Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

May I, in turn, thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he conducted that meeting and for the very helpful information he was able to provide to me on that occasion? I am doing what I said to him that I would do, which is to look carefully at the security advice to ensure that it is robust, and that we make a sensible decision on the point he has asked me to consider. I will do that as quickly as I can.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Posting revenge pornography on the internet is an appalling crime. Does the Secretary of State agree that the law needs to change to ensure that perpetrators are properly punished, and that the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place, could provide the Government with an opportunity to do just that?

[Chris Grayling]

I thank my right hon. Friend both for her question and for the contribution she made in the debate last week. She has done a very important job in raising this issue, which is clearly becoming a bigger problem in our society. What I say to her today is that the Government are very open to having a serious discussion, with a view to taking appropriate action in autumn if we can identify the best way of doing so.

Revenge Pornography

Maria Miller Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I would like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate this afternoon. I am particularly delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), will respond for the Government.

I asked for this debate because of the growing problem faced by adult women in this country who have had sexually explicit pictures of themselves posted online without their knowledge and without their consent on dedicated websites, readily promoted by search engines such as Google and Yahoo. These are ordinary women who have been in loving relationships in which nude or sexually explicit pictures have been taken in private, something that is not illegal. When that relationship goes wrong, their partner’s revenge is to post on the internet intimate pictures taken over the course of that relationship as well as distributing them to employers, families and friends.

The experience was first raised with me by a constituent. In my constituent’s words this bullying behaviour or harassment—perhaps we should call it sexual abuse—

“leaves the victim feeling powerless—it can result in that person losing their career, damaging their future job prospects and devastating their relationships”.

The term “revenge pornography” has been used to describe these actions, but however we refer to them, they have to be recognised as the abhorrent crimes they are, which take place mostly but not exclusively against women.

A great deal of time has rightly been spent in recent months and years on making young people aware of the dangers of sexting—that is, sending nude or sexually explicit pictures of themselves to friends. What I am talking about today affects adults and is a different but equally important problem. I believe that we in this House of Commons have a duty to ensure the law recognises such activities as criminal. At the moment, it does not.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this issue of grave concern to a large number of people before the House. My research reveals that such actions might—although not necessarily—fall foul of a number of Acts, including the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and legislation from 1988 and, most recently, 2003, years before much of the technology involved came into use. Does she therefore agree that the law on this distressing issue urgently needs clarifying and updating if we are to protect the women involved?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on the main issue. The law predates the digital age and as a result of the work I have done I would say that it has not kept pace with the challenges we face today. I urge her to listen to some of my later remarks, which might address some of the issues she raises.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to the people who are already doing a great deal to support those who are affected by these heinous crimes: the UK Safer Internet Centre, particularly Laura Higgins, and, of course, the experts at Women’s Aid, who are doing a great deal of work in this area. I also thank Saffo Dias, who helped me with her expert legal advice as I prepared for the debate. It is the matter of law that we must focus on.

The UK Safer Internet Centre has identified between 20 and 30 websites displaying revenge pornography that are available for people to view in the UK. Some are pay-to-view, some are free to access, but all display sexually explicit images of women that have been posted without their permission. The situation in the United States of America is so severe that three states have already passed new laws criminalising revenge pornography and more are considering following suit.

The problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, is that the law we have predates the digital internet age and fails to cope adequately with such situations. In many ways we are trying to tackle digital problems with an analogue law. We now need to look at that in more detail. Some have sought to dismiss it as something that affects only the younger generation. Although the images are for the most part electronic, many have been scanned and clearly predate digital cameras, so the issue could affect many people of all ages.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate, which is on a subject that is very important to one of my constituents as well. One of the problems she has faced is not so much the existence of the website itself, but the search engine results, which almost always put the website at the top of the search. Google, while very sympathetic, will not act without a legal sanction. Is that something she thinks it might be possible to address by changing the law?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must have the law in place first. As I will say later, if the act was illegal, of course Google, Yahoo and others would respond accordingly. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is that at this point in time the situation is, at best, confused. I hope that the Minister can help to shed some light on the situation today.

As with so much to do with the internet, as a society we are constantly running to try to keep up. We all agree that the internet is a force for good. For the most part, internet service providers, social media organisations and many more want the internet to liberate us to think freely, to inform ourselves and to see our backyard as the whole globe, not just our street, village or town. However, a force for good can also provide a platform for those with less worthy aims and ideals. It is in that regard that the Government do have a role.

I applaud the work that the Government have already done in that area, for example to address illegal online child pornography. We heard in the news today about the sheer scale of the problem and the use of the dark net by those who want to access that sort of appalling imagery without the threat of being traced. I saw for myself how the UK is leading the way in cross-border action on the issue when I visited the Washington-based Centre for Missing and Exploited Children last year. It is vital that that work continues.

Internet revenge porn does not involve children, but it does use sexually explicit images to publicly abuse and humiliate a victim. An image that could have reasonably been expected to remain private can, with the press of a button, be distributed without permission to thousands of individuals in seconds, through the dedicated websites I have already mentioned, but also through a number of bespoke applications such as WhatsApp, Kik, Snapchat, which has 5 million active users every day, Facebook Poke—and the list goes on.

The case studies provided to hon. Members by Women’s Aid in preparation for today’s debate are, at best, alarming, demonstrating how social media and the posting of images, or indeed the threat of posting images, are being used to threaten and intimidate women. Some of the people Women’s Aid has supported have had such images taken under duress and then distributed to family members, friends and employers. Too often the victims of such crimes have found it difficult to get action—to get the police to take the crime seriously or to get the website owner to take the material down. One revenge porn website goes a stage further still by asking victims to pay a $400 fee to have the material removed—it is called reputation management, but I can think of other words to call it—although I understand that some material has been known to reappear on the same site.

It is clear that the police are struggling to identify a way to support women who have been subjected to revenge pornography. There are, of course, civil law protections under copyright, but few people have the resources to pursue that route, and does that level of legal sanction really reflect the nature of the offence? I do not believe that it does.

Some revenge porn postings are part of a pattern of behaviour. Given the nature of the material involved, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could be used to provide protection in some cases. However, a series of events would have to be involved—not a one-off, which many of these postings are. I am concerned that the existing legal framework does not provide the protection required. Perhaps the Minister will detail how many revenge pornography cases have been prosecuted under the 1997 Act, to indicate how effective it is already.

The days of treating the internet as the wild west are, I am glad to say, long gone. Freedom on the internet is not unconditional. The challenge for the Government is to be able to respond swiftly and nimbly to new cybercrimes as they present themselves. Today there is a clear opportunity for the Minister to provide leadership and reassurance to our constituents. There is a need to demonstrate clearly, as is happening in the US, that revenge pornography will not be tolerated in a modern free society and that loopholes in the law will be closed, and quickly. In the US, a number of states have decided to criminalise such actions and we should take a similar approach.

The Serious Crime Bill will shortly be before the House. It would provide a vehicle, perhaps under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to establish as a serious criminal offence the distribution, without permission of the subject, of a sexual image or recording. That would sit well alongside other similar offences in the 1997 Act, such as voyeurism and indecent exposure.

Secondly, the Crown Prosecution Service is in the process of updating guidance to courts on the prosecution of domestic violence. Although not all cases of revenge pornography involve domestic violence, many do. According to detailed research done by Women’s Aid, 45% of domestic violence survivors have experienced online abuse in some form. As part of the current consultation process, which I believe closes next month, changes need to be considered to ensure proper recognition of abusive online behaviour as yet another part of the growing spectrum of domestic violence. The proposals in the consultation do not seem to cover online abuse; perhaps the Minister could clarify whether such a change could be made.

Then, of course, there is the role of the police. The same research identifies that three quarters of women who have been victims of cyber-based domestic violence said that the police simply did not know how to respond. A critical part of getting the issue right is ensuring that the strategic policing priority given to domestic violence is turned into operational reality on the ground—something raised by the recent Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary report, which identified that victims of domestic violence are still not always taken seriously by the police or, indeed, believed. That is a problem, particularly when it comes to cyber-based domestic violence.

We need to be assured that there is a strong programme of training on the nature of cybercrime and its corrosive effect. I very much welcome the National Crime Agency’s focus on cybercrime and hope that it can be expanded to include revenge pornography.

Finally, the social media and ISPs need to play their part. They should improve their policies, respond so that people can use their services safely and ensure that, when images are posted that should not be, there are clear ways to take action. I know from my discussions with Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others that they, as major global businesses, do not want their business model to include support for those who break the law. If revenge pornography were clearly illegal, they would, I am sure, ensure that such sites could not be promoted through their search engines. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton earlier.

This debate is about making sure that the law of the land supports women properly and about sending a clear message to the perpetrators of these crimes—that their behaviour should be seen as criminal and will not be tolerated. It is about saying that we as a nation show total abhorrence for all sexual abuse against women in whatever form, whether it occurs offline or online.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) has made a very powerful and passionate speech on a hugely important subject. She has used this debate to highlight the truly despicable behaviour involving so-called revenge porn, which can cause serious distress and humiliation. The victims are, as she says, often women, but we must recognise that men can also be part of this category of suffering, the consequences of which can be absolutely devastating. I share her concerns about the misery and upset that such actions can inflict on others. Let me make it clear at the outset that I very much hope that victims of such behaviour will not hesitate to contact the police.

It may help the House if I outline some of the sanctions that we already have in place to combat this type of problem. All published material, online and offline, is subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959, including material that has been uploaded to the internet. Under the Act, revenge porn material, depending on the content, may constitute an offence that carries with it a five-year maximum prison sentence. An article is deemed to be obscene if its effect, when taken as a whole, is such as to tend to “deprave and corrupt” persons who are likely to read, see or hear it. This general test of obscenity is flexible, allowing the courts to reflect society’s attitudes towards pornographic and other material.

Importantly, if images misused for revenge porn activity are of children under 18, and are perhaps being used to bully the young, legislation such as the Protection of Children Act 1978 could be used against those making or circulating them. The Government are determined to do all they can to curb the distribution of indecent images of children, on the internet and elsewhere. The law in this area is very clear. Under the 1978 Act, the UK has a strict prohibition on the taking, making, circulation, and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph of a child under 18, and such offences carry a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. The term “indecent” is not defined in the 1978 Act. The courts decide in each case whether the material in question is indecent.

Even if the content of revenge porn postings does not fall foul of the laws on pornography and obscenity, other communications offences might apply to this behaviour. For example, if the content is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing, it may fall under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it an offence to send such material over a public electronic communications network. Depending on the content, sending this material may also amount to an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, provided that it is sent with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any person to whom the sender intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

Depending on the circumstances, a civil action may also be available under the law of tort in respect of the misuse of private information. Remedies available include damages and an injunction to require removal of the material and/or to prevent repetition of the behaviour in question. Even if the content itself is not illegal, if its distribution is carried out as part of a “course of conduct” that alarms a person or causes distress, this could amount to a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

[Maria Miller]

The Minister is eloquently outlining all the laws that could apply in these cases. If we are to assess the effectiveness of those laws, it would be useful to know how many convictions have been secured as a result of the police taking action. Does he have that information available for the House?

[Mr Vara]

My right hon. Friend asks a very good question. We do not have specific figures relating to revenge porn in cases that have been prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. We have figures for prosecutions under certain sections of the Act—such as section 2 on pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to harassment and section 4 on causing someone to fear that violence will be used against them—but not for the specific offences covered by them. We do not, therefore, have the specific details for which my right hon. Friend asks.

[Maria Miller]

I thank the Minister for giving way: he is being very generous with his time. Will he consider gathering that specific data, because that would strengthen his case that the law is as it should be? I fear that many people who are affected by these crimes are not able to use the remedies he has suggested. I think there is a mismatch between the support people expect from the law and what the law is actually delivering.

[Mr Vara]

My right hon. Friend raises another very good issue. There are questions of logistics in terms of obtaining specific information, given the number of cases involved. For example, in 2013 the number of section 2 cases proceeded against was just under 6,000—5,970, to be precise—and the number of those found guilty was 4,459. The total number of section 4 cases proceeded against was 1,040 and 641 of them were found guilty. I very much take on board what my right hon. Friend asks in terms of specifics and I would be happy to look into that, but I hope she will recognise that when such large numbers are involved there can sometimes be a logistical issue.

Other laws in the area of cyber-crime may be breached if, for example, the images have been obtained via computer hacking. Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 provides for a criminal offence of unauthorised access to any programme or data held in a computer, which is commonly known as hacking. This carries a sentence of up to two years on indictment.

As with all crime, although we need strong sanctions when offences are committed, the ideal, of course, is to prevent them from being carried out. That is why, across Government, we are carrying out work that touches on areas affected by the use of revenge porn. For example, in schools we are giving teachers stronger powers to tackle the scourge of cyber-bullying and we are helping to educate pupils about the dangers of the internet.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the internet is a force for good. It is a great resource for learning, entertainment and many other positive activities. It is also, of course, a great British invention. However, like many tools that are capable of doing immense good, in the wrong hands it can equally do immense harm. That is why we need to be alive to those possibilities and to take appropriate and proportionate measures to counter them.

[Mr Vara]

If my hon. Friend can be a little patient, he might find that I will be able to give him some food for thought later. There may be remedies in the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Communications Act 2003, where there is a fair amount of flexibility. I will come back to the issue he raises a little later.

When indecent images have been circulated via social networking sites or abusive behaviour has occurred on social media networks, the Government expect social media companies to have robust processes in place to respond promptly when abuse is reported. That includes acting quickly to assess a report, removing content that does not comply with existing acceptable use policies or terms and conditions and, where appropriate, suspending or terminating the accounts of those who breach the rules.

The Government are working through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, as well as at EU level, to improve the transparency of reporting processes and the ways in which reports are handled. We will continue to work closely with social media companies to ensure that they have measures in place to protect their users.

Following consultation, in June 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions published guidelines for prosecutors considering cases that involve communications sent via social media. The guidelines are designed to give clear advice to prosecutors who have been asked for a charging decision or to give early advice to the police, as well as in the review of cases charged by the police. The guidelines seek to draw the difficult balance between protecting freedom of speech and acting robustly against communications that cross the threshold into illegality.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked about the consultation currently being undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service and specifically referred to online abuse. I am happy to look into whether the consultation covers the issue of online abuse, and I will write to her in due course.

The Government already have a strong framework of offences for dealing with, and projects in place to respond to, this deeply upsetting and, frankly, cowardly behaviour. However, I very much recognise that the internet is fast moving, and it is important for the law of the land to keep pace with it. This is a global issue. Countries such as the United States of America, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, and Australia and Israel have legislated on the issue, and other countries across the globe are looking at it further. Let me be clear that the Government take the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend very seriously. I am happy to look again at this area and to assess the extent of the problem to see whether we need to legislate further to ensure that such behaviour is dealt with appropriately.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend has not so far referred to my issue about police training. If he is saying that there is a suite of laws that can deal with the issues I have mentioned, is he happy that the police can use those laws in a way that gives proper support to the women and, indeed, men who are affected by these sorts of crimes?

[Mr Vara]

In the less than two minutes that I have left, let me briefly say that the police do an outstanding job, wherever possible, but there are difficulties, and there is always an ongoing process into how matters can be improved. I will certainly speak to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims to make sure that he is aware of this issue, and to ensure that improvements are made where they can be.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke will agree that the need for further legislation must be properly examined, particularly as the subject has implications across a wide area of the criminal law and of Government policy. Moreover, any further sanctions on internet content need to be carefully assessed against the possible implications for freedom of expression and of the media. I again thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House, and I reiterate that I shall look very seriously into the matters she has raised today.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

3. What steps have internet companies taken in response to the meeting with Ministers on 18 June 2013.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

I called the summit to explore, with industry, the Internet Watch Foundation and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre further actions to remove child abuse material from the internet. A zero-tolerance approach was agreed, and good progress is being made across a number of measures. That will see a real change in the way this issue is dealt with in the UK.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, but will she be a bit more specific and say what steps have been taken to put age verification in place at the level of filters of browsers, to prevent children from viewing indecent material?

