Legal Advice: Prorogation

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I do of course agree with him that legal advice, and particularly the role of the Attorney General, is always difficult, because one polices and intersects a very difficult line between giving advice of an impartial, and politically impartial, character, and being a political Minister, but I hope that I have endeavoured to do that with all the conscience and candour at my disposal—and when I say to the House, as I do today, “I accept that we lost; we got it wrong on the judgment of the Supreme Court; but it was a respectable view on the law to take, and that view was taken by four of the seven judges who had opined up to the point of the Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court has made new law. Let us be absolutely clear: from now on, the prerogative power of Her Majesty, advised by the Prime Minister, can be the subject—the justiciable subject—of the court’s control, and that was a judgment that the Supreme Court was perfectly entitled to make. What the implications are for the future of our constitutional arrangements will have to be reflected upon in the coming months and years, but it is never wise to reflect upon a court case and its implications in the immediate aftermath of that case. It will have to be done carefully and deliberately, and this House will have to decide, ultimately, whether these matters and these powers are for this House to regulate and control, or whether they are for the judiciary; but, at the moment, the Supreme Court has spoken, and that is the law.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Attorney General’s acceptance at that point that the Government got it wrong in this case is very welcome. Will he now advise the Prime Minister and the Government to accept and agree with the content of the Supreme Court’s judgment—not just the obligation to abide by its conclusion—and, in particular, to accept that it is wrong for this Government, or any Government, to seek to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, rather than just for a few days, without giving any reason, let alone, in the words of the Supreme Court, a good reason, to the public, to Parliament, or to the courts?

[The Attorney General]

The judgment is clear. The Government are assessing its short-term and long-term implications now, but the right hon. Lady can be quite certain that they will abide by its ruling, and by the content and implications of its judgment.

Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I were elected at the same time and sit together on the Home Affairs Committee, and we agree on many things, but it will not surprise him to hear that we strongly disagree on this Act and the risks of no deal. Let me gently say to him, and to other Members, that I think it would be really bad for manufacturers in my constituency to suddenly face customs checks, tariffs and delays if we end up with no deal, and I think it would be really bad for overstretched families in my constituency to suddenly face food tariffs and an increase in food prices. I also think it would be really bad for West Yorkshire police to suddenly lose, overnight, the policing and security co-operation on which they, and other countries, depend in order to be able to investigate the most serious criminals.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady also take into consideration the 14-page letter that was sent to Cabinet Ministers recently by the Cabinet Secretary, Mark Sedwill? It details some serious concerns about the impact of leaving. This is a letter from the country’s senior civil servant, who is not part of any conspiracy but who has responded to the duties that he feels he owes to the country. Is it not a salutary piece of literature to be put before anyone who would lightly advocate leaving with no deal for the sake of it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that that advice was very important. The job of the civil service is to attempt to do everything it can and strain every sinew to deliver the will of the Government of the day. The fact that Sir Mark Sedwill has given such advice shows quite how seriously that is taken. It is particularly significant that Sir Mark is also the Government’s national security adviser and the former permanent secretary at the Home Office: he will be well aware of the security and policing issues that we face.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has tabled this motion as a result of the Bill that we passed, which is now an Act. I think it shows that the Cabinet has taken that advice seriously, but also that Parliament as a whole has consistently opposed the damage and the chaos that no deal would cause. That is why we have reached this point, and it is why we should now support an extension. The purpose of the motion is to provide that parliamentary safeguard and a legal underpinning for the Prime Minister’s negotiations, so that she is not under pressure to slip backwards from the course she has decided upon.

We are here because the Prime Minister ran down the clock. She put forward a motion in December, although it was clear even then that her deal would be rejected, and then pulled the vote the first time. Instead of reaching out at that point, she simply ran down the clock, using the threat of an imminent deadline to try to force decisions. She has tried that process of brinkmanship in decision making repeatedly, but it simply has not worked. I just think that approach, like a continuing game of chicken, is a really bad way to make decisions. We have heard different concerns from different perspectives on the Prime Minister’s deal, but none of the assurances get any better simply because it is 10 minutes to midnight. Running down the clock was the wrong way to address those concerns. It would have been far better to have the kinds of debates and conversations that have now started in order to try to find a way forward. This is incredibly frustrating for people across the country, who are tearing their hair out about the way this has all happened. We should be honest about that. That is why we all have a responsibility to come together and try to find a way forward. The problem is that there are different views about different kinds of Brexit, and about different ways of reaching public consensus and consent. We have to be honest about those different views, tease them out and debate them, rather than thinking that the ticking clock will provide all the solutions.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was to hear that the betrayal narrative is already up and running across the country, with claims about any kind of Brexit not being pure enough? We have today heard members of the Conservative party suggest that somehow the disaster of no deal is now the only desirable outcome.

