Valedictory Debate

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend from Barrow and Furness—I suggest that he tries for size a majority of 30 on the third count at 6.30 in the morning.

I am sorry not to have been here to listen to all the speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once upon a time this was going to be a normal working day; I had a delegation from Slovenia here for a tour. Everyone will know that being a tour guide is an occupational hazard in the Commons, not least as I am the chair of the all-party British-Slovenia Group, the chair of the all-party British-German group and the vice-chair of the all-party group on Japan. Present difficulties notwithstanding, the internationalism of this place has always been a surprise pleasure that I will certainly miss.

I also thank the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for kindly losing to me in 2005—in the nicest possible way and as only he knows how—because otherwise I would not be here making these remarks. I still have his campaign T-shirt, which I found tidying up my cupboard, and which I asked him for as a present. I will keep it and cherish it.

It feels strange to clear an office after 18 years. While packing up, I came across umpteen spare copies of my maiden speech from 2001, and I remember it well. I felt I had drawn the short straw, having to follow the lyrical Welsh tones of Adam Price, now the leader of Plaid Cymru. It felt like trudging in the footsteps of Richard Burton in a theatre audition. In making my speech, I felt sure I was the only grandson of a rabbit trapper from County Meath in Ireland to take his place on these green Benches. Now as I leave, I can burnish my Celtic credentials further, because on 2 March—my 57th birthday—the perfect present popped through the letterbox: my Irish passport. Whatever happens after the election, I will be remaining—no ifs, no buts, come what may—a citizen of the European Union, as will my three long-suffering children.

It has been a privilege to serve as the MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, my home town. I was the first born and bred “castle black”, as we say, for—well, I haven’t been able to find another going back 500 years. But 2001 was not my first general election; that came when I stood in Chesham and Amersham—my dry run—in 1997. So one of my first thanks this afternoon goes to my agent 22 years ago, Peter Ward, and his wife, Doreen, who wished me all the best again this week. I must also mention again the wonderful Keith Kingswood, the local constituency secretary back then. Just before the ’97 election, Keith flew to New York to see his son and collect a postal vote but tragically on the flight over contracted a mystery illness from which he did not recover. The day after the Blair landslide, while Labour was partying on the south bank, we were all attending Keith’s funeral in Chesham. My thoughts today are again with his wife Janet and his family.

This job would be impossible without the support of families, so I have to thank my wife Victoria for putting up with all the late nights, the weeks and weekends away, the overseas visits and all the football and, in particular, rugby—she curses Commons and Lords RUFC. She was also the one person I forgot to thank on election night in 1997. In turn, I have never been allowed to forget it. In Newcastle-under-Lyme, I want to pay a special tribute to the first person I met when I first went back to help in 1993: a truly great council leader, Eddie Boden, who turns 80 in a few weeks. Happy birthday from Westminster, Eddie. My agent in Newcastle all these years, David Leech, has been a rock of support and strength. Sadly, he lost his wonderful wife and soulmate, Cynthia, last year. Newcastle is much emptier without her.

Nothing could prepare me for this place. I was never a student politician or part of any network. I first got involved in politics in 1987, aged 25, when I took the day off work in London to do something, finally, about Margaret Thatcher. Through the occasional rebellions—student tuition fees, the dreadful war in Iraq, the dreaded B-word today—David and my officers in the constituency have always been loyal, steadfast and true. It was because of their efforts that a week last Friday in Newcastle-under-Lyme we were able to celebrate 100 years of continuous Labour representation in Parliament. We are one of only five constituencies in the whole of the UK to be able to do so. My majority might be a bit tight—we are one of 11 reluctant members of the “under 100” club—but I keep reminding people that at over 21,000 the Labour vote in Newcastle in 2017 was the biggest of my five general elections and the highest since that landslide under Tony Blair in ’97. It is the task of my successor as candidate, who was selected on Friday, to recreate that progressive alliance.

Politics is a difficult and demanding trade, and that has never been more true than in these testing time, in the age of social media, but in this job one really can make a difference and be proud of doing so, for constituents and causes and projects that leave a legacy for the future. At the outset in Westminster, I was rebellious enough to stand up for students over high and variable tuition fees and had the temerity to organise a rebellion. I next crossed swords with my own Government through a private Member’s Bill to ensure fairer treatment of temporary and agency workers—protections eventually implemented, we should remember, by a European directive that helped vulnerable and low-paid people in 28 countries.

I am also glad to have stood up for my beliefs in not voting for the legislation that paved the way for the referendum, or for the triggering of article 50. I understand that I am the only member of the Labour party to have departed from the whip on both those occasions, and the same applies to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in respect of the Conservative party.

I am proud, too, to have served for 14 years on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The Committee has certainly made a difference, pursuing phone-hacking and, more recently, investigating fake news and abuse of social media, as well as helping to change libel law in the interests of my former profession: responsible, serious investigative journalism.

