Hughes, Campbell, Huppert, Munt, Sanders, Brake and Hames quiz Cameron on the Phone Hacking Scandal

• [Jul 13] Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Liberal Democrat): I THANK the Prime Minister for his decisive announcement and for the work that he and the Deputy Prime Minister have done to ensure that the concerns that my colleagues have been expressing for 17 years, and the calls for an inquiry that we have been making for two years, have at last been accepted.

Will the inquiry look into the Information Commissioner's reports of 2006, and why his confirmation that 31 media titles and 305 journalists were involved in illegal activities in relation to personal information were not the subject of implementation of recommendations by the Labour party in government, whose leadership continued, even as late as last December, to accuse my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary of being too critical of Murdoch?

317)

David Cameron : To be fair to my right hon. Friend, the issue of the Information Commissioner's reports-particularly the two reports he mentions-really is a rebuke not just to the previous Government but to the then Opposition. We too should have made more of those reports, which included some very important detail about what was going wrong in data handling, data theft and the rest of it. We must ensure that the inquiry asks the question, "Why were they ignored, and what are we going to do about it now?"

. . • Menzies Campbell (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat): The inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend involves a very wide set of responsibilities. Can he be satisfied that the proper balance will be struck in the conduct of that inquiry-that, for example, we will not allow justifiable annoyance about the activities of tabloid newspapers to obscure the fact that the behaviour, competence and integrity of the Metropolitan police is of equal importance, not least because it extends to many other areas of activity in the country?

David Cameron : Perhaps it is worth my explaining why we decided, in the end, to have one inquiry rather than two. I think that the problem with the original concept of two inquiries is that the one that was going to be judge-led and investigating the wrongdoing would not really have been able to get under way until much of the criminal prosecution was finished, so the second inquiry-the media inquiry-would race away with conclusions. That was not going to work and be sustainable, and I do not think it would have resulted in such a positive outcome as the one that I think we will see. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend has made a good point. If we have a broad inquiry, we must ensure that it gets its priorities right within the terms of reference, and I am sure that the judge whom we have appointed will do just that.

. . • Julian Huppert (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat): Yesterday I met representatives of Hacked Off, who have been campaigning for a full inquiry on behalf of victims from the Dowlers to Hugh Grant. They have a range of requirements for what they would consider to be a sufficiently full inquiry. Has the Prime Minister met them, and does he believe that his current proposals will meet their demands?

322)

David Cameron : I shall be meeting representatives of Hacked Off this afternoon. I have looked carefully at the briefing notes that they have issued, and I also listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Gentleman's former colleague Evan Harris on the radio this morning. I think that we have reflected many of their concerns, and indeed some of their language, in the terms of reference, but I look forward to hearing what they have to say today. These are draft terms of reference, and, if they can be improved, we shall try to improve them.

• . . Tessa Munt (Wells, Liberal Democrat): In the light of and under the pressure of this inquiry it seems possible that serving police officers will go off on sick leave because of stress. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that in no circumstances

will the taxpayer be asked to fund any pension of any police officer, either serving or now retired, who is found to be corrupt, as that would be the final insult?

325)

David Cameron : I will have to look at the point that the hon. Lady makes. It sounds perfectly sensible but we have to obey the rules of the pension schemes and all the rest of it. However, people should not be rewarded in the way that she says.

. . • Don Foster: On that very point, does the Prime Minister agree that if there are any legal restrictions preventing the regulators from judging now on the fitness of News Corporation as an organisation-not the individuals-to own existing shares in BSkyB, those regulations should be swept away immediately?

328)

David Cameron : As I said earlier, we are looking at that specific issue. We have asked Ofcom and the Competition Commission to look at it, and we are going to hear what they have to say.

. . • Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): Even if private medical details are obtained without breaking the law, it does not mean that it is right to publish them, especially when they relate to a child and no possible public interest case can be made. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the inquiry will consider and recommend what meaningful sanctions can be imposed in cases where media outlets might not have acted against the law but have certainly acted against common standards of decency and ethics?

329)

David Cameron : The hon. Lady makes a good point. I am sure the inquiry will look at that, but let me repeat something I said earlier: whatever regulatory system we have, we must still have people at the top of newspapers and media organisations who take responsibility and recognise that it is not right to reveal that someone is pregnant, for instance, when there is no certainty that they will keep that baby. These are important things that are about common sense and decency, and whatever regulatory system we come up with, we must ensure that we keep hold of that thought, too.

. . • Adrian Sanders (Torbay, Liberal Democrat): I congratulate the Prime Minister on grasping the nettle. Let me repeat the point made by Mr Bailey about the history of Select Committees not being able to compel people to attend. That must be considered as there is a process, but it is very long-winded. Can the question of whether there is any way of ensuring that people can be brought to a Select Committee when they are asked to give evidence be considered?

331)

David Cameron : That is a repeated call to the one made by Mr Bailey. I think it is an issue for the Leader of the House to address; perhaps he can say something about it tomorrow at business questions. We want people to attend Select Committees. Obviously, we want to ensure that we do not ask people to do things that are desperately inconvenient, but if people give us the endless run-around, there should perhaps be some way through that.

. . • Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat): Does the Prime Minister believe that once a healthier relationship is established between politicians and the media, it will be easier for Governments to adopt evidence-based policy in relation to, for instance, tackling drugs, community sentences, or immigration and asylum?

337)

David Cameron : That is a lovely idea. As I say, the inquiry will not mean no contact between politicians and the media. There are difficult issues-the hon. Gentleman mentioned a couple of them-where we need to try to explain and take people with us when we are taking difficult decisions. We cannot do that ourselves through direct communications. We need a lively and questioning media to help us do that, but perhaps a healthy relationship will make what he wants more possible.

. . • Duncan Hames (Chippenham, Liberal Democrat): Media regulation, like the inquiry, goes well beyond simple law-breaking. How can we be sure that it can act in a timely fashion on known wrongdoing where that is sufficient, without waiting for the conclusion of numerous criminal investigations and the prosecutions that follow them?

338)

David Cameron : The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The part of the inquiry which is, for instance, investigating allegations of police corruption or investigating the hacking at the News of the World, must wait for the police investigations to be carried out, for prosecutions to be carried out and, as I understand it, for any appeals to be lodged. That is one for the reasons for having one inquiry with two parts, rather than two inquiries, otherwise the one doing that part would take a very long time indeed before it got going.

338)

John Bercow (Speaker): I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues for their succinctness, which enabled all 78 Back Benchers who wanted to contribute to do so.

• Full Debate in Parliament