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that there is a problem with the way in which everyone has been approaching the debate. Like my hon. Friend, I think that a no-deal Brexit would be deeply damaging to our constituents, but I also think that the continual attempts to suggest that there are betrayals and conspiracies make it harder for people to come together and reach a sensible and sustainable outcome.

One of the reasons we are in this situation is that there has been no attempt to build a consensus since the referendum. That is why I argued for a cross-party commission at the very beginning of this process, and for a process that would bring together leave and remain voters to try to work out the best way forward. Frankly, if we do not do that, nothing lasts. If everyone thinks only about winning in the short term and getting what they want straightaway, rather than about how we can build consensus for what is effectively a constitutional change, even if they win in the short term it will not last and whatever we get will end up unravelling.

[Stephen Doughty]

My right hon. Friend knows that I completely support her proposal for such a commission—indeed, that may still be necessary, whatever conclusion we reach. Does she agree that the danger for our European partners of lurching from one cliff-edge deadline to another is bad news for the negotiations overall? The longer flextension that has been proposed would be very sensible for the whole negotiations, on both sides.

[Yvette Cooper]

The idea of a flextension is a very interesting proposal. As I understand it, it would allow us to conclude the article 50 process at any point, if agreement is reached but, equally, we could take longer if we needed to. I hope that the Prime Minister will seriously consider that approach, because one of the reasons we are now in this situation is the focus on the date, whether 29 March or 12 April, and it is a situation of her making. None of those dates was in the original referendum in 2016; they are dates that she created. It reminds me of the debate we had on the Government’s net migration target. The Prime Minister chose to make the net migration target a big focus, even though everybody knew that she had no plan to deliver it. However, that focus on the target ended up creating more anger, more confusion and a greater sense of betrayal. It is my fear now that again, in suggesting that it will be a betrayal if everything is not solved by a particular date, the Government and particularly the Prime Minister have made it harder for us to reach consensus. They have created more alarm and anger across the country instead of adopting a practical focus on the way forward.

The proof of that is the fact that we are here again without having reached agreement. The Prime Minister has tried to focus minds by using brinkmanship and creating dates and deadlines, but it simply has not worked. That is why we have to try to do this in a different way. We have to try to bring people together. We now have a process of indicative votes and cross-party talks—which, to be honest, should have started some time ago—but we also have to recognise that we do not have the same consensual political and parliamentary traditions that other European countries have been able to draw upon. I understand that, from the other member states’ point of view, we can look very adversarial. We are having to do something that we have no tradition of doing in this House, but I hope that our attempts to do it now will be effective and will lead to a conclusion. I certainly hope that the cross-party working that we have managed to achieve to get this Bill in place and to get this motion to go forward will be an indicator that it is possible for us to draw on more consensual traditions when it comes to this kind of constitutional change.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I ought to finish, because other Members want to speak.

I shall conclude where I started by saying that, when we have constitutional change such as this, we need people to try to come together and reach agreement. No matter how we have voted over the past few months—and certainly the past few weeks—we have all had threats and abuse, including to our constituency offices. That is damaging to our democracy and to our debates, so I hope that we will be able to come together and find a way forward, and to support the Prime Minister’s motion today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Lady says, and I do not cavil at it at all. I made the point yesterday that I thought the situation was lamentable—I used that word several times—[Interruption.] I am not interested in people chuntering from a sedentary position to no obvious benefit or purpose. I am ruling on a matter, and I require no assistance in the process of doing so.