Locally, there is much for Labour, and retired colleagues in north Staffordshire, to be proud of, such as our brand-new hospital and the excellent Newcastle college, to name but two. In Newcastle, my favourite place of all is the wonderful Peter Pan Nursery for Children with Special Needs, and I want to record my thanks to Peter Traves, who was Staffordshire’s education director until 10 years ago, for his help in securing its future in brand-new premises opposite my old school in Wolstanton. He is simply the best officer in the public sector with whom I have dealt in 18 years.

Let me end with two final votes of thanks. This job would be impossible without great staff. I have had wonderful staff doing a wonderful job for constituents—Caroline Eardley, who has been with me throughout, Dr Barry Schofield and Martin Bell—and, in Westminster, Hannah Matin, Thomas Brayford and, for so many years, Dr Neil Watkins. We always need good officers in our constituency parties, and I want to thank the chair of my constituency party, Allison Gardner, for her wonderful support. Her drive and motivation, and her great sense of humour, made the last two elections enjoyable, and without her help I would not be standing here today.

Finally, I thank colleagues across parties for all the work that we have done here in those years. I will certainly miss them, and I will miss it.

[Mr Speaker]

May I suggest that the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House split their speaking time accordingly?

Business of the House

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are in this situation only because we have a Government unable to govern and a Prime Minister unable to listen to the House despite two resounding defeats? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the 30 brave Conservative Members who voted to enable this debate to take place—all under pressure from their Conservative associations—particularly the three Ministers who sacrificed their careers on a point of principle to allow us to have these options today?

[Valerie Vaz]

I agree. People on both sides who have taken a bold stance have suffered abuse and have been threatened with deselection by their parties, and that is absolutely the wrong way to deal with this.

Treatment of House of Commons Staff

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. The independence is absolutely vital.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that I have great respect for all staff I work with. I was the guinea pig in 2012 after a difficult phone-hacking report, for the original Respect policy. I was flayed by selective leaking six years ago, and it has happened again now. I ask the Leader of the House and hon. Members, before they jump to judgment after what was a very one-sided, selective BBC broadcast, to approach the cases that have been raised in a more balanced way, to consider the reasons why the original Respect policy was scrapped in the first place as not fit for purpose, and to give consideration to the disparity of support for MPs who are complained against, especially when complainants have the backing of the resourceful and very well-resourced First Division Association in particular? Finally, may I ask the House to consider why old, historical allegations like this are being selectively recycled now, and by whom, because whatever is at play this is not a game for reputations or families?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The advantage of an independent complaints procedure is that it will exist for people to be able to come forward with confidence and with confidentiality. That means that at long last they will have somewhere they can go to make their complaint without just going straight to the press, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, has caused some difficulties.

Business of the House

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are entirely right to focus on the narrow nature of this particular motion, but I believe that the motion should have made reference to the White Paper. Although it allows Members to table amendments before Second Reading, it does not necessarily mean that we can table amendments with the White Paper having been published. We are tabling amendments for discussion after Second Reading, when the White Paper that has been promised may not be available.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) first.

[Paul Farrelly]

Clearly, this Bill has been tabled with great speed following the Supreme Court decision. We are, I understand, not being given that long a time to debate it. Is my hon. Friend certain that, given the complexity of this matter, this Bill is fully compliant with the judgment of the Supreme Court, particularly as the triggering of article 50 is irrevocable?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not want to stray beyond the precise terms of the motion, which I appreciate is very much about the timing of the tabling of amendments. My hon. Friend may not only bring up that point in debate on Second Reading, but consider addressing it by tabling an amendment to the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I do appreciate that it is a very narrowly drafted motion. It does indeed say that, in respect of this particular Bill,

“notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.”

That in itself begs a number of questions. You may have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a queue has already formed beside your Chair of hon. Members who may wish to table amendments. I understand that if we wish to table amendments at the passing of this motion, we should approach the Table and hand them over to the Clerks. I suspect that there will be a great deal of demand for the Clerks’ time and attention. Indeed, one issue that I wish to raise—perhaps the Minister can respond to this—is to do with the pressure that will be on the Clerks over the coming days because of the demands of Members wanting to table amendments. [Interruption.] There is sympathy, I hear, from my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who is known for his close affinity with the Clerks and his appreciation of procedure. It is a serious point. The Second Reading debate is on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the Committee stage is the following week, ridiculously gagging Parliament in its ability to scrutinise the legislation properly, given that the Maastricht treaty had 23 days of consideration and the Lisbon treaty had 11 days.

With regard to the motion and the timings for tabling amendments—I hear your entreaties, Madam Deputy Speaker—I would like the Minister to consider whether there are any precedents for this sort of motion, for example when legislation relating to other EU treaty revisions was considered. Did we have this for the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam treaty, the Nice treaty or the Single European Act? Does the Minister have something to say about the timing of the White Paper that could inform our ability to table amendments?

I have managed to scribble down—not on velum, but on the paper available in my office—22 amendments that I think are appropriate for this legislation. Perhaps I have shot myself in the foot by catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have missed my place in the queue that is forming by your Chair to table said amendments; that is the lot that I will have to live with by making these points about the motion.

