Intelligence and Security Committee Report

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee was laid before Parliament on 13 July 2011 (Cm. 8114). The Government have considered the Committee’s many useful conclusions and recommendations, I have today laid the Government’s response to this report before the House (Cm. 8168).

Copies of the response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 September.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to those who have fallen in Afghanistan since we last met for Prime Minister’s questions: Lance Corporal Paul Watkins, from 9th/12th Royal Lancers; Corporal Mark Palin, from 1st Battalion The Rifles; Marine James Wright, from Juliet Company, 42 Commando, Royal Marines; Lieutenant Daniel Clack, from 1st Battalion The Rifles; and Sergeant Barry Weston, from Kilo Company, 42 Commando, Royal Marines. We should also remember Senior Aircraftman James Smart, from No. 2 (Mechanical Transport) Squadron, RAF Wittering, who died in a road traffic accident in Italy on 20 July while supporting operations in Libya. I pay tribute to their outstanding courage and selflessness. They have each given their lives serving our country and making our world more safe and secure. Our thoughts and deepest sympathies should be with their families, their friends and their colleagues.

This week, we also reach the 10th anniversary of the terrible atrocities of 11 September 2001, so we should remember all those who lost their lives that day, and all those who have died in pursuit of a safer future throughout the last decade.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Ian Austin]

The whole House will agree with the tributes that the Prime Minister has just made to members of the armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending our country.

Earlier this week, the Government pushed through legislation that says that terror suspects must be given access to mobile phones and the internet and that ends relocation orders, so that such suspects cannot be kept out of London in the run-up to the Olympics or the Queen’s jubilee without emergency legislation. Will not decent, law-abiding people out there be shocked to discover that the Prime Minister is weakening protection for them while pushing through what many people will think is a charter of rights for would-be terrorists?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree with that. We consulted very carefully with the police and the security services in order to try to get to a better position, because frankly, control orders did not have the confidence of the public and did not work in far too many cases. The arrangements that we have put in place will keep this country safe and have greater public confidence.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

May I thank the House and all my Hexham constituents for their messages of support while I was temporarily in hospital? I am now fully recovered, thanks to the outstanding care of the NHS and its hard-working doctors and nurses. Does the Prime Minister agree with me, as many doctors and nurses did, that it must be our mission to improve and reform the NHS, so that the service that we so cherish will improve with the challenges ahead?

[The Prime Minister]

May I say how good it is to see my hon. Friend back in his place and fully recovered? He is right: the point of our health reforms is to put doctors in charge, give patients greater choice, and heal the divide between health and social care. I believe that they will lead to a stronger NHS and better outcomes for patients.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I begin by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our brave servicemen who have given their lives over the summer: Lance Corporal Paul Watkins, from 9th/12th Royal Lancers (Prince of Wales’s); Corporal Mark Palin, from 1st Battalion The Rifles; Marine James Wright, from Juliet Company, 42 Commando, Royal Marines; Lieutenant Daniel Clack, from 1st Battalion The Rifles; Sergeant Barry Weston, from Kilo Company, 42 Commando, Royal Marines; and Senior Aircraftman James Smart, from No. 2 (Mechanical Transport) Squadron, RAF Wittering. All of them demonstrated tremendous bravery and courage in the line of duty, and we send our deepest condolences to their families and friends.

Let me also join the Prime Minister in remembering all those who died in the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. We all said at the time that we would never forget, and it is right that we pay particular attention on this the 10th anniversary of 11 September, so that for the victims and their families we show that we are true to the words that we spoke in the aftermath of those terrible attacks.

As the House returns from the recess, I also thank all our policemen and policewomen who did such a tremendous job in the riots over the summer, and it is on the subject of policing that I want to start my questions to the Prime Minister. We learned last night that the Prime Minister now wants to hold his elections for police commissioners not alongside local elections, as originally intended, but in November next year. How much extra money does he expect that to cost?

[The Prime Minister]

It will cost an extra £25 million. The money will not be taken from the police budget.

[Edward Miliband]

So the Prime Minister is making a bad policy worse by wasting money. If he wanted to postpone the elections, he could easily have decided to hold them in May 2013; and, indeed, subsequent elections will be held in May 2016. Will he tell us why he has decided to waste his money in this way?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important to get the policy right, and to make sure that it works. Let us be clear. First of all, why are the Opposition so frightened of an election? What have they to fear?

The right hon. Gentleman called this bad policy. Let me tell him what was said by his own shadow Policing Minister. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said that

“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical”.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman so frightened of an election and proper police accountability?

[Edward Miliband]

We know what the public up and down this country know: this is the wrong priority for the country. What did we see during the riots? We saw visible, effective policing. Now the Prime Minister tells us that the country cannot afford the current police budgets, and that we must cut the number of police officers by 16,000. However, he tells the country that it can afford £100 million and more as a result of his decision to waste money on 42 elected politicians earning more than £120,000 a year. That could pay for 2,000 extra police officers. Is not the truth that this is the wrong priority at the wrong time for the country?

[The Prime Minister]

As ever, the right hon. Gentleman has got his figures completely wrong. The police authorities of whom only 6% of the country have actually heard will be abolished, and that will save money.

Let me put it to the right hon. Gentleman again. Why is he frightened of direct elections that will make the police accountable? He was responsible for the last Labour manifesto, and this is what the last Labour Prime Minister said:

“the Home Secretary will bring forward proposals for directly elected representatives to give local people more control over policing”.—[Official Report, 14 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1388.]

Why the U-turn?

[Edward Miliband]

We know that the Prime Minister has got the wrong priorities on the police and that he is refusing to back down. However, he has got the wrong priorities not just on the police, but on the health service as well. Can he tell us why the number of people who have had to wait longer than six months for an operation has gone up by more than 60% since he came to office?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman wants to change the subject, because on policing he was having his collar felt as he has done a complete U-turn on the policy he used to be committed to.

As I said some moments ago, in our health service we are seeing more cancer patients get treatment, more doctors in our NHS, fewer bureaucrats, a reduction in mixed-sex—[Interruption.] I know Labour Members do not like hearing—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in what is beginning to sound like orchestrated heckling. [Interruption.] Order. It is profoundly discourteous and it should stop.

[The Prime Minister]

The trouble is that the Opposition do not like hearing good news about what is happening in the national health service. The fact is that waiting times for outpatients have actually fallen since the last election.

[Edward Miliband]

That was a complete non-answer; the Prime Minister cannot even answer the questions. We are talking about people up and down this country who have been waiting longer for their operations. [Interruption.] The Government Chief Whip shouts from a sedentary position; he should care about these people who have been waiting longer for their operations. Let me tell the Government Chief Whip and the whole Government Front Bench what we are talking about. Between June 2010 and June 2011, the number of people waiting more than six months for an operation was up by 42% for those waiting for a heart operation, up by 62% for those waiting for orthopaedic operations, and up by 72% for those waiting for eye surgery. The country and I are just asking for a simple explanation from the Prime Minister: why has it happened?

[The Prime Minister]

The explanation is that the amount of time that people are waiting for an outpatient operation has actually gone down; that is what has happened. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have targets for 90% of people to get their treatment within 18 weeks, and those targets are being met. He may not like the truth, but that is the truth, and I have to say to him that that is why we now see the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Nursing all supporting our health reforms. We even see Lord Darzi, the former Health Minister, supporting our health reforms. Labour has got itself into a position of opposing all reform to the NHS and opposing the extra money into the NHS; that is its position.

[Edward Miliband]

I think the Prime Minister has convinced the country that he is on another planet from them. He had his holidays interrupted—fair play to him—but he took time off from his holiday to tell the Western Morning News what he has just repeated: that the

“whole health profession is on board for what is now being done.”

I have to ask: does he read the newspapers, because only on Tuesday of this week the British Medical Association, the Royal College of GPs and the Royal College of Midwives all rejected his Bill? And that was only this week. The truth is that under this Government we are seeing two reckless and needless reorganisations of our public services: police numbers down and waiting lists up. Under Labour, we saw police officers up and waiting lists down. Why does he not do the right thing for the future of our public services, and scrap both of these disruptive and dangerous plans?

[The Prime Minister]

Is it not interesting that he does not dare in six questions to mention the economy? On our health reforms, let me quote what the man his Government plucked from the NHS to run the Department of Health, Lord Darzi, says:

“The proposals from the NHS Future Forum, and supported by the Government, have recast the reforms in”

the right

“direction and are to be welcomed.”

So now we have the Royal College of GPs, the physicians, the nurses and people working in the health service supporting the changes we are making, and Labour wanting to cut the money and also cut the reform. Isn’t it no surprise that the shadow Health Secretary—it is traditional to quote the shadow Health Secretary on these occasions—said this:

“It’s a tough fact of life…that what Labour says matters less than what almost anyone else says”?

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that building stronger families and communities is absolutely essential and key to dealing with antisocial and delinquent behaviour?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is important and I am sure that there will be all-party agreement on it. As well as having a tough response from the criminal justice system to the riots—we have seen that tough response, with some exemplary sentences handed out very rapidly by the courts system; I praise all those who have been involved in speeding up the justice system—at the same time we need to do more to strengthen communities, to strengthen families, to increase discipline in schools and to make sure that our welfare system supports responsible behaviour rather than irresponsible behaviour. We will be bringing forward proposals along those lines and I hope that they will have support from everyone in this House.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Q2. Before the summer, the Prime Minister took part in a TV documentary that highlighted fears of crime and antisocial behaviour on the Saffron Lane estate in my constituency. Does he expect crime and antisocial behaviour on that estate, and across Leicester, to increase or decrease when he cuts 200 police officers from the Leicestershire force?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to see crime and antisocial behaviour go down. Let me just remind the hon. Gentleman that today only 12% of police officers——only one in 10—are on the beat at any one time. There are 25,000 police officers in back-office jobs, not on the front line. We all have a responsibility to try to get our budget deficit under control. His party is committed to a £1 billion cut in the police. What we have to do is recognise that this is about getting officers on to the front line—that is the debate we should be engaged in.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Q3. In the wake of the riots, may I commend the Government’s and Mayor of London’s support for high streets, such as those in Enfield, which were badly hit? Is this not a good time to support the forthcoming global day of prayer, which in London will be taking place at Wembley?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly pay tribute to what the Mayor has done and what the Department for Communities and Local Government has done to make sure that there is money available for rebuilding our communities. The good thing about the £20 million high street support scheme, which my hon. Friend mentions, is that 29 local authorities have already registered for it. I hope that we will see the money being spent quickly to help rebuild our high streets.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister support the closure of local police stations?

[The Prime Minister]

It is up to chief constables to work out how best to police their areas, but what I am finding from talking to police constables up and down the country is that they want to put their resources into visible policing on the streets. They have got the support of a Government who are cutting the paperwork, reforming the pay and reforming the pensions—taking the difficult decisions that will make sure that we have more police on our streets than we ever would under Labour.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Q4. Will the Prime Minister join me in sending a very clear message to the Travellers at the illegal Dale Farm site: we all hope that they move off peacefully in order to avoid a forced eviction but if they do not do so, they should be in no doubt that the Government fully support Basildon council and Essex police in reclaiming this green belt land on behalf of the law-abiding majority?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly give my support to Essex police and to all the county and district councils that have been involved, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the very hard work he has put in on this issue. What I would say is that it is a basic issue of fairness: everyone in this country has to obey the law, including the law about planning permission and about building on green belt land. Where this has been done without permission it is an illegal development and so those people should move away. I completely agree with the way in which he put his question.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q5. The Prime Minister opposed Labour’s anti-gang laws, but then the riots occurred and he decided to strengthen them. Now he wants to weaken anti-terror laws by scrapping relocation powers. What will have to happen before he is prepared to admit that the mess he is replacing them with is putting national security at risk?

[The Prime Minister]

I simply do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In our review of control orders, we listened extremely carefully to MI5, the security services, the Metropolitan police and all those involved. There was a full review process to make sure that we could have a system that is legal—that is vital because the courts unpicked so many of the last Government’s changes—that the public can have confidence in and that will keep us safe.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

On the day when 200 people from Bombardier in Derby are here to hear whether we can change the arrangements for the Thameslink contract, can the Prime Minister give us some hope about future contracts and about changing the tender arrangements—the mess that we were left in by the previous Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly want to do everything I can to help Bombardier, which is an excellent company that employs people in Derbyshire and has done a brilliant job as an engineering business in this country for so many years. Before people from the Labour party start shouting, let me remind them that this procurement process was designed and initiated by the previous Government. It is no good their trying to shuffle off their responsibility—it is their responsibility.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Q6. Why do the Government not agree with the police that children as young as seven should be banned from having shotgun licences?

[The Prime Minister]

I think we should enforce proper rules on gun licences, including shotgun licences. We always keep these rules under review and if they need toughening, I will happily look at that.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Liberal Democrats make up 8.7% of this Parliament and yet they seem to be influencing our free school policy, health and many issues including immigration and abortion. Does the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wanted to hear the question, but I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer.

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Lady is extremely frustrated about the—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should start all over again—[Interruption.] I am going to give up on this one.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Q7. With the Future Jobs Fund and education maintenance allowance having been scrapped, the number of young people not in education, unemployment and training is at a record high of 18.4% on the Prime Minister’s watch. When will things get better for our young people?

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly, we face a difficult situation in terms of youth unemployment. Let us be clear that the situation was getting worse during the economic good times, and there was a 40% increase in youth unemployment over the time of the previous Government. What we are seeing today is a disturbing increase in the number of those not in employment, education and training over the age of 18, but under the age of 18 that number is coming down. The steps that we are taking are to improve schooling, to raise the participation age to 18 and massively to increase the level of apprenticeships to 360,000 starts this year. We are also introducing the Work programme, which is the biggest back-to-work programme that has taken place in this country since the 1930s and it will also be made available to young people who are in danger of being left out of employment, education and training.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Q8. I have been working with local businesses, my councils and other organisations to help promote, expand and grow the Carlisle economy. Clearly, given the economic background, it is imperative that we grow both the local and national economy. Will the Prime Minister tell us what new measures the Government will introduce to help promote such growth?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I enjoyed seeing at first hand what is happening in Cumbria to try get the local economy moving. The action we are taking obviously includes the cuts in corporation tax, and the regional growth fund and the enterprise zones. Specifically for Cumbria, the money we are investing for superfast broadband will really help that county, particularly the most rural and far-flung parts, and will ensure that small businesses can benefit throughout the county.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Q15. DNA and CCTV played a vital role in the arrest of many of the looters. Why is the Prime Minister undermining that in the Protection of Freedoms Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Q9. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister comes to consider next week’s Vickers report on the banks, which have been rescued with fantastic amounts of taxpayers’ money, will he have no truck with the banks’ argument that they cannot be reformed to prevent another crisis because they are having such a struggle coping with the crisis they have already created? Surely never again should British taxpayers have to bail out banks that are too big to fail.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right that the Government must take action to reform the banks, and that is what we are doing. We have already set out how we are getting rid of the tripartite structure that failed so badly under the previous Government, how we are putting the Bank of England back in charge, and how we are making sure that, as he put it, we cannot have in the future these catastrophic bank failures that cost the taxpayer so dear. We are looking forward to receiving Professor Vickers’ report. It seems to me there are two vital things we have to secure—a safe and secure banking system for the future, but also proper bank lending, including to small businesses, right now in our economy. That is what Government policy will be aiming for.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Q10. The Prime Minister will be aware that his Government are consulting on their changes to housing benefit claims under the criteria of under-occupancy. This will adversely affect 450,000 disabled people, including 33,000 in the north-east alone, who stand to lose on average £676 a year. A substantial number will be affected in my constituency. How does this policy meet his Government’s fairness test?

[The Prime Minister]

We are making a specific exclusion to deal with people who have carers living in the home, but we do have to reform housing benefit. I think the whole House knows, frankly, that housing benefit was one of those budget items that was completely out of control. In some parts of London, we had families claiming £60,000, £70,000 and £80,000 in housing benefit just for one family, so this does need to be reformed. It is no good for the Labour party—

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

How many?

[The Prime Minister]

Frankly, too many. And it is no good for the Labour party to complain about every single reduction to public spending when it left us with the biggest budget deficit in Europe.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has listened to Liberal Democrat colleagues by delaying police elections until November next year. Will he now listen to Conservative colleagues and take the opportunity to hold a referendum on Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an ingenious way of putting the question. As I explained yesterday, I want us to be influential in Europe about the things that matter to our national interest—promoting the single market, pushing forward for growth and making sure that we get lower energy prices. Those are the things that we will be fighting for, but I do not see the case for an in/out referendum on Europe. We are in Europe and we have got to make it work for us.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Q11. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Housing Minister that due to the economic policies of the Government, we now have a growth crisis? When he does a U-turn, will he choose to cut VAT, which is Labour’s policy, or to give tax cuts to the rich?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman obviously has not had time to read this great tome, which points out that increasing VAT was Labour’s policy at the last election. What he should focus on is the fact that the person responsible for Labour’s economic policy at the last election has said it had no credible policy whatever. The problem for Labour is that absolutely nothing has changed.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Members from both sides of the House and in both Houses on their generosity in responding to the letter from Mr Speaker and the Lords’ Speaker in supporting a gift for Her Majesty the Queen for her forthcoming diamond jubilee from this Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in praising everyone who contributed to this very imaginative and sensible gift for Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. Perhaps I could pay particular tribute to him because he has worked so hard to make this work. I think it will be a fitting tribute and it is something that the country should focus on. To have a diamond jubilee is an extraordinary thing for us to be able to celebrate in our lifetimes.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Q12. With electricity and gas bills going up by 20%, and with 6 million families in this country now facing fuel poverty, does the Prime Minister still think it was right to cut the winter fuel payment to pensioners by £100?

[The Prime Minister]

Let us be clear: we are going ahead with the winter fuel payment set out by the previous Labour Government in their Budget. At the same time, we are increasing the cold weather payments on a permanent basis, so this Government are being more generous than the previous Government.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

In seeking to address the economic recovery, is it better to help those who are taxed on incomes as little as £150 a week, or those who, after tax, take home around 10 times that amount?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Let me just point out two things that we have done that are totally in line with that, one of which is to lift 1 million people out of income tax altogether—that is a coalition commitment that we have been delivering on. The second thing, when it comes to tax credits, is that we have increased, over two years, by £290 the tax credits that go to the poorest families in our country. That is why we have managed to take difficult decisions—everyone knows we have had to take difficult decisions—without an increase in child poverty. In better economic times, under the previous Government, child poverty actually went up.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Q13. Bringing Siemens, manufacturing wind turbines, to the Humber is vital for jobs and a breakthrough on renewables, which will hopefully increase the UK industry in this area. Local councils and businesses are doing everything they can to attract Siemens to the area, but we face very strong foreign competition. Will this Government do what the last Government did and back this bid? Will the Prime Minister do everything he can to secure Siemens coming to Hull?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I think it is vital for the future of our economy and the future of the area that she represents. I met Members of Parliament from Humberside to discuss the issue. I have myself spoken to the head of Siemens about the importance of this investment going ahead. We are continuing the extra money going into ports to help the development of this industry and we back it all the way.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

At a meeting this morning with organisations working in the horn of Africa, representatives expressed their gratitude for the fact that the British public have been so generous and the Department for International Development has provided such leadership. That famine is continuing to become more severe. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government continue to provide international leadership to help the people in east Africa?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The response of the British public has been remarkable. These are difficult economic times, but they have shown an incredible generosity and led the world in the contributions that they have made. And because this Government, again in difficult economic times, have made the decision to fulfil our pledge of reaching the level of 0.7% of national income going into aid, we are also leading the world in the amount of money that we are putting into the horn of Africa to vaccinate children, to save lives and to recognise that this is an ongoing humanitarian crisis.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Q14. Does the Prime Minister agree that his Housing Minister is an absolute star? In the face of declining planning permissions for new build homes, in the face of fewer new homes being built in the previous 12 months than in any year of Labour’s programme of administration for house building, his Minister’s great idea is to urge councils to build more moorings for houseboats. Fantastic.

[The Prime Minister]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was doing so well till he got all political. I think there should be agreement across the House that house building is too low in this country, and it is a shocking statistic that the typical first-time buyer is now in their mid-30s. So we do need change, we do need more houses to be built, and I think my Housing Minister is doing a first-class job.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

While much attention is being paid to the military activities occurring in Libya over the summer, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Captain Steve Norris and the crew of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s Wave Ruler in the work they are doing combating drugs in the Caribbean? Not only did they intercept £50 million of cocaine over the summer, but they have also been helping humanitarian efforts in the Overseas Territories following Hurricane Irene.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. While we obviously should focus on and praise the incredible work that our services have done in Libya and Afghanistan, there are the ongoing tasks. He talks about drug interdiction in the West Indies. There is also the task of protecting the Falkland Islands. There is the work that we are doing to prevent piracy off the horn of Africa. In all these tasks people are giving a huge amount of time and effort, and we should praise and thank them for what they do.

Libya

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Libya.

When we met here on that Friday in March, Gaddafi’s tanks bore down on Benghazi, his air force had already begun strikes against his people, and his army had smashed through Zawiyah, with a grave loss of life. Gaddafi had vowed to hunt down his own people like rats, using the full might of his armed forces, backed up by mercenaries. I did not think Britain should stand by as Gaddafi slaughtered his people. Nor could we allow a failed pariah state festering on Europe’s southern border, with the potential to threaten our own security.

The Libyan opposition and the Arab League both called for NATO to protect the civilian population, so, together with the US and France, we secured agreement for UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 and, with this clear legal mandate, this House voted by a majority of 544 in favour of military action. Today, the Libyan people have taken their country back.

I am grateful for the support that all parts of this House have given over the last six months, and I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the incredible dedication and professionalism of our pilots, sailors, ground crew and everyone in our armed forces who has been involved in this mission.

But we should also pay a full tribute to the bravery and resilience of the Libyan people themselves. This has been their revolution and none of it could have happened without them. Ordinary Libyans from all walks of life came together and rose up against Gaddafi. From the villages of the Nafusa mountains to the tower blocks of Misrata, the alleyways of Zawiyah and the streets of Benghazi, the Libyan people fought with incredible courage. Many paid with their lives. Others have been seriously injured, and the struggle is not over. They still face forces loyal to a dictator who last week threatened to turn Libya “into a hell”.

The long work of building a new Libya is just beginning, but what is clear is that the future of Libya belongs to its people. The task of the international community now is to support them as they build that future. That means helping to finish the job, ensuring security, addressing the immediate humanitarian needs and supporting the longer-term process of reconstruction and political transition to democracy. Let me address each in turn.

First, on finishing the job, Britain has been at the forefront of the military operation to protect the Libyan people. Our aircraft have made over 2,400 sorties across Libya, carrying out one fifth of all NATO airstrikes, against some 900 targets in Gaddafi’s war machine. Our warships have supported this effort, helping to enforce the UN arms embargo and bringing aid to those in need. At its peak, some 2,300 British servicemen and women were deployed on Operation Ellamy, with 36 aircraft including 16 Tornados, six Typhoons, five attack helicopters, tankers and specialist surveillance aircraft and helicopters. These were supported over the course of the operation by eight warships and a hunter-killer submarine.

But the job is not over. As we stand, the free Libya forces have liberated Tripoli and control Libya’s key population centres, but pro-Gaddafi forces still pose a threat and, in particular, control the towns of Bani Walid, Sirte, and Sabha in the south of the country. The national transitional council has been working to negotiate a peaceful outcome, but its leaders have explicitly requested that NATO continue its operations to protect civilians until that is achieved. Over the weekend, RAF Tornados struck eight military command and control installations south-west of Waddan and nine weapons and ammunition stores near Sirte.

For as long as Gaddafi remains at large, the safety and the security of the Libyan people remain under threat. So let me be clear: we will not let up until the job is done. First, Britain and its NATO allies will continue to implement UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 for as long as we are needed to protect civilian life. Those thinking that NATO will somehow pull out or pull back must think again. We are ready to extend the NATO mandate for as long as is necessary.

Secondly, we will support the Libyan people in bringing Gaddafi to justice. This is a man whose crimes are becoming ever more apparent every day and who is wanted by the International Criminal Court. There must be no bolthole; no pampered hiding place from justice. He must face the consequences of his actions, under international and Libyan law.

Turning to security, the early signs have been encouraging. There has been some disorder, but it has been focused on symbols of the former regime. The national transitional council is moving to stand down fighters from outside Tripoli. The police are returning to the streets, and the council leaders have been clear and consistent in cautioning against disorder and, crucially, against reprisals. Britain and its international partners are helping, too, working closely with the national transitional council in securing chemical weapons sites and supporting mine clearance in Misrata, Benghazi and other affected areas.

On the humanitarian situation, Britain has played a leading role from the outset. The priorities today are health, water, food and fuel. On health, our humanitarian partners report that hospitals and clinics in Tripoli are now functioning well, and staff are returning to work. Britain is providing additional support through the International Committee of the Red Cross, including surgical teams and medicines to treat up to 5,000 war-wounded patients.

On water, substantial numbers of people in Tripoli are still without running water. However, UNICEF is procuring 11 million litres of bottled water, and the Libyan authorities are working to repair the water systems. The NTC reports that 100 wells are back online, representing 20% of capacity.

On fuel, there remain significant shortages but the situation is improving, and the World Food Programme shipment is supporting the national transitional council with the procurement of 250,000 litres of fuel.

Let me turn to reconstruction. Libya is a country of 6.5 million people. It is one of the richest in Africa. Its proven oil reserves are the ninth largest in the world. Libya is fully capable of paying for its own reconstruction. Of course there is a role for foreign advice, help and support, but I do not think we want to see an army of foreign consultants driving around in 4x4s, giving the impression that this is something being done to the Libyans, rather than something that is being done by them.

What the Libyans need above all is their frozen assets back. A week ago, Britain got Security Council agreement to release £1 billion-worth of dinars back to the Central Bank of Libya, and RAF planes have already flown in hundreds of millions of dinars of these banknotes. At the summit in Paris last Thursday, the international community committed to unfreezing $15 billion of Libyan assets, and for their part—vitally—we expect the new Libyan authorities to meet their pledge of ensuring transparent and accountable financial systems.

Next, on political transition, some people warned, as Gaddafi himself did, that the Libyan people could not be trusted with freedom—that without Gaddafi there would be chaos. What is emerging now, despite years of repression, and the trauma of recent months, is impressive and encouraging. In a far-reaching road map and constitutional declaration, the new authorities have set out a clear vision and a process for a new democratic Libya. This is not being imposed from above; it is being shaped by the Libyan people. At the Paris summit, chairman Abdul-Jalil spoke of his determination to build a society of tolerance and forgiveness, with respect for the rule of law. A national conference will bring together all the tribes—civil society; men and women, from east and west—united to shape this political transition. They are planning for a new constitution and elections within 20 months.

Britain is also in discussions in New York about a new UN Security Council resolution to reflect the new situation. The new Libyan authorities must now be able to represent their country at the United Nations, as they did last week at the Arab League. I also look forward to building our bilateral relationship with the new Libyan authority. We have close relations with the NTC through our mission in Benghazi, and today the UK’s special representative is going to Tripoli to re-establish our full diplomatic presence in that city.

Our relationship with the new Libya must, of course, deal with a series of problems from the past. On Megrahi, this is obviously a matter for the Scottish Executive. I have made my position clear: I believe that he should never have been sent back to Libya in the first place. On WPC Yvonne Fletcher, I want to see justice for her family. There is an ongoing police investigation, and the House will wish to know that Prime Minister Jabril has assured me of the new Libyan authority’s intention to co-operate fully.

Finally, significant accusations have been reported today that under the last Government relations between the British and Libyan security services became too close, particularly in 2003. It was because of accusations of potential complicity by the British security services in the mistreatment of detainees overseas, including rendition, that I took steps in July last year to try to sort this whole problem out. As the House will remember, we acted to bring to an end the large number of court cases being brought against the Government by former inmates of Guantanamo; we have issued new guidance to security and intelligence services personnel on how to deal with detainees held by other countries; and we have asked retired judge Sir Peter Gibson to examine issues around the detention and treatment of terrorist suspects overseas. This inquiry has already said that it will look at these latest accusations very carefully. My concern throughout has been not only to remove any stain on Britain’s reputation, but to deal with these accusations of malpractice so as to enable our security services to get on with the vital work that they do. Because they cannot speak for themselves, let me put on the record, once again, our enormous gratitude for all they do to keep our country safe.

The achievement of the Libyan people gives hope to those across the wider region who want a job, a voice and a stake in how their country is run. On Syria, Britain will continue to lead the argument for a UN resolution to build on the EU’s oil embargo, which is now in place. The message to President Assad must be clear: he has lost all legitimacy and can no longer claim to lead Syria, the violence must end and he should step aside for the good of his country.

It is the Libyan people who have liberated their country; there was no foreign occupying army. This has been a Libyan-led process, assisted by the international community. Many cynics proclaimed stalemate and asserted that Gaddafi would never be defeated—the Libyan people proved them wrong. It was a unique set of circumstances and not something that we can or would wish to repeat all over the world, but I have never accepted the argument that because you can’t do everything, you shouldn’t do anything. Removing Gaddafi from power was a major achievement. Although the work is not yet done, the Libyan people can be proud of what they have achieved and we can be proud of what we have done to help them. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? Let me join him in paying tribute to the courage of the Libyan people, because this was their uprising. They knew the price that might be paid if they rose up against the regime to claim a better future and yet they found the courage to do so and to win through. We on the Opposition Benches salute their bravery and sacrifice, but change in Libya would not have come about without action from the international community. Let me therefore commend the role played by the Prime Minister and the British Government in making it happen. The initiative of pressing for UN resolutions 1970 and 1973 made the action to protect civilians possible. It was a risk and it was the right thing to do. For our part, we supported it at the time, we have remained steadfast in our support and we support it now.

If we had not acted, we would have spent recent months not talking about the progress of our action in Libya but wringing our hands over slaughter in Benghazi, as we did after Bosnia. This time, however, the international community did not stand by—it acted through and with the authority of the United Nations. Once again, as the Prime Minister said, it was to our brave British servicemen and women that we turned and as always, they have risen to the challenge. They represent the best of our country and again we owe them a debt of gratitude.

I want to ask a number of questions about the security situation, economic stabilisation, the political settlement now required and some of the wider lessons, but let me first say that I agree with the Prime Minister that the Gibson inquiry must get to the bottom of the allegations we have seen about the involvement of the security services in relation to Libya. No part of the British state should ever be complicit in torture.

Let me turn first to the security situation. The Prime Minister is right to say that there should be no artificial deadlines for the end of NATO action. We are in Libya to enforce a Security Council resolution and we should be engaged in action for no more and no less than the time it takes to ensure that the UN mandate for the protection of civilians is fulfilled. Given the symbolic and substantive importance of the national transitional council’s taking up its place in government in Tripoli, will the Prime Minister give us a sense from the Paris conference about when we might expect that to happen, as that will speak to the security situation in Tripoli?

We know from past conflicts that security matters but that essential to a successful transition is economic and social reconstruction, and we all agree that that must be Libyan-owned. I welcome the extra assistance that the Government have announced to help provide medicine and food and to reunite families who have been affected by the fighting. The Prime Minister will agree that the role of the UN will be very important in co-ordinating that help, so will he say what discussions he has had with UN special envoy al-Khatib and how prepared he believes the UN is to provide the necessary help to the Libyan people? Will he also share with the House his thoughts on how the new UN resolution he talked about, which will provide recognition for a new Government, will also provide a mandate for a longer-term UN mission to support the Libyan Government?

The Prime Minister is right that the oil wealth of Libya offers huge potential for its people. Given that the legitimacy of the popular uprising was based around the fact that the Libyans themselves were clearly in the lead, that also needs to be true of the oil resources. Does he agree that we should learn the lessons of the period following past conflicts and ensure that the role of private companies working in Libya is to operate transparently and in a way that clearly benefits the Libyan people?

On the politics, I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the NTC’s commitment to establishing a new constitution and holding elections within 18 months. On the former members of the regime, we agree that we should provide full support to the Libyan people and their new Government in bringing Colonel Gaddafi and the leadership to justice either through the ICC or the Libyan courts, but we have also learned from past conflicts the need for a broad based and inclusive political process of reconciliation —indeed, the Prime Minister talked about that in his statement—as well as for the vital work of maintaining Government services. Will the Prime Minister share with the House his understanding of how the NTC will continue to use officials from the lower level of government to keep basic services running?

We also know that democracy takes root not just through the formal process of the ballot box but through a strong, vibrant civil society. Will the Prime Minister tell us what specific plans there are for direct relationships between Libya and organisations such as the BBC World Service, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the British Council, which can play an important role in helping to build up civil society?

Let me finally ask about the lessons of this conflict for Britain and for the international community. The Arab spring was clearly not envisaged at the time of the strategic defence and security review and has meant a call on some resources that were due to become obsolete. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he sees the case that I see for there to be gain in formally looking afresh at the SDSR in the light of events in Libya and the Arab spring?

For the international community as a whole, the lesson is of the effectiveness it can have when it comes together through the UN and speaks with one voice. No two situations are the same, as the Prime Minister has said. Of course, the situation in Syria is different for a number of reasons, not least practical issues, in relation to the idea of military intervention and, indeed, the lack of support for it. We support the use of all non-military means at our disposal in relation to Syria. I have heard the Prime Minister’s remarks about President Assad and I share his view. He talked about the need for a new UN resolution, but will he tell us how he assesses the chances of getting that resolution and what further steps he believes can be taken against the Assad regime in the absence of a resolution?

Let me end on this thought: the Arab spring has seen the overthrow of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. It is right that Britain has been on the side of those who are fighting to enjoy the basic social, economic and political rights that we take for granted. Let me end by agreeing with the Prime Minister that we should take pride in the role we have played in protecting the Libyan people as they claim a better future. We should now help them as they enter the next phase—moving from popular revolt to stable, democratic government.

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks in response to my statement? He is right to pose the alternative and ask what would have happened had we stood back and done nothing—what would we have been discussing today? Of course, he is also right to praise our brave service personnel. I note what he said about backing the Gibson inquiry and the important work that it needs to do in looking at all the accusations of complicity.

On the three issues of security, stabilisation and politics let me try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, on security, he is right that there should be no artificial deadline for NATO. We must continue until the job is done. On the NTC’s move from Benghazi to Tripoli, that is already under way. Parts of the NTC have moved and it is very important that it should move as a whole. We should not try to second-guess everything it does. I have been very struck through this process by the fact that the NTC often gets criticised. Calls are made for it to do this and that, and in the end it always seems to rise to the challenge. I think it has been effective and we should not underestimate the people working in it.

On stabilisation, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the UN’s role. It is important to differentiate between the role of Mr al-Khatib, who was trying to look at ways of finding a peace process before this conflict resulted in the fall of Tripoli, and the role of Ian Martin, who is specifically drawing up the plans for a UN mission to Libya. I think those plans are well under way and it is very important that we focus on the things that the Libyans want rather than on the things we think they might want. It was quite interesting, in Paris, to hear the specific things they cared about most. Clearly, one role that the UN can play is to make sure that the elections, when they come, are properly observed and are free and fair. The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about private companies is a good one and we should learn all the lessons from past conflicts as he says.

In terms of the process of reconciliation and maintaining Government services, one thing that the NTC has been trying to do—again, quite effectively, I think; we have been advising and helping where we can—is make sure that there is no de-Ba’athification process and that relatively junior officials in departments are encouraged to go back to work. These are very early days and there are going to be huge problems at the end of a conflict like this, but the signs are that things such as rubbish collection, hospital services and getting the police back on the streets seem to be working.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about longer-term relationships with the British Council and others. Clearly, once the security situation is in a better state, those relationships can be built from a very strong basis.

On the strategic defence review, I would argue, having followed this very closely through the National Security Council on Libya, which met sometimes daily through this conflict, that the case for what we are doing in the review has been proved. It has been proved that it was the right decision to keep the Tornado aircraft with the Storm Shadow capability, which performed magnificently over the skies of Libya. Typhoon has in many ways come of age. One of the things that became clear in the conflict was the need for greater ISTAR—greater eyes in the sky, greater technical capabilities—and that is provided for in the strategic defence review. Of course, after any such conflict and an intense period of military, Government and humanitarian activity, it is right to learn the lessons. Sir Peter Ricketts, my national security adviser, will be leading a lessons-learned exercise on how the Whitehall machine operated and what lessons we can learn. That should include the operation of the oil cell, which I think did a very good job of trying to help deny oil to the regime and to make sure that the rebels, who were not getting oil products, got them.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the UN resolution on Syria. We will continue to work for a strong resolution. It has obviously been difficult to get agreement to date. The EU oil embargo is an important step forward and has a real effect. Above all, I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. I agree with him that we can take pride in what British forces and British officials have done on this occasion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I join in the praise from the Prime Minister for the magnificent performance of the British armed forces and for the courage and resolution of the Libyan people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that matters are inevitably about to become a little messy in Libya in the months ahead, and that it will be important for Britain to continue to offer what help it can in a spirit of general co-operation and humility?