[Maria Miller]

The matter that the hon. Lady raises is slightly different from the one I was talking about, which was the measures we are putting in place to deal with illegal content. Such measures include: a more proactive approach for the IWF; splash pages; and considering further ways in which technology can be used to do more in the area. She is right to raise the matter, because we are also doing a great deal to tackle harmful material that is on the internet, including on access by people who are under 18. The providers are working, in particular, to put in place network-level filtering to make sure that customers access only age-specific material. Those changes are being put in place now, not just for new customers, but for existing customers.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

This is indeed a serious matter. The Secretary of State speaks of harmful material. Does she think that a similar approach involving CEOP would prove fruitful in dealing with websites that contain material inciting people to take their own lives?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to ensure that we tackle such problems, whether they involve bullying online or inciting people to take their own lives. We are working directly with ISPs and with those who have websites to ensure that there is more moderation and that there are opportunities to turn off anonymous postings. Those are the practical measures that can be put in place to help people have safer access to the internet.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Since we last met, we have seen the National Audit Office’s devastating report on the Government’s failure on broadband, which is extremely important to many people, but I am not going to ask the Government about that—[Laughter.] No, I am not, because also since we last met two children have taken their own lives following cyber-bullying; that is also a matter of extreme concern to people in this country. I have arranged to see the Latvian ambassador to discuss whether ask.fm is co-operating properly with the police. The Government did not even mention social media in their summit conclusions or their communications paper. Why does the Secretary of State not put a legal obligation on social media sites to tackle cyber-bullying?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady needs to be very careful with what she is talking about. We are absolutely taking action on cyber-bullying. There is already guidance in place to help schools and to help children understand cyber-bullying more effectively. It is clear not just from what I am saying but from what the Prime Minister has said that it is absolutely unacceptable to have such abuse online. I am pleased to say that ask.fm has taken the problem very seriously and put in place more robust reporting mechanisms, increased moderation on the site, and given people the opportunity to turn off anonymous postings. Those are the sort of practical changes that can make websites safer for young people to use, but ultimately we must ensure that parents work with their children, too.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has taken significant steps to protect children online, and the introduction of ISP-level filtering is a significant move. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the debate is far more complicated, however, than simply switching the filter on or off? Software developers have a significant responsibility and parents must ultimately be responsible, but does the Secretary of State agree that schools have a part to play by updating their sex education lessons and curriculum to ensure that people understand the greatest risks?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and he is right: we are at the forefront of online safety. It is not just me saying that; the Family Online Safety Institute says it, too. It is really important that we acknowledge that not only ISPs and people who have websites should take these matters seriously. As he said, parents and schools should take their role seriously, too.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to reduce the number of nuisance calls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to deliver a lasting legacy from the London 2012 Paralympic games.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Paralympic legacy is a key element of the Government’s and the Mayor of London’s legacy programme. Disabled people’s participation in sport is increasing and more is being invested to make disabled sport accessible.

[Karen Lumley]

The British Paralympians made our country proud last year, but last week the lesser known Special Olympics, which does a great job alongside the Paralympics, were held in Bath. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the “tremendous ten” from Redditch on winning more than 20 medals in those games, including 15 golds?

[Maria Miller]

I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Special Olympics on organising a fantastic and successful event in Bath, which my right hon. Friend the Member Minister for Sport attended. I also join her in celebrating the success of the Redditch athletes.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to strengthen grass-roots sport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

7. What progress her Department has made on the roll-out of broadband to rural communities; and if she will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Thirty-eight local broadband contracts have now been signed under our rural broadband programme, representing over 95% of the total project funding allocations. Ten projects have already provided their first superfast broadband connections and delivery is now moving ahead across the country.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My constituents in Brocton and other villages, especially those who work from home or run businesses there, are looking forward to faster broadband speeds. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the benefits of superfast broadband in rural areas?

[Maria Miller]

There is an enormous amount of evidence of the economic advantages in not just rural areas but across the country of faster broadband, and that is why the Government are putting in place a programme that will see more than £1 billion-worth of investment going into this vital infrastructure.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

11. The National Audit Office has exposed lamentable failings in the rural broadband programme, including the absence of competitive provision, which we have discussed in the Chamber. Its report tells us that BT is to be handed £1.2 billion for this project, but, for example,“The Department does not know how much contingency BT has included.”Will the Secretary of State insist that BT provide full 20:20 cost-transference before public money is handed over?

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Gentleman should also acknowledge that the NAO report stated that the value-for-money controls in contracts appeared to be robust. We all know that BT will be paid only on the basis of actual eligible costs incurred. I hope he will join me in celebrating a programme that will deliver such an important piece of infrastructure to communities up and down the country.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

8. What progress she has made on replacing the horserace betting levy as a means of funding horse racing; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What recent discussions she has had with the BBC Trust about that BBC attracting a more diverse work force.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

The BBC’s work force and output should reflect the diversity of Britain today. My Department and I have had regular discussions with the BBC about this, and in May 2013 I wrote to the director-general seeking his support for our “Think, Act, Report” initiative. I encourage all broadcasters to tap into the creative talents of everyone in the UK, regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity or disability.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is the Secretary of State aware, though, that if one asks those at the BBC how many people they employ have been state educated, they look very shifty and drop John Humphrys into the conversation. It is a fact, in my experience, that very many of the senior personnel in the BBC are from private, independent school backgrounds. Is it not about time that this great corporation opened its doors to talent from the state sector as well?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there should be transparency across the BBC’s activities. As a state-educated Secretary of State, I think we should be proud of people who have had a state education and have leading positions in this country.

[Mr Speaker]

On that subject, I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right that the impartiality of the BBC is one of its cornerstones and is vital. I always keep these things under careful review.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

13. What recent assessment she has made of the skills required by the creative industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Over the summer we published our “Connectivity, Content and Consumers” paper and our consultation on media plurality, and, as the House has already heard, rural broadband roll-out continues apace. We have also celebrated one-year anniversaries of the Olympic and Paralympic games, and along with the rest of the nation we have celebrated the victories of Andy Murray, the Lions squad and the women’s and men’s cricket teams’ Ashes triumph.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

May I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend for taking the time to meet Broadband for the Rural North in my constituency? How will she ensure the progress of community-led schemes such as B4RN, which is trying to bring superfast broadband to some of the most isolated parts of my constituency? How will that progress continue when B4RN has to co-exist with much larger contracts held by British Telecom and Lancashire county council?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I applaud the work I saw when I visited B4RN, particularly that of Barry Forde, who is leading the community project. I fully support community projects—they are doing incredible work—and I have asked all local authorities to do what they can to support them and in particular to publish the maps of coverage. As a result of my hon. Friend’s hard work, Lancashire country council has agreed to work with B4RN to find a way to take the project forward.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The challenges facing seaside towns are distinctive and reach across Government Departments. Last week, Labour’s document “Seaside Towns: What matters to coastal communities and economies” highlighted the fact that seaside towns are now among the most deprived areas in Britain. Given their importance to our tourism economy, what is being done to co-ordinate effort across Government to tackle the crisis facing our seaside towns and to give them the opportunity to once again flourish as thriving tourist destinations?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to pay tribute to the hard work of those who provide hotels and other attractions in our seaside towns. Our GREAT campaign features the beauty of our coastline as one of our key assets. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s proposed tourism tax would do anything to develop the future of our coastal towns. I urge him to reconsider it and to support our tourism industry.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

T2. My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the recent report published by the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail and of the significant contribution that the largely voluntary organisations in that area make to the UK tourism industry. I urge her to make every effort to continue to support their hard work, in particular through the support of VisitEngland.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right that heritage railways can provide a focus for tourism in local areas. The Watercress line in Hampshire provides that, as does the Severn Valley railway in his constituency. I will continue to do everything that I can to encourage VisitEngland to offer the support that is important, particularly with regard to marketing this fantastic asset of our British heritage.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. Users of social media sites increasingly use them to advertise the sale of sex online. The law in this area is often unclear and contradictory. Will the Department make legal guidance available to social media sites and Members of the House so that we can help to reduce demand for the vulnerable women who are often exploited in this trade?

[Maria Miller]

Whatever is illegal offline is illegal online. Any activity that is undertaken by the sites that the hon. Gentleman talks about should be carefully looked at to ensure that it does nothing to harm people, particularly people under the age of 18 who might be accessing those sites.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T5. The major UK sporting event of the year will soon kick off. The rugby league world cup will comprise 14 nations and Warrington looks forward to welcoming some of them. Will the Minister confirm that that event is one of his Department’s main priorities this year and outline the support that it is providing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

4. What activities have taken place to promote the launch of the report of the Women’s Business Council on maximising women’s contribution to future economic growth; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

Under this Government more women are in employment and in self-employment than ever before, but there is much more still to be done if we are to help women to achieve their full potential in growing our economy. We strongly welcome the recommendations of the Women’s Business Council. Across Government we are working with business to ensure that they are implemented.

[Margot James]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The Women’s Business Council report found that 22% of the gender pay gap is caused by the low pay levels of industries and occupations in which more women work. What are the Government doing to encourage more girls to select science, technology, engineering and maths—the STEM subjects—at school and university, so that they can consider careers in engineering and ICT?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the choice of career is key in closing the gender pay gap. Choosing a career in a STEM subject will start to address this important issue that she highlights. We are funding specific programmes with the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and with leading companies such as Atkins, to encourage girls and young women into STEM careers and to increase the number of girls taking up STEM apprenticeships. This is ongoing important work and it is right that she highlights it.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

What are the Government doing to address the inequality in the employment of black and minority ethnic women? One in five black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are unemployed, compared with one in 14 of their white counterparts.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the challenges that women from BME communities face. The activities we are undertaking to improve access to child care and training will play an enormous part in ensuring that these women play their full part in growing our economy.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

5. What recent progress she has made on promoting equality for disabled people.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I make no great claims for my understanding of Scots law, despite having a rather elderly and unused degree in it, but—

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I really cannot take an intervention before I have dealt with the preceding one. I will give way to the Minister in just a moment.

Although I understand the premise of the Attorney-General’s concern, I think that there are arguments to be advanced on the other side. The Equality Act 2010 provides for the recognition of “religion or belief”, and we strongly contend that our approach falls within the same legal territory. We are also mindful of the fact that in Scotland, where such challenges have also been possible—I recognise that Scotland has a different legal system, but in this context I do not think that that is an issue—registrars have been able to prevent organisations with no apparent legitimacy or justification from being registered to undertake weddings. I should be grateful if it could be explained to me why, given the tight drafting of the new clause, that could not be the case here.

[Maria Miller]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I should love to hear from the Secretary of State.

[Maria Miller]

I would not normally intervene on the hon. Lady, but she said that Government officials had advised her in a certain way, and I wanted to make clear that they did not advise the narrowing of the new clause. They drew attention to the problems with the earlier amendment, which—I say this for the benefit of Members who may not have had an opportunity to read the report of the Committee’s proceedings—covered both religious and non-religious organisations, and created real and unnecessary uncertainty about who would actually be covered. I think that the hon. Lady is aware of the genuine problems raised by amendments tabled in Committee. They confused the distinction in marriage law between religious and civil ceremonies, and it was therefore unclear how the religious protections in the Bill would work within such a system.

[Kate Green]

I do not accept that. I do not wish for one second to impugn the messages received from officials. It is quite possible that there was some gulf in understanding between those who delivered the message and those who heard it. I was not present at the conversations myself, and the Secretary of State is, of course, right to put forward her description of what took place, but my understanding is that the way that they concluded led the British Humanist Association, which is advising me, to understand that a more tightly worded proposal, such as the one that I have put before the House this afternoon, would meet the concerns. Although that may not have been the intention intended to be conveyed, it was certainly the intention that it came away with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I should declare that I am a member of the British Humanist Association and an officer of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, and I have spoken to a number of people who have confirmed that there is a demand for this to happen. People wish to do humanist marriage and there does not have to be a majority before we think that it is the right thing to do.

What are the problems? This takes us to the process of how to get there. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury, and others have asserted that this would unpick the lock. What I never heard—perhaps we will hear it from the Minister—is exactly why the locks that protect faith groups would be unpicked by allowing humanists to act as registrars for a wedding. It is really not clear. I have heard it implied that it is because this would involve celebrants and it would not happen at a registered place. We have heard that Jews and Quakers are already exempt from the requirement to have a registered place. If the lock has already been unpicked by that, why should it be a problem? We have simply not heard any detailed analysis; it seems that people are saying things because they have been told that they are true. That is not really good enough.

I am concerned about the process that has brought us here. The Second Church Estates Commissioner—sadly, he is not in his place—suggested that the proposal was put through at the last minute and there was not enough time to deal with it adequately. I tabled my amendment initially on 5 February, immediately after Second Reading. I vividly remember it because I was slightly annoyed that somebody else had tabled another amendment before I had even got to the Table for mine. I was delighted that it received support from across the House and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) led on it in Committee with the support of the Labour Front-Bench team.

There was time from 5 February to make comments, and comments were made. There was detailed discussion, for example, between the British Humanist Association and Government officials. A couple of comments were made about how the provision would fit in with the locks and, interestingly, about its breadth. My original amendment would have allowed all approved organisations to participate, with a few safeguards, and did not specify humanism. The Government advice from the meetings with officials was that that should be changed. I know that the Minister disagrees, but it is entirely consistent with the letter and I was very specifically told by the BHA that it was given the advice to limit the provision to humanism.

I am happy to read out again the relevant section from the Minister’s letter:

“I note the changes that have been made to narrow the scope of the amendments to cover humanist organisations only, as we discussed.”

The letter went on to say that

“we remain of the view that”

humanist ceremonies

“cannot be dealt with in isolation”.

That is simply not consistent with the idea that the Government had no role in this.

[Maria Miller]

I am sorry, but I must complete what the letter sent by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said. It went on to state clearly that

“the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is the wrong mechanism to effect the changes to marriage law that you desire. Therefore the Government is unable to support your amendments.”

I am quoting directly from the letter. That clearly shows no opaqueness in the situation. I think that the hon. Gentleman’s previous comments were not entirely consistent with what is written in the letter.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the right hon. Lady for reading out the rest of the letter, and I am happy for anybody to see it; I see that her Parliamentary Private Secretary has copies of it. She is right that it did not say that the Government supported the amendment or that they had another way of delivering it; it does not say, “Here are amendments that could make it work.” It says that the Government do not support the change because it is the wrong mechanism; it does not say, “We see you have now reduced the scope and we are very worried about this because we think you should broaden it back out again to be ECHR-compliant.” It is quite clear that the strong impression formed by the BHA from the meetings—I am sure there will be minutes—is that it was given strong advice to tighten the amendment. If that is not the case, it is hard to understand why it would choose to change the original version, which is obviously available for anyone to read. There has been ample time for the Attorney-General to consider the new clause, to be consulted on it and to be asked for his ruling on whether it would accord with the European convention on human rights. Strangely, however, that did not happen until the very last moment.

There have been other meetings. For instance, we had a detailed discussion with the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), and I thank him for his time. As he will no doubt recall, the objections that were expressed did not centre on the fact that the new clause would make the whole Bill non-compliant with the convention, but there was talk of the cost of updating the computer system to allow an extra field for humanist weddings. He is nodding. A number of other issues were raised: for example, concern was expressed about the possibility that the measure would allow humanists to conduct weddings out of doors, which members of other faiths are not allowed to do under our marriage law unless they are Jews or Quakers.

I find it truly bizarre that if there is concern about challenges with regard to the proposals before us, there is not fundamental concern about challenges to legislation under which the rules governing Jews and Quakers differ from those governing any other group. We have plenty of legislation that singles out the Church of England and the Church of Wales, because they are, or were, connected to the state. I would be grateful if the Minister, or anyone else, could tell me how many times the fact that Jews and Quakers are listed, but not Hindus, Sikhs or any other group, has been subject to a legal challenge. In fact, that simply has not happened.