I would also like to know whether the Procedure Committee has been consulted on the motion, because, as I understand it, this is a highly unusual change. It is not necessarily unwelcome, but it is symptomatic of the Government’s intention to override the procedures and conventions of the House that would normally allow us to reflect on something before tabling amendments.

It is important that Members of the House exercise their right to reflect on the consequences of this legislation. It is one of the most important decisions that we will make, certainly this year, definitely in this Parliament, and perhaps in my time in the House. I think all Members should think about amendments that might be pertinent to the legislation. Yes, the Bill might be narrowly drawn, as some have said—how could we possibly want to amend a Bill that is just one clause long?—but a short sentence can have a vast effect on public policy and on our constituents. It is our duty to think about the amendments that might be relevant and table them when the motion is passed. I hope that all hon. Members will think about their responsibilities.

It looks as though the Clerks are going to have a very busy weekend trying to ensure that the drafting of amendments is in order. Some people say that there are a lot of lawyers in the House—I am not a lawyer, but I know many who are—but we still sometimes need assistance in the phraseology and terminology of amendments.

The Minister should at least do us the courtesy of explaining why he has tabled the motion and set out the fact that this is the beginning of the concertinaing of the parliamentary consideration of the European Union withdrawal Bill. For him not to do so, and simply to stand and say, “I beg to move”, is yet another sign of the Government’s arrogance. Perhaps they have not properly reflected on the judgment of the Supreme Court, which insisted that Parliament has the duty to legislate on these matters and that it is not something for the Crown prerogative. It is for us to amend the Bill and ensure, if we have to table amendments before Second Reading, that we have those particular rights.

[Paul Farrelly]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend about this very unusual motion. I would simply like to know what precedents there are for this on major or minor legislation. It is entirely unclear to me what the deadline will be for tabling amendments. Presumably,

“before the Bill has been read a second time”

means that we could hand in our amendments right up to the deadline, but unless they are printed for consideration, how can the House properly consider them?

[Chris Leslie]

That is a good point. I presume a notice of amendments sheet will be published tomorrow morning, as of course the House is sitting, and then again on Monday, and that it will list the amendments that begin to accrue before we get to Second Reading next week. I wonder whether hon. Members might like a wager on how many amendments we will have on the amendment paper before we even get to Second Reading. It could be a record for the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

Indeed. This point is oft repeated, but one could—again, without stretching your patience too much, Madam Deputy Speaker—add the Scottish fish processing sector to the hospitality sector, for precisely the same reason. Given that the Clerks will not, I assume, have had access to the White Paper to identify what may or may not have been accepted by way of clarity or change, that makes these things extremely difficult.

[Paul Farrelly]

I was just reading the explanatory notes to the Bill, explaining why the fast-tracking is being adopted and therefore we are considering this motion now. The House agreed in December—I did not; I voted against the motion, as the hon. Gentleman did—to authorise the invoking of article 50 by the end of March. But at that stage we did not know what the Supreme Court judgment would be, neither in respect of the role of this House nor in respect of the role of the other legislatures. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, now that circumstances have changed, it is right that the House reconsiders, and that therefore the explanatory reason for the fast-tracking really does not hold water?

[Stewart Hosie]

I think, on balance, that that is probably correct. The additional time for the amendments is welcome, but the fast-tracking of what is a very small measure, when the Government would appear to have an in-built majority, seems like unnecessary haste, which is intended only to meet arbitrary timetables rather than to allow proper, detailed and timeous scrutiny.

We will not oppose the motion—as I say, the opportunity to table amendments in advance of Second Reading is welcome—but I am sure that no one will be left in any doubt that it is not without some significant and substantial problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is unusual to have a debate on this sort of procedural motion, but it is important—it is a matter of principle—for our constituents to understand the processes of this House, given that we are about to embark on the enterprise of debating and amending the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill and of voting on it. It is a matter of generational significance. This is not just any other piece of legislation; it will affect the prospects of people in my constituency, as well as businesses, organisations and people up and down Wales, for many years to come.

It is only right that the public understand the processes of this place, which can often seem labyrinthine. I support the agenda, which the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) just spoke about, of simplifying and straightening out some of our procedures. I wonder whether the Procedure Committee has looked at the matter. I have not seen such a motion before, except perhaps on emergency anti-terrorism legislation or things of that sort. It is an unusual motion.

Although having more time to table amendments is welcome, this is an odd direction for the Government to take. We will not have been through the Second Reading debate, we will not have seen a White Paper and we will not have been able properly to think through the structure of the amendments, new clauses and new schedules that we might wish to table. We will not have had a chance to consider who we might wish to table them with, or who we might want to ask to support them, to show the confidence of the House. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, those matters have great significance in determining which amendments are selected and which can be voted on.

I went through a frustrating experience recently on a similarly short Bill, the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, to which I and many others tabled amendments on several important issues. Because of the nature of the debate and the rules set by the usual channels and others, only a certain number of votes could be taken. An amendment that I had tabled, which had cross-party support from the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and others from across the House, was not voted on because we were told that there could be only two votes as a consequence of the limitations on time and process.