The situation was lamentable. I thought that it would be better for the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) to have the opportunity of a proxy vote—that was my view, and it was a view widely shared. The matter was debated in February last year and in September, and I had indicated my strong support. It would have been necessary for a resolution to be tabled by the Leader of the House, but for reasons that others can explain—it is not my job to do their explaining for them—that has not happened. It is regrettable, but it cannot be sorted tonight.

Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has registered her concern, and it is one that I share—with a sense of very deep disappointment, to put it mildly. It will doubtless be dealt with in the days or weeks to come. My great sympathies go to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, who in my judgment should not have been put in this position.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has now said that she will listen to voices from right across this House. She has obviously had 30 months in which to do that, and it has led to this defeat for the Government tonight, which is the greatest for more than 100 years. We must all hope that she will indeed listen to voices from across the House, but we also all recognise that that will take time, and people, businesses, Government organisations and institutions will now be worried that only just over 70 days are left. The Prime Minister did not mention article 50—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People talk about respect in this House, but there is a Minister of the Crown shouting at the right hon. Lady. I say in the kindest way, he is normally a very genial fellow—stop it, you are capable of much better than that.

[Yvette Cooper]

Given the scale of the challenge, with the clock now really ticking down, the Prime Minister did not mention what will happen to article 50. Mr Speaker, will you advise the House on what we might be able to do to urge the Prime Minister, for the sake of businesses, jobs and people throughout the country, to seek an immediate extension of article 50 so that this can be sorted out?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer in the first instance is that those are matters that can be aired in debate tomorrow. It is not right for me, tonight, to give a ruling on what the right hon. Lady or others should or should not do. She will be aware of the presentation of a Bill that took place in the name of another Member, who I believe also has views on these matters. Those matters will, I am sure, be discussed in the days ahead, not merely in private meetings but, I feel certain, on the Floor of the House. Of one thing I am sure: that which Members wish to debate and which they determine shall be subject to a vote will be debated and voted upon. That seems to me to be so blindingly obvious that no sensible person would disagree with the proposition. If MPs want to debate and vote on a matter, that opportunity will, I am sure, unfold in the period ahead.

If there are no further points of order, and I do not think that we need any, it is right for us to hear the supplementary business statement by the Leader of the House.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

Article 20 permits both sides to consider, even when no final agreement has yet been reached, whether alternative arrangements might suffice to protect the stated objectives of the Northern Ireland protocol. If they do, both sides could agree to put in place those alternative arrangements before any final agreement had been reached.

It is important to remember that, when one says final agreement, it is of course possible, indeed likely, that it may be a series of agreements reached at different times. My answer to my right hon. Friend is that article 20 creates that ability, but it is not a unilateral right of termination. It does not give us a right to walk away. It creates a procedure and obliges the European Union to consider alternative arrangements that are not part of a final deal.

I think my right hon. Friend went on to ask me about article 50 and the time it might take. The period of years he mentions is probably far too long, but it is impossible to say. What one can say is that, long before any case is brought, the pressure bringing those cases to the Court would be telling upon the Governments of the member states and upon the European Union. The legal uncertainty would be intense, and it is a real factor that this House must weigh up in considering whether the protocol is something that it wishes to support.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I am trying to understand the Attorney General’s arguments in answer to earlier questions. He seems to be saying that the Northern Ireland protocol, including the close relationship with the single market and membership of the single customs territory, is such a good deal for UK businesses that EU member states would hate it and would be desperate to bring it to an end as soon as possible. Is that his view? Is that the Government’s view? If so, is he now arguing for us to stay in a single customs territory indefinitely and to keep a close relationship with the single market?

[The Attorney General]

What I do say is that the customs arrangement under the backstop produces the following advantages. We pay not a penny and our goods have free access, in fiscal and tariff terms, to the European Union, yet the regulatory framework that we have to observe is dealt with by way of non-regression clauses that are not enforceable either by the EU institutions or by the arbitration arrangements under the withdrawal agreement. They are policed solely by British courts and British authorities.