I respect the Attorney-General’s position, but I do not understand how he can have formed his opinions. I hope that we will be able to see a detailed analysis, from him or from the Minister via him, explaining exactly what the objections are. Above all, however, I believe passionately that the law could be constructive. The Government do not have to agree with humanist weddings, and they do not have to agree that this is the best way to legislate, but if they are acting in good faith in relation to the concerns that are being raised, I hope that they will say not just what the problems are but how they could be fixed, because many of us want them to be fixed.

I do not mind whether this wording is retained or other wording is introduced. I do not mind if an amendment is tabled that merely adds an extra line specifying humanists beneath the words

“professing the Jewish religion according to the usages of the Jews”.

I do not mind if the Government present, or find time for, another Bill to deal with the issue. I simply want humanist weddings to take place. I hope that the Minister and the Attorney-General will not just erect barriers, but will help this Parliament to do what it clearly wants to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

I suppose I did tempt the hon. Gentleman to intervene, although I did also say “since the Reformation”. As a genealogist in my spare time, I am also very familiar with the Hardwicke Act of 1753.

So, to return to my point, if not now, when? The Government have not addressed that question to our satisfaction. Instead, we are left with a suspicion that there is no good will and no intention to allow a clear pathway towards humanist weddings being given legal status.

The new clause has been very carefully drafted and redrafted since the Committee stage to take account of the objections, of which we were aware at that time. It clearly says that this right will only be granted to an organisation that is a

“registered charity…advancing…the non-religious belief known as humanism”.

It also says the registered charity must have existed for five years and the Registrar-General must be satisfied it is “of good repute.” We have heard of many other locks in the course of our discussions of this Bill, but this is surely a triple-lock that ought to satisfy everyone.

When we were considering whether opposite-sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil partnerships, it was asked where the evidence was that people would want to do that. In the context of this new clause, there is clear evidence that there is demand for humanist weddings north of the border, where they are now the third most popular means of getting married, and some of the people who are getting married in Scotland are from England and Wales, because they cannot legally do so in Bristol or anywhere else in England or Wales. This new clause certainly meets a need, therefore.

Our current law is completely out of step with society. Sometimes Parliament has to give a lead and bring the public with it. In this instance, however, we are in danger of being seen as behind the grain of public opinion and of public demand for humanist marriage to be legalised. I hope that at the last minute, when the Secretary of State speaks in a few moments, we will grasp victory out of the jaws of defeat.

What I do not want to hear from the Secretary of State is the same old situation from the Government of “Heads we win, tails you lose.” I hope we do not get into that situation. There is good will among parliamentarians of all parties to legalise humanist weddings, and I hope we will take a step towards achieving that today.

[Maria Miller]

We have had a robust and impassioned debate on a subject about which people feel very strongly. I must make it clear from the start that it is not, and continues not to be, the objective of this Bill to extend marriage to belief groups, which is, to all intents and purposes, what many of the amendments in this group would do. I do, however, join other Members in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is representing the Opposition on these proposals, because she spoke with passion and eloquence about the importance of humanist ceremonies in celebrating marriage.

The hon. Lady is right to say that for many people who undertake such ceremonies, they can be an important way of marking and celebrating such an event, but it is important to make the point that neither is this the time nor is the Bill the place to make the sorts of changes she is advocating, unless she wants to risk the objective of the Bill, which is to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Humanists can already marry, but same-sex couples cannot, and that is the unfairness that the Bill is designed to remove.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

There are many points on which I would love to tackle the Secretary of State, including the idea that the amendments are allowing everybody in one version, and not enough people in another, and that either way they fail the Goldilocks test. She makes the case, as I understand it, that if we allowed a route that was not premises-based, it would mean completely redoing marriage law. Does she accept that marriage law already has routes for Jews and for Quakers that are not premises-based, and that to have a route that is not premises-based simply cannot fundamentally weaken marriage law, as it would have done so since 1949 and before then?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend reads my mind, because I was about to go on to that very point. He is right: it is important that we recognise that those of the Jewish faith and Quakers have a particular position, and we have been accommodating their needs since marriage was first regulated in this country back in 1753, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. That is a long-standing historical arrangement designed to respect and accommodate ancient and religious traditions. My hon. Friend will understand that because it has been established in time, it cannot be changed retrospectively and it is therefore entirely consistent with the position set out by the Attorney-General.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I do not follow the right hon. Lady’s logic. She says that the Jews and the Quakers have a particular position, which has been accommodated. Why cannot we have a particular position, which is accommodated too?

[Maria Miller]

Because the existing arrangement pre-dates the European convention on human rights, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is the anomaly. Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict—

[Mr Blunt]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Miller]

May I make a tiny bit of progress before taking my hon. Friend’s intervention?

Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict the approved organisations approach only to humanism. There can be no basis to justify a difference of treatment between one belief organisation and another, and if we did so we would be vulnerable to legal challenge—the very point that the Attorney-General made. If the amendment were accepted, I would have to consider whether I could sign a section 19(1)(a) statement, indicating that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights, on the introduction of the Bill in another place. I would probably have to sign a section 19(1)(b) statement that I cannot state that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention, because of the different treatment of humanists and other belief organisations. That is clear, it is a statement of fact and it is entirely consistent with the situation outlined by the Attorney-General.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, the amendment would clearly make the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights. This is a complicated issue that could be looked at further in the other place, but I want to make it clear to the House today that if the issue is discussed in the Lords, further information can be provided if that is requested and required. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and to place a copy of my letter in the Library, setting out the legal objections offered to the House today. I hope that would help to inform proceedings in the other place. I would be happy to copy the letter to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

[Kate Green]

May we ask that that letter sets out in detail the Government’s objections in the context of the convention on human rights, and that there will be no gaps? It seems to us that new objections have emerged even in the course of the debate this afternoon, so I would be grateful for the right hon. Lady’s assurance that that will be a comprehensive statement of the Government’s concerns in relation to the European convention on human rights.

[Maria Miller]

I am happy to say that the letter would be a comprehensive statement of the concerns that I have. I have covered many of those today, but I will consider whether there are any that I have not included for reasons of time. I am happy to be as helpful as I can.

[Mr Blunt]

My right hon. Friend has advanced the rather preposterous proposition that the United Kingdom’s accession to the European convention on human rights is now acting to limit the rights of members of our population—humanists—to conduct marriages. That goes to the central point. I will be happy if she can give the House the assurance that the Government are in principle in favour of humanists conducting marriage, and that they will use the resources at their disposal to find a way of getting that on to the statute book. If it is not going to happen in the course of the Bill—I do not want the Bill delayed, any more than anyone else—at least the Government can make that statement of policy intent.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend may not have fully understood the argument being put forward by the Attorney-General. The issue is that the amendments discriminate in favour of one group over another. Humanists are being singled out for particular treatment. I am very happy to set out the argument fully. This is a different situation from—

[Mr Blunt]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Miller]

Will my hon. Friend allow me to respond to his intervention before he intervenes on me again?

This is a particularly difficult area. Marriage law and the principles behind it have evolved over many centuries, as the hon. Member for Rhondda pointed out. Yes, there are anomalies in some areas, but we are talking about a particular set of amendments relating to humanists and the problem that would be faced if they were incorporated in the Bill. It is not the Government’s policy to extend marriage in the way that my hon. Friend is talking about. Humanists can already get married. The Bill is all about ensuring that people who cannot currently get married—same-sex couples—are able to do so. That should be the focus of our discussions.

I also draw hon. Members’ attention to the confusing and contradictory nature of the amendments. Is humanism non-religious, as suggested in the definition of approved organisations in new clause 15? If so, would the protections in the Bill for religious organisations apply? There was some confusion about that, particularly as to whether this would allow the marriage of same-sex couples. Or is humanism religious, as suggested in amendments 20 and 21, which add reference to approved organisations to the definition of a “relevant religious organisation”? Are we clear what humanism means in legislative terms, and who the definition would catch? The amendments simply highlight some of the problems that would arise from trying to shoehorn a new category of marriage into the current legal framework.

[Dr Huppert]

I do not think that the Secretary of State quite addressed the question put by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), which was whether in principle—if there was a way that did not involve the Bill, did not have ECHR problems and did not cause any other problems—she and the Government would support the concept of humanist weddings.

I am really rising because I am so shocked at the concerns about the extra amendments, which again were inserted at the suggestion of Government officials. The BHA has changed this to suit the Government, and the Government then complain about the changes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr. Huppert, it is not necessary to restate at length a previous question. I remind you that interventions should be brief, not a series of questions. It would help enormously if we stuck to those conventions.

[Maria Miller]

I can be very clear. It is not coalition policy to undertake the actions that the hon. Gentleman outlines. I have already dealt with the comments made about the work of my officials. Most individuals who have been dealing with my officials have found their work incredibly diligent and helpful. I am sorry that he does not feel that that has been the case in this instance.

New clause 14 would create a new status of civil union and repeal the Marriage Act 1949. That would prevent the creation of any new marriages: put simply, England and Wales would no longer recognise marriage within the law. It seems that the intention here is that civil unions would replace marriages—a change that would affect everyone who wants to marry in England and Wales in the future. That is simply not a position that the Government can support.

Conversely, the Bill is about strengthening marriage, and the Government strongly oppose any measure that would undermine marriage. New clause 14 would damage the important institution of marriage beyond repair. It would to all intents and purposes abolish it. I therefore note and welcome the intention of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) not to press the new clause to a vote. It is not something that we could support if he were to do so.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that kind acknowledgment. The new clause was very much an attempt to show that we should be separating the state recognition of marriage from the religious. That is the point, not what it is called in the end. We are changing the institution of marriage through the Bill anyway, so to do so properly and more succinctly is something that should be explored in the other place.

[Maria Miller]

I do not believe that we are changing marriage. Marriage is one state, which we are enabling a new set of individuals to access, so I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. This is not about changing marriage; it is about ensuring that more people can get into it.

[Greg Mulholland]

Will my right hon. Friend give way, briefly?

[Maria Miller]

I will make some progress, because we have another string of amendments to get through.

The effect of new clause 18 and amendments 58 and 59 would be to require all marriages not conducted through a religious ceremony to be called civil marriages. The intention seems to be to separate marriage conducted through civil and religious ceremonies into two distinct institutions. Let me be clear that there is one legal institution of marriage in England and Wales that couples —all couples, we hope, as a result of the Bill—can join through either a religious or a civil ceremony. The new clause would create a separate type of marriage without any consideration of the legal impact. The legal consequences of such a new distinction are completely unclear.

New clause 18 contains no reference to same-sex couples, so it does not seem to require that such couples should be limited to access to civil marriage only, which might be thought to have been the purpose of distinguishing between religious and civil marriage for legal purposes. That is simply not something the Government can support. We all want couples to be able to access the important and single institution of marriage, and that is what the Bill is about. The Bill has one clear and straightforward purpose: opening up the existing institution of marriage to same-sex couples. It is not designed for the sort of fundamental changes proposed in the new clause.

[Simon Hughes]

Does the Minister not accept, however, that there are many people who believe that the civil status of coming together in marriage should be open to straight and gay couples alike, but that people of faith and faith groups should be free to define what they understand as marriage? Some of them would permit same-sex marriage, but some of them take a different view and would not.

[Maria Miller]

I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend says and think that is what the Bill delivers. It delivers the ability of civil marriage to accommodate same-sex couples and enables religious organisations that wish to opt into that to do so, but allows others not to if that is what they choose. That is an important and fundamental principle of the Bill that I think reflects what he has just said.

I believe that the changes proposed in the amendments are an unnecessary and potentially unhelpful diversion from the important objective we are trying to achieve: removing the unfairness that excludes same-sex couples from being able to marry. We must remain focused on that objective and not be sidelined into discussions on other issues at this point. I ask hon. Members not to press these amendments, so that we can proceed to discuss the next group.

[Kate Green]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this interesting and, at times, passionate debate. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who tabled the amendment that led us to new clause 15, and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who first tabled it in Committee, for the work we have been able to do across parties to bring the proposal to the Floor of the House this afternoon.

Despite the fact that the proposal has been before the House in some form or other since 5 February, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out, it seems that the legal doubts expressed this afternoon by the Attorney-General have come to us rather late in the day. That does not mean that we do not take them extremely seriously; of course we do, but it would have been helpful to know that discussions were taking place with officials, whether or not they were proactively suggesting that such changes to the original proposal would help to strengthen it. The fact that discussions took place some weeks ago means that it is a matter of particular regret that the legal difficulties with the proposal were not highlighted earlier.

The Secretary of State said that my amendment and, I think, others in the group were unnecessary. For humanists, it is not unnecessary at all. Yes, they can choose to have a civil marriage and a humanist ceremony, but they do not have available to them a ceremony that they feel would properly recognise them as marrying one another and making that public commitment in front of family and friends. That is the discrimination that we seek to address. However, I take very seriously her wish, which she knows we share very strongly, to see this Bill proceed. We do not want it to be delayed or have its development and progress inhibited by arguments about these proposals.

I want to pick up on one or two of the objections that were raised not only by Ministers but by other hon. Members around the Chamber, suggesting that there are still genuine uncertainties about what is and is not provided for in current law and what we now seek to achieve. If the Secretary of State is willing to come forward with a statement of the Government’s legal concerns, that would be extremely helpful in properly facing off all the objections that have been raised in time for them to be understood and considered before the Bill is debated in the House of Lords. We do not want a re-run of objections arriving late or being raised without justification. It is clear from what has been said today that many hon. Members would like the Government’s position to be fully argued in good time for a fully informed debate in the House of Lords.

Some Members, particularly the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the Secretary of State, have said repeatedly that these proposals in some way undermine the quadruple lock that has been put in place. The Secretary of State suggested that that is because it is not clear whether the protections that it affords would apply to humanists, and if so, that might undermine the protections for religious organisations. If so, it would be extremely helpful to understand exactly how that is. We would be grateful if the Secretary of State fully clarified that in the letter that she says she will make available to the House.

A misunderstanding has come up repeatedly this afternoon. We recognise that the system in England is different from the system in Scotland, which registers celebrants. The system in England is not based only on the registration of premises for Jews and Quakers, for example. There is no requirement for them to hold their ceremonies in certain premises, but they are required to hold ceremonies in accordance with their usages. What is more, the amendment would not attach registration to celebrants. It is about registering organisations, and one form of organisation in particular—that which is a belief organisation, a charitable organisation or a humanist organisation that secures the approval and authorisation of the Registrar General. It is very clear which kind of institution we are trying to cover.

The most serious objection is the human rights objection, which, sadly, only emerged at the beginning of this afternoon. I would be grateful if any hon. Member who participated during the earlier stages of the Bill and who remembers differently could correct me, but I do not recall the human rights objection being raised at any point before this afternoon. Of course it is vital that we take account of the Attorney-General’s concerns and advice on this matter; it would be utterly irresponsible of us not to do so. However, even the Attorney-General’s advice changed over the course of this afternoon. At the beginning of the afternoon, he said that there was a problem with the proposal because it could apply so widely that any organisation, including a society for the promotion of tiddlywinks, might potentially be discriminated against if it were not authorised to carry out marriages as well. I think that he rowed back from that later on and acknowledged that only belief organisations would be authorised. He was right to say that the possibility of discrimination between different belief organisations is the central human rights issue that must be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I start by thanking the Front Bench speakers from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as those from other parties located in their area of the House, who are too numerous to mention, for the good natured way in which the Bill has been discussed, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Bill has excited many different views, but we have always conducted ourselves in the best ways of this House.

While I am giving thanks, I also thank the officials who have worked very long hours to ensure that the proceedings of the House took place in a seamless manner, that questions were answered, and that papers were made available. My heartfelt thanks go out to them all for the hard work they have put into the Bill.