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely right. It is very important that when people are looking at the humanitarian plan, the reconstruction plan and the plan for political progress in Libya, we recognise that this is something that the Libyans are doing themselves. We are there to help and to assist, but it is their plan, not our plan. Humility on this occasion is right.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in praising the leadership that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have shown during the whole of this period. There is no doubt that that was decisive in securing international co-operation and in following it through.

On the allegations that have been made overnight, as Foreign Secretary at the time, may I say two things? First, as the Prime Minister knows, it was the consistent policy of the previous Government, as it is of his, to be wholly opposed to any complicity in torture, ill treatment or unlawful rendition. Secondly, given the serious nature of the allegations, it is entirely right that they should be examined in every detail by the inquiry under Sir Peter Gibson.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he says about me, the Foreign Secretary and others. On the issue that he raises, it is right that Sir Peter Gibson can look at the whole area. It is important that nobody rushes to judgment. We have to remember that in 2003, two years after 9/11, there was a Libyan terrorist group that was allied to al-Qaeda. At all times our security services and intelligence services are trying to work for the good of the country to keep us safe, so it is important to remember the circumstances at the time. Nobody should rush to judgment, but it is the right hon. Gentleman’s view, my view and the view of the entire House that Britain should never be complicit in torture or in extraordinary rendition, and it is very important that we make sure that that is the case.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend has been circumspect in his references to the documents which have recently emerged, and with good reason, but does he agree that there is one lesson that can be learned at this stage—that particularly when dealing with unsavoury regimes in the shadowy world of intelligence, it is necessary to maintain both fastidiousness and distance so as to avoid accusations of impropriety or illegality?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. As I put it in my statement, the accusation is that after Libya came in from the cold and gave up the weapons of mass destruction, the relationship almost became too close at times. There was a degree of credulity. I think that is the accusation. It is important to put on record our thanks to the security services for what they do. What I have tried to do and what the Government have tried to do is put in place a new set of arrangements—proper guidance to intelligence and security services personnel to clear out these Guantanamo Bay cases that were going to drag through our courts and bring our security services and our country down, to deal with them properly, and then to have an inquiry, so that we get to the bottom of what happened and if there was any malpractice, we deal with it. It is important that we clear up the issue once and for all, and I believe the steps that we have taken will do that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, commend the Prime Minister on the role that he has played this year, but I urge him to use the same dedication when it comes to Syria, because many of us—all of us, I suspect—are scandalised by what we have seen throughout these summer months. He is visiting Moscow, as I understand it, next week. I hope that he will make it absolutely clear to the Russian Government—both sides of the Government; the President and the Prime Minister—that thus far their protection of the Syrian Government has been wholly abhorrent to those of us who hate the human rights abuses in such countries.

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in loathing the human rights abuses that are taking place in Syria. What we have seen happening is simply appalling—the loss of life, the damage and terror that the President has been inflicting on his own people.

On Russia, one of the encouraging things is that the Russians came to the Paris conference, were one of the 63 countries represented there and supported the statement that came out of it about NATO continuing its work and making sure that we complete the job in Libya—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is right then to say from a sedentary position, “What about Syria?” I think that the whole international community can learn the lesson of some success in Libya and apply that elsewhere in terms of the unity that we need to see in the UN Security Council to put pressure on Syria.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

As someone who had reservations about the principle of intervention, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on a successful outcome in Libya? It was largely achieved by two aspects: first, it was legal; and secondly, it had the support of the Libyan people. Further to the previous question, however, will my right hon. Friend now use it as an illustration to persuade permanent members of the Security Council, such as Russia and China, that a well conducted intervention can be successfully used to restrain autocrats in countries such as Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. Everyone should have misgivings about such operations, and one should never have the naive belief that they are easy or that everything is going to go to plan. That very rarely happens, and we should always be hard-headed and careful about such things. We should also respect the fact that this is not done—this is not completed yet.

Also, I think that we should be very cautious about trying to draw up a new doctrine, because it seems to me that as soon as a new doctrine is established, a case comes up that flies completely in its face, but I do hope that other members of the Security Council will see that there has been success in removing a dictator, and in giving that country a chance of peaceful and democratic progress, which will be good for the world.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the inquiry conducted by Sir Peter Gibson be held entirely in public? Will it have access to all the documents that have been discovered in Libya which, apparently, are now under the control of the national transitional council? Will it look at the question of British military involvement with Libya up until March and what lessons can be learned from that?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. On Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry, some of it will be held in public and some of it by necessity—because of the very sensitive nature of what he will be looking at—will be held in private.

On the documentation, Sir Peter will have access to all the paperwork he wants to see. Clearly, what has come out of Libya in recent days is relevant to him, and I think he has already announced that he is looking forward to seeing that information.

On Britain’s relationship with Libya, as I have said, it is entirely understandable that it was the previous Government’s wish to have with Libya a new relationship after getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. In some instances, it was too credulous—I have mentioned particularly Megrahi—and, obviously, we need to think carefully about our security, our military involvement and our sales to all regimes. That is why at the start of the Arab spring we reviewed our practices, and we should keep them under review.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

How concerned is the Prime Minister about reports of Islamist influence in the new Libyan Government?

[The Prime Minister]

One should treat all these reports with concern, and we should obviously always look carefully at who we are dealing with, but one of the long-term answers to Islamic extremism is the successful development of democracy in the Arab world.

This is a three-part play: part one is getting rid of bin Laden; part two is greater democracy throughout the middle east; and part three is a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. To think that supporting such dictators helped us to deal with Islamic extremism is to be profoundly wrong. We find that many of the Islamic extremists whom we are fighting or dealing with in Pakistan or, even, in Afghanistan come out of countries such as Libya and Syria, and we should ask Why.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Large numbers of Libyans have fled their country in the past few months. What discussions have there been with countries such as Italy and Malta to enable them to return?

[The Prime Minister]

The Italians and Maltese are extremely keen that people should return and there is now every reason that they can. I have been impressed by the members of the Libyan diaspora in London who have been in and out of Libya even while the conflict has been going on. The pressure can be great, particularly on small countries such as Malta. As the hon. Lady knows, we have a relationship with Malta through which we will use our embassies elsewhere in the world to help it with this issue.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As well as the Gibson inquiry, does the Prime Minister see a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee in investigating the allegation, which if true would be shameful and shocking, that Britain had a part in handing suspects over to the Gaddafi regime, even in the context of 2003?

[The Prime Minister]

It is absolutely a matter for the Intelligence and Security Committee what it examines, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) will want to look closely at those allegations. As I say, I do not think that any of us should rush to judgment. We have to remember the situation that the world and this country were in post 9/11, when there was a real concern about people who wanted to damage our country. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was allied with al-Qaeda. It is not any more and has separated itself from that organisation. Let us allow the inquiries to take their course and not rush to judgment.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

May I join in the tributes to the courage of our servicemen and women in their action over Libya, to the Libyan people, and to the political leadership of the Prime Minister and his colleagues during this time? The Prime Minister rightly talked about the issue of legacy, and he referred to Megrahi and WPC Yvonne Fletcher. He said that Libya must deal with the series of problems from the past. Among those will be the issue of compensation and justice for the many hundreds of victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism. Can I seek an assurance from the Prime Minister that he continues to back the case for justice, and that he will do what he can to secure compensation from the new regime?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly will do that and it is a vital issue. There is no doubt that the Libyan provision of Semtex to the IRA was immensely damaging over many years, and it possibly still is today. We need to be clear that this will be an important bilateral issue between Britain and the new Libyan authorities. Clearly we have to let this Government get their feet under the desk, but this is very high up my list of items.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

After the liberation of Kuwait, in which Britain also played a significant part, the financial costs of our contribution were fully reimbursed, largely by Kuwait itself. Does my right hon. Friend intend to seek a similar contribution from the Libyan authorities once oil begins to flow?

[The Prime Minister]

That is not a consideration that we have gone into so far. Clearly there have been costs to the UK from this operation, which are in the region of £120 million, excluding munitions. Obviously, that has been funded from outside the defence budget through the reserve, so it will not impact on other defence spending. My right hon. Friend makes an important point that we can bear in mind.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister rightly said that we would urge that there be no de-Ba’athification process in Libya. However, the reality is that the institutions across Libya are corrupted and weak. In particular, the courts, which are central to a functioning modern democratic society, have Gaddafi’s placemen in position. Is Britain, perhaps with the European Union, prepared to put real effort into supporting the development of those civil structures?

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly make available our advice on those issues if it is wanted. In Paris, Chairman Jalil and Prime Minister Jibril talked specifically about the importance of police training and of ensuring that their police are properly independent. It was encouraging to hear them say that. Of course, having a strong, independent justice system is part of any free and democratic society, so we stand by to help in any way that we can.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I welcome the progress of the Libyan people and the success of the United Nations’ principle of the responsibility to protect. The catalyst of the uprising was the 15 February protest by the widows, mothers and sisters of the victims of the Abu Selim massacre. Women played a crucial role in the revolution and are a vital resource for the tough task ahead of rebuilding Libya, so what can our Government do to encourage the involvement of women at all levels of the decision-making processes in the NTC and the national conference, in line with not only United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 but the wishes of Libyan civil society organisations such as Women for Libya?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I think one of the best ways to do that is to work with the non-governmental organisations that have particular expertise in that area. I repeat that this is not the same as Iraq, where basically an intervention knocked over a Government, and there was then a de-Ba’athification process and we had to try to put back in place what had gone. Here, we are trying to work with the Libyans, who are putting things in place themselves. I absolutely agree that a much stronger society will emerge if there is a proper and appropriate role for women, which tragically there is not in so many societies. I think going through non-governmental organisations is probably the right answer.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I join others in commending the Prime Minister’s role in these issues? He will know that there are 8,000 Libyan students studying in the United Kingdom at the moment, 2,000 of whom are state-sponsored. The funds for those students are being held by the British Arab Commercial Bank, which cannot release them without the approval of the NTC. Will he use his good offices to ensure that this matter is resolved so that the students can complete their studies and return to rebuild their country?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his kind comments. My understanding is that the money is now being released, but if there are any problems, we will certainly try to help secure it. I think there will be a welter of problems in dealing with unfrozen assets of people who have got stuck in a different country and all the rest of it, and we will have to work through each of those problems in turn.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend for acting in a way that vindicates his policy of Britain acting as an effective global power? May I also commend him for not rushing to a new doctrine or going back to an old one such as liberal interventionism? Does the situation not demonstrate the importance of maintaining armed forces with global reach, so that we can influence global events and project our interests?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. What I would say about doctrine is that if you overdo your belief in a particular doctrine, you will find that the next problem that confronts you will fall completely outside it and you will have to spend a lot of time inventing a new doctrine to deal with it. I am a practical—[Interruption.] Members say that I am a Conservative, and that is right. I am a practical, liberal Conservative—that is what I believe, and I think this was a practical, liberal, Conservative intervention. [Hon. Members: “A new doctrine.”] It is a way of thinking.

On what my hon. Friend says about armed forces being able to project our reach and power, I absolutely agree with him, and we cannot maintain that reach and power by not having a defence review and by sticking with massed battle tanks in Europe. What we need to do is modernise our armed forces and make sure that we have the reach for the challenges of the future. I repeat what I said: far from disproving the strategic defence review, I think Libya proved the case for the sort of changes that we are making.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

No one will be sorry to see the end of Gaddafi’s criminal regime, which was deeply involved in international terrorism, but is there not some hypocrisy in all this? Is it not a fact that up to this year, Britain was selling the Gaddafi regime sniper rifles and crowd control equipment? Now we learn that there was a close collaboration between some western countries—not only Britain—and the Gaddafi regime, in which terror suspects were actually sent to Gaddafi’s torture chamber.

[The Prime Minister]

Far be it from me to join the hon. Gentleman in attacking the last Government. To be fair, I think it was right to have a new relationship with Libya when we could persuade it to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, discontinue its nuclear programme and try to take a different path. I have my criticisms of the last Government, as I think they were then too gullible and went too far in that direction. Specifically, when we had the O’Donnell report into Megrahi it found that the last Government were trying to facilitate his release, but I do not criticise the general intent of wanting a new relationship. What really changed was the treatment by Gaddafi of his own people. That was the moment for the world to act, and I am proud of the fact that the world did so.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

The most impressive aspect of this intervention is the Libyan pride in what Libyans see as a Libyan event. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that he will do all he can to restrain the irresistible desire of the international community to micro-manage and over-intervene? We should remember that in this kind of intervention, less is more.

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge, not least because rather against my will, he spent two days last week in Tripoli. He has seen for himself that the Libyans are managing the transition quite effectively, but what he says about trying to make sure that we understand our role as backing a Libyan plan rather than substituting our judgment for theirs is the right way ahead.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Has the Prime Minister reviewed Cabinet Office papers to ascertain whether Tony Blair personally authorised the co-operation with the Libyan intelligence services that led to Abu Munthir’s detention and removal to Tripoli in 2003? Will he revise the terms of reference of the Gibson review, so that the nine human rights agencies that currently do not feel that they can co-operate with it, because it is not up to the standards of international human rights, can co-operate, so that the review will be open and transparent, and so that we can get to the bottom of those questions?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me put the hon. Lady right on one thing: there is a rule that Ministers cannot, willy-nilly, see the papers provided to a previous Government, not least because Governments would probably spend their entire time doing that rather than governing the country, which is what they are supposed to do. That is why there is an inquiry, which is being carried out by an independent judge. We should allow Sir Peter Gibson to get to the bottom of what happened in that case, and indeed to the bottom of any decisions that Ministers of that time made, for which they will have to answer. I believe that that is the right approach, and it is the one that we will follow.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Many of our constituents have probably said over the last few months something along the lines of, “We don’t want another Iraq,” and the post-conflict stage is obviously on people’s minds. Will the Prime Minister give a little more detail on how the lessons of immediately post-conflict Iraq are being applied in this situation?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a lot of people have said, “We don’t want another Iraq,” but we should also listen to those people who said, “We don’t want another Bosnia.” The prevention of a massacre was very important in these circumstances.

On the difference between Libya and Iraq, I would say this: because the Libya operation has not involved an occupying force or an invading army, the Libyan people rightly feel that they have done this largely by themselves. Yes, they have had NATO assistance, for which they are grateful, but just as they own the end of Gadaffi, so they are owning the transition to democracy and all the problems of disorder and crime that there will be in the interim. However, from what I can see, they are dealing with those problems well, and we should be with them, but helping rather than telling them what to do.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

May I follow the point on migration raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)? One thing that became clear during the previous regime was that many of the people who have ended up in Lampedusa and Malta originated not in Libya, but from other countries, sponsored by an illegal criminal network in which Gadaffi no doubt had a role. That means that such places have huge numbers of cases that are difficult to manage. How will the Prime Minister manage that situation, and will he assure the House that he will open a dialogue with the NTC to ensure that those criminal routes are closed down straight away?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly will do that. First, it is important to get this into perspective: we should bear it in mind that we still get more asylum claims from the countries of northern Europe than we get from the countries of southern Europe. Secondly, we have a relationship with Malta. Clearly, it cannot afford to have embassies all over the world, and we use our embassies in countries such as Niger, Mali and elsewhere to try to help the Maltese to return people to their country of origin. As the hon. Gentleman says, many people coming through Libya are not from Libya.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

For the new constitution of Libya to be legitimate, and indeed sustainable, is it not the case that freedom of speech and religion should be included? In particular, should it not give protection to the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we have seen, particularly in Egypt, the importance of protecting Coptic Christians and others. I am heartened by what Chairman Jalil has said about respect for human rights and tolerance, and I am sure that he will want to follow those things through.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Has an estimation been made of when British oil workers will be allowed to return to their vital jobs in Libya?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not have an estimation, but it is in Libya’s interests that the production of oil gets back to normal as fast as possible. Some people say, though, that it could take up to three years to get back to full capacity. The encouraging thing is that a lot of the refineries and other oil installations, such as the ones in Ras Lanuf, Brega, Zawiyah and elsewhere, have not been badly damaged, so there is no reason this should not happen as rapidly as possible.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Like other Members, I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on the leadership he has shown in supporting the will of the Libyan people over the past few months. Will he tell the House what role is envisaged for the Arab League and other Arab nations in the post-conflict reconstruction in Libya in the months ahead?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. I think that there will be a big role for the Arab League. As I said in my statement—this is one area where we can learn the lessons of the past—I do not think that Libyans want huge numbers of people driving around in 4x4s telling them what to do. Arab assistance can play a huge role in helping Libyans to get back on their feet. However, they seem very keen to do a lot of this on their own.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to stress that the political future of Libya needs to be determined by the Libyan people, not by outsiders. Can he cast any light on the statements coming from the African Union about its concerns that the transitional arrangements are not fully inclusive? What discussions is he or the Foreign Secretary having with key African leaders to ensure that any future UN resolution gets African buy-in?

[The Prime Minister]

I was very encouraged that at the Paris meeting there were a number of African leaders strongly supportive of the NTC and democratic transition in Libya. Frankly, the African Union has not always been as clear as I would have liked about the importance of democracy, freedom, human rights and progress in Libya. I hope now that all the countries of the African Union will get behind the new Libyan authorities and give them the support and help that they need.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I think that the whole House will be celebrating the end of the monstrous Gaddafi regime. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will continue to put pressure on the new Libyan Government to ensure that the killers of PC Yvonne Fletcher are brought to justice?

[The Prime Minister]

Like my hon. Friend, I feel that this is an extremely important issue for the bilateral relationship between Britain and Libya. At the Paris conference, I spoke to Prime Minister Jibril about this issue and told him how important it was to people in our country. It was an appalling act and a reminder of what the Gaddafi regime was capable of. We should put it alongside the provision of Semtex to the IRA that took hundreds of lives and the appalling act of blowing up an airliner over the skies of Scotland. This regime was capable of appalling things and now there is a chance to find justice for these people. We should pursue that very strongly.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the end—hopefully—of Gaddafi, but given that we are in the aftermath of what in many respects was a civil war, how comfortable is he with a 20-month time frame for the delivery of a new constitution and elections? What measures will be put in place to protect human and political rights, including on freedom of movement and international observers?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe that the timetable is realistic. The key issue is whether we have faith in the NTC. I have found, throughout my dealings with Prime Minister Jibril and Chairman Jalil, both of whom I have met on a number of occasions, that they want this to be a national process, representing the whole country and bringing the country together, that they want it to be transitional—this is a move towards democracy, not a takeover—and that they see Libya in the future not in an Islamist or tribal fashion, but as a democracy. Clearly, it will have Islamic elements—it is a Muslim country—but that is the path that its people want to take and one that we can encourage them down.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, especially in relation to the Gibson inquiry, which could be critical to our future good relations with the new Libya. Will it be able to consider the role and case of the old regime’s intelligence chief, Musa Kusa?

[The Prime Minister]

Musa Kusa is helping the police with their inquiries into, for instance, the Yvonne Fletcher case, and they will go on having conversations with him. That will go ahead. Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry can go wherever the evidence leads, and he can call for papers that he wants to see. The key things that he is looking at are the accusations of complicity in torture, rendition, malpractice or maltreatment.

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

We in the Scottish National party join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the brave men and women in our armed forces who have been involved in these operations. We also welcome the extension of Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry, but does the Prime Minister believe that it will be enough to get to the bottom of these allegations of such truly awful and reprehensible acts? Will he, for example, be able to interview former Labour Ministers and ask what they knew about those operations? Will he also be able to make some sort of judgment about the activities and actions of the last Labour Government?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, what Sir Peter Gibson will be able to do is call for papers and people, and question people about the decisions that they took. He is looking into accusations of complicity in mistreatment, rendition or torture, and all those things, and if Ministers, whether in the last Government or not, have questions to answer, they will then need to answer those questions. That is the correct way for these things to be done.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

What does the Prime Minister believe to be the lessons from our intervention when it comes to any possible future interventions, given that the Arab League contains countries such as Syria and that we as a country refused to help the citizens of Yemen and Bahrain?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said in my statement, I do not subscribe to this idea that because we cannot fix every problem in the world, we should not fix any problem in the world. It seemed to me that, in a totally practical way, here was a problem that we had a moral obligation to try to deal with because we could prevent a massacre—as well as, if you like, an “ought”, there was also a “could”. We were able to do this because we had the support of Arab nations, because we had NATO behind us and because we convinced the UN Security Council to vote for it. When “ought” and “can” come together, there is a pretty good case for action.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Prime Minister has spoken of hope across the wider region following events in Libya. Will both the premium that he and other international leaders have put on inclusion and consensus in building constitutions and states, and the primacy of democratic elections also be reflected in their response to the current efforts of the Palestinian Authority in respect of statehood, given that this month is the target date when statehood was to be recognised at the UN?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, I see all these issues as being linked. Just as we want to see greater democracy, peace and progress in middle eastern countries across the board, so we want to see the Palestinians have the dignity of their own state. However, we believe in the two-state solution, so it must be a Palestine alongside a secure Israel. When it comes to the whole issue of recognition, the test for us is: are we doing something that will help to push forward the peace process? That is the most important thing. In the end, we cannot compel Israel and Palestine to reach peace between themselves; they have to want to do it.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

As the Prime Minister knows, I have called for several years for an inquiry into rendition, but I have to say that Sir Peter Gibson’s preparatory work is already a source of concern. Is the Prime Minister aware that he has already decided not to follow the same certification process that Lord Butler used in his inquiry to ensure that he got the right papers, that he has decided against appointing an independent investigator and that, contrary to the spirit of the reply that the Prime Minister gave me when setting up the Gibson inquiry, he will not be looking at detainee transfers in theatre? Will the Prime Minister look again at the protocol, to ensure that Sir Peter can do a proper job?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says, because he has been pursuing this issue with dogged determination over the years, and quite right too. What I would say though is that we are dealing with an inquiry that is almost entirely concerned with the security and intelligence services. This is an extremely difficult area to inquire into, and it has to be done with great sensitivity. I do not want to do anything that puts our country at risk or jeopardises the work of our security and intelligence services. I see this as a package: there was the clearing of the Guantanamo Bay detainee cases, which was vital so that the security services could get on with their work; there was the new guidance, so that our officers in the field knew what they should and should not do; and there is this inquiry to try to clear up the problems of the past. Yes, it is about uncovering any mistreatment or malpractice, which is not to be justified in any way, but it is also about enabling our security services to get on with the job of keeping us safe.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has rightly praised the professionalism, skills and ethos of the 2,300 service personnel. If Libya is to take over responsibility for its own security so that those service personnel can return to base and to other duties, will he ensure that, in financial terms, the training that we provide will help to build a new Libyan army, air force and navy that are competitive with those of other countries, so that we can pull our own service personnel back? If we can provide that training, we can build a new relationship between our armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Certainly we will make available our advice, services and help for the new Libya. As I have said, we must allow the Libyan people to choose what they want to do, rather than force things on them. I do not think we should have the attitude that because we have helped to liberate Libya we should therefore get some sort of automatic preferred status. We should do it on the basis of what we have to offer, and on the basis of all the normal rules and regulations that we bring to this.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister’s resolve on this issue. He is right to stress that it is for the Libyan people to determine their future, but the removal of Gaddafi unearths a complex network of tribal alliances, and we are not out of the woods yet. Does my right hon. Friend agree that stability over the next few months will be critical if we are to see a role reversal in which the rebels become the state and the pro-Gaddafi tribal forces become the insurgents?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the risks involved in moving from a situation in which Gaddafi is in command to one in which he is on the run and the NTC is taking over. There are all sorts of risks, and we should not be complacent or over-confident about what will follow. All I would say is that those who warned that Libya was a country riven with tribal loyalties, divided between Benghazi and Tripoli and prone to extreme Islam have so far not been proven correct. This revolution was not about extreme Islamism; al-Qaeda played no part in it. It was about people yearning for a voice and job, and it is our duty to get behind them and help them to build that new country.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

As the Prime Minister has suggested, some of the rebels have an al-Qaeda past. We all want good relations with the new Libya, but does he agree that it is important that the House has as much information as possible about the history of those who are now assuming positions of power, so that we know exactly who we are dealing with?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course that information is valuable and, as I have said, we should not be naive and think we are dealing with just one type of people; we are dealing with all sorts of different people. Encouraging people who have a strong belief in the Muslim faith into a democratic role, rather than a violent role, is the right approach. Obviously, there are concerns about where that can lead, but when we look at a country such as Turkey, whose Government have some pedigree out of Muslim politics, we see that that can be compatible with a very successful democracy.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The international community has come to the conclusion that the Assad regime in Syria has become an illegitimate regime, and Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan have withdrawn their ambassadors from Syria. How far away are we from reaching that conclusion?

[The Prime Minister]

I think we should act with others, and in a way that maximises our influence. What has happened among Arab countries, including their progressive recognition that Assad is illegitimate and cannot now take his country forward, is very important, but we still have not got to a position where there is unanimity about that across the Arab world, or indeed in the United Nations itself.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Although Libya is the second richest African nation in terms of gross domestic product per capita, it suffers from unemployment rates in excess of 30%. Will the Prime Minister tell us how the international community will be able to help the new Libyan Government to develop a more knowledge-based economy and to increase Libya’s share of trade with the European Union and its other major trading partners?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are trying to change the entire European neighbourhood policy to make it much more about market access and trade, and in some ways we have been successful. If those north African countries traded as much with each other and with the EU as European countries do, they would have far higher levels of GDP and much more balanced economies. The exciting thing about Libya is that, because of its oil wealth and its relative size, it can be an economic success story. For too many countries, oil has been a curse rather than a blessing, but Libya has this opportunity to make a new start and to put those oil revenues to good use.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has indicated that the British Government is planning to play a role in the vital training of the new military forces of the new Libyan Government. Will the resources allocated to this task be greater or less than those allocated by the previous Labour Government in the training of Colonel Gaddafi’s forces, which enabled him better to repress his own people?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an ingenious question. The point is that we should wait and see what it is the Libyans want us to do. We clearly have strong capabilities in the training of armed forces and police forces, in advising on having an independent judiciary and the like, and I believe we should make these available and see what the Libyans want. Training the police forces of other countries is a difficult issue. In getting into it, one is often accused of helping a regime that might not be perfect in every sense, but if we do not do it, we lose the opportunity to explain some of the finer points of independent policing and respect for human rights. This is a very difficult issue that we have not yet got right.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister rightly emphasised that President Assad of Syria has lost all legitimacy, that he should stand aside and that the violence must end. At the same time, the Prime Minister recognises that there is not yet the degree of international agreement necessary to give effect to those expressions of intent. Will he tell us more about what he and his Government are doing to try to build international agreement to the level where it becomes possible to force President Assad to pay attention to what the right hon. Gentleman described in respect of Libya as the moral imperative of stopping the slaughter of civilians?

[The Prime Minister]

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is a series of permanent conversations, particularly those that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is having. At the European level, there is a high degree of unity—in some ways, I think the EU has led the way, particularly with the oil embargo—but we also need to have, and are having, strong discussions with the permanent members of the Security Council. The right hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned Russia, which I shall be visiting soon. We also need discussions with the non-permanent members like South Africa and others, and more widely, including with the Arab League, so that we build international support. There is no substitute for a lot of hard work and diplomacy to try to build the strongest possible coalition.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s actions, saving many lives in Libya, have been totally vindicated. So that the national transitional council is not overwhelmed with offers of help, who will take the lead in reconstruction in Libya and precisely what role will this country play?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. The key is building up—and my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary has been key to this—a Libyan-led and Libyan-owned plan for transition. It is Libya’s plan—we have assisted and helped to co-ordinate, but it is the Libyans’ plan; others can then slot into it. It has been interesting to hear what they want—not always the things that one might expect. The biggest single demand made in Paris was for temporary classrooms, because so many schools had been used by Gaddafi’s forces, and for some temporary housing. We will fit into these requests, but it is a Libyan-led plan.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand that it is indeed early days for the new Libya, but will the Prime Minister say a little more about the discussions about unfreezing assets? While there is justifiably a need and an urgency to distribute these assets, there are also some concerns about whether they will go to the correct places and whether the concerns expressed around the Chamber will come to fruition, as they might be affected by these assets. Will the Prime Minister say a little more about the discussions so far?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. What we are doing at the moment is taking through parts of unfreezing assets on an ad hoc basis through the UN Security Council. We were able to unfreeze the Libyan dinars printed by De La Rue in this country, and we can now distribute them back to the Libyan people. As for making sure that they are properly received, as I said in my statement there should be a proper accounting and transparency initiative in Libya. As for a more general asset release, we need a new UN resolution, and we are pushing for it, but we do not want to lose what we have at the moment, which is a UN resolution that enables the NATO mission to go on protecting civilians. It is a balance: we want to get both those things so that the assets can be unfrozen more broadly.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

The last Government consistently told us that the whole reason for working more closely with Libya was the agreement reached in 2003 on weapons of mass destruction. Following the collapse of the Gaddafi regime, we now see that Gaddafi kept hardly any part of that agreement. He hoarded massive stocks of chemical weapons in order continually to brutalise and ignore human rights. Does the Prime Minister not think it rather odd that the last Government knew that all along, but for eight years continued to increase co-operation with the Libyans?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an important point. Hopefully, with a new Government in Libya, we shall be able to see how much of the agreement over weapons of mass destruction was kept. It is concerning that there are still large supplies of unweaponised mustard gas, on which the international community and, now, the NTC must keep a close eye, but, as I have said, when the new Government get their feet under the table, we may find out more.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Glapwell Contracting Services in my constituency was in the process of completing a contract with the Libyan oil industry when the uprising started. The failure of that contract to reach completion caused significant financial problems for the company, and it has taken me more than two months to get the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond to me. Can the Prime Minister tell me whether he will be able to secure any support for the British businesses that are in the middle of contracts with Libya, and what weight he will be able to put behind that?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I think it will help that not only do we now have a mission in Benghazi, but our ambassador will be becoming established in Tripoli. There will be full support for that, and companies such as the one that the hon. Gentleman represents in his constituency will be able to contact the embassy, which will be able to help with the contract.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister for his leadership throughout this episode, but may I press him on the issue of cost? What is the latest Treasury estimate of the cost of British intervention in Libya? Given that some $15 billion of assets are about to be unfrozen, given that Libya is an oil-rich nation, and given that the Arab League wanted us to become involved, surely it is not unreasonable to ask for at least a contribution to the cost that the British taxpayer incurred in freeing the country.

[The Prime Minister]

That is an entirely reasonable point. So far the cost of our contribution to operations has been £120 million. The cost of spent munitions is in excess of that figure—I think around £140 million. Clearly Britain has spent money to help the Libyan people to free themselves, and, as my hon. Friend says, Libya is a wealthy country. We have not had conversations about that to date, but I am sure that those are matters we can take into account for the future.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the leadership role played by him and his team, but does he agree that this is ultimately a Libyan and not a foreign triumph?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has made the important point that this would not have happened without the Libyan people. They took the initiative, although we were able to help them. I think it important to the future development of the country for young Libyans in the future to learn about the incredibly heroic things that their fathers and grandfathers did. This was something that the Libyans did for themselves rather than our doing it for them, and—in terms of their history, their pride, and what I hope they will build in their country—that will be fantastically important for the future.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

Bearing in mind the widespread media interest in the whereabouts of Musa Kusa, can the Prime Minister confirm that he is still in the United Kingdom? If Musa Kusa is not in the United Kingdom, what part did the Prime Minister play in letting him leave, and how can our intelligence services be expected to debrief him properly?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe that Musa Kusa is currently in Doha, where he has spent quite a lot of time, but I understand that he is co-operating fully with the police inquiry and has been questioned by the police. No special or sweetheart deals were done in respect of Musa Kusa, and, as I have said, I hope that the police investigation will continue.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The act of surrendering is probably the most dangerous thing that a combatant has to do. How can we encourage the forces of the NTC to act within the rules of war, and specifically within the Geneva convention? If they do, the remnants of Gaddafi’s forces will be encouraged to surrender more quickly, and there will be less loss of life.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of this matter, and he is right to make that point. I have been impressed by the fact that the Free Libya Forces have extended the deadline for Gaddafi forces to surrender. Of course, there have been reports of abuse on all sides, although the Gaddafi war crimes put everything else into perspective. On the whole, however, it has been remarkable how the Free Libya forces have tried to behave properly and to integrate people who want to give up and reconcile.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his work in going to the UN before any military action was taken in Libya? I reiterate to him that a constituent of mine fled Libya. They were full of nothing but praise. They were from Benghazi and, having been a British citizen originally, they were in fear of their life following the threats that Gaddafi made.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and the country that the Government’s policy will continue to be that no military action will take place anywhere in the world unless it is through the UN or NATO? Will he bear that in mind when recent reports from the US about the possible nuclear aspirations of Iran come into the debate?

[The Prime Minister]

I hear absolutely what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that I can entirely give that assurance. I think it is important that Britain is able to act in self-defence, and sometimes there is not time to go to the UN or NATO, so I do not believe in giving that sort of assurance. On this issue, however, I think it was right to go to the UN, right to act with allies and right to bring together Arab partners to work with us. At all times, one should try to build the broadest alliances.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has already recognised the game-changing role that the RAF and the Typhoon Eurofighter played. Will he join me in recognising the work played by civilians and non-uniform personnel in keeping that aircraft flying and in service at all times?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to do that. As I say, the Tornado performed magnificently in the skies above Libya, but the Typhoon did, too. That is a tribute to the pilots, the ground staff and ground crew, but also to all those involved in manufacturing and maintaining that aircraft. Touching the wood of the Dispatch Box, I think that those airplanes and their crews have performed very well.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

I too congratulate the Prime Minister on leading the international effort in Libya. May I say that it is rather refreshing finally to have a Prime Minister who leads from the front? Will he give us a few more details on the humanitarian aid that Britain and the international community are providing and are planning to provide, which will be incredibly important in the days, weeks and months ahead?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to do that. We have helped through the ICRC to provide medical assistance to 5,000 people. We have provided food for, I believe, around 700,000 people. We are working with others to provide water as well. On the humanitarian situation, we have always been ready to do more. The planning carried out by the Department for International Development has been first class. The needs have not always been as great as predicted, because the Libyans have themselves responded relatively rapidly to deal with shortages and problems.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

A lot of lessons have been learned, such as not helping the sons of dictators with their university coursework, but one of the key elements of the success has been the role of the Arab League, particularly the role played by nations such as Qatar with their special forces. Will the Prime Minister implore the Arab League to take strong action and to condemn what is happening in Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the Secretary General of the Arab League is going to Damascus. It has been a great moment for the Arab League. The role that the Emiratis, the Qataris and the Jordanians played made a lot of these things possible. We should also reassess how we work with those countries and what more we can do in training and working together, because that has been very successful on this occasion.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I join colleagues who have praised the military effort and the clarity of the Prime Minister’s purpose. He is of course right to say that this was a Libyan civil uprising and a Libyan triumph, but does he agree that one of the consequences of the international action in the civil uprising was that many more civilian lives were saved than might have otherwise been so? The fact that the international community was prepared to take a role shows other countries where there are aspirant democracies against dictators that we will play an appropriate role if required.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I hope that dictators throughout the world will have taken note of what has happened and recognise that the long arm of international law can have, as I put it earlier, a long reach and a long memory. I also pay tribute to our armed forces and all those responsible for targeting for the huge work that was done to try to avoid civilian casualties and to avoid damaging civilian infrastructure. One of the reasons that parts of Libya are getting back to work, I hope relatively quickly, is that a lot of the civilian infrastructure was left untouched.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I too congratulate the Prime Minister both on his role throughout this conflict and the cautious way forward he has charted. Does he agree that Israel falling out with its old ally Turkey shortly after the awful border problems with Egypt is not making life any easier for the moderate voices in the Arab League and those who want to move the region forward?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We need to encourage Israel to work with all its moderate friends and allies for a safe and secure future, and obviously that is more difficult when relations between Israel and Turkey are more challenged.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

It is refreshing to see a Prime Minister leading from the front, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) said, but I am very concerned about the Yvonne Fletcher investigation. Will the Prime Minister assure me that all avenues will be followed to bring the perpetrator of this crime to book?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is why I raised the case personally with Prime Minister Jibril at the Paris conference. I would just say that I think it is important that we allow this new Government to get their feet under the table in Tripoli before pressing the case a huge amount further. This is a police investigation too, and I would urge the Metropolitan police to do what they can to push the investigation forward and work with the new Libyan authorities.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, and as we have heard this afternoon, a number of businesses, including some in my constituency, have been seriously adversely affected by the conflict in Libya, leaving them with large unpaid bills. Will he agree to do all he can, through whatever reasonable channels there are, to put pressure on the NTC to pay those bills as soon as possible, to protect British jobs and companies—and perhaps also work in future with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to put in place a system that protects companies that do business in some of these more volatile countries?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, the Government cannot stand behind every contract that every individual firm enters into anywhere in the world, but I completely understand why my hon. Friend feels strongly on behalf of his constituents, and that is why we have embassies around the world, and why we will now have a new ambassador in Tripoli, Dominic Asquith, and a new team around him that will be able to make progress on all such issues that hon. Members raise.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I agree with the Prime Minister that we should not rush to judgment on some of these issues, but does he agree that it is at least questionable for the last Government to have sent UK police officers to Libya to train Gaddafi’s forces when those responsible for WPC Fletcher’s murder were still at large?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Let me say again that I think it was right to re-form a relationship with Libya when it gave up weapons of mass destruction, but we had to do that in the right way, and I do not believe we made enough progress on issues such as the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, and I also do not think that the al-Megrahi case was handled in the right way.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Five years ago, the then Government invited two of Gaddafi’s sons to visit SAS headquarters, which I think was quite appalling. What lessons can we learn about the appeasing of abusive dictatorships?