In those circumstances, what does it mean? It means that they have split the four freedoms. They have created a situation where we can have the regulatory flexibility that they cannot. They have granted access to the single market for no contribution, without free movement, without signing up to the common fisheries policy and without signing up to the common agricultural policy. For all those reasons, what I say to the right hon. Lady is that if it is painful to us, it will be as painful to them. Where we want to end up is an arrangement that suits us both. This suits neither.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

For these reasons, the Government have tabled their amendment in lieu. We have listened to concerns in the other place, and we do not disagree with the substance of Lord Dubs’s amendment. Indeed, we have provided assurances in this House and in the other place that it will be our priority in the negotiations to safeguard the rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and I am pleased to confirm that we will accept amendment (ii) to Lords amendment 24, tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Solicitor General’s acceptance of my amendment (ii). I also pay tribute to Lord Dubs for tabling the original amendment, and to my colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee and to Members on both sides of the House who have pressed for this change. May I urge the Solicitor General again, however, to accept amendment (i) as well? I have a case involving a 12-year-old from Eritrea who was in an adult hostel in Italy and whose 17-year-old brother was in foster care here in Britain. The foster carers had said that they would take his 12-year-old sister as well, so I wrote to the Home Office. It accepted that, under the Dublin III arrangements, those two siblings should be reunited. They have been through all sorts of awful things that none of us would want our teenagers to go through. Under the Solicitor General’s current provisions, however, those teenagers would not be covered, so I urge him to accept amendment (i) as well.

[The Solicitor General]

I anticipated that the right hon. Lady would come back for more, and I quite understand the position that she and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) have put forward, but the key consideration here must be the best interests of the child. Bringing children to join underage relatives might well be in their best interests sometimes, but not always. It is highly unlikely that the relative would be able to provide care, and there is an issue about pressure on our domestic care system—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] No, no—we have to be careful to maintain the balance between the need to support families and allow family reunion, and unintentionally incentivising the sort of dangerous journeys that everyone in this House is extremely familiar with. That is why it is important to understand, as we approach the negotiations on the basis that is currently the requirement under the Dublin regulation, that extended family members—grandparents, aunts and uncles—will need to be able to demonstrate that they have adequate resources to care for the child effectively in order for a transfer to be made.

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is kind and compassionate, and I think that all Members of the House are kind and compassionate people, but the interests of the child in our domestic law lie at the heart of the courts’ consideration. The paramountcy of the best interests of the child is what the Children Act 2004 is all about, and I have to apply that.

[Yvette Cooper]

The best interest test still applies. It is still in our legislation. Nothing in my amendment (i) removes the best interest test; all it does is replicate the existing arrangements, which are already covered by the best interest test. All the Solicitor General’s arguments are completely spurious.

[The Solicitor General]

I respectfully disagree with the right hon. Lady. There is still an issue with the applicability of that particular amendment and with how it would mesh with our domestic law. We must not forget that such changes are not about the conferral of rights. The passage of such amendments does not confer direct rights upon people. This is about the Government’s negotiating position. [Interruption.] I cannot give way anymore, because I must bear in mind the Speaker’s strictures. I have gone a minute beyond the hour and still have more work to do.

Moving on to Lords amendment 4, one of the key principles of the Lancaster House speech and, indeed, the Government’s manifesto was to maintain and enhance workers’ rights—[Interruption.] I have been more than generous in giving way. I pride myself on giving way to Members from whichever corner of the House they may come, and I am sorry if hon. Members feel that I am being ungenerous, but I must respect time, too. That is why I want to press on.

The Bill deals in many places with the status of retained EU law, but much of our debate has turned on how that retained EU law is amended once we have left the EU, hence the core of the concerns about Lords amendment 4. The Government and Opposition are more united than divided here. We both clearly want to maintain the protections and rights that are established in EU law. Our amendments in the Lords have done this for EU regulations and for all the directly effective rights established in the treaties by making them akin to primary legislation—the highest protection we can possibly give in the UK system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I understand it—it is a feature of this place that we sometimes debate and vote on issues that are peripheral to the main point—but there comes a point when one has to stand up and be counted. If it is not this week, it has to be next week, and the truth is I am really anxious for my constituents and anxious about our general direction of travel. I respect the decision in the referendum, but we are closing off options as to how we conduct future relationships, in ways that are utterly damaging to ourselves. In a sense, some of our debates yesterday, and the negotiation I am going to conduct—successfully, I hope—in a moment, are all linked to these fixations, and the consequences for us are really damaging. Yes, of course, the EEA amendment is rather flawed, but it has the merit, unlike Labour’s “motherhood and apple pie” amendment, which I cannot possibly support because it is motherhood and apple pie, of at least having some bite, and today is the day I shall be voting for it.

