3 Dec 2012 : Column 569

3 Dec 2012 : Column 569

House of Commons

Monday 3 December 2012

The House met at half-past Two o’clock


[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions


The Secretary of State was asked—

Vocational Education

1. Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): What plans he has for vocational education; and if he will make a statement. [130869]

2. Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): What plans he has for vocational education; and if he will make a statement. [130870]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock): World-class vocational education is vital for a world-class economy, so we are bringing rigour to vocational education by recognising the best qualifications, strengthening apprenticeships and introducing a Tech Bac to reward and celebrate stretching occupational education.

Mr Wright: EngineeringUK has today published a report showing that this country needs to double the number of engineering recruits and triple the number of engineering apprenticeships. It calls for face-to-face careers advice in schools and additional assistance to help schools appreciate 21st century engineering. The Government have had to U-turn over their engineering diploma, so will the Minister U-turn again and implement EngineeringUK’s recommendations in full?

Matthew Hancock: I met EngineeringUK last week at the launch of its report, so I am well versed on its recommendations and very supportive of the need to increase the number of engineers in our country, something that has been sadly lacking for far too long. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are introducing, along with the Royal Academy, new qualifications that fit the accountability system. We will do what it takes to ensure that this country has enough engineers.

Mr Jim Cunningham: What assessment has the Minister made of the Richard report, which recommends that apprenticeships should last at least a year?

3 Dec 2012 : Column 570

Matthew Hancock: I warmly welcome the Richard report, which stresses the need for rigour in apprenticeships and for apprenticeships to be more employer focused. I am studying it in great detail. The hon. Gentleman says that apprenticeships need to be for a minimum of a year, and in almost all cases that is already happening, thanks to changes introduced by my predecessor, but we want to look at all the recommendations and see which we can implement.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I welcome some of the things the Minister said to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) about engineering, but is he not concerned that Sir James Dyson—Dyson engineering is based in my constituency—said last week that he needs 200 new designers and engineers in Malmesbury alone but cannot find them and that across the nation we are desperately short of them. What will we do to improve science, engineering and design in our schools and universities?

Matthew Hancock: Not only is the number of engineering apprenticeships up, but a higher proportion of young people are now starting STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—degrees at university. That is going up, rather than down, as it was before. This is an area of huge concern to me and I am working extremely hard to try to put it right.

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the university technical colleges, one of which will open in Harlow in 2014, will transform vocational education and provide young people with a conveyor belt to pre-apprenticeships?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I do. I was almost expecting an invitation to visit the UTC in Harlow, which I would love to see. UTCs across the country are about trying to fill the gap that has been left for far too long, and this Government are dealing with it.

Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): The Minister confirmed in The Times on Saturday the report that the Government

“is stealing the idea for a Technical Baccalaureate proposed by Ed Miliband”.

Does he agree that, in addition to high-quality apprenticeships, English and maths until age 18 and quality technical education before 16 will be crucial to the success of such a baccalaureate?

Matthew Hancock: I am absolutely delighted by the positive tone coming from the Opposition Front Bench. The Tech Bac, as suggested by Lord Adonis, a man for whom the Government have huge respect, is one of the things we will do to ensure higher quality occupational and vocational qualifications and more respect for them. I look forward to consulting widely and will set out more details in due course.

Stephen Twigg: But does the Minister agree that there is a real risk that this is out of kilter with the pre-16 reforms that the Government are proposing? Last week’s excellent report on schools by the CBI stated that the

“mistakes of the past… may be repeated in the”

3 Dec 2012 : Column 571

English baccalaureate. It is urging a pause. Both head teachers and business leaders are now united against the Government’s EBacc reforms, so will they think again?

Matthew Hancock: The CBI will be very surprised to be quoted in that fashion. The crucial point is that a common core of strong English and maths is vital for underpinning technical, occupational, vocational and academic qualifications. The single most important pair of qualifications that anybody can get for their employability is GCSE-level English and maths, and so making sure that there is a strong common core at the age of 16 is a vital part of stronger occupational and vocational education after that.

Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): I am delighted that on 14 December I will officially open the new university presence in Crawley. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Central Sussex college on introducing STEM vocational courses, working with some of the first-class companies in my constituency, as well as extending apprenticeships?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. I have not been able to visit the college that my hon. Friend talks about, but from what I have seen of it, it is exactly the sort of thing that we need to do in extending upwards the quality chain in vocational education and engaging with employers—businesses and public sector employers—to make sure that we provide the skills that they need in future.

Laptops and Tablets

3. Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): What steps he is taking to encourage the use of laptops and tablets in the school learning process. [130871]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss): Technology provides a great opportunity to get high-quality teaching materials and experiences from around the world into our classrooms, but it is key to remember that the quality of teaching is paramount in educational achievement. That is why we have given heads the power over their own budgets to decide how best to spend money.

Mr Sheerman: The Minister will not be surprised to find me disagreeing with her analysis. The fact is that there is a growing digital divide between schools that take technology seriously as a way of learning and those that do not. It is up to this Government, who got rid of the Department’s e-learning unit, to realise that leadership in this respect will take us to an educational system for the future.

Elizabeth Truss: We are extremely keen as a Government that children do not just use technology but understand how it works because they are able to code and programme from an early age. We are working with leading experts to develop programmes in computing so that children are able to do that. In fact, the technology needed to achieve it is very cheap. A parent or school can get Scratch from Massachusetts Institute of Technology for free and the Raspberry Pi device for under £20. This is not an issue of funding but of teaching and inspiration, and the leadership that we are showing.

3 Dec 2012 : Column 572

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): I know from my own time in the classroom how important digital media resources can be in helping to deliver first-class lessons, but too many schools in my constituency are unable to access fast enough broadband speeds. May I urge my hon. Friend to take up the mantle of schools on the Isle of Axholme, in particular, to ensure that our broadband delivery plans are rolled out as quickly as possible?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that high-speed broadband is important so that students can access the best-quality teaching materials from around the world. That is why, as a Government, we are pursuing high-speed broadband across the country.

Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op): Bridge academy in Hackney and our university technology college, among other schools in Hackney, provide proper digital learning for jobs for five years hence. Given the Minister’s words about the importance of learning in this field, what is she doing to make sure that the school curriculum is preparing students for the work force for businesses such as those in Tech City which require this home-grown talent?

Elizabeth Truss: We are working with leading figures in IT and computing to develop a programme of study that will encourage children to learn to code and programme from an early age. The problem with the previous information and communications technology curriculum, as everybody agreed, is that it was focused on using programmes instead of understanding how to programme.

John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I thank the Minister for giving that answer, which is very encouraging. However, what is the timetable for this new enthusiasm for programming?

Elizabeth Truss: The timetable is imminent.

School Discipline

4. Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): What steps he is taking to improve discipline in schools. [130872]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss): We are taking decisive action to equip teachers to restore discipline in schools. No longer can a decision to exclude pupils be undermined by an appeal panel against the best interests of a school and other students in it. We are also strengthening the law so that teachers can issue same-day detentions.

Mr Amess: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that head teachers are able to exclude pupils whose behaviour becomes unacceptable, and what help is then given to those pupils?

