Party Funding

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

It is completely impossible for any policy to be changed in that way. Policy in the coalition Government has to be agreed not just by Conservative Ministers but collectively with Conservative and Lib Dem Ministers, so the idea that there is a direct route from Conservative party donors to policy change is absolutely absurd.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In the Budget, the Chancellor announced a number of tax changes to the regimes for gambling and financial services. Can the Minister tell the House whether Peter Cruddas, in his role of treasurer—he is also the market leader in internet spread betting—had any influence at all?

[Mr Maude]

I very much doubt it, but I suspect—[Interruption.] As I have said repeatedly, anyone who has been in government knows that in the run-up to a Budget, we get representations from all sorts of people, in favour of everything and against everything. I have no doubt that the Chancellor received lots of representations from all directions on this and other subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

We are strongly in favour of using open source software wherever possible. We have established that that can cut the cost of providing digital services massively, while producing better results. On a recent visit to silicon valley, I and a number of colleagues found businesses that were capable of cutting those costs on a massive scale.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

A study by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations has found that applications by charities for emergency help were highest in the north-east, because the 20 poorest areas suffered 40 times as much reduction in their funding as the 20 richest. A year ago the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), said that the voluntary sector would

“find that there is access to a large amount of revenue”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 936.]

Has he disappeared because he no longer believes that?

[Mr Maude]

I deeply regret that it has been necessary for the Government to cut spending in the way that they have. The reason is very simple—the Government of which the hon. Lady was a member left this country with the biggest budget deficit in the developed world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

There is also another rule that the Law Officers do not tell the police what to do. It is entirely a matter for the police to deal with arrests. If matters come to their attention that need the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service, which the Attorney-General and I superintend, we will no doubt examine them.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

One issue that will arise in this context is contempt of court and the extent to which the media need to be controlled. I was rather disappointed to hear the Attorney-General’s responses on Radio 4 this morning. Would the Solicitor-General like to make it absolutely clear to the entire nation that, notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of particular cases, it is possible to commit contempt on Twitter?

[The Solicitor-General]

That is a deeply uncontroversial statement to make.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 2, leave out ‘publishing draft’ and insert ‘presenting’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 6, page 1, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert

‘“legislation” means primary legislation, secondary legislation or amendments to primary legislation’.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 16, leave out ‘draft’.

Amendment 14, title, line 1, leave out

‘preparing draft legislation for publication’

and insert ‘presenting legislation’.

[Helen Goodman]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill and to the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). The long list of amendments that we have tabled demonstrates that this is an extremely badly drafted piece of legislation. As I am sure Government Members know, Her Majesty’s Opposition oppose the Bill. It is ill-conceived, badly drafted and full of technical problems, and we do not accept its underlying principles. For a start, it does not make sense to look at draft legislation only. Most Bills do not appear in draft at all, so this would catch only a tiny number of the Bills that the House considers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The hon. Lady and her hon. Friend tabled 14 amendments and one new clause, only four of which have been selected for debate. Does that not suggest that her amendments and new clause were badly drafted as well?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we do not discuss the selection of amendments.

[Helen Goodman]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I would like to point out some of the problems with what has been suggested by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), whose Bill this is. Every piece of legislation has a territorial extent clause at its end. Let us consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is currently in Committee. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has been chairing some of its sittings, so he knows what I am talking about. Clause 117 states that the Bill, as a whole, applies to England and Wales, and then explains which clauses apply more widely. There is no lack of clarity about the legal status of Bills before the House.

Clearly, the hon. Lady’s underlying concern is that people are taking views on legislation that affects parts of the United Kingdom beyond those in which their constituencies are located. If that is her concern, she should have presented a Bill making that case. However, she has presented a different and flawed Bill.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill undermines the basic principle that all Members are equal?

[Helen Goodman]

Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the procedure for Scottish Bills, as set out in Standing Order 97, requires the Speaker to issue a certificate stating that a measure is predominantly Scottish, after which it can go to the Grand Committee. It would be possible to do the same for England. Surely it would be worth printing a complex Bill in draft—so that it can be published and people can look at it—because, if there were territorial issues on the margins, it would provide an opportunity to consider them fully before the Speaker issued his certificate. Is the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) not a valuable addition to how we have dealt with such matter traditionally?