[Yvette Cooper]

I will start with Lords amendment 24 and the point I raised when the Solicitor General was speaking. This is not a remain or a leave issue. This is not a party political issue. He will have heard the support from both sides of the House for simply continuing with the family reunion arrangements for child refugees that we have right now. I am unable to put my amendment to the vote, because of Standing Orders and the ludicrous programme motion, but I think if I did it would command majority support across the House. It would help a very small number of some of the most vulnerable child refugees, so I urge the Minister to look again at that amendment, simply to continue with the existing arrangements. Whatever arguments we have on both sides of the House about Brexit structures and options, surely we should be able to come together with a humanitarian agreement not to allow Brexit to turn the clock back on this vital help for child refugees.

[Frank Field]

May I just record that some of us who voted leave joined my right hon. Friend on this point? We have always had a good policy. We know, in looking after these children, that there will always be abuses, but they are far outweighed by the importance of looking after the most vulnerable.

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is right. There is agreement across leave and remain, and I hope that this is an issue that can unite the House and that the Government will reconsider.

Last Thursday, I was in Berlin discussing Brexit with a German Government Minister, and he asked me what I thought the Government would do next on customs and trade. It was hard enough to talk about—would it be max fac, buffer zones, double-hatted regulations, backstops, front-stops, any possible customs arrangement or partnership, and so on? What was even more embarrassing, however, was that, even as we were speaking, I had to admit that I did not know whether by the end of the meeting the Brexit Secretary would still be in place—he was in and out of No. 10, apparently about to resign—and the Foreign Secretary was promising meltdown and telling us all, “Don’t panic!”. We are embarrassing ourselves across the world with this “Dad’s Army” version of Brexit. We are in danger of turning ourselves into a national joke by not facing up to the real issues.

The Government say they do not agree with the Lords amendments on the customs union and the EEA, but we still do not know what they want instead. As others have said, the new customs arrangements amendment is a further fudge that just kicks the can down the road again, even though the road is running out.

Ministers should accept that, although they have been wrestling with this issue and with each other for 18 months, none of their customs options works, either for Northern Ireland or, crucially, for manufacturing industry, which is the spine of our economy. The technological max fac will not be ready for years; it does not solve the problem of rules of origin checks, nor can it avoid camera infrastructure at the Northern Ireland border. It will leave businesses with what Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs now says could be a £20 billion annual bill for the bureaucracy involved in explaining where all the ingredients and components come from in a fully integrated supply chain.

European Convention on Human Rights: UK Membership

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

There are, as my hon. Friend wisely suggests, many ways in which reform might be achieved. I will not, of course, pre-empt the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will introduce. My hon. Friend is right that there are many cases that the United Kingdom fights and wins, and it is worth recognising that. He will recognise, however, that one of our difficulties is the fact that, even when we fight and win, we spend a good deal of time and effort doing so. If cases are brought because people are encouraged to do so by an expansionist view of human rights law in Europe and elsewhere, we have to spend a good deal of time and effort dealing with those cases when perhaps that is not appropriate.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The convention on human rights was drawn up by British lawyers and has been hugely powerful in spreading standards of human rights and our common humanity not only across Europe, but much more widely. The Home Secretary did not say yesterday, “We should try to reform the Court and then have a think about it.” She said that we must pull out of the convention. Is that the Government’s policy—yes or no?

[The Attorney General]

I think I have been very clear about what the Government’s policy is. The Home Secretary yesterday explained why the status quo is unacceptable. There is a difference between the convention that was drawn up in the 1950s and the interpretation given to it by judges in Strasbourg since that time. It is with the latter that we have an issue, not with the former.

Phone Hacking

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing today’s very serious debate and on his forensic analysis of the problems and the work that he and others in Parliament have done to pursue this issue with vigour. The whole House will want to pay tribute to their work and determination.