[The Prime Minister]

I have a feeling that if they invited him again, they might treat him rather differently this time. As I have said: it is right to have a new relationship but wrong to be quite so gullible in how that was carried out—and, for all the reasons that have been given, I also think that helping to complete PhD theses is probably not a role Ministers should enter into in respect of other countries.

Public Disorder

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement. First, let me thank you, Mr Speaker and right hon. and hon. Members for returning. When there are important events in our country, it is right that Parliament is recalled and that we show a united front. I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for the constructive approach he has taken over the past few days. I have tried to speak with many of the Members whose constituencies have been affected, and I would like to pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his powerful words and actions over recent days.

What we have seen on the streets of London and in other cities across our country is completely unacceptable, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning it. Keeping people safe is the first duty of Government. The whole country has been shocked by the most appalling scenes of people looting, violence, vandalising and thieving. It is criminality, pure and simple—and there is absolutely no excuse for it. We have seen houses, offices and shops raided and torched, police officers assaulted and fire crews attacked as they try to put out fires. We have seen people robbing others while they lie injured and bleeding in the street, and even three innocent people deliberately run over and killed in Birmingham. We will not put up with this in our country. We will not allow a culture of fear to exist on our streets, and we will do whatever it takes to restore law and order and to rebuild our communities.

First, we must be clear about the sequence of events. A week ago today, a 29-year-old man named Mark Duggan was shot dead by the police in Tottenham. Clearly, there are questions that must be answered, and I can assure the House that this is being investigated thoroughly and independently by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. We must get to the bottom of exactly what happened, and we will.

Initially, there were some peaceful demonstrations following Mark Duggan’s death and understandably and quite appropriately the police were cautious about how they dealt with them. However, this was then used as an excuse by opportunist thugs in gangs, first in Tottenham itself, then across London and in other cities. It is completely wrong to say there is any justifiable causal link. It is simply preposterous for anyone to suggest that people looting in Tottenham at the weekend, still less three days later in Salford, were in any way doing so because of the death of Mark Duggan. Young people stealing flat-screen televisions and burning shops—that was not about politics or protest, it was about theft.

In recent days, individual police officers have shown incredible bravery and have worked in some cases around the clock without a break, and they deserve our support and our thanks. But what became increasingly clear earlier this week was that there were simply far too few police deployed on to our streets, and the tactics that they were using were not working. Police chiefs have been frank with me about why this happened. Initially, the police treated the situation too much as a public order issue, rather than essentially one of crime. The truth is that the police have been facing a new and unique challenge, with different people doing the same thing—basically, looting—in different places but all at the same time. To respond to this situation, we are acting decisively to restore order on our streets, to support the victims of this terrible violence and to look at the deeper problems that led such a hard core of young people to decide to carry out such appalling criminality. Let me take each in turn.

First, restoring order. Following the meetings of Cobra that I chaired on Tuesday and Wednesday, and again this morning, we have taken decisive action to help ensure more robust and more effective policing. As a result of decisions made by Metropolitan police Commissioner Tim Godwin and other police chiefs up and down the country, there are now more police on the streets, more people being arrested, and more criminals being prosecuted. The Metropolitan police increased the number deployed on the streets of London from 6,000 to almost 16,000 officers, and this number will remain throughout the weekend. We have also seen large increases in deployments of officers in other affected areas. Leave in affected forces has been cancelled, and police officers have been bussed from forces across the country to areas of greatest need. Many businesses have quite rightly released special constables to help, and they performed magnificently as well.

More than 1,200 people have now been arrested across the country. We are making technology work for us, by capturing the images of the perpetrators on CCTV, so even if they have not yet been arrested their faces are known and they will not escape the law. As I said yesterday, no phoney human rights concerns about publishing the photographs will get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice. Anyone charged with violent disorder and other serious offences should expect to be remanded in custody, not let back on the streets; and anyone convicted should expect to go to jail.

Courts in London, Manchester and the west midlands have been sitting through the night, and will do so for as long as is necessary. Magistrates courts have proved effective in ensuring swift justice. The Crown courts are now starting to deal with the most serious cases. We are keeping under constant review whether the courts have the sentencing powers they need, and we will act if necessary.

As a result of the robust and uncompromising measures that have been taken, good progress is being made in restoring order to the streets of London and other cities around our country. As I have made clear, nothing should be off the table. Every contingency should be looked at. The police are already authorised to use baton rounds. As I said yesterday, while they would not be appropriate now, we do have in place contingency plans for water cannon to be available at 24 hours’ notice.

Some people have raised the issue of the Army. The acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan police said to me that he would be the last man left in Scotland Yard with all his management team out on the streets before he asked for Army support. That is the right attitude and one I share, but it is the Government’s responsibility to make sure that every future contingency is looked at, including whether there are tasks that the Army could undertake that might free up more police for the front line.

Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill, so we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.

I have also asked the police whether they need any other new powers. Specifically on facemasks, currently they can only ask for them to be removed in a specific geographical location and for a limited time. I can announce today that we are going to give the police the discretion to require the removal of face coverings under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity. On dealing with crowds, we are also looking at the use of existing dispersal powers and whether any wider power of curfew is necessary.

Whenever the police face a new threat, they must have the freedom and the confidence to change tactics as necessary. This Government will always make sure they have the backing and political support to do so. The fight back has well and truly begun, but there will be no complacency. We will not stop until this mindless violence and thuggery is defeated and law and order is fully restored on all our streets.

Let me turn to the innocent victims. No one will forget the images of the woman jumping from a burning building, or of the furniture shop that had survived the blitz but has now tragically been burnt to the ground; and everyone will have been impressed by the incredibly brave words of Tariq Jahan, a father in Birmingham whose son was so brutally and tragically run over and killed. Shops, businesses and homes—too many have been vandalised or destroyed and I give the people affected this promise: we will help you repair the damage, get your businesses back up and running and support your communities.

Let me take each in turn. On repairing the damage, I confirm that any individual, home owner or business that has suffered damage to or loss of their buildings or property as a result of rioting can seek compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, even if uninsured. The Government will ensure the police have the funds they need to meet the cost of any legitimate claims, and whereas normally claims must be received within 14 days, we will extend the period to 42 days. The Association of British Insurers has said it expects the industry to pay out in excess of £200 million, and has assured us that claims will be dealt with as quickly and constructively as possible.

On supporting business, we are today setting up a new £20 million high street support scheme to help affected businesses get back up and running quickly. To minimise the costs facing businesses, the Government will enable local authorities to grant business rate relief, by funding at least three quarters of their costs. We will defer tax payments for businesses in greatest need, through Time to Pay and other practical support. And for houses and businesses that have been the most badly damaged, we have instructed the valuation office immediately to stop liability for council tax and business rates.

A specific point was raised with me in Wolverhampton yesterday—that planning regulations make it difficult for shops to put up protective shutters. We will weed out unnecessary planning regulations to ensure that businesses can get back on their feet and feel secure as quickly as possible.

On supporting local communities, I can confirm that the Bellwin scheme to support local authorities will be operational. However, to ensure that urgent funding is immediately available, we are today establishing a new £10 million recovery scheme to provide additional support to councils in making areas safe, clean and clear again. The Government will also meet the immediate costs of emergency accommodation for families made homeless by the disturbances. The Secretaries of States for Communities and Local Government and for Business, Innovation and Skills have made available to the House details of all those schemes today. Of course, the situation continues to evolve, and we will keep any additional support under close review.

Finally, let me turn to the deeper problem. Responsibility for crime always lies with the criminal. These people were all volunteers; they did not have to do what they did, and they must suffer the consequences. But crime has a context, and we must not shy away from it. I have said before that there is a major problem in our society with children growing up not knowing the difference between right and wrong. This is not about poverty; it is about culture—a culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities.

In too many cases, the parents of these children—if they are still around—do not care where their children are or who they are with, let alone what they are doing. The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without enough action being taken. As I said yesterday, there is no one step that can be taken, but we need a benefit system that rewards work and is on the side of families. We need more discipline in our schools; we need action to deal with the most disruptive families; and we need a criminal justice system that scores a clear, heavy line between right and wrong—in short, all the action that is necessary to help mend our broken society.

At the heart of all the violence sits the issue of the street gangs. Territorial, hierarchical and incredibly violent, they are mostly composed of young boys, mainly from dysfunctional homes. They earn money through crime, particularly drugs, and are bound together by an imposed loyalty to an authoritarian gang leader. They have blighted life on their estates, with gang-on-gang murders and unprovoked attacks on innocent bystanders.

In the past few days, there is some evidence that they have been behind the co-ordination of the attacks on the police and the looting that has followed. I want us to use the record of success against gangs from cities such as Boston in the USA and, indeed, from Strathclyde in Scotland who have engaged the police, the voluntary sector and local government. I want this to be a national priority.

We have already introduced gang injunctions, and I can announce today that we will use them across the whole country for children and for adults. There are also further sanctions available beyond the criminal justice system. Local authorities and landlords already have tough powers to evict the perpetrators from social housing. Some local authorities are already doing this. I want to see others follow their lead, and we will consider whether these powers need to be strengthened further.

I have asked the Home Secretary to work with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and other Cabinet colleagues on a cross-government programme of action to deal with this gang culture and to report to Parliament in October.

I believe that we should be looking beyond our shores to learn the lessons from others who have faced similar problems. That is why I will be discussing how we can go further in getting to grips with gangs with people such as Bill Bratton, former commissioner of police in New York and Los Angeles. Of course, the problem is not just gangs; there were people who saw shop windows smashed and who thought that it would be okay just to go in and steal. It is not okay, and these people, too, will have to face the full consequences of their actions.

In the past few days, we have seen a range of emotions sweep this country: anger, fear, frustration, despair, sadness and, finally, a determined resolve that we will not let a violent few beat us. We saw that resolve in the people who gathered in Clapham, Manchester and Wolverhampton with brooms to clean up our streets. We saw it in those who patrolled the roads in Enfield through the night to deter rioters. We saw it in the hundreds of people who stood guard outside the Southall temple, protecting it from vandalism. This is a time for our country to pull together.

To the law-abiding people who play by the rules and who are the overwhelming majority in this country, I say: “the fight back has begun. We will protect you. If you have had your livelihood and property damaged, we will compensate you. We are on your side. To the lawless minority, the criminals who have taken what they can get, I say: we will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done.

We need to show the world, which has looked on, frankly, appalled, that the perpetrators of the violence we have seen on our streets are not in any way representative of our country, or of our young people. We need to show them that we will address our broken society and restore a sense of stronger morality and responsibility in every town, in every street and in every estate. A year away from the Olympics, we need to show the world the Britain that does not destroy, but that builds; that does not give up, but stands up; that does not look back, but always looks forward. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his decision to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament be recalled. Whatever we disagree on week by week, month by month, today as a House of Commons we stand shoulder to shoulder, united against the vandalism and violence we have seen on our streets. The victims are the innocent people who live in many of our cities, who have seen their homes and businesses destroyed, their communities damaged and their confidence about their own safety undermined. There can be no excuses, no justification. This behaviour has disgusted us all. It cannot be allowed to stand; we will not allow it to stand.

I join the Prime Minister in mourning the loss of life, including those killed in London and Birmingham. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have died—with people such as Tariq Jahan. We stand with him because he is the true face of Britain—the Britain of which we are all proud.

I also thank our brave policemen and women throughout this country for the work they have been doing on our behalf, and all our emergency services. We salute them for their courage, their dedication and their willingness—yet again—to put themselves in harm’s way for all of us and all our communities. Thanks to them, a degree of order has been re-established on our streets, but all of us in all parts of the House know what the public want and what they are entitled to: a return to normality, as well as order.

Normality does not mean shops having to shut at 3 pm because they fear looting. Normality does not mean rushing home because you are scared to be on the streets. Normality does not mean being fearful in your own home. People want to have back the most fundamental of all liberties: the ability to go about their business and lead their lives with security and without fear. They have a right to expect that and we have a responsibility to make it happen. To do that, Parliament needs to do its job. We need to unite against the violence and to be the place where we examine and debate frankly all the issues involved—how we have got here, what it says about Britain and what the response should be.

On policing, I agree with the Prime Minister that this is a job for the police, but will he say what functions he thinks the Army might be able to perform to relieve pressure on the police? Will he confirm that the significant additional operational costs that the police now face will be funded from the Treasury reserve and so not place extra pressure on already stretched budgets? Will he also confirm that the increased presence on our streets, which he said would remain in place to the weekend, will remain beyond the weekend, until the police can be confident that the trouble will not recur?

The events of the past few days have been a stark reminder to us all that police on our streets make our communities safer and make the public feel safer. Given the absolute priority the public attach to a visible and active police presence, does the Prime Minister understand why they will think it is not right if he goes ahead with the cuts to police numbers he has planned? Will he now think again about that policy?

On criminal justice, the public are clear about wanting swift, effective and tough action to send a message about the penalties and punishment that follow from the violence that has occurred. We must see swift progress from charge to trial in these cases. Can the Prime Minister confirm that there is the capacity in the courts and among our prosecutors to deal with cases swiftly, not just for first appearance, but throughout the trial process, including when people get to trial? It is right that the Crown Prosecution Service is taking into account the aggravating circumstances within which the horrendous criminal acts that we have seen took place in recent days. Does the Prime Minister agree that magistrates and judges need to have those circumstances at the front of their mind so that those found guilty of such disgraceful behaviour receive the tough sentences that they deserve and the public expect? As the Prime Minister said, we have also been reminded about the importance of CCTV in catching those responsible, so will he undertake to look again at his proposals on CCTV to be absolutely sure that they in no way hinder bringing criminals to justice?

Thirdly, we need all our cities back on their feet and operating as normal. That work began—I pay tribute to the heroism of the thousands of volunteers who reclaimed our streets and showed the true spirit of those cities and our country. I welcome what the Prime Minister said and all the different elements of help that he announced. Can he reassure us that the help that is provided will meet the need, and that there will not be an arbitrary cap on the amount that he announced if it turns out that further resources are required? Can he assure us that these funds will flow straight away so that people can get on with rebuilding their lives and communities?

Fourthly, on the deeper lessons that we need to learn, the Prime Minister said in 2006:

“Understanding the background, the reasons, the causes. It doesn’t mean excusing crime but it will help us tackle it.”

To seek to explain is not to seek to excuse. Of course these are acts of individual criminality, but we all have a duty to ask ourselves why there are people who feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from wanton vandalism and looting. We cannot afford to let this pass and calm the situation down, only to find ourselves in the same position again in the future.

These issues cannot be laid at the door of a single cause or a single Government. The causes are complex. Simplistic solutions will not provide the answer. We can tackle the solutions only by hearing from our communities. What the decent people I met on the streets of London and Manchester told me and will tell the Prime Minister is that they want their voice to be heard. They want us to go out and listen to them in thinking about the solutions that are necessary. Before any of us say we know all the answers or have simple solutions, we should all do so.

Will the Prime Minister explain how those in areas affected will have their voice heard as the Government seek to find solutions to the issues that we have seen? Does the Prime Minister agree that there must be a full independent commission of inquiry swiftly looking at what has happened in recent days and what lessons we need to learn—not an inquiry sitting in Whitehall hearing evidence from academic experts, but reaching out and listening to those affected, the decent law-abiding majority affected by these terrible events? They deserve and need to be heard.

We need to look at and act on all the issues that matter—the responsibility we need from top to bottom in our society, including parental responsibility; and an end to a take-what-you-can culture that needs to change from the benefits office to the board room. The Prime Minister is right. We need a sustained effort to tackle the gangs in our cities—something we knew about before these riots. In the consideration that the Prime Minister gives to how we tackle gang culture, will he look urgently at the Youth Justice Board report published last June, which had a series of recommendations about what the Government should be doing to tackle gang culture?

Of course, as we look at the solutions we need, questions of hope and aspiration are relevant—the provision of opportunities to get on in life that do not involve illegality and wrongdoing. When we talk about responsibility, we must not forget ours, not to the tiny minority who did the violence, but to the vast majority of law-abiding young people. They are a generation—this is not about any one Government—worried about their prospects and we cannot afford to fail them. We cannot afford to have the next generation believe that they are going to do worse than the last. They should be able to do better. That is the promise of Britain that they have a right to expect.

In conclusion, successful societies are built on an ethic of hard work, compassion, solidarity and looking after each other. Ours must be one society. We all bear a share of responsibility for what happens within it. It is right that we came back to debate these issues. It is right that public order must be paramount, but it is also imperative that even after order and normality are restored we do not ignore the lessons that we must learn. We cannot afford to move on and forget. To all the people who have been in fear this week, to those who have lost loved ones, homes and businesses, we owe a duty to ensure that there is no repeat of what we have seen. That is our responsibility to the victims and to the country, and the Opposition will play our part in making it happen.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said today, but also for what he has said in recent days, and, if I may say so, the way in which he has said it. He made a number of points.

First, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise the emergency services and the work they have done. It is particularly remarkable that in spite of the fact that fires have been started in many cities across our country, there have been no casualties from those fires. That speaks volumes about the professionalism and brilliance of our firefighters nationwide.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that it is important that as soon as possible we get our high streets, cities and towns back to a real sense of normality. That has to start with the increased police presence so that people feel the confidence to go out and enjoy their towns and cities, and I believe that that will happen, so that our cities become the great and bustling places that we want them to be.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the police, the courts, communities and the deeper lessons, so let me just say a word about each. I chose my words on the Army carefully. None of us wants to see a break away from the great British model of policing where the public are the police and the police are the public, but Governments have a responsibility to try to look ahead at contingencies and potential problems, and to start asking about potential problems and difficulties in advance. That is exactly what Cobra has done—for instance, by simply asking whether there are tasks, such as some simple guarding tasks, that could be done that would free up police for more front-line duties. This is not for today, or even for tomorrow; it is just so that there are contingency plans should they become necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about operational costs. Of course, the Treasury reserve is being used. He asked about policing numbers beyond the weekend. Deployment must be an issue and a matter for police chiefs. They will want to assess the intelligence and the situation before making those decisions, but they should feel free to deploy as many police as they need for as long as they need. What matters most of all, more than anything else, is restoring order on our streets.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of police budgets, and I am sure that this will be debated. Let me just make a couple of points. Over the next four years, we are looking for cash reductions in policing budgets—once we take into account the fact that there is a precept that helps fund the police—of 6%. I believe that is totally achievable without any reductions in visible policing, and a growing number of police chiefs are making that point.

Let me make two additional points on that. Today we still have 7,000 trained police officers in back-office jobs. Part of our programme of police reform is about freeing up police for front-line duties, and that is why I can make this very clear pledge to the House: at the end of this process of making sure our police budgets are affordable, we will still be able to surge as many police on to the streets as we have in recent days in London, in Wolverhampton, in Manchester. It is important that people understand that.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the courts system and whether we can surge capacity in our magistrates and Crown courts. Yes, that is exactly what Cobra has been asking for in recent days. On sentencing, I chose my words carefully. Of course, it is for courts to sentence, but the Sentencing Council says that those people found guilty of violence on our streets should expect to have a custodial sentence.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about CCTV. We fully support CCTV. We want to regulate it to make sure that it is used properly, but it has been immensely valuable, as I have seen for myself in police control rooms up and down the country.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be any cap on the money that is available for communities. Of course, the Riot (Damages) Act has no cap at all, and because we are allowing the 42-day period people will be able to apply to the police and the Government will stand behind the police.

When it comes to the deeper lessons, the right hon. Gentleman is right. He quoted a speech that I made when I said that explaining does not mean excusing, and he is right to say that the causes are complex. I hope that the debates we will have on the causes will not immediately fall into a tiresome discussion about resources. When there are deep moral failures, we should not hit them with a wall of money. I think that it is right that the absolutely key word that he used, and which I used, was responsibility. People must be responsible for their actions. We are all responsible for what we do.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked how we will listen to communities and what sort of inquiry is necessary. As I found when talking with many Members on both sides of the House, who are deeply in touch with their communities, their police forces and police chiefs, one of the first things we can do in this House is properly bring to bear all the information we are hearing from our communities, and I understand that the Home Affairs Select Committee is going to hold an inquiry. I think that we should ask a parliamentary inquiry to do this work first. I thank him for the general tone of what he said and hope that we can keep up this cross-party working as we deal with this very difficult problem.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Why have our police been dispersing these hoods so that they can riot in other vicinities, instead of rounding them up? Does the Prime Minister remember that in 1971, at the peak of the opposition to the Vietnam war in the United States, the US Government brought 16,000 troops into Washington, in addition to the police, who rounded up and arrested the rioters and put 40,000 of them in the DC stadium in one morning? Has he any plans to make Wembley stadium available for similar use?

[The Prime Minister]

I want the Wembley stadium to be available for great sporting events, and I think that it is important that as we get back to a sense of normality those sporting events go ahead. My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and to be fair to the police—we should all think carefully before starting to criticise police tactics when they are the ones on the front line—they now say that to begin with they spent too much time concentrating on the public order aspects and not enough time concentrating on the criminality aspects. It has been the greater police presence on the streets and the greater number of arrests that has helped to bring this situation under control. One police chief told me yesterday that it is time to tear up some of the manual on public order and restart it. He said, “We have done this many times in the police and we will do it again and get it right.” It is in that spirit that we should praise British policing.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I welcome what the Prime Minister has said about the death of Mark Duggan and about compensation for victims. In Tottenham, 45 people have lost their homes, which were burnt to the ground. They were running out of their homes carrying their children in their arms, and their cry is, “Where were the police?” We can have this debate today, but it is no replacement for hearing from the people themselves. Will the Prime Minister come to Tottenham and speak with those victims and the independent shopkeepers, hairdressers and jewellers whose businesses are lying in cinders? Will he also commit to a public inquiry to consider why initial skirmishes were allowed to lead to a situation in which the great Roman road, Tottenham high road, now lies in cinders?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly take up the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation to go to Tottenham and hear about that for myself. When I visited Croydon, I found real anger on the streets about what happened and how it could be allowed to happen. There was a lot of questioning about police tactics and the police presence. As I said in my statement, to be fair to the police, I think that to begin with, because of the situation with Mark Duggan, they were hanging back for a very good reason, but they clearly understand and accept that that went on for too long and that their presence needed to be greater, more robust and needed to protect people’s homes and shops. We will now do everything we possibly can to get those people re-housed quickly and ensure that that money is available, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has been in touch with almost all the local government leaders affected and we will keep that up. In terms of what inquiries are necessary, I think that we should start with the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry. We should let it do its work and take it from there.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Will the Prime Minister encourage media organisations to release immediately all unseen footage of criminal behaviour in order to assist the police in bringing criminals to justice?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly do that, and I was impressed, in the control room of the West Midlands police and emergency services yesterday, by how amateur photographers have been sending in footage to help the police to arrest those who are guilty. As has been said today, everyone has a responsibility. Media organisations, too, have a responsibility, and I hope that they will act on it.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

No one disputes for a second the Prime Minister’s determination to meet what he describes as the first duty of Government to keep the streets safe, but does he not understand that his repetition of what amount to Treasury lines about police numbers and police budgets, and about prison numbers, sounds very complacent? I beg of him to recognise not only the reality that those cuts will lead to fewer police on the streets, but that he must reverse the softer sentencing plans of his Justice Secretary and stop the ludicrous plan that the Justice Secretary has to close prisons when there is patently now an urgent need for more prison places.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about police numbers, and indeed neither do many chief constables. The chief constable of Thames Valley police said that

“what I haven’t done at all is reduce the number of officers who do the patrol functions, so the officers you see in vehicles, on foot, in uniform, on bicycles. We haven’t cut those numbers at all.”

Let me make this additional point to the right hon. Gentleman. One thing the past three days have demonstrated is that the Met, where we have 32,000 officers, actually could take the action to surge from 3,000 on the streets to 16,000 on the streets. I think that is a demonstration of using what you have to maximum effect.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Metropolitan police officers have shown great courage and a high degree of determination over the past few days, but does the Prime Minister share my concern about reports that police officers on several occasions were instructed to stand and observe the rioting and looting? Does he agree that that cannot be acceptable behaviour, and that, if perhaps for understandable reasons because of the controversies after the G20 summit the police are concerned that they might be criticised for over-reacting, there is an urgent need for fresh guidelines so that there is no ambiguity and that it is the police, and not looters and rioters, who will control our streets?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, and obviously we will look again at the guidance. Let me be clear: there was no instruction to police officers to stand back, but as I have said, and I think police chiefs have been very frank about this, the balance between what is right for public order and what is right for stopping criminality—looting and thieving—was not got right to start with. They admit that, they accept that, but they were—to be fair to the police, who do a very difficult job on behalf of us all—facing a new set of circumstances. Yes, they have had riots before; yes, they have had looting before; and, yes, there has been violence and vandalism; but we have not in our country before had the same thing happening in different places with different people all doing it at the same time. That was a challenge for the police—a challenge that I believe they are now meeting excellently—but they did not get everything right to start with and they are the first to admit that.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his telephone call yesterday. What happened in Salford on Tuesday night was not about protest; it was about deliberate, organised, violent criminality. Will he give his full backing to the police to intervene in such circumstances? Some officers, who did not have riot gear and were not trained, had instructions to stand by and watch what happened. The effect on public confidence is devastating, so will he ensure that the police have the backing and confidence to review the guidance so that we never again see the police fall back in the face of a violent mob, as we saw on our streets?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady speaks with all the authority of a former policing Minister who knows this issue well and, I know, discussed it with the chief constable of Greater Manchester. Clearly, what happened in Salford was unacceptable, and tragically it reversed very many good years of excellent work, breaking up gangs and taking on organised criminals, and I suspect that what happened is that those gangs and criminals saw it as an opportunity to reassert themselves. All those lessons must be learned, and I know that the Greater Manchester police chief, to whom I too have spoken, wants to learn those lessons. It is not right ever to cede control of our streets to hooligans, which is what happened briefly in Salford, but we have to rest with the operational judgment of police chiefs when they are on the streets, and the time to learn the lessons is now.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister for his decision to take action on gangs, but I want to raise another issue with him. He rightly told the House that the whole country was moved by the dignified words of the father of Haroon Jahan yesterday, who made those comments against the background of some ethnic tension and managed to calm the situation. There is at least a risk that evil-minded people will try to use these conflicts to raise ethic tensions and conflicts further. Will the Government take action with the leaders of communities to ensure that that is prevented?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government will certainly do that. I was in Birmingham yesterday and joined a meeting of community leaders from all religions, all creeds and all races, who came together to make sure that the communities did not respond inappropriately to the dreadful events that had happened. I pay tribute to the chief constable of West Midlands police, the leader of Birmingham city council and all the people who went out from that meeting and spoke to their communities to appeal for calm. The scenes that we all saw on our television screens last night of communities coming together in Birmingham to try to stop the violence was a model of how these things should be done.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Bearing in mind what the Prime Minister has just said, what justification can there be in the west midlands for very experienced police officers who have served for 30 years or more being forced to retire against their wishes because of the cuts? Where there is no adequate police presence, as has unfortunately been the case once or twice in the past few days, does not the mob take over?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. When I was in Wolverhampton yesterday, I heard that the number of police officers was roughly doubling overnight compared with the previous night. I suspect that the same was happening in Walsall, West Bromwich and other parts of the west midlands. One lesson we must learn is that we need the ability to surge the number of police in our communities very rapidly when such problems arise. Let me say again that the police do a difficult and dangerous job on our behalf. They learn from experience. The police in our country are hugely experienced in dealing with difficult situations. They do not always get it right. We must praise them when they do get it right. Here, we must say that some of the tactics need to change, but we should not substitute our own judgment for theirs—that would not be a sensible approach.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

My constituents and I witnessed shocking events in Enfield on Sunday and Monday. What was particularly shocking was the age of a number of the culprits. Will the Prime Minister ask the police authorities to work with the education authorities to identify the many secondary school children who were out committing crimes?

[The Prime Minister]

That is certainly a sensible suggestion. Over and above that, we must recognise that the responsibility for the fact that some of these children—I use the word “children” advisedly—are out on the streets rests with their parents. We need parents to take more responsibility for their children, teach them the difference between right and wrong, and point out that this sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is undeniable that these criminals who looted, stole, rioted and caused intolerable damage to their victims must be dealt with by the police and the justice system. I ask the Prime Minister, do we regard these people, however abject their acts, as irreclaimable to society, at great cost to the police, the justice system and the prison system, or will we have positive policies to try, if at all possible, to reclaim them for society?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must never write people off, however bad they are. We must try to build a stronger society in which we can turn people’s lives around. One of the lessons from this is that too many people have been left for too long and we need much earlier intervention. This is something that Members from all parts of the House have spoken about. When we see children going wrong, we must intervene earlier rather than leaving them to fall out of school and lapse into a life of criminality.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

If these riots had broken out in any city or town in Australia or America, the police would have had at their instant disposal water cannon, plastic bullets and tear gas. Across the UK, British people watched on television while police were instructed to stand back when shops were looted, homes were torched and cars were set on fire. Does the Prime Minister really believe that 24 hours’ notice of the use of water cannon is good enough? Is it not the case that this is not about police numbers, but about police being given the tools to do the job?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me say to my hon. Friend that the police have access to baton rounds and they can make the decision to use them—in London, they came quite close to making that decision. That must be an operational decision for the police. The very strong advice from the police is that because, on the whole, they were not dealing with very large crowds, but with very mobile crowds who were intent on criminal behaviour, water cannon would not have been appropriate. That is the police view. The point that I have made is that we should be ready for every possible contingency in future, so we should know how we would answer future questions. That is why water cannon are now available at 24 hours’ notice.

However, I do not agree with my hon. Friend in that I think that the greatest possible deterrent to the lawlessness that we saw is for people to know that, if they do that looting and violence, they will be pulled out of the crowd, arrested immediately and be in front of a court that night. That is the answer. The key to that is more police on the streets so that they are able to be more robust in their interventions.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome all the steps that the Prime Minister has taken since the start of the disorders and join him and others in condemning the criminality and praising the police. Like him, I was out on the streets of London yesterday, and the key issue was police visibility. Is the Prime Minister saying that, if a police force has to dip into contingencies to pay for what has happened in the past few days, the Government will reimburse all the money?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the work that I know his Committee will do in the coming weeks. The Treasury is standing ready to assist police forces. Clearly, the bill for the Metropolitan police force for the past few days will be large and, if they continue to deploy in those numbers, it will get larger and the Treasury will stand behind that.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Those of us in the communities affected give our thanks to the police and the emergency services, but are conscious that if the best deterrent is being caught, the police have a minority of officers trained and able to use riot headgear and equipment. Will the Prime Minister, with the Home Secretary, consider reversing that so that there is a presumption that most police officers are in that position, and can act and intervene? Will he ensure that the full force of the law does not descend only on the hardened 50 per community—the serial criminals—but on the adults with children who were also going into the shops and nicking stuff, and not just the children for whom they are meant to set an example?

[The Prime Minister]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, of course there will be a proper review of the right balance between riot police and normal borough policing so that we meet such emergencies better in future. Of course that will happen.

In terms of prosecuting the guilty, the police should go after everybody. They have the CCTV images, and people all over the country are ringing up and explaining that their neighbour has just acquired a new 42-inch plasma screen. I encourage even more people to do that for as many people as possible to be nicked.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The people of Liverpool are united in their absolute condemnation of the criminal acts that wreaked so much havoc and caused so much fear in parts of Liverpool in the past few days. What specific arrangements has the Prime Minister made to enable the city and others that have suffered similarly to be assisted in a swift recovery?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for speaking on behalf of Liverpool, which also suffered from the violent disorder. Liverpool will be able to apply, through not only the existing Bellwin scheme but the new special scheme which does not have a threshold that needs to be crossed to claim payments. Also, the Riot (Damages) Act is effectively unlimited in the claims that can be made and, as I have said, the Home Office will stand behind police forces. There is therefore a series of measures and there will be written statements in the House today, so the hon. Lady can see full details and share them with her council leader.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I know that the Prime Minister will agree that we in Britain still have the best police force in the world. However, does he also agree that it is time that the police were refocused on being crime fighters instead of social workers?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the police have the clearest possible message that we want them to be a police force. We want them to be focused on crime; we do not want them fighting paper behind their desks. They have had a very clear message from the whole country this week that people want visible policing, but they want very robust policing too.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will be as pleased as I am that there has been no rioting or looting in South Shields. He has rightly praised the independence and professionalism of the chief constables. Why, therefore, does he want to get rid of them all and make them stand for election?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not proposing to make chief constables stand for election; what we are proposing is to have police commissioners stand for election, replacing police authorities. The point that I would make is this: yes, we have independent police chief constables and, yes, they have to be responsible for their judgments, but in recent days the argument that it is important that they are accountable politically—and there is a discussion that can take place between politicians and police chiefs—is a thoroughly good one.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Ealing town centre was badly smashed up on Monday night. A man is critically ill in hospital, having been attacked by a yob when he tried to put out a fire in a litter bin. People are pretty devastated. Morale was slightly lifted when we heard the Prime Minister say that those big enough to take part in the protest are big enough to take the consequences. Can he assure my constituents that those who are found guilty of being caught up in this mayhem will feel the full force of the law, including prison sentences?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I thank her for the briefing that she gave me on what had been happening in Ealing, particularly on Monday night. I can give her that assurance: sentencing must be a matter for the courts, but the Sentencing Council is clear that people taking part in violent disorder should expect to go to prison.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I invite the Prime Minister to join me and the people of Walthamstow in putting on record our gratitude not only to the police, who have worked so hard to restore calm to our streets, but to the outreach and community workers, who have been out every night talking to people to reduce the tension and restore order on our streets in partnership with the police? May I invite him to meet those people, so that he can understand that talking about resourcing that work is not a tiresome debate? Rather, we must learn from their experience in restoring order, not just over the next few days but on every day in our communities across the country.

[The Prime Minister]

I am certainly happy to meet the hon. Lady. The point she makes—that reclaiming the streets is an issue not just for the police but for everybody—is absolutely right, and we have seen fantastic examples of that right across our country. The point that I was trying to make about resources is that of course resources will be debated in the debate that follows, but I hope that we can also have a debate about some of the culture, some of the upbringing, some of the parenting and some of the deeper points that lie behind these problems.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Front-line officers were telling me last night that they have been afraid to use a measure of physical force because of concerns about criticisms by Members of Parliament, which they have seen before. I welcome the Prime Minister saying that we will be robust and do whatever it takes, but can he assure us that Members of this House will support the police if they have to strike people with batons or kettle them in? Force has to be met with greater force.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise, because he serves as a special policeman. The point is this: people want robust policing, and of course the police have to be sensitive to things that have happened in the past—sometimes the pendulum can swing too far one way, and then too far the other way—but I am sure that the message has been received loud and clear that when there is such violent criminal behaviour, people want a very robust response.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has talked about the role played by gangs and technology in the disorder that has taken place over the last week. Does he share my concern about the popularity and accessibility of internet footage glorifying gangs and knives? What will he do to ensure that those despicable videos are taken down?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady speaks very powerfully for Lewisham and her constituency, and also on this issue, on which frankly everyone has responsibilities —not just Members of Parliament, the police and parents, but media companies and social media companies that are displaying those images. All of them should think about their responsibilities and about taking down those images. That is why the Home Secretary is going to have meetings with those organisations to see what more can be done.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Two of the shocking images that the Prime Minister referred to in his statement took place in my constituency. May I thank him for coming to Croydon on Tuesday? Yesterday and the day before, my constituents finally got to see the kind of policing—in terms of visibility and robustness—that they want to see every day. Can he reassure me and my constituents that we will see not just a temporary change in police tactics and visibility, but a permanent one?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he did to introduce me to some of the affected shopkeepers and home owners in his constituency, some of whom have been made homeless. I can give him that assurance, because—as I have said—one of the things that has been demonstrated in the last few days is the importance of surging police numbers quickly. There are 32,000 officers in the Met, and having just 3,000 on the streets on Sunday and 6,000 on Monday was not enough. That is why action was taken to increase the numbers and I am sure that lessons will be learned in that regard.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

The Police Service of Northern Ireland has been available with resources to support the police here in what they are doing. In the context of reviewing the actions of the police in the past few days, may I ask the Prime Minister to get them to involve the PSNI, given its lengthy experience of riot control, so that it can advise on how to handle such situations in future?

[The Prime Minister]

It is of course enormously helpful having Sir Hugh Orde, who served so well in Northern Ireland, as chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I raised in Cobra the issue of accessing the expertise of the PSNI. One of the issues that we needed to grip quickly was the fact that this was not a political protest; they were looting gangs and so every case was different. That was one of the difficulties that the police service faced.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Is it any wonder that these events have taken place when the authority of parents, teachers and the police has been eroded so consistently for so many years? Hopefully the Prime Minister will reverse that process. He has said again and again that it is the stability of families that counts, and he has made tremendous progress in advancing the debate, but before the election he said that marriage was the key and that he would introduce a married persons tax allowance. That still has not happened. Will he now do it?

[The Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend knows, I think that we should support families and marriage in every way that we can. We should set a simple test for all Government policies of whether what we are about to do will enhance responsibility, whether of parents, teachers in school or police officers on the streets. If it will, we should do it, but if it would not, we should not do it.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Does the Prime Minister realise that in times of economic downturn acquisitive crime always increases? The difference this week was that it was backed up by extreme violence and perpetrated by mobs. In that light, may I ask him to reconsider the cuts to police budgets? He will be seen as giving in not to mob violence, but to common sense.

[The Prime Minister]

I simply do not accept this determinism that changes in the economy mean automatic changes in the levels of criminality. Indeed, the figures for the last recession disprove that. We should be clear in this House that it is criminals who are responsible for crime. It is an individual act, and we should hold people responsible for their acts.

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Welsh police forces that gave great support to police forces across England.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the leadership that he has shown on this issue and the initiatives that he has announced today. Is it not the case, though, that those local authorities that attempted to close down youth services should think again and perhaps consider shutting off some of the more lavish perks enjoyed by some local authority workers instead?

[The Prime Minister]

At a time when everyone has to make budget reductions, every organisation, be it central Government, local authority or police force, has to focus on the front end and the things that matter most. We are doing that in government and police forces are doing it too. Local authorities should do the same.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I was on the streets of Hackney at the height of the rioting on Monday night, and I know how frightened people were and remain. The most important thing is to regain control of our streets, but, on the Army, I am well aware how attractive the further militarisation of this situation is to some Members of this House and even to some of my constituents, but the Prime Minister will be aware that Sir Hugh Orde, who has ordered the firing of baton rounds and the use of water cannon in Northern Ireland, is against the use of such things in the current situation. I say to this House, whether it is a popular thing to say or not, that the further militarisation of the situation we face will not help and might bring things to an even worse level.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me agree with what the hon. Lady said, I think very powerfully, about the fact that this was criminality on the streets, and about how frightened people were. I agree with Hugh Orde and others who say that now is not the time to take such steps. Government have a responsibility to ask about contingencies: to work out what will happen next, and what would happen if things got worse. Those are responsibilities that we take very seriously. Let us, however, take this opportunity to pay tribute to what the armed services often do in our own country when it comes to floods and other emergencies. They play an incredible role, and we should thank them for it.

[Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time like this, facing the circumstances that we face, it really is a nonsense that magistrates courts must refer cases to the Crown court because their own sentencing powers are inadequate? Will he take immediate steps to give magistrates courts the powers to deal with these cases so that the perpetrators can be where they belong—behind bars?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said in my statement, we keep the sentencing powers under review. Magistrates courts can pass sentences of up to six months, and they have been doing so. They have been passing sentences overnight, and also referring cases to the Crown court. I think it vital for us to ensure that there is enough Crown court capacity to deal with these cases quickly.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I beg the Prime Minister to change his mind about the commission of inquiry? This is not going to go away, although we might wish it to do so. It is a complex, changing social phenomenon, which we have to understand in order to combat it. Will the Prime Minister announce the establishment of a commission of inquiry this week? This goes to the roots of the present situation. As the Prime Minister knows, I am a great supporter of Select Committees, but it is not enough to leave the matter to a Select Committee inquiry; we need a national commission of inquiry.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that we should have confidence in the ability of our Select Committees in the House to do this work, and I think that the Home Affairs Committee does an excellent job. As I have said, I do not rule out other things for the future, but let us start with that. Sometimes, commissions of inquiry have had to be ordered because Committees of the House have not been able to reach the information or the people, but I do not see why that should be the case in this instance.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

Some cities have suffered hugely this week, while others have avoided violence and managed to quash any potential trouble before it kicked off. When inquiries are established and when the Select Committee does its work, will the Prime Minister ensure that we learn lessons not only from the areas where violence did kick off, but from cities such as Cardiff and Sheffield, where there was no trouble? Perhaps we can learn lessons from what went right in those areas.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and any inquiry should certainly do that.

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I, too, thank the Prime Minister for visiting Croydon earlier in the week, where he met our decent citizens who had become victims, had seen their buildings and businesses burnt down, and had seen their offices and shops trashed. The plea from people in that Croydon war zone—for that is what it was—was, “Where were the police?” For hour after hour after hour, people were free to pillage and loot, with no uniformed officers around.

This is not partisan. May I ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of the people whom I have met over the past two days, distraught and sad people, the people of Croydon North who have been the victims—may I plead with the Prime Minister, on behalf of my constituents—to think again about police numbers? The people of Croydon, and indeed the people of London, want more police in London, not fewer. Providing fewer would be precisely the wrong policy, at precisely the wrong time for our society.

[The Prime Minister]

The time that I spent in Croydon with the right hon. Gentleman was incredibly powerful. I heard about the immense frustration, and the anger, that those shopkeepers, householders and tenants felt. Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman, however. The problem was that the police were not on the streets. The problem was not about police budgets in four years’ time, but about the availability of the police right now. There are 32,000 officers in the Met. We needed to get more of them on to the streets more quickly, and more of them to Croydon. It is about now: it is not about the budgets of the future.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I welcomed the Prime Minister’s comments about the role of social media. May I urge him to look into what might be called the internet equivalent of hoax 999 calls? It would seem that the police have had to waste considerable time dealing with false and malicious rumours about mob activity, and the law and penalties must be fully up to date with that.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Just as the police have been using technology more effectively, so the criminals are now using technology more effectively. An awful lot of hoaxes and false trails were laid on Twitter, BlackBerry Messenger and the rest, and we need a major piece of work to make sure the police have all the electronic capabilities that they need to hunt down and beat the criminal.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Can the Prime Minister say what measures he has in mind to strengthen families, and in particular parental responsibility, which so many members of the public rightly think is a big factor in all of this?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman just one area where we have already made progress but I want to see further progress: discipline in schools. We have got to make sure that schools are able to confiscate things from children and to exclude children without being overruled by appeals panels. All those steps add to responsibility. We must also make sure that every single tax and benefit is pro-family, pro-commitment and pro-fathers who stick around. Part of the problem is that fathers have left too many of these communities, and that is why young people look towards the gang.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has referred twice in the past 24 hours to phoney concerns about human rights. He will be aware of the many letters we all receive from people who are dismayed by decisions taken that seem to laugh at our values and beliefs in this country. If he is serious about wanting to build the responsible society, may I suggest that that will be much more easily achieved if we remove the invidious Human Rights Act from legislation?

[The Prime Minister]

The specific point that I was making was about the concern that is often expressed, and was expressed to me over the past couple of days, as to whether under the Human Rights Act “Wanted” pictures, as it were, could be published. I wanted specifically to send a message to police forces and local authorities that they should go ahead and do that. On the Human Rights Act more generally, my hon. Friend knows that we have plans to reform it at source under the European convention on human rights.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

In relation to Birmingham and the west midlands, may I add my tribute to the work of the police, the emergency services and local authority workers, and also to the active citizenship shown by the broom brigades and the profound dignity of Tariq Jahan last night? However, I ask the Prime Minister to look again at the police budget figures he mentioned. He mentioned 6%, but the cuts amount to a lot more than that for metropolitan areas because of the way the formulae work. Will he look again at that, as I think he may be operating on the basis of duff figures?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me again pay tribute to what was done in Birmingham; it was a model of bringing communities together, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman played a part in that.

The point I am making is that police funding comes from both the grant and the precept, and if we make normal assumptions about the precept, what we are asking for is on average a 6% cash reduction over four years. I do not think that that is impossible while keeping up police visibility, and a growing number of police chiefs are agreeing with that. For the hon. Gentleman’s West Midlands force, we are basically taking the funding back to its 2007 level. From the way he is speaking, people would think we were taking it back to the 1987 level.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I urge the Prime Minister to resist the knee-jerk calls for a revision to the plans for the police budgets and police numbers. We should remember that this is about the deployment and management of resources, and about the more effective use of resources. That is the view of my chief constable in the west midlands, and it is the view that should prevail.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right: what matters is getting the most out of the budgets that are there. This is not a big day for politics, but both parties went into the last election promising to make reductions in policing budgets; the Opposition were proposing a reduction of £1 billion. As we are prepared to freeze police pay, reform allowances and ask for greater contributions to pensions, and because we have got rid of the stop form and are reducing reporting on stop and search, we can make those reductions without affecting visible policing. But that is possible only because we have made those difficult decisions, which the Opposition are not making.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

On Tuesday night, all was quiet across Ealing, but there had been warnings that Southall might come under attack. Local people at the Sikh gurdwaras, mosques, Hindu temples and churches arranged to place volunteers outside their religious places of worship to protect them. I thank the Prime Minister for mentioning Southall and the role played by the volunteers during that day, but I assure him that those people were led by the local Member of Parliament, local councillors, faith leaders, community leaders and business leaders. May I ask him to come out to my constituency and meet those volunteers and community leaders so that they can ask him a few questions that they feel have not been answered in the past and that they fear he will not be able to answer in the future? Will he visit my constituency in the very near future?

[The Prime Minister]

I can see that I am going to get a number of very enticing invitations today. I think the whole country admires the protection of the temple in Ealing, Southall. I have huge admiration for those people who want to protect their homes, their properties and their communities. Of course, that should be the job of the police and we need to ensure that the police are on the streets in greater numbers to do that. I pay tribute to the people of Ealing, Southall for what they achieved.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the problems addressed by his statement and those that will be addressed by the subsequent statement from the Chancellor have one factor in common: a widespread belief that anyone can have anything they want without paying for it and without living within their means? Will my right hon. Friend therefore resist the siren calls to give up his plans to make all departments, including the police, live within our means, especially as every police officer whom I know and to whom I have spoken says that they could dramatically increase the proportion of their time used effectively to the public good if they were deployed more efficiently? It cannot be beyond the wit of man to live within those budgets and improve good policing with 6% less resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I made a point of sitting down with my own chief constable in my constituency surgery and going through her budget line by line, to see the changes that were being made so that savings could be made but visible policing would not be affected. With a 6% cash reduction, it can be done.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has made much, as others have, of the importance of parental responsibility. Does he realise that for many of the people involved in gangs, their parents are the gangs? Some of the issues to do with gangs and how they operate in inner-city areas such as Lambeth are crucial to this debate. Will he also tell me, please, what he means by a gang injunction?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is entirely right that there is no single measure that will increase parental responsibility and break up gang membership. One reason why I have asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) to play a role is that, before he took up his role on the Front Bench, the social justice organisation with which he was involved spent a huge amount of time trying to look at the best practice in dealing with gangs. There are gang injunctions at the moment that apply only to adults—we will be applying them to children—which can prevent people from doing particular things. That is a good start, but, as I have said, there is no one single answer.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

May I join my colleagues from Croydon in thanking the Prime Minister for his visit, which was hugely appreciated? I also join them in their call to maintain the high police profile down there. Does the Prime Minister agree that once the situation is stabilised we need to consider the underlying causes and, as he says, to accept that there is a small group in our society who do not know the difference between right and wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. From the television scenes it was quite clear that this was criminality and looting and that a lot of it was done by very young children who should have been under the control of their parents.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is completely right when he says that the tactics failed. Many in my constituency who support the police were horrified when they saw police in full riot gear watching as looters went into shops, filled plastic bags full of loot and left, unarrested by the police. That was a victory for criminals. Will the Prime Minister give my constituents and this House an assurance that if there is another criminal assault on the centre of Manchester, all those criminals will be arrested?

[The Prime Minister]

I can go further than that and say that even those criminals who did such things while the police did not intervene in the way that he and others would have liked will be arrested, too. Their faces and pictures are captured on CCTV, and even as we had the Cobra meeting this morning 60 arrests took place across London. I am sure that the same is happening in Manchester, too. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to examine tactics and ensure we get things right in the future.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

The Prime Minister has quite rightly identified that there has been major criminal activity. I welcome the attempt to help the victims, and specifically to help small businesses through the deferral of tax. Will he also ensure that the tax authorities do not penalise businesses that are late in filing tax and VAT returns, and in doing the paperwork, because of the disruption with which they are coping?

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly do that. That is why, as I said in the statement, there will be the facility for businesses affected to pay their tax late.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

May I voice my support for the police, including the brave officers who faced unprecedented violence and criminality in Manchester on Tuesday night? The Prime Minister says that this is about now, but there is one practical thing that he could do that would reduce the pressure on the Metropolitan police in particular: delay, or preferably cancel, the proposal to allow terrorist suspects, who are currently required to live away from London, to return to the city from the start of next year. Will he give that serious consideration?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman served in the Home Office, I will certainly look very carefully and closely at what he says. Let me join him in paying tribute to the police; his fellow Member of Parliament for Manchester, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), put it slightly differently. I am sure that everyone in this House will praise the bravery of officers, and what they do, putting themselves in harm’s way. It is not fair to blame them if sometimes the tactics do not work. I think we have to be very careful in the way we express ourselves on this issue.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Literally thousands of victims deserve to see justice done, and it seems to me that there is very heavy reliance on the use of closed circuit television to capture images. Are the police considering other things, such as spraying indelible chemical dye on rioters, so that they can identify them and pick them up the following day?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, I think the police should look at all available technologies and should keep abreast of all potential developments, here and in other countries, to make sure that they arrest as many people as possible.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Nottingham, the police public order squads, whom I accompanied last night, are a tribute to the best of our front-line public service workers, but does the Prime Minister recognise and accept that the scheduled reductions in public spending—not only for the police, but for the fire and ambulance services, the courts, and the much-maligned back office staff—will affect the ability of those teams to respond effectively? Will he please think again?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is an hour and 20 minutes before I have said it, but I have to say it: there is a reason why we are having to reduce these budgets, and that is because we inherited a complete fiscal car crash. There is a connection between this statement and the statement that we are about to have, which is that if countries do not get control of their fiscal situations, we can see what happens, with even the largest countries in the world getting their debt downgraded.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is quite right to look at the events of this week in the context of social malaise and family breakdown. May I press him on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh)? The policy to which he referred—support for marriage in the tax system—was in the coalition agreement and the Conservative party manifesto on which we were both elected. Surely, this week of all weeks, it is time to look at the holistic context, support marriage and the family, review the policy, and bring forward proposals to support marriage and the family in our country?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that was in the manifesto, and it is indeed in the coalition agreement. The coalition agreement, where the two parties take a different view, makes allowance for that, and I remain a strong supporter of that proposal.

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

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I am confident that our report will make a serious and significant contribution, but does not the Prime Minister accept that something more than that is needed? We need an in-depth, wide-ranging, full-time report, led by somebody with an authority and independence equivalent to that of Lord Scarman, and we need that quickly if the issues to which the Prime Minister has referred are to be fully explored.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me make a couple of points to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know served in the Home Office. First of all, sometimes the need for wider commissions of inquiry has come about because the House of Commons Select Committees could not get to the bottom of an issue; we are not even at that point yet. Secondly, these events are still continuing, so to start talking about what sort of inquiry there should be now is, I think, wrong. The third point that I would make is this: of course one should not jump to conclusions, but I think everyone is clear on the differences between what we have seen in the last three days and what we saw in 1981. This was not political protest, or a riot about protest or politics—it was common or garden thieving, robbing and looting, and we do not need an inquiry to tell us that.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that following the G10 demonstrations in London, and the unfortunate death that occurred, many police officers have been reluctant to use force? If they do use force, what reassurances can he give them?

[The Prime Minister]

The reassurance that I can give is that we will put the resources into the police force to make sure we have the trained officers we need.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

May I pay my tribute to the West Midlands police, who did an excellent job in trying to contain some very unpleasant events in Birmingham and surrounding cities? It was right for the courts to sit overnight, because those who are guilty have to be punished quickly, but what discussions has the Prime Minister had with the Justice Secretary to make sure that our prisons have the capacity to deal with what they will be receiving?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point, and I was in her constituency yesterday. The discussions that we have had at Cobra, and Justice Ministers were present at all the meetings, were to make sure that we had enough capacity in police cells, enough capacity in the magistrates courts system—the Solihull court has been sitting over a 24-hour period—and enough capacity in our prisons to deal with this. I have been assured on all those levels that the work is there and the capacity is available.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What sanctions will be imposed on the parents of those juveniles who are prosecuted for being involved in the riots? Should not parents be held responsible in the courts for their children’s behaviour?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Parenting orders can be used, and I hope that they will be widely used on this occasion.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday and the day before, homes and businesses in my constituency were vandalised by a very small minority. It was the majority who came together in Liverpool on Tuesday and Wednesday morning to clean up the mess, but there is some damage that could not be swept away. The Prime Minister has said that the Government will ensure that the police have the funds to meet the cost of any legitimate compensation claim. Will the Prime Minister confirm that all these funds will be in addition to Merseyside police’s, and other police authorities’, existing budgets?

[The Prime Minister]

That is exactly what I have said. There is the Riot (Damages) Act, so businesses, even if they are uninsured, can apply to the relevant police force, and the Home Office will stand behind that force. That is obviously a scheme that has been in place for decades. In addition to that, there are, of course, the two schemes that I have announced today, one of which will directly impact on the hon. Lady’s constituency, because it was affected by the riots.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that what we have witnessed on the streets of our major towns and cities is nothing more or less than pure criminality and thuggery? Those who seek to excuse that behaviour, putting it down to deprivation, poverty, or current Government policies, are themselves symptomatic of the no-blame, no-responsibility culture that has undermined our society and led us to this sorry state.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I have been struck, when meeting local people, community leaders and police officers, by the fact that everyone has been making the point that this is about criminality, and not about political protest.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

After the riot in West Bromwich, local traders told me that they feared the emergence of a new class of criminal consumer: BlackBerry-enabled, self-organised groups, whose new-found collectivism had diminished their fear of the police and increased their contempt for the law. Their clarion cry to the Prime Minister was: “Please reverse the planned reduction in police in the west midlands by 1,000 uniformed police officers.” [Interruption.] I am sorry he does not like to hear that. If he is going to give them the answer no, would he at least agree to keep the matter under review?

[The Prime Minister]

The first half of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which was all about the new technology that the criminal is using, bore no relation to the second half of the question, which was about resources. What matters is whether we are going to give the police the technology to trace people on Twitter or BlackBerry Messenger or, as I said in my statement, on occasion to close them down. That is the step that we should be taking, rather than immediately launching into a discussion of resources in four years’ time.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I urge the Prime Minister to consider not just the amount of compensation and business continuity assistance, but its speed? Time is of the essence in getting businesses back on their feet, so that there are more jobs and money in communities that so badly need them.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I can say that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) will, from his office, be giving one-stop-shop advice to all Members of Parliament who have affected businesses that want to see that money flow quickly. It is very important not just to set up those schemes, but to make sure that the money is paid rapidly.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are 1 million 11 to 19- year-olds in London. The Prime Minister has said a lot about children and young people, but he has not in an hour and a half said anything positive. Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that the vast majority of young people are decent, law-abiding, good people and they are appalled by their stigmatisation by the media. They are appalled, they are afraid. They are not criminals. They are just in fear at this time.

[The Prime Minister]

To be fair, in my statement I said that what had happened was in no way representative of the brilliant young people we have in our country. As I understand it, tomorrow there will be a meeting of people, I think in Westminster, saying very specifically that this was not done in their name. I applaud that and all the other initiatives by people who have stood up and said, “This was not done for me or has anything to do with me.”

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Prime Minister has linked social media to violence. Will he join me in congratulating the huge number of people who have used social media for positive activities such as organising clear-ups? I pay particular tribute to Cambs cops for telling people what was happening and getting rid of rumours. Will he accept those positive issues and agree that clamping down on social media could have damaging consequences?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is why the Home Secretary is going to explore the issue with the social media companies and other services. The key thing is that the police were facing a new circumstance. Rioters were using the BlackBerry service—a closed network—so that they knew where they were going to loot next, and the police could not keep up with them. We have to examine that and work out how to get ahead.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has said that CCTV has proved highly valuable, so can he explain how he might make it easier for communities who want more CCTV to get more?

[The Prime Minister]

By making funds available. One of the first things I did in politics as a Home Office special adviser was to set up one of the first ever CCTV challenge funds so that communities could invest in it.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to punishment the courts need to put compensation of victims at the heart of their deliberations, whatever the income or means of the offender, and should deploy to their fullest effect the powers to confiscate the proceeds of crime?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He speaks with great expertise as he has practised criminal law. There may be opportunities in the forthcoming sentencing Bill to look at even further powers of confiscation to make sure we really get after these criminals.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

On Sunday and Monday night we saw violence, looting and ransacking in my constituency and my borough. Some people out in the country have sought to attribute these acts to particular racial or religious groups. While we may not know the exact causes of all the events around the country, does the Prime Minister agree that people of all different religions and races were responsible and that to racialise this issue is gravely wrong and does our country a great misservice?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This was not about race, it was about crime.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

My constituency in Bristol West had violent disorder not only this week but in April, and we appreciate the strong words that the Prime Minister has used today. In dealing with the deeper issues in society, does he agree that people who feel marginalised from society are much more likely to listen to and then respect those strong words if people at the other end of the social spectrum not just in the board room, as the Leader of the Opposition said, but rather more popular people in society do not display such venal and conspicuous consumption behaviour that sets such a bad example for people who are following them?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but in setting out, as it were, a hierarchy of message, it is important to get it across that there is simply no justification for the sort of looting that we saw. There is no excuse for it.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for coming to Wolverhampton yesterday and meeting retailers who were affected by what happened, including Mr Sham Sharma, whose computer shop was ransacked and looted. What we have seen in recent days is what happens when order breaks down. When order breaks down there is no liberty; there is fear. The Prime Minister is right to say that those who did this are responsible, but Governments also have responsibilities. Will he reconsider his Government’s plans to make CCTV harder for our communities to use instead of easier, and will he also look again at police numbers? The idea that the budgets cuts he is making will not affect numbers may look good as a line to take, but it will not convince the public—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

[The Prime Minister]

We are making sure that CCTV is properly regulated, but we do not want to restrict its use. CCTV is vital in the fight against crime, and I am 100% committed to it. May I say how much sense I thought the right hon. Gentleman spoke yesterday when he talked about the fine line between order and disorder and the importance of giving support to our police, including the excellent work done by the West Midlands force?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that £1.5 billion a year can be made in police efficiency savings. Will the Home Office mandate collaboration to ensure that those savings are delivered, thus protecting the front line, which is what we all want to do?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. HMIC has said that those savings are available. It did not take into account the pay freeze for police officers, the increased pension contributions or some of the extra work that we have done to cut paperwork. That is why I feel so confident in saying that on average 6% cash reductions over four years should lead to no reduction in visible policing.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

We owe a debt of gratitude to our police services this week, but crisis policing is not an alternative to embedded, sustained, community policing. So I was disappointed when visiting damage in my constituency to talk to safer neighbourhood sergeants who are losing their jobs today and being made to reapply for them, as part of 300 safer neighbourhood job losses in London alone. The Prime Minister says that when circumstances change we must change. He must now change his policy of damaging the leadership of London’s safer neighbourhood police service.

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, what we saw in London over the past few days, where we have 32,000 officers in the Met, was a greater deployment of more of those officers on to the street. Frankly, it was not good enough that there were only 3,000 deployed when this started. It shows how much can be done, getting up to 16,000 deployed, with help from outside. Those numbers will be available at all times in the future, even with the reductions that we are making in budgets.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Today marks the start of a long, sober and difficult post mortem to find out why parts of our society chose to rob the very communities of which they are part. The Prime Minister implied that we must start by looking at the powers given to the police. May I ask him to assure the House that if the police choose to use water cannon they can do so without influence by Ministers? If necessary, they should also be allowed to close down mobile phone rebro masts, as was done after the 7/7 bombings, to make sure that we isolate the use of Twitter and Facebook, which allowed the mobs to be one step ahead of the police.

[The Prime Minister]

Of course conversations have to take place between the Home Office and the police about the use of different technologies or tactics. The point that the Home Secretary and I have been making over recent days is that they should feel free to examine whether they need these capabilities in the knowledge that they will have political support for doing what is necessary to keep our streets safe.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister keeps referring to 16,000 police officers in London. We had them only because they came down in bus loads from places such as Salford, leaving the Greater Manchester police overstretched and unable to face down a violent crowd of 1,000 individuals. We have already lost more than 300 police officers. There is no case for any more cuts.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think that the hon. Lady is being fair on the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police National Information Co-ordination Centre system, which makes sure that police officers are sent to the areas where they are needed. Greater Manchester itself was getting mutual aid from other parts of the country.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The Prime Minister spoke of the significant number of young people who have no moral compass and no sense of community. On Monday I visited one of the pilot sites of the national citizenship programme and was impressed with what I saw. May I ask that when those pilots are audited and reviewed, and recommendations are made for the programme proper, the events of the past few days are taken into account?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I feel passionately that national citizen service is a great idea for young people in our country and we want to make it available to as many young people as we can. We are piloting 30,000 places over the coming months and I look forward to visiting some of them. They will help to demonstrate what the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) spoke about, which is how many positive role models there are among our young people.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Hundreds of specialist police officers have been deployed from Scotland’s eight forces in support of colleagues in England, and it is right and proper that everything is provided to assist areas struck by rioting and disorder. Can the Prime Minister confirm what conversations he or the Home Secretary have had directly with the Scottish Government about that support?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not aware of any conversations, but I am aware of the excellent role that Scottish police officers played, particularly helping the West Midlands force. I saw for myself their impact when they arrived in Birmingham, and it is very good that our forces can co-operate in that way.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to police forces from outside London, such as Bedfordshire, which sent considerable numbers of officers to London and whose remaining officers have had to work greatly extended shifts, magnificently supported by large numbers of special constables, to keep policing going in Bedfordshire?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly do. I support having local police forces; I was never in favour of large police mergers and the last 72 hours have demonstrated that we can have a system that gets the police officers we need in the places where we need them.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The police, courts and Crown Prosecution Service must be commended for their work around the clock to deliver swift arrests and charging decisions, but they have much more to do, not least to ensure that successful prosecutions are now delivered. Given the unprecedented nature of these events and the strain that the justice system is already under due to budget cuts, will the Prime Minister commit today to making additional resources available to ensure that justice can be delivered for victims?

[The Prime Minister]

At Cobra, there was not only a Justice Minister but also the Attorney-General, making sure that when a police force reported any problems with the local CPS we could work quickly to make sure that resources were put in place. We should continue that in the coming days, perhaps mostly at official level, to make sure that bottlenecks are dealt with.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about robust sentencing. Although speedy justice is important, it should not be at the expense of unacceptable compromises. Surely all those who organise riots through misuse of social media, attack police, throw missiles or commit arson should face long sentences of imprisonment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It has to be for the courts to set sentences, but they have tough sentences available and I am sure they will use them.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

These are indeed difficult times and the safety of our communities is important. The Prime Minister talked about the Olympics and the damage to our international reputation. It was right that the England international was cancelled on Wednesday, but is it right that Premier League and Football League fixtures may be cancelled this week? What is the Prime Minister’s view?

[The Prime Minister]

This was discussed at Cobra this morning. As I understand it, subsequent to that it has been decided that the Tottenham game against Everton should be postponed, but the intention is that other games in London, at the start of the Premier League season, should go ahead but perhaps starting earlier in the day. That sounds sensible, if it is indeed what has been agreed between the Premier League and the police.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister, and very much welcome the tangible provisions he has put in place in case, heaven forbid, such riots should ever happen again. The fact that there has been no consequence from criminal actions has been a problem that communities out there have been screaming about for years, from low-level antisocial behaviour to excrement put through letter boxes—just talk to people in Henbury in my constituency. Although I very much welcome the provisions for emergency situations, can the Prime Minister reassure me that the fact that criminal and antisocial actions have consequences will seep right down to the start of those problems in our local communities?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about this. It will be a wake-up call to the police on the way they work with communities, and will make them even more determined that even low-level disorder and violence must be punished quickly. We must look for good things to come out of this situation, and one good thing should be that the police will connect themselves even more deeply to communities, some of whom do feel let down.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to all the public sector workers we rely on time and time again, and in particular those in Staffordshire. Over many months, I have had letters from serving police officers concerned about the Winsor report and the knock-on effect on morale, and about A19 and losing senior officers. Now they are concerned about the fact that having been called on at our time of need—out on the streets, putting themselves in the firing line—they are having their leave cancelled and having to give up holidays due to overtime requirements. It was an hour and a half before we heard the words “Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary”, and we have heard nothing about Mayor Boris Johnson’s view about policing cuts. Will the Prime Minister finally get to his feet and address the loss of 16,000 jobs?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I do not know whether we need an inquiry into safety in the House, Mr Speaker, but someone seems to have stolen the hon. Gentleman’s jacket.

I accept that we are asking police officers to do a difficult job and, yes, we are asking them to undergo a pay freeze, as other public sector workers are doing, but we are giving them the backing they want by cutting paperwork and enabling them to get out on the street and do the job they want to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s concern, but I assure the House that nothing disorderly has happened. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) was perfectly in order. He was focusing not on sartorial matters but on violence, and he was perfectly in order. We will leave it at that. I ask the House to try to rise to the level of events.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, particularly the support he is offering small and medium-sized businesses. As someone whose business has been directly affected, although not disastrously, I know the disruption it is causing. Will the Prime Minister assure me that no business will be lost and no livelihood subsequently lost because of the actions of those thugs and hooligans, and that the £20 million support fund, if deemed not big enough, will be increased to make sure that those things do not happen?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we will keep the issue under review, and there is the Riot (Damages) Act as well as the £20 million scheme. I believe that should be enough, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be on the case.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Violence is always to be condemned, but as the Prime Minister said, seeking to understand violence is a world away from seeking to justify it. Indeed, we ought to try to understand it to stop it happening in future. Given the growing evidence, from Scarman onwards, that increasing inequality has a role to play in drawing at least some people into violent behaviour, can the Prime Minister reassure the House that comprehensive impact assessments will be undertaken before his Government introduce any more policies that increase inequality?

[The Prime Minister]

Everyone wants to see a fairer and more equal country, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that young people smashing down windows and stealing televisions is not about inequality.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating policemen from Suffolk and across East Anglia who came to London in support of their colleagues? Will he answer this question? My constituents were shocked to discover that only 3,000 of the 32,000 policemen in the Met were on duty. What are we going to do to change that and can we get cross-party support for it?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in praising Suffolk and other police forces in East Anglia and Essex who got police officers into our capital. The point I made about the deployment of officers is one of the lessons we have to learn about the ability to surge up numbers quickly when circumstances require it.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that no matter how good a job the police do in arresting people, too many thugs simply do not care if they are caught, because they have no respect for or fear of the criminal justice system? Until we resolve that, we will not be able to resolve the wider problem.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There will be people arrested this time who casually entered a broken-down shop and nicked things, thinking it was somehow okay, who will get an almighty shock when they get a criminal record, and potentially go to jail—quite right too. But my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a hard core who are not frightened enough of the criminal justice system, and we need to make sure that they are.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

On behalf of the overwhelming majority of my constituents who were appalled by the organised criminality that trashed the centre of Manchester, I thank the Prime Minister for his phone call to me. There has to be a review of policing tactics, and he is committed to it. That may reveal that because police officers in Greater Manchester were working 12-hour shifts on the night Manchester was trashed, there is a real question about the numbers available. In that context, can the Prime Minister commit to the House that he will at least review the situation to make sure that numbers can never be an issue in not having uniformed police on duty when we need them?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, we will look at all these issues, and ACPO, the Home Office and others will want to learn all the lessons. I would simply make the point that, because it was possible in Manchester, London, Wolverhampton and elsewhere to surge the numbers up more rapidly on Tuesday, it would have been possible on Monday. This is not to criticise the police—no one can get everything right when they are dealing with these difficult situations—but we have got to look at the surge capacity, rather than pretending that this is all about resources in two, three or four years’ time.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My constituents will commend the Prime Minister’s statement and the Leader of the Opposition’s sentiments, which are in marked contrast to those of the former London Mayor, whose shameful comments seeking to justify the riots that wreaked havoc in places such as Enfield should be condemned by all the House. Although we provide unqualified support to our police, is this about not just resources but empowering our police—perhaps to get their hands on water cannon or rubber bullets, but to free them up by reducing both the time that it takes to process individual arrests and this risk-averse culture, which is tying their hands?

[The Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend used to work as a solicitor, he knows well that far too much time is taken up in paperwork after an arrest is made. We need to cut down that paperwork. Joint working between the police and the CPS is already helping with that. Virtual courts are helping, and the 24-hour courts that have been working around the clock have made a big difference, too.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

The vast majority of people in Scotland share the anger and frustration of the victims of these crimes, but they are extremely disappointed at the First Minister’s statement that this is an English problem. I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that he will seek advice from Strathclyde police. Will he extend that to the judicial system in Scotland, which took seriously the concerns of the police and community and imposed appropriate sentences?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman says. I particularly admire the work that Strathclyde has done on gangs, and I want to ensure that we learn that across the United Kingdom.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

The day after the riot and looting at Clapham Junction in the heart of Battersea, my constituency, we saw the inspiring sight of the broom army of volunteers coming together—many of them young people—to do something really positive. As well as wanting to reclaim streets, which I am afraid they did at times feel had been abandoned, they also wanted to express solidarity with local shopkeepers and businesses. I very much welcome what the Prime Minister has said on business rate suspension, but will he commit the Government to do all they can to support everyone locally who wants to ensure that we keep those vital businesses going and attract more businesses into our cities and town centres?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly back what my hon. Friend says, and I know that she will be on to the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government on behalf of her constituents. Let me say how much I admire the broom army, not just in Clapham but in other parts of our country. People came together to say that they did not want to put up with this and that they wanted to clean up their neighbourhoods. They are the best of British.

[Jon Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that, in Leicester city centre, in my constituency, we had some instances of thuggish criminality, but thankfully not on the scale of other cities. However, the most disgraceful incident was the torching of Age Concern’s ambulance bus, which takes many frail, elderly people to day care on a daily basis. Will the Prime Minister consider putting aside emergency funds—a pot of money—to which charities can apply, so that they can replace facilities that were destroyed in these riots?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Some of the things, places and people who were attacked were truly shocking. For people to attack the sort of facility that he talks about really is appalling and should make us stop and think about what has happened in our country. On getting compensation and money, I have set out the schemes, all of which, I think, will be available to the sort of charity that he speaks about.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I join the Prime Minister in praising the bravery of the emergency services and echo the disbelief of the House that children as young as 11 and 12 have been involved in the violence and criminality of the past few days. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the age of any of the rioters prevented the police from using anti-riot techniques?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look at what my hon. Friend says. Of course, the age of criminal responsibility is 10, and we do not have any proposals to change that, but she raises an important issue about whether the police at any moment needed to hang back because of the very young age of the looters—some of the people doing the looting were under the age of 10—and I will certainly get back to her about that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

For the past two nights in my constituency, I have had a very heavy police presence, owing to right-wing extremist groups focusing on Eltham and trying to create unrest and bad feeling between different racial groups. Although we want to support people who are public-spirited and come out to defend their communities, as some of my constituents have done, will the Prime Minister join me in asking those people not to be diverted from their efforts by those extremists who seek to exploit the situation?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman speaks not only for his constituents, but, frankly, for the whole House in deprecating the English Defence League and all it stands for. On its attempt to say that it will somehow help to restore order, I have described some parts of our society as sick, and there is none sicker than the EDL.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

It will soon be 50 years since the last royal commission on policing, and the Prime Minister today has alluded to some of the changing challenges that the police have faced in that time. Since it is at least as important to be able to mobilise police officers as to consider absolute numbers, will he consider the case for a fresh royal commission?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that the need to reform and modernise the police and policing is more urgent than that. It is often said that royal commissions take minutes and last for years. I do not think that we have got years; we need to get on with the job now.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

When rioters spilled into the heart of my constituency on Monday night, local people of all backgrounds came together from businesses, mosques and the wider community. With the police, they stood in peaceful resistance to keep out the rioters and helped to keep the community safe. We are now faced with the threat of the English Defence League coming to my constituency in September. Despite requests to the police before these riots and to the Home Secretary, we have no affirmation that there will be a ban. Will the Prime Minister consider legislation, if necessary, to stop the EDL marching and to prevent static demonstrations from taking place?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady will know, a process has to be followed whereby the local authority and the police have to apply to the Home Office for a ban. They should follow that process, and we will try to ensure that the right thing happens.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

My constituents are understandably angry about the violence in nearby West Bromwich and the centre of Birmingham. Does the Prime Minister agree that the most important thing now for the people of the black country and the west midlands is that the Government are seen to stand up for the law-abiding majority in our country?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I was very struck at the meeting that I had in Wolverhampton with shopkeepers and residents that they simply want to ensure that the Government and the police stand up for the law-abiding, take back the streets and make sure that they belong to the law-abiding people of our country.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm whether the Bellwin scheme will operate at 85% or 100%, as it did under Labour for flood victims?

[The Prime Minister]

The Bellwin scheme will operate in its normal way, so there will be a threshold, but we are putting in place an alternative scheme that does not have a threshold or a maximum and minimum and that will be available through the DCLG.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

The cities have been the victims of the violence and criminality, but is the Prime Minister aware that, throughout the country, such as in my community in Hastings, there were rumours and counter-rumours and social media activity about gangs meeting and that only the good work of community leaders and our local police stopped anything kicking off?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A lot of those rumours were circulating. Although the use of social media helped gangs to do bad things, it also helped the law-abiding to know what was happening and how to react and stop it.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Violence against others and theft should clearly be dealt with by the criminal law, but does the Prime Minister accept that removing people from social housing for unacceptable behaviour and putting them in social housing in other communities, taking that unacceptable behaviour with them, does not solve the problem?

[The Prime Minister]

It can be part of solving the problem; it says to people in social housing, “If you misbehave, you can be thrown out of your house.”

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

I congratulate Thames Valley police on the support that they provided in London in recent days. Does the Prime Minister agree that relative poverty is no excuse for having no values?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Of course, we all want to see a country where opportunity is more equal, where people can go from the very bottom to the very top and where our schools are engines of social mobility, but the point that he makes is right: there is no excuse for the sort of law breaking, looting and violence that we saw.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Merseyside police say they will lose 880 police officers, with neighbourhood officers most at risk. Sir Hugh Orde says that “grass-roots neighbourhood policing” is key to policing in this country because of the effectiveness of building relationships and trust over the long run. Will the Prime Minister listen to Sir Hugh and reverse the cuts before long-term damage is done to the police’s ability to protect the public?

[The Prime Minister]

Chief constables up and down the country are now coming out and explaining how they will achieve these relatively modest budget reductions—6% in cash terms over four years—while maintaining the rate of visible policing. Labour committed to £1 billion of policing cuts; it would have had to do exactly the same as we are doing.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Sue Williams and the team in Redbridge on everything they did during the recent troubles and note the fact that what has changed in the past two days—I thank him and the Home Secretary for this—is that we have taken the handcuffs off our police and allowed them to do the job they want to do?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his constituents and all those who played an important part in bringing some sanity back to London’s streets.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has exalted CCTV, and rightly so. Does he agree with me that it can deter people from breaking the law? If so, will he look at the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which he obviously has not done yet, and change it so that local councils are allowed to put up CCTV cameras in areas such as those where riots took place?

[The Prime Minister]

Local councils can put up CCTV cameras and they will continue to be able to do so. We can all see how effective CCTV is when we see people walking out of court trying to hide their face because they know that is how they got caught.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that those who are found guilty of committing crimes during the riots should be forced to face up to the full consequences for both their communities and individual victims of the damage they have done? That means tough sentences, but should it not also mean reparation? Does he agree that those young people should be forced to listen while the victims of their crimes explain what the damage to communities means, the jobs that will be lost, the damage to buildings and the sense of tragedy that many feel?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. We should use all means to bring home to those criminals the damage that they have done to their communities and to local people, and he makes a number of suggestions in that regard.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister accept that the events of the past five nights in London have changed the nature and context of the debate about police cuts? If he persists with them, the people of London will not understand and they will not forgive. Even his own party’s Mayor now opposes him on that policy.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that people in London will understand our saying that, over four years, police forces have to make cash reductions to the budget and live within those means. People in London have seen over the past three days what can be done when numbers are surged and police are brought out from behind their desks and on to the streets—from 3,000 to 16,000 in just two days.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The Prime Minister speaks for the public on sentencing, but the guidelines are set by a quango. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the Sentencing Guidelines Council and consider transferring its powers either to Parliament or to the locally elected police and crime commissioners?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes some interesting suggestions. I have always felt that the Sentencing Guidelines Council should be properly scrutinised by Parliament. We are considering the right way for Parliament to express its views on the contents of that very important set of documents.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

May I give the Prime Minister the opportunity to dispel the confusion about his policy on surveillance cameras? Today, he seemed to say that he wants to see more of them, but the coalition agreement he signed up to says that the Government want fewer. Which is it?

[The Prime Minister]

We want to see them in the right place, properly regulated, and that may well mean more of them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many people have been charged under part I, section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986 with the specific offence of riot, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison? Does he agree that that would result in people being given the sort of sentences that the public demand, and will he make sure that the CPS does not undercharge people to get convictions, which will end in people getting lighter sentences that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I cannot give my hon. Friend figures on which specific part of the Public Order Act people have been charged under, because, as he will know, that Act, which has really stood the test of time, has many parts under which charges can be laid. The latest figures that I have state that, in London alone, 880 people have been arrested and more than 370 have already been charged.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

At a meeting this morning attended by a number of London Members of Parliament of all parties who, like me, are concerned about the impact of the riots on their constituencies, the Mayor of London made it perfectly clear that these events made an overwhelmingly powerful case for reconsidering the cuts in the police budget, which will have an adverse impact on the number of police available on the beat. The Prime Minister has been unwilling to listen to Opposition Members, but will he listen to the views of that member of his own party, who is the one elected person other than a national politician with responsibility for policing?

[The Prime Minister]

Today, as we speak, only 12% of police officers are on the beat at any one time. I simply refuse to accept that we cannot get better value for money and cut paperwork so that we get the more visible policing that everyone wants. The Labour party seems to be completely intellectually idle about even considering changes that could be made that would increase the visibility of police in our communities.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, for rioters, the biggest deterrent is not being brought to the courts and being convicted, but the courts handing down what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) described as some stiff sentences?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I think the greatest deterrent to such people is not just the sentence, but knowing that they will be arrested and put in front of a court. That is why the strength of numbers of police on the streets lifting and arresting people is vital. Secondly, when events such as these take place, it is perfectly possible for courts to set some exemplary sentences, to send out a clear message, and I for one hope they will do just that.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Last Wednesday, it was determined that all nine police cells in Bassetlaw would be immediately closed. Does the Prime Minister instinctively agree with me and local police officers that now is not the time to be closing police cells?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very important that we have a good network of police cells in our towns and cities, so that officers do not have to drive for miles after making an arrest. That is why cutting some of the paperwork and bureaucracy that has led to some of the cell closures is so important.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Too many times recently, we have seen the Metropolitan police force try to straddle its two main functions: leading specialist national operations and policing London. When the dust settles, will the Prime Minister consider the merits of the case for splitting the Met to ensure that we have a police force for London focusing on public order and low-level criminality, and perhaps an enhanced agency for specialist national operations?

[The Prime Minister]

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but with a year to go to the Olympics, I think that sort of major structural change to the Metropolitan Police Service simply would not be right.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The criminal justice system in north Wales coped admirably with civil disturbances in Wrexham in 2003 for two reasons: there was good use of CCTV evidence and immediate imposition of stiff custodial sentences. Why is the Prime Minister presiding over a Government who are making both those things more difficult?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Following these disturbances, does the Prime Minister think that the public will believe that now is the right time to spend £150 million on elections for elected police and crime commissioners?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that when people think about the events of recent days, they will conclude that police authorities, which have been relatively invisible and which I do not believe call the police to account, have not done a good job over the years. I think that having an individual to whom the police are accountable, which is what happens in London, is a far more powerful way to make sure that there is a proper conversation between elected individuals and police chiefs.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Given that we have had a year of social unrest, from the student protests and direct action against the cuts to the looting of the past few days, as well as the riots in Bristol a couple of months ago, all of which have put pressure on our police forces, I urge the Prime Minister to listen to the chair of my local police authority, who wrote to me overnight to say the last thing the authority needs at the moment is the disruption and distraction of elections for police commissioners.

[The Prime Minister]

Of course police authorities do not welcome the fact that they are being replaced, but I think that it is right that they are being replaced, because they have not done a good job at calling police chiefs and police forces to account. We need a new system for doing just that.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

The Prime Minister was right to say that the riots not only appalled all law-abiding people in this country, but shocked people watching around the world. In the light of the riots, will the Government be prepared to review the policing arrangements during the Olympic games period, when understandably the police in London and in my own force in Kent will be highly committed?

[The Prime Minister]

We believe that we have good security measures in place for the Olympic games. We keep them under review. There will be very intense meetings from the autumn onwards to the Olympic games, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to make sure that we do everything possible to make the games not only a success, but a safe success.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

As the Prime Minister is aware, businesses in Wolverhampton bore the brunt of the criminal activity on Tuesday night. I am sure he will agree that now is the time for Members across the political divide to work together. I say gently to him that next time he arrives at the train station in Wolverhampton, I will be there ready to welcome him. With regard to what he said to gangs, can he reassure me and my constituents that as well as looking at punitive measures, he will look at measures and perhaps additional resources to strengthen community organisations, which are well placed to reach out to young people to stop them joining gangs in the first place?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sorry I missed the hon. Lady in Wolverhampton yesterday and I will try and make up for that in future. I met the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), however, the former Trade and Industry Minister, who is no longer in his place, so it was not any party issue. The hon. Lady makes a good point about what local government can do with voluntary bodies to thicken society in our constituencies, and I applaud that wherever it takes place.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

In addition to providing substantial mutual aid to the west midlands police force and keeping up numbers on the streets of Worcester, the West Mercia police have made a number of arrests in the past few days for inciting public disorder through social media. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending that front-footed, proactive policing approach, but also make sure that the police and the courts have the powers that they need to pursue not just the perpetrators, but the organisers and inciters of this criminal violence?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have to make sure that people who use this new technology for evil purposes are properly prosecuted and convicted, and I am sure they will be.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

One of the ways in which ordinary people are trying to get their voices heard is by going on to the Government’s new e-petitions website and signing a petition that was posted only two days ago, which has already got up to almost 100,000 signatures asking for the rioters to have their benefits withdrawn. How will the Prime Minister meet those raised expectations and say to the 100,000 people who have signed that e-petition that something will happen as a result of visiting a Government-sponsored website?

[The Prime Minister]

One of the points of the new e-petitions website is to make sure that if a certain level of signatures is reached, the matter will be debated in the House, whether we like it or not. That is an important way of empowering people. There may be opportunities, possibly through the new criminal justice and sentencing legislation, to make sure that we are better at confiscating things from people when they commit crimes. We must look at all the ways we can of making sure that our punishments are robust.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

As a former police surgeon, I have personally witnessed the great professionalism of our police forces in the face of extreme provocation. This week they have faced extreme violence as well. At all times they have been identifiable and therefore accountable. Is it time for us to make it an offence for anybody involved in rioting and demonstrating to cover their faces, so that they too can be both identifiable and accountable?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. In my statement I said that we would extend the power that the police have—at present they can do it only in limited circumstances with limited people—so that they have a more blanket power of insisting that people remove face masks.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

People in Nottingham are understandably shocked and very frightened by some appalling incidents in some parts of our city on Monday and Tuesday nights. I want to pay tribute to Nottinghamshire police for bringing the situation under control and arresting those responsible. What plans does the Prime Minister have to meet residents and community leaders in Nottingham to listen to their concerns and hear what they believe needs to be done to learn the lessons of recent days?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that Ministers make a number of visits, as I have been doing over recent days and will do over coming days. I think the Deputy Prime Minister plans to visit Nottingham very shortly. I do not plan to do so at present, but I will be trying to get to as many parts of the country as I can.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, in particular his comments on more robust policing and more tools being made available to the police. May I urge on him the fact that for police officers and their commanders in particular to be willing to take greater risks, rather than have their men stand by, entails recognising that sometimes those actions will have grave unforeseen consequences? Police commanders need to be supported then.

[The Prime Minister]

We must always back the police when they do the right thing. Much has been said about the police, police tactics and so on. Every year I attend—I know the leader of the Labour party also goes—the police bravery awards. There one sees police officers who have done extraordinary things—confronting people with guns and knives when they do not even have any body armour. So let it be on the record in the House that individual officers do incredibly brave things every day, and we praise them for it.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

It actually took four nights, not two nights, to put 16,000 police officers on the streets of London. That put businesses and people in danger, including my constituents. So far I have not heard a convincing explanation as to why that took so long. Can the Prime Minister give one?

[The Prime Minister]

In the end, the deployment and the numbers are an issue for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and that is a question that he will have to answer. It was a different situation Sunday night to Monday night to Tuesday night. We must look at that in finding the answer. The point that I was making is that it is possible to surge. The police demonstrated that that was possible, but we needed to surge more quickly.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

The Prime Minister shares my concern about the children on the streets and the importance of parental responsibility and parental discipline. Does he share my concern that certain parents say that the public institutions from time to time undermine parental authority, and that that issue needs to be looked at as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, we should test Government policy by whether it improves responsibility or undermines it.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I regret the response that the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but I thank him for the words of tribute that he paid to firefighters. As the secretary of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group, may I ask him whether the commitment that he has given to police authorities to stand by any additional costs applies to fire authorities as well? A thousand firefighter posts have been cut over the past year and there are real concerns about overstretch.

[The Prime Minister]

The point that I was making about the police is that they have to stand behind the Riot (Damages) Act. That is why it is important that the Home Office stands behind them. It is not an analogous situation to that of the fire brigade.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The Prime Minister rightly identified new and unique threats that the police have faced in recent days. What new and unique solutions does he think will be necessary to deal with the underlying causes of this social unrest?

[The Prime Minister]

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, the police themselves will want to review what happened when there were large numbers of different groups looting in different parts of the country at the same time. They will want to work out how to address that—what tactics are needed and how to make sure they get arrests made more quickly—and the Home Office will want to work with them in that endeavour.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

In North Yorkshire, public order officers have been sent to London, Birmingham and Manchester. The consequence has been that all rest days have been cancelled. Police officers are now working 12 hours on, 12 hours off around the clock, and there is no more fat to cut. Will the Prime Minister give the House an estimate of how much in Bellwin money, Riot (Damages) Act money and other compensation the public purse will have to pay out? Would it not make sense in future years to spend that money on the police instead of on paying for the cost of disorder?

[The Prime Minister]

I cannot give an estimate of what will be paid out under Bellwin or under the schemes that we have established today because that will depend on the demand that comes from local authorities, but there is a huge amount of money and resources available. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s idea that somehow if we had spent more on the police this year, that would have prevented the disorder that took place. The causation is entirely the wrong way around.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outbreak of mob rule this week has been incubating during a decade of irresponsibility across our society in banking, football, media and, dare I say it, in politics and the welfare state? We are witnessing the consequences of a politically correct, debt-fuelled, anything-goes consumerist culture. Far from the debt crisis being the cause of this criminality, it is a vital opportunity for us to wean our young people off a shallow celebrity culture and restore some old-fashioned virtues of thrift, personal responsibility and respect for the law.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes some important points about the culture that has grown up, which people will want to consider in the coming days.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I commend the Prime Minister for being extremely reluctant to send in the troops, because when the troops were sent into Tonypandy by a Liberal Home Secretary 100 years ago to try to deal with the riots there they made the situation worse rather than better. But does not that place all the more emphasis on ensuring that there are enough people in police uniforms on the street able to do a robust job? He commends Welsh police forces for sending people down to London, but in the next four years we will have 1,200 fewer police officers in Wales and it will be more difficult for us to help London out.

[The Prime Minister]

In Wales, as in England, there are opportunities to get officers out from desk jobs, HR jobs and IT jobs. Opposition Members shake their heads. That is what is so hopeless about them—a sense that there is no reform that can be made to try to get better value for money. That is why, frankly, the country is not listening to them.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister share with me his gratitude to Lancashire police for sending 76 police officers to help out in London, and will he convey to the Opposition that, at my insistence 12 months ago, Lancashire police found a way of keeping their PCSOs, preventing two of my constituents from fuelling violence and rioting in my constituency and in Lancaster?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly pay tribute to the Lancashire force and to other forces who acted quickly under the PNICC system to make forces available in London, Manchester or the west midlands where they were most needed.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Following the tragic killing of three young men in Birmingham, the city faced its most dangerous moment in a decade. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to our brave police, under the inspirational leadership of Chief Constable Chris Sims, and all that is best in our community, Tarik Jahan and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who acted to hold the community together so that Birmingham could say with one voice, “We will not be divided”?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. I was extremely impressed when I went to the West Midlands control centre and saw that Chris Sims was spending as much of his time on meeting and talking with community leaders and representatives as he was on planning to ensure that there were the right number of police on the streets throughout the west midlands. It was very impressive. It showed the community coming together. Birmingham city council played a big role as well, and I pay tribute to all those who did a model job.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the 1,300 voluntary special constables who played a vital part in restoring calm in the capital on Tuesday? Will he also take note that many special constables, including one in my constituency, Orpington, struggled to secure permission from their employer to enable them to take part in the surge effort, which was eventually so successful?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There has recently been a growth in specials in some forces and that is hugely welcome, but we need employers to show a sense of social responsibility to release them rapidly for service when they are needed.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I welcome the £20 million fund for high street businesses, but the problem is that 48,000 retailers have been directly or indirectly affected by the riots. Is the fund enough, and how will it work?

[The Prime Minister]

The £20 million fund is available from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but there is also the Riot (Damages) Act, which dates back to 1886 and may be another measure that the Liberals were responsible for, which enables businesses that have been affected by riot to claim the money from the police service, which the Home Office can stand behind.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

As a London MP, I was shocked and horrified by the scenes of criminality, violence and looting in this great city of ours during the last week. What was evident was the complete lack of respect and discipline among those who did it. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that he will work closely with schools to make sure that we can improve this for the future?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly do that. In the task of trying to make a more responsible society where people live up to their responsibilities, schools will play a major part.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Scottish police assisting their English colleagues is part of the benefit of the Union, but why is it that from the beginning of the riot the Government have given the impression of being behind the curve, always paying catch-up, doing too little, too late? Is there not more than a whiff of incompetence?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, I do not accept that, but I do accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the Union. It is important that forces come to each other’s aid, and if there were problems in Scotland, English forces would do the same thing.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Many of my constituents in Shrewsbury have watched in horror the events in some of our cities, and they have written to me overwhelmingly to ask when we will have tangible and enforceable penalties for parents who do not discipline their children.

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, there are parenting orders. They can be used, they can involve parents paying quite hefty fines, and I very much encourage their use at this time.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is quite right that our first duty is to ensure that people are safe and to bring criminals to justice, but when that has been done there are serious issues to be considered, not only about policing, but about employment and education, the values we transmit as a society and the direction in which we are going. These cannot be considered by one Select Committee, so will he rethink his view on setting up a commission of inquiry into what lies behind these riots, so that we will ensure that they are never repeated?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, this is only a week from the very starting event that triggered the process, so having a Home Affairs Committee inquiry to start with is right. The hon. Lady mentions the economic circumstances, but I checked this morning and in a three-mile radius from Tottenham more than 1,300 apprenticeships are available for young people. That is yet another example of attempts to try to link this to economic circumstances or to try to find some excuse for it, which is completely wrong.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The film and print media have shown us footage and photographs of incidents such as people torching shops and they have interviewed looters and rioters. They would say that we have a right to information, but they should recognise that they also have a duty and responsibility, as members of society, not just spectators, to report what they see to the authorities. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether reporters have called the police at the time they saw these things happening, whether the media have handed over their film and recordings, and whether that evidence will be accepted in our courts of law?

[The Prime Minister]

I cannot give the hon. Lady that assurance. What I can say is that media organisations, like others, have responsibilities and should act on those responsibilities. That sort of evidence can be admissible in a court of law.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join the Prime Minister in praising the police, particularly those in Harrow, who earlier this week successfully prevented disorder from breaking out, but may I take this opportunity to point out to him that decisions taken by the Mayor of London are already leading to police sergeant posts being axed in my constituency and that a valuable local police station is set to close as a result of those decisions? May I therefore add my voice to those urging him to think again about police budgets?

[The Prime Minister]

I can only repeat that there are 32,000 officers in the Met and there is a perfect capability to surge that number of officers when necessary. I do not believe that the sort of reductions in budgets that are planned over the next four years should lead to any reduction in visible policing, whether in London or elsewhere. There are police officers working in IT, HR and desk jobs that can be civilianised so that police can be released for the front line. Because the Government are taking difficult decisions about police pay and allowances, we will not have to make the reductions in police numbers that the cuts proposed by the Labour party would have meant.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) in paying tribute to Lancashire police, who did not just send officers down to London but also sent officers to support Greater Manchester police. Following the arrest of a 25-year-old in Nelson in my constituency for inciting people via Facebook, will the Prime Minister say more about what is being done to ensure that social networks are used as a force for good rather than for evil?

[The Prime Minister]

The Home Secretary is going to have meetings with some of those organisations, but even before that they should recognise their own social responsibilities and stop broadcasting the images if they are inappropriate.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Like many others, I was shocked by the extreme youth of some of those perpetrating the criminal activity earlier this week, but children who are engaged in criminal activity are also children in need. Can the Prime Minister confirm that our youth offending services will be properly equipped and supported to provide the multi-agency interventions that are needed to redirect those young people from a future of crime?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can. We are making changes to the youth justice system, but that is really to incorporate it within the Ministry of Justice, where I think we will be able to make it more efficient and work better.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The Prime Minister attracted enormous criticism years ago when, as Leader of the Opposition, he made a speech tackling the consequences of family and societal breakdown. I urge him to return to these themes; he was right then and he is right now. I also ask him to congratulate Kent police on their excellent work in making our streets safe. On Monday night, youths from London came to Gillingham to try to set businesses alight, but they were detected, prevented from doing so and put before the courts within 24 hours.

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly pay tribute to the Kent police force, which does such a good job. My hon. Friend referred to a speech I made about the importance of addressing the problems of family breakdown and irresponsibility. These are not easy things for politicians to talk about, because our families can also break down and we fail on many occasions, but it is too important a subject to ignore.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

We all welcome the Prime Minister’s praise for the individual police officers, firefighters and ambulance and emergency staff. Will he now follow up his warm words with warm action and abandon his proposals to undermine the pension arrangements of those self same firefighters, ambulance staff and policemen?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking action on the advice of Lord Hutton, the former Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has written a very good report. He makes certain exceptions for uniformed services. It is a very sensible report that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will study.

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

One of the many abhorrent aspects of the recent disorder was the threat of violence against our brave firefighters, and yet the relevant legislation is insufficiently clear. There is no specific offence of threatening a firefighter and the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 allows for only a £5,000 fine. Considering that the firefighters are defending not only homes and business but lives is it not now time to revisit this and make an appropriate and strong custodial sentence the presumption?

[The Prime Minister]

When we hear about people attacking firefighters who are trying to put out fires, it is absolutely appalling and unforgiveable that that can happen in our country. I know that the issue of giving specific public servants specific protection has been looked at in the past in criminal justice legislation and I dare say that we can look at it again, but I think that any court using its discretion and judgment would want to give a pretty exemplary sentence to anyone viciously minded enough to attack a firefighter when they are trying to put out a fire.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I was genuinely saddened to hear the Prime Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) on the proposal to evict the people responsible for this damage from social housing. Some of us from the communities that have been on the receiving end of the damage and seen stable communities destroyed by these acts really know what we are talking about, so may I ask the Prime Minister to think about this and engage with us before pursuing the matter?

[The Prime Minister]

Perhaps I can arrange for the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who has worked very hard to deliver this policy, to contact the hon. Gentleman. If people in social housing behave appallingly, it should be possible to evict them and keep them evicted.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

My constituents have also been victims of some of the disorder in recent days and strongly welcome the much tougher policing that has been launched since Monday night. The Prime Minister mentioned Bill Bratton, who has done such fantastic work in reducing crime in Boston, New York and Los Angeles. Can he mention some of the things that we might be able to learn from the excellent beat and street policing that has been used in many cities in the United States for the past 17 years?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

This work that is done in the United States is also done in the United Kingdom. One thing we can do is work harder to map and understand how many gangs there are, what their membership is and what they are doing so that we have better intelligence, but I am sure that there will be many things I can discuss with Bill Bratton when he comes to meet me shortly.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said he did not want a sterile debate on resources, which I do not think any of us wants, but there is a division of views on whether there are sufficient police available to deal with this. I would like to praise the police in my constituency for the way they helped to avoid these events affecting Slough. If he is right that there are absolutely sufficient numbers of police, perhaps he would agree to ensure that we have a regular report to Parliament telling us how many police are available and how many are trained to deal with riots so that we can know the real facts.

[The Prime Minister]

I would welcome that, because the point is that the police availability figure today is only 12% of police officers on the beat at any one time. The hon. Lady, like me, is a Thames valley MP, so let me just repeat what Chief Constable Sara Thornton of Thames Valley police said, which is that

“what I haven’t done at all is reduce the number of officers who do the patrol functions, so the officers you see in vehicles, on foot, in uniform, on bicycles. We haven’t cut those numbers at all.”

We have not cut the number of officers or police community support officers in neighbourhood policing teams either. Thames Valley is a big force, and as the hon. Lady and I have sometimes argued against previous Governments, it is not always a very well funded force. If it can do it with these budget reductions, other forces can do it too.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Will elected police commissioners have the power to authorise the use of water cannon, troop support and such measures, or will they have to let others further up the chain of command make those decisions?

[The Prime Minister]

Those decisions must always be an operational matter for the chief constable. Let us be clear—I do not think that the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) fully understood this—that we are talking not about electing chief constables, but about electing commissioners who will replace the police authorities and to whom the chief constable will be accountable.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

As my constituents witnessed the terrible events across the country and members of our own Northumbria police force were deployed to the capital, can the Prime Minister tell them how, by pressing ahead with huge public sector cuts, he will sustain their confidence in the capacity of all the public services that are meant to protect them?

[The Prime Minister]

Perhaps the hon. Lady should stay for the next statement, in which we will hear about the difficult decisions we have had to take in this country in order to keep our credit rating and have low interest rates so that we can get our economy growing. We now have lower interest rates than almost any other country in Europe. Why? It is because we are taking these difficult decisions. If we do not take the difficult decisions, we will end up like other countries with rising interest rates, lack of confidence and, as in the United States, which has the biggest economy of all, a debt downgrade.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

It is my understanding that public order training for police officers was reduced back in 2005. Does my right hon. Friend believe, as I do, that that might have exacerbated some of the instances that so annoyed the public who have watched the pictures on TV in the past few days, and would he like to see that trend reversed if it has not been already?

[The Prime Minister]

There will be lessons to learn about the extent of riot training and the balance between it and ordinary beat-based policing, and I know that we will want to learn all those lessons in the days to come.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Association of Chief Police Officers undertook research that showed that where there is a well-funded youth service there is a decrease in criminality and where there are cuts in youth services there is an increase in crime. Youth work is part of a solution to this disorder, but youth workers are being made redundant across the country as we speak. Will the Prime Minister introduce a moratorium on youth service cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

We are going ahead with the Myplace youth centre programme, which is seeing vast and very well-funded youth centres built in places such as Islington and Hackney and across some of the most deprived parts of London. I do not accept the hon. Lady’s point about causation and that somehow a budget change in youth services leads inexorably to the sort of looting and rioting we saw on our streets.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his diligence and energy in remaining at the Dispatch Box for two and a half hours and welcome the measures he is bringing forward to compensate victims of the mindless violence we have seen? One group with concerns are people who own vehicles that have been torched by thugs and who have only third-party insurance. Will he provide some comfort to those innocent victims?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he says about these long sessions at the Dispatch Box; I am beginning to get used to them. Uninsured businesses are able to claim under the Riot (Damages) Act. That is what the Act is there for, and, as I have said, the Home Office will want to stand behind police forces that are adversely affected by it.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the Prime Minister now wants to extend the previous Labour Government’s legislation to restrict gang members’ wearing of masks, will he explain why he opposed the measures at the time and allowed the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), now the Attorney-General, to describe them as

“practically unworkable and legally dubious gimmicks”?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Now that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is sitting on this side of the House and working so hard, he will make them workable.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

This week saw the busiest night for the London fire brigade since the blitz in terms of the number of fires in one night. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending the brave and dedicated public service that firefighters provide throughout this country, and in thanking police officers, including dozens from Northamptonshire police, who left their force areas to help other forces that were in need of assistance?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly praise Northamptonshire police, but I praise again the firefighters in London and elsewhere who did such magnificent work. I was told one story of a woman firefighter who was on her way to work when a rioter pushed her off her moped and took it away, but instead of going home she just called a taxi, appeared for work and got on with fighting fires in London. It is that sort of spirit that we should praise in the House today.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

As chair of the all-party group on retail and business crime, I can tell the Prime Minister that retailers’ biggest concern is lenient sentences. Will he assure them that sentencing terms will increase, and will he come along to the group’s next meeting on 8 September to advise us of the progress on that since this debate?

[The Prime Minister]

I might want to send the Business Secretary, or someone from the Business Department, to that meeting, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point that businesses want not only to see the people who perpetrated the looting prosecuted and convicted, but to work even more closely with the police to protect their premises. I have heard that from many businesses, and from multiple chains, some of which had their stores attacked in many different places on the same day.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister for his statement and his comments about social media. The criminal elements who visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) were due to come to Wimbledon on Tuesday night, having been urged to do so via social networking sites. Only the boarding up of the town centre and the surge of which my right hon. Friend spoke stopped them. May I urge the group that he has set up to look at, and to ask Ofcom to look at, the possibility of introducing variants to licences and temporary prohibition on a public order basis?

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly do that. What method we use is less important than the intent of looking at ways to ensure that, if social media are used for violent purposes, we are able to intervene.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I join right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House who have commended the brave work of West Midlands police officers. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending the brave work of Warwickshire officers, who have also given mutual aid, and will he tell us whether the Government will compensate smaller forces, such as Warwickshire, for that work?

[The Prime Minister]

This is how the system works. ACPO has established the police national information co-ordination centre, or PNICC, through which forces work together to make sure that officers get to the places where they are needed, and we should allow those arrangements to work.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that those who are convicted, those who have tried to destroy our society, should not receive the benefits of our society?

[The Prime Minister]

I think my hon. Friend refers to the petition that is gathering signatures, and, as I have said, we should look at additional powers to ensure not only that we confiscate things from people who have committed crimes, but that the punishments that they receive, whether prison or not, are robust.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When Mark Duggan was shot last week, the IPCC immediately went in and sealed the crime scene, but then no statement was made, and that gave an excuse to the rioters. It would be good if the IPCC, or someone, made a definitive statement on what happened. Otherwise, conspiracy theories build up.

[The Prime Minister]

The difficulty with my hon. Friend’s suggestion is that the IPCC has got to get across the detail before it makes a statement. There is a huge danger on such occasions of making statements that turn out not to be true and that inflame passions either at the time or afterwards when their veracity is questioned. This is an extremely difficult situation, but we must have confidence and faith in the IPCC system, which is independent of the police and can, therefore, give victims confidence.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I, too, thank the Prime Minister for coming to Wolverhampton yesterday, and I particularly welcome the initiative on planning. Yesterday evening I was with a community TV station on the Dudley road, and I heard with my own ears the brave, stoical and wise words of Tariq Jahan. I also spoke to about half a dozen young Muslim men, who said to me quite directly, “You will not stem this tide of irresponsibility unless the House speaks with one voice. It is important that the issue is not hijacked for political point-scoring.” Does my right hon. Friend concur with that view?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for organising that cross-party meeting in Wolverhampton, and I pay tribute to him for the wise words that he spoke in his community yesterday, and for his efforts to bring people together in Wolverhampton. Let me praise Sangat TV, which helped the police to catch a criminal. That was an exercise in social responsibility by a media company. It should be praised, and so should he.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Many Crewe and Nantwich residents have told me of how appalled they have been by the despicable scenes that have been played out on our streets, and by the potential cost to them as taxpayers. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank Cheshire police for their role in related arrests, and to reassure my law-abiding constituents that they will not pay the price for the wanton criminality of others?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Cheshire police gave help to Greater Manchester police and, I think, to other areas as well. I want to reassure his constituents and people throughout the country that this Government, this House, this Parliament are on the side of the law-abiding. What needs to happen is a process of taking back the streets on behalf of the law-abiding, and of demonstrating to the whole country that the guilty will be punished.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the chief constable and officers of Staffordshire police, who not only kept Staffordshire safe but policed Birmingham and Manchester? Mike Cunningham is one other chief constable who believes that he has the resources now and will have in the future to do the job. Will the Prime Minister commend him?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in praising Staffordshire police, who provided assistance to the west midlands. Once again, this demonstrates that small forces can not only do a good job in their local communities, but help out others when they are in need.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

Looking to the future, I note that far too many of the people—young and old alike—who were involved in violent and criminal behaviour appear to come from the relatively small number of totally dysfunctional families in this country. Does the Prime Minister agree that work to turn such families around is somewhat piecemeal, involving far too many agencies, too many targets and too much paperwork? Will the Government find ways of targeting resources more effectively?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. We plan to spend additional money on the 20,000 most troubled families in the country, with more early intervention and much better co-ordination. So often with those families, we find that they have contact after contact with the authorities, but that it is contact with them rather than work to change behaviour and address problems. The problem is manageable. I know that there are 20,000 such families, and there might even be 100,000, but it is still a manageable number which we can deal with during this Parliament.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

Two hours and 40 minutes ago the Prime Minister in his statement referred to the British model of policing. My understanding is that that model is policing through and by the public’s consent. Does he accept that he now has the public’s consent in such situations for a police force to rebalance its concerns about individual freedoms with its own freedom to act?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend has been waiting two hours and 50 minutes to say that, but he puts it absolutely beautifully. None of us in the House wants to break with the British model, whereby the public are the police and the police are the public. They come from our communities, they are known to us and we know them, and it is a very special thing that we have, but that model has to be refreshed and updated with new tactics, resources and technology, as appropriate, so that it meets new threats. One message of the past few days is that police chiefs should feel that they have the political backing to make the necessary changes to meet new threats. “Don’t be stuck in the old ways of doing things if they are not working”—that will be one of the real lessons that we learn in the coming days.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister consider the suggestion that anyone who is convicted of rioting and who is not a UK citizen should be deported immediately and barred for life from returning to this country?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are now much better mechanisms to ensure that people who enter the criminal justice system and who do not have a right to be here are removed more quickly.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to the House over the past 165 minutes, and I thank all 160 colleagues, including the Leader of the Opposition, who have questioned him.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement.

Over the past two weeks, a torrent of revelations and allegations has engulfed some of this country’s most important institutions. It has shaken people’s trust in the media and the legality of what they do, in the police and their ability to investigate media malpractice, and yes, in politics and in politicians’ ability to get to grips with these issues. People desperately want us to put a stop to the illegal practices, to ensure the independence and effectiveness of the police, and to establish a more healthy relationship between politicians and media owners. Above all, they want us to act on behalf of the victims: people who have suffered dreadfully—including through murder and terrorism—and who have had to relive that agony all over again because of phone hacking. The public want us to work together to sort this problem out, because until we do so it will not be possible to get back to the issues they care about even more: getting our economy moving, creating jobs, helping with the cost of living, protecting us from terrorism, and restoring fairness to our welfare and immigration systems.

So let me set out the action we have taken. We now have a well-led police investigation which will examine criminal behaviour by the media and corruption in the police. We have set up a wide-ranging and independent judicial inquiry under Lord Justice Leveson to establish what went wrong, why and what we need to do to ensure it never happens again.

I am the first Prime Minister to publish meetings with media editors, proprietors and senior executives to bring complete transparency to the relationship between Government Ministers and the media, stretching right back to the general election. And the House of Commons, by speaking so clearly about its revulsion at the phone hacking allegations, helped to cause the end of the News Corp bid for the rest of BSkyB.

Today, I would like to update the House on the action we are taking, first, on the make-up and remit of the public inquiry; secondly, on issues concerning the police service; and thirdly, I will answer—I am afraid at some length—all of the key questions that have been raised about my role and that of my staff.

First, on the judicial inquiry and the panel of experts who will assist it, those experts will be: the civil liberties campaigner and director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti; the former chief constable of the West Midlands, Sir Paul Scott-Lee; the former chairman of Ofcom, Lord David Currie; the long-serving former political editor of Channel 4 News, Elinor Goodman; the former political editor of The Daily Telegraph and former special correspondent of the Press Association, George Jones; and the former chairman of the Financial Times, Sir David Bell. These people have been chosen not only for their expertise in the media, broadcasting, regulation and policing, but for their complete independence from the interested parties.

I also said last week that the inquiry will proceed in two parts, and I set out a draft terms of reference. We have consulted Lord Justice Leveson, the Opposition, the Chairs of relevant Select Committees, and the devolved Administrations. I also talked to the family of Milly Dowler and the Hacked Off campaign.

We have made some significant amendments to the remit of the inquiry. With allegations that the problem of the relationship between the press and the police goes wider than just the Met, we have agreed that other relevant forces will now be within the scope of the inquiry. We have agreed that the inquiry should consider not just the relationship between the press, police and politicians, but their individual conduct too. We have also made it clear that the inquiry should look not just at the press, but at other media organisations, including broadcasters and social media if there is any evidence that they have been involved in criminal activities. I am today placing in the Library of the House the final terms of reference. Lord Justice Leveson and the panel will get to work immediately. He will aim to make a report on the first part of the inquiry within 12 months. There should be no doubt: this public inquiry is as robust as possible; it is fully independent; and Lord Justice Leveson will be able to summon witnesses under oath.

Let me now turn to the extraordinary events we have seen over the past few days at Britain’s largest police force, the Met. On Sunday, Sir Paul Stephenson resigned as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I want to thank him for the work he has carried out in policing over many, many years in London and elsewhere. On Monday, Assistant Commissioner John Yates also resigned, and again, I want to express my gratitude for the work he has done, especially in improving our response to terrorism.

Given the sudden departure of two such senior officers, the first concern must be to ensure that the effective policing of our capital, and confidence in that policing, are maintained. I have asked the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London to ensure that the responsibilities of the Met will continue seamlessly. The current Deputy Commissioner, Tim Godwin, who stood in for Paul Stephenson when he was ill and did a good job, will shortly do so again. The vital counter-terrorism job carried out by John Yates will be taken on by the highly experienced Cressida Dick.

The responsibilities of the Deputy Commissioner, which, the House will remember, includes general oversight of the vital investigations both into hacking and into the police—Operations Weeting and Elveden—will not be done by someone from inside the Met, but instead by Bernard Hogan-Howe, who will join temporarily from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary.

We are also looking to speed up the process for selecting and appointing the next commissioner, but we cannot hope that a change in personnel at the top of the Met is enough. The simple fact is that the whole affair raises huge issues about the ethics and practices of our police. Let me state this plainly: the vast majority of our police officers are beyond reproach and serve the public with distinction. But police corruption must be rooted out. Operation Elveden and Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry are charged with doing just that, but I believe that we can and must do more.

Put simply, there are two problems: first, a perception that when problems arise it is still “the police investigating the police”; and secondly, a lack of transparency in terms of police contacts with the media. We are acting on both. Those were precisely the two points that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary addressed in her statement to this House on Monday.

We believe that this crisis calls for us to stand back and take another, broader look at the whole culture of policing in this country, including the way it is led. At the moment, the police system is too closed. There is only one point of entry into the force. There are too few, and arguably too similar, candidates for the top jobs. As everyone knows, Tom Winsor is looking into police careers, and I want to see radical proposals for how we can open up our police force and bring in fresh leadership. The Government are introducing elected police and crime commissioners, ensuring that there is an individual holding their local force to account for local people, and we need to see whether we can extend that openness to the operational side too.

Why should all police officers have to start at the same level? Why should not someone with a different skill set be able to join the police force in a senior rank? Why should not someone who has been a proven success overseas be able to help us to turn around a force here at home? I believe that those are questions we should ask to get the greater transparency and stronger corporate governance we need in Britain’s policing.

Finally, let me turn to the specific questions that I have been asked in recent days. First, it has been suggested that my chief of staff was behaving wrongly when he did not take up then Assistant Commissioner Yates’s offer to be briefed on police investigations around phone hacking. I have said repeatedly about the police investigation that they should pursue the evidence wherever it leads and arrest exactly whom they wish, and that is exactly what they have done.

No. 10 has now published the full e-mail exchange between my chief of staff and John Yates, and it shows that my staff behaved entirely properly. Ed Llewellyn’s reply to the police made it clear that it would be not be appropriate to give me or my staff any privileged briefing. The reply that he sent was cleared in advance by my permanent secretary, Jeremy Heywood. Just imagine, Mr Speaker, if they had done the opposite and asked for, or acquiesced to, receiving privileged information, even if there was no intention to use it. There would have been quite justified outrage.

To risk any perception that No. 10 was seeking to influence a sensitive police investigation in any way would have been completely wrong. Mr Yates and Sir Paul both backed that judgment in their evidence yesterday. Indeed, as John Yates said:

“The offer was properly and understandably rejected.”

The Cabinet Secretary and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee have now both backed that judgment, too.

Next, there is the question of whether the ministerial code was broken in relation to the BSkyB merger and meetings with News International executives. The Cabinet Secretary has ruled very clearly that the code was not broken, not least because I had asked to be entirely excluded from the decision.

Next, I would like to set the record straight on another question that arose yesterday: whether the Conservative party had also employed Neil Wallis. The Conservative party chairman has ensured that all the accounts have been gone through. He has confirmed to me that neither Neil Wallis nor his company have ever been employed or contracted by the Conservative party, and nor has the Conservative party made payments to either of them. It has been drawn to our attention that he may have provided Andy Coulson with some informal advice on a voluntary basis before the election. To the best of my knowledge, I did not know anything about this until Sunday night. But, as with revealing this information, we will be entirely transparent about this issue.

Finally, there is the question of whether everyone—the media, the police and politicians—is taking responsibility in an appropriate manner. I want to address my own responsibilities very directly, and that brings me to my decision to employ Andy Coulson. I have said very clearly that if it turns out that Andy Coulson knew about the hacking at the News of the World, he will not only have lied to me, but he will have lied to the police, a Select Committee and the Press Complaints Commission, and of course perjured himself in a court of law. More to the point, if that comes to pass, he could also expect to face severe criminal charges. I have an old-fashioned view about innocent until proven guilty, but if it turns out that I have been lied to, that would be the moment for a profound apology. In that event, I can tell you that I will not fall short. My responsibilities are for hiring him and for the work he did in Downing street. On the work he did, I repeat, perhaps not for the last time, that his work at Downing street has not been the subject of any serious complaint and, of course, he left months ago. On the decision to hire him, I believe that I have answered every question about that. It was my decision—[Interruption.] Hold on. It was my decision; I take responsibility—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister. The House must come to order and hear, in silence, the remainder of the statement.

[The Prime Minister]

People will, of course, make judgments about it. Of course, I regret, and I am sorry about, the furore it has caused. With 20:20 hindsight and all that has followed, I would not have offered him the job, and I expect that he would not have taken it. But you do not make decisions in hindsight; you make them in the present. You live and you learn and, believe you me, I have learned.

I look forward to answering any and all questions about these issues. Following the statement, I will open the debate, but the greatest responsibility I have is to clear up this mess, so let me finish by saying this. There are accusations of criminal behaviour by parts of the press and potentially by the police where the most rapid and decisive action is required. There are the issues of excessive closeness to media groups and media owners where both Labour and Conservative have to make a fresh start. There is the history of missed warnings—Select Committee reports; Information Commissioner reports. They were missed by the last Government but, yes, missed by the official Opposition, too. What the public expect is not petty political point scoring. What they want and deserve is concerted action to rise to the level of events and a pledge to work together to sort this issue out once and for all. It is in that spirit that I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? Recalling Parliament was the right thing to do, because rebuilding trust in the press, police and politics is essential for our society. The most powerful institutions in the land must show the responsibility that we expect from everybody else. That is why the country wants answers from those involved in the crisis so that those responsible can be held to account, and so that we as a country can move forward to address all the issues that the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement.

That is why I welcome Lord Leveson’s inquiry, the announcement of the terms of reference and, indeed, the panel members chosen by the Prime Minister for that purpose. It is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s agreement with us about the abolition of the Press Complaints Commission and the fact that it needs to be replaced. It is why I welcome the apology from Rupert Murdoch and the withdrawal of the BSkyB bid. It is why we respect the decision by Sir Paul Stephenson to stand down so that, going forward, the leadership of the Met can focus on the vital work that is necessary.

So we are beginning to see answers given and responsibility taken, and that is right, but the Prime Minister knows that he must do the same if the country is to move forward. [Interruption.] I have a number of questions for him. He said in his statement—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister was caught in a tragic conflict of loyalty between the standards and integrity that people should expect of him and his staff, and his personal allegiance to Mr Coulson. He made the wrong choice. He chose to stick with Mr Coulson.

My second question is: can the Prime Minister now explain why he failed to act on clear information, and why those around him built a wall of silence between the facts and the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister’s conflict of interests had real effects. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner resigned on Sunday. The Prime Minister did not talk about the reasons for his resignation, but the House must talk about it. Sir Paul Stephenson was trapped. He was trapped between a Home Secretary angry at not being told about the hiring of Mr Coulson’s deputy, Neil Wallis, and Sir Paul’s belief, in his own words, that doing so would have compromised the Prime Minister—compromised him because of Mr Coulson. Why did Sir Paul think that? Because his own deputy, John Yates, had been told by the Prime Minister’s chief of staff that the Prime Minister should be told nothing.

This catastrophic error of judgment—hiring Andy Coulson and hanging on to him for too long—directly contributed to the position that Sir Paul found himself in and his decision to resign. My third question is: does the Prime Minister accept that his conflict of interest put the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in an impossible position?

So the three questions are about BSkyB, the warnings about Mr Coulson that were consistently ignored, and the Met Commissioner. These and many other questions will have to be answered by the Prime Minister over the coming months, but there is one other question that matters now. He says that in hindsight he made a mistake by hiring Mr Coulson. He says that if Mr Coulson lied to him, he would apologise. That is not good enough. It is not about hindsight or whether Mr Coulson lied to him; it is about all the information and warnings that he ignored. He was warned, but he preferred to ignore the warnings. So that the country can have the leadership we need, why does he not do more than give a half apology and provide a full apology now for hiring Mr Coulson and bringing him into the heart of Downing street?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman: stop hunting for feeble conspiracy theories and start rising to events. Most of his remarks were just a tissue of totally—[Interruption.] I shall try to answer every point. First, I thank him for what he said about recalling Parliament. That was the right thing to do. I also thank him for what he said about Lord Leveson, whom I think will do a good job, and about the panel. We sent the names to his office this morning.

I feel, however, that the right hon. Gentleman wrote most of his questions before he heard my statement today. He asked about BSkyB. The Cabinet Secretary has said that there was no breach of the ministerial code. We heard the evidence of Rebekah Wade yesterday, saying that there was not one single inappropriate conversation. When it comes to setting out meetings with News Corporation, I should point out that I have set out every single meeting since the last election. The right hon. Gentleman published a list this morning, but it did not go back to the last election. Indeed, when are we going to see the transparency from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown?

Secondly, on the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about Andy Coulson—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House is getting over-excited again. I am glad that it has calmed down and will want to listen to the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about Andy Coulson. I remind him that no one has raised a single question about his conduct at No. 10 Downing street. There is today only one party leader with a News International executive sitting in his office with a cloud over his head.

Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman raised questions about my chief of staff, Edward Llewellyn. On the proposed meeting with John Yates, is the Leader of the Opposition really suggesting that he knows better than the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Cabinet Secretary, John Yates, Paul Stephenson and others, including Jeremy Heywood, who, by the way, worked diligently for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? Is he saying that all those people are wrong and he is right? I think that that shows a staggering lack of judgment.

I want to answer the question about Sir Paul’s resignation. I know that it is inconvenient for the right hon. Gentleman, but Sir Paul Stephenson set out the reasons for his resignation yesterday in detailed evidence and explained how his situation was so different from that in No. 10 Downing street. Most of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked I have already answered: the role of the chief of staff—answered. The parallels with the Metropolitan police—answered. The role of Mr Wallis—answered. On the closeness to media groups, we should be clear about what we heard yesterday. Rupert Murdoch said that the politician he was closest to was Gordon Brown as Chancellor—and who was adviser to Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Back Benchers are getting over-excited but will want to hear the answers given by their Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Who was adviser to Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor? It was the right hon. Gentleman.

On the action that we have taken, we should remember that during the previous Parliament, the Information Commissioner’s reports were ignored. Select Committee reports—[Hon. Members: “Ignored!”] The failure of the police investigation—[Hon. Members: “Ignored!”] We now know exactly which party was the slumber party—the Labour party. Everyone can see exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He is trying to play this for narrow party advantage, but the problem has been taking place over many years and is for both our main parties. The public expect us to stop playing with it, rise to the occasion and deal with it for the good of the country.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Under the previous Labour Government, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was arrested by the Metropolitan police, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary of the day were not notified of the details of that investigation. At the time Labour Front Benchers insisted it was a matter of ministerial propriety that they were not told. Is it not therefore the case that not only has Mr Llewellyn not done wrong, but he has done exactly what a public servant should do, and to say otherwise is hypocrisy?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I think when we read the exchange of e-mails and see what Edward Llewellyn said, we see that it was cleared in advance by Jeremy Heywood and it was absolutely right. We do not live in a country, thank God, where the Prime Minister starts ordering who should be arrested and who should not be.

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary made a statement on Monday of more than 1,000 words, but the two words “Neil” and “Wallis” were not mentioned. She, like me, was unaware of his appointment, but we were not in a situation where Neil Wallis’s best buddy was working for us. The Prime Minister was. Did he know that Neil Wallis was giving advice to the Metropolitan police?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I did not know that, and as I have said in relation to the work he did for Andy Coulson, I was unaware of that. I think this is an important point, because one of the issues is, frankly, the transparency and information that there was about Neil Wallis and the Metropolitan police. The one thing everyone has to say about No. 10 Downing street is that there was no hiding the fact that we had employed Andy Coulson.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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?

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

When the Prime Minister read of the extensive investigation in The New York Times on 1 September last year, what was his reaction, and what did he do?

[The Prime Minister]

The question I ask myself all the way through is, “Is there new information that Andy Coulson knew about hacking at the News of the World?” I could not be clearer about this: if it turns out that he knew about that hacking, he will have lied to a Select Committee, he will have lied to the police, he will have lied to a court of law and he will have lied to me. I made the decision to employ him in good faith, because of the assurances he gave me. There was no information in that article that would lead me to change my mind about those assurances, but if it turns out—[Interruption.] As I said, I could not be clearer. If it turns out that he knew about the hacking, that will be a matter of huge regret and a matter for great apology, and it will be not only a disgrace that he worked in government but, vitally, something that would be subject to criminal prosecutions.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what people really care about are the appalling revelations of what has been going on in the newsroom of the News of the World and in parts of the Metropolitan police, and that the public anger about that is expressly felt by thousands of hard-working and honest journalists, and by thousands of dedicated and courageous police officers? Does he agree that, for that reason, it is essential that the police investigation should be completed as quickly as possible, that the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation should be completed and that the judicial inquiry should get under way and be completed as quickly as possible? Can he give us an absolute assurance that those investigations will now be given the priority that they should have been given a long time ago?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We have to keep the victims of the hacking scandal at the absolute heart of this. Those are the people who have suffered appallingly already and were made to suffer all over again. The key thing here is the extent and scale of the judicial inquiry. An inquiry such as this— into the media, into malpractice, into the police and, yes, into politicians too—has not been held for many, many years. It has been talked about and debated, but it is now going to get under way and I want it to get on with its work as rapidly as possible.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I must challenge the Prime Minister on the accuracy of one of his assertions. He said that nobody raised Andy Coulson’s conduct with him while he worked for the Prime Minister. I did, in a letter on 4 October last year, after new allegations that he had listened to tapes of intercepted voicemail messages came through. I said in the letter that this cast doubt on the accuracy of Mr Coulson’s statement. I am still waiting for a reply.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, to what he has done and his role in this. The point I am making is simply this: the time that Andy Coulson spent at No. 10 Downing Street and the work that he did for the Government, no one has made a complaint against. That seems to me to be important, because I have said that I gave him a second chance after he had resigned from the News of the World because of what happened under his watch. No one has raised with me any of his conduct at No. 10 while he carried out that job.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has said that contacts with the media since the general election will be published. I do not think that that is good enough. We need to know the contacts that the Government have had with the media for the past 10 years. We also need an investigation into the Home Office and into what Home Office Ministers were doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The point that I have just made is that this inquiry is specifically looking at the relationship between politicians and the media, and—at the request of Hacked Off and the Dowler family—at the conduct of both. That inquiry can go back as far as it wants to go back, to examine the relationship between politicians and the media. Frankly, I think that we all need to be clear—particularly the two main parties—that the level of contact has been very great, and that we did spend too much time trying to get on with media companies to get our message across. As a result, the last Government and the last Opposition too often put on the back burner the issue of how to regulate the media. That is the mistake that we made. We have both—all—got to be honest about it. And by the way, this is not just about the relationship with News International; it is also about the work we do trying to win over the BBC or The Independent or The Guardian. Let us be frank about this, and let us be transparent about the meetings that we have. Then we can learn the lessons and use this as a cathartic moment to sort out the relationship and put it on a better footing.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the Prime Minister was awake at 5 o’clock this morning—

[The Prime Minister]

indicated assent.

[Keith Vaz]

I am glad to hear it. The Home Affairs Select Committee published a unanimous report that pointed to the fact that we believe that there were serious misjudgments in the police investigation and that News International had deliberately thwarted the police investigation. The Prime Minister will not have had a chance to read the evidence of Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who said that he took five minutes to look at a file to realise that there was criminality. That file was with Harbottle & Lewis for four years. Will the Prime Minister send out a message from the Dispatch Box that anyone who has information about this matter should hand it over immediately to Sue Akers and explain why it has been withheld?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly send out that message from the Dispatch Box, at the same time as thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the work that his Committee has done. I have not been able to study all the evidence given yesterday, but I did look at the key conclusions of his report this morning. The work that his Committee is doing in drilling down into the conduct of News International—and, indeed, of the police—is extremely valuable. But now we have to let the police investigation—now properly resourced—get under way, to get to the truth and to ensure that there are prosecutions as appropriate, and then let the inquiry get under way to do its work as well. The right hon. Gentleman has played a very good role in helping to make that happen.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister share my concern that, at a time when this House is involved in a very important discussion about this awful issue of phone hacking, and when most people in the country are most concerned about what is going on in the eurozone area and the impact that that might have on their jobs and their employment in this country, the Leader of the Opposition is so narrowly focused on scoring party political points?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The point I would make to all hon. Members is that the public want us to sort this out, and one of the reasons they want us to sort it out and to do it on a cross-party basis is that they want us to get on to the other issues that they care so deeply about. Everyone has got to recognise the threat and the problems that we face as there are difficulties in the eurozone—difficulties that will affect us right here in the UK. But I fully understand and recognise that we have got to deal with this before we can get on to those issues.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

In the Prime Minister’s conversations with the Murdochs, with Mrs Brooks and other News Corp people, was there ever any mention of the BSkyB bid?

[The Prime Minister]

As Rebekah Brooks said yesterday in Parliament, there was never a conversation that could have been held, in front of the Select Committee. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks me to answer the question—perhaps he will now be transparent, as he was Culture Secretary, about all the contacts he has had with News International over many years. I have set out the clearest possible position; it is for others now to do the same thing.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

In the light of Mrs Brooks’s 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.]

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, referred earlier to the file compiled in 2007 that was sent off to the legal firm, Harbottle & Lewis. In that, according to Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, there is absolutely blindingly obvious evidence that police officers were paid for information by the newspaper. News International is still refusing to allow that to be fully considered and is insisting on client confidentiality, so Harbottle & Lewis, which is an important British firm, is unable to put its side of the argument. Is this not clear evidence that News International, contrary to the pretend humility yesterday, is still refusing to co-operate fully with the investigation?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The point I would make is that that information, if it is germane to the police inquiry, needs to be given to the police and indeed to the Leveson inquiry. What we need to happen now is for the police—and then after the police, this inquiry—to go absolutely in pursuit of the truth, and if people have been paying police officers, those police officers need to be prosecuted and the people who did the paying need to be prosecuted. It is as simple as that.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

After hearing the evidence that was given to the Home Affairs Committee, may I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said today about the attention that will be given to the victims of phone hacking, which includes a wide variety of people, including many members of the public who have suffered tragedies in their lives? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, it emerges that it will take a considerable time at the present rate of progress for all those victims to be properly informed? Will he do whatever he can to ensure that they are informed as quickly as possible, and that their cases are now properly investigated?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I do understand, when there are many thousands of people whose phones were hacked, and given the current rate of progress in contacting them and looking into this, that it could take too long a time to get this done. I know there will be conversations with the police and the Metropolitan Police Authority to make sure that adequate resources are put into this investigation, which is already a far bigger investigation than the first, failed investigation, to make sure that they get to the bottom of this.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to widen the terms of reference for the Leveson inquiry to include not just the press but broadcasters and social media as well. Can I be reassured that it will also include other illegal and unethical activities such as so-called blagging and hacking into e-mail accounts; that it will extend to all parts of the United Kingdom; and that, in the interests of the victims of crime and terrorism in particular, both main parties will be absolutely open about the extent of their relationship with the Murdoch empire?

[The Prime Minister]

On the last point about the relationship with News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch and his family, I have been totally transparent and will go on being transparent. On the issue of what the terms of reference mention, of course the inquiry can look at blagging and all the information crimes that have been documented. One issue regarding the terms of reference is whether mentioning some forms but not others would give additional priority. However, no one should be in any doubt about this—Lord Justice Leveson can go where the evidence leads.

[Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that after the extraordinary events of the past few days, the last thing the general public want to see is cheap partisanship—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Mensch]

And that a focus on Andy Coulson comes ill from the party of Tom Baldwin and Damian McBride?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. May I commend her for her questioning and what she did yesterday on the Select Committee? I think she showed commendable pluck, if I can put it that way, as well as asking some extremely pertinent questions.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

In the course of the past few minutes the Prime Minister has been asked a simple question twice and refused to answer it: as Prime Minister, did he ever discuss the question of the BSkyB bid with News International at all the meetings they attended?

[The Prime Minister]

I never had one inappropriate conversation, and let me be clear: I completely took myself out of any decision making about this bid. I had no role in it and I had no role in when the announcements were going to be made. That is the point. When the hon. Gentleman makes signals like that, I have to say—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House again needs to calm down. The question was properly heard and the Prime Minister’s answer must be properly heard.

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered the question and the point I would make is that unlike the party that the hon. Gentleman has been supporting for the last God knows how many years, this party has set out all its contacts, all its meetings and everything it did—in stark contrast to the Labour party.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Judging the mood of the Chamber, this might be an unpopular thing to say, but outside the Westminster bubble I get the impression that the nation has had its fill of this subject and is getting fed up. It wants answers about the police corruption, it wants answers about the hacking and it wants answers about relationships with the press, but there is an inquiry under way and that is where the answers will actually come. It is time that this Westminster bubble frenzy was placed on hold. There are other pressing matters that this nation expects us to focus on.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: we have set up the fullest possible inquiry—an inquiry that was never held under the 13 years of the previous Government—and we have to let that inquiry find the answers to all these questions. It looks at the police, at media, at BSkyB and at the conduct of politicians—it is able to ask all those questions and we should allow it to get on with the job.

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

Yesterday, Prime Minister, News International’s defence seemed to have shifted from one rogue reporter to one—possibly more—rogue lawyers, and it still has not fully revealed who knew what and when and who participated in the cover-up. Rupert Murdoch said yesterday to the Select Committee that that situation was unsatisfactory. Prime Minister, what would you urge News International to do now to resolve that situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is very simple: tell the truth to the police and to the inquiry.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that having failed the victims in 2006, when the Met and the Government ignored the Information Commissioners’s Office’s warnings, and having failed the victims in 2009, when the Met’s eight-hour review dismissed evidence in its own possession, we should not fail them now by simply apportioning blame? What we need is real reform of our police, our media and our politics.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that we can go back over these reports and over the missed warnings, and the inquiry will be able to do that too, and we should use that information and use this once-in-a-generation chance to try to get media regulation right.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The motion we will debate today is about public confidence. Does the Prime Minister really feel that his conduct first as Leader of the Opposition then as Prime Minister should inspire confidence, bearing in mind the phone hacking allegations and the way in which he employed the former editor of the News of the World? Does he not realise that to many people the way in which he has acted in the past few years has been pretty sordid?

[The Prime Minister]

My answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes. Which Government set up a judicial inquiry? This one. Which Government made sure that there is a fully resourced and staffed police investigation? This one. Which Government are being totally transparent about their conduct and contacts with the media and asking others to do the same? That is what this Government have done. For 13 years, his Government had all those opportunities and failed to take them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that in the past when the House of Commons has been faced with big issues it has had a tendency towards knee-jerk over-reactions? Does he agree that newspapers are a force for good in this country and that what we want at the end of this process is criminality weeded out of the media but for nothing to impinge on a free press, free speech and holding people in authority to account?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We need to ensure that as a House of Commons, as a Government and as an Opposition we show an element of restraint in the debate we have about the regulation of the media. There is always a danger that the pendulum can swing too far the other way and we can start to threaten investigative journalism and a strong and independent media that can call Government to account. When we consider some of the scandals that have been uncovered in recent years, we can see that it has often been the press who have done it and not the regulators. I am sure we will come on to this in our debate later, but it is absolutely vital we maintain that British tradition.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Rebekah Brooks yesterday described the Prime Minister as a friend and a neighbour. We heard from Jeremy Clarkson about Christmas walks and conversations over sausages. Given—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

Given the Butler review in the last Parliament, does the Prime Minister believe that such informality on his part was consistent with what is expected?

[The Prime Minister]

One thing that came out of the evidence yesterday was that whereas Rebekah Brooks was invited six times a year to No. 10 Downing street under both the former Prime Ministers she has not been invited to No. 10 Downing street by me. I have set out all the contacts and meetings I have had, in complete contrast to the Labour party. I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have never held a slumber party or seen her in her pyjamas.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

The confidence of my constituents—[Interruption.]

[Mr Binley]

I will start again, Mr Speaker. The confidence of my constituents in Northampton in the political process has been progressively undermined and can be traced to the dismal example of politicians in the mid-1990s laying all before the altar of media barons. How can we change that culture, address the abysmal failure of political oversight and leadership and ensure that never again will we allow propriety to be sacrificed while those responsible are asleep on watch?

[The Prime Minister]

The short answer to my hon. Friend is that I think transparency is probably the best answer. I will come on to that in my speech, when I open the debate, but I think the best way of making sure that relationships are appropriate, and that we do not duck issues of media regulation, is for everyone to see how often we meet.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasised that he has no evidence of any complaint or questions about the conduct of Andy Coulson while he was heading the Government media service. Will the Prime Minister confirm that a year ago, during the period when Mr Coulson was director of communications, the Cabinet Secretary was alerted to evidence of illegal phone hacking, covert surveillance and hostile media briefing directed against a senior official in the Government service? What action, if any, was taken to investigate what appears to have been disgraceful and illegal conduct close to the heart of Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I will have to look very closely at what the right hon. Gentleman said, but the point that I made—I have never seen any evidence to go against it—is that in the period that Andy Coulson worked at No. 10 Downing street as head of communications, there was no complaint about the way he did his job. I fully accept that I take responsibility for employing him. I take responsibility for that decision, and I have laid out very clearly today what I think of that now, and all that has been learned. You have to learn these lessons if you are to go on and get things right for the future. What I would say in my defence is that in the time he spent in Downing street, he did not behave in a way that anyone felt was inappropriate, and that is important, because the decision was to employ him. The decision was then his to leave. During that period, people cannot point to misconduct and say, “That, therefore, was a misjudgment.”

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Many constituents have contacted me regarding this important issue, and they will join me in welcoming the statement today, but many others have been in touch concerning other important issues, such as the crisis in the eurozone and the situation in the horn of Africa. Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that the Government are dealing with all issues, and not simply focusing on phone hacking?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: people do want us to get on with the other issues, particularly at a time when we need the economy to grow, we need to provide more jobs, and we have got to get to grips with problems with the cost of living. They want to see reforms in welfare and immigration. Yes, they want us to deal with this issue, but they want us to keep a perspective and a balance, and get on with many of the issues that this country needs to deal with.

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

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that we need an all-party response to get to the bottom of the issues. Will he therefore ensure that all the minority parties—all the parties in the House—are consulted about the ongoing inquiries, not just the Labour Opposition? Will he take very seriously the responses from the devolved Administrations about the current inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

We did consult the devolved Administrations about the terms of reference and about the inquiry. A number of points were made; it was not possible to include all of them, because sometimes they clashed with points made by other consultees, including the official Opposition. We tried to get the balance right, but I think anyone looking at the terms of reference will see that they cover all the ground and actually set out an extremely comprehensive and effective inquiry.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

While recognising the disgraceful nature of the phone hacking scandal, will my right hon. Friend resist the siren calls of those motivated by petty politics, revenge, and anti-competition, who want to curtail the advantages of a free press and ensure that there is no alternative to the monopoly of the BBC?

[The Prime Minister]

We will come on to discuss the issue of media regulation and media plurality, and the power of media owners, in the debate. I think it is important not to leave the BBC out of that entirely, because it is such a huge part of the media industry in the UK. What we want to ensure is that no media group becomes too powerful or has too much influence, because that will help with the issue of the relationship between politics and the media as well.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for telling us that he will answer all questions, and I wonder, therefore, whether I could take him back to the article in The New York Times in September 2010. He told us today that no information in that article could make him change his mind about Mr Coulson, so could he tell us who brought it to his attention, whether he read it at the time, and who he discussed it with who led him to the conclusion that Coulson was not involved?

[The Prime Minister]

This article, like many others, was discussed, debated, and written about in the British press as well. Of course, all the way through—let me be clear, because this is an important question—the employment of Andy Coulson, there were questions about his resignation from the News of the World, what he knew about the hacking inquiry, and all the rest of it. I set myself a very simple test, which was that if anyone brought me credible information that showed he knew about hacking, I would have fired him. It is as simple as that. If I knew that he had known about hacking, I would not have hired him in the first place. I have tried to be extremely clear about this. As I say, the decision, and the responsibility, is mine for hiring him. His conduct at No. 10 no one has been able to reproach. He does not work at No. 10 Downing street any more, and the only person from News International with a cloud over their head who is stuck in a private office is not in my private office.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

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

As Police Minister, my experience of briefings from the police was that they did not give one any operational information, but they did tell one things that one needed to know. Senior police officers in the Metropolitan police would understand that perfectly. That is exactly what they were offering the Prime Minister. As a Minister, I would have been livid if officials had been keeping information from me. Did the Prime Minister want to be kept in the dark or is he angry with his chief of staff?

[The Prime Minister]

I set this out in great detail in the statement. Of course I have very regular meetings with senior leaders in the Metropolitan Police Service and am briefed particularly about terrorist operations for which the Prime Minister and Cobra have a particular responsibility. But the key issue about my chief of staff’s e-mail is that since reading it, Paul Stephenson, John Yates, the Cabinet Secretary and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee have all said that that was the right judgment. Yates specifically says that the offer was quite rightly rejected.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

This House, the media and the whole country have been rightly focused on this issue, but is the Prime Minister aware that aid agencies are reporting that as a result of that focus there has been a lack of public awareness of the humanitarian crisis in Somalia, and as a consequence lower donations to relief funds? Will the Prime Minister assure me and the House that he will spend his time looking at those issues as well as this one?

[Mr Speaker]

The matter to which the hon. Lady has referred is extremely serious, but whatever her strength of feeling about it, this cannot mutate into a general exchange about other matters, and I know that the Prime Minister will not want it to do so.

[The Prime Minister]

I thought that it was ingenious to get that point into order, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point, and that was one of the reasons why I did not want to cancel entirely my visit to Africa. It is important that we get on with doing the things that Britain should be doing in the world, whether that is trading with countries such as Nigeria and South Africa, or leading the aid effort, as we are, in the horn of Africa where today we have been told there is not just a catastrophe and a drought, but also a famine. I am proud of the fact that Britain is not being deflected from the great role that it is playing to try to feed hungry people.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

At yesterday’s evidence session, Rupert Murdoch was asked about his frequent meetings with the Prime Minister and his Government, to which he replied, “I wish they would leave me alone.” Will the Prime Minister and his Government comply with that request?

[The Prime Minister]

One of the outcomes of all of this is that there will be a lot more of leaving everybody alone.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

In the Operation Motorman investigation, the Information Commissioner found 861 personal information transactions that were positively identified as coming from 89 Mirror Group newspaper journalists. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the inquiry that he has announced will be able to look into the unlawful practices going on at Mirror Group newspapers?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: while we should not believe automatically that those practices were spread right across the media, it would be naive to think that they were restricted to one newspaper or one newspaper group. Indeed, when we look at evidence such as Motorman and the Information Commissioner’s report, it is clear that they went wider, and this inquiry and the police investigation must go where the evidence leads. All of us have to ask questions about people we employ if they were involved in those newspapers.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I heard what the Prime Minister said about consulting the devolved Administrations. For the avoidance of doubt, can he say whether the inquiry extends to Scotland and includes issues that are devolved in Scotland, such as policing? Has he secured the agreement of Scotland’s First Minister for that, and in that context, has he secured an assurance from an uncharacteristically quiet First Minister about his contacts with News International?

[The Prime Minister]

I can confirm that this inquiry extends to Scotland. As I said, we sent the draft terms of reference to the devolved Administrations, and we were able to accept a number of points. There was, I think, one specific point that the Scottish Administration wanted dealt with, concerning the Information Commissioner’s report, which we have not put specifically into the terms but of course it will be dealt with by the inquiry because it is such an important part of the work. More generally, when it comes to the relationship between politicians and media, the inquiry will be able to go where the evidence leads.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while there are allegations against some officers in the Metropolitan police, the vast majority of police officers are protecting us every day, doing a wonderful job, and they should not be smeared by this?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an incredibly important point. Police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day and while of course we have to get to the bottom of what went wrong in the Met, we should not allow that to undermine public confidence in the bobby on the beat and the fantastic job they do for us.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the Prime Minister said that, if he had been given credible information regarding Andy Coulson, he would have done something about it, so will he now answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson)? When the Prime Minister received that letter in October, what did he do?