[Helen Goodman]

As the hon. Gentleman says, arrangements are in place for legislation that takes effect predominantly in Scotland. However, the Government seem to be rushing legislation through so fast that it is quite possible that the Speaker and his offices might not have time to take all these complex matters into account. That is a problem with the way this Government are ramming through legislation on the NHS and, if I might say so, this Legal Aid—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are meant to be discussing the amendments, but we are getting drawn elsewhere by certain Members. I am sure that, with the hon. Lady’s experience, we can stick to the amendments.

[Helen Goodman]

I stand corrected. I am sorry, I was seduced by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald).

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the issues raised by the amendment, my hon. Friend said a minute ago that she suspected that the real motivation behind the Bill was not just to specify whether a Bill applied to England, Scotland or Northern Ireland only, but to lead to a situation where certain MPs could not vote on those Bills. If she has any doubt about that, the BBC reported yesterday that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)

“hoped that this would allow it to become accepted practice that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would not vote on England-only bills.”

If that is what she really wants, would it not be better to have a Bill to that effect for us to discuss and debate, rather than one that tries to introduce such a measure through the back door?

[Helen Goodman]

That is exactly right. This is a campaigning Bill; it is not a serious Bill. The hon. Lady cannot possibly expect the House to support this ill-conceived Bill, which would not even do what she wants.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

So in reality these amendments are not really important in the hon. Lady’s estimation; she is simply intent on wrecking this Bill by any means possible. That is the reality, is it not?

[Helen Goodman]

I am not intent on wrecking the Bill; I am intent on opposing it, which is not quite the same thing.

[Mr Leigh]

Perhaps I used the wrong words. What the hon. Lady is determined to do is stop this Bill making any further progress. That is the reality and she might as well be honest about it.

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is being tempted all the time. She must not give in to that temptation. Let us stick to the amendments.

[Helen Goodman]

Let me turn to the parts of the Bill that relate to the financial implications, which we also looked at in—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady must not make a Second Reading speech. Let us deal with the amendments that are before us.

[Helen Goodman]

One of the problems with looking at draft legislation rather than legislation in its final form is that it is not possible at that stage to say what the financial implications across the United Kingdom might be. The Government would be forced not simply to identify the territorial extent of a Bill, as they do currently, but to look at the differential impact of clauses that apply across the United Kingdom. For example, some legislation could be applicable throughout the UK but have a greater effect in some places than in others. Let us take social security as an example. If unemployment is higher in Wales than in England and changes are made to the rate of jobseeker’s allowance, the impact in Wales will obviously be different from the impact in England. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Lady intends.

[Oliver Heald]

But social security is a UK-wide competence. It is nothing to do with just England, Wales or Scotland; it applies all over the country.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman makes my exact point, but unfortunately that is not the way the Bill is drafted. That is one of its faults.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

That is a very interesting point, but what exactly does it have to do with the amendments?

[Helen Goodman]

What I am trying to do is demonstrate that the Bill is not well drafted, and the amendments that we have tabled do just that. I fear that the object of this Bill is really a political object—that what the hon. Member for West Worcestershire is doing is disingenuous and that her concerns are different from those that she has set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is for the Chair to decide, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I would point out that I am allowing a little bit of latitude and, in fairness, the hon. Lady has been brought back to the point, to which, in general, she is sticking at the moment. I will decide from the Chair how far we go.

[Helen Goodman]

I do not wish to delay the House any further on these technical amendments. I think I have made my point perfectly clear. I do not intend to push the amendments to a vote, but I hope that I have demonstrated a small number of the problems with this Bill.

[Oliver Heald]

Let me start by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) has done the House a service by introducing the Bill. It is a modest measure, but it provides something useful for the House, if the commission proposed by the Minister, which I also welcome, decides that we need a procedure for England similar to Standing Order No. 97, which sets out the Scottish procedure. That Standing Order says that when a piece of legislation is first printed, the Speaker can issue a certificate saying that it is a Scottish Bill. In those circumstances it is dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee, which means that Scottish Members decide what happens in Scotland. I personally have always felt, as has my party, that England should have a similar opportunity, and the details of how that might be achieved have been discussed and argued over for many years.

What my hon. Friend is suggesting will help in the difficult process of deciding whether a Bill is predominantly Scottish or, in this case, English. The difficulty that the Speaker has always had to contend with is that, under Standing Order No. 97(1)(a), he can provide a certificate, and that

“it shall not be withheld by reason only that the bill...makes minor consequential amendments of enactments which extend to England and Wales”.