The events of the past few days have sent shockwaves across the nation. With every hour that passes we hear more deeply disturbing allegations such as the claims that private investigators paid by the News of the World hacked into the phone of the missing 13-year-old Milly Dowler and erased some of her messages in the search for a story, thereby giving her parents false hope. There are also claims that other bereaved parents, including the Chapman family, Sara Payne and Graham Foulkes, were similarly targeted. We will not know the truth behind each of those allegations until the criminal investigation is complete, and of course we in this House must not prejudice the investigations or any potential trials that must take place, but we can say, very loudly and clearly, that the very idea of targeting victims and their families in their darkest hour is shameful, sickening and cruel.

This is not just about invasion of privacy: it is about the violation of victims and their families at a time when we know that there are doubts about the way in which our society and our justice system more widely treat victims and their families. That is why people across the country are rightly angry and want answers. For a start, this means that the current Met criminal investigation needs to be forensic and furious in the pursuit of truth. People want to know the truth about what happened. They want to know how it could have been allowed to happen in modern newspapers and stay hidden for so long. They want to know how this could have been tolerated and how people could have turned a blind eye. They want to know whether journalists interfered with or put at risk criminal investigations, how victims and their families could ever have been so appallingly treated and, of course, why these allegations were not sufficiently investigated at an earlier stage.

[Nicholas Soames]

May I make to the right hon. Lady the same point as I made to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)? The 2006 report of the Information Commissioner was quite clearly a harbinger of what was going on, but no one in the Government—or, indeed, in the House—appeared to pay any attention to it. Surely, the lesson is that this rot has been in the system for a very long time, and it is terrible that the House did nothing about it.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say those words to all Members of the House, and to all members of this and former Governments, too. I have talked to Opposition Members, who have made it clear that the inquiry for which we are calling must look at all historical issues. He is right that there were warning signs. As I did at the beginning of my speech, I pay tribute to the fact that some parliamentarians picked this up, but we all need to look at what is happening and why too many people turned a blind eye to the problem, or did not focus on the sheer horror of what was happening for too long.

Let us be clear about the current criminal investigation. We have seen some vigour and rigour in recent months, which must continue, as the investigation needs to look into the heart of the darkness. Where criminal activity has been committed, it must pursue robust prosecutions and deliver justice too. We must not jeopardise those investigations with what we say in this debate or with the details of any inquiry. It is for the police and the courts to determine the veracity of the allegations, but it is for Parliament to make sure that they can do so, that they are doing so, and to address the wider issues.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Now that we know that members of the public have been targeted, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that they receive special support? If they require legal aid, the Lord Chancellor should ensure that they receive it.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because many people who might be troubled might not be in the position of some individuals who have pursued civil actions to seek legal advice. It is important that that is looked at urgently, both by the Ministry of Justice and by the Attorney-General.

We need to know urgently whether the actions of journalists and private investigators have interfered with police investigations, not just in the cases of Milly Dowler and of Daniel Morgan but in other cases, too. Alongside the Met inquiry, in advance of the wider public inquiry, we ask the Attorney-General, the CPS and chief constables to review other high-profile cases across the country that have provoked media attention. It is important that people are reassured that those investigations have not been interfered with, or are told whether further criminal investigations need to take place in a wider range of cases than those that are being pursued by the Met.

[Hazel Blears]

I shall put the same point to my right hon. Friend as I put to the Attorney-General. The Met is investigating previous unsatisfactory investigations by the Metropolitan police, so, despite our confidence in the investigators, does she agree that if the public are to share our confidence independent police forces should perhaps supervise some of the investigations?

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to come on to the police investigation. The investigation to which the Attorney-General referred is not looking at what happened in the first investigation—it is pursuing criminal investigations. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a further question about what happened in that first investigation, and who needs to look at that and undertake a searching inquiry into the nature of the problems that arose. There is a role, for example, for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to make sure that there is a proper, independent investigation.

Members on both sides of the House agree that there are wider issues at stake and that there is a case for a full public inquiry. There are wider questions about the culture that could allow the alleged events at the News of the World to take place and to be tolerated; about wider media practices and ethical conduct; and about the effectiveness of the current Press Complaints Commission arrangements. Members on both sides of the House have a responsibility to safeguard the right of our media to report freely on all aspects of society, to hold Members of Parliament to account, and to scrutinise in detail the work that we do in the public interest. The vast majority of journalists and editors are committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said, alongside freedom comes responsibility.

