Leveson Inquiry
Debate between Harriet Harman and Alun Cairns(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)
Debate between Harriet Harman and Alun Cairns(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport should be referred to the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests to investigate whether he breached paragraph 1.2c (giving accurate and truthful information to Parliament) and paragraph 3.3 (responsibility for his special adviser) of the Ministerial Code.
This debate takes place while the Leveson inquiry is doing its work, but I make it clear that the motion before the House is not about the issues that are the subject of the inquiry; today’s motion is about the rights of the House and the ministerial code, issues that Lord Justice Leveson made clear he is not going to consider and report on. Indeed, he cannot consider those matters, because article 9 of the Bill of Rights prevents him from so doing.
It was right to establish the Leveson inquiry. Its work is of huge importance and, after Lord Justice Leveson has reported, we will need to place great weight on his proposals and to give them deep consideration. We have, arising out of his inquiry, an historic opportunity to create a better settlement for the future, and I look forward to us all working together to achieve that, but that is not what the motion before us is about.
This debate is about protecting the rights of this House so that we can do the job we were elected to do—of holding Ministers to account and ensuring high standards in ministerial office, as set out in the ministerial code.
The ministerial code is not just a matter for the Prime Minister; it is a matter for this House. The motion before the House asks that the Secretary of State be referred to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, and nothing in Sir Alex Allan’s reply to the Prime Minister today changes that. There are two issues at stake here: misleading the House and failing to take responsibility for his special adviser.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Sir Alex Allan’s response clearly said—[Interruption.] I am reading from the letter that was placed in the Library of the House, which clearly states:
“I do not believe that I could usefully add to the facts in the case”.
Does not that undermine the statements that the right hon. and learned Lady has just made?
Ms Harman
Will the hon. Gentleman just let me finish?
It is for the independent adviser to make a judgment on whether the ministerial code has been breached so that he can advise the Prime Minister on whether, in his view, there has been such a breach. That is due process. When there are facts out there that tend to indicate a breach of the code, the process is to have the independent adviser able not only to hear the argument from the person in respect of whom a breach has been alleged but to look at the facts that are out there. That is the process by which the Prime Minister can then make his decision.
It is very telling that the Prime Minister is doing everything he can to stop that process taking place. That is why—
Ms Harman
I will proceed, if I may.
Despite the interventions, I know that Members in all parts of the House regard the question of truth, accuracy and full disclosure to Parliament as fundamental. We cannot settle for anything less if we are to hold Ministers to account. Putting it at its very lowest, there is prima facie evidence that the Secretary of State failed to give accurate and truthful information to the House.
On 3 March 2011—[Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to bear with me while I set out what I believe to be the facts at issue. On 3 March 2011, in reply to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Secretary of State told the House that in respect of his handling of the Murdoch bid for BSkyB he had published
“all the documents relating to all the meetings—all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]
I have here the documents that he published on that day. Many of them, such as written ministerial statements, the European intervention notice and press releases from the European Commission, were already in the public domain.
But when the Murdochs came to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry, we discovered that all the exchanges had not been published. No: there had been literally hundreds of exchanges between the Secretary of State’s Department and News Corporation that he had not published. Over the course of many months, both when the bid was the responsibility of the Business Secretary and when it was his responsibility, there had been literally hundreds of exchanges—texts, e-mails, reports of phone calls—none of which had been disclosed to this House. So while on 3 March 2011 we were told that the pile was only this big, a full year later, on 24 April, and thanks only to the Leveson inquiry, we discovered that it was this big. Even though the Secretary of State says that he did not know of the volume and content of the exchanges between his special adviser and News Corporation, he did know of their existence, because, as he told the House on 25 April, he had authorised those exchanges.
There is a second occasion where there is prima facie evidence of the Secretary of State not being accurate and truthful to the House. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) during his statement to the House on 25 April, he said that he
“made absolutely no interventions seeking to influence a quasi-judicial decision that was at that time the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 973.]
But it emerged during evidence to the Leveson inquiry that on 19 November 2010, when it was—
Amendment of the Law
Debate between Harriet Harman and Alun Cairns(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Harman
But it needs to be implemented now, with a clear timetable and a code of conduct so that notification letters can be issued. We want the Government to show leadership by ensuring that search engines such as Google play their part, and, if there is no agreement, to carry on and legislate in the forthcoming communications Bill.