I was deeply concerned when I heard confirmation in the business statement this morning that there would be only three days of debate on the Bill in Committee. We do not know how much time there will be for debate on Report, or, crucially, what knives will be inserted into the debate.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a strange day on which to table a motion that effectively starts the exit process? No votes are expected, and therefore most Members—just look around—are back in their constituencies. Many are campaigning in two by-elections. Does he agree that the way in which the motion has been tabled today brings the House into disrepute? It would have been quite easy for the Government to have tabled a similar motion on Monday to give people a week to consider it, and then to start Second Reading the following week? [Interruption.]

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is typical of this Government to table things at the last minute on a Thursday when they think that people have gone home, when nobody is watching and when they expect business to have concluded. It is important that my constituents and the public understand how procedural devices in this House are often used to frustrate debate and discussion, and to frustrate the reasonable scrutiny of Parliament; fundamentally, the Supreme Court has said that such scrutiny is crucial on a matter as important as this. I was disappointed to hear the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons chuntering “time wasting” during my hon. Friend’s intervention. This is about Parliament having a say, and it is about having proper scrutiny and proper process on something so fundamental, which will affect generations to come.

I do not normally like to get into big procedural debates in this place; I normally like to talk about issues of substance. But when we are about to embark on a debate on such an important matter, it is absolutely crucial that we have the most transparent, accessible and open processes for the tabling of amendments, new clauses and new schedules, and for debating and voting on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not necessarily disagree with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that he, as an assiduous contributor to debates in this House, including on amendments and parliamentary procedure, would welcome proper scrutiny. Whether or not we agree on the result of the referendum or about how to take the process forward, he would agree with me about the importance of this place, its processes and the way in which we debate such matters.

It is important to understand that the order in which amendments are tabled in this place can significantly affect the ability to speak on them, particularly when the time to debate them is curtailed; it also affects which amendments we can vote on. I would be deeply concerned if we started to see procedural chicanery by the Government—by the Whips and others—and attempts to curtail debate and to prevent the reasonable discussion of matters in this House. [Interruption.] A Government Whip is chuntering already.

We all understand the result of the referendum and we all have different views on it, but we have many concerns about how the process is being undertaken. I believe that the Prime Minister has already shown a great deal of contempt for this House by not turning up to explain herself and answer questions. The Government have been forced into a corner about publishing a White Paper. They now appear to be tinkering with the proceedings of this place, and to be rushing headlong into the process without allowing proper and adequate scrutiny.

I raise these issues not as an attempt to frustrate or stop the process—I will not oppose the motion—but because I want the public, including my constituents, to understand that there are those in the House who often abuse its procedures to prevent reasonable scrutiny and to prevent votes. I would be deeply concerned if that were to continue during the next few weeks. We have already seen a habit formed by this Government and we have already seen their direction of travel, but I sincerely hope it stops right now, so that we can have proper debate and scrutiny.

[Paul Farrelly]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way briefly before I sit down.

[Paul Farrelly]

I have caught my hon. Friend in the nick of time. I certainly hope that my latest intervention is not “time wasting”. Does he agree that it would be a very sad day if the procedures meant that the time provided for debate in this House on such an important decision was less than the time provided in the unelected other place?

Privileges

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

My initial reaction on the day of the report’s publication was that I was pleased that the Privileges Committee had agreed with our 2012 report saying that Colin Myler and Tom Crone had misled us and were in contempt. I made those comments, which are on my website, following a statement by Les Hinton, the former executive chairman of News International that led to claims that he had been exonerated. Clearly, this Privileges Committee report provides no substance for that statement, and nor does it provide any substance for Mr Hinton’s claims that the CMS Committee reached false findings in 2012. In my comments, I also said that I found the second half of the report more disappointing and I want to explain why. I also have questions about an aspect of the Privileges Committee’s methodology.

I join the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) in expressing my sympathy for the Committee. During its long, interrupted inquiry, it clearly received only grudging, and certainly not full, co-operation from three of the subjects: Colin Myler, Les Hinton and News International, and their solicitors. That was an all-too-familiar experience through all our reports into phone hacking.

I turn to chapter 6 of the report and Les Hinton. Mr Hinton, often described as Rupert Murdoch’s right-hand man, was the executive chairman of News International until December 2007. He resigned as chief executive of Dow Jones, another News Corp subsidiary in New York, in July 2011, within a week of the closure of the News of the World—that fact should speak for itself. We found that he was not full and frank in his evidence to our Committee about the payments made to the convicted royal reporter Clive Goodman; about their purpose, which was to buy silence; or about suspicions that were communicated to him about the extent of phone hacking beyond one rogue reporter and one hacker. One only has to look at the detailed memo from Harbottle & Lewis, the lawyers to the group, to see that he also misled us over claims that a full and rigorous investigation into phone hacking at the News of the World happened on his watch—it certainly did not.

On Mr Hinton, the Privileges Committee made three findings, each of no contempt. First, on payments to Clive Goodman, the report concludes that he failed to tell us, but would certainly have remembered, his role in authorising a £90,000 pay-off to a convicted criminal. The Committee says that it found its conclusion of no contempt “particularly difficult”. I, for one, find that a little confusing and surprising, because we certainly, and unanimously, did not find it difficult to reach our conclusion.

