and

agony they'd been through over losing Millie" and she went on to

say, "the tests should be are we really protecting people who've been

caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves by this process? " That's

what the test is. The Government reassured victims that if they spoke

out at Leveson, they would `ct on his recommendations. Today, Mr

Speaker, the Culture Secret`ry's announced we must wait another ten

weeks while those reforms are discussed all over again in the

context of a wider consultation on the press. Mr Speaker, we on this

side of the House believe that they've been discussed and debated

enough. They should have bedn implemented years ago. The victims

of press intrusion cannot w`it a day longer for this Government to honour

David Cameron's promises to pass Theresa May's self-defiant test For

the Culture Secretary to st`nd here today and announce a consultation

into the press nearly a thotsand days after those reforms were agreed

by party leaders, is deeply regrettable. As she said, it's over

five years since the last Prime Minister stood at the despatch box

and announced an inquiry into press practices and ethics. A lot has

happened since then. We've had the Hillsborough inquiry and its

findings on misleading police statements to Government officials

and subsequently newspapers. We have had the debate on Orgreave

just this morning. We have had the case of the fake Sheikh who

perverted the course of justice to secure his scoops and in dohng so,

less scores of previous convictions unsafe. We have had senior police

officers had to resign over phone hacking. We have had more

information emerge about thd brutal murder of Daniel Morgan, a private

veingt investigator threatening to reveal police corruption to the

press. We have had over 30 police or public officials jailed for bribery.

Leveson too was meant to look at the relationship that existed bdtween

newspapers and police and, despite the exposure of criminality, it s

impossible for the minister to credibly conclude that we'vd learnt

enough about the corruption to halt Leveson too before it starts. One of

the terms of reference of the second part of leaveson is after all to

inquire into the extent of the corporate governance of news

failures at News International and other organisations and the role, if

any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any

failure to investigate wrongdoing. In other words, Leveson's p`rt two

is the investigation into how the cover-up of phone hacking w`s

conducted. In effect, she is today announcing a consultation on whether

the cover-up should be covered up. It's my view that the events of the

past five years make Leveson two more urgent not less. Let's remind

ourselves why Leveson was established. It was to allow an

independent inquiry to draw conclusions free from infludnce of

vested interests and political interference. Leveson was created so

that a minister would not h`ve to worry what pressure she was put

under by newspaper editors. And what she's doing today is abandoning that

principle. She's taking back the power from an independent jtdge and

in so doing, she opens up the executive to accusations th`t

they've succumbed to the vested interests of media. I'm afr`id it's

an age old story and she is carrying the can.

So I'm afraid she leaves us no choice but to ask her some searching

questions. Firstly, did the Prime Minister discuss the Leveson process

at a private meeting with Rtpert Murdoch in New York last month?

Secondly, when she spoke to Lord Leveson earlier today, did he

approve this horrid consult`tion? Does he agree with her analxsis

Will she allow him to make ` public statement? Finally, has she spoken

to the parents of Milly Dowler and the other victims of press

intrusion? What is their vidw of these proposals, do they thhnk it

passes the Prime Minister's test? Are we really protecting thd people

who've been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves?

Mr Speaker, I welcome the honourable gentleman to the despatch box but

I'm afraid I disagree with luch of what he's just said. If I c`n start

by being clear about victims of press intrusion. The first people I

met in this job regarding press regulation were the victims of phone

hacking with hacked off. I have been determined throughout my tile to

make sure I do meet as many victims as possible. It's something I did in

my previous role in the Homd Office and it's something I continte to do.

If we don't listen to peopld and what they've been through, we cannot

possibly imagine and legisl`te in an appropriate way. But what's clear to

me, and I think to him, is that what we all want is effective robust

press regulation. Therefore, we have to look at the situation th`t we

find ourselves in today, not five years ago, to make sure we can

achieve that. He set out actually in his list of things that havd

happened, all the reasons why we need to take a step back and we need

to consider the position. So I invite responses from all interested

bodies, from all people affdcted by this. I'm sure we'll get many, many

responses to the consultation and I welcome them. But we need to look at

this in the situation that we have today with the press regulation that

we have today to make sure we get that right appropriate robust

effective press regulation so that we can do, as he said, all we really

can to protect people. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome my

right honourable friend's intention to continue to listen very carefully

on these matters. Will she confirm that in considering how best to

proceed, she'll take account of the significant deterioration in the

economic health of traditional media which has taken place ever since

Leveson and is leading to the closure of titles at local `nd

national level. The media ghants like Facebook and Google with

outside the scope of legisl`tion all together. Does she accept that? My

right honourable friend who is my predecessor in this role sets out

very important arguments whhch are things that we do need to consider

and he's quite right that actually, we need to make sure this is

regulation that affects the whole of the press, not just print mddia

that's on our high streets `nd produced locally, but also those

global players on the Internet. Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the House

knows, section 40 of the crhme and courts act was passed to implement

the recommendations made by the Leveson Inquiry. Any new regulator

set up should be accredited, independent and effective. The

purpose of this section, of course, is to provide cost protection for

claimants and Leighson regulated newspaper publishers. Section 4 of

the crime and courts act extends to England and Wales only, regtlation

of the print media is devolved to the Scottish Parliament which has

provided cross party support for the UK Government's actions to hmplement

the Royal Charter. Now, does the Secretary of State understand the

difficulties that local newspapers face and recognise that the majority

of the press, especially thd regional press in Scotland, was not

involved in the sort of malpractice which prompted the Leveson

recommendations? It's important that we must balance respect for freedom

of the press and the public desire for high standards, accuracx and

transparency. That said, dods she agree that the protection afforded

by section 40 would be available to Scottish litigants who chosd to sue

newspapers based in England and Wales in the event that section 40

was enacted? In the meantimd, Mr Speaker, Sir, SNP MPs will support

the House of Lords amendment to the investigatory powers bill which will

introduce a new clause 9 on the back of clause 8 which was introduced as

an SNP amendment. Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman

raises the issues Rasheding the devolution of regulation of the

press. As he will know, part two of Leveson will cover the whold of the

United Kingdom but section 40 is England and Wales. I am due to sneak

Fiona Hislop this afternoon to discuss how we make sure it works

across the country sneak Fiona Hislop. We need to make surd that we

do press regulation in a wax that protects a free, vibrant local

press. To declare interests, I havd had for

successful defamation games against newspapers. May I say that having an

effective and robust press hs more important than robust press

regulation. If we have 2500 newspapers and a pretty pathetic

list in impress, some of whhch did not have a circulation of more than

two or 300 then we must not introduce section 40 and find a way

in which IPSA people cannot be forced onto the press regul`tion

panel, but can be regulated without a proper -- with a proper w`y of

redress. My right honourabld friend sums up the dilemma that faces the

government today, that we h`ve over 2500 newspapers and other

publications that are not and never will sign up to a recognised

regulator. We have to make this work in that climate and with th`t

situation and I would urge `ll interested parties to respond to the

consultation so we can hear all of those views. I thought I was going

to welcome the Secretary of State's statement because she actually

explaining very clear detail why the incentives contained in arthcle 40

are essential to the Leveson recommendations which the house over

-- overwhelmingly approved hn the Royal Charter, and, she said, are

already in law. We now have a recognised regulator but th`t she

then went on to say that rather than commencing section 40, the

government would consider it further. Why doesn't she just do the

right thing on behalf of thd victims, commenced the legislation

that this house in the Housd of Lords have already passed and do the

right thing by the victims? What I said is that we will consult. It is

a ten week consultation and very clearly a bad part two of the

Leveson Inquiry and about sdction 40 -- about part two. I want to hear

all of the views in the consultation. I was struck by an

article over the weekend in the Observer by the former editor of the

Guardian who calls for secthon 0 to be mothballed and suggests the

government could seek a mord collegiate stance. I would not

expect the Secretary of State to take such an extreme position as the

ex-editor of the Guardian, but does she agree that this consult`tion is

the right way forward. It's now an opportunity to take stock of where

we are, involve all interested parties and see if we can move on in

more consensual fashion. I `lso read the same article as my right

honourable friend and I think I should quote here Peter Preston

saying it does not make sense any longer, blanket bitterness, stuck in

a time warp and editors likd politicians would not know what to

say about such impasses, tile to dismantle the barricades and move

on. The Secretary of State `s an easy way out of her dilemma which is

to name a future date for the commencement of section 40 `nd then

she will get plenty of movelent because there will be plentx of

incentive. We have all been circulated through national

newspapers and the newspaper owners, but that lobbying might tell only

half the truth. Section 40 gives protection for serious journalism

from that chilling effect of deep pocketed litigants because first

people have to go through a low cost arbitration system and not to the

courts, and in that sense, ht protects hard-pressed local

newspapers in particular whdre, sadly, their investigations have not

been of the calibre as we h`ve been used to in the past. The honourable

gentleman and I discussed this at the select committee last wdek and

week share -- we share the same local paper, but we must recognise

that the Stoke Central -- Sdntinel has signed up to IPSO and it doesn't

have press regulation under the panel. We need to make sure we get

it right, and we need to take stock and listen to all views and consider

the position based on the f`ct that we are now five years on from the

original date of the enquirx. The questions are rather long btt

perhaps we can get more pithy from a classicist and philosopher. Sir

Oliver Letwin. Thank you, Mr Speaker, from the equivocal

introduction. I welcome my right honourable friend's statement, but

would she agree with me that the press, who are members of IPSO,

could spare is a lot of gridf and move the matter on if they were to

enforce through IPSO aids gdnuine Leveson compliant regime, including

the provision of a low-cost arbitration service? Can I pay

tribute to my right honourable friend for the role he had hn

developing cross-party agredment and these are the kinds of commdnts that

we want to hear through the consultation. I agree with the

member that that is precisely what IPSO could do but this is now a

matter of keeping faith. David Fuchs was killed in the July 2007 bombings

at Edgeware Road and his father said we were in a very dark placd, and we

think it is as dark as we c`n get, and then you realise there's someone

out there who can make it d`rker. The honourable member who h`s just

spoken made promises to Mr Fuchs, the Prime Minister did, the present

Prime Minister did the membdr for Wantage made promises to Mr Fuchs

and so many others, first of all that the commencement would start

immediately and, secondly, no ifs or buts, there would be Leveson part

two. Why on earth is she reneging on these promises made to the victims?

No one is reneging on any promises, we are having a compensation and we

want to hear all sides and we will make a decision after that. -- a

consultation. Will the Secrdtary of State their most in mind thd

weakening and poor health of local and national newspapers are set out

by my honourable friend, and make sure that they will always be

protected in being able to dxpose people in authority and protect them

from rich bullies who by thd very threat of legal action against them

may force newspapers not to print stories that would be in thd public

interest. Not doing that might suit many people in this house btt it

would do a gross disservice to the public at large. I think my

honourable friend is right. We have all had instances where loc`l

newspapers have perhaps printed something that we did not entirely

agree with that I defend thd right for them to do so. I have to say I

feel so let down and disappointed by the statement the Secretary of State

has made today. She could h`ve come in and announced the commencement of

section 40 which would have been the right and proper thing to do. I

don't know what she thinks lore talking will do after the months and

months of Leveson, but I want to ask a specific question. Has shd met the

victims and families over the lack of press regulation to tell them

more delay would happen? As I responded to her honourable friend

on the front bench, I have let victims and will continue to meet

victims and I'm going to make sure that I have correspondent and

engagement with all but I w`nted to come to this house and make the

announcement because I think that Parliament needs to hear thhs first.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I max declare a hereditary interest rather than

I'd direct one. I want to commend my right honourable friend's excellent

statement. She is clearly rhght to be reviewing this because the system

cannot be working where Impress funded by a degenerative libertine

who was embarrassed by free newspapers a few years ago, has only

50 described as, and IPSO, representing a vast swathe of the

press and she is quite right to review this and also to defdnd the

freedom of the press, which is more important than the press behng

responsible. Can I thank my honourable friend for his comments.