Elizabeth Truss: We are making sure that the ultimate decision on exclusion is made by a school governing body. Under the previous Government, appeals panels had the final say and 810 permanently excluded pupils were reinstated in schools between 2002 and 2010. We

3 Dec 2012 : Column 573

are encouraging schools to take an interest in the long-term education of those students who are excluded and we are trialling approaches so that they take an interest.

Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab): One of the best ways of ensuring discipline in the classroom is well-trained, motivated teachers. Could the Minister therefore explain why Keele university, which supplies many excellent teachers to Stoke-on-Trent, is losing 100% of its capacity to train teachers under the new School Direct proposal? We know that if universities train locally, the teachers will go locally. Why are the Government undermining aspiration in Stoke?

Elizabeth Truss: We are giving head teachers the power over how they train up teachers and how to ensure that we have the best quality teachers in the classroom.


5. Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): What steps he is taking to raise standards in mathematics in schools. [130874]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss): We treat maths as a very high priority and are working to attract the best graduates into mathematics teaching through bursaries of up to £20,000. From 2014, we will remove calculators from primary tests to ensure that pupils master the basics, and we are reforming the national curriculum to focus on core arithmetic, which is key to so much future success in employment.

Caroline Dinenage: With that in mind, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that children have a good basic grasp of mental arithmetic before they are able to rely on calculators?

Elizabeth Truss: At present, the evidence suggests that 10-year-olds in England are more likely to use calculators than those in virtually any other country in the world, and we are 28th in the world league tables for maths. It is important that children understand and are fluent in multiplication, division, addition and subtraction before they use calculators. That is why we are removing calculators from the primary tests, in line with high-performing countries such as Hong Kong and jurisdictions such as Massachusetts.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): A dozen or so years ago, Lord Moser concluded in his report that more than 50% of people in Britain were innumerate and illustrated that by saying that 50% of the population do not understand what 50% means. Recently I attended a National Numeracy reception and spoke to Lord Moser again, and others, and the problem still exists. Are the Government able to put their finger on precisely what has gone wrong and is the Minister doing enough to put it right?

Elizabeth Truss: One of the issues we have identified is too early a reliance on calculators in some classrooms. There is also an over-focus on data in the primary curriculum at the expense of arithmetic and number,

3 Dec 2012 : Column 574

which are the basis of a strong mathematical understanding later in life. We are readjusting the balance to make sure that those core basics are secure first.

Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Minister join me in welcoming the formation of National Numeracy, which is a fantastic new organisation? It has expressed concern about the new maths curriculum for primary schools and says that there is too much

“rote learning and not enough emphasis on problem solving and using maths in real-life contexts.”

I agree with the Minister that numeracy is vital, but I fear that this may be a lost opportunity to improve maths education in primary schools. Will she work with National Numeracy and teachers to develop a maths curriculum that will really make a difference?

Elizabeth Truss: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman visit Woodberry Down primary school in Hackney, which has already adopted the new national curriculum that we have suggested, including more advanced fractions, multiplication and division. I have seen the inspirational teaching at that school and the excitement on children’s faces as they play games using advanced fractions and grasp that the underlying principles of mathematics will help them for the rest of their lives. That is what our new curriculum does: it allows excellent teachers to inspire the next generation.

Religious Education

6. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the current standard of religious education teaching. [130875]

The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): Ofsted’s subject report in 2010 found that religious education teaching was not good enough, but teacher quality is improving. In 2012-13, 78% of religious education teacher trainees held a 2:1 or higher degree classification, compared with just 70% in 2011-12.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. If he believes that the best way to achieve academic rigour is through the English baccalaureate, is he willing to reconsider the inclusion of religious education as a core subject, at least for faith schools, in order that they can uphold their ethos and parental choice, as well as their high educational standards?

Michael Gove: I have enormous respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He is a stout advocate for faith schools and I want to underline the important role that they play in state education. We have no plans to change the English baccalaureate, not least because religious education remains a compulsory subject in the national curriculum. Well taught, it can take its place alongside the subjects in the English baccalaureate in a broad and balanced education.

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): My right hon. Friend will know that I value faith schools and the teaching of religious education. However, what steps is he taking to ensure that religious hatred is not taught by some faith schools and religious teachers?

3 Dec 2012 : Column 575

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend has a distinguished record in fighting extremism of all kinds. That is why I am delighted to be able to say that we have set up a due diligence unit in the Department for Education to prevent extremism. It has staff from the security services and elsewhere, and will ensure that public money is not abused by those who would preach hate rather than love.

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): To follow on from the answers to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) about the need for specialist teaching, the number of institutions training religious education teachers has declined. Will the Department keep a constant review on the number of teachers entering the profession in subjects that are outside the EBacc to ensure that there is adequate expertise across the specialisms?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is quite right to hold my feet to the fire on that. The headcount for religious education teachers at key stage 4 has increased over the lifetime of the Government from 10,400 to 10,700 and there are two applicants for every available post for a religious education teacher, so there is no evidence of a decline in numbers or quality.

Vocational Education

7. Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): How he plans to deliver more rigorous vocational education in schools. [130876]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock): School performance tables are being used to incentivise the teaching of the highest-value vocational qualifications. From September 2012, the vocational qualifications taught to 14 to 16-year-olds have had to meet rigorous new standards. From next year, we will identify the highest-value vocational qualifications for 16 to 18-year-olds, thereby removing thousands of weak and poor quality qualifications.

Iain Stewart: Will my hon. Friend ensure that employers have a greater role in designing the vocational qualifications that are taught in schools?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I absolutely will. I believe passionately that it is only when all vocational qualifications are high quality that all vocational qualifications are seen to be high quality. Employers have a critical role in making that happen.

Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op): The shadow Secretary of State and I recently visited Tresham college in my constituency of Corby and east Northamptonshire, where we met many apprentices who were not able to find work experience placements and, sadly, had little hope of local employment. What message of hope does the Minister have for those young people in my constituency?

Matthew Hancock: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to questions, having welcomed his eloquent maiden speech on a similar subject. We are looking to introduce

3 Dec 2012 : Column 576

traineeships, which will include English and maths for those who do not have level 2 qualifications, work experience and work preparation. That will ensure that as many people as possible are ready for work and know how to get and hold down a job. That will be another step in our important efforts to tackle youth unemployment.

Education, Health and Care Plans

8. John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): What progress he has made on introducing education, health and care plans for children with special educational needs. [130877]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson): Education, health and care plans, which are an integral part of our reform of the special educational needs system, are being tested through 20 pathfinders across 31 local authorities. Independent evaluation suggests that they are making good progress in designing single assessment and planning processes. The pathfinders expect to have completed more than 300 plans by the end of December. They will continue to inform the development of our draft legislation.

John Glen: I thank the Minister for that helpful response. What processes will there be to ensure that the plans remain accountable to parents and families, and to ensure that the provisions that are laid out are fully implemented?

Mr Timpson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Our proposed reforms maintain current protections for families, but they will go further in strengthening accountability by placing a duty on local authorities and health services to plan and commission services jointly, as well as to extend the current right of appeal to young people between 16 and 25 in further education and training.

Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that unless joint commissioning works practically on the ground, with health and education working together, education, health and care plans risk not being as effective as we would like in the legislation?