I have spent some time thinking about how I would address the House on Third Reading. As I have said, for many reasons, the subject draws strong opinion from Members on both sides of the House. Just as the Civil Partnership 2004 Act was discussed in pubs, homes, church halls and communities throughout the country, so has the Bill. Over the past few months, I have listened carefully to many different voices within and outside Parliament. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had passionate but fair debates. In the best traditions of the House, we have maintained respect for one another’s views, and had open and constructive discussions with all involved.

[Mr Ellwood]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point on discussions with constituents. It might be wrong to generalise, but does she agree that there is a generational aspect to approaches to the Bill—the younger generation very much supports it, but the older generation is concerned about the society in which they have grown up?

[Maria Miller]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I am not sure whether he puts me into the older generation —I hope not. There are differences in views across the generations, and differences in views in different parts of the country and different communities. We must accept that people have different views for whatever reason. The most important thing is that we maintain respect for people’s different views. Such an open approach, which we have taken throughout proceedings on the Bill, has meant that the Government have been able to take action to improve the Bill, and to reassure hon. Members on some of the issues they have raised.

The Government have throughout remained committed to the principle that people should not be excluded from marriage simply because of who they love. The institution of marriage underpins our society. Over the years, as society has evolved, so has marriage. As such, it has remained our bedrock. The values of love, commitment and stability underpin marriage—they are the values on which our society is built. Despite our differences in opinion, no hon. Member would dispute that those are the values we should promote. If the values of marriage are the values on which we want to build our society, they must be available to all, and they must underpin an institution that is available to all couples. Our country is renowned the world over for its tolerance. We have a rich tapestry of faith, belief and culture. That is unique—it is part of what makes us British. Those strong traditions will enable same-sex couples to marry.

In no way will the measure undermine those who believe—for whatever reason, whether religious or philosophical—that marriage should be between a man and woman. They can continue to believe that. That is their right. No religious organisation or individual minister will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they choose not to do so, and nor will religious organisations or individual ministers be forced to have same-sex marriages conducted on their premises. The quadruple lock that the Government have designed provides robust and effective protections. The Government are also clear that the Bill does not prevent people, whether at work or outside, from expressing their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is their right. Teachers will still be able to express their personal beliefs about marriage as long as they do so sensitively and appropriately. Employers will be unable to dismiss or discipline a person simply because they say they do not believe in same-sex marriage.

I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed on those issues. The right for people legitimately to express their beliefs is why we have committed to do all we can to clarify or strengthen the protections on freedom of expression. I understand the importance that right hon. and hon. Members place on that.

If, through the Bill, we can strengthen marriage and protect it as the bedrock of our society in these changing times for the decades to come, provide protection for those religious organisations and their representatives who do not want to marry same-sex couples, and reassure those who disagree with same-sex marriage that their right to express such a belief is protected, then we should do so confidently and assertively. I am confident that we have struck the right balance. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and we have made changes on the basis of those concerns.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The Secretary of State speaks of changes. Will she clarify how many Acts of Parliament will have to be amended as a result of the Bill?

[Maria Miller]

Many pieces of legislation will have to be amended, which is why we have provisions in the Bill, particularly on ecclesiastical law, to ensure that all required amendments are made. My hon. Friend is right that this is complex. That is why I have been at pains, particularly yesterday and today, to ensure that we do not introduce new concepts into the Bill. We want to keep clarity and focus, and ensure that we do the job. I believe that in the years ahead we will look back on the passage of the Bill, as we now look back on the introduction of civil partnerships: we will be in no doubt that equal marriage is right and we will be proud that we made it happen.

It is important that we debated in detail some difficult and challenging issues. Yesterday, we talked about civil partnership. Equal marriage will correct something that is fundamentally unfair, and remove a barrier that prevents a whole group of people from access to an institution that underpins society. Civil partnerships were created to give same-sex couples equivalent legal rights to marriage at a time when society was not ready to give them access to marriage. Although I am clear that taking a decision on the future of civil partnerships now would not be a responsible thing to do, I have listened to Members’ clear concerns, particularly in the comments expressed yesterday. As such, we have agreed to undertake an immediate review of civil partnerships. That will be an important way to ensure clarity on how that aspect of legal recognition of relationships is taken forward.

We have had further discussions today, with Members drawing on issues concerning humanist ceremonies. The system of marriage in England and Wales, as we discussed in great detail, is based on a system of premises, and not, as in Scotland, celebrants. A change of the nature proposed in today’s amendments would, as we heard from the Attorney-General, be a fundamental change to the current structure of marriage. As has happened in Scotland, it would also open to the door to a range of other belief organisations being able to conduct marriages. Such decisions are a matter for Scotland—this is a devolved matter—but if we are to discuss these matters it is only right that Members are aware that the amendments tabled could not preclude opening up the ability to conduct marriages to belief organisations other than humanists. The Attorney-General made an important contribution to the debate. New clause 15 would have given preferential treatment to one particular belief group and made the Bill incompatible with the convention on human rights, so I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for not pressing the new clause. I welcome that decision.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the provisions of the European convention on human rights will not be compromised by the fact that the Bill makes unequal provision for civil partnerships?

[Maria Miller]

Yes, I can. I am glad that I can make that clear for my hon. Friend, and may I apologise to him for not taking his intervention yesterday? I could not quite hear who it was. Had I known, I would definitely have accepted it. I sincerely apologise to him.

I accept that for some colleagues their beliefs are an insurmountable barrier to supporting the change, but to other colleagues I say, “Now is the time”. Let us not be sidetracked or distracted; let us not expand the remit of the Bill beyond its original intention; let us make equal marriage possible because it is the right thing to do; and then let us move on. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

8. What progress she has made on broadband delivery.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Two thirds of premises in the UK now have superfast broadband available. Some 100,000 more homes and businesses are getting coverage every week and average speeds have increased from 5.2 megabits in May 2010 to 12 megabits by November 2012.

[Alun Cairns]

The Government have made excellent progress in rolling out broadband across the UK, and the Secretary of State should be congratulated on that. However, there are some rural communities where the last mile remains a problem. What consideration has she given to reviewing the regulations to empower rural communities to take more control in assisting in the rolling out of broadband to their areas?

[Maria Miller]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have committed to 2 megabits on a universal basis throughout the country. We also have a £20 million rural community broadband fund to do the sorts of things he mentions, including working with the Welsh Assembly to make sure broadband reaches rural areas. Importantly, we are also always looking at ways to remove barriers that are stopping that last mile, and I will continue to work with my hon. Friend and other colleagues on that.

[Andrew Selous]

On 9 February last year I asked the Secretary of State’s predecessor when broadband speeds would improve in villages including Hockliffe, Tilsworth, Stanbridge and Eggington in my constituency, where speeds continue to be about 1 megabit per minute, which makes watching video on the internet very difficult. Will I be able to pass on some good news to my constituents shortly?

[Maria Miller]

I understand my hon. Friend’s impatience, and the nine months’ delay we had in getting state aid approval for our broadband programme was certainly problematic. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the programme in his Bedfordshire constituency is green-rated and that we are due to begin its procurement in the week of 7 May, with the contract to be agreed in August. That is good news for his constituents.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Government’s complete and utter incompetence—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Already I have support. The Government’s complete and utter incompetence in the Department for Transport’s letting of the west coast main line franchise means delays that will result in the trains to Cardiff and Swansea having no wi-fi or broadband until 2016. When will the Secretary of State seize hold of that opportunity, because the situation is creating real difficulties for businesses that want to relocate from London to south Wales?

[Maria Miller]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the ability of business people—or anybody else—to do work when on trains, and I have spoken to my colleagues in the Department for Transport about it. Importantly, however, as I have said, two thirds of premises in this country now have access to superfast broadband. The hon. Gentleman will also want to know that the internet contributes more than 8% to the UK economy, which is the highest proportion in any G8 country. We are impatient for more change, but we have already made a great deal of progress.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

First, may I join in what the Minister, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), said about Sir Colin Davis? He was an enormous figure in music, who was admired and respected, and who inspired people not only in this country, but around the world. He is a sad loss to the London Symphony Orchestra, this country and music generally.

Everyone knows that access to decent-speed broadband is vital to businesses and people’s work and home life and is needed in all areas. When we were in government, we committed to everyone in the UK getting decent-speed broadband—at least 2 megabits per second—by the end of last year. This Government abandoned that target, and Ofcom says that 2.6 million households still have not got decent-speed broadband. Instead the Government promised superfast broadband by the end of 2015, but there is growing concern that they will not meet that target. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that those concerns are wrong and that she is on track to meet the Government’s target of 90% of premises getting superfast broadband by 2015?

[Maria Miller]

The difference between the right hon. and learned Lady and me is that she may speak warm words, but this Government are actually making practical interventions. Not only with our commitment to 2 megabits universally, but through our urban project and our rural broadband project, we are actually delivering for the people of this country. More than two thirds of premises now have access to superfast broadband, so perhaps it is little wonder that the people of this country bought so many goods and services online in 2011—we bought more than any other major economy. Broadband has a fantastic role to play, and we are making sure it reaches more and more households. Indeed, it will reach 10 million more households by the end of this Parliament.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of progress towards rolling out superfast broadband to 90% of premises by 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

9. What plans she has to ensure a suitable commemoration of the centenary of the first world war.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

The Government will deliver a four-year programme to mark the centenary, focused around the themes of remembrance, youth and education. We will lead the nation in acts of remembrance, and a £50 million fund will be made available to provide a framework for learning and community-led projects.

[Penny Mordaunt]

For Hampshire, investing in our heritage will also yield considerable sums in visitor revenue. I am delighted that Hampshire county council has sought to invest in HMS Monitor M33, which will yield millions in heritage funds and tourism income. Does the Secretary of State think that Hampshire Liberal Democrats who opposed that measure should visit Portsmouth dockyard to see what a good return on investment looks like?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon.—and maybe gallant?—Friend for that question. I have visited Monitor M33 and there are only two such battleships left in existence. Hampshire county council has had the foresight to invest in something that would otherwise have been lost to the nation, and it should be applauded for doing so. As my hon. Friend points out, that is not only good for the heritage of our country, but great for tourism in Portsmouth.

[Henry Smith]

What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with broadcasters, particularly BBC local radio, to mark this important centenary? No community in our country was left untouched by the impact of the first world war.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to say that every community—and, indeed, every individual—in this country can find their story with regards to the first world war. My officials have been talking to the BBC and other institutions that are already well developed in the ways they will be supporting this important event, which was probably one of the most defining in this nation’s history.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

A huge contribution was made by Dr Elsie Inglis and the medical teams of women who helped not just as nurses, but as doctors. They felt that their contribution was to the whole of the UK, not merely to Scotland. Is the Secretary of State prepared to meet me and other Edinburgh MPs to discuss how that contribution could be commemorated in London? I understand that some difficulty has been placed in the way of an exhibition on that.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady raises the important issue of the role of women and the way in which the first world war had an immeasurable impact on that. I would, of course, be delighted to hear more about the point she raises, particularly the role of women in medicine. The lottery will make available funding for local community projects, and I am already working closely with Scotland and Scottish officials to ensure that we correctly mark this event in Scotland too.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The first world war was caused by a complete foreign policy malfunction based on the imperial ambitions of the elites of the time. It resulted in the deaths of 30 million soldiers and 7 million civilians. Surely the Secretary of State agrees that it would be more appropriate to commemorate the end of the war, rather than to replicate in 2014 a jamboree reminiscent of the jingoistic nonsense used to drum up support for the slaughter.

[Maria Miller]

I have to say that the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention is not quite what I would like to hear. We should ensure that we mark the entirety of the first world war from its beginning to its end, as it had a considerable impact on every community in this country. I recently had the honour of visiting many of the war graves of those who gave their lives throughout the war, and we need to ensure that we honour their memory in full.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

17. On a recent visit to the war graves in Belgium, with all the emotions that everybody feels, it struck me how much we owe to thousands of soldiers from across the Indian subcontinent, the Caribbean, Africa, Nepal and, in one cemetery, even China. There is a real chance in these commemorations to involve every British person, regardless of race or religious background.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right. I, too, have seen some of those graves. I can reassure him that our noble Friend Baroness Warsi and I are working with me on that—she has a number of commemorative events in hand.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

6. What progress she has made in ensuring the future delivery of broadband to rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

13. What steps she is taking to increase the contribution of tourism to the British economy.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

The campaign launched by a partnership between the GREAT campaign and VisitBritain will deliver 4.6 million inbound visitors and more than £2 billion of spending by 2015. VisitEngland’s marketing, including Holidays at home are GREAT, generated incremental spending of nearly £30 million last year, and a new round will be launched in May.

[Mark Pawsey]

My constituency benefits from being the only place to have given its name to a sport that is played all over the world. My right hon. Friend was kind enough to accept my invitation to visit Rugby and see how we are preparing for the 2015 world cup. Does she agree that my constituency’s link to the game provides a fantastic opportunity for the boosting of local tourism in our economy?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to the historic link between international sporting events and tourism. All Members should think about how they can promote the efforts that their constituencies are making to benefit from the tourism industry, which now supports more than 2.5 million jobs and more than £100 billion in the economy.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Britain’s musical heritage is one of the key drivers of tourism in this country. Liverpool is the most obvious example because of the Beatles, but we should also remember Manchester during the heyday of Madchester and the Hacienda. What is the Minister doing to bring such examples to the attention of tourists to the UK, and how does that fit into the Government’s strategy?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Many of our cultural institutions are going abroad to present a positive image of this country’s cultural and arts sector to potential visitors, but it is campaigns such as the GREAT campaign that can pinpoint cultural assets which reside not only in the south-east and around our capital city but throughout the United Kingdom, and can encourage more people to enjoy more of our great country.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

15. Given that transport links are one of the Government’s priorities for tourism, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with those in other Departments about improving, in particular, rail links to our major tourism hotspots?

[Maria Miller]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this subject. As he knows, we have launched an extensive programme to establish how we can improve not just rail links but other transport links throughout the country, and tourism has to be at the heart of those discussions because of its important role in the UK economy.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

On behalf of the whole House, let me put on record that our thoughts are with, and our condolences go out to, all who have been affected by the tragic events that took place at the Boston marathon. I was pleased to learn that this weekend’s runners here in London, a number of whom will be Members of Parliament—including our own departmental Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan)—will be asked to wear a black ribbon as a sign of respect and solidarity, and that a period of silence will be observed before the race begins.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I echo my right hon. Friend’s comments about the Boston marathon. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who were injured.

Back in February, I raised with the ministerial team the subject of Olympic legacy funding and the funding of grass-roots sports clubs. I am delighted to say that since then another Pendle club, Burwain sailing club and training centre, has benefited from funding. I have recently been working with Colne football club, which will also be bidding for funds. What more can Ministers do to promote the funding that is available to grass-roots sports clubs in Pendle?

[Maria Miller]

As my hon. Friend will know, increasing participation in sport is at the heart of our legacy programme, and we have a £1 billion fund to promote it. In particular we have the Places People Play scheme, which relates directly to the legacy, the aim of which is to ensure that people continue to be inspired by London 2012 not just for the next 12 months, but for the next decade.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Everyone will want to send condolences to those who have been affected by the bombing that took place during the Boston marathon on Monday. This Sunday 37,500 runners will take part in the London marathon, and hundreds of thousands of people will line the streets to cheer them on. Some will be cheering on my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and we wish him all the best.