So it is possible for a Bill that is predominantly about Scotland but has some implications for England and Wales to be dealt with under the Scottish procedure. My hon. Friend is proposing that draft legislation would contain a certificate from the Secretary of State explaining the territorial extent of its legal and financial effects on the various parts of the UK. That would be useful in cases that were on the margin.

[Helen Goodman]

But can the hon. Gentleman not see that the territorial extent is already in a Bill, and that the financial implications are set out in the impact assessment that is published alongside it?

[Oliver Heald]

The mistake in the hon. Lady’s amendments is that they would not give the Speaker any opportunity to present his certificate. She is proposing that the Secretary of State’s explanation would be provided when the legislation was presented, rather than when it was first printed, which would give the Speaker no time to do his work. These are therefore wrecking amendments.

[Helen Goodman]

The issue is the speed with which this Government are putting through legislation, and their failure to leave adequate time between First and Second Readings, and between Second Reading and the Committee stage. If they were to give Bills adequate time, that would give the Speaker the time for which the hon. Gentleman calls.

[Oliver Heald]

I completely disagree. The hon. Lady would give the Speaker no time at all. Under Standing Order No. 97, the Speaker has the time between the Bill first being printed and its presentation in which to decide whether or not to provide his certificate. Her proposals would provide no such time. The Bill would simply be presented; the helpful information from the Secretary of State would not be given to the Speaker before that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I must stay in order while answering that question, Mr Deputy Speaker. I referred to the “so-called” West Lothian question because it is not simply about West Lothian; it applies also to west Belfast, west Cardiff and even west London, in that certain matters relating to Greater London have been devolved to the London assembly. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is asking a reasonable question, but the Bill does not provide an appropriate way of dealing with it.

The Bill, rather than creating constitutional symmetry that would apply beautifully to all parts of the UK, would seriously affect the way in which the House operates and the ability of all Members to participate in debates. This question deserves an answer. I represent a Scottish constituency, and I am interested in how these issues apply to the UK as a whole, but if Members in England really feel strongly about this, I would argue again that the answer involves another measure, rather than creating two kinds of Member in this House.

[Helen Goodman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another technical defect—I hope the amendments made this clear, but perhaps they did not—is that the hon. Lady has not done with her own Bill what she is suggesting that Ministers should do with every Bill? There is no explanation of how her Bill would apply in each of the jurisdictions, or of what financial burdens it would create. She cannot do that for this tiny Bill, yet she intends to impose a massive bureaucratic burden, which is something that I thought the Government were opposed to.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have sympathy with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, given the difficulties involved in introducing a private Member’s Bill; I introduced three over the years, having been lucky enough to come up in the draw. We are obviously in a different position from Governments in the level of support available and the amount of information that we can put before the House. I do not want to criticise her too much, but it would have been helpful if she had provided a background paper to support the Bill, rather than simply relying on the material supplied by the House of Commons Library. I apologise if she did produce such a paper and I have not seen it.

In regard to amendment 6, there are a number of important issues about how the Bill would work. A great many pieces of legislation that pass through the House simply cannot be categorised as English-only, Scottish-only, Welsh-only or Northern Irish-only Bills. A large number of Bills overlap in various ways. Most Bills on transport affect transport in England but are likely to have knock-on effects on other parts of the UK. We debated the Health and Social Care Bill this week and although it primarily covers England and Wales, the provisions on abortion would have applied to the United Kingdom. Every measure that has spending implications will have consequential effects on every part of the UK because of the Barnett formula.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is leaping into solution space, but he is right. I agreed with one thing he said in an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), when he referred to the so-called West Lothian question. That was helpful as the West Lothian question is called that because it was raised by the then Member for West Lothian, but we are really talking about how we deal with legislating for England in a country that has devolution. That is not very catchy, and if any Members can think of a more catchy way of describing the West Lothian question that encapsulates its nature in a way that will resonate with people, they could perhaps suggest it to me.

Let me give one more straightforward example of an extent clause. It was in a Bill for which I was responsible, which is now an Act of Parliament: the well-supported Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. The Act applied for the most part throughout the United Kingdom, with a limited exception. Part of schedule 3 extended only to Great Britain and one part extended only to Northern Ireland as a result of the different electoral arrangements. It had a very short extent section but meant that Members were very clear about where it had effect.

I hope I have set out for the House why we do not support the amendments. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has already said that she will not press them to a vote, but this has been a helpful debate to flesh out some of the concerns about this approach. She has done the House a service through her amendments, as has my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire by allowing the House to debate these important matters.

[Helen Goodman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; there has been a substantial body of work looking at exactly how to resolve this question without creating the completely impossible situation of having two classes of MP.

[Helen Goodman]

An interesting point is developing here. I wonder whether the hon. Lady is considering not voting on the Government’s Scotland Bill, in line with what she is saying, and whether the Government are looking to have the support of a majority of Scottish Members for the Scotland Bill before it receives Royal Assent.

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady points out precisely why it is so important to resolve in this Parliament some of those complex constitutional issues. There will be others, I am sure, who will refer to the problems of the other House and the fact that there is draft legislation currently in this place about reforms to that House. There might be consequences for that piece of legislation as well.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

During the Prime Minister’s statement, several hon. Members, especially those seated on the Government Benches, asked whether this really matters. Let us face it, there are many other issues that are probably far more pressing and significant to our constituents, including jobs, the economy and the state of the national health service. For some, I admit, that list might also include Europe, although in my experience, Europe tends to be a long way down the list of things that really matter to my constituents. Crime is normally at the top. However, the tendency to downplay this issue over the past few years has fed into the cover-up that was originally done by News International, and that was a mistake. I fully understand why it has happened on occasion. Boris Johnson was very foolish to say that this was

“a load of codswallop cooked up by the Labour party”

for party political gain.

In the end, we have seen the two most senior police officers in this country lose their jobs—one of whom, I think, was falling not on his own sword but on the Prime Minister’s. We have also seen some very senior journalists and company executives lose their jobs, and serious questions have been asked about the way in which the police operate. This has called into question the integrity of the police, which in turn strikes at something that really matters to our constituents.

Earlier in the year, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) was a little more sceptical about much of this, when he was questioning me and others about it. However, I think that he has seen, over the past few months, that the evidence from senior officers such as Assistant Commissioner Yates has been risible, and has not met the standards that we expect of a senior police officer in charge of counter-terrorism. I had never meet Andy Hayman until I saw him in the Home Affairs Committee the other day, and, frankly, I was shocked that someone of that calibre—or rather, lack of calibre—was in charge of counter-terrorism in this country. The heart of this matter is therefore probably not the original criminality, which undoubtedly was extensive but was in one sense relatively minor, in terms of the criminal law; far more significant is the cover-up that has taken place. I very much hope that people will not feel from yesterday afternoon that we have got to the bottom of what went on at News International.

Let us be clear about what happened. In the criminal case that was brought against Goodman and Mulcaire, both pleaded guilty. We already know that Mulcaire’s fees were paid by News International, even though he was not a full-time employee of the organisation. I presume that Clive Goodman’s legal fees were also met by News International, and that it encouraged them to plead guilty because it did not want this to go to full trial. It did not want all the evidence to come out into the public domain, because then, what the judge said at the end of the process might have been proved: that this was probably just the tip of a very large iceberg, and it certainly did not want the rest of the iceberg to be seen.

The reason why News International continued to pay Glenn Mulcaire’s legal fees, until this afternoon, as I understand it—I thought it was bizarre that James Murdoch still did not know whether it was paying them yesterday; anyway, today he said that it is not paying them any more—was that it wanted to keep control of the case and to make sure that he did not say anything additional that further incriminated other people at the newspaper, or in the wider company.

When the civil cases were brought, there was the next part of the cover-up. News International would have had to provide full disclosure of all the e-mails, all the transactions within the organisation and the whole way in which the scheme was put together whereby Mr Mulcaire engaged in all this activity. I believe that News International was absolutely desperate to make sure that that never came into the public domain, so the most important thing for it to do was to make sure that that never went to trial.

Yesterday afternoon, James Murdoch said that his lawyers had advised him at the time that they had to offer £700,000 to Gordon Taylor—I repeat, £700,000—because they were advised by their lawyers that if the matter went to litigation and the court found against them, they might have to pay £250,000 in damages, and in addition, they would have the costs of having run the case. However, James Murdoch must surely know—unless he is using really bad lawyers—of the part 36 procedure. Under it, when an offer is made—of £200,000, let us say—it is put into court and if the court itself does not offer more, the claimant has to pay the legal costs subsequently incurred, which in this case would have been the greater part of £500,000. I am afraid that Mr James Murdoch yesterday was either extremely poorly briefed on the legal situation, or, frankly, he was still dissembling. I believe that in practice, what they were doing was paying £700,000 to Gordon Taylor—and also to Max Clifford—expressly to maintain the cover-up.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend noticed that James Murdoch used in his evidence a very ambivalent phrase that has a particular meaning in law and another in common parlance:

“Subsequent to our discovery of that information in one of the civil trials”.