Mr Timpson: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must make progress to integrate education, health and social care as closely as possible, from the formulation of a plan through to any dispute there may be between, parents, young people, local authorities and health services. That is why I am still engaged in discussions with the Department of Health, which continue to be extremely constructive.

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): I am glad that the Minister mentioned integration with social care. He will recall the recent debate I secured on the funding gap for those between the ages of 16 and 18. Further education colleges in the New Forest feel that they cannot offer support for more than three days a week instead of five days, and that has taken place progressively since 2008. I know the Minister intends to write to me in more detail, but is he concentrating on that important gap which places an extra burden on parents?

3 Dec 2012 : Column 577

Mr Timpson: My hon. Friend’s debate highlighted an important area that we must get right. I will be writing to him in great detail about how we will ensure that, where appropriate, five days’ support for children with special educational needs and disabilities will be available through their education. I will be happy to discuss that matter with him as we proceed with the legislation.

Sponsored Academies

9. David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): How many primary schools have become sponsored academies since May 2010. [130878]

The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws): Since May 2010, 146 sponsored primary academies have opened, including two new provision sponsored primary academies. In addition, 15 underperforming primary schools have converted and joined an academy chain.

David Rutley: I was recently honoured to open a new classroom at Mottram St Andrew primary academy. That will not only help to enhance the facilities available to pupils, but will assist the academy’s work with School Direct trainee teachers in conjunction with the university of Manchester. Does my right hon. Friend agree that progress in outstanding schools such as that one helps to highlight the progress and steps that are being made by innovative academy schools, and that that should encourage other primary schools to seek academy status?

Mr Laws: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is a good example of the way outstanding schools can use the freedoms of academy status to innovate and improve their standards further. Too many primary schools in the country are not reaching the level of good and outstanding—we heard from the chief inspector that 2 million children are still being educated in schools that are neither good nor outstanding. Academy status is a potential way to improve the leadership and governance of those schools.

Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab): The Minister will be aware that Coventry primary schools are rated lowest in the country in the latest Ofsted report, and there is widespread dismay in Coventry about that. Although no one is convinced that sponsored academies are the whole or a necessary part of the answer, at the request of the Coventry council member responsible for education, I have written to the Secretary of State suggesting that resources in the Department for Education might help to rectify the situation. I am looking forward to an early reply. When might I get it?

Mr Laws: The hon. Gentleman can expect a very early reply, and I am delighted that he and other hon. Members are taking seriously the conclusions of Sir Michael Wilshaw who has drawn attention to the massive disparity across the country in the proportion of schools that achieve good and outstanding status. There are boroughs in inner London, for example, where almost 100% of schools achieve good or outstanding status, right down to those local authorities where barely 40% of schools achieve that. Either I or one of my departmental colleagues would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue further.

3 Dec 2012 : Column 578

Safeguarding of Children

10. Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): What plans he has for the safeguarding of children; and if he will make a statement. [130879]

The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): The child protection system is not working. That is why we are undertaking reform. We are reforming the social work profession and removing the bureaucracy which holds gifted professionals back, and demanding greater transparency and efficiency from local authorities.

Yvonne Fovargue: A recent all-party group inquiry highlighted the vulnerability of children who go missing from care, and the risks of physical and sexual exploitation. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that local authorities and police forces should offer training to front-line and managerial staff working with children to raise awareness of the risks associated with running away and of the vulnerability of all children, including older children?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady raises an important point. My former colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), responded to that report and made a compelling argument for ensuring better data sharing between local authorities and the police on the location of children within children’s homes to ensure that we can provide yet better protection for them. However, that is only one part of a mosaic of policies we need in order to give those children and young people a better chance.

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Given the Secretary of State’s opening remarks, could he start with Northamptonshire county council? Two foster parents came to see me. Two very difficult children were placed with them—they are the same ethnic background. They have bonded very well with the children and are now one family, but—would you believe it?—the county council is trying to break the family up to save money. Will the Secretary of State intervene in this matter?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this case to my attention—I shall look at it more closely. It is vital that all recognise that those who agree to foster children are responsible for bringing love and stability to some of the most damaged children and young people in our society. We should do everything possible to support them.

Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): The Children’s Commissioner’s recent interim report was reportedly dismissed by senior Government Ministers as “hysterical” and “half-baked”. According to news reports, Government sources said:

“It is difficult to overstate the contempt the Government has for the methodology and analysis”.

Does the Secretary of State want to take this opportunity to reject those comments; to join me, the NSPCC and Barnardo’s in welcoming that important report on child sexual exploitation; and to tell hon. Members what concrete steps he plans to take immediately to ensure that the 16,500 young people identified in the report as at immediate and high risk of exploitation are protected before harm comes to them?

3 Dec 2012 : Column 579

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and to the deputy Children’s Commissioner for her work. I asked her explicitly to accelerate part of her report to inform our work on improving child protection. The hon. Lady says that 16,500 are at risk. The methodology used to identify them is not shared by every professional in the field, but we can put that statistic to one side. The urgency with which we need to tackle the problem is undoubted, and I commend to her the action plan that I outlined in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research I made just a few days before the report was published.

Creative Subjects

11. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the likely contribution to the UK’s international achievements of studying creative subjects in school; and if he will make a statement. [130880]

The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): The arts are mankind’s greatest achievement. Every child should be able to enjoy and appreciate great literature, music, drama and visual art.

Fiona Mactaggart: But is the Secretary of State aware that Britain’s record in Nobel prizes—we have won 19 prizes for every 10 million of our population, whereas the USA has won 11 prizes per 10 million, and the EU has won 9 per 10 million—is achieved partly as a result of the combination of excellent science education and a strong creative tradition throughout our education system? At the same time, the Secretary of State’s EBacc proposals will result, according to research he has commissioned from Ipsos MORI, in something like a quarter of our schools dropping subjects such as art and design, design technology, music and so on. Will that mean that our international achievements, including in Nobel prizes, will slide down?

Michael Gove: If I thought the EBacc proposals would lead to that, I would not be able to sleep at night, knowing that the ghosts of Rutherford and Churchill were hanging over my bed and chiding me for my failures. I had the opportunity to speak to representatives of a variety of arts organisations today. They applauded the work we have done, not least the report that Darren Henley authored on cultural education. Many of the initiatives that we have launched since that time are initiatives that the previous Government were capable of neither initiating nor funding.

Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): One key factor when considering the subjects to be studied at secondary schools must be how well they prepare young people for further training or study at college or university. Professor Ebdon from the Office for Fair Access has said that it is “dreadful snobbery” to put pressure on schools to achieve places for their students at the best universities. As a former schools Minister, I share the uncertainty of another former schools Minister, Lord Adonis, about whether Professor Ebdon is the right person to lead an organisation committed to encouraging wider access to higher education. Does my right hon. Friend share that uncertainty?

3 Dec 2012 : Column 580

Michael Gove: When my hon. Friend and Lord Adonis agree, it is a brave and usually wrong man who disagrees.

Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): The creative industries are critical to jobs and growth, and some estimates are that as many as half of all new jobs will be created in those industries in the coming years. Will the Secretary of State take on board the massive concerns put forward by the CBI among others about how the EBacc is pushing academic study at the expense of vocational, not least creative, subjects?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools pointed out earlier that there has been a misreading of the CBI’s argument by those on the Opposition Benches. The CBI is not always right—it was not right about appeasement and it was not right about the euro. Historically, it has not been right about many things. However, on this occasion the CBI is applauding our policies. I do not know whether I should be delighted or worried, but I take comfort where I can that there are many people who are committed to improving our state education system who think our reform programme is right.

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): Learning to let creativity flourish will be enormously beneficial for the next generation and needs to be embraced right across the curriculum. The Secretary of State has been offered input by heads from the leading edge programme of the best-performing schools, among them Martin Williams from the Corsham school, to help to ensure that teaching is engaging and innovative for pupils learning in key stage 4. How will he respond to that offer from these outstanding schools?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will respond with enthusiasm. I want to make sure that the very best, which succeed not just in the quality of academic and technical education, but in instilling a love of creative education in young people, have an opportunity to help schools that may not have those strengths. I have never visited a school that is strong academically that is not also strong creatively. The more we can learn from great schools, the better for all our children.

Education Funding

12. David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): What plans he has to review the allocation formula for education funding. [130881]

The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws): The current system for funding schools is unfair and out of date. In March, the Secretary of State announced our intention to introduce a new national funding formula which would redistribute funding on a fair, transparent and pupil-led basis.

David Mowat: The current formula, which we inherited, contains in-built bias and anomalies. Given that the Secretary of State and several Ministers are on record as saying that it needs to be replaced, why must we wait until 2015 before that process even starts?

3 Dec 2012 : Column 581

Mr Laws: My hon. Friend is right to chide by implication the previous Government for failing during a far more benign financial environment to tackle the unfairness of the national formula for funding schools. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are taking action. We are already, in 2013-14 and 2014-15, simplifying massively the funding formula for schools, paving the way for the national funding formula, which we will introduce in the next spending review period.

Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): On a slightly different aspect of the education funding formula, Liverpool Community college has seen an extra 1,000 16 to 18-year-olds enrol this year. However, due to the current funding formula there is a gap of £6 million. Can the Government confirm that none of those young people will lose out and that they will all get the same high standard of education that they deserve?

Mr Laws: I am not sure what that gap is, but even in difficult times this Government have produced a fantastic settlement for schools and are doing what her Government never did: deliver a £2.5 billion pupil premium which will get more money to the most disadvantaged youngsters in the country.

Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): The Minister accepts that there are gross funding discrepancies among schools, not on the basis of need but simply because of the local authority in which a school sits. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State consider the f40 group’s appeal again and look to take action in this Parliament? Such gross unfairness cannot be allowed to last into the next Parliament.

Mr Laws: I agree with my hon. Friend’s points. I met representatives of the f40 group recently and had a detailed discussion. As I have already explained, we are making the first moves to introduce a national funding formula in the next spending review period. I assure my hon. Friend that in the meantime I will keep a close eye—as will the Secretary of State—on the representations that the f40 group is making about how we get a fairer funding formula.

State Boarding Schools

13. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): What his policy is on capital allocations for state boarding schools; and if he will make a statement. [130882]

The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws): Capital maintenance funding for maintained state boarding schools is allocated through local authorities, and through the Education Funding Agency for schools that are voluntary-aided. In addition, devolved formula capital is allocated directly to boarding schools for their own use. Academies will continue to have access to the academies capital maintenance fund.

Philip Davies: State boarding schools are the secret jewel in the crown of the state education system. However, the boarding parts of such schools and the maintenance of them are currently unfunded from capital allocations.

3 Dec 2012 : Column 582

Will the Minister take steps to resolve that, or at the very least allow state boarding schools to borrow against their boarding assets?

Mr Laws: I know that my hon. Friend is a strong supporter of state boarding schools, and so are this Government. He will probably be aware that the State Boarding Schools Association recently met with Lord Hill to discuss some of these matters, and he may be interested to know that a further meeting is scheduled for the end of January next year. My hon. Friend will also know that my predecessor, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), took a sensible decision to include in the property data survey a review of boarding provision and the capital needs of boarding schools. My hon. Friend will be aware that the data survey will report back next year. At that time we will have the evidence base to make the right decisions to ensure that state boarding schools have good-quality assets.

Secondary Curriculum

14. Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): What plans he has for the secondary curriculum; and if he will make a statement. [130883]

15. Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): What plans he has for the secondary curriculum; and if he will make a statement. [130885]

The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): We announced draft proposals for the new primary curriculum earlier this year and we will bring forward proposals for the secondary curriculum in due course.

Nic Dakin: When I visited award-winning St Lawrence academy in my constituency on Friday, I heard first hand how year 10 and year 11 students were gaining from accessing vocational courses at North Lindsey college. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he still supports Alison Wolf’s recommendation that 14 to 16-year-olds can benefit hugely from access to high-quality vocational education in colleges?

Michael Gove: I often find myself nodding along whenever the hon. Gentleman makes a point, and I have never yet found a recommendation by Alison Wolf with which I have not agreed.

Julie Hilling: Given the cross-party support, public support and professional support, and because he can save 150,000 lives a year, why on earth will the Secretary of State not put emergency life support skills somewhere in the national curriculum, so that every school leaver is a life-saver?

Michael Gove: The many heads and teachers who listened to the hon. Lady as she made her point will think that if they have not already incorporated emergency life-saving skills into the way they teach, they should do so in future. Indeed, with such brilliant advocacy, I am sure that even more lives can be saved.

3 Dec 2012 : Column 583

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that when reforms of the national curriculum are published, teachers will have more than sufficient time to become fully familiar with them?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is absolutely important that we ensure that teachers have an opportunity to absorb the changes that we want to make, so that they can do what I know they wish to do, which is to raise the bar for all children.

Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con): Would my right hon. Friend consider putting enterprise into the school curriculum? This Government are keen to see young people set up businesses, which will be important for the future growth of this country.

Michael Gove: There are few in the Government keener than me on encouraging enterprise among young people—in fact, there is one: the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock). However, I would be wary of treating the curriculum as though it were Santa’s sack—as though we could shove into it everything that we wanted and it would magically expand. If we are to ensure that teachers are free from unnecessary prescription, we need to ensure that great teachers can build the curriculum they want with a proper balance between what we expect centrally and what they determine locally.

Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): Ian McNeilly, the head of the National Association for the Teaching of English, has said of the Government’s new English curriculum:

“It is fantastic that Mr Gove has acknowledged that English as a subject needs to move into a different century. Unfortunately for all concerned, he has chosen the 19th rather than the 21st”.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will regard that as the highest praise, but does he agree that that is almost certainly not what was intended? Will he therefore reflect again on the omissions from the curriculum—particularly in areas such as writing, analytical and listening skills—that have been invoked by our friends in the CBI?

Michael Gove: I do not see anything wrong with having the 19th century at the heart of the English curriculum. As far as I am concerned, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy—not to mention George Eliot—are great names that every child should have the chance to study. As for the National Association for the Teaching of English, I am afraid that it is yet another pressure group that has been consistently wrong for decades. It is another aspect of the educational establishment involving the same people whose moral relativism and whose cultural approach of dumbing down have held our children back. Those on the Opposition Benches have not yet found a special interest group with which they will not dumbly nod along and assent to. I believe in excellence in English education. I believe in the canon of great works, in proper literature and in grammar, spelling and punctuation. As far as I am concerned, the NATE will command my respect only when it returns to rigour.

Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con) rose—

3 Dec 2012 : Column 584

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). I would have called him to ask a question if that oration had concluded earlier, but it did not, so I cannot. I will, however, look kindly on him in topical questions. We shall see.

Topical Questions

T1. [130894] John Pugh (Southport) (LD): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): With your permission, Mr Speaker—

Mr Speaker: Order. On this occasion, an answer rather than a speech will suffice. I must also say that I richly enjoyed the Secretary of State’s Oxford Union oration.

Michael Gove: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have had lots of meetings today and they have all been fun. Getting advice from you is the most fun of all.

John Pugh: Last month, the Secretary of State attacked the National Audit Office for being one of the “fiercest forces of conservatism”, and that statement was raised with the NAO in the Public Accounts Committee last week. Is such a statement wise, given the helpful advice that the NAO has provided on matters such as the overspending on the academies programme? After all, we all want to defeat the forces of conservatism.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to expand briefly on those remarks. It is important that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee should strike a proper balance between respect for public money and the encouragement of innovation. As the NAO pointed out, the academies programme has been a success for this Government. We also need to ensure, however, that every penny that we have is spent wisely.

Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab): Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to Ofsted’s recent report, there are now 381 fewer children’s centres than there were at the time of the election, which represents a cut of 10%? In the same week, the Minister for Children and Families admitted that the number of centres providing child care had fallen by 30% in just one year, and that many of the closures were in deprived areas that have problems with the availability and quality of child care. How many of those services, on which families rely, does the Secretary of State think will be lost, now that the budget for Sure Start has been cut by 40%? Why does he not care about Sure Start?

Michael Gove: It is because I care so much about Sure Start that I want to ensure that the quality of service that is delivered to young people is the most important criterion. We do not want to fetishise bricks and mortar; we want to ensure that the quality of the education that children receive is as high—[Interruption.] What sort of an example is that setting for the nation’s three and four-year-olds? I say that we should concentrate on the quality of education.

3 Dec 2012 : Column 585

T3. [130896] Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): Scope recently launched its “Keep us close” report, which found that six in 10 families with disabled children said that the vital services they needed were not available in their local area. What steps is the Minister taking to implement the report’s recommendations to ensure that local authorities make vital universal services such as schools and leisure services accessible to families with disabled children, so that they do not have to travel long distances to get to them?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson): You will no doubt be aware, Mr Speaker, that today is the international day for people with disability, so it is apt that my hon. Friend has chosen to ask that question. Our special educational needs reforms will require local authorities to involve local families in developing a published local offer of services for children and young people with SEN and disabilities to ensure that councils understand their needs and can plan local provision accordingly.

T2. [130895] Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab): Children with special needs, children who are in care and even children on free school meals are disproportionately represented among pupils permanently excluded from school. Many end up in pupil referral units, where the limited number of courses on offer can permanently damage their life chances. What is the Secretary of State doing to find out why that is happening and to provide more support to teachers in the classroom in dealing with such pupils?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. We appointed a special adviser to deal specifically with disciplinary and behavioural issues—Charlie Taylor, who had experience in dealing with precisely the sort of children whom the hon. Lady and I care about. That is why we have a reform programme to ensure that the quality of education offered in pupil referral units improves and that teachers who are responsible for dealing with those children receive improved initial teacher training. If the hon. Lady would like to know more, I would be happy to arrange a meeting with Mr Taylor so that he can bring her up to date.

T4. [130897] Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD): Will the Secretary of State comment further on how he will address the concerns that creative studies might be squeezed out of the secondary curriculum? Furthermore, will he or his Minister for Schools meet the secondary heads in my constituency to celebrate their successes and to discuss the future direction of the secondary curriculum?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who always makes her points proportionately and wisely. I agree with her that it is important not just to reassure students and teachers, but to applaud the fantastic work that is being done in creative and cultural education. That is why I or one of my colleagues would be only too happy to meet those in the schools in her constituency that are doing such a good job.

T8. [130901] Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab): It is 20 years ago today that the very first SMS was sent by an engineer. Today also sees the publication

3 Dec 2012 : Column 586

of EngineeringUK’s report, setting out the need to double the number of students studying GCSE physics if we are to meet the engineering needs of the future. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that a doubling of the numbers studying physics will happen, particularly in academies, which as he knows are responsible only to him?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock): It is vital that we increase the number of engineers, and indeed, provide more physics, which leads on to engineering. The number of schools offering three sciences at 16 is now back up to 80% after falling precipitously in the past decade. The number and proportion of pupils studying physics is going up, too. We need to do much more, but we are on the right track.

T5. [130898] Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend outline what plans he has to improve alternative provision, and will he recognise the role that sports, particularly boxing, can play in raising the educational achievements of our most disadvantaged and underperforming young people?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss): I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work with the all-party parliamentary group on boxing. I think boxing has had a great year: we have seen great performances, such as by Nicola Adams in winning a gold medal in the Olympics. That is a fantastic inspiration to many school students. We are encouraging more diversity in alternative provision. We want to encourage boxing alongside academic subjects so that students can get back into mainstream education.

T10. [130903] Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): I listened carefully to the answer to my earlier question about Liverpool community college, but I must point out that Liverpool community college does not receive the pupil premium. Will the Minister responsible for skills answer my question? Will he approve the granting of £6 million, on which the college currently loses out because of the lagged funding formula, so that none of the extra 1,000 students who have enrolled will lose out.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for advocating so persistently and constantly on behalf of her constituents. I would say two things. First, we are doing everything to ensure that we can equalise funding between schools, school sixth-forms and colleges in the direction that the Association of Colleges has welcomed. Secondly, I am absolutely delighted that 1,000 more students have enrolled in Liverpool, thus proving that our reforms to the education maintenance allowance and its replacement by a bursary fund has been, as Government Members have said, a success—and not the failure predicted by Opposition Members.

T6. [130899] John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): Salisbury has submitted an application for a science university, a university technical college and a free school sixth-form; we also have two outstanding grammar schools and a recent encouraging report from Sarum

3 Dec 2012 : Column 587

academy. Does the Minister agree that that diversity of provision allows opportunities for all children from all backgrounds?

Matthew Hancock: I do agree, and I urge others to take the same view as my hon. Friend. We should ensure that there is a diversity of provision, including university technical colleges, free schools and academies, and also a diversity of high-quality qualifications on offer—both academic qualifications and occupational qualifications that will form part of the Tech Bac—so that we can provide the best education, highly regarded and held in high esteem, for every single student who wants it.

John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): Last weekend the Secretary of State condemned a foster care decision made by social workers in Rotherham, who he said had made

“the wrong decision in the wrong way for the wrong reasons”.

He knew nothing about that complex case and had done nothing to check the facts, which was completely wrong for a Minister in his position. Will he now apologise?

Michael Gove: Absolutely not.