Press self-regulation is important, but the press must make it work. In January, the editor of the Financial Times accused the Press Complaints Commission of being

“supine at best in its response to the hacking scandal.”

The PCC’s record on investigating phone hacking has indeed been one of failure.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady is quite right—a free press is the cornerstone of democracy, but democracy relies on the press being accountable. The system of regulation has failed utterly. Is it not time for a new one, and will she support that proposal?

[Yvette Cooper]

That was the point I was making. The existing PCC arrangements have not delivered. The press should try to make self-regulation work, and that issue should be dealt with as part of the inquiry, because it is important to restore public confidence across the country in the way in which the media operate, in their independence and in their trustworthiness.

There are questions, too, for the police. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson stated yesterday:

“It is inevitable...that questions will be asked about the parameters of the original investigation but also more widely about the regulatory role of the Press Complaints Commission and others.”

He is right, and there are three questions to answer. First, were payments made by the media to individual officers—which is clearly illegal and corrupt? Secondly, was there a wider relationship between the newspapers and police? Thirdly, why did the first investigation not reach the truth and uncover what was happening?

I spoke to the commissioner today. He told me that he believes that a public inquiry is not only inevitable but it is the right thing to do. He said that the police should be held to account. It is important for the inquiry to cover those issues. Ministers should reflect on the specialist role that police officers, the IPCC and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary will play in ensuring a proper investigation.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Did the Metropolitan Police Commissioner indicate whether he had made a referral to the IPCC, or has that not happened yet?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I understand it from my conversation with the commissioner this morning, the Met has indeed made a referral to the IPCC about the allegations that police officers received payments. That has been discussed with the IPCC, whose conclusion—again, as I understand it from my conversation this morning—is that the current investigation by the Met should continue, but it is keeping that under review. It is important that we have that independent investigation. There is a wider question about safeguards in the system on which we will want to reflect, given that individual investigations may go awry or may not reach the conclusions that they need to reach. I do not think that that role will be fulfilled by the police and crime commissioners proposed by the Government, because that would create greater risks in such cases in future.

The police do vital and excellent work, solving crimes, bringing offenders to justice, and supporting families of murder victims and others. It is important that that work is not undermined or discredited as the result of any lack of transparency over the phone-hacking revelations. We must recognise that any areas where things have gone wrong must be put right.

Before turning to the case for the public inquiry and what it should consider, may I respond briefly to the points made by the Attorney-General about whether a referral should be made to the Competition Commission? He will know that we have continually called for such a referral, as we believe that it is the right thing to do. I hope that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, who is in the Chamber, and the Attorney-General will reflect carefully on the points that have been made by Members on both sides of the House about the flexibility within the law to look at the issue again, and recognise the importance of the need, for which we have argued from the beginning, for referral to the Competition Commission. I would simply say that judgments must be fair, but it is also important that they are seen to be fair and that the public have confidence in them.

The Prime Minister agreed today that there should be an inquiry or inquiries into these issues. At the end of the Attorney-General’s speech, he referred to a number of inquiries that were already under way and tried to give us some assurance that that meant that these matters were being taken seriously. He knows, however, that the number of inquiries that have taken place or are taking place now gives no such reassurance. Quite the opposite is true because so many inquiries have not got to the truth in the past. Whether those were inquiries by the PCC or by parliamentary Committees, they were not able to get to the bottom of the truth about what had been happening.

[The Attorney-General]

I understand the right hon. Lady’s point, but I think she slightly misunderstood the point I was making. I was referring not just to that, but to the Prime Minister’s statement today. There is a full appreciation, which has grown over time, that this is a serious issue—[Interruption.] Steps have been taken to try to deal with it. I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that if his Government had been troubled when they were in office, they could have taken steps between 2006 and 2010 to do something about this. Throughout my comments today I avoided making any criticism of the way the previous Government acted, and I think his remarks from a sedentary position are entirely uncalled for.

