Phone Hacking

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael]

I do not have time to go into that adequately. What I would say is that we need a public inquiry with the capacity to get to the bottom of various issues. Therefore, it needs to be set up carefully and have appropriate powers, and not be the type of bureaucratic public inquiry that has sometimes got in the way of the truth emerging.

We have heard one of the investigators complaining about the relentless pressure of demands from the News of the World on investigators and journalists. I did not detect a great deal of sympathy in the House—I think I heard a bit of a groan, indicating a lack of sympathy—but pressure comes in two forms. One is the pressure to deliver—“You’re only as good as your next headline”—and the other is the general pressure of what is acceptable and expected in any profession, or the environment in which people do their work. It is important that both be addressed. At the heart of the matter are three issues. The first is the standard of journalism; and the second is the standard of governance in the press and the media. This could—indeed, should—be a watershed moment. In general, journalists want to be open and transparent and to do an honest job, but that is not easy all the time. I saw something of the power of the press pack as a young journalist in south Wales.

The Press Complaints Commission is well meaning but, frankly, it is a joke. The public and journalists deserve better. Its lack of influence and inability to change the environment or set standards lets down those who have earned a high reputation for themselves and for our better newspapers and media outlets. The Press Complaints Commission clearly has neither the will nor the capacity to change things, but we need to take care: statutory regulation of the press and media could endanger press independence, which would be a massive mistake. We need an independent body, but one that is robust and effective and has the powers to investigate and enforce. It would be a major step forward if such a body emerged from these events, as I hope will happen.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) told us that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner had referred the issue of possible payments to police officers to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but the IPCC’s investigation needs to go a little wider. The Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), pointed out that the information now coming into the public domain was in the possession of the police in 2006. I hope that the commissioner will refer that to the IPCC too. The Metropolitan police had also reported to Ministers. My right hon. Friends the Members for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) had information on which they had to take their decisions, and so has the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Those issues relate to the conduct of the police and the activities of police officers and need to be looked at objectively. The IPCC should be asked to do that.

What the IPCC does should feed into the wider public inquiry; I do not think that the two are alternatives. The IPCC has the resources and the investigative capacities, and it has earned a reputation for being tough. It is therefore important that it should be able to ask the questions, “Did the police mislead Ministers and Parliament?”, “Did police receive money?”—that question has been referred to it already—and, “Did relationships distort investigations?” It is important that those questions should be forensically investigated as part of preparing the ground for the wider, transparent investigation that we need, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said. I do not think that these are alternatives, but we need the forensic capacity of the IPPC to look into some of these issues.

The third issue is that we need clarity about the law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, rightly said that the Committee had identified confusion about what the law says. That confusion should not exist. I refer specifically to the fact that John Yates told us that there were only a small number of victims, based on what he said was legal advice that the police would have to prove that messages had been intercepted and also listened to before being heard by the recipient. However, Kier Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told us that that was not the advice given to detectives. Advice from prosecutors was at best provisional and did not limit the scope or extent of the criminal investigation—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Zac Goldsmith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A great many Members still wish to speak. I am going to reduce the speaking time limit to four minutes, and if speakers show restraint, I may manage to get everyone in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Meacher]

I would love to give way to my right hon. Friend, but I am under instructions not to give way.

In particular, the idea cooked up by News International that putting Sky News into a separate company somehow preserves media plurality is utterly spurious. Newco, the company that will run Sky News, will be dependent on News Corporation for 85% of its revenues and for access to the market, and the safeguards for editorial independence are weak and of the kind that News International has repeatedly undermined before. Neither Ofcom nor the Office of Fair Trading regards this arrangement as a sustainable solution, the two-week consultation period was clearly inadequate, and the arrangement puts far too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State rather than independent regulators. Those are all very strong reasons why the Secretary of State has to look at this again, after a pause, which the whole House is asking for.

Lastly, I want to say something about the Press Complaints Commission, which is surely one of the most ineffective performers in the regulatory landscape. It played absolutely no role whatever in uncovering the phone hacking revelations; indeed, it far too readily dismissed The Guardian’s original warnings nearly two years ago. I really do think that the PCC has been so poor that the public inquiry should look again at the future of self-regulation after so many cautions, including David Mellor’s warning 20 years ago—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Voting by Prisoners

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Everybody will be well aware that there is a five-minute limit. We have 39 speakers to get through, and my intention is to get everybody in. If we have fewer interventions and shorter speeches, we will enable that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have to rule. Please, take your seat.

Sir Peter Bottomley has made a point of order and is absolutely correct. We should not mention another person in another place in that way, so I am sure that the hon. Lady does not need to continue down that line.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

If I may just finish, I should say that nobody now would think that suing a local authority or a public body over the negligence of their actions was wrong. So, using one person to criticise and castigate the whole European convention is plainly not right.

On prisoners’ right to vote, I know that some people say that, because the prisoner has committed the offence, all their rights should be taken away, but does that mean that we should go back 100 or 200 years when hard labour was considered to be the right punishment? I am sure that, in those days, when people said that our penal policies should be much more humane and liberal, just as many people said, “Oh no, these people have committed crimes and therefore should be punished to the hilt.” As we did not adhere to those policies then, why are we reacting so strongly to this issue now?

I agree with several Members who have said that, in reality, the number of prisoners who exercise the right will probably be quite small. In my years before becoming a Member, I represented and prosecuted many defendants, and I met many people who became prisoners, so I can say, anecdotally, that most of them are unlikely to vote, but the question is one of principle: what do we as a society and as a nation stand for?

Many years ago, we abolished the death penalty, bar for two offences: high treason and burning Her Majesty’s shipyard. A few years ago, a Labour Government abolished the death penalty even for those offences. Why did they do that? We had not issued the death penalty to anyone since the ’60s, but we abolished it for those two offences because we felt that as a society in the 21st century that was the right thing to do. A point of principle was involved, and for me the issue of prisoners’ rights is a point of principle, too.

The disfranchisement of sentenced prisoners dates back to the Forfeiture Act 1870, and the origins of the ban are rooted in the notion of civic death: a punishment entailing the withdrawal of citizenship rights. But Dr Selby, the former bishop of Her Majesty’s prisons, and now the president of the National Council for Independent Monitoring Boards, states:

“Denying convicted prisoners the right to vote serves no purpose”—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Time is up.