T7. [130900] Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con): More than 80 independent day schools are backing the Sutton Trust’s open access scheme, which will make private school places available to able children from all backgrounds on the basis of merit rather than ability to pay. Does the Secretary of State agree that opening up 100% of such places would fundamentally change the social structure of the schools, accelerate social mobility, and give bright kids from poor backgrounds the chance of a fantastic education?

Michael Gove: The Sutton Trust and Sir Peter Lampl have done wonderful work to advance social mobility. Not every aspect of the open access scheme necessarily recommends itself to the Government, but I applaud all the independent schools, such as those in the King Edward VI Foundation in Birmingham, which have done so much to extend a brilliant education to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): The Secretary of State spoke earlier about the canon. He may recall that, in 2009, he said:

“the greatest artists and thinkers are great precisely because their insights and achievements have the capacity to move, and influence, us all”.

Does he agree with the great artist Danny Boyle, who said recently:

“If there is any way you can help make culture, music, dance, theatre a core of the new English baccalaureate you will have given something beyond what you give every day”

Michael Gove: As an admirer of Danny Boyle’s film-making, and indeed of the amazing work that he did at the opening ceremony for the Olympics, I hesitate ever to disagree with him in any respect. That is why I was so pleased this morning to be able to talk to representatives of the culture sector, including those responsible for

3 Dec 2012 : Column 588

dance education, drama and visual arts, and to agree on what we can do together to ensure that every child has access to the best that has been thought and written.

T9. [130902] Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): Our schools in Elmbridge face serious financial pressures as a result of a spike in the birth rate, the large number of young families who are moving into the area, and small pockets of relatively acute deprivation. Those factors were consistently overlooked by the last Government. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that they are properly taken into account in the forthcoming funding formula review?

The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws): As my hon. Friend will know, we are simplifying the funding formula for 2013-14. We believe that it contains the right factors, which will be able to accommodate the real pressures throughout the country. My hon. Friend will also know that we are conducting a review of the formula for 2014-15. If he will write to me about the problems in his constituency, I shall be sure to look at them very closely.

Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): Sales skills are crucial to British businesses, but although nearly 10% of people are employed in sales, fewer than 1% of apprenticeships are in sales. Having escaped the opportunity to become Alan Sugar’s apprentice, Kate Walsh is now heading the Labour party’s policy review body, which is looking into how we can ensure that more young people get into sales and recognise the value of such work. Will the Minister congratulate Kate Walsh on having engaged in the political process, and acknowledge the importance of sales in our schools and colleges?

Matthew Hancock: I would commend any work intended to enhance the quality of apprenticeships, which are no longer restricted to one part of the economy but now extend to the whole economy. They are increasing in quantity, and we need to ensure that they increase in quality as well. I should welcome the contributions of anyone who can bring about an increase in the number of rigorous and employer-focused apprenticeships.

George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con): Many small schools in Cornwall are concerned about changes in the dedicated schools grant and the implications for their future. What reassurance can the Minister give that when the current minimum funding guarantee runs out in 2014, the Government will recognise the importance of funding stability to such schools?

Mr Laws: I can give my hon. Friend the assurances first that the minimum funding guarantee will continue, secondly that this Government value the role of small schools, and thirdly that we are carrying out a review of the funding formula for 2014-15, to look very carefully at some of the concerns he mentions.

Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op): Has the Secretary of State read the Pearson report, published last week and written by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which shows that Britain has the sixth best education system in the world and the second best in Europe? Does he agree that that shows great advancement under 13 years of the previous Labour Government and following

3 Dec 2012 : Column 589

many years of hard work from our teaching profession, and does he therefore regret talking down our education system and our teaching profession, as he did earlier today?

Michael Gove: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her recent election to Parliament. She couched her question brilliantly, and I know she will be a superb asset to this House. She is right to draw attention to the fantastic work our teachers are doing. However, only last week I was talking to Arne Duncan, the reappointed Secretary for Education in Barack Obama’s Administration, and he outlined to me how important it is that the two of us work together on a reform programme identical in every detail, to ensure that, however well we have done in the past, we do yet better in the future on behalf of all our children.

Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Further to Question 6 on religious education teaching, the Bible gives accounts of Jesus healing the sick. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State put first aid training in the national curriculum?

3 Dec 2012 : Column 590

Michael Gove: On previous occasions I have observed that the hon. Gentleman has never yet said anything in Education questions with which I have disagreed. This is a first, therefore. It is miraculous that there should be any gap between us, but I look forward perhaps to talking to the hon. Gentleman to see what we can do.

Mr Speaker: Certainly there is very rarely any Question Time in which the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) does not say something. We are accustomed to that by now, and we are grateful to him for it.

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab): Why do free schools not have to provide sports facilities, and how will that help the Olympic legacy?

Michael Gove: All schools need to ensure that their children have access to high-quality sports and physical education facilities and, under regulations that we have brought in, for the first time ever all schools, including independent and free schools, will have to guarantee access to high-quality facilities.

3 Dec 2012 : Column 591

Points of Order

3.32 pm

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order with you in respect of your duty of defending the interests and rights of Back Benchers and Committees in this House. This morning in an interview in The Sun newspaper, the Home Secretary, who I see is on the Treasury Bench, said the following about the Communications Data Bill:

“Criminals, terrorists and paedophiles will want MPs to vote against this bill. Victims of crime, police and the public will want them to vote for it. It’s a question of whose side you’re on.”

She also said:

“Anybody who is against this bill is putting politics before people’s lives.”

A Joint Committee of this House and the other House is meeting at present to pass comment on this Bill. Therefore, apart from traducing a large number of Members of this House, the Home Secretary is undermining the work of that Committee. Has she asked to come to the House to explain herself, and if not, what can you do to protect us, Mr Speaker?

Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Is it on the same theme?

Sir Menzies Campbell indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: We shall come to it, therefore. I am saving the right hon. and learned Member up. He is worth waiting for, I am sure.

Let me respond first to the point of order of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Ministers and other Members must take responsibility for their own words. I have not received any requests from the Home Secretary to come to the House. The right hon. Lady is reported as having expressed herself in strong terms, as the right hon. Gentleman alluded, and others, notably including the right hon. Gentleman, may disagree with her analysis. The two Houses agreed that a Joint Committee would be an appropriate way of examining the Government’s proposals in detail, but that does not put the proposals beyond comment by others. I am sure that, as with all Joint and Select Committees, this Joint Committee’s report will be founded on a careful and sober weighing of the evidence. I hope that is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman and the House.

Sir Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received any requests from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement about the nature of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Israel? Following last week’s events in New York at the United Nations, a number of actions have been taken and/or promised that are admittedly retaliatory in purpose. Would it not be right for the House to be brought up to date as soon as possible about the attitude of Her Majesty’s Government towards those actions and any future conduct which may be of the same nature?

3 Dec 2012 : Column 592

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I support the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) in what he has said? Last week, the Foreign Secretary came to this House to make a statement about a proposed action by Palestinians, as was right and proper. It is therefore beyond me that when the state of Israel is breaking international law in three ways the Foreign Secretary has not regarded it as necessary to come here today. When will we have a statement from him?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) for raising this point. With respect to the latter part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point of order, I refer to his words directly: it is right that the House should be kept up to date on this matter. There will be precisely such an opportunity at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions tomorrow. I am not psychic, but you don’t have to look into the crystal ball when you can read the book; judging from the historical evidence of FCO questions, I just have a hunch that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman will be in their places, and there is surely a reasonable chance that their eyes might catch mine. I hope that that is helpful.

Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 2 August, I wrote to the Home Office on behalf of my constituent Vanessa Watson with regard to a dangerous dogs issue, yet despite chasing that Department on many occasions, I have yet to receive a substantive response. May I seek the advice of the Chair as to what I should do next?

Mr Speaker: The short answer is: first, timely answers are not just desirable, but essential; secondly, the Home Secretary is on the Bench and is almost thirsting to rise from her seat—she can if she wishes; thirdly, I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Leader of the House is in his place and I know he will want to chase an early reply. If the Home Secretary wishes to come to the Dispatch Box, she may do so.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to his particular question. I will ensure that that matter is chased up and he receives a more timely reply.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Home Secretary and I hope that is regarded as helpful. I hope there will not be many more points of order, as I do not want other people to be unduly delayed. However, I will take a last point of order from Mr Jim Dowd.

Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am particularly obliged to you for taking this point of order, which relates to the next, and main, business of the day. You will be aware that one of the main categories in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is that of media earnings, which are many and diverse, and affect very many

3 Dec 2012 : Column 593

Members of this House. First, may I ask you to decide whether everybody who has an interest in that category should declare it in the forthcoming debate? Secondly, rather than just giving the completely uninformative, “I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests,” should Members say what it is they are pointing to?

Mr Speaker: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that each hon. and right hon. Member is responsible for his or her own declaration of interest. On the further point of substance, the declaration of interest should be sufficient to enable the House to recognise the nature of the interest. I hope that is helpful. I think that, if I may say so, what I have said is, or at any rate should be, self-explanatory to hon. and right hon. Members.

New members

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made and subscribed the Affirmation, required by law:

Sarah Deborah Champion, for Rotherham.

Andrew Joseph McDonald, for Middlesbrough.

Steven Mark Ward Reed, for Croydon North.

3 Dec 2012 : Column 594

Leveson Inquiry

3.43 pm

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?

3 Dec 2012 : Column 595

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.

3 Dec 2012 : Column 596

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

3 Dec 2012 : Column 597

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

3 Dec 2012 : Column 598

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.

3 Dec 2012 : Column 599

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

3 Dec 2012 : Column 600

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

3 Dec 2012 : Column 601

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

3 Dec 2012 : Column 602

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.

4.14 pm

Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab): I thank the Secretary of State for affording the House the opportunity to have this debate. Last week, following the Prime Minister’s statement, the House agreed that victims had suffered terribly, that the Press Complaints Commission had failed, and that we must have change. Today, we must focus on how we make that change.

Let me turn right away to the most controversial issue in the Leveson report—the question of statute. At the heart of today’s debate is whether we have independent self-regulation backed by law. It is important that we are clear about why statute is required and what it would do. We need statute because the current system of self-regulation has failed—year after year, for 70 years, and despite seven major reports. It has failed not because there are not people of good will in the press and not because last chances and dire warnings were not given—there are people of good will in the press and last chances and dire warnings were given. Each time there has been a new incarnation of self-regulation by the

3 Dec 2012 : Column 603

press, everybody has started with the best of intentions, but every time, because there is no oversight, standards have slipped and wrongdoing has returned.

Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Does the right hon. and learned Lady recognise that the inquiry was set up because of two scandals—phone hacking and the bribing of police—both of which are against the law and neither of which will be tackled by the form of state intervention she is talking about?

Ms Harman: The inquiry was set up—I congratulate the Prime Minister on setting it up, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on demanding it—not only because the criminal and civil law were broken, but because the press demonstrably had not abided by their own standards that they set out in their code of conduct. To stop that happening again, we must decide who overseas the regulator, because currently no one does.

Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): I am sure the right hon. and learned Lady remembers that the inquiry was established because of a number of smears from Opposition Members against the former Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. In view of the fact that the Leveson inquiry cleared my right hon. Friend of any such allegation, should she not apologise?

Ms Harman: Lord Leveson actually said he was not going to look into whether there had been a breach of the ministerial code. He said that was not a matter for him, and he was right; it is a matter for the independent adviser on ministerial interests, who did not get the chance to investigate because the Prime Minister did not refer the matter to him.

Sir Bob Russell: Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that her comments so far relate only to national media and the Westminster bubble? The allegations she has made are not fair to the thousands of local journalists on local newspapers.

Ms Harman: It would be quite possible within Lord Leveson’s framework for the local press to set up their own board and for another board to look at complaints against the national press. The key point is that the regulation must be overseen to guarantee its continued independence.

Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please rebut the myth that the report looked only at criminal activity? The families of the 96 who died at Hillsborough could not sue for libel—there was no defamation. Certainly, untruths were told and defamatory things were said, but the families could never have sued for libel—they had no recourse in law, and it took 23 years to get to the truth. That is why self-regulation failed.

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

3 Dec 2012 : Column 604

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): The right hon. and learned Lady has a strong and honourable history on this matter. Earlier this year, she spoke to the Oxford convention and announced she was firmly in favour of press freedom. She said:

“Because the press are now in the dock, it looks like special pleading from a vested interest when they make the case for press freedom. That’s why it is all the more important that politicians must insist on the freedom of the press.”

What has changed?

Ms Harman: Indeed, and that is why one of Lord Leveson’s proposals, which we think justifies the support of the House, is for a duty on Ministers to guarantee the freedom of the press, and that that duty should be in statute.

Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): Will the right hon. and learned Lady please be careful about not overstating the need for statutory intervention? It is quite narrow—it is simply to verify the independent regulator, who comes forth from the press itself, and to provide the tools, so that there can be exemplary damages for those who choose not to be regulated by that new independent regulator. If she overstates the case for statute, she makes arguments against herself that are unnecessary.

Ms Harman: We should make the case for statute, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it should be as narrow as possible in scope.

Let me return to my comments and set out why self-regulation has failed. The problem with a purely self-regulatory body and nothing else is that there is a conflict of interest when those doing the judging—the press—are those being judged. I believe that Lord Justice Leveson’s answer to that decades-long problem is ingenious. It has drawn on, listened to and completely understood the concerns of the press. He does not throw out self- regulation, as some expected. Instead, he nominates a body to oversee the self-regulator to ensure it is independent and stays independent.

Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) rose

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con) rose

Ms Harman: I will press on with my comments, because many hon. Members want to speak.

That is the core reason why Leveson concludes that statute is, to use his word, “essential”. However, to follow up on the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), all that any statute would have to do is set out criteria about what independence means and check once every three years that it is still independent—that is all. The oversight body—the one prescribed by statute—would have no role in hearing complaints, no role in deciding whether they are justified, no role in laying down penalties, and absolutely no role in deciding anything that does or does not go into a newspaper. That would be down to the independent self-regulator set up by the industry.

George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for giving way. Does she agree that under Lord Leveson’s proposals, the recognition body would be an independent body

3 Dec 2012 : Column 605

that assessed whether the self-regulator was adequate, but that under the current Government proposals it would be the Secretary of State, as a single, lone politician, who is set to stand in the shoes of that recognition body and make that decision individually?