[Yvette Cooper]

I respect the spirit in which the Attorney-General made his speech, but warn him against any complacency about the number of inquiries solving the issue. The key is whether the overall public inquiry that looks into the matter has sufficient powers and the right remit and can truly get to the heart of what has been happening.

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Home Affairs Committee have been conducting inquiries they, by their nature and the nature of the Select Committee system, monitor Departments. What is needed is an over-arching inquiry. I have discussed informally with the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee the possibility of setting up a joint inquiry between our two Committees, but that will not be enough. There needs to be something that covers all bases dealing with this very important subject.

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. His Committee has done some extremely important work in pursuing these issues and will, I know, continue to do so.

It is important that the inquiry has the power not only to compel witnesses, but to get to the heart of the information, get detailed answers and examine a range of interconnecting issues that are at stake. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set out some of the areas that we believe the inquiry must cover—for example, the unlawful practices, including phone hacking, that appear to have been prevalent in sections of the newspaper industry, the ethical conduct and standards of the industry, the nature of robust and credible regulation, and the relationship between the police and the newspaper industry.

We have asked the Government to decide now the nature and scope of the inquiry and to choose now who should take that forward to get the team established in place as soon as is practical, without waiting for criminal proceedings to be complete, as the Gibson inquiry has done. I welcomed the Government’s agreement that it is possible to consider whether elements can be examined in advance of the criminal investigation being completed. Nobody wants to put that criminal investigation at risk, but equally it seems at first sight that some elements could be investigated and explored at an earlier stage, rather than having to wait until the end of the process. We need to know which Minister will be in charge of those discussions and considerations.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever happens in the next few days, including the potential resignation of the chief executive of News International, nothing can undermine the need for a public inquiry? We must have that inquiry, whatever happens.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, because of the wide ranging nature of the issue and the importance of restoring confidence. It is important that we know which Minister will be in charge of making those decisions and setting up the inquiry. We had assumed that it would be the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. There is clearly a question about whether the latter is able to do that alongside his other responsibilities on the wider issues in relation to the Competition Commission.

The Attorney-General needs to consider the Prime Minister’s role. The Prime Minister’s judgment has already been called into question by his appointment of Andy Coulson as his media adviser, despite the fact that there had long been allegations of illegal practices and wrongdoing at the News of the World on his watch. Today it is alleged that e-mails expose direct payments from the News of the World to the police that were known about by Andy Coulson. There are also claims circulating today that Andy Coulson was told about or knew about these e-mails and that this is why he resigned in January. If so, that is extremely serious.

The e-mails were passed to the Metropolitan police only on 20 June, even though the inquiry and the full co-operation of News International had supposedly started on 26 January. Was Andy Coulson aware of this, and did he tell the Prime Minister or anyone else in No. 10 about those e-mails? If he did, it would mean that the Prime Minister and members of the Government were aware of the information before the Metropolitan police. It is important that the Prime Minister provides some immediate answers in response to this question.

The Attorney-General and the Cabinet Secretary should advise whether the Prime Minister should now remove himself from any decision making about the public inquiry. It is clear that the conduct of one of the Prime Minister’s employees and colleagues is a substantive issue not just for the criminal investigation but for the wider inquiry. The inquiry needs to be impartial and to inspire confidence. It cannot be compromised by any perception of partiality in its establishment by the Ministers who are in charge of the decisions.

This inquiry is so important because it goes to the heart of our democracy and our society. The inquiry is not about a row between Parliament and the media, or Parliament and the police; quite the reverse. It is exactly because the media—the fourth estate— play such a vital role in our democracy that they must be accountable, with clear and ethical standards. It is exactly because independent, impartial policing is so essential to our democracy that the police must be accountable and transparent if things go wrong. It is the result of work in Parliament and by parliamentarians that we have secured the principle of a public inquiry now.

Parliament must press further, not just to seek truth, not just to restore the effectiveness and credibility of parts of the newspaper industry, not just to get justice, but to say on behalf of everyone in this country, “We will not stand for the shameful and cruel practices that we have seen. We will stand as a Parliament against these shocking practices. It is not the kind of country we want to be. We will stand on the side of those—especially the crime victims and their families—who should never have found themselves dragged into this terrible debate today. We must make sure this never happens again.”

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches starts now.