That reinforces exactly the point my hon. Friend is making.

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely.

Then there were the subsequent civil cases, which could only be brought once The Guardian had run its story suggesting that there were many more victims of phone hacking. Some people started writing in to the Metropolitan police and then suing the police to force them to give them the information, so that they could then take action against News International and get full disclosure from it. It is only as a result of those cases that the cover-up has effectively been smashed apart.

There remains this issue of the material that was gathered and put into a file in 2007, including various e-mails and other pieces of paper, and given to Harbottle & Lewis. Only this year, it was shown to the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, who said that, within three minutes of looking at it, he could see that there was material relating to the payment of police officers that should always have been given to the Metropolitan police. That seems to me a far greater criminal offence than the original criminal offence of phone hacking. That is why my concern is about the cover-up at the heart of this.

Yesterday, Rupert Murdoch was asked whether he was responsible and he said, “No,” but I am afraid that in this country we have to have a much stronger concept of responsibility. It is not just about whether something happens on one’s watch—that is ludicrously broad. If someone has taken all due diligence steps to try to ensure that criminality has not happened, then of course they are not personally responsible. But if someone’s argument is, “Our company is so big that I could not possibly be expected to know whether my journalists were being arrested for criminal activity or whether I was paying out £2 million in hush money,” one must question whether they have a proper corporate governance structure or system in place to make sure that the same thing does not happen again next year or next week—or even that it is not happening now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sure that this will be looked into in more detail as news of what the hon. Lady has just spoken about arrives. It is news to me, but I am sure that it will be fully looked into and may be properly addressed later on.

[Helen Goodman]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are clearly a number of concerns about who gets press passes. I wonder whether, when the matter that the hon. Member for Corby (Louise Mensch) has raised is looked into, some consideration might be given to publishing who has press passes. At the moment, we do not know that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Again, I am sure that will be looked into. I am not absolutely sure whether the names of those who have press passes are not already in the public domain in the directory that is made available to the House, but I will look into the matter myself to see what the truth is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

This is clearly an extremely important debate for the future and quality of our democracy and the nature of our country. Across the House, Members are in agreement that we want a free press, but at the moment we are not quite agreed on what we mean by freedom of the press. A free press is obviously part of the rights we have under the European convention on human rights to free speech and free expression, but I remind Members that the exercise of this freedom also carries duties and responsibilities. The convention says that the exercise of these freedoms is “subject to” limitations

“in the interests of national security…public safety…the prevention of…crime”—

ironically—

“the protection of health or morals”

and so on. So, this freedom of expression is not a freedom from all constraints or legalities, and nor is it a freedom to chase stories using any technique possible. Significantly, it is also limited by article 8 of the European convention, on the right to privacy. As we move forward and look at the appropriate regulation, we need to have in mind article 8 as well as article 10.

It really is not reasonable for people to pretend that uncovering the sex lives of footballers is equivalent to the fight for freedom of expression we have seen in north Africa and the middle east in recent months. It is also disingenuous for so-called celebrity columnists to pretend they are some latter-day combination of Bob Woodward and Dean Swift. I do not agree with Lord Kinnock about the rules on balance for the broadcast media being taken across into those for the press, but I do think that the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right that the problems we have faced over a long period of time have been because of a very significant concentration of power, which led to a web of corruption.

It is not acceptable that a quarter of the Met press office had formerly worked for News International. It is a matter of concern that Andy Hayman went to work for News International from the police, that the former DPP went to work at News International and that News International has also employed, as a so-called independent adjudicator, a former High Court judge, Sir Charles Gray. I am not suggesting that all those cases involve impropriety, but we must know what the rules are. I hope when the Secretary of State winds up he will be able to tell us the truth about what happened in the autumn of 2009, when, it is widely rumoured, the broadcasting policy that he wanted to publish was held up because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to clear it with James Murdoch.

What I really want to remind hon. Members is that those who have suffered most as a result of these abuses are ordinary people. What has been uncovered very recently has been extremely shocking, and there is a long history of ordinary people being abused and not having proper recourse because they did not have the money to employ lawyers and because the PCC is such a toothless tiger.

Let me tell hon. Members a couple of stories about that.A boy in my constituency, who was obviously badly behaved, was described in one of the tabloids as “terrorising” the town, which was a total exaggeration and is not a way in which any of us would allow our children to be described. In another case, a woman I met who was a victim of domestic violence was also denigrated—in The Sun in this instance—because her neighbours had been blagged. There was complete deceit about the nature of the inquiry and how the story would be written up. We are talking about extremely vulnerable people and we must take them into account in any new regulations that are set up.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to do that. My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why I was concerned to ensure that there are people on the panel who really understand how television, newspapers and regulation work. For instance, I think that the fact that George Jones, who spent many years in the Lobby, will be on that panel of experts will help the committee of inquiry do its work.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Last week, I asked the Prime Minister whether Andy Coulson had been through the official positive vetting procedure. Instead of answering, he referred me to the rules of conduct for special advisers and the standard contract. Will he now answer the question?

[The Prime Minister]

He was vetted. He had a basic level of vetting. He was not able to see the most secret documents in the Government. I can write to the hon. Lady if she wants the full details of that vetting. It was all done in the proper way. He was subject to the special advisers’ code of conduct. As someone shouted from behind me, he obeyed that code, unlike Damian McBride.

Phone Hacking

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend correctly identifies this as a problem, but I am not sure that I agree with his solution, although I will certainly look at it. It seems to me that it would be much better to try to have the same sort of transparency between the police and the media that we want between politicians and the media, because, in the end, I think transparency about media contacts would help to prevent the culture of leaking and briefing that has grown up in some parts of the police.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s statement was a bit complex, but it sounds as if the decision on the takeover would be made before the end of the judicial inquiry and the police inquiries. Is that correct, because surely it is not right?

[The Prime Minister]

The problem we face is that we have a set of rules concerning competition policy, plurality and “fit and proper” tests that are all laid down in the law and have to be carried out by Ofcom, the competition authorities and, indeed, the Secretary of State. He has to obey the law—and these laws were, largely, put in place by the previous Government. The Competition Commission will look at this; it will take its time, but it cannot take for ever in making its recommendation. Then there will be a decision for the Secretary of State. We cannot do anything but obey the law, but what we are doing today—what the leaders of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats and I are all doing—is making a clear statement about our opinion by saying to this business, “You can’t go on pursuing a merger when you ought to be dealing with the mess you’ve got in your own business”, and I think that is the best thing to do.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

One of the benefits brought about by this Government is to make all that more transparent. We have exposed for scrutiny by the public and the House what those high salaries are, and it is right that we should do so. They may be completely justified in many cases, but they ought to be justified and scrutinised, so I make no apology for introducing that degree of transparency.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about salaries, perhaps he will address the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, which protects the incomes of the poorest people in the countryside. Its abolition will mean that those workers lose more than £150 a week in sick pay straight away. How can he defend that?

[Mr Maude]

I justify it on the basis that the Government of the hon. Lady’s party introduced a minimum wage, which was voted through by the House. The Agricultural Wages Board was introduced at a time when there was no national minimum wage. It now exists, and we take the view that an independent body with the AWB’s powers no longer needs to exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Jowell]

The hon. Gentleman has set out the precise nature of the debate that will need to take place in Committee, because losing the independence and the advocacy role of a number of these significant bodies will harm the proper process of representing interests that often get too little hearing in this House.

[Helen Goodman]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is exposed by the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and the Commission for Rural Communities —as well as the proposals on forests, on which there had to be a U-turn—is an attitude of arrogance towards the countryside and the idea that it is not necessary to listen because the Government think that they know best?

[Tessa Jowell]

I certainly hope that the Minister will accept my invitation to rethink some of the Government’s proposals and ensure that the Committee stage involves genuine and proper scrutiny of some of the compelling individual cases. I also hope that he will show proper respect and understanding, not for, as it were, the headline description of a clutch of quangos, but for the vital functions that many such bodies perform—as my hon. Friend has so clearly described—in protecting the quality of life for people across the country in a variety of different ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I wish to speak up for our one Welsh language television channel, S4C. I call for the provisions that affect it to be totally removed from the Bill. How did they come to be included? Was the plan for S4C’s future the result of meticulous thought, planning and consultation? No. It was a backdoor deal between Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who declared that they had never actually seen the channel, but had a liking for Fireman Sam, and the BBC, on the eve of the comprehensive spending review. The BBC offered up S4C as a concession—an appetiser in the face of Government threats of much deeper cuts. This deal was the result.