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

3 Dec 2012 : Column 606

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!

Ms Harman: I am not quite sure what point the right hon. Lady is trying to make—I will have to think about that one.

Thirdly, there is the argument about a press law being the thin end of the wedge. A central feature of our democracy is that it is the responsibility of elected representatives to make and change laws, and we can do that at any time. Frankly, if that is a slippery slope, so is the very existence of Parliament. The only way to address that concern is to abolish Parliament, and I do not hear that being suggested.

Fourthly, let me deal with the argument that what is proposed would inevitably mean cumbersome legislation. Following our cross-party talks on Thursday, the Government agreed to prepare a draft Bill, but the Culture Secretary then said the Government were drafting the Bill only to show why it should not be done. That is why we are preparing a Bill that will show that it can be done in a tightly defined and forensic way, as envisaged by Leveson.

Let us look at the Irish law, which contains the clauses recognising the Irish Press Council. How many clauses do hon. Members think were needed to make that happen? Listening to the Government, we might assume that it took hundreds, but the answer is not hundreds, or even tens; it is just two. It took two clauses, one paragraph in a schedule and one schedule. The legislation is not a leviathan; it did not involve a huge, cumbersome Bill. The Bill that we are drawing up will show that this is possible, and we will, I hope, be working on a cross-party basis to take it forward.

Finally, there is the civil liberties argument. I do not believe that Lord Leveson’s proposals, which we support, would undermine freedom of speech. This is not about politicians alone determining what journalists do or do not write; far from it. The freedom of the press is

3 Dec 2012 : Column 607

essential. So, too, though, is that other freedom: the freedom of a private citizen to go about their business without harassment, intrusion or the gross invasion of their grief and trauma. I do not believe that those two freedoms are incompatible. A free press must be a responsible press. It must expose the abuse of power without abusing its own. That is what this debate is about, and that is why we should take forward Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In view of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members seeking to catch my eye, I have imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions with immediate effect.

4.31 pm

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): Over the past five years, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, which I chair, has examined the issue of the standards and ethics of the press three times. Each time, what we have uncovered has caused us serious concern about the way in which the press operates in this country; we have revealed information that we all found truly shocking.

It is important that we remember the people who have suffered at the hands of the press, including the McCann family, the Dowler family and Christopher Jefferies. However, it is also important to note that all in those cases suffered as a result of breaches of the law. Breaches of the Data Protection Act, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the contempt of court laws and the libel laws were all involved in the suffering of those people.

That is one of the reasons why I agree strongly with the earlier remarks of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). There are still big questions to be answered about how serial breaches of the law could take place in newsrooms and how the police appeared to do absolutely nothing about it, despite having the necessary evidence for a number of years. I very much hope that we will see the establishment of part 2 of the Leveson inquiry—whether it takes place under Lord Leveson or not is not the most important point—because we need answers to those questions once the criminal prosecutions have been exhausted.

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): So far as the breaches of the criminal law are concerned, will my hon. Friend confirm that, if a statutorily based supervisory body were to discover that the criminal law had been broken—through phone hacking, for example—that would become a matter for the police anyway as soon as it was discovered and that, terrible though the suffering of the Dowlers was, their case is, in a sense, really rather irrelevant to the supervisory body that we ought to have?

Mr Whittingdale: I am not sure that I would say their case is irrelevant, because it plainly provided evidence of the way in which the press seemed to feel that they were above the law, and that is a matter for a body overseeing ethics and standards. My hon. Friend is

3 Dec 2012 : Column 608

right, however, to say that that matter should have been dealt with by the police, and we still need answers as to why it was not.

Chris Bryant: The point, surely, is that the Press Complaints Commission was part of the problem. It was self-regulating, and for far too long it admitted the “one rogue reporter” line that was being touted by News International because it saw itself as a spokesperson for the industry and for the newspapers, and not as an independent body.

Mr Whittingdale: It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I agree with him. There is no question but that all of us in this Chamber are of one mind that the system of self-regulation administered by the Press Complaints Commission has failed. The commission produced a report saying that there was no evidence that anyone other than the one rogue reporter was involved, at the same time as my Select Committee produced a report saying that there was ample evidence and that we found it inconceivable that the rogue reporter defence was true. We are all agreed that we cannot continue with a system of self-regulation. The idea of the press marking its own homework, as Lord Leveson rightly put it, does not work and cannot continue—but that is not what is in prospect today.

David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): Victims have been mentioned many times today. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that it is sad that, because they fear that the Government will let them down, the victims have started a campaign themselves. Is that not a sad reflection on what is happening?

Mr Whittingdale: It is our job in this House to persuade the victims that what is now in prospect is a different regime that would have the necessary teeth to prevent the kind of abuses they suffered. I believe that that is the case, and that we have a duty to get that message across to them.

Let me take us back to the report our Select Committee produced in 2010. We clearly said that we needed a new body, which needed to have

“the ability to impose a financial penalty”

when the press had failed, and to have a responsibility

“for upholding press standards generally”—

things that the Press Complaints Commission was never equipped to do. We went on to say in that unanimous report of the Select Committee two years ago:

“We do not accept the argument that this would require statutory backing, if the industry is sincere about effective self-regulation it can establish the necessary regime independently.”

Earlier this year, I chaired another Committee, a Joint Committee of both Houses on privacy and injunctions. Again, we looked at these matters in some detail. That body, too, reached a conclusion that

“the current system of self-regulation is broken and needs fixing.”

Again, that Committee recommended a new independent body with stronger powers. The report went on to say —this was supported by Labour members of the Committee —that

“should the industry fail to establish an independent regulator which commands public confidence, the Government should seriously consider establishing some form of statutory oversight”,

3 Dec 2012 : Column 609

but it went on:

“At this stage we do not recommend statutory backing for the new regulator.”

George Eustice: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr Whittingdale: My hon. Friend was a member of the Committee who I know did not agree with that particular conclusion, but I will give way.

George Eustice: On precisely that point, a number of us here who sat on the Committee did indeed disagree with that and feel that there needed to be some statutory underpinning. Will my hon. Friend inform us how narrow the margin was when it came to endorsing this report at all?

Mr Whittingdale: I think I have the figures. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Committee divided at the end—10 in favour, and 7 against. I would point out, however, that among the seven were Lord Black of Brentwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who I think my hon. Friend will find are not necessarily totally in agreement with his particular viewpoint.

The Hunt-Black proposals are no longer on the table. I agree with Lord Leveson that they were not sufficiently independent. It is clear that the new body has to be completely independent of the press, and it has to have a board that does not have serving editors on it. There are elements where a new body could have some kind of statutory support. Some hon. Members may have seen the comments of Shami Chakrabarti, who talked about how a body could have statutory recognition. I would draw the House’s attention to the submission made to the Leveson inquiry by Lord Hunt, in which he pointed out that the Irish Defamation Act 2009 contains a provision that recognises the activity of the Irish Press Council and allows the courts to take account of

“the extent to which the person adhered to the code of standards of the Press Council and abided by the determinations of the Press Ombudsman and determinations of the Press Council.”

That seems to me entirely sensible. It is a way of giving the press incentives to join such a body. However, Lord Hunt went on to say: