Press Self-Regulation

Debate between Mark Durkan and Maria Miller

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not misunderstand me. I was not saying that any delay had been caused by Scotland—quite the opposite. I was saying that it was right to take time to do things properly. I welcome the involvement of Scotland in taking the proposals forward. As I have said to Northern Ireland Members, I would also welcome their interest.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is not just because of the Northern Ireland twilight zone that some of us have doubts about whether a three-party compact, sealed by the Privy Council, is the best way of enshrining the Leveson principles. The Secretary of State has today stressed terms such as “credible” and “workable”. If large sections of the press refuse to work with and credit this proposal, how does she envisage that the courts will end up possibly wrestling with that dichotomy, and what happens if that then reverts back to Parliament?

[Maria Miller]

I perhaps need to get back to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point regarding Northern Ireland. I think I am right in saying that publications issued in Northern Ireland are subject either to the Republic of Ireland’s regime, or to the existing Press Complaints Commission regime, but I am happy to consider the matter further. I feel that we have a strong way forward and I do not think we will end up with the sort of situation that the hon. Gentleman outlines. We have taken the time—rightly—to get this right, and I hope the new self-regulatory process that we put in place is robust and will not fall into the sorts of problems he outlines.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Maria Miller

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to put that on the record so that my hon. Friends know the position of important organisations such as the Church of England on this matter. I think my hon. Friend is right that the detail of the potential impact of these measures has not been looked at in the way I think Members would expect. An enormous amount of work would need to be done on the legal status of opposite-sex civil partners when they travel abroad or even respecting their legal status in the constituent parts of the UK. At the moment, we have not done that work. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, will know that it is important to have alignment both with Scotland and Northern Ireland on how to move forward; at the moment those issues have not been discussed. On each of those issues and more besides, it will take time to work out the detail and to get it right.

[Mark Durkan]

When the civil partnership issue came up on Second Reading and in previous stages, the Government’s argument was that it was not germane and that there was no real demand for it. The argument the Secretary of State is making now, however, implies that there could be too much demand for civil partnerships, with all sorts of costs and consequences. Which is it: either it is an issue or it is not; is there a demand or is there not a demand?

[Maria Miller]

That shows why we need a detailed look at the issue: we simply do not have the answer to the question about the potential liabilities around pensions. We may be able to say that there is a potentially significant liability, but we do not know whether this extension of civil partnerships would meet the needs of an important constituent group of heterosexual couples. We do not have that evidence base either. That is my answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mark Durkan and Maria Miller

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

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

[Maria Miller]

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Durkan and Maria Miller

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

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

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

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

[Maria Miller]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

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

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

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

[Maria Miller]

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

Equal Marriage Consultation

Debate between Mark Durkan and Maria Miller

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend obviously has very strong views on this. As I have said, I respect those views, but I ask him to ensure that he balances them with a respect for others who might not agree with him. It is clearly set out in the contract for equalities that sat alongside our manifesto that we would consider the case for a change in the law, and that is exactly what we are doing today. I think he should be celebrating this development, and I really hope that I can convince him that the quadruple lock will provide just the kind of assurances that he seeks.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Minister accept that, as well as providing for civil marriage, the state has for some time recognised and registered marriages conducted under the sacramental privilege of various Churches? That legal capacity for Churches has always respected their own rules of ritual eligibility, and has been qualified only by the provision that there be no lawful impediment, such as a close blood relationship, one party already being married or the couple being of the same sex. Will she confirm that her proposal is essentially to remove the lawful impediment to marrying a couple of the same sex, and that it will in no other way encroach on the sacramental privilege of any Church or interfere with any Church’s rules of ritual eligibility?

[Maria Miller]

I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that our proposals will do exactly what he is asking for, which is to ensure that there is no compulsion on religious institutions or individuals to undertake same-sex marriages. I ask him to look closely at the details of the quad locks that we have set out in our statement today. Of course we will be working with religious institutions to ensure that those locks work as they need to do, because it is our intention to provide the kind of safeguards that he is talking about.

Disability Allowance

Debate between Mark Durkan and Maria Miller

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady must understand, as her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East has said, that the measure has to be seen in the context of the wider reform of DLA, so I will outline a little more on that. The reform of DLA will allow us to ensure that we accurately and consistently assess people’s support needs and reassess those receiving the allowance as their needs change over time, which is also currently lacking. We believe that that is crucial. As a result of the reforms, we believe that we can focus resources where they are most needed.

I will now address the specific measure on the mobility element of DLA. We believe that the mobility element plays an important part in helping disabled people lead more independent and autonomous lives, an ambition with which I am sure all Members agree. However, that element also includes duplication and overlap, which is why we have set out to tackle the disparity as part of the spending review. At present, some people in residential care receive DLA cash directly for their mobility needs, and at the same time they receive varying levels of mobility support at local level from care services, funded by their local authority. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) in her contribution. In some cases care homes provide excellent mobility support, but in others there is only basic provision, which means that some people receive cash support for services and others do not.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister referred to the confusion and overlap that the measure is intended to remedy, but what representations have been received about that? Who has made the case that there are chronic difficulties and that all sorts of confusion are seizing people with worry and bewilderment?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is the role of the Government to ensure that systems are clear and straightforward, and he will also know from his constituents who are disabled that the push towards personalisation is something that disabled people feel strongly about. Unless we have clear budgets and budget lines, it is difficult for that to happen. I hope that he will understand that it is incumbent on the Government to be able to deal with that.