The Government announced that they would slash direct funding by 94% and shoehorn S4C into a so-called “partnership” deal with the BBC, which would pick up some of the shortfall. The BBC has agreed to top up funding to 75% of previous levels until 2015; after that, S4C will have to pitch for funds and the BBC will be free to do what it wants, even though its own funding is guaranteed for much longer.

The Government have had to throw S4C into the Public Bodies Bill to get their plan through because S4C’s funding is currently protected by law. S4C’s status and funding were set in law in recognition of the crucial role that it plays in protecting and promoting a language classified as “vulnerable” by no less august a body than UNESCO—a language that has steadily disappeared from communities over the last 100 years and is now spoken by just over 20% of Welsh people, down from 60% at the dawn of the 20th century.

Welsh does have a future, however. Its use is now rising for the first time in living memory—precisely because of hard-fought initiatives like S4C. The cross-party Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a member under the august chairmanship of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies)—I hope he will be a right hon. Member one day—stated in the plainest possible terms in its recent report that S4C has played a

“key part… in bolstering the everyday use of the Welsh language”,

and concluded that S4C

“brought the Welsh language into many homes where it may not have been heard previously.”

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case in citing the private deals made by the Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Has she considered the possibility that they took account of the views of News International and the plurality issue?

[Susan Elan Jones]

They probably took as much account of those factors as they appear to have taken of everything else involving S4C.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I can confirm that the commission that will look into the West Lothian question will be established this year.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport that the “fit and proper persons” test is irrelevant in the case of the merger between BSkyB and News International?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, the Culture Secretary is acting in a quasi-judicial role, he is doing so in line with advice that he has received from Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading, and he is reflecting the legal position as it currently is. The hon. Lady may shake her head and wish that the law were different; she may wish that competition provisions could somehow be applied here, although the European Commission cleared the transaction on in competition grounds—but that is the legal position as we currently find it.

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Not only did the right hon. Gentleman fluff the lines at the beginning, he also failed to rise to the occasion. This is an occasion when, for once, he could put aside his sour observations and try to work across parties, as we have in the cross-party Committee, to make some progress not only, I should remind Opposition Members, on something that was in their manifesto—by the way, so was AV, but a fat lot of good that did us all—but on something that we have been discussing as a country for almost 100 years. If that is not long enough, I do not know what is.

Before I turn to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, let me address the vital issue, which he has raised once again, about a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. It would be so much easier to take the right hon. Gentleman’s admonitions in favour of 100% seriously if, during the 13 years under Labour, more had been delivered than 0%. Given that the country has been debating House of Lords reform for more than a century and that all three parties made a manifesto commitment on this issue last year, it is crucial not to make the best the enemy of the good. We have set out in the Bill how an 80:20 split would work, and we have maintained the option in the White Paper of moving to 100% if that is what people want. That is exactly what we will submit to the Joint Committee.

Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, the cost is almost impossible to estimate at this stage, without knowing precisely what the final composition of the House of Lords will be or the method of transition from where we are now to where we want to be in 2025. In the Bill, we have proposed a staged election—or election and appointment—by thirds in 2015, 2020 and 2025, alongside a staged reduction, commensurate with that, from the House of Lords as it is at the moment.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

How would you do that?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We will leave it to the House of Lords itself to decide the precise method of reduction by thirds. We have set out two options in the White Paper. One would involve moving to the full reduction of the size of the House of Lords to 300 immediately in 2015; the other would be to do nothing until 2025, which would mean that the reformed House of Lords would have become very large indeed in 15 years’ time. We would then make the reduction at that point. Those are exactly the kinds of issues that we will invite the Joint Committee to look at.

I can confirm our determination to see the reform of the House of Lords reach the statute book in time for the elections in 2015. We want to see the first elections to a reformed House of Lords take place in 2015. We will treat this legislation as we treat all Government legislation. This is something to which both our manifestos—in fact, all the manifestos—are committed, and it is clearly set out in the coalition agreement. We will use all the legislative tools at our disposal to deliver on that commitment.