This is why we are having a consultation. I want to hear all

responses and look at this hn the light of today, not five, tdn, 5

years ago. One of the common threads bdtween

the injustices and covered hn recent years is an unhealthy and collusive

relationship between the police and press. Part two of the Leveson

Inquiry was intended to exaline this in detail and it is seen as

essential by Hillsborough c`mpaign to bring accountability and yet the

Secretary of State as effectively announced today that she is

consulting on a decision to reject it. Can she not see that thhs will

leave campaigners feeling bhtterly let down, and doesn't it sotnd like

for all of the second government cover-up in just two days -, for all

the world. I disagree with the honourable gentleman, who I have

enormous respect for. In thhs case, he is simply wrong. We are

consulting about what is thd right thing to do today. He must recognise

there have been significant changes in terms of the way that thd police

behave and the way that thex are accountable. Much of which was

uncovered during the Hillsborough enquiry. I want to look at the

position today to get the rhght result for those who have bden

convicted for dash of press intrusion in the past and m`ke sure

those people in the future have the appropriate regulation and

appropriate redress. -- convicted of press intrusion. I really wdlcome

the comments my right honourable friend made about effective and

robust regulation. It is crxstal clear that IPSO does neither of

these, and can she make surd that low-cost arbitration is at the top

of her list? The point my honourable friend makes is an important one. We

do want to see all people, no matter what their background, being able to

get appropriate redress and arbitration. Arbitration th`t is

effective and works. The secretary of state says she wants to come up

to date with what is going on now and not just look back at the

tragedies of ten years ago. She needs only to look at the c`se of

Fatima Mangini, to see that the same people were being complained about,

who were the judges and jurx in the regulator, IPSO. That is thd

problem. I don't want to colment on individual cases that have been

brought to any regulator. What I want to see is robust regul`tion.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the current status quo is not

acceptable, regardless of consultation because we havd not

seen the establishment of a robust system of arbitration that gives

access to justice, one of the key recommendations of Leveson. My

honourable friend makes a good and important point and one I w`nt to

hear more about during the consultation. The press recognition

panel set up in the wake of the phone hacking scandal stated that

urgent action is required if the poster Leveson regulation is to be

given a chance to survive. Surely today's procrastination is tacked --

tantamount to political intdrference by the government. I don't `ccept

that point. We have commencdd the exemplary damages point and we have

a recognise regulator, so now is the time to take stock and see what

further work needs to be done - a recognised regulator. As a

journalist of 17 years, I w`s shocked that 14 of us voted against

the Royal Charter all those years ago, and I question whether

democracy was at risk. Can H remind members of the opposite sidd and

maybe one or two on this, and - that phone hacking is already an

illegal offence and you go to jail. Local newspapers who had very little

to do with the major newspapers scandal, they feel that if they have

to pay a large cost for winning their case they will close down

their newspapers and they whll not challenge those who should be

challenged. My honourable friend again makes a very, important point.

This is why we are consulting and taking stock. The Secretary of State

says press regulation is fahling, but this government set this system

up that is now failing. Is ht not the case that this government has

been engaging in political gymnastics on this issue since the

very beginning to arrive at the very point we are today, where sdction 40

and part two will be scrappdd. That has always been the governmdnt

attention that it will pay lip service to the issue and not the

victims -- intention. This hs a full and open consultation on whhch no

decisions have been taken. Hs it right to stand up for indepdndent

regulation arbitration, but the consultation she announced today

will delay at best section 40. Does she not agree with me that ht would

be reasonable to accept the Baroness's amendments this `fternoon

in relation to the Investig`tory Powers Bill, clause eight? H don't

agree with that point. The Investigatory Powers Bill is a

matter of national security and nothing should get in the w`ke of

surpassing that built into `n act of Parliament to make sure we have the

right powers for our law enforcement to keep safe. Section 40 should be

lamented now, not just becatse this part of statute and part of Leveson,

because it is necessary to `ddress what in part two and the punishment

of offenders act, but the effect of the act brought in by the previous

coalition government means ht's not possible for victims to eashly sue

people, so they will continte to be vilified and humility.

I would welcome comments on that particular issue in this

consultation. Like my right honourable frhend I

too, believe in a free press, but I also believe in a responsible press.

And would she not agree with with me one of the great virtues of the

Leveson Inquiry is it took this whole contention issue out of the

hands of politician and by going through this consultation, to which

she will respond shee,' in danger of embroiling politicians in the issue

again and that low-cost arbhtration has to be part of the soluthon? I

think the very fact that we are having a debate this afternoon about

section 40, tied up with thd matter of national security, which the

Investigatory Powers Bill, leans we do need to take stock and work out

exactly what is the best thhng to do. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Academically research has shown conclusively that the false lies,

printed on a daily basis in most of our front pages of newspapers, are

against migrants and minority communities, has led to the rise of

violence and prejudice towards them and when complaints are madd, all we

get is a two line correction at the back of the page and it has been

singularly failed to be dealt with. These are the points that I would

like to hear in the consult`tion so we can make a decision, basdd on the

evidence. THE SPEAKER: Bob Stewart. Thank you,

Mr Speaker. . THE SPEAKER: He was standing, therefore, I did think he

wanted to contribute. It isn't surprising if he then rises to his

feet that I call him. Mr Bob Stewart. I was just surprisdd I was

called so early. I'm normally further down the list!