Secondly, on knowledge of the allegations about the extent of phone hacking at the News of the World, the report documents that Mr Hinton received a letter in 2007 from Clive Goodman appealing his dismissal, in which he implicated other senior members of staff. Mr Hinton subsequently told our Committee that he had never been provided with any suspicions of wider involvement, and he never sought to correct that comment. Paragraph 269 of the Privileges Committee report says:

“On that basis we agree that Les Hinton’s evidence was misleading because it did not reveal that Clive Goodman was the source of one of those allegations.”

Yet in paragraph 270—the following paragraph—the report goes on to conclude that the allegations that Mr Hinton misled us were not

“significantly more likely than not to be true”,

so it made no finding of contempt. I am not the only person to find that conclusion rather contradictory and confusing.

I will not delay the House in relation to the third finding in this chapter of the report, about the payment of Mr Goodman’s legal fees—the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) may want to ask questions about it—as I have said enough about Mr Hinton. I will say, however, that throughout our investigations we found a pattern of payments, settlements and confidentiality clauses that clearly had one aim in mind: to suppress the truth about phone hacking.

Chapter 7 of the report deals with News International, which has since been renamed News UK. It was the parent company of News Group Newspapers, which ran and published the News of the World and The Sun. I must say that, at the outset of the chapter, the Privileges Committee took a narrow approach to the question of whether News International itself was in contempt. It

“looked to identify the individual who could be said to be a controlling mind such that their written or oral evidence could fairly be said to be on behalf of and bind the company.”

That is tantamount to saying that statements by the company, individual senior employees or its lawyers, with plenty of chance to correct the record, are not binding. The report concludes that, by that test, only the executive chairman or the chief executive giving direct evidence at the relevant time—Les Hinton, James Murdoch or Rebekah Brooks—fits the bill. That is rather contestable.

On corporate liability, the report says that it was unclear why our Committee chose to focus on the parent company, News International, rather than News Group Newspapers. That, too, is a rather narrow point. The Privileges Committee did not ask us about that before it issued its report, but I hope to shed some light on why we chose that route. The issue was not raised before we reached our findings, when the Clerk of Committees was acting as our Committee Clerk and the recently retired Speaker’s Counsel was giving us advice. The title of our 2012 report was, indeed, “News International and Phone-hacking”.

I should mention some of my uncertainties about the Privileges Committee’s methodology. It reviewed, inter alia, oral and written evidence formally given to us, but that was clearly not the sum of our knowledge. It says that it reviewed “other publicly available documents”, but it is unclear from the report whether those included, in particular, court evidence in the myriad civil phone hacking claims and press releases from News International. We certainly considered those documents, as well as the whole behaviour of the organisation over a long period, when reaching our findings. They were not allegations; they were findings.

Throughout, we sought the truth beyond the initial “one rogue reporter” defence. We were clearly not alone in doing so. Along with media investigations, notably by The Guardian and The New York Times, a raft of hacking victims sued in the civil courts. In each case, the pattern of behaviour in the whole organisation was always the same—denials, misleading statements and evasion, until being forced, grudgingly, to make admissions. That extended to out-of-court settlements with strict confidentiality clauses to avoid cross-examination in the witness box and, in the case of the investigator Glen Mulcaire, to indemnities and costs being paid as long as he played ball. We know that, as we knew it then, from all the court documents.

In July 2011, but only after closing the News of the World, News Corporation and News International changed tack, setting up the so-called management and standards committee to handle the scandal. Any notion that afterwards a so-called “zero tolerance”, as the report describes it, equated to openness and full co-operation in reality is completely wrong. We had to probe, dig and cajole, as did lawyers in the civil cases. During our inquiries, News International issued misleading and false corporate statements, including press releases on 10 July 2009 denying a key story in The Guardian and, on 24 February 2010, savagely attacking our earlier report. At the time of that report, News International’s chief executive was Rebekah Brooks, to whom I will turn in a moment. As far as Les Hinton is concerned, I have said enough.

I will not dwell too much on James Murdoch, save to note his “lack of curiosity”, as we termed it, about the key items and events about which he was made aware during his tenure, including the damning opinion from Michael Silverleaf, QC, in June 2008, and the settlement with Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballers Association to which that related. In evidence, the Murdochs rested on a letter from their lawyers, Harbottle & Lewis, claiming that there had been a proper investigation. In a key memo to us, the lawyers told us that the Murdochs were not entitled to do so. They said that the Murdochs were either mistaken or confused.

Those senior people were far from being the only News International executives from whom we took evidence. Tom Crone, for instance, who is found in the Privileges Committee’s report to be in contempt, was the legal manager for both News Group Newspapers and News International. In key ways, our 2012 report was unfinished business. Owing to the imminent criminal charges, we, on advice, made no findings about the former editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson, or Rebekah Brooks. Whether the Committee will wish to do so now, raking back over old ground, is clearly a matter for the Chair and its members.