Where is the action on young people and skills in the creative industries? The future of our creative economy is built on our young people—young people who are consumers, and many of whom want to work in those industries. We must ensure that there are opportunities for creative development from primary school to the workplace, but the signs are not good. Creativity is being stifled in schools, and since last year the number of applications for degree courses in creative arts and design has fallen by 27%. We all know why that is: it is because of the Liberal Democrats’ shameful betrayal on tuition fees. The Liberal Democrats were meant to be a brake on the Government—remember that?—but it is obvious that they have zero influence on policy. Perhaps they just did not have enough money to buy dinner with the Prime Minister.
Where is the action on access to finance for the creative industries? London is a global financial capital and Britain’s creative industries are world leaders, yet they struggle to obtain the finance they need to grow. Most creative businesses are small or medium-sized, and they need the banks to lend to them to help them get started and grow. However, as has been pointed out by the British Chambers of Commerce, credit easing
“will not help the smaller, younger, and high-growth firms that have trouble getting credit in the first place.”
Operation Merlin figures show that banks are still failing to meet their lending targets. Net lending to small businesses fell by £10 billion last year. Banks must start lending to creative businesses rather than throwing money away in bankers’ bonuses, and the Government must start making that happen rather than throwing money away on tax cuts for rich bankers.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The right hon. and learned Lady says that creative industries are struggling to gain access to capital. Will she give us a specific example?
Ms Harman
There are many. We need only listen to all the arguments throughout the industry, whether they concern films, video games or music. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that small and medium-sized businesses are having trouble obtaining loans so that they can start up and grow, he does not realise what is going on in the real world.
Where is the regional strategy that supports the creative industries all over the country, not just in London? The Government have abolished the regional development agencies, they have cut local government, and they have squeezed the BBC, which is bound to hit the independent sector that it supports. The Culture Secretary says that philanthropy will make up for his cuts. If that is his policy, how does it accord with the announcement in the Budget of a cap on tax relief for charitable donations? Was the Secretary of State consulted? Did he even know about it?
There is even more bad news for the arts. Not only have the Government cut the Arts Council’s budget by 29%, but they have now sacked its chair, Liz Forgan. That was a petty political act, and I am disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity to pay tribute to Liz Forgan. Those in the arts sector feel that she was doing a tremendous job for them, particularly in managing incredibly difficult cuts, and I want to pay tribute to her today.
Key to a regional strategy is a truly national broadband infrastructure. A digital economy needs digital infrastructure—
BBC (Proposed Cuts)
Debate between Harriet Harman and Alun Cairns(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is simplistic to complain only about the cuts the BBC is facing. We need to take into account the broader economic perspective. Instead of adopting the top-down approach of considering where savings can be made, our starting point should be to ask the following question: what do we want the BBC to do and to achieve? Let me say at the outset that I am a strong supporter of the BBC. The quality of its output is first class, and it covers subjects that no commercial operator would consider addressing. It responds positively to education and social needs and demands. As a public service broadcaster, it ticks all the boxes and more. However, in doing the “and more” part, does it stifle competition and squeeze out competitors, thereby reducing plurality of provision? A guaranteed licence fee income of £3.5 billion and a total income of £5 billion puts the BBC in a strongly favourable position compared with providers who have to deal with fluctuating advertising income and economic unpredictability.
Critics of BBC budget cuts need to recognise that it may well be able to operate more efficiently in some of the many areas of its output, and, indeed, that it might not need to operate in all those areas, as other providers may be better placed to cover them. To the credit of the BBC—and the Secretary of State for Wales—freezing the licence fee has resulted in its being forced to look at what it does, and the Delivering Quality First agenda is the outcome, although I would suggest that it should be the start of its reaching the desired outcome.
I want the BBC to start by focusing on what other providers might do and what capacity they may have for providing entertainment and information, as the BBC must ask itself how it can ensure that it strikes an appropriate balance in services and subject areas while representing all parts of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. How can it contribute to innovation, rather than squeeze out competition? Should it operate in every area where there are commercial alternatives, such as in the market that Radio 1 covers? Plurality and news output to target audiences must be considered of course, but do we need to continue with the same traditional approach?
It may be unfashionable to mention James Murdoch at present, and I would condemn him if he were to be found guilty of any of the allegations that have been made.
Alun Cairns
If the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) wants to intervene on that point, I will happily respond.