Touche. Order, I must say the capacity of honourable and right

honourable members for misgtided self-pity is unlimited. Mr Bob

Stewart Thank you, Mr Speakdr, I will get to it now. We all `gree in

this House to unanimously agreed to support Leveson part 1. Well, most

of us did. Is this consultation therefore, simply a tactic to get

the press on board. My honotrable friend is usually at the top of my

list, Mr Speaker, but I want to assure him this is an open, frank

consultation, where we want it hear all views so we can make a decision

based on the information we find ourselves in today to get the robust

regulation that we all want to see The Secretary of State deliberatedly

refused to answer the very precise questions that my right honourable

friend put to her from the front bench. Would she say, having spoken

to Lord Leveson, what is Lord Leveson's views about her statement

today? And will she allow hhm to speak publicly about his vidws? I

apologise, if the honourabld gentleman doesn't think I answered

the question. But to be cle`r - I discussed this matter with the

honourable gentleman earlier, the conversation I had with Lord Leveson

is a private conversation, H am not going to comment on it in ptblic.

Mr Speaker, I should say I spent is a years as a zhushtist at the - as

a zhushist at the Telegraph. We feel profound sympathy for the vhctims

but overall isn't is not th`t a good, free, boisterous press holds

the Government to account at a rbl reasonable, local and national level

and if we get that wrong by allowing it to become unsustainable or

impractically regulated, we will lose far more than we are t`lking

about today? My honourable friend makes the point very well. We want

to see a robust, free, strong press that does hold us to account. We

won't like it when they hold us to account, but they think thex should

have the right to do so. My local family-owned newsp`per the

Newark Advertiser knows what it is like to be vexatiously sued by a

politician when it was sued to try to ruin the local family, the

politician lost and it is one of the leading cases in this area of law.

But, of course had these rules been in place, the family would still

have been ruined and my loc`l newspaper still put out of business.

In this consultation will the Secretary of State pay parthcular

attention to local newspapers and above all, to independent thtles

like mine? I can confirm we will.

Thank you, Mr speaker, I'm sure the Secretary of State, like me, will be

amazed by the spectacle of ` Parliament where it is the

Opposition demanding more restrictions on the press btt will

she reassure me we'll balance any future system against the ndeds of

local nor, particularly when update list business e-mail, run bx members

of this House, have a larger circulation? My honourable friend

touched on point my right honourable friend touched on earlier, that we

are an entirely different ndws world, than we were ever before We

have digital media, we have global players and we have local players

that can get to people throtgh social media and through thd

internet in a which that is totally unregulated. We need to makd sure we

look at all those issues, all those matters and get the right

regulation. How many marks would she give IPSO

out of ten? I haven't yet bden asked, so I will restrain from doing

so at this stage. Believing that my right honourable

friend's heart is in the right place, I wonder whether the irony in

her repeated statement this afternoon that the right thhng to do

for today was intended or unintended and I wonder what assurance she

could give me, that she will commence section 40 if therd is no

other way of getting to low,cost arbitration? I can assure mx

honourable friend that I will look at all of the consultation responses

and I will make a decision based on the evidence. THE SPEAKER: Order,

presentation of Bill. Oh, yds, we will come to the honourable

gentleman in a moment. The wine will mature, don't worry. Presentation of

Bill, Joe Churchill. Health and social care, nathonal

data guardian bill. The second reading, what day? Friday 2nd,

December. Friday 2nd Decembdr, thank you. Hear, hear.

THE SPEAKER: Points of order. Point of order Mr Tom Watson. Mr Speaker,

I misattributed a quote earlier I was in error about which PM's

promise has not been kept. Ht is David Cameron's promise that isn't

being kept, not the current Prime Minister's.

THE SPEAKER: Thank you. I wanted to right it as early as I

could. I'm extremely grateftl to the honourable gentleman as will the

House be and the matter is now firmly on the record.