In June 2014, Andy Coulson was convicted of conspiracy over phone hacking, while Rebekah Brooks was acquitted. However, those charges were not related to the evidence given to us about whether she had misled our Committee. On page 112 of its report, the Privileges Committee mentions that her evidence in criminal cases and to the Leveson inquiry was “constrained”, as was her oral evidence to us on 19 July 2011. That was four days after she had resigned as chief executive, and the report says that

“as such her answers cannot be said to be on behalf of News International.”

She was sitting alongside the Murdochs at the time. The report concludes:

“There are therefore no particular matters arising from her oral evidence in 2011.”

I am afraid to say that I am not the only one who would beg to differ with that narrow, premature conclusion. Ms Brooks is now, of course, the chief executive of News UK—so much for Rupert Murdoch’s penitence when he said:

“This is the most humble day of my life.”

[Chris Bryant]

Is it not a curious irony that, because of the Bill of Rights, neither Lord Justice Leveson nor the courts could, when interrogating Rebekah Brooks, ask her why, in an answer to a question from me on 11 March 2003 about whether she had ever paid a police officer for information, she said yes?

[Paul Farrelly]

I agree with my hon. Friend. That highlights the long record of Ms Brooks coming—or declining to come—to give evidence in this House. We have taken issue with such evidence.

In evidence to our Committee in July 2011, Ms Brooks repeated one central assertion:

“the fact is that since the Sienna Miller…documents came into our possession at the end of December 2010, that was the first time that we, the senior management of the company at the time, had actually seen some documentary evidence actually relating to a current employee.”

The Sienna Miller civil case was seminal in terms of disclosure. Ms Brooks went on to say:

“It was only when we saw the Sienna Miller documentation that we realised the severity of the situation.”

Yet we know that, by then, News International had plenty in its possession to suggest that hacking was widespread, including the Silverleaf opinion. We know that Rebekah Brooks personally negotiated the big out-of-court settlement with Max Clifford, which was all wrapped up in confidentiality, just days after our 2010 report. As the Privileges Committee report records, we know that she was present with other people from News International at the meeting of its lawyers Farrer and Co. on 20 January 2010 that was held to discuss Mr Clifford’s civil claim.

[Damian Collins]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Tom Crone’s role as legal manager would surely be to act on behalf of the company to gather whatever advice he needed to advise whoever within the company—senior executives at all levels—of impending issues and problems, and that it is therefore right to assume that he would have made his opinion and that of Michael Silverleaf available to anyone he felt he had to make them available to?

[Paul Farrelly]

I thank the new Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. There are disputes within the company about who told what to whom at what time. If he will bear with me, in a moment I will come on to something about which there has been no dispute.

We know, too, that back in 2006, when Rebekah Brooks was editor of The Sun, the police informed her that her own phone had been hacked. Courtesy of evidence submitted to the Leveson inquiry in February 2012, we know that she had a long conversation with a police source that was relayed to Tom Crone and then by him in an email to Andy Coulson on 15 September 2006. That email referred to more than 100 victims across all walks of life, not just the royal family, who would have been of interest to royal reporter Clive Goodman.

On reviewing all the lengthy correspondence the Culture, Media and Sport Committee received at the time, it is clear that Rebekah Brooks led us a merry dance for nine months before our 2010 report, saying that she would give evidence in person and then declining. In her final written reply to the right hon. Member for Maldon, on 8 February 2010, she had this to say about what had been known at News International from the police about the extent of hacking:

“I understand that, at some stage between the arrests of Mr Mulcaire and Mr Goodman on 8 August 2006, and their first appearance in court on 29 November 2006, it became known, from information provided by the police, that Mr Mulcaire had accessed the voicemails of people other than Royal Household employees. It was not known how many.”

Compare that to the email from 15 September 2006 that was cited at Leveson. She does not say that it was she herself who received the information from a police source, and the final sentence appears to be a complete untruth. The email cites 100 to 110 victims—a very precise number. Did Mr Crone simply make that number up for Mr Coulson after talking to Ms Brooks? It all certainly contradicts the central assertion that the Sienna Miller case was Ms Brooks’s moment of epiphany about the severity of the situation, four years later. Along with the other replies that Ms Brooks gave us—not least over the cost indemnity arrangements with Mr Mulcaire after he was sacked—this also merits closer analysis than was evident, I am afraid to say, in the Privileges Committee’s report. On all those grounds, I believe that the Privileges Committee is wrong in being “unable to draw” the conclusion that News International misled us, and is rather premature in not considering it

“to have committed a contempt.”