Given that the London marathon is one of the greatest occasions in the annual sporting calendar for the United Kingdom, may I invite the Secretary of State to deliver some words of reassurance, and to update us on discussions in which she has engaged with the aim of ensuring that that sporting event on Sunday is what we remember?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right to bring that up. He will know from London 2012 that this country has a great deal of experience of ensuring that our sporting events go well and that security is at the heart of the planning process. The London marathon is no different and I can tell him clearly that my right hon. Friend the sports Minister met the Mayor yesterday to go through the plans again to reassure themselves and the Government that we have the right security procedures in place. We are reassured, as a result of our experience not just with the marathon but with the Olympics, that we have the right people in place to ensure that the event is a great success.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T5. I commend the Minister on the work that is being done on rolling out superfast broadband, but this week I have heard from some constituents who are concerned about possible delays in rolling out superfast broadband to rural Fylde. May I have an assurance that the Minister will look into this and that we will get some transparency from BT to ensure that we have reassurances for rural areas?

[Maria Miller]

I can understand why my hon. Friend has raised that issue. As I said earlier, the role of superfast broadband and connectivity in our lives is growing. It is one of the most important ways that people can do business in this country. We are ensuring that it is a priority to get connectivity, whether it is through 4G or superfast broadband, to all areas of the country. I am pleased to consider specific examples, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), is meeting BT weekly to go through each of the procurement plans in detail. Indeed, 60% of our programme for rural areas has been procured and it is going ahead at great speed.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

T2. Has the Secretary of State had any luck in breaking the logjam of appointments in Downing street, or is the Prime Minister still blocking anyone who is not a member of the Conservative party from serving on trusts and boards?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps thinking back to a bygone age, when that was an issue. I can reassure him that we want to have the best people in place to do the job. What I will say directly to the hon. Gentleman is that we are trying to do a better job of ensuring that we get more women involved in those appointments and that we have diversity on our boards, not just in business but in trusts.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T6. The Britain on Foot campaign, which will be launched publicly in May, will help many more people to get active outdoors and will help boost tourism in rural areas. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government back those aims and the campaign and will she join me in welcoming the hard work that is going on from the British Mountaineering Council, the Outdoor Industry Association and the Ramblers in taking this forward?

[Maria Miller]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep interest in this subject and I absolutely agree with him about the importance of getting people out and about so that they can enjoy the beautiful countryside of our country. The initiative that he has undertaken is absolutely right, as it will not just improve people’s health but show tourism opportunities.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

T3. The Minister wants councils to invest in the arts, yet the Department for Communities and Local Government has cut council budgets in such a draconian manner that many of them are being forced to fund services only when they are statutorily required to do so. Since the arts are an important factor in economic regeneration, when will we get some joined-up government so that his Department is not pulling in one direction while the DCLG pulls in another?

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

T8. Does the Secretary of State agree that if one believes that the highest of British culture can be found in military music and pageantry, in the architecture of Sir Christopher Wren—about whom it was famously said “Si monumentum requiris, circumspice”—and in the incomparable English of the King James version of the Bible, no finer example could be found than yesterday’s magnificent funeral for the late and great Margaret Thatcher?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. All of us will have felt that yesterday’s event was superbly staged not only by St Paul’s cathedral, but by our military personnel. It was a fitting tribute to a great leader and a woman who is an inspiration to many of us.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

T4. Birmingham, historically the city of Pebble Mill, has great BBC traditions. Widespread concern has been expressed that in Britain’s second city, much programme making has been transferred, with the licence fee payer in the midlands no longer receiving value for money. Does the Minister agree that with dialogue now under way with the new director-general, our great national broadcaster has an obligation to ensure that Birmingham does not suffer a disproportionate impact and remains a world-class centre of production and programme making?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

2. What recent progress she has made on helping women achieve their potential in the workplace.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

There are more women in work than ever before. Since the coalition Government came into office, 347,000 more women are in employment. We are supporting women to maintain their connection to the labour market, which will allow them to reach their potential in work. That is why we have announced the extension of the right to request flexible working to all by 2014 and the introduction of shared parental leave by 2015.

[Margot James]

In some workplaces women are dramatically under represented. According to the Institution of Engineering and Technology, just 6% of the engineering work force is female. What more can the Government do to influence the choices young girls make and to open their minds to the potential of a career in engineering?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right. It is about choices, particularly the choices that young girls and women make in school and in higher education. That is why the National Careers Service has such an important role to play. We also need teachers to encourage young girls to take those subjects that can help them go into engineering, as well as all the work we are doing to modernise the workplace in order to keep them there.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

The Government’s own equalities impact assessment on universal credit admits that the policy might encourage many second earners, who are usually women, to leave work and stay at home. Does the Minister agree that such a move would turn the clock back on women’s equality and undermine the role of women in the workplace?

[Maria Miller]

Absolutely not. Our work under universal credit to increase access to child care for women working fewer than 16 hours represents the first time that such support will be in place. We should be championing universal credit as a way of making sure that more women can stay connected to the labour market at a time when they also have caring responsibilities.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Many working women lose out when they have a baby. Last month, a survey by the lawyers Slater & Gordon showed that more than one in seven women returning from maternity leave do not have a job to go back to, yet the Government are not even bothering to collect proper data on pregnancy-related redundancy. The Slater & Gordon research showed that two in five new mums were refused flexible hours and nearly half said that the job they had gone back to was less good than the one they had left. What are the Government doing to get a grip on pregnancy discrimination?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I recently met many of those who are looking at the issue, which, like her, I take seriously. I want women not to have a false choice between having a family and staying in employment; they need to be able to do both. That is why by changing the culture in our workplaces so that businesses look at how they can accommodate women—not just in respect of their statutory duties, but more fully than that—we can make sure that women can not only have their family responsibilities, but continue in their jobs.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to increase the number of women in senior positions in business.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

The Government are supporting Lord Davies’s voluntary, business-led approach to improve the number of women on boards, which has resulted in an unprecedented increase to date. On top of that, our “Think, Act, Report” initiative encourages companies to take action and report on gender equality in the workplace, promoting greater transparency. More than 80 leading companies are signed up so far, representing more than 1.3 million employees.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer about an issue that we both believe to be important. A number of Government Members have undertaken an inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to meet us to discuss some of things that we have raised—such as unconscious bias training, which leading companies are giving as a matter of course to help more women get up the pipeline?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that such work can make all the difference in changing that culture in the workplace. I am aware of the Conservative Women’s Forum’s work in the area, and I applaud it. I would be delighted to meet her.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that the recent Cranfield report and the Davies progress report say that much more needs to be done. Does she agree with the Business Secretary, who says that there is a lack of progress and that quotas are a real possibility?

[Maria Miller]

The Business Secretary and I helped to launch the most recent update on Lord Davies’s report. Both of us noted how much progress had been made. However, the hon. Lady is right to say that there is still much more to be done, whether in FTSE 100 or FTSE 250 firms. However, the House should note that considerable progress has been made under the Government—progress that was not forthcoming before.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

The message that we send from this place is important. Some 32 Ministers are entitled to attend Cabinet meetings, but just five are women. Will the Secretary of State join me in urging the Prime Minister to put the situation right?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that the Government are absolutely committed to the importance of equality and fairness and of getting more women involved, not just at the top of our organisations but throughout them. What we and other parties are doing is making sure that we develop that pipeline of great women to take those positions in future.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to prevent women from becoming victims of human trafficking.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Maria Miller Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 22—Relevant considerations.

Government new clause 23—Amount of exemplary damages.

Government new clause 24—Multiple claimants.

Government new clause 25—Multiple defendants.

Government new clause 26—Awards of aggravated damages.

Government new clause 27A—Awards of costs.

Government new clause 29—Meaning of “relevant publisher”.

Government new clause 30—Other interpretative provisions.

Government new schedule 5—‘Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher”.

Government amendments 121A and 122.

[Maria Miller]

The Leveson inquiry shone a spotlight on the worst excesses of the press. As a result of the revelations involving the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone and all that went before it, we have seen the closure of a national newspaper and a range of ongoing criminal investigations.

Lord Justice Leveson heard evidence for more than a year. I should like to pause for a second to pay tribute—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Please will Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly? I am finding it very difficult to hear what the Minister is saying.

[Maria Miller]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I should like to pay tribute to those who gave evidence that involved them revisiting those harrowing experiences. I hope it will be clear today that that ordeal has not been in vain.

Today marks a turning point. We can move on from simply talking about Lord Justice Leveson’s report to starting to act on it, with a new package that is agreed by all three party leaders. The package includes a new royal charter, as announced by the Prime Minister earlier; a new costs and damages package that seeks to maximise incentives for relevant publishers to be part of the new press self-regulator; and one short clause reinforcing the point that politicians cannot tamper with the new press royal charter, which is the subject of debate in the other place.

Before I discuss the Bill, I should like to make clear what we are not talking about. The Prime Minister said to the House on the day the report was published that he had serious misgivings about statutory press regulation. He—I agreed with him—was determined to find a better way of establishing the recognition body that would oversee the tough self-regulatory body that Lord Justice Leveson envisaged. That is what our royal charter does.

Our proposals will provide the toughest system of regulation that this country has ever seen. The system will protect the public and ensure that the freedom of the press is not undermined. Alongside our proposals, we will include a three-line clause that reinforces the language within the charter and says that it cannot be changed without a two-thirds majority in both Houses. The clause ensures that, for generations to come, Ministers cannot interfere with the new system without explicit and extensive support from both Houses.

We have achieved all of that without needing to set out a system of press regulation in legislation—hence, our proposals are not statutory underpinning. The three-line clause applies to all royal charters of a particular nature from this point onwards. It is simply a safeguard.

We are in the House to debate amendments that will put in place a new, tough set of incentives for publishers. There are two such incentives—the first relates to the award of exemplary damages, and the second relates to the award of costs in litigation involving relevant publishers. The package forms a crucial part of the new regulatory regime, providing strong new incentives to relevant press publishers to join the press regulator. When they choose to join the press regulator, they will receive a series of benefits on costs and damages. However, those that choose not to join the regulator will be exposed to the tough new regime, which includes payment, in most cases, of the costs of people who bring claims in the courts against publishers on civil media laws, regardless of whether those people win or lose; and exposure to a new exemplary damages regime—we are introducing a new punitive damages regime for breaches of those media laws for those who do not sign up to the regulator.

Victims of press mistreatment will, for the first time, have access to a new toughened complaints mechanism with prominent apologies, tough £1 million fines, and access to a new arbitration system.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State gives us the welcome news that this is the toughest regulatory system in the UK, but will the system impose on newspapers the duty of political balance that is imposed by the royal charter on the BBC and ITV?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we are trying exactly to protect freedom of speech, so that newspapers have the ability to comment on proceedings in this place and more widely. We are protecting that important ability and maintaining and promoting freedom of speech.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I want to clarify schedule 4 of the royal charter, which states that a “relevant publisher” is

“a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material”.

Does that include, for example, newspapers published by local Conservative associations? Might we therefore have to register?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is slightly jumping the gun—we will come to that in more detail later—but I can give him a sneak preview of the answer, which is no. Clear tests included in new clause 29 make it clear that such publications will not be covered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the legislation has been driven by the behaviour of certain national newspapers, and that our local newspapers and provincial press have not been responsible, but will have to pay for the sins of Fleet street?

[Maria Miller]

I understand the sentiment behind my hon. Friend’s question. I can reassure him that we have been working directly with representatives of the local press to ensure that the new system does not, as he suggests, burden them unnecessarily. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) will remark on that further; I will do so in my comments later.

Exemplary damages will be awarded only in the most serious cases, in line with both the Leveson report and the report of the 1997 Law Commission. The test for the award will be: where the defendant’s conduct has shown a deliberate or reckless disregard of an outrageous nature for the claimant’s rights; where conduct is such that the court should punish the defendant for it; and where other remedies would not be adequate to punish that conduct. The supplementary new clauses ensure that the new exemplary damages system works in practice.

New clause 22 sets out factors that the court must take into account in deciding whether an award of exemplary damages is appropriate, and whether membership of an improved regulator was available to the defendant at the time of the events giving rise to the claims. If so, what reasons the defendant had for not being a member are factors that can be considered. The court must also have regard, so far as it is relevant, to whether the defendant has internal compliance procedures of a satisfactory nature in place and how they are adhered to.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could provide me with some clarification. She says that the exemplary damages regime will apply as per the new clauses and so on. One of the exclusions from the definition of a “relevant publisher”, which she will find in new schedule 5, is:

“A person who publishes a title that relates to a particular pastime, hobby, trade, business, industry or profession”.

Maybe the “hobby” relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). What is the position of an irrelevant publisher, if I can describe him as that, who publishes a magazine or some other publication about a pastime, hobby or trade, but who none the less behaves within the terms of Rookes v. Barnard? Would the court still be able to award exemplary damages in that circumstance?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. and learned Friend raises an issue in which he is well versed. If I do not provide a complete answer, then I will get back to him with all the details. Clearly, if somebody is not a relevant publisher then they are not drawn into the self-regulatory scheme. They would not be subject to exemplary damages or be eligible for the scheme. Therefore, they would not be caught within this remit. We have so drawn the definition of “relevant publishers” to ensure that the scheme does not catch people we do not need to catch, and that is why we have been careful to set out the three tests in new clause 29—to ensure that we are clear about who is covered. Some individual organisations might well fall close to the line, but then it would be for the courts to decide.

New clause 23 sets out matters to which the court must have regard in deciding the amount of exemplary damages appropriate, and the key principles governing the court’s consideration are that the amount should be no more

“than the minimum needed to punish the defendant for the conduct complained of”

and that it should be “proportionate”. New clauses 24 and 25 ensure that those provisions will operate effectively in cases involving more than one claimant or defendant.

For completeness, I shall also mention new clause 26 and amendment 121A. New clause 26 implements recommendation 71 in Lord Justice Leveson’s report and confirms that, in cases under the new system, aggravated damages should be awarded only to compensate for mental distress and should have no punitive element. Amendment 121A provides that the provisions on exemplary damages come into force one year after the date on which the body is established by royal charter. That will be a powerful incentive to the press to establish the new regulator on a timely basis. For all their rarity, the availability of exemplary damages should send a powerful signal to publishers.

I turn to the provisions relating to costs in new clause 27A. The proposals are designed to give further real and powerful incentives and give effect to Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendation that the award of costs should be another tool to encourage publishers to join the regulator. The new clause would provide a clear presumption that where a claimant took a publisher inside the regulator to court, even if the claimant was successful, the normal rule that their costs would be met by a losing publisher would not apply. In other words, a defendant publisher that had joined the regulator should pay a claimant’s costs only in limited circumstances—if the issue could have been resolved at arbitration, had the defendant agreed to its being referred, or if it was just and equitable for the defendant to pay the claimant’s costs.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The fundamental problem is not necessarily the costs paid at the end of the case, but the costs of a litigant’s bringing an action against a publisher. I and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) have represented many individuals who would have struggled to bring such actions without protections. Will the Secretary of State advise the House of what protections are in place, and may I highly recommend the protective costs order regime that provides protection to an impoverished, but justified, litigant as against a very wealthy publisher?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend pre-empts something that I will cover in more detail later. I will not only deal with the cost regime, but explain that to comply with Leveson the new self-regulatory regime will include free arbitration, so giving those individuals the access to justice that he rightly says they should have.

New clause 27A establishes a second presumption—that a relevant publisher that chooses to stay outside the regulator would generally have costs awarded against it in proceedings for media tort, whether or not the claim is successful. In other words, a defendant publisher that does not join the regulator should always pay the claimant’s costs, unless the issue could not have been resolved at arbitration if the publisher had been a member of a regulator, or unless it were just and equitable for the defendant publisher not to pay those costs. These provisions deal with defendants and the costs they should or should not pay to claimants. The issue of claimants and the costs they might have to pay to defendants is also important and is addressed in subsection (5).

Lord Justice Leveson endorsed Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendation that qualified one-way cost shifting should be introduced for defamation and privacy cases. QOCS is a form of cost protection. The Government accepted that recommendation, and we have asked the Civil Justice Council, chaired by the Master of the Rolls, to make recommendations by the end of this month on appropriate cost protection measures to be introduced for defamation and privacy cases. The Government then expect to introduce a cost protection regime through the civil procedure rules.