[The Prime Minister]

The answer is that with all the information that came out while Andy Coulson was working at No. 10 Downing street, there was a permanent conversation, if you like. Was this new evidence that he knew about phone hacking? If it was, he would have to go; if it was not, he would not. That is the key point. Let me answer this way. In the end, because there were so many allegations and because he was not able to get on with his job, he left. The second chance I gave him did not work. We can go over this a million times, but in the end the decision to appoint him is mine, for which I have taken full responsibility. His conduct at No. 10 Downing street is not something that is under question, so I think it would be better if we spent our time working out how we are going to clear up the illegality that took place.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

There must be widespread agreement across the House that it is imperative that the police and the media start now to clear up their own mess. To that end, does the Prime Minister agree that it is time that police officers stopped divulging the details of arrested people before they are charged, and the press stopped printing those details, invariably engaging in a feeding frenzy that destroys somebody’s reputation although they have not even been arrested?

[The Prime Minister]

I know my hon. Friend has experience of this from before she came into politics in her work as a lawyer and in broadcasting. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced is that Elizabeth Filkin will work for the Metropolitan police to try to work out a better code of ethics, including in relation to the media and the steps they take. This has opened up a whole conversation that we may have put off for far too long in this country.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

May I return to the responses the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock)? The Prime Minister said that he had had no inappropriate discussions with News International executives regarding the BSkyB bid. Which discussions did he have with the said executives that he deemed were appropriate, who were the executives and what were the contents of the discussions?

[The Prime Minister]

All those meetings are now published. The hon. Gentleman can look on the internet and see every single meeting that I had. Perhaps when he does that, he might ask his good friend the Leader of the Opposition why he does not do the same thing.

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

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.

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

In her evidence yesterday, Rebekah Brooks stated that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s idea to employ Andy Coulson. Was she right or was she merely trying to protect her friend, the Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

The decision was mine. In politics, in the end, the buck stops here, with the Prime Minister. I made the decision, I defend the decision and I have given a full explanation of it today.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Is there not a real danger that this scandal will follow the pattern of so many others: first, bad behaviour; then moral outrage, a lot of it hypocritical; then lengthy judicial inquiries; and then more state regulation under the guise of independent regulation? Will my right hon. Friend therefore commit himself today to the good old Conservative values of individual liberty and freedom?

[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.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

There has been much talk of freedom, but freedom has to be under the law. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that any future regulation of the press will balance the interests of ordinary men and women against the legitimate interest in maintaining a free press in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course I give that assurance. One of the things with which the committee of inquiry will have to battle is that, if you consider some of the great investigative stories that have bust open scandals in the past, sometimes there has been a public interest defence. My hon. Friend is a lawyer and he will know about that. That is one of the reasons why we are asking the committee of inquiry to try to do that very difficult work.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I give the Prime Minister another opportunity to say on what occasions, with whom and where, in the time since he became Prime Minister, he has ever discussed the Murdoch bid to take over BSkyB completely?

[The Prime Minister]

The discussion I had was to ensure that I was not involved in that decision, so I did not discuss it with the Culture Secretary, I did not know about the timing of many of the key announcements—I was not involved. That was the sensible thing to do—conduct in which my predecessors did not necessarily engage.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) said that he wanted to hold an inquiry into phone hacking and journalistic practices, but he astonishingly claimed that civil servants stopped him doing so—presumably the same civil servants who told him not to sell our gold at record low prices. Did the Prime Minister inherit any plans from the previous Government on the inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

All I can say is that the former Prime Minister’s idea to have the inquiry was never raised with the official Opposition. One of the things that I read in the press in the last couple of days was one of his former colleagues saying that he thought that it was a proposal that Gordon made to himself. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The exchanges will not continue until we have order. It is pretty straightforward.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

To hire the hackers of Milly Dowler meant either that Andy Coulson was guilty of being complicit in a corrupt culture, or that he presided over acts of pure evil. What were the warnings given to the Prime Minister by the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Ashdown not to appoint Andy Coulson, and why did he ignore those warnings?

[The Prime Minister]

We do still have in this country the idea that you are innocent until you are proven guilty. Now, as I have said, I hired Andy Coulson on the basis of assurances that he gave me that he did not know about hacking. After all, that is why he resigned as editor of the News of the World. And incidentally, after he resigned, who was the very first person to ring him up and wish him well? Any guesses? Gordon Brown.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

In her evidence to the Select Committee yesterday, Rebekah Brooks spoke about the number of times that she had visited No. 10 or Chequers—up to six times a year. Does the Prime Minister not agree that calls by the Opposition for transparency and disclosure of information to the inquiry sit very badly with the collective amnesia being shown about the contacts between Labour and News International?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I would make is that we have all got to be open about the fact that those on both Front Benches spent a lot of time courting Rupert Murdoch, courting News International, courting the Russian who owns The Independent—and the Daily Mail, and the BBC while we are at it. [Interruption.] Everybody has done it. And we have got to admit that this sort of relationship needs to be changed and put on a more healthy basis. Now we are prepared to admit it, but basically, if you like, the clock has stopped on my watch, and I am determined to sort it out. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the shadow Chancellor says, “We didn’t hire Andy Coulson.” Look, you hired Damian McBride. You had Alastair Campbell. You had Alastair Campbell falsifying documents in government. You have still got Tom Baldwin working in your office. [Interruption.] Yes. Gotcha!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind the House that I have not been hiring people at all. I call Mr John Cryer.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer]

On 8 July the Prime Minister said that he had commissioned a company to do a basic background check on Coulson. For the fourth time, I am asking for the name of the company. It is a pretty simple question; just come to the Dispatch Box and name the company.

[The Prime Minister]

We did hire a company to do a basic background check, and that is an entirely appropriate thing to do, and it was an entirely appropriate report. But I have to say, the reason I hired him was above all the assurances that he gave me. That is the key part of the decision and that is what I am prepared to say.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his swift and decisive action in setting up these inquiries, which will get to the bottom of these very serious issues. But looking forward, may I add my voice to those encouraging him not to be too distracted by this issue over the next few months, but to focus instead on the things that my constituents are concerned about: the economy, their jobs, the reform of the health service, and the contagion in Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We have to sort this issue out. It takes cross-party agreement to do it. We have worked well over the judicial inquiry, the panel, the terms of reference and the police inquiry—all things that this Government have taken action on, but we do want to get on to the other issues about which our constituents care so much.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Prime Minister immediately put on hold his plans to introduce elected police commissioners while we learn the lessons of the last few weeks? We should reflect on the risks of things being swept under the carpet if we put someone whose political fortunes depend on the success of the force in sole charge of trying to hold them to account.

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I think one of the things this whole episode shows is that our police service needs reform, and the idea of greater accountability, with them having to account to someone who can stand up for local people, is a thoroughly good idea.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Can the Prime Minister confirm what the Metropolitan police has told the Home Secretary—that News International only began co-operating more fully with the inquiry in January 2011, shortly after Mr Coulson resigned from Downing street? Is he not just guilty of bad judgment in employing him, but in keeping him in post for so long?

[The Prime Minister]

The point is that the Metropolitan police made that very clear to the Home Affairs Committee, but what I would say is what I have said all along: the police should pursue this without fear or favour. They should go where the evidence leads. They should arrest whoever they choose. They could not have a clearer message, or more support from the Government.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Today is the anniversary of the moon landing—[Interruption.]

[Claire Perry]

I agree, Mr Speaker. Today, people will know, is the anniversary of the moon landing, around which conspiracy theorists like to cluster. May I urge the Prime Minister, rather than listening to the vapid conspiracy hackgate theorists, to focus on the facts? What is he doing to toughen up the rules around the use of Chequers, to ensure that it is never used for slumber parties for media tycoons again?

[The Prime Minister]

I could see the development of a beautiful relationship there, just for a brief moment. I think, on slumber parties, if it is perfectly all right, I do not rule out my children having slumber parties, if that is acceptable to my hon. Friend, but I promise to leave Rebekah Wade out of it.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I press the Prime Minister on the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford)? In the last year, has he been briefed by the intelligence services about the phone hacking and surveillance of a senior public servant? Has he had that briefing, and will the intelligence services be requested to give evidence to the inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

We do not discuss intelligence issues in the House. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come and talk to me about this issue, he can absolutely beat a path to my door and I will see him.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Can the Prime Minister clarify and confirm that the law on media ownership was watered down under the Communications Act 2003, which for the first time allowed non-European economic area companies to own UK radio and television?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, when a lot of the sound and fury comes from the Labour party. There was a progressive liberalisation of media ownership delivered under the previous Government, and they would do well to remember that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

A number of times now, the Prime Minister has brushed off questions about the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) sent him. Can he confirm whether he saw that letter, and if so, say what he did about it? If he did not see it, can he go back to Downing street and find out what happened to it?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, I am shown all letters that are sent to me by Members of Parliament, and I will do exactly as the hon. Lady says: I will go back and make sure that a robust reply is sent.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Did the Prime Minister receive any advice from the editor of The Guardian, from Lord Ashdown or from the Deputy Prime Minister about the hiring of Tom Baldwin by the Leader of the Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

No, but I have received quite a number of representations from hon. Members, and quite a few from others as well.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s transparency in making available the 26 meetings with News Corps and News International. I welcome the fact that he was able to say that no inappropriate conversations took place between him and BSkyB. Can he tell us that no appropriate conversations about the bid took place at those meetings also?

[The Prime Minister]

All my conversations are appropriate.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

Is the Prime Minister aware that under the Inquiries Act 2005, and contrary to the evidence given by his predecessor, it is actually under the terms of the Act the job of a Minister to cause an inquiry, not the Cabinet Secretary?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe that my hon. Friend is right, and this does go to the point about the speech made last week by the former Prime Minister. In the end, Ministers have the responsibility to make these decisions, and I do not think it is particularly noble to try and hide behind and blame your civil servants.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Prime Minister told us that Neil Wallis, formerly deputy editor at the News of the World, was not employed or paid by the Conservative party, but it has transpired that he advised Andy Coulson, at least in the run-up to the general election. Has the Prime Minister made any inquiries about the exact nature of that advice?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I have. As the hon. Gentleman says, I was told about that, on Sunday. Neil Wallis was not employed or contracted or paid, but he did offer some informal advice. The reason why that information has come out is that we put it out, and we will be equally transparent when we get to the bottom of this matter.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

My constituents feel that relationships between News International and politicians have been too close for many years, but they are shocked by the association with the police. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the remit of the independent review—I congratulate him on setting that up—will include guidance on preserving the freedom of the press to undertake the investigative journalism that has long been a good tradition in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

I can reassure my hon. Friend about that. The terms of reference include the importance of a free press. I think that the panel, which includes people such as Shami Chakrabarti, George Jones, Elinor Goodman, a former press regulator and someone who has chaired the Financial Times, is a good mixture of experts to help advise Lord Justice Leveson to ensure that we get the balance right between appropriate legislation and—yes—a free and vibrant press.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Two years ago in this House, I made this point:

“Given Mr. Coulson’s dubious reputation, none of us on this side of the House can feel comfortable while he is around to wander the corridors here. While he is under suspicion, can we not at least take his pass away from him?”—[Official Report, 9 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 1137.]

His pass was not taken away from him, and he was able to wander freely around this place. Since the Prime Minister obviously cannot smell a rat when he has one in his midst, will he tell us whether he has any other dodgy characters in No. 10 that we should beware of?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think it is worthy of the right hon. Lady to use terms like that. As I have said, I choose to judge people by the conduct of the work that they do for me. I would put Andy Coulson’s conduct at No. 10 Downing street against the conduct of Damian McBride, Alastair Campbell, Tom Baldwin and all the rest of them, who did so much damage under the previous Government.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has referred several times to the future of the regulation of the media, not just the press. About the terms of reference that we have been told about, he says that “the inquiry should look not just at the press, but at other media organisations, including broadcasters and social media if there is any evidence that they have been involved in criminal activities.” Does that preclude what the 17 Select Committee Chairmen and others have called for, which is an extension of the terms of reference to deal with regulation of all the media, not merely the press alone?

[The Prime Minister]

The change in the terms of reference was a direct response to the 17 Select Committee Chairmen, because we wanted to listen to their views and to say that broadcasters and social media could be included if there was evidence of wrongdoing. We are not trying to have an inquiry that becomes so wide that it cannot make progress on these vital issues—but we have listened to what my hon. Friend has said, and responded very positively.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

In the interests of transparency, will the Prime Minister now publish any e-mails between Andy Coulson and the Home Office?

[The Prime Minister]

I am looking at being as transparent as I possibly can be. We have not just the Freedom of Information Act, under which people can make requests; this Government are pushing out a huge amount of data, including publication of the recent e-mails of Ed Llewellyn.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has rightly published the names of people who have stayed overnight at Chequers, which includes Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, but also other journalists. Given what the Prime Minister said about the Government getting too close to the media, Mrs Bone was wondering this morning whether those visits would stop, which would open up a number of weekends when I understand she is free.

[The Prime Minister]

As long as Mrs Bone does not insist on a slumber party, that is a very good idea.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

What did the Deputy Prime Minister tell the Prime Minister about Andy Coulson’s employment, and when?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that was made by a number of people, the Deputy Prime Minister included, was just to ask whether it was right to give a job to Andy Coulson, because clearly, I had made a decision. That man had resigned from the News of the World over the hacking scandal because it happened on his watch. He gave me an assurance—[Interruption.] Hold on; I will answer the question. He gave me an assurance that he did not know about the hacking scandal, and I took my decision. That is a judgment that I do not hide or run away from. I am totally accountable for it.

Some people—of whom the Deputy Prime Minister was one—questioned that judgment, which is why I have been so clear that that was my decision. I am responsible for it and people will hold me accountable for it. Today, I have been utterly frank about what it would be like with 20:20 hindsight or what it would be like with double vision, but I do not believe in politicians running away from the decisions that they have made. I do not do that.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

In reply to an earlier question, the Prime Minister said that the relationship between politicians and the media meant that the important issue of media regulation was put on the back burner. Why, therefore, does he think that putting a politically elected commissioner in charge of every police force, rather than just the Met, means that similarly difficult questions will be avoided in future?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that I do not see the read-across at all, because the elected police commissioner will want to respond to the demands of the public for effective, accountable and beat-based policing. There will be a bit of tension, as it were, between the elected commissioner and the chief constable, which, as long as there is proper operational independence, could be a good thing.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister ensure that the inquiry that he has announced into the unlawful practices in the media cover the allegation made by Lord Ashcroft that Tom Baldwin, then a News International journalist, authorised, or was part of, efforts to access the Conservative party’s bank accounts unlawfully?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that the inquiry can look at that. If there is evidence of illegal activity, some very big questions have to be answered. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will be asking those questions and making sure that he gets good answers.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Were there any meetings between Neil Wallis and Andy Coulson when Andy Coulson was working for the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not have that information; I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] Far worse would be to give an answer that could turn out to be inaccurate, so I will get back to him with that information.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Government Members are right to say that all our constituents want us to move on from excessive focus on this issue. However, how does the Prime Minister see us being able to end the practice of journalists regularly paying police officers for a quick scoop?

[The Prime Minister]

I think we need to do a number of things. Obviously, there is a police investigation into corruption, which will now be overseen by someone who comes from outside the Met, and there is also Dame Elizabeth Filkin’s work to try to improve ethics and standards. In addition, the inquiry will be able to do a job of work on this. On the panel is a former chief constable, so there will be understanding of how the police service works, so that we can get to the bottom of that problem and deal with it.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Public confidence in the police has obviously been affected by the allegations of the bribery and corruption of police officers. Will the Prime Minister look at whether there is a need for us to establish, as in the United States, an independent police force that can police the police? Will he give the House a guarantee that the Bribery Act 2010 will not be amended while all these investigations and inquiries are going on?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

On the first point, we have the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is independent of the police. There are two questions, both of which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has addressed. First, we must ensure that it has the resources and ability to investigate the police, and secondly, we must look at whether we call in an outside police force swiftly enough when there is evidence, or allegations, of wrongdoing so that people can see that the process is being carried out effectively.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Last week we heard an impassioned speech by Gordon Brown in which he outlined his concerns about hacking and his desire for an inquiry. However, in yesterday’s Select Committee evidence we heard that he had never raised that subject, despite a close relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Will the Prime Minister help me to reconcile those two issues?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that I cannot, but I think that the evidence speaks for itself.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind the House that when Members refer to other Members they should do so by referring to their constituencies, rather than by name?

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, was phone hacking discussed in any of his meetings with John Yates or any other Metropolitan police officer?

[The Prime Minister]

I have had a range of meetings with John Yates over the past year, mostly about terrorism—[Interruption.] I do not recall every single conversation that I have had; you would be mad to pretend that you do. You would need to be superhuman to remember every conversation that you have. I do know that almost all the conversations that I have had with John Yates over the past year have been about terrorist issues. The key point about my chief of staff’s e-mail was that he was trying to ensure that the police did not do anything inappropriate.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the process that he has set in motion to investigate the whole affair. Does he agree that it is essential that issues relating to the Metropolitan police are dealt with speedily so that the hard-working police across London can get on with doing, to maximum effect, the job that they do fantastically for all of us in our capital?

[The Prime Minister]

That is hugely important. Thousands of police officers are doing a great job in London. They will be reading all about this, and I do not want it to sap their morale or the work that they do. A clear message should go out from the House that we still have a very fine police service in this country, and we back it.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm whether any of his officials who are now in Downing street knew that Neil Wallis advised Andy Coulson before the general election?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

All I can say to the hon. Lady is that the first I was told of this, to my knowledge, was on Sunday evening. As I said, Neil Wallis was not employed, contracted or paid by the Conservative party, but he did some work for Andy Coulson. As we get to the bottom of exactly what that work was, who knew what and when, and all the rest of it, we will put that information on record. When you are being asked all these questions—there is no conspiracy theory, as I think we have proved today—it is important to give accurate answers.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

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.

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is highly unusual for such a senior adviser to the Prime Minister not to be properly vetted? Will he confirm that it was his decision not to vet Mr Coulson fully, including by asking family and friends about his past life and activities?

[The Prime Minister]

No, it was not unusual at all. Andy Coulson was cleared in the normal way for special advisers. He was cleared to secret, and he was not sent papers above that level. Like former Administrations, we set out all the names of the staff we employ as special advisers. Once again, I feel that a number of hon. Members are looking for some sort of secret behind a curtain that simply is not there.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

When it comes to restoring public confidence in the media and the police, does the Prime Minister agree that the steps that he has outlined today show that he has made more progress on this in 13 months than the previous Government did in 13 years?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes the important point that Labour Members had plenty of opportunities over 13 years. The shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition were there all the way through. They could have promoted a judicial inquiry. They could have responded to the Select Committee and done something about the Information Commissioner reports. They were the slumber party.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that Andy Coulson, during his time working in Downing street, never saw any briefings on the police investigation into hacking, nor had any involvement in the Government’s response to it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have made the point that it is not routine for people in Downing street to be given operational information about a police investigation. That was the whole thing that my chief of staff was rightly trying to prevent. Let me take the hon. Lady back to the time when Tony Blair was Prime Minister and there was an investigation into cash for honours. Just imagine if the police had pitched up and started briefing officials with operational intelligence. It would have been an appalling thing, and I cannot understand why she asks that question.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the leadership that he has shown in establishing such a wide-ranging and robust inquiry? Given that the Motorman investigation revealed details of 305 journalists and 30 newspapers and magazines, why does he think that a similar inquiry was not established following that?

[The Prime Minister]

We have to be frank. The previous Government were not on this at all and, frankly, the previous Opposition—us—should have done more. However, the previous Government have to take some responsibility for repeatedly ignoring repeated warnings. I could not have been more frank today about the responsibility I take. Every time I mention this I talk about the failings of the previous Opposition in doing their job, but just once in a while it would be nice to hear a little bat squeak of responsibility from the Labour party.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister has said that Neil Wallis was never employed by the Conservative party. Will he confirm that neither Mr Wallis nor any of these companies received any payment from individuals or organisations working on behalf of the Conservative party?

[The Prime Minister]

What I have said very clearly is that the Conservative party did not employ him, have a contract with him or pay him. As I understand it, he did some informal work for Andy Coulson, but the reason why we know that is that we announced it before the House of Commons went into recess—we wanted to get the information out. When we get to the bottom of the work that he did—this is unlike the complete lack of transparency that we sometimes get from the Labour party—we will make the detail available.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Did the Prime Minister hear the recent remarks made by Lord Kinnock suggesting that as a result of the inquiry, politicians should impose what he called “balance” on the media? Does the Prime Minister share my view that that would be dangerous?

[The Prime Minister]

I do. We want a free and vigorous press. Sometimes that is infuriating, but the idea of having “Ofpress” and equal coverage being given to every point of view would kill the vibrancy of the press. If we had to have equal coverage of every Neil Kinnock speech—respecting him as I do—the papers would take a lot longer to read every morning.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

When Andy Coulson stayed at Chequers after his resignation, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to talk to him about the phone hacking allegations and whether there was any truth in them, and about his reasons for resigning?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

His reasons for resigning were well set out at the time. He felt that he was not able to go on doing his job with all the allegations and the swirl of information around, so he thought that he needed to move on, which was the right decision. I have been absolutely clear about my reasons for hiring him, and the work that he did at No. 10. I revealed that he stayed at Chequers, although you do not have to reveal private guests for whom you have paid yourself. The previous Government did not do that, but I have done so because I want to be utterly transparent about my relationships, decisions and judgments. I am very happy to stand on those judgments and let people be the judge; that is the only thing you can do in this job.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration? We have been here for the best part of two hours, but have we heard any recognition from Labour Members of the part that they played in this situation? Should we not be working across the House to restore confidence in our politics, the press and the police, as our constituents urgently demand of us?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition came here with a choice. They could have risen to the scale of events, helped to deal with the problem and responded to what our constituents care about, but instead we have heard a litany of rather pathetic conspiracy theories to try to win a political game, and that has been a complete and utter failure.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Have Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates had to pay too high a price for Andy Coulson’s second chance?

[The Prime Minister]

If you look at the evidence of Sir Paul Stephenson, whom I respect enormously and who did some very good things at the Met—and John Yates—he said very clearly yesterday that the circumstances surrounding his resignation were completely different from the circumstances in No. 10 Downing street. The responsibility that I had for hiring Andy Coulson, the work that he did at No. 10, the fact that he is not there any more—we have discussed this a lot today—are, I would argue, completely different from the issues at the Met about a failed police investigation, allegations of police corruption, very serious problems in that organisation and all the reasons that Paul Stephenson set out yesterday, I respect what he did, but he himself said that the situations are different.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has shown in his statement that his private office has behaved with absolutely compelling propriety, which compares amazingly favourably with sofa government. I wonder whether he would agree that the row over this is broadly synthetic and hugely over-egged.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. What I would say about Ed Llewellyn is that he is—and Opposition Members know this—someone who has served our country, working for Chris Patten and Paddy Ashdown in Kosovo, Bosnia and Hong Kong. Yes, of course, he is a Conservative supporter and a friend of mine, but he is a very loyal public servant who has done great things for this country and who I think is utterly beyond reproach. On this occasion, as on so many others, his judgment was proved absolutely right.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Prime Minister, can you tell us what specific advice the Deputy Prime Minister gave you against employing Andy Coulson?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to answer—although I have answered this question already; I can set the answer to music if you like. Some people looked at Andy Coulson and the fact that he had been a tabloid editor at the News of the World and had resigned because of what happened there, and advised me not to take him on. I made the decision on the basis of the assurances that he gave me; I could not have been more frank about it. There is only one tabloid editor left in the office of the Prime Minister or of the Leader of the Opposition. There is a tabloid Mirror editor sitting in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, and I would not be at all surprised if the Mirror did not have some questions to answer pretty soon.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister think that the Leader of the Opposition should apologise for Damian McBride?

[The Prime Minister]

I have finally received an apology—and the Chancellor has too—although it took a while, for the appalling things that were done. This was a special adviser who was sitting around casting appalling aspersions on people who were then on the Opposition Front Bench. When you compare that conduct with the conduct at No. 10 Downing street of Andy Coulson—about whom, in his time at work, no one is making a complaint—it speaks volumes.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Did the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, discuss with John Yates the issue of phone hacking?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, I cannot remember every conversation that I have ever had with John Yates. I did meet him in opposition, but I cannot remember how many times I met him. I have met him many more times in government, and predominantly what I have discussed with him is the issue of terrorism.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the most lamentable episodes in this sad affair was the death of David Kelly, a proud civil servant whose name was thrown to the media pack, putting him under intolerable pressure, which led to his suicide? Will my right hon. Friend give me an undertaking that the investigation will be given a remit to cover and look back at how that event unfolded?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that I would make to my hon. Friend is that we have to be careful that this inquiry does not go completely viral, as it were. It has to focus on the issues at hand. Obviously, the issue of David Kelly was looked at in detail in the Hutton inquiry, and I think that this inquiry has to make some progress.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Last week I read in the Daily Mail that the Prime Minister had been about to appoint the ex-BBC journalist Guto Harri, but that after an intervention by Rebekah Brooks, he changed his mind and employed Andy Coulson. Is that right?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

She specifically rejected that point yesterday. Guto now works for my good friend and colleague the Mayor of London, and he does a brilliant job.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I have a question about the conduct of Andy Coulson while he was at No. 10. Did Andy Coulson ever suggest smearing Opposition Members while he was there, like Damian McBride, who was embraced by the former occupants of No. 10?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, and one that will be noted.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to move on—not least because we want to watch without distraction the collapse of the euro? Does he therefore agree that if we are to do so, and achieve closure, he has to be a bit more frank and answer directly questions such as those asked by my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer)?

[The Prime Minister]

Although I share the hon. Gentleman’s lack of enthusiasm for the euro, we have to recognise in this country that that is where 40% of our exports go, and if there is turmoil in the eurozone it will not be good for Britain. We should be very clear about that, and we should be helpful and co-operative with our European partners to try to help them sort out their problems.

As for answering questions, I do not think that I could have given clearer answers to all the questions that Members have asked in the House. I know that a lot of hon. Members came here this afternoon trying to find some conspiracy theory—but they have looked and they have not found one.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister define for us what he regards as an appropriate conversation between him and News International about BSkyB?

[The Prime Minister]

I thought Rebekah Brooks defined it excellently—one that you could also repeat in front of a Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have got the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. He will resume his seat; that was quite long enough.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has been extremely brave, if I may say so, Mr Speaker. As Parliament is going into recess for six weeks, perhaps that will be long enough for everyone to forget what he has just said. He is right, however, to say that we should focus as well on what is happening in the eurozone—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I are holding a series of meetings to make sure that we get our response right.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who told “Newsnight” viewers that this scandal was just “a little local difficulty”, so it was okay for the Prime minister to leave the country at the height of the crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

I did not watch “Newsnight”—I do not always catch it—but I think that it is important that the British Prime Minister stands up for British business, British exports and British jobs, and loads up aeroplanes with business men and goes around the world, as I have done, to China, India and Africa. To suggest that because there are issues that you have to answer at home you should cancel a trip like that is talking Britain down, and I think that the Opposition should be better than that.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

In recent days the work of Select Committees has stood the House in good stead and done us proud, but in 2003 a Select Committee warned of a “catalogue of deplorable practices” in the media and of potential payments being made by journalists to the police. In the investigation announced by the Prime Minister, will we go that far back and understand why the advice and warnings of that Select Committee were ignored?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure the judicial inquiry will do that. One of the issues that it is looking at is the relationship between politicians and the media, and the conduct of both.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

If the Prime Minister had known the new information about Andy Coulson given to his chief of staff by The Guardian, would he have gone ahead with the appointment? Surely he should have been passed that information.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I explained all this at Question Time last week. The point is this: if I had been given proper evidence that Andy Coulson knew about hacking, I would not have hired him. If I was given proper evidence that he knew about hacking, I would have fired him. I could not be clearer about it.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on taking the lead when new evidence came to light, and establishing an independent inquiry? May I urge him to assure my constituents in Elmet and Rothwell that having got the independent inquiry under way, he will focus on making sure that their jobs and livelihoods are protected, with the economic tsunami that is round the corner?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the things we can now do is leave the public inquiry to answer a lot of these difficult questions and refocus ourselves on issues related to the economy, the eurozone and jobs, which badly need answers.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

May I ask the Prime Minister a question that will both help him to be transparent and quash a conspiracy theory? What was the name of the company that vetted Andy Coulson?

[The Prime Minister]

The point is that we employed a company to do this work. It was not something that we were planning to publish. It is something that companies and businesses do all the time, but in the end the responsibility is mine for employing him on the basis of the assurances that he gave.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Is the Prime Minister aware that the previous Administration spent over £11 million on advertising with News International. Does this practice still continue?

[The Prime Minister]

We have seen an enormous cut in the Government advertising budget—just one of the many things we have done to cut out the waste created by the Opposition.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

At Chequers or anywhere else, on how many occasions has the Prime Minister discussed this scandal with Andy Coulson since Mr Coulson left his employment?

[The Prime Minister]

As the House knows, Andy Coulson came to stay with me in March. I have not spoken to him for weeks. While he worked for me, that obviously was discussed on an ongoing basis. Just to repeat: if I had had evidence that he knew about the hacking, I would not have employed him, and if I had had some while he was working for me, I would have relieved him of the appointment.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The Prime Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said that he wanted to hold a public inquiry into this matter. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what detailed preparations on these important issues were left behind in No. 10 for him on taking office?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Just like everything else, I found a complete mess.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

As regards the use made by Andy Coulson of Neil Wallis in the run-up to the general election, the Prime Minister said today that he would be transparent when he got to the bottom of it. Will that inquiry be independent? Why cannot he publish today any documents relating to the use of Mr Wallis?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to get to the bottom of the question that the hon. Gentleman asks about what advice Mr Wallis gave to Mr Coulson. When I find that, I will reveal it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take the time to ask the leader of his own party why he will not reveal his media contacts going back to the election. I am being much more transparent than the Opposition.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will recall that the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, intervened with the EU Commissioner to ensure the continuing monopoly of Rupert Murdoch over private—

[Angie Bray]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that does not square with the statement made by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) to the House last week when he said that he had never done anything to further News International interests?

[The Prime Minister]

There is quite a contrast—let me put it like this—between the speech that the right hon. Gentleman made last week and the evidence that we heard yesterday.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

If the Prime Minister refuses point blank to tell the House the name of the company that vetted Andy Coulson, will he place the documents with regard to that vetting in the Library of the House?

[The Prime Minister]

Let us be clear. The responsibility for hiring him is mine and mine alone. That is the responsibility I take. The hon. Gentleman might not like the answer, but that is it.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Like many other Members, I am sure, I have been contacted by local newspapers which are concerned about the prospect of new regulation at a time of increasing pressure on their circulation. Can my right hon. Friend assure them that new regulations will not be overly heavy-handed on local press?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We do not want a new regulatory system to punish the innocent, as it were, who are just providing good local newspapers, but there are problems with ethics and issues that need to be looked at. We need to make sure that it is proportionate.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

In The New York Times article of September last year it is stated:

“One former editor said Coulson talked freely”

with colleagues about phone hacking. Given that the Prime Minister has read the article, how can he say he had no new evidence of a link between Coulson and hacking?

[The Prime Minister]

I discussed these allegations at the time and there was no proper foundation for them. That is not just my view, but the view of many people who followed the issue. Of course, there is an investigation under way. I could not have been franker. If it turns out that Andy Coulson knew about hacking, it will not just be a matter of profound regret and of profound apology—an apology that I have given today. It will also be an issue for criminal prosecution.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has rightly taken the lead in openness and transparency. Will he encourage the Opposition to do likewise and open the vaults on what happened on their watch, particularly the activities of Damian McBride and the culture that allowed that to happen?

[The Prime Minister]

We have set out since the election all the contacts we have had. It is now for others to follow suit, not just former Labour leaders, but current Labour leaders as well.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

If the Prime Minister cannot name the company that did the vetting of Andy Coulson, can he confirm that the company or any of its directors did not make any donations to the Conservative party?

[The Prime Minister]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to give an answer that is not accurate.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

After a decade of spin, I welcome the Prime Minister’s attempt to sort out the relationship between politicians and the media for the long term, not just to manage the news cycle. Will he recommend that Government Departments, local councils and quangos start dispensing with all their own spin doctors so that we can be truly rid of that spin culture?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. An enormous amount of money is still spent by local authorities on their own free local newspapers. That is injurious to the newspaper industry. There is a strong case for recognising the importance of a strong regional and local newspaper industry.

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

The New York Times last September said that the reporter to whom it had spoken was one of two people who said that Coulson was present during discussions about phone hacking. Did the Prime Minister discuss that allegation with Andy Coulson and if not, why not?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, I had a number of conversations all the time during his employment. In the end the swirl of allegations is why he left. What we have now is not only a criminal investigation, where people are being interviewed by the police and the police can go without fear or favour, but a public inquiry. None of these things happened properly under the previous Government; they are happening now, and no one will be immune from them.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister ensure that the activities of Damian McBride, the king of smears and spin under Labour, will also form part of the investigation that he undertakes?

[The Prime Minister]

The Opposition do not like hearing about it because they know that they had people working in Downing street whose conduct was absolutely despicable. That is a contrast they cannot avoid.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister seems to be suggesting that his appointment of Andy Coulson was a huge success. In fact, Sir Paul Stephenson has made it clear that that appointment prevented him from giving information to the Prime Minister that he would otherwise have given. Is it not fundamentally obvious to everyone that the Prime Minister made a dramatic error of judgment in appointing Andy Coulson, not with the benefit of—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Questions are becoming longer and longer, and they need to get shorter.

[The Prime Minister]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that he should check the transcript of what Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates said yesterday. They think that Edward Llewellyn behaved entirely appropriately, as do I, and as does the person sitting next to the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

In 2006 the Information Commissioner published two reports expressing concerns about the risk of phone hacking. For the sake of the victims, does the Prime Minister regret that no action was taken at that time?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that it is a matter of regret. Frankly, both Front-Bench teams have to accept that warnings from the Information Commissioner and Select Committees were not heeded. We have to recognise that there were issues about relations with media groups that made that happen, and we have to get to the bottom of how we prevent it from happening again. I hope we can address that point in the debate.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister tell the House the details of any appropriate conversations he had about the BSkyB bid, specifically with Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch on 23 December and with Rebekah Brooks on Boxing day 2010?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

What I have done that no Prime Minister has done before is set out all the details of the meetings and explained that all the conversations were appropriate. That was backed up by Rebekah Brooks yesterday. If the hon. Lady wants to help, she could ask the leader of her party to be equally transparent, which he is not being at the moment.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), will the Prime Minister join me in hoping that this will be the end of the ever-increasing rise of the press officer paid for by police constabularies across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I would be a little careful about this. The police have to have a relationship with the media, both at the top level to communicate what the police are trying to do strategically, and at the operational level to work with the local press to help beat crime. There is therefore an appropriate relationship. We have to try to ensure that they do not have an inappropriate relationship.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Has the Prime Minister ever uttered the word “BSkyB” in the presence of Rebekah Brooks, Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch?

[The Prime Minister]

You know—urgh!

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Does it not raise serious questions about how the previous Government operated that Labour Members seem to think it would have been appropriate for the Prime Minister to be briefed on operational police matters? Do not the e-mails released show just what a professional his chief of staff is?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record because it is right. The judgment that my chief of staff reached was backed in advance by the permanent secretary at No. 10 and has been backed subsequently by leading police officers and the head of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said that it was only on Sunday that he found out about Mr Wallis’s role, but others around him knew of it well before that. Does the Prime Minister not feel let down by them, including by Mr Coulson?

[The Prime Minister]

To the best of my knowledge, the first I knew of it was on Sunday. We are now getting to the bottom of what this informal advice was, and when we have the information, we can make it available, just as we have been transparent about all the media meetings and all the meetings with the moguls about everything else. In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his party leader and ask him to be equally transparent.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the vast majority of people in the country, whom we in the House represent, are absolutely fed up with this party political point scoring in the Westminster village, and that they will warmly welcome his setting up of the inquiries today and will hope that those inquiries can get on with their work and that the Prime Minister can get on with his work of improving the country’s economy and representing this country in the international field?