As far as parliamentary privilege is concerned, what is important now is what happens in the future. In chapter 8 of its report, the Privileges Committee is quite right to note that the work of the 2013 Joint Committee has not been taken forward. When we on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee were finalising our 2012 report, as the right hon. Member for Maldon mentioned, we summoned the Murdochs to appear in front of us, as we knew they were in the country to apologise to the family of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler over phone hacking. The uncertainty over our step was what to do if they declined to come. While we were finalising our report, we asked time and again for advice on what sanctions might apply in this day and age for misleading a Select Committee. Too often, I am afraid we found that in the reality behind the rhetoric, the parliamentary emperor apparently had no clothes. That situation needs to be readdressed urgently.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House—

(i) approves the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (HC 662);

(ii) having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of Mr Colin Myler, considers that Mr Myler misled the Culture, Media and Sport Committee by answering questions falsely about his knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone-hacking and other wrongdoing, and therefore formally admonishes him for his conduct; and

(iii) having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of Mr Tom Crone, considers that Mr Crone misled the Culture, Media and Sport Committee by giving a counter-impression of the significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor settlement and by answering questions falsely about his knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone-hacking and other wrongdoing, and therefore formally admonishes him for his conduct.

That the matter of the exercise and enforcement of the powers of the House in relation to select committees and contempts be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evennett]

Obviously, decisions on local authority budgets are decisions for those authorities. We welcome what is happening in Chelmsford and I know how assiduous my right hon. Friend is in speaking up for his constituency. There are many examples across the country of local authorities spending on sport. For instance, Central Bedfordshire Council continues to invest in sport and physical activity provision. We encourage that.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

4. What factors he has taken into account when deciding whether to commence section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, on reform of press regulation.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)]

As I indicated a moment ago, no decision has been taken regarding commencement of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The matter is under consideration and I am meeting a variety of interested parties with different views to discuss the issue.

[Paul Farrelly]

I thank the Secretary of State for taking us no further forward. Implementation of the costs incentives was promised by the then Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). They were promised as a key part of the Leveson reforms specifically by the Prime Minister, not only to Parliament but to the victims of press abuse, including the family of Madeleine McCann, so in signalling already that he has no intention of taking that step, has the Secretary of State reflected at all that he is thwarting the will of Parliament, breaching a cross-party agreement, and breaking clear, firm and unequivocal promises made by the Prime Minister and his colleagues?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I have not indicated that I have no intention. I simply said that I was not minded, which means that the matter is still under consideration and my mind and that of my colleagues is open on the matter, which is why we are continuing to have meetings. Only this week I had a meeting with some of the hyperlocal publishers who have signed up with the Impress regulator and they made some interesting comments, and we will continue to listen to all those with an interest. We will in due course make a decision. However, section 40 and the costs provision will not come into effect fully until there is a recognised regulator, even after the order is signed. There is not yet a recognised regulator so we are not yet in that position, and we will continue to consider the matter.

Points of Order

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I used the word “mirror”, and the point I was making was that the Standards Committee has now moved from having 10 members to having seven. The debate with the new Chairman of the Privileges Committee has been about whether we also reduce the membership of that Committee from 10 to seven. That will happen, in order to mirror the membership of the Standards Committee, which now has seven parliamentary members. The Committee will now be set up, and it clearly has some work to do.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will come to the hon. Gentleman. I am saving him for a suitable point.

I shall briefly respond to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and to the response from the Leader of the House. It is of course a matter of fact that the Privileges Committee will not contain lay members. The House has made its own judgment on that matter. It is also a matter of fact that it falls to the Government to take the lead in the establishment of that Committee. It is not a matter for the Chair. It is further a matter of fact—noted by the hon. Member for Rhondda and accepted by the Leader of the House—that that Committee will have a substantial amount of work to do, and that a certain urgency attaches to it. Some of that work hails from matters that came to the attention of the House—and received much wider scrutiny in the media elsewhere—up to four years ago. It is therefore essential that that Committee be established soon. I have every confidence that the Leader of the House will now expedite the matter without any further delay.

[Paul Farrelly]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given notice to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that I shall be raising this point of order. Following the phone hacking scandal and the Leveson inquiry, the House agreed a package of measures to strengthen the independent self-regulation of the press. They included sections 40 to 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which were designed to create an incentive to join a recognised regulator and to protect public interest journalism in libel and privacy cases. However, those measures still need a commencement order from the Government. In a speech to the Society of Editors this week, the Secretary of State said:

“I am not convinced the time is right for the introduction of these costs provisions”.

This is a major change of stance by the Government over a key Leveson recommendation, and arguably one that thwarts the will of the House, yet it was not announced here in the Chamber or during questioning in front of the Select Committee last month. What steps can we, and you Mr Speaker, take to ensure that the Secretary of State makes such announcements to the House first, rather than doing so outside, to a favoured captive audience?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. On the basis of what he has told me in writing, I have to tell him that it is not for me to conclude whether there has been a change of policy or not. I leave others to make that judgment. However, it is a long-established principle in this place that if a Minister has a policy announcement to make, that announcement should first be made to the House. The Minister concerned will therefore have to consider whether he or she believes that a change is involved, and to draw the appropriate conclusions. The hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently adroit and dextrous Member of the House to be well aware, if he is dissatisfied with the development of events in the coming days, of the toolkit available to Members to draw the urgent attention of the House to a matter that they believe warrants its consideration.