Let us be clear: the new provisions on the awarding of costs, coupled with the provisions I have set out on exemplary damages, provide a powerful incentive to join the regulator and for disputes to be resolved through arbitration that meets the standards set out in the royal charter. Those defined as a “relevant publisher” for the purposes of the new legislation will, if they choose to sit outside the regulator, be exposed to the full force of the new exemplary damages and costs provisions. We want to ensure that the new provisions act as a powerful incentive—as I am sure you can hear me say, Mr Deputy Speaker—but we do not want to draw in too broad a range of publishers.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the incentives are so powerful—with the exemplary damages and the requirement to pay the other side’s costs, even if their claim may be very poor —that, in essence, we are almost forcing the press into joining the new regulator and being subject to the regulation framework determined by Ministers through the Privy Council?

[Maria Miller]

I gently remind my hon. Friend that the criteria used in reaching judgments will not be determined by Ministers, as he will know from the earlier debate. The reason we are establishing a royal charter is exactly so that all this is put very much at arm’s length from Ministers. I suggest to him that every publisher has a choice it can weigh up. Publishers can come inside the self-regulatory process and get the support of the regime for exemplary damages and costs, or they can choose to stay outside. That was absolutely the essence of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendation not to have compulsion, and that is why the Prime Minister and I were so against taking a statutory approach—because we did not feel the press would want to take part in such a regime, which would be a fundamental weakness in the system.

[Mark Reckless]

But is it not the case that Ministers, albeit with senior members of the Opposition, have agreed the royal charter on Privy Council terms—in some ways that is worse than statutory regulation, because MPs have had no opportunity to debate it on behalf of our constituents—and that in many cases the only choice the media face will be whether to join or be bankrupted?

[Maria Miller]

I would say to my hon. Friend that when I have heard people talk about the approach they want the Government to take, they say that they want regulation of the press to be very much at arm’s length from politicians. What we are talking about is a self-regulatory body for the press, set up by the press. The royal charter is a verification panel that will ensure that the press is doing what it should do. It will not be under the eyes of Ministers; it will be independent. However, I urge him to look at the detail of the charter so that he does not take just my word for it, but sees it written down in black and white.

[Guy Opperman]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Miller]

There are lots of people who want to take part in the debate on these amendments, so if my hon. Friend lets me make a little progress, perhaps he can intervene on me a little later.

In new clause 29 we set out a definition of “relevant publisher” that captures national newspapers and their online editions, local and regional newspapers and their online editions, and online-only edited press-like content providers, as well as gossip and lifestyle magazines. Exemplary damages and costs are designed to catch larger news publishers—those at the centre of the circumstances giving rise to Leveson. As highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who is no longer in his place, many of those are not necessarily the smaller publications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We in this corner of the Chamber have been discussing definitions and wondering which magazines would count as hobby magazines. How, for example, would my right hon. Friend define Hello! magazine? It is surely not a newspaper, given that it indulges in the publication of gossip and celebrity pictures. Would it be covered, or would it be exempt, and who will decide where the line is to be drawn?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend tempts me to repeat what I have just said, but perhaps he should read Hansard or the Bill instead.

New clause 29 describes in great detail who will be caught by the definition of “relevant publisher”. The publisher would have to meet the three tests of whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether their material is written by a range of authors—this would exclude a one-man band or a single blogger—and whether that material is subject to editorial control. This is specifically designed to protect small-scale bloggers. Lone bloggers clearly do not meet those criteria. I hope that that clarifies that point.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

One could easily envisage a railway enthusiasts’ magazine which had a range of authors whose material was subject to editorial control but which many people would nevertheless consider to be a hobby magazine. It would fall outside the regime because it was aimed solely at enthusiasts. What would happen, however, if such a magazine were to get hold of some information, perhaps confidential information, about High Speed 2? Would it then be caught by the regime? Does my right hon. Friend not see the path that she is going down?

[Maria Miller]

We have clearly set out the direction that we are going in, and it is there in the information for my hon. Friend to read. Ultimately, the court will decide whether any particular issues fall near the line. If a publication is concerned about whether it would be caught by the new regime, it can of course seek legal advice, but we have done a great deal to make this clear to individual publications. I am sorry—I did not make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset whether Hello! magazine would be caught by the provisions. Yes, it will be. People tell me that it is a gossip magazine. I am not a regular purchaser of it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister mentioned publications that would not fall into the category of “relevant publisher”. If a publication posing as a constituency newsletter—perhaps with a title like Target Marginal South—were to make a serious allegation against someone in another party, what would happen if a relevant publisher were to pick up the story and publish it? Where would they stand if they published a controversial story that had originally been published by a non-relevant publisher?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that such instances already arise and that they are covered by the normal laws of libel. That would continue to be the case because those organisations would not be deemed to be relevant publishers. The normal laws would therefore be in play. Hopefully, that provides him with some clarification.

In conclusion, getting the balance of incentives right is clearly important, as it was really important in the Leveson report. We are, I believe, striking a balance through these amendments that will present a tough new system of press regulation, but equally one that does not compromise the freedom of the press or investigative journalism. We are all clear that investigative journalism and freedom of the press should be given paramount importance in the process. Throughout cross-party talks, we agreed a set of proposals that will create a tough new system of self-regulation.

I believe the package put in front of us all today provides real incentives with real effect. It embodies a crucial part of Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals and part of the tough new regime for press regulation. These amendments have been put forward with cross-party support, so I commend them to the House.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I rise to support the Government new clauses in the group and the manuscript new clauses standing in the name of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The manuscript new clauses arise out of the cross-party talks, into which I thank the Secretary of State for inviting us. That explains why hon. Members have not, I am afraid, had much time to look at them. We all want to be sure that hon. Members have the opportunity to scrutinise provisions in advance, but because we worked late into the night in attempting to agree them, they have been brought before the House with inadequate notice. I offer my apologies for that.

I hope to add to the points made by the Secretary of State, with which I greatly agree. Also, because hon. Members have not had much chance to look at the manuscript amendments and consider what they mean, I shall try to explain my understanding of how they sit with the new framework set out in the royal charter.

As the Secretary of State has said, the choice Leveson made was not to impose direct regulation on newspapers as a complaints system, but to invite them instead to set up their own regulation system and to encourage subscribers to it, not only because it is a good idea as the framework is fair and reasonable, but because incentives and disincentives have been provided. That, of course, leaves the choice to them—the point of incentives and disincentives is that they incentivise and disincentivise—but encourages them to go into the new regime.

It is also crucial—this is a major change—that a new arbitration system is being set up. Over the years, people have wrung their hands about how inaccessible the courts are to people who have been defamed, while newspapers have wrung their hands about being tied up for ages with the enormous costs that can arise if some oligarch takes a newspaper to court. Importantly, therefore, arising from the Leveson report is not just a new complaints system but a new arbitration system. Media torts, defamation and privacy claims that would otherwise have gone to court will instead go into the arbitration system. The manuscript new clauses on cost will incentivise not only newspapers but individual complainants to go into an arbitration system and not straight to court. There is an incentive for a complainant who wants to bring an action against a newspaper that is a member of a regulatory body to agree to arbitration, which will be available to members of the body and which will be run inexpensively. A complainant who does not want to go to arbitration, who says “I will take my chances in court” and who then wins the case will not win the costs, and costs may be awarded against that complainant. Arbitration will involve no cost to complainants, and they will benefit from a top-rate, legally kosher procedure without having to go to court.

--- Later in debate ---

We are dealing with part of the problem. This is a relatively modest proposal, and it is probably the best that we can have in the circumstances. However, we hope that the press will learn the lesson that the more hysterical and the more partial they become, fewer people will trust them. The trust of the country goes to the organs of the press that are governed by a strict royal charter and which must have a balance politically, and those are the broadcasters.

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) spoke of the importance of working together. One group of people to whom we have not yet paid tribute is the amazing team of officials at the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Cabinet Office. Those people have gone above and beyond the call of duty in all that they have done, and I salute them.

I entirely understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) raised the issue of the local press twice today. Leveson recognised that the local press were not the main cause of the problem, and the system that we propose allows them different and appropriate terms of membership so that they will not pay more than they do at present.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) spoke of the importance of arbitration, but pointed out that it should not be expected to fix everything. Of course he is absolutely right. The provisions that we have drawn up will comply with the Arbitration Act 1996, and the arbitrators will be appropriately qualified expert lawyers, as recommended by Leveson.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) rightly raised the issue of Scotland. The charter is capable of applying to newspapers in Scotland that wish to be recognised under the system, and I have had discussions about that with Scottish Ministers. Lord McCluskey has now reported, and we wait to hear how his proposals will be dealt with. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that attention will be paid to the views that have been expressed in the debate.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the issue of a conscience clause, as he has done previously. I think it important for newspapers and the journalists who work for them to abide by the standards code of the industry self-regulator. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in that. I can tell him that Leveson said that it was an issue for the industry itself to consider, and not something that the recognition body should require. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself said to the hon. Gentleman in November, the press do not have to wait for any further discussions or for the charter, but can start putting the system in place immediately.

A number of thoughtful contributions were made by learned colleagues, and of course we will pay great heed to the advice and thought contained in those. Although the discussion of these provisions on the Floor of the House may be somewhat brief, it clearly cannot be said that these issues have not been given long consideration, because they have been. More than a year of evidence was given to Lord Justice Leveson as part of his inquiries and since his report was presented to the House last November it has had some three months of consideration, on a cross-party basis and involving other groups, including those representing people affected by the problems of the press.

We have before us an important set of real incentives that have real effect to make sure that we can move forward, with today as a turning point where we stop talking about the theory of Leveson and start putting the practice of Leveson out for everybody to benefit from it. The provisions are a crucial part of this new tough regulatory regime and I commend them whole- heartedly to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

4. What progress her Department has made in securing an Olympic legacy for the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

We are already seeing the positive impact of the Olympics and Paralympics across our legacy programme, clear benefits to our international reputation, shifts in the perception of disability, both at home and abroad, and, importantly, more people, particularly women, playing sport. Investment in grass-roots and elite sport is designed to maintain that important momentum.

[Charlotte Leslie]

I thank the Secretary of State and commend the Government’s work. The sad truth is that, in difficult economic times, with council bills rising, some community clubs, particularly boxing clubs, which are proven to do so much good work in the community, are struggling to stay open. Will she confirm that she will continue to support those clubs so that they can maintain our legacy and, indeed, furnish us with future Olympians?

[Maria Miller]

Grass-roots clubs such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend are vital if even more people are to participate in sport. That is why we have given great priority to investing in local sports venues. This Government have also introduced the Places People Play programme, which is giving £150 million to upgrade 1,000 local sports venues. That is just the sort of action that I am sure my hon. Friend would see as positive.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister pledge this morning to analyse how the legacy cascades to all the regions of Britain? She will know of the threatened imminent closure of the Sheffield stadium, which was built for the student games in a past era. The fact is that regions such as Yorkshire are not getting the benefits of the legacy of the Olympics seen in places such as the south of England.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Although the games were called London 2012, they were Olympic and Paralympic games for the whole country and it is important that those benefits come through at a regional level. I believe that we will enable that through all our programmes, including Places People Play, which I have mentioned, as well as many others. We will continue to look at regional benefits.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Team GB achieved great success on the water at the Olympics, not just in rowing, but through Bradford-on-Avon’s Olympic gold medallist Ed McKeever in the kayaking. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that sculler schools and canoeing clubs have enough access to rivers, and will she consider having discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about a possible right to roam?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that people who are involved in those water sports have access to water. We have to balance that with the requirements of other sporting groups, such as anglers, but we will continue to monitor the access to important water facilities because I, like other right hon. and hon. Members, want to see further success at the Rio games.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

An Olympic legacy must begin in our schools, yet this Government have cut school sport partnerships, the school sport survey and outdoor play spaces in our schools, and abolished minimum targets for school sport. We are still waiting for their announcement on school sport, which we all expected before Christmas. It is no wonder that less time is being spent doing sport in our schools. When will her Department get to grips with the Secretary of State for Education and lay the foundations that we need for a true sporting legacy?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the importance of sport in the earliest years. I am sure that he will join me in applauding what the Government have done through the school games and the £1 billion youth strategy, and the role of people such as Ellie Simmonds and Jess Ennis at the Olympic games in inspiring the next generation. Perhaps he should focus on that positive record and applaud the work of the Government.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

5. What progress her Department has made in rolling out rural broadband.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to improve access to sport for disabled people.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

For the first time, access to sport for disabled people is at the heart of Sport England’s £1 billion youth and community sports strategy. UK Sport recently announced more than £70 million of funding for our elite Paralympic athletes, which is 43% more than the investment they received for London 2012. Last month alone, we invested more than £10 million in 44 community sports projects for people with disabilities.

[Stuart Andrew]

Voluntary sports groups in my constituency have worked for a number of years with local special schools to provide coaching for disabled children. They are now working with sports colleges, developers and councillors to create a new sports park to increase and improve access for all. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is excellent work and will she commend those groups? Can her Department help us to make the dream a reality?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such innovative working can make a real difference for disabled children, and help disabled adults get access to sporting facilities. I want the Department to do everything it can to support such work, and I point my hon. Friend towards the funding that the Government have already made available for such community sport projects, which I hope will help him.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It was great to see so many Paralympians recognised in the new year’s honours list, but does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that disabled sportsmen and women appear to have to do so much more than others to achieve similar recognition?

[Maria Miller]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this time around there has been much more recognition for our Paralympic athletes, and rightly so. We must continue to strive to do even better, but I hope he will agree with me that the sort of investment that the Government are putting into Paralympic sports will ensure that Paralympic athletes have better support in the future to achieve their very best.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to ensure that participants in club-level sport have access to suitable and sustainable facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

8. When the Government plan to announce what further steps they will take in response to the report of the Leveson inquiry.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Lord Justice Leveson’s report, which was welcomed by the Government, set out the need for independent self-regulation of the press. I believe the press will be setting out their new self-regulatory approach in line with Leveson later today. As all parties agree, the report did not provide a fully formed blueprint but rather an outline that requires further work and consideration. The Government are working on a cross-party basis and with interested groups, and I believe we are making progress.

[Simon Hughes]

I thank the Secretary of State for that positive reply. May I encourage her to ensure that the cross-party talks reach a conclusion before the end of this Session of Parliament, so that if we need to legislate not just on the difficult issue of statutory underpinning of press regulation but on clearing up the relationship between the police and the press, we can do so in the next Session?

[Maria Miller]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Making progress and ensuring we have momentum is vital for two reasons. First, we need to ensure that we do not see the unacceptable treatment of victims again in future. Secondly, all who have watched this lengthy process want it to come to a speedy conclusion. I can give him a clear undertaking today that that is exactly where we are.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Hon. Members have heard the clichés about no more drinking at the last-chance saloon for the press, but can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government’s engagement with the press on this matter has not simply been a lock-in at the Long Grass Arms, where the Government’s order is, “Whatever you’re having yourself”?

[Maria Miller]

The Leveson report clearly gives us a framework to ensure we make progress on the important issues that will make a difference to press regulation, and to ensure that we do not have the problems we have had and the same treatment of victims in future. It is not possible for us to do anything other than make progress if we are to implement Leveson, and that is what we are looking to do.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

9. What her policy is on promoting young people’s participation in boxing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

12. If she will commission an inquiry into the media coverage of women’s sport.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

I am absolutely committed to seeing more coverage of women’s sport, and I support the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation’s call for more action in this area. The Olympics and Paralympics showed clearly that there is an appetite for women’s sport, for which the BBC and Channel 4 secured strong audiences. Rather than have an inquiry, I am bringing together broadcasters, journalists and women leaders in sport to ensure more coverage of all our sporting achievements by both men and women.