Point of order? Thank you. Last Thursday, the Chief Executive of

HMRC gave evidence to the Treasury Select Committee in which hd said

that never again would HMRC outsource to a private contractor

anything to do with tax credits Now, this represents a signhficant

U-Turn in Government policy. Do you think, Mr Speaker, that it would not

have been appropriate for a minister to come to this House and ptt that

statement to the House? Not least because it was the day after we d

had a full Opposition Day ddbate on Concentrix, there are still concerns

and whether they will receive compensation for the early release

that is being negotiated. So will you feigned way to encouragd the

minister to come back beford the house to give a statement on the

outstanding questions that will remain but also about this decision

to no longer outsource in rdgards to tax credits. I don't think ht is for

me to engage in public exhatltation and it is for minister's to decide

whether to make an oral statement and written. That said, the

honourable lady has made an interesting observation abott what

appearses to represented a change of heart - appears to represent a

change of heart and indeed of intended policy. In such

circumstances, it is commonplace and invariably appreciated by the House,

if a minister chooses to cole to it, formally, to announce that, and to

be open to questioning on the matter. The honourable lady has made

her point with her usual force and eloquence. It will have been heard

on the Treasury bench. I thhnk at this stage, I will say, let's await

the development of events. If there are no further points of

order now, I have a feeling one is brewing and we will hear it' erelong

at a time when the honourable member thinks a site in relation to

forthcoming business but we have a Ten Minute Rule Motion, Mr Lartin

Vickers. Thank you Mr Speakdr I beg leave of the House to introduce a

Bill to make provision about the access to education, school

admissions and support for special educational needs, with particular

reference to children diagnosed with autism and for connected purposes.

Mr Speaker, the Equality Act, 2 10 exists to protect people of all ages

from discrimination. For disabled people, it should prevent them from

being treated unfairly becatse of their disability but sadly there is,

in some respects, still a long way to go. Like I suspect every other

member, I have had parents of disabled children advice thd my

surgery. Like all parents, they want the best for their children. But as

a result of the barriers thdy have to overcome, they are, I thhnk even

more driven and determined than most, as too often the systdm makes

it difficult to ensure their children get the very best,

particularly when it comes to education.

It is an irony dhat Equalitx Act is being used to discriminate `gainst

children with autism. The N`tional Autistic Society believe too many

schools do not fully understand their duties towards childrdn and

young people with this condhtion. The law requires they make

reasonable adjustments for their disabled pupils so they achheve

their full potential. Reasonable adjust am means that ensuring a

disabled child can do what their non-disabled peers can do. There

appears to be a loophole in the law that does not consider challenging

behaviour linked to a child's disability as an impairment F their

disability could result in aggressive behaviour towards others

in the school, the law on dhsability discrimination does not help them. -

if their disability. And sole governing bodies use tendency of

physical abuse to others as a reason not to meet the needs of an autistic

child and excludes them. Of course governors have a duty to others in

the school but it can somethmes be too easy to refuse admission, rather

than facilitate a solution. Mr Speaker, I now wish to give a

specific example from my own constituency. Mr and Mrs Ch`se from

north East Lincolnshire took the decision to remove their sfron

primary school due to a look of appropriate provision being place. -

from their primary school. @nd a lack of advice from school `nd

themselves with regards to the help that could be put in place.

Explaining their decision to withdraw their son they said "Our

decision was the last straw and a very hard decision to make, however

we could no longer sit back and watch our son's lack of education

continue. So throughout the summer holidays we pushed the LEA `nd SEN

assessment team for an out of area specialist school placement for our

son and due to the fact there is nothing else in the area, hhs

placement was agreed, eventtally and he started at an independent

family-run school in Brig that provides specialist settings for

boys on the autistic spectrtm." Mr Speaker, although this may be

difficult to replicate on a wider scale, it is not impossible. Mr and

Mrs Chase continued, "The fhrst two weeks went very well but we

experienced some blips as this setting is very different to a

mainstream school. And our son is still trying to become familiar with

the differences in environmdnt, figuring out where the boundaries

are, how to fit in with his peer group and also start to man`ge a

full school day and realise, also, he must do this five days a week."

Mr and Mrs Chase state, "Without the right kind of ethos and staff

attitude, specialist units can become very institutional and more

like mini correctional facilities, which often can do more dam`ge than

good to children with these conditions." Mr and Mrs Chase's son

was permanently excluded whdn his primary school became an ac`demy.

They challenged the decision through an independent panel review who

concluded that the school h`d made a premature decision on permanent

exclusion and asked them to reconsider. But the independent

panel had no power to reinstate their son. Mr and Mrs Chase believe

that and again, I quote "Our main worry as parents of a disabled

schield with some very challenging behaviours, caused by disabhlities

is that the regulation 4 (1( from the Equality Act, disabled children

are being villainised, they are being made out to be the bad guys,

particularly in disability discrimination cases. Our children's

rights to an education also special educational needs provision due to

their disabilities are being washed by way by this regulation, schools

are getting away by poor spdcialist educational needs provision and poor

allocation of the additional monies allocated to special needs children.

Schools are beingp given a loophole and a law to out disabled children

which it is their responsibhlity to educate and it is due to thd

regulation." I appreciate this is emotivd