Business of the House

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and there will be such a debate, not in the Chamber, not in Government time, but over the next five months. I hope that we as Conservatives will put forward a better strategy for policing in that area, and that we will win the election next May.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Illegal, large-scale waste dumping is a growing worry in north Staffordshire and east Cheshire, and the activities of one haulage company—Frizells, which is based in Crewe— are of particular recent concern. May we have a debate on the effectiveness of the Environment Agency in licensing, monitoring, and enforcing the law on the dumping of waste materials?

[Chris Grayling]

This issue causes concern in a number of places. Just before the election I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), where we saw an extraordinary 1 km long illegal dump at the side of the Thames. It was absolutely shocking, and if the hon. Gentleman’s constituency has suffered anything like that, I understand his frustration. If local councils are on the ball, they have powers to be tough about such issues. Where they have not been tough, the problem is much exacerbated. My advice is for the hon. Gentleman to talk to his local council and ensure that it uses the powers available.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s work in supporting the campaign for the decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee. I understand the strength of opinion on the subject on both sides of the House. We are looking at it carefully. However, as he will know, David Perry conducted a thorough review of the issue and came up with a number of important concerns that would need to be addressed if we were to go down that road.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I share the sentiments expressed about Michael Meacher. He was, 30 years ago, the first Member of Parliament I ever met.

In a very interesting speech to the Society of Editors this week, the Secretary of State said, with respect to the BBC’s intention to help local news, that it should not employ more journalists, but should commission content from court reporting, councils and the like. Was that a warning to the director-general of the BBC or a direction? Was it another attempt to top-slice the licence fee, this time in favour of local newspapers?

[Mr Whittingdale]

It was support for a proposal that was first put forward by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chaired and of which he was a member. He may recall our advocating this initiative that the BBC could take to help local newspapers. I understand the concern of the local newspaper industry that certain actions of the BBC are undermining it. This initiative could support local newspapers, both by making information available more generally and recognising that local newspapers provide an invaluable service in holding to account local institutions. It is still under discussion and I welcome the progress that is being made.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I support the proposed Select Committee and its eminent Chair-elect, but I want to be reassured that it is not an effort to undermine an elected and reforming Speaker of the House. Mr Speaker has given us many more opportunities than we had in the past to hold the Government to account.

I should also like to be assured that the Committee will go wider than the appointment of a new Clerk and splitting responsibilities with a new chief executive. Ideally, the Committee would at the very least recommend that the entire management structure of the House be looked at in this modern age. It would also ideally recommend any changes necessary to improve support to elected Members. To my mind, that should include organisation of the management and the Clerks department; recruitment; what opportunities and prospects are on offer; how promotions are decided; and the perks and privileges. Ideally, it would also include how we ensure that staffing and resources are responsive to the needs of Select Committees, so that we can exercise our role more effectively.

On Monday, the head of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, its first woman general secretary, talked about a “Downton Abbey” recovery. To many hon. Members, the House often has an archaic “Upstairs, Downstairs” feel. Perks and privileges for the few abound, but plenty of glass ceilings are apparent from lower down the ladder.

The debate was prompted by the appointment of a new Clerk. One notable aspect of the process was that outside applications were invited from a range of candidates. That seems to have prompted a bitter reaction from some quarters whose interests seem vested in purely preserving the past.

In this day and age, it would seem strange to the outside world if this were all simply to boil down to defending Buggins’s turn. There is no necessary connection, as we have heard, between an encyclopaedic knowledge of “Erskine May” built up over decades and the ability to run a multi-million pound organisation such as Parliament in the 21st century.

As well as the best management and governance, in the modern age the House is urgently crying out for the updating of parliamentary privilege, to which I hope the Select Committee could also give a push. A privileges Bill has long been mooted, but there has been precious little sign of one from the Government or from within the House. Two years ago, for example, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport produced a damning report naming people who had misled the House over phone hacking and a cover-up at News International. Those conclusions, under our old procedures, now lie parked with the Standards and Privileges Committees for further action. When we came to draft the report and pressed for clarity about privilege and the sanctions available, vagueness was the guidance of the day for fear of exposing the fact that the emperor, namely Parliament, had no clothes—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we need to get back on to the subject in hand.

[Paul Farrelly]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am coming back to the issue of the management and governance of the House, but I wanted to speak frankly about how that difficult report involved trial and tribulation in how Committees were supported by the management of the House.

I want to conclude with a few words about one disturbing aspect of the appointment process, namely that attacks on Mr Speaker, the appointment panel and one of the outside candidates, Carol Mills from Australia, began before the appointment was made on 30 July. They began 10 days before, during the interviews, when leaked attacks from unnamed sources appeared in one Sunday tabloid, and they have carried on since. I will not dignify the organ my naming it, but it was hardly the first time it has attacked Mr Speaker, nor will it be the last. I have particular sympathy in that regard because two years ago I was on the end of such leaks, and not from elected Members, to the same newspaper.

What has happened this summer has been a disgrace, with the same newspaper, the same reporters, a similar modus operandi and similar sources, it seems to me. As we consider the motion, I want to be assured that such bad behaviour will not be tolerated or rewarded in the future.