[Julie Hilling]

The Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation says that the media devote about 5% of their sports coverage to women’s sport. However, about 20% of the BBC’s coverage is of women’s sport, which raises questions for other outlets. Some 36% of the medals won at the Olympics were won by women, but women’s sport receives only 0.5% of sport sponsorship. What will the Secretary of State do to tackle this unacceptable situation?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady has shown that this is not about asking what the problem is—she has clearly articulated it. There is an appetite to watch women’s sport and we need to ensure that it is followed up by more broadcasting and coverage in the press. I was pleased to hear the BBC announce in December that it will broadcast all of England’s UEFA European women’s championship games when the team heads to Sweden in July, and the semi-finals and finals, across BBC 2 and BBC 3. In addition, all other peak-time matches will be broadcast on BBC 3. That is the sort of action we want to see, and it will set a bar for the other channels and media to follow.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The coverage and reporting of women’s sport is incredibly important, but the issue should not be seen in isolation. Will the Secretary of State explain how we can encourage better commercial opportunities in women’s sport, as that will encourage girls and women to participate more?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I know she takes a deep interest in this matter. The sports marketing bureau, which will be launched shortly, will do exactly what she is talking about: highlight marketing opportunities in women’s sport and across the board. We want to see companies capitalising on the clear interest and appetite for women’s sport to ensure that it grows.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

13. If she will request UK Sport to reconsider its decision to withdraw elite funding for basketball.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

I am pleased that we have started the new year with such a positive set of announcements about the support in the honours system for Olympic and Paralympic athletes. I hope that all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, will join me in congratulating individuals who have received such honours.

[Simon Hart]

Given that Government funding might not extend rural broadband to really isolated areas, what plans do they have to assist communities in putting in their own piping infrastructure and compelling successful bidders to make use of that?

[Maria Miller]

In addition to the £56.9 million allocated to Wales as part of the rural broadband programme, a top-up of £4 million is available as part of the rural community broadband fund, which is designed for just the purposes that my hon. Friend has described.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The creative industries and tourism are hugely important sectors, contributing £88 billion each year, or 7% of the UK economy. It was astonishing, therefore, that the coalition’s mid-term review pledges for the remainder of this Parliament made no mention of either of those crucial industries. Which Minister—I do not mind which one—will tell the House why they have dropped the C from DCMS?

[Maria Miller]

I think the hon. Gentleman needs to be a little more cautious in his comments. He knows absolutely our commitment to the creative industries and to having the infrastructure necessary to ensure that they thrive. The facts speak for themselves, given the progress being made in industries such as the film industry and the gaming industry. I would draw his attention to those facts when he considers this matter further.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

T2. Earlier this week, a group of respected ex-journalists in Scotland expressed concern that the 120 jobs being cut at BBC Scotland would cause “real damage” to the quality of news and current affairs it is able to produce. Does the Secretary of State agree that this could not happen at a worse time, when the people of Scotland need a fair and well informed debate leading up to the referendum, and will she raise this matter with the BBC Trust?

[Maria Miller]

It is important—I am sure the hon. Lady will agree—that the BBC is independent of government in these matters, and it is for it to make these decisions. I hear what she says though—it is important that we have a strong BBC in Scotland—and I am sure that her comments will have been noted.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

T3. I am pleased that the creative industries Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), is planning to visit silicon spa in Leamington, which is one of our country’s leading centres for the video games industry. Video games contributed £1.4 billion in exports to the UK economy in 2010, but we often do not promote the sector in the same way as we do our country’s successful film industry. Will he inform the House of what steps the Government are taking to better support this growing sector?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Minister answers, I say to the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) that, for the avoidance of doubt, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) is neither cheap nor expensive; she is simply priceless.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the important role of the blue plaque scheme. The chairman of English Heritage made it clear yesterday that the scheme is continuing, but I am sure that my hon. Friend, in his many roles in the House, would want us to look carefully at how it is run in future, because at the moment we are spending some £250,000 a year, employing four people putting up six plaques a year. I am sure there are different ways that we could run the scheme; and I am sure that consideration will be given in the future to him having his own plaque.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Hackney there are more than 70 betting shops and last year £167 million was spent gambling on fixed-odds betting machines. What further evidence does the Minister need to take action on reducing either the number of machines or the frequency of bets that can be laid, which are taking money from my poorest constituents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

1. What discussions she had with the Church of England prior to her oral statement of 11 December 2012 on the equal marriage consultation.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

Full discussions have been held with the Church of England over the past year, first by my predecessor as part of the public consultations, and by officials, in confidence, as the proposals were being finalised, before my statement to the House. We continue to work with a range of religious bodies, including the Church of England, as the legislation is finalised.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Will the Minister consider what opportunities an examination of civil marriage and partnerships might bring to those who are not in such a relationship but who share their lives, such as siblings who live together or widows who share a home?

[Maria Miller]

I understand the importance of the question that my hon. Friend asks, but I would say that the legislation that we are working on is about how we can ensure that marriage is broadened, in terms of the number of people who can participate in it, rather than about broadening civil partnerships.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

In those discussions, will the Minister be able to raise the issue of the vote in Synod on not allowing women bishops? I am sure that she would like to assist the Church in making progress on that issue.

[Maria Miller]

We have already had debates in the House on the role of women in the Church, and I note that there are now more women than men being ordained in the Church, which is very important. It is a matter for the Church of England to put forward proposals in this area, to ensure that its role is as relevant to our society today as it always has been.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

In the course of her discussions on equal marriage, did the Minister discuss with the Church of England the fact that it would continue to bless marriages, whether of same-sex or opposite-sex couples, that have taken place elsewhere?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that many churches already offer the opportunity for couples who are in same-sex relationships to have their marriages blessed in church. These are matters for the Church to deal with, whether they relate to the performance of marriages in church or to blessings. The Church must deal with these issues itself.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Is it not unfortunate that the Minister has said that same-sex marriage will be “illegal” in the Church of England and the Church in Wales, when the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he will carefully consider his stance on the issue and the archbishop of the Church in Wales has said that there is no single Christian opinion on the matter? Will she ensure that, should those Churches wish to marry same-sex couples at some time in the future, she will have legislation prepared to enable them to do so without the need for further primary legislation?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of the role of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. Our stance throughout has been to protect those organisations to enable them to make their own decisions. We are talking to them on an ongoing basis about the best way to do that. As to her question about whether they would be able to undertake these duties in the future if they decide to do so, the answer is absolutely yes.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

2. What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies on women of recent tax and benefit changes.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

Departments always take full account of the impact on women of their policies, and the Government are supporting women and their families, for example by extending child care through universal credit and by lifting 2 million of the lowest paid workers—of whom six out of 10 are women—out of income tax altogether.

[Mrs Glindon]

Research from the House of Commons Library shows that women will be hit four times harder by incoming direct tax, tax credit and benefit changes. Will the Minister tell us why she allowed the Chancellor to get away with treating women so unfairly in his autumn statement?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady needs to look at the total package of measures brought forward in the autumn statement. We are absolutely mindful of the need to make sure that we support those who find it most difficult in today’s society. That is why 1 million women have been taken out of tax altogether and why we are putting £200 million more into child care for people who are working the shortest hours. Those things have never happened before, and I hope the hon. Lady will applaud and welcome those measures.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

On 5 January last Saturday, BBC Radio 6 Music made history when three consecutive daytime programmes were presented by female DJs for the first time in the BBC’s 45 years of music radio. While less than 20% of the BBC’s music radio programmes were presented by women in 2012, will the Secretary of State please continue her discussions with the BBC to correct that imbalance?

[Maria Miller]

I am wondering how that question relates to tax and benefit changes, but I will of course always encourage the BBC to make sure that women have a full role in the work they do.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Minister will agree that it is really important for pregnant women to be able to afford to eat healthily and to take their full maternity leave when the baby is born, so why is she cutting £180 from maternity pay, cutting more than £1,000 in tax credits and, according to the House of Commons Library, even including the tax allowances that she mentioned, cutting a total of £1,300 from new mums on low income, yet giving a £13,000 tax cut to someone—usually a man—who is earning over £400,000 a year? In her role as the Minister for Women and Equalities, did she even try to stop the Chancellor hitting women, especially new mothers, so hard?

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Lady will have heard my response to her colleague earlier—the Treasury is looking at the detail of how its policies impact on various groups and has made it an absolute priority to give support to those who need it most, ensuring that more families are able to get into work and that work pays for more people. Above all else, it is making sure that our children do not have to deal in the future with the record levels of deficit left by the right hon. Lady’s Government.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that Opposition Members always want to emphasise the plight of women? Is she as delighted as I am about the growing numbers of health visitors, the growing numbers of nursery places for disadvantaged two-year-olds and the tax-free allowances that directly affect so many women and make their lives so much better under this Government?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to target support effectively in our communities, and I think that, whether we look at the role of Sure Start centres or the role of health visitors, the changes that have been made are plain to see.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

7. According to the impact assessment relating to the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, 2 million lone parents, 90% of them women, will be affected by this measure. Why does the Minister think it fair for millionaires to be given a tax cut of more than £2,000 a week while 1.8 million women bringing up children lose an average of £5 a week?

[Maria Miller]

An impact assessment relating to a benefit that is predominantly claimed by women will, of course, predict the impact that the hon. Gentleman has described. We need to ensure that families across the board receive the support that will enable them to get into work that pays, and the support that they require for the future.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

3. What her policy is on women’s incomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

5. What representations she has received from the Church of England on the proposed prohibition on that organisation offering same-sex marriages.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

The views of the Church of England were considered during the finalising of the proposals on equal marriage. The Church has made it clear that it does not want to permit marriages of same-sex couples to take place according to its rites, but, should it change its mind, it will be able to make any amendments that are necessary to its canon law and to the relevant primary legislation in order for that to happen. We continue to engage in constructive dialogue as we prepare to introduce legislation to Parliament.

[Stephen Gilbert]

It seems that we are shortly to have gay bishops in the Church of England, but not women bishops. The gay bishops will be able to conduct marriages between opposite-sex couples, bisexuals and transsexuals, but will not be able to marry same-sex couples or, indeed, get married themselves. Is not our established Church in a bit of a mess on these issues?

[Maria Miller]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think that what is important when it comes to thinking about equal marriage, particularly as we proceed with our legislation, is that we show respect for all views in all our debates. It is for the Church of England to ensure that it has in place the proposals that are right for it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Many of us can fully rationalise and justify voting for civil marriage between same-sex couples, and also for removing the legal impediment that prevents any Church that wishes to do so from marrying same-sex couples, but how can we also be asked to justify voting for a legal impediment in relation to one Church alone? Does that not invite all of us to add personal absurdity to all the anomalies and anachronisms to which the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) just referred?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that not all Churches have the same governance structures in place. Therefore, the legislation we introduce needs to recognise the different position of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. I am sure that when he looks at the legislation he will see that we are amply dealing with the question of the important protections each of those individual religious organisations require.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

This question of religious safeguards is an issue of conscience that will rightly be determined by free votes across the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proper way to address such an issue of conscience is through a Committee of the whole House, as has happened in the past?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to say that from the start our party has wanted to listen to all views on this issue. Questions to do with the proceedings of the House are matters for the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House, and I am sure they will have heard his comments.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I do not think the Minister understands the policy in relation to the Church of England and the Church in Wales. It is ludicrous to introduce a complete prohibition in respect of these two Churches. Would it not make far more sense to do what the Matrimonial Causes Acts did? They just said that no minister of religion shall be required to marry a divorcee, and in this case we should say they shall not be required to conduct a same-sex marriage.

[Maria Miller]

We have, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, spent a great deal of time talking to the different religious institutions, including the Church of England, and they have very clearly said that at this point in time they do not wish to be able to perform same-sex marriages. We are protecting the Church of England and its particular position with regard to common law and canon law, and making sure that it can opt in at a later time if it thinks that is right.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

6. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect of the autumn statement on women, black and minority ethnic groups and older people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

8. What steps she is taking to improve cost-effectiveness and value for money in the Government Equalities Office.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

In light of the 38% reduction in the equalities budget in the 2010 spending review, the Government Equalities Office is pursuing efficiency measures, enabling it to do more with less resource while maintaining high quality.

[Mr Leigh]

What progress has been made in ensuring equality in the Government Equalities Office since June 2011, given that a report found then that there was a gender imbalance of two-thirds in favour of women and women in the office were on average paid 7.7% more than men? Are men not equal to women?

[Maria Miller]

As I am sure my hon. Friend would expect, I want to make sure the GOE is doing what it needs to do to promote equality in its own ranks, and I will certainly look in detail at the points he has raised.

Leveson Inquiry

Maria Miller Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the Leveson report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.

Lord Justice Leveson’s report marks a dark moment in the history of the British press. In the words of the judge, the press have

“wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have been disdained…not just the famous but ordinary members of the public”.

Lord Justice Leveson’s report shows in detail the breadth and range of that abuse, with acts of despicable intrusion into people’s lives when many of them had already suffered extensively. In days to come, that must remain at the forefront of all our thoughts.

We must also remember that Lord Justice Leveson falls well short of criticising the whole industry and that he offers praise for its important role in our society. At the heart of our democratic traditions is an irreverent, opinionated and, yes, sometimes unruly press. We live in a country where the press can hold people to account and where free speech is a right, not a privilege, yet with that comes a clear responsibility—a responsibility that Lord Justice Leveson found had not been honoured.

As Members of Parliament discussing the report, we have a heavy and profound duty to put forward our views with passion and force, to set aside party politics, and to discuss the fundamental issues and questions that this report poses. The debate will send a loud message to the press of this country, and that message is that the status quo is not an option. The Prime Minister is clear: we will see change. That change can come either with the support of the press or, if we are given no option, without it. Be in no doubt that if the industry does not respond, the Government will. I do not underestimate the differences of views that will be expressed here today, but I ask all right hon. and hon. Members to consider first what is clear to me—that there is more that unites us than divides us.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Having set the scene, will the right hon. Lady give a clear indication that there is a world of difference between the national press and our local press?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right. Many of us want to make sure that we have a thriving press into the future, particularly a thriving local press, and he will be reassured to know that I will be meeting members of the local press later this week to make sure we achieve that important objective.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State knows, when the Leveson inquiry was set up on 13 July last year, it was to be in two parts. We have had the first part, but there is no indication when the second part will take place. Will Lord Justice Leveson chair that second inquiry, or will another chair be selected to deal with the relations with the police and the investigations of the Metropolitan police prior to the inquiry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will know that it is not possible for us to give a timetable for the future of stage 2 of these inquiries at this time, with ongoing police investigations. I am sure he will therefore be aware that it is difficult for me to answer his question in full, although I understand that he wants to get some assurances. However, as soon as the criminal investigations are completed, we will do that.

In his statement the Prime Minister accepted in full the principles set out by Lord Justice Leveson that a new independent self-regulatory body has to be set up, and that it is truly independent in appointments and funding, giving real access to justice for the public and setting the highest standards for journalism through a code, with teeth to investigate and hold the industry to account. Rightly, Leveson set out that it is for the press industry itself to determine how this self-regulatory system is delivered.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain how the new body that she envisages could possibly have any powers if it is not given any power by law?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman will, I know, take a full part in the debate. I ask him to reflect a little. We are saying that we accept the principle of an independent and tough regulatory body, and that we will do what is necessary to make sure that it is tough and adheres to those Leveson principles. I am sure he will want to follow closely some of the cross-party talks that I am having with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who speaks from the Front Bench for his party, on how we achieve just the sort of underpinning that he is talking about.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend said that if the press do not respond, the Government will take action. If the press produce a system of review which is not fully independent of the press industry, which does not fully accept the jurisdiction of that new body, or which is not able fully to implement standards and conclusions that it reaches, will my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Government say that the Government would then accept the need for an Act of Parliament to achieve these objectives, which she rightly said we fully endorse?

