Hughes, Swinson, Hancock, Mulholland, Huppert, Munt, Brake and Hames quiz Cameron on Public Confidence in the Media and Police

• [Jul 20] Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Liberal Democrat): I JOIN the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Sir Paul Stephenson and thank him for the announcements he has made, but will he now explicitly say that he accepts that all Governments from this one back, for over 20 years, have been far too close to the media giants in this country; that that has to end, which means no more back-door visits to No. 10; that we should be able to have sight of not just party political papers but, if necessary, Cabinet papers; and that the recommendations of the Information Commissioner and others should be implemented, to increase criminal penalties for illegality immediately?

926)

David Cameron (Prime Minister; Witney, Conservative): First, I accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about transparency, and what I have set out is not just meetings that were, if you like, business meetings-official meetings with media executives and proprietors-but private meetings as well.

In relation to the meeting I held with Rupert Murdoch, the question is not whether he came in through the back door or front door but whether it was declared in the proper way, and yes, it was. In the old days, the only way we found out whether someone had met Rupert Murdoch was by waiting for Alastair Campbell's diaries. In our case we have been very transparent about it. The information goes all the way back to the election and includes both private and official meetings, whether they were at Chequers or No. 10 Downing street. I think we need to go further in that regard, and I think that should be the new standard. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, who has published the information back to when he became leader of the Labour party: why cannot we see it right back to the general election?

• . . Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): In the light of Mrs Brooks' revelations about quite how cosy and close the relationship was between News International and Tony Blair, and Murdoch's secret back-door meetings at No. 10 under both the last and present Governments, does the Prime Minister agree that this explains why successive Governments have been so reluctant to act in response to the 2003 Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommendations, the 2006 Information Commissioner report, and calls last year from Lib Dem MPs for a judicial inquiry into phone hacking? [ Interruption. ]

929)

David Cameron : People should not shout the hon. Lady down, because she is making a very fair point, and frankly, it is a point that does not reflect very well on either Conservative or Labour, which is that there were a lot of warnings about what was going wrong-warnings from the Information Commissioner, warnings from the Select Committee-but we did not put high enough up the agenda the issue of regulating the media. We should not be pointing fingers about this; we should be recognising that we need to work on this to get it right, to respond to those reports and actually put some of their proposals into the law.

• . . Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat): Putting aside what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, will the Prime Minister just say whether or not, in the conversations that he had, the question of the BSkyB takeover was mentioned?

935)

David Cameron : The point I am trying to make is this. I had no responsibility for the BSkyB takeover. I specifically asked to be taken out of any of the decision making and any of the information because I did not want to put myself in any sort of compromising position. I was very clear about that. So much so that I did not even know when many of the key announcements were being made. That is why Rebekah Brooks was quite able to say, at the House of Commons yesterday, that there was not a single conversation that could not have taken place in front of the Select Committee. I know that many people were hoping for some great allegation yesterday that could add to their fevered conspiracy theories. I am just disappointed for them that they did not get one.

• . . Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat): The Prime Minister was right to recall Parliament and is right to concentrate on the immediate questions that are being asked, but will he ensure that the Government commit to making sure that this does not happen again? That involves looking at the Companies Act 2006, because it seems absurd that we rightly have a crime of corporate manslaughter, yet directors of a company in which there has been complicit criminality currently face no sanctions.

938)

David Cameron : I think we can come on to that in the debate, but there are some lessons to be learned for competition policy and media policy. I am sure that we will debate those later, and I will have some contributions to make on that.

• . . Julian Huppert (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat): The Home Affairs Committee was given evidence about serious failings in corporate governance at the Met. Almost all our current and former police witnesses passed responsibility up or down the chain. There was lack of clarity about who made decisions. We were told that it happens all the time that someone can get a job based on an e-mailed CV sent from an assistant commissioner straight to the director of human resources. Will the Prime Minister ensure that as well as looking at criminal matters, we look at this massive failure of corporate governance in the Metropolitan police?

941)

David Cameron : I am sure that the inquiry will look at that, but indeed, I think my hon. Friend will find that the Independent Police Complaints Commission will be looking at that specific issue concerning John Yates even before the inquiry gets under way.

• . . Tessa Munt (Wells, Liberal Democrat): The Prime Minister will have had very little time to consider my question of last week about stopping the scandal of taxpayers having to fund pensions for police who turn out to have undertaken criminal activities. However, he has widened the scope of the inquiry to cover all forces. Given the financial pressures-a number of forces are having to ask people whether they would like to become voluntarily redundant -will he please ensure that no one found guilty of wrongdoing can keep any payout, bonus or windfall by retiring or taking voluntary redundancy?

945)

David Cameron : What the hon. Lady says makes a lot of sense. She should make those representations to the Winsor review, and indeed to the judicial inquiry.

• . . Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat): Yesterday's Select Committee hearings were heavy on entertainment but rather light when it came to hard facts. Does not their inconclusiveness point to the need for the urgent inquiries that have been established? Those inquiries should be hard hitting, well resourced and wide ranging, and they should examine all aspects of the phone hacking scandal: corruption, nepotism, and the rather seedy and obsequious relationship between the press, the police and politicians.

948)

David Cameron : As my right hon. Friend says, the reason for setting up the inquiry is to get to the bottom of the situation. To be fair to the Select Committees, they made some good progress yesterday on discovering important evidence about all the relationships, and we have been discussing some of that evidence today.

• . . Duncan Hames (Chippenham, Liberal Democrat): Yesterday my hon. Friend Mr Sanders tested witnesses on the term, "wilful blindness". Does the Prime Minister agree with us that those in charge of a responsible and free press should not get away with using a wilful blindness defence to evade responsibility for their acts?

952)

David Cameron : There is no real defence of that sort. There is going to be a police investigation-it is under way-that will ask exactly who was culpable and who knew what, when. After that is over, the second stage of the judicial inquiry will go over all that information again, not requiring the bar of criminal prosecution, and perhaps then we will get the real evidence of who knew what, when. However, we could not have tougher processes to get to the answers that people want.

• . . Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham, Conservative): One group of people that we have not discussed today is the hugely powerful trade union bosses, who have an extraordinary influence over the Leader of the Opposition. Will the inquiry look into their contacts with Rupert Murdoch and his organisations?

962)

David Cameron : I think it is ingenious, after 136 questions, to come up with something entirely new, so I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I am sure the judge will be able to look at all vested interests and the power that they wield in our country.

962)

John Bercow (Speaker)

I thank the Prime Minister and all Members. I was advised that there were 138 Members, but we will settle for 136, who have had the opportunity to question the Prime Minister, and I thank everyone for participating.

• . . Sittings of the house

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25), That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday 5 September 2011.-(Sir George Young.) Question agreed to.

• Full Debate in Parliament