James Murdoch has highlighted that when some years ago Radio 2 was losing its target audience of 24 to 45-year-olds, it paid millions of pounds to recruit Jonathan Ross to try to regain those listeners even though commercial operators already addressed that audience. If that is not an example of the BBC squeezing out competition, I do not know what is.
Does it make sense for the BBC to cover sporting events that ITV, Channels 4 or 5 or Sky would like to broadcast? I agree that we need to look at what should be free to air and whether pay per view is appropriate in all areas, but let us consider the example of Formula 1. The BBC has paid £300 million to screen Formula 1 over a five-year period. That amounts to £3 million per race, yet Sky will also broadcast every race. The partnership between Sky and the BBC is a significant and positive step forward, as it is certainly better than the previous situation of their competing outright, but two issues remain unresolved. First, could not ITV, Channels 4 or 5 or another broadcaster screen that popular sport? Secondly, the simple fact of the BBC bidding with public money will drive up the price and squeeze opportunities for others.
I recognise that the quality of the BBC can give it an edge over other broadcasters, but I remind Members that the BBC covered test match cricket for a long time, but the greatest innovations in the coverage of the sport occurred when the broadcasting rights were won by Channel 4 and then Sky, who took coverage to a much more sophisticated level. Innovations such as Hawk-Eye were introduced and a more informal approach to cricket attracted more viewers and new audiences.
I pay tribute to the BBC’s website coverage, which has set the standard for such output. It covers national and regional news in a structured way, and addresses subject matters across the spectrum from hard news to social gossip. It is an excellent example of the innovation the BBC can achieve. Yet if it continues to dominate this part of the market, that could prevent other providers—newspapers, broadcasters or even new entrants—from having the opportunity to innovate. The BBC set excellent standards, but it needs to consider whether there should be a subsequent, partial withdrawal when the market has matured.
I strongly support the BBC’s activities in areas where the market cannot provide. News in general is extremely important, and without the BBC’s news activities in many parts of the UK there simply would not be any coverage of significant news or social or cultural events. Wales and Scotland are of particular relevance in this regard, especially with the advent of devolution.
Other Members have talked about local television, so I shall now briefly address a parochial issue. The UK press does not always cover Wales as adequately as it should. This is where the BBC comes into its own of course, but in Wales its implementation of the Delivering Quality First agenda involves a squeeze on its political coverage. It argues that news is not being cut under the current proposals, yet there is a reduction in political output. Politics is news, so there is obviously a cut to news.
Although the BBC has, to its credit, responded well to devolution, that should not be achieved at the cost of coverage of non-devolved matters. Over recent years, there has been a trend to reduce political coverage on mainstream news outlets. Welsh questions have been covered on a mainstream outlet in Wales since 1987, but under current proposals that will no longer be the case.
Alun Cairns
If that is such a priority, why was the issue not addressed when the right hon. and learned Lady’s party was in government?
Ms Harman
Perhaps it should have been, but we are talking about the situation now and in future, especially in light of what has happened in the licence fee settlement, with which I shall deal in a few moments.
As well as standing up for the BBC against commercial pressure, the Secretary of State will need to stand up for it against some on his own side. Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry and Ofcom are now examining media plurality in the wake of the Murdoch scandal. The dominance of the Murdoch empire, which was so much the root of the wrongdoing that is now being exposed, would have been even more dangerous without the BBC.
I do not think we will see James Murdoch repeat his attacks on the BBC any time soon, but some who support the anti-BBC stance that Murdoch set out in his 2009 Edinburgh lecture will see the Leveson proceedings and the Ofcom review as an opportunity to re-launch their attacks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. Those voices have kept away from the debate today, but we know that the view still lurks among some in the Secretary of State’s party and on his Back Benches. If he wants a strong BBC, he will need to stand up to some on his own side strongly and publicly. When he does that, again, he will have our strong support.
The Secretary of State needs to stand up for the independence of the BBC. At the heart of its independence is the licence fee, and that is why so much concern has been expressed in the House again today about how the deal on the licence fee was done last October. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talked about it as “Three Days in October—When Jeremy Terrorised Mark”. Actually, there was a prequel to that film: “Three Days in October—When George Terrorised Jeremy”. The Secretary of State, appearing to have failed to fight his Department’s corner with the Treasury and to have accepted cuts that were too deep, then imposed major new financial responsibilities on the BBC in a rushed deal behind closed doors, to be paid for from licence fee funds. One was the cost of the World Service.