[Maria Miller]

My right hon. and learned Friend sets out clearly what he sees as the key principles contained in Lord Justice Leveson’s report, and I can respond by saying that we will absolutely ensure that those key principles will be implemented, including many of the things he talks about. We are equally clear that if we do not see the action that is needed, we will take action. The status quo is not an option. I will certainly make that clear in my meetings with editors tomorrow.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

We live in one of the least corrupt societies on earth, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on doing everything possible to avoid statutory regulation of the press. Freedom is defined not by people doing freely those things we approve of, but sometimes by them doing those things we do not approve of, and it is a precious thing and vulnerable to inadvertent assault.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right, although I remind him that we must ensure that we do not end up with the status quo at the end of this process. We absolutely expect the press to make considerable progress in putting together a self-regulatory approach that is effective.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), but then I will have to make progress.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) asked whether the Secretary of State would back legislation if the cross-party discussions do not produce an effective result, not whether she would take action. Will she please answer the question? Will she back legislation or not?

[Maria Miller]

I can be crystal clear, as indeed was the Prime Minister last week: yes, we will take action along the lines set out in the Leveson report if action is not taken to put together a self-regulatory approach, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, would include legislation.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has said that the Government accept Leveson’s proposals and that, in the event that there is not a satisfactory regime, the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) would be taken up. However, I remind her that Leveson states in paragraph 76 of the executive summary that he also wants to see a “statutory verification process”. It would be a statutory verification process, not a shackling of the press. Is that part of the Government’s current proposals, because we know that self-regulation has been an abject failure for 70 years?

[Maria Miller]

I will answer that point very briefly, although I am sure that it will be subject to much debate later, but then I really must make some progress. There are two aspects of statutory regulation within Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals: one is verification and the other is how we can put in place incentives for membership. I say simply to my hon. Friend—I know that he understands my point because we have had conversations about this before—that we take a very principled approach to this and have grave concern about the use of statutory legislation to underpin the recommendations. We do not believe that it is necessary. We believe that we should be looking at potential alternatives. Indeed, that is what we are discussing in cross-party talks today.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

If I could make some progress, I might answer some of the questions that hon. Members are trying to ask.

This is not about the press coming up with a model that suits its own ends. The day for a Press Complaints Commission mark 2 is well and truly gone. We will not accept a puppet show with the same people pulling the same strings. I will be meeting editors tomorrow to hear how they will take this forward. I say to hon. Members that we must not allow this debate to polarise us. We all agree on the need for a tough and independent regulator for the press, that the suffering of the victims and their families cannot be allowed to happen again and that the status quo is not an option. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that whatever is put in place is effective. This is common ground. Let us put to one side the politics and turn our focus to the principles.

It is right that we look at the detail of how we deliver those principles in practice. Lord Justice Leveson’s report underscores the importance of protecting the freedom of the press. The Prime Minister and I, and other hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, see that there are clear and practical difficulties in drafting legislation without providing an amendable legislative framework. Many in the House today, on both sides of the Chamber, have a deep-seated and grave concern that such legislation could have a profound effect on our ability to safeguard completely the freedom of our press in the future.

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I endorse the Secretary of State’s view entirely; I do not think there is a great deal of difference between many people on either side of the argument regarding the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry. However, if she is to provide the incentives to make so-called self-regulation work, does she not feel that it would be useful to bring forward, at least in draft form, the legislation that she thinks may be necessary should the press fail to live up to expectations?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He may or may not be aware that we are already midway into cross-party negotiations and discussions on this. We have already agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham and the Leader of the Opposition to draft such a Bill to see what that legislation would look like. Our concern is that it then provides a framework that could create real problems in terms of safeguarding free speech into the future. I am glad, though, that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there is a great deal of similarity between many of our positions, and we should not focus on the differences.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

The debate seems to be polarising between favouring legislation or no legislation. Given that Leveson says that those who join the new organisation will have some very clear and important privileges, would we not be legislating on what those privileges are so that they could be backed up, or not backed up, by law? Therefore, is not the debate really about the scope of the legislation rather than being foolishly polarised on the question of whether to legislate?

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. The point of discussion today should be the fact that the Leveson report advocates an independent self-regulatory body. Leveson clearly states that he does not think that the Press Complaints Commission ever delivered on that. The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the privileges, or incentives, that could be provided and that are outlined in the report could well encourage participation. I suggest to him that we should be considering ways in which we can achieve those privileges without setting them out in legislation.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

How would making a newspaper journalist a regulated person with a licence stop future abuse given that the introduction in 2000 of statutory regulation for banking and financial services ushered in more crime, abuse and disasters than we had before? I urge my right hon. Friend to agree with the Prime Minister and to warn this House that there is no easy way of stopping abuse, and that statutory regulation might not do it.

[Maria Miller]

My right hon. Friend has given an example that we can all reflect on. I also bring to his attention the problems that have been experienced recently in Ireland despite the fact that it has a regulatory system, albeit light-touch, in place.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

rose—

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

Will Opposition Members give me a few moments to make a little progress?

Who can say what amendments would be made to such a legislative framework in future? Who can make promises for the politicians and the political parties in years to come? The action that we take will have consequences that will be felt for generations to come, and we must make sure that whatever action we take, it is not just for now but for the coming years as well.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I was very disappointed that on another issue—one of tremendous constitutional importance—we were not given a free vote in this place. Given that this topic is arguably more important, will my right hon. Friend consider allowing a free vote when it comes before the House?

[Maria Miller]

I hope that there will be no votes on the issue, because what we need is consensus. We need to move forward with something that we can all agree on.

We should remember that the Leveson report is not just about statutory underpinning, although I think that, as a result of the debate thus far, we could be forgiven for thinking that it is. To reduce it to that does a disservice to Leveson. There are other recommendations that we need to consider carefully. I hope that in today’s debate, hon. Members will discuss the role of Ofcom as set out in Lord Justice Leveson’s report.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

One of my constituents was not reappointed as director general of the Office of Fair Trading because he refused to carry out a political instruction from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake an inquiry, the only purpose of which was to give the Labour Government cover when they increased fuel duties. As a consequence, he lost his job as director general of the OFT. The simple fact is that if Secretaries of State appoint statutory regulators, they will always be subject to some political pressure from Secretaries of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I understand fully my hon. Friend’s point, although I draw his attention to the fact that, while I do not know as much about the structure of the OFT, Ofcom is independent as a regulator. Although the chair is appointed by me, its independence is set out in law. I understand his point and some may feel that the proposal is not distant enough from Government.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I would like to make a final point about Ofcom, if hon. Members will allow me. Lord Leveson states clearly in his report that his preference is for this organisation to oversee the efficacy of the self-regulator. He also suggests that if no independent self-regulatory system can be agreed, the Government might have to turn to Ofcom to act as a statutory regulator. The House needs to reflect on that and we have put it at the heart of our discussions with the Labour party.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Will she consider the fact that most of the offences against victims—phone hacking, paying police officers and so on—broke the law? Instead of doubling up on state regulation, will she consider whether the answer is not also that we should have better and fairer access to the law, because too many victims find it too complex and too costly? Will she raise that with the Justice Department?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Leveson’s report brings out fully the importance of ethics, including those of the police—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is already doing a great deal in that area—and of access to law. The report is being considered in great detail by the Ministry of Justice and I will come on later to some of the practical ways in which we want to make sure that access to justice is available for all.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I want to make some progress, because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.

Questions also have to be asked about the report’s data protection proposals and their potential impact on investigative journalism. We need to give careful consideration to whether it would be appropriate for the Information Commissioner to investigate and then decide on the public interest, which, in effect, is what would happen if the report were implemented in full. As Lord Justice Leveson himself says, changing exemptions for journalists would be significant. This goes to the heart of the balance between the freedom of the press and the individual’s right to a private life. These issues require serious thought. I hope that in today’s debate we can bring out that and other elements of the report, and not only focus on the narrow issue of statutory underpinning.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Thousands of excellent local and regional journalists will be affected by the changes to the regulatory structures for the press. When my right hon. Friend meets editors later this week to discuss the changes, will she ensure that the local press has an equal voice in the design and operation of the new system?

[Maria Miller]

I will certainly listen very carefully to the concerns of the local press. As I said earlier, we all want to see a thriving press industry. We know the financial pressures and constraints that it is under in this country, whether at a national or local level. We need to ensure that coming out of this process, we have not only a regulatory system that encourages the right sort of journalism, support and reporting, but a thriving press.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I will make a little more progress.

We have not wasted time since last Thursday. Following the publication of the report, we have acted. Lord Justice Leveson recommended that there should be cost protection in defamation and privacy cases to ensure that ordinary people are not put off using the courts by the fear that they cannot afford it. The Justice Secretary has asked the Civil Justice Council to look at that issue and the Government will implement the changes at the earliest possible opportunity.

Additionally, some of Leveson’s recommendations build on work that has already been done by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers on behalf of the police. The report recognises that, because of that work, the policing landscape is changing.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her generosity in giving way to Opposition Members. I agree with what she has said about the status quo and about how the media should be monitored and regulated. However, the former editor of the Belfast Telegraph has said in today’s paper that the time when the press can mark their own homework is well gone and that the time when the press can determine what punishment they should face when they have breached the law is well gone. Does she agree?

[Maria Miller]

I agree that we need an independent self-regulatory system that can be overseen and is seen to be effective. I urge the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he has gone through the recommendations in detail. It is not the Government who are saying that the system should be put together by the press, but Lord Leveson himself, and he is right to do so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I will just finish my point, and then I will give way to a few of my hon. Friends who have been trying to catch my eye.

The police and crime commissioners took office on 22 November and the college of policing will come into being this week. The Independent Police Complaints Commission is being given new powers and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has greater independence and a new non-police chief to head it. Increased transparency will support stronger systems for whistleblowing and both will contribute to a culture of openness and responsiveness, and will increase public confidence in the police. Those are all important actions that have already been taken. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to Parliament on all that in January.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way so generously. It is becoming difficult to follow the thread of her argument. That is not her fault, because it has been interfered with by so many people seeking to intervene. I plead guilty to that myself.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm something that Lord Justice Leveson said on any number of occasions? I will quote paragraph 6.1 on page 1771:

“I will say again, because it cannot be said too often, that the ideal outcome from my perspective is a satisfactory self organised but independent regulatory body, established by the industry, that is able to secure the voluntary support and membership of the entire industry and thus able to command the support of the public.”

We are not talking about—and Lord Justice Leveson is not talking about—the statutory control of the press. Can we try to move away from the hyperbole that suggests that Lord Justice Leveson is demanding some form of Stalinist control of the press?

[Maria Miller]

I understand my hon. and learned Friend’s intervention, but I carefully draw his attention to the fact that the issue is about making the new system effective, and that is where the discussion lies. I gently remind him that what the Prime Minister set out last week was very clear: the Government absolutely agree with the principles in Lord Justice Leveson’s report, and we are looking at how they will work in practice.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I will give way to two more hon. Members, and then I will conclude my remarks.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I was interested in the Minister’s comments about January. For the benefit of my constituents and newspaper editors, will she tell us her ambitions for a resolution to this matter, so that we know we can trust what we read again?

[Maria Miller]

I will give my hon. Friend a much firmer idea about that once I have met the editors tomorrow. The ball is firmly in their court for them to come forward with a clear timetable this week, as I think they have said they will do. I will also set out exactly how the Government will progress with those areas of the report to which we need to respond.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

The Minister has spoken about wanting to look forward to a healthy newspaper industry. Does she agree, however, that the industry is dying on its feet because of competition from the entirely unregulated digital media? More and more people are getting their news every day from digital media; they do not go out and buy newspapers. When looking at some kind of level playing field, we must be careful not to kill off newspapers by shackling them so much that they remain completely uncompetitive.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the future of the press and ensuring that it is economically viable. She also touches on the important issue of online news which, as she will have studied in the report, Lord Justice Leveson feels should be dealt with by the new self-regulatory body.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), and then I will conclude my remarks.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Although it is clear that the provisions in the Leveson report on the backing up of self-regulation of the press must be carried out, does the right hon. Lady agree that if the House rushes to legislative judgment, that will be seen as Members of the House of Commons taking revenge on the press for what the press have said about them, including me? This is not about Members of Parliament; it is about ordinary people who are victims of press persecution.

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point extremely clearly, and he is right that we must come at this issue in a measured way that looks to the long term, not just the short term. We must look not just at each other in the Chamber today, but beyond these shores as a country that champions free speech and democracy on the world stage. Can we credibly question and challenge others on issues of liberty and freedom if we have placed our own press in a legislative framework? Today is not about what is right here and now, this week, this month or in this Parliament; it is about a profound set of issues for our democracy that will have real and lasting consequences.

Lord Justice Leveson published his report into the future of press regulation last Thursday. Today’s debate demonstrates the Government’s commitment to finding a swift way forward. We have already held two cross-party meetings and will continue to hold more. Today in the Chamber we have the opportunity to discuss the findings of this report in full and to hear from all sides of the House. What we are debating today has profound implications, and we should remember the weight of that responsibility in days to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Harman]

That is a very good point, and I wish I had thought of it myself. [Laughter.] I think, in fact, it was my idea.

Let us be clear: having a statute to guarantee that is not some incidental add-on or optional extra to Lord Justice Leveson’s report. It is a complete contradiction in terms for people to say, “I want to implement Leveson, but without statute.” Leveson says that statute is “essential”.

Let us imagine the Leveson proposals on self-regulation without statute. Although I am sure that even if any new body started off being independent, without statutory oversight there would be no guarantee it would stay that way. It is inevitable that once again it would become controlled by the press, with editors marking their own homework—that has happened again and again. Why should we believe that we can carry on in the same way and that things will somehow be different? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. None of the other suggestions gets anywhere near answering that fundamental point of how to guarantee continuing independence.

Let me turn to Lord Hunt and Lord Black’s proffered solution. They claim that what they put forward is a truly independent system with tough sanctions. However, on closer inspection, it is a different story. They say that there would be an independent chair and board, but they could all be fired—the chair and the whole board—by the press barons just giving notice in writing. Lord Hunt and Lord Black say there would be tough sanctions, with penalties of up to £1 million, but then they say that those sanctions would be determined by the press barons. How is that independent?

Some have suggested that we do not need new statute because we could get a judge to appoint a new body, but a judge would not be able to do that without a statute. Many opponents of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations have said that we must not have statute—that it crosses the Rubicon and would pose a fundamental threat to our democracy. I want to address each argument against statute in turn. The first is that any statute affecting the press automatically ends a free press. We have heard that a lot in recent days, but there is surely an irony and a contradiction in that, for was it not the press themselves who asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for their inclusion in section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998? Is that not amendable legislation? Was it not the press themselves who asked for a new defamation Act? Is that not amendable legislation? The first argument—that any law mentioning the press undermines freedom—therefore does not and cannot hold.

Secondly, it is argued that the statute that Leveson proposes amounts to regulation of the press by a ministerially appointed quango, but this is not direct regulation of the press. The statute would only guarantee the system of self-regulation. It would remain voluntary to join, on the basis of incentives. In that, it is similar to the system in Ireland, which has been in place since 2009. As the Deputy Prime Minister helpfully reminded the House last Thursday, it covers all the newspapers operating in Ireland, which volunteer to be part of the Irish Press Council, which—heavens above!—includes the Irish editions of the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Star, The Sun, The Sunday Times, The Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Mirror. If that really posed a threat, where were the protests in Ireland? Why have those newspapers signed up? The UK editors say that any press law would end freedom of speech, so why have they not chained themselves to the house of the Taoiseach? The Foreign Secretary says that any press law in Britain would undermine freedom—and, indeed, democracy—around the world, so why has he not summoned the Irish ambassador for a dressing down? The Culture Secretary—

[Maria Miller]

rose—

[Ms Harman]

I will let the Culture Secretary intervene in a moment. She says that she fundamentally objects to any statute—at least I think that is what she was saying—so why is she not telling our press to boycott the Irish system?

[Maria Miller]

I was just going to ask the right hon. and learned Lady how many cases had been brought under the Irish law. I think she will find that the answer is absolutely none.

[Hon. Members]

So it’s working!