[The Prime Minister]

The British public are wise about this. They want us to get on with it and fix this problem. Frankly, they know that both parties have done a lot of sucking up to the media in their time. They want us to get on with it, work together and sort it out.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

In his statement, the Prime Minister said that “if it turns out that I have been lied to, that would be the moment for a profound apology.” I say this more in sadness than in anger, but is it not exactly such phrases that lead the public to hold our profession in contempt? I invite him now to give an apology, even if it might not be politically expedient.

[The Prime Minister]

I said that I am extremely sorry and that I deeply regret the whole furore that this has kicked up. [Interruption.] I did. I said that. Opposition Front-Bench Members ought to listen. The second point I made was that with 20:20 hindsight, knowing everything that subsequently happened, I would not have offered him the job, and to be fair to Andy Coulson, he would not have taken it. However, I do not believe in politicians trying to shuffle off their responsibilities. I made this decision. I employed this person. I defend his record working in government. If it turns out he lied to me about what happened before, that would mean an even deeper apology and even deeper regret than I have expressed today. I am telling hon. Members what I feel about this; how I act as a politician about this. I cannot do more than that.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has challenged us all to deal with the consequences of these events. Does he agree that a good start would be if the Opposition were to be a little more realistic about the extent of their own recent contacts with News International, especially considering that on 22 April, the Leader of the Opposition, in a feature-length interview with a national newspaper, said in response to a question about whether he could yet unveil his new policies:

“You will read it first in The Sun”?

[The Prime Minister]

That is my point. We have all engaged in this activity. The public know that we have all engaged in it and we should all be honest about it so that we can try and move on.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Was Mrs Brooks lying yesterday when she said that it was the Chancellor’s bright idea to hire Andy Coulson?

[The Prime Minister]

The Chancellor has many bright ideas and he and I discuss many things, but in the end I never seek to shuffle off my responsibilities. This was my decision and I am accountable for it.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

One of the Leader of the Opposition’s main charges in his statement was that the commissioner did not tell the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister about the appointment of Neil Wallis because of the position of Andy Coulson. Ten minutes later, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said that when he was Home Secretary, he was not informed about the appointment either. Does that not blow the Leader of the Opposition’s argument out of the water?

[The Prime Minister]

Even from Nigeria I could follow the Home Secretary’s excellent statement in which she made precisely that point, referring to the point made by the former Home Secretary. I think that that blows away part of the Leader of the Opposition’s flimsy case.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Since being elected, constituents have contacted me regularly about the BSkyB takeover and their concerns about it, particularly about undertakings being given or offered by an organisation that has been proven to break its undertakings. At any point, did the Prime Minister discuss with anyone from News International the possibility of undertakings being given?

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered this question. I took myself out of the whole decision-making process on BSkyB. Having looked at what has happened, I would argue that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has taken a series of absolutely correct decisions on the basis of the legal information that he received.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

There are very few places in the world where the leader of the Executive would subject himself to two hours of questioning. One thing that shames our democracy, though, is that there are elements in the House that seem to want to make political capital out of the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone.

[The Prime Minister]

As someone once famously said, I’m enjoying this. The point is that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that at the heart of all this is the issue of Milly Dowler. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have been enjoying listening to the questions and answers as well, but I want to continue that enjoyment and to hear what the Prime Minister is saying.

[The Prime Minister]

I simply wanted to make the point to my hon. Friend that he is right. At the heart of all this, as we have all these debates and discussions, we must bear in mind the victims of phone hacking, chief among whom are the family of Milly Dowler.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Nigel Pickover, a constituent of mine, is editor of the Evening Star and recently wrote to the Prime Minister, and was grateful for his response. Is it not fair to say that local newspapers have not so far been implicated, that we should welcome their campaigns and local journalism, and that we should support the local press wherever they are?

[The Prime Minister]

They play a vital role in the health of our local democracy, our constituencies and what I call the big society. Clearly, the inquiry has to go wherever the evidence leads and to all newspapers, but I think that regional and local newspapers play an important role in our country.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I believe that most Members will welcome and greatly support the inquiries that the Prime Minister has announced to get to the bottom of issues that have faced this Government and previous Governments. However, will he emphasise the urgency with which we must deal with these issues so that we can get back to dealing with the other matters that are so important to our constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

I think my hon. Friend is right. We have to crack this, we have to deal with it and we have to do it in a way that restores public confidence, but then we must get on to the other things our constituents care passionately about.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Given the importance of the BSkyB decision to the balance of broadcasting in this country, why did the Prime Minister think it necessary to take himself outside the decision-making process?

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to go further in a minute in my speech and suggest that it may be the case that we should take politicians out of all decisions about media mergers altogether, but I was recognising the fact that if you are the leader of a party, you are trying to win over newspapers, television and all the rest of it, so the more you can take yourself out of decisions about future media structures, frankly, the better for all concerned. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not get that.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is quite clear that relationships between our political leaders and leadership in the media are going to continue, so does my right hon. Friend agree that it is up to our political leaders, and this House, to get as soon as we can a system for dealing with this that is sound, proper, transparent and healthy?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am going to address that directly in the speech that I will make in a moment. This is an opportunity to reset the clock, and we should take it.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

May I ask the Prime Minister, in all sincerity, to dissociate himself from the comment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal)? I can assure the Prime Minister, despite the debates that are going on here, that there is not one Member on the Opposition Benches who is seeking to make political capital out of the—[Interruption.] Can I ask the Chancellor in particular to pay attention to the last part of my remarks? I can assure this Chamber in the deepest sincerity that I do not believe there is one person in the Chamber seeking to make political capital out of the phone hacking—[Interruption.] I am deeply disappointed that I am not being heard. Let me tell the Prime Minister directly that there is not one person who is willing—[Interruption.]

[Margaret Curran]

Will the Prime Minister dissociate himself from comments that allege that Opposition Members are seeking to make political capital out of the phone hacking of Milly Dowler?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not question the hon. Lady’s motives, but the point about this place is that people can watch what has been said, and they can form their own judgments.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

As a matter of public record and as part of the public inquiry, will the Prime Minister ask Sir Gus O’Donnell to publish any record of meetings held between special advisers at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street since the year 2000?

[The Prime Minister]

Tempting as it would be, under our system politicians in one Government cannot order the publication of papers in another Government, fascinating though it might sometimes be.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

The Home Affairs Committee issued a report at 5 o’clock this morning that was critical of police whose evidence yesterday and last week included attempts to pass the buck to alleged wrongdoers for not co-operating with the police. Does the Prime Minister agree that alleged wrongdoers often do not co-operate with the police, and that the police should follow the evidence where it takes them?

[The Prime Minister]

The police must absolutely do that. They know that that is what everyone in this House wants and what the country expects. They now have a properly resourced police investigation, it is under new leadership, and we all wish them well with what they are doing.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Mr 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.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matter of public confidence in the media and the police.

You have heard a lot from me already, Mr Speaker, so I will keep my opening remarks brief.

I want to start by paying tribute to this House and to hon. Members who sit in it. Just a couple of years ago, at the height of the expenses scandal, people said we had lost relevance and that we no longer properly represented the constituents we served. We have got a long way to go before regaining full public trust, but the past two weeks have shown the House, in many ways, at its best.

We have seen the true worth, for instance, of our Select Committees, with the forensic scrutiny of those in positions of power, in the public interest. I particularly want to pay tribute to those chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). We have seen vigorous debate, with this House leading the public debate, finishing of course with News Corporation’s withdrawal of its bid to take over BSkyB, and we have seen cross-party support and action to get to the bottom of what happened and learn lessons for the future.

We now have in place a judge-led, independent public inquiry. It will have all the powers necessary, and I want to start the debate by saying that we must be careful not to pre-empt all its deliberations or seek in advance to answer all the questions it must address. There is a good reason for setting up this inquiry, and we must let it do its work. That does not mean that we should not be clear about the big picture of what needs to be done. As I said a moment ago, all this has got to begin and end with the victims; it is they who have suffered the most, and we must do right by them.

In opening this debate, I simply want to set out the four vital questions that we need to answer, which in turn lead to four vital things that we, as a House of Commons, must resolve never to let happen again. The first question is how we can secure a free and vibrant media, completely unafraid to challenge authority but operating within the law. We must never again see this widespread lawbreaking, including the terrible crimes committed against people who have already suffered. We should not assume that those practices extend across all media, some of which have an excellent reputation, but neither should we think that this is isolated in just one institution.

The second issue is how we can secure strong, well-led, independent yet accountable police forces that are able to pursue the powerful without fear or favour. Yes, they must be able to work constructively with the media, but never again should they be at risk of being corrupted by the media.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will know that Operation Weeting began just four days after the resignation of Andy Coulson. Can he therefore confirm to the House that no one at No. 10—neither he nor any of his officials or advisers—had any notice of the commencement of Operation Weeting?

[The Prime Minister]

I can only speak for myself: I had no notice of it. I know full well that Andy Coulson’s resignation, and the timing of it, were not connected to any event like that. The timing of it was simply a result of his recognising that he could not go on doing his job with that swirl of allegations going on. To be fair to Andy Coulson, he recognised that the second chance that I had given him had not worked. That is why I have been so clear about that issue today.

The third issue is how we can bring about a situation, which he have discussed a lot today, in which governing parties eager to hold on to power or opposition parties yearning to win power can have a sensible, healthy relationship with media groups and owners without ducking the regulatory issues that need to be addressed. We must never again get into a situation in which the issues of effective media regulation are left on the shelf year after year.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

In response to the Prime Minister’s call for party leaders to join him in publishing their dealings with the media, the Leader of the Opposition heckled “No, you’re the Prime Minister”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this situation would be greatly helped if those who aspired to be the Prime Minister behaved like one?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not get in to speak among the first 138, because that was an absolute cracker.

We have seen that cosiness with the media is clearly a problem for the police, but it might be a problem for other walks of public life as well. I have therefore asked the Cabinet Secretary to write to all permanent secretaries to ask them to review the way in which contacts between the media and their staff, and other professional groups that work with their Departments, are regulated and recorded. We see that there is a problem with the police and the media, and we need to get ahead of there possibly being problems with other groups as well.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the Prime Minister has today dismissed the evidence set out in The New York Times that caused the police to reopen the investigation into phone hacking, does he have confidence in their decision-making processes? Or does he think that press reports should not be part of police investigations?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course everything that is published should be brought to my attention and to the police’s attention. The point I am making is that if I had been given evidence that Andy Coulson knew about hacking, I would not have hired him, and if I had had evidence that he knew about hacking, I would have fired him. I cannot put it any simpler than that.

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I will give way in a moment; I want to make some progress.

The fourth and final challenge is how we address the vexed issue of media power. We need competition policy to be properly enforced. We need a sensible look at the relevance of plurality and cross-media ownership. Above all, we need to ensure that no one voice—not News Corporation, not the BBC—becomes too powerful. We should be frank: sometimes in this country, the left overestimates the power of Murdoch, and the right overdoes the left leanings of the BBC. But both have got a point, and never again should we let a media group get too powerful.

[Alan Johnson]

John Yates wrote to me, as previous Home Secretary, last week. He wrote me a private and confidential letter, in which he said—[Laughter.]

[Alan Johnson]

I accept that there is a certain paradox involved here.

The letter says:

“The reason that a new investigation has been commenced and the situation has subsequently changed so markedly”—

that is, since the advice given to me as Home Secretary—

“is that in January 2011 News International began to co-operate properly with the police. It is now evident that this was not the case beforehand.”

January 2011 was when Andy Coulson resigned. Does the Prime Minister think that that is just a coincidence?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I was going to make, which is important, is that in my understanding, the reopening of the investigation was in response to new information from News International, and that it was not in response to the April article. The point about Andy Coulson’s resignation, which had been under discussion for some weeks, was that he recognised that he could not go on doing his job. It was not, to the best of my memory, connected with any single event. It was literally: “I can’t go on being an effective communications spokesman. I have to resign. Let’s just make sure we get on with it and do it in an orderly way.” [Interruption.] I know that that does not fit the many conspiracy theories that hon. Members have tried to produce, but that is actually what happened.

Let me make three suggestions on media plurality and power. One: it is right that there are good and proper legal processes for considering media mergers, but we should ask whether politicians should be abstracted from them altogether. Two: it is right that there is a plurality test, but we should ask whether that test should be ongoing, rather than just considered at the time of takeover. Three: plurality is difficult to measure, especially in the modern internet age, but we should not rule out the idea of limits, and it is right that the inquiry should look at this issue.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

What the Prime Minister has said about plurality is extremely interesting and important, and it will have a bearing on the future structure of Ofcom, but does he agree that we need to think carefully before tearing up the main provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002, which keeps Ministers out of decisions on takeovers and mergers?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with that. Indeed, I think that there might be a case, when it comes to media mergers, for trying further to remove politicians. In regard to all the issues that have been raised so many times today, that might be one way of putting all this beyond reproach.

It might sound decisive to talk about never letting these things happen again, as I have done, but let us be frank: it is far more difficult to deliver that outcome. We in this House need to recognise some home truths about the subjects we are discussing. First, none of these questions—for instance, about media influence and power—is new. There has been a debate about undue influence that stretches from Beaverbrook to Rothermere to Murdoch. Ironically, with newspapers declining and the internet booming, this should be becoming less of a problem. Nevertheless, a problem it remains. In my view, this simply underlines the need for the inquiry, because it will help to jolt us politicians into action, and that is no bad thing.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Sue Akers, who is now in charge of the investigation, says that what broke the logjam of the cover-up was the civil cases that were taken by individuals forcing disclosure by News International. Part of the problem, and one of the reasons we have all failed in this over the past 20 years, is the fact that News International and Metropolitan police officers directly lied to Parliament, and the Select Committees were either unable to or did not do anything about it. One of the problems with the Leveson situation is that, because of the Bill of Rights 1689, he will not be able to consider whether Parliament was lied to. We are the only people who can decide that. Will the Prime Minister ensure that there is a point at which we in this House can make that decision?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. His recognition that this is a 20-year issue in which politicians of all parties have not stepped up to the mark is wholly to his credit. I want to take away his question of parliamentary privilege and the Bill of Rights and give him a considered response to it, because I do not want the inquiry to be prevented in any way from getting to the truth. Our constituents would not understand it if there were some process, however important it might be historically, that could prevent that from happening.

The second home truth is that none of these questions is restricted to Britain. Right across the world, there is a problem of ensuring that police forces are accountable to the Government yet independent from them. We must never compromise operational independence. This goes to some of the questions that I was asked earlier. We must not move to a system in which politicians can step in to say, “Why haven’t you re-run this investigation?” or “Why haven’t you arrested that person?” We need to think for a moment where that would lead. But that makes it all the more important that police leadership is strong, and that the police are called to account when they fail. That is why we are introducing directly elected police and crime commissioners, to bring proper accountability to policing.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I agree very much with the point he has just made. However, does he not agree that he needs to be absolutely clear beyond any doubt that no elected police and crime commissioner can direct that an investigation should not begin, or, indeed, should begin?

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely right—we must maintain operational independence. The point about the police commissioners is calling the police to account for the work that they do, but the operational independence point is extremely important.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

Let me make a bit of progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.

The relationship between the police and the media is a problem the world over, too, but we have to ask—and hon. Members have been asking this today—why ours seems to have become quite so cosy, so leaky and so potentially compromised. Similarly, there is nothing peculiar to Britain about the potentially unhealthy relationship developing between media proprietors and politicians.

That leads to my third point, about trying to turn these noble sentiments of “never again” into action. None of this is easy, and a point that must not be lost in this debate is that to over-regulate the media could have profoundly detrimental effects on our country and our society. We must not miss this in the frenzy about the dreadfulness of hacking at this point. Without a public interest defence, the so-called “cod fax” that uncovered Jonathan Aitken’s wrongdoing might never have emerged. To give another example, are we seriously going to argue in this House that the expenses scandal should not have come to light because it could have involved some data that were obtained illegally? So, we need to step very carefully into this area.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I have got a feeling that it will be a question about the Bill of Rights that I will not be able to answer—but I am going to try it anyway.

[Mr Cash]

I am glad to say that it is about not the Bill of Rights but the terms of reference that are now in the Library. I simply wanted to ask the Prime Minister to answer this question, if he would be good enough, on the recommendations that can be made by the judge-led inquiry with reference to the question of media policy, regulation and cross-media ownership. Is this intended to cover the whole media, in a way that would ensure that the kind of standards expected of the media in relation to future regulation would be included in the judge-led recommendations?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the terms of reference are pretty clear. The point about cross-media ownership is not about conduct; it is about not just market power, but power of voice. What you are trying to do with cross-media ownership is, if one organisation has a very powerful television station, a number of newspapers, and perhaps some radio stations and some internet sites, how do you agglomerate that and try to measure its power? I can bore for Britain on this subject because I used to work for ITV, in competition with BSkyB and the BBC. It is a very difficult thing to do, but that does not mean we should not try. On the terms of reference, that is what the cross-media ownership part is about, but clearly it is looking at media regulation more broadly, specifically of the printed press, but it can go further.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[Ms Buck]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to make some progress, and then I will give way a couple more times before I close.

So, Mr Speaker, the question is, given the difficulties I have mentioned, how do we maximise the chance of making a clean break with the past. I want to set out some very clear lessons. First, we have got to try to proceed on a cross-party basis; otherwise, we will have each party trooping off to media organisations and promising the lowest common denominator. If I say “independent regulation”, there is a danger someone else will say “self-regulation”, and so on. We could end up constantly competing with each other in a kind of regulatory arbitrage over who can be the softest and most appealing to newspapers, television stations and their owners. I do not think we should pretend this is simply about tabloids or even simply about newspapers. I am a huge supporter of the BBC and the licence fee, but, frankly, I think there did come a time in recent years when the income of the BBC was so outstripping that of independent television that there was a danger of BBC News becoming rather dominant. So, there are dangers right across the piece here.

The offer to work together with all parties on this agenda is indeed a genuine one.

[Mr Winnick]

However critical I may be of the press, and however biased in many ways, I am totally opposed to any form of gagging, and that, I am sure, is the view of most of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, does the Prime Minister accept that self-regulation has been totally inadequate from day one? It has been a total farce, so if we are to have self-regulation, which I hope will continue, it must be far more effective than it has been.

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that the current system of self-regulation has failed, not least because it did not properly respond to all these warnings. That is why I choose to talk about independent regulation. I do not want to see statutory regulation—the heavy hand of the state. We have got to try to find a way to make sure that the press are regulated in a way that is independent from them, but not by the state and the Government. I think it is doable.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Buck]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to make some progress and then I will come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).

The second key to success in translating all this into action, I believe, is restraint. The media will see politicians agreeing with each other about the need for regulation, for plurality and all the rest of it, and they will fear a stitch-up. Indeed, they are already talking about one. So, I do believe that politicians need to show some restraint in what they say and do about the media. There are many in this House, I know, who have been victims of a media that have been prepared to break the law or behave in a bullying fashion. But we must not forget that this scandal, like so many others, whether we are talking about expenses or the FIFA scandal, which I feel particularly exercised about—they were uncovered to the fullest degree by the media, by newspapers, not by regulators. Let us not forget that. So, the balance we must strike now is to allow an aggressive, challenging and independent media, however much that might sometimes frustrate us, while halting the abuses that all decent people find unacceptable.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

Let me make a bit more progress.

The third key to success is that, while we cannot commit in advance to legislate simply for whatever comes out of this judicial inquiry, we should, I believe, invest all possible faith in this inquiry, because it is our best chance of making a fresh start.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Given what he has just said, is he aware that the BBC accounts for 70% of TV news, and that on the internet it has 10 times as much market share as Sky? Is not an answer to this to democratise the licence fee, and to give licence fee payers a vote on the board and structure of the BBC?

[The Prime Minister]

It is an interesting idea, which my hon. Friend can put to this inquiry. I think the key is—I am biased, as I worked in ITV for many years—that you do need strong, independent television to give people a choice of news. I have made many mistakes in my life, and I think one of them was agreeing, briefly, that it was a good idea to move the “News at Ten”. I think it was a very bad decision, and a proper plurality in news is very important.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

Let me make a bit more progress.

In anticipation of what might come out of a judicial inquiry, we are planning a communications Bill this Parliament that can take into account the recommendations of the inquiry.

Finally, painful though it can sometimes be, there is no doubt in my mind that when it comes to the best way to achieve the more healthy relationship between politicians and the media, transparency is the absolute key. Clearly, that is vital in contact between political leaders and media groups. I have set out, as I have said today, all my contacts since the election; I look forward to others doing the same. I am sure that Tony Blair and the last Prime Minister will soon follow suit for their time in office.

[Ms Buck]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. Returning to the issue of the police’s operational independence, he rightly emphasised the important principle that politicians cannot tell the police whom to investigate and what to pursue, but that cuts both ways. What message does he think the Mayor of London was sending out when he said, in the same weeks when John Yates was scoping his inquiry, and just days after John Yates sent his e-mail to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, that any inquiry and any allegations were codswallop, politically motivated and not worthy of discussion?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I would make is that it is quite clear that the police have operational independence, because they have pursued, without fear or favour, these issues and they have arrested everyone they have thought it necessary to arrest. What is interesting is that I think that operational independence is so embedded into the psyche of British policing that, whether it is the Mayor of London or whether you have police commissioners, I do not think it would interfere with that.

Finally, Mr Speaker, in this debate let us not lose sight of the big picture. The people who send us here want some pretty straightforward things. They want their media free and punchy, but they want them within the law. They want their police independent and strong, but honest and incorruptible, and they want their politicians to sort out a mess that has sapped their faith in the key institutions of our country. Whatever our differences in this debate, we should be clear today: we will not let them down.

Special Advisers

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Listed below are the names of the special advisers in post at 19 July 2011, including each special adviser’s pay band, and actual salary where this is £58,200 or higher, together with details of the special advisers’ pay ranges for 2011-12.

The paybill for the period 13 May 2010 to 31 March 2011 was £4.5 million. This compares to £6.8 million for the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, and £2.1 million for the period 1 April 2010 to 12 May 2010, which includes £1.8 million in severance pay.

Machinery of Government Changes

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am announcing that the following Machinery of Government changes will take effect from today:

The Government Property Unit will report directly to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and become part of the Efficiency and Reform Group within the Cabinet Office;

HM Land Registry, the Met Office and Ordnance Survey will move from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Communities and Local Government respectively to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Explanatory notes will be published in the normal way.

Phone Hacking

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. In recent days, the whole country has been shocked by the revelations of the phone hacking scandal. What this country—and the House—has to confront is an episode that is, frankly, disgraceful: accusations of widespread lawbreaking by parts of our press: alleged corruption by some police officers; and, as we have just discussed, the failure of our political system over many, many years to tackle a problem that has been getting worse. We must at all times keep the real victims at the front and centre of this debate. Relatives of those who died at the hands of terrorism, war heroes and murder victims—people who have already suffered in a way that we can barely imagine—have been made to suffer all over again.

I believe that we all want the same thing: press, police and politicians who serve the public. Last night the Deputy Prime Minister and I met the Leader of the Opposition. I also met the Chairs of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee to discuss the best way forward. Following these consultations, I want to set out today how we intend to proceed: first, on the public inquiry; secondly, on the issues surrounding News International’s proposed takeover of BSkyB; and thirdly, on ethics in the police service and its relationship with the press.

Before I do that, I will update the House on the current criminal investigation into phone hacking. I met Sir Paul Stephenson last night. He assured me that the investigation is fully resourced. It is one of the largest currently under way in the country, and is being carried out by a completely different team from the one that carried out the original investigation. It is being led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, who I believe impressed the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. Her team is looking through 11,000 pages containing 3,870 names, and around 4,000 mobile and 5,000 landline phone numbers. The team has contacted 170 people so far, and will contact every single person named in those documents. The commissioner’s office informed me this morning that the team has so far made eight arrests and undertaken numerous interviews.

Let me now turn to the action that the Government are taking. Last week in the House I set out our intention to establish an independent public inquiry into phone hacking and other illegal practices in the British press. We have looked carefully at what the nature of the inquiry should be. We want it to be one that is as robust as possible—one that can get to the truth fastest and also get to work the quickest, and, vitally, one that commands the full confidence of the public. Clearly there are two pieces of work that have to be done. First, we need a full investigation into wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the failure of the first police investigation. Secondly, we need a review of regulation of the press. We would like to get on with both those elements as quickly as possible, while being mindful of the ongoing criminal investigations. So, after listening carefully, we have decided that the best way to proceed is with one inquiry, but in two parts.

I can tell the House that the inquiry will be led by one of the most senior judges in the country, Lord Justice Leveson. He will report to both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The inquiry will be established under the Inquiries Act 2005, which means that it will have the power to summon witnesses, including newspaper reporters, management, proprietors, policemen and politicians of all parties, to give evidence under oath and in public.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

Murdoch?

[The Prime Minister]

Proprietors were included in that list.

Starting as soon as possible, Lord Justice Leveson, assisted by a panel of senior independent figures with relevant expertise in media, broadcasting, regulation and government will inquire into the culture, practices and ethics of the press; its relationship with the police; the failure of the current system of regulation; the contacts made, and discussions had, between national newspapers and politicians; why previous warnings about press misconduct were not heeded; and the issue of cross-media ownership. He will make recommendations for a new, more effective way of regulating the press—one that supports its freedom, plurality and independence from Government, but which also demands the highest ethical and professional standards. He will also make recommendations about the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press. That part of the inquiry we hope will report within 12 months.

The second part of the inquiry will examine the extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the News of the World and other newspapers, and the way in which management failures may have allowed it to happen. That part of the inquiry will also look into the original police investigation and the issue of corrupt payments to police officers, and will consider the implications for the relationships between newspapers and the police. Lord Justice Leveson has agreed to these draft terms of reference. I am placing them in the Library today, and we will send them to the devolved Administrations. No one should be in any doubt of our intention to get to the bottom of the truth and learn the lessons for the future.

Next is the issue of News International’s bid to take over BSkyB. By the day, we are hearing shocking allegations: allegations that royal protection officers were in the pay of the News of the World and handed over the contact details of the royal family for profit; and allegations that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), had his personal details blagged by another News International title. As both the alleged nature of the malpractice and the scope of the newspapers involved widen, serious questions must be asked about News Corporation’s proposed takeover of BSkyB. Added to this, News Corporation has withdrawn its proposed undertakings in lieu of reference to the Competition Commission. That is why on Monday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport referred the bid to the Competition Commission. The relevant independent authorities will now have the time to take an exhaustive look at all the relevant issues and come to a considered decision on whether the takeover should proceed. It will then be up to the Secretary of State to make the final decision, in his quasi-judicial capacity.

In every way we are following—and we must follow—the law with respect to News International’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB, but let me repeat what I said on Monday. In my view, this business should be focused not on mergers and takeovers, but on clearing up the mess and getting its house in order, and that is what the House will be voting on tonight. Let me also say this. The people involved, whether they were directly responsible for the wrongdoing, whether they sanctioned it or whether they covered it up, and however high or low they go, must not only be brought to justice; they must also have no future role in running a media company in our country.

Now let me turn to the issue of ethics in the police, and in particular their relationship with the press. Of course it is important that there is a good relationship between the media and the police. Police often use newspapers and other media to hunt down wanted criminals and to appeal for information. However, allegations have been made that some corrupt police officers may have taken payments from newspapers. And there are wider concerns that the relationship between the police and the press can also be too close.

When I spoke to Sir Paul Stephenson yesterday, he made it clear that he is as determined as I am that all aspects of the police relationship with the media should be beyond reproach. On the allegation concerning improper payments to police officers, I can assure the House that the Metropolitan police immediately referred the case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Since then, the IPCC’s most senior commissioner has been supervising the Met’s work to identify the officers who may have taken these payments. As soon as any officers are identified, the commission has publicly made it clear that it will move to a full independent investigation drawing on all the available expertise necessary so that the public are reassured.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been assured by the commission that it has both the powers and the resources needed to see this through. It will go wherever the evidence leads it, and it will have full powers to investigate fully any police wrongdoing that it might uncover. The Home Secretary has also today commissioned a report from the IPCC on its experience of investigating corruption in the police service and any lessons that can be learned. The initial findings of this will be delivered to her by the end of the summer. I can also tell the House that in addition to the work of the judicial inquiry on the wider relationship between the police and the press, Sir Paul Stephenson is looking to invite a senior public figure to advise him on the ethics that should underpin that relationship for his own force, the Metropolitan police. In particular, this figure will advise him on how to ensure maximum transparency and public confidence in how the arrangements are working.

As we discussed a few moments ago, if we are calling for greater transparency from the police, I think it is only right that we provide it in Government, too. After all, as I have said, one of the reasons why we got into this situation is because, over the decades, politicians and the press have spent time courting support, not confronting the problems. So I will be consulting the Cabinet Secretary on an amendment to the ministerial code to require Ministers to record all meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, senior editors and executives, regardless of the nature of the meeting. Permanent secretaries and special advisers will also be required to record such meetings. This information should be published quarterly. It is a first for our country, and alongside the other steps we are taking, will help to make the UK Government one of the most transparent in the world. I will also be discussing this with the Opposition, and perhaps we can adopt it on a cross-party basis.

After this statement I will be meeting the family of Milly Dowler. None of us can imagine what they have gone through, but I do know that they, like everyone else in this country, want their politicians—all of us—to bring this ugly chapter to a close, and ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. It is in that spirit that I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, and for the meeting last night. The revelations of the past week have shocked the whole country, and the public now rightly expect those of us in this House, who represent them, to provide not just an echo of that shock but the leadership necessary to start putting things right. That is why it is in the interests of the whole House and the country that we move forward swiftly, comprehensively and, wherever possible, on an agreed basis.

Let me ask the Prime Minister first about the timing, nature and scope of the inquiry. I welcome the establishment of the inquiry today. Can he confirm that it will be staffed and up and running before the recess? Can he also confirm that, from the moment the judge is appointed today, it will be an offence for anyone to destroy documents related to the issues of the inquiry? And can the Prime Minister tell us what steps he will be taking to preserve documents in Downing street that might be relevant to the judge’s inquiry?

Turning to how the inquiry will operate, we welcome a number of aspects of today’s announcement that clearly build on the way forward that we have been calling for. It is right that there should be a single judge-led inquiry; we have made it clear that it must be judge led if it is to get to the bottom of what happened and when. Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is being set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, and that it will have the power to compel witnesses? Will he explain how he envisages the judge and the panel that he mentioned operating together?

As for the scope of the inquiry, in his press conference last Friday the Prime Minister set out a number of areas that he envisaged being covered, and he has gone further today. I think it is right that the Government have now decided to follow our advice, and the clear views of the Hacked Off campaign and the Dowler family, in opting for a far broader inquiry.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that yesterday’s important sitting of the Home Affairs Select Committee made it very clear that questions about the relationship between the media and the police run far wider than what was covered by the first investigation? We must take the steps necessary to restore the public’s faith in the police’s ability to hold to account all those who have broken the law.

Similarly, it can only be right that the inquiry has been broadened to include the relationship between politicians and the press. On the specifics of that—the relationship between politicians and the press, and the relationship between the police and the press—can the Prime Minister assure the House that these aspects of the inquiry will be very much judge led, and that those who appear as witnesses to the inquiry will be under oath? [Hon. Members: “He said that!”] If that is the case, I welcome it.

Alongside these important questions about behaviour in Britain’s newsrooms, the police and the relationship between politicians and the press, a number of additional issues need consideration. On the issue of media regulation, does he agree that our instinct should continue to be for self-regulation; but does he further agree that it needs to be proved that self-regulation can be made to work? Will he comment on the work being done on privacy issues and explain whether he sees that as being part of this investigation?

I welcome the decision to make cross-media ownership part of the inquiry. Does he agree with me that abuses of power are more likely to happen where there are excessive concentrations of power? Will he confirm that the recommendations made under this inquiry can be legislated for in the Government’s forthcoming communications Act? May I suggest that it would be wise for him to bring that Act forward from its currently planned date of 2015?

Finally, I welcome the Prime Minister’s proposals about transparency. I hope and expect he will ensure that that proposal is implemented in a retrospective way back to the last general election, so he will publish all the details—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] So he will publish all the details of the meetings he had, and I will publish all the details of the meetings I had. Let me end by saying that people such as the Dowler family, and other members of the public who are the innocent victims of phone hacking, deserve a full and comprehensive inquiry. They need us to get on with the inquiry, to make it fully comprehensive and to get to the truth. They have my commitment and that of my party to make sure that we do everything to make that happen.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the helpful meeting we had last night and for the constructive attitude that he is showing in trying to get the terms of reference right and to get the inquiry under way in an agreed format. I will try to answer his questions as directly as I can.

The inquiry will start at once, in the sense of getting the terms of reference published: they will have to be consulted on and sent to the devolved institutions; we have to draw up the names for the panel—but we are not going to waste any time with that. We will get on with it. On the issue of destroying evidence, let me be clear that once a criminal investigation is under way it is a crime to destroy any evidence that could possibly relate to it—and everyone needs to bear that in mind.

Yes, this inquiry will be established under the Inquiries Act. As for the relationship between the judge and the panel, that is an important point. The panel, whose members have not yet been approached and appointed, must have a range of expertise available to it, including specialised understanding of newspaper media, but also wider than that. Those panel members will assist the judge in the work he does. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman last night, we would welcome suggestions of names of people who could bring expertise to bear.

Yes, the inquiry is now a broad one, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that is right, but we need to make sure that we put quite a tight time frame on it, as we need to see results. It is right to look at issues such as cross-media ownership, but it is possible to spend for ever looking at ways of measuring that, and we have to be careful that we do not have this going on for years without reaching a conclusion.

On relationships between the police and the press, and between politicians and the press—yes, everyone whom the judge wishes to call can be called to testify under oath. On the issue of media regulation, I prefer to call what we need to aim for independent regulation rather than self-regulation, which has quite a bad name now because it missed too many things. I do not want to move to a world of full statutory regulation. I worked in an industry—television—that was statutorily regulated, and it works, but I do not think it is right for the press. However, we will have to be guided by what the inquiry finds. As parties looking at the matter, I hope we do not get into a bidding war—I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands what I mean. Let us shoot for independent regulation if we can.

On the issue of privacy, of course the inquiry will consider it, but perhaps the inquiry will also look at the very good work that I know will be done by the Select Committees, on privacy and super-injunctions. On legislation, we will do that as necessary: we have a forward legislative programme, but let us see what proposals are made.

On transparency, I am consulting on the proposal to make much more transparent what Ministers do, including not just business meetings but social meetings. It is worth asking whether we should go further on meetings with journalists, as the police might want to do. I am happy to discuss how far the right hon. Gentleman wants that to go back: it was a slight case of, “Make me transparent, but not yet,” as he proposed stopping at the election, but let us have a good look at that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and thank him for consulting me, and my two fellow Select Committee Chairmen, about the terms of reference last night. Although there is no doubt that we need a stronger system of regulation of the press in this country, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that although it was newspapers that were responsible for these wholly unacceptable and often illegal activities, it was also newspapers that exposed them? I hope he will agree that a free press is a fundamental cornerstone of a free society, and that we must do nothing to jeopardise that.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks very good sense about this matter. Ultimately, we want not just a free press, but a free and vigorous press, which can make our lives miserable a lot of the time. That is absolutely vital. There will be those in the press who will be made nervous of a judge-led inquiry covering all the aspects of this matter, and I stress the importance of the panel in assisting the judge to ensure that the changes proposed are based on evidence of what matters and what works.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given what the Prime Minister has said, will he now publish details of all the discussions that he and the Culture Secretary have had with News Corporation representatives since he entered Downing street? A week ago, when I asked the Prime Minister why the Government did not refer the BSkyB bid to the Competition Commission when Labour recommended it, he said:

“You would look pretty for a day, but useless for a week.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1510.]

Does he regret that answer?

[The Prime Minister]

What has happened here is a massive firestorm of allegations that have got worse and worse. On both sides of the House, all of us started from the proposition that we had to keep separate the investigations that were taking place and the inquiry into BSkyB. I believe that we are now getting it right, and if the right hon. Gentleman has played a role by pushing and asking questions, I pay tribute to him. He, too, was a Culture Secretary, and knows about these issues. Just as I say to him, “Well done for pushing,” I suspect that he should also be saying to himself, “Why did we miss this for so long?”

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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?”

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I commend the Prime Minister on the appointment of Lord Justice Leveson, who, as I am sure the Justice Secretary will confirm, is a man of the highest intelligence and integrity, and extremely well equipped to take on the job? On the future regulation of the press, I urge the Prime Minister not to fall into the trap that some in the press are setting, by asserting that any degree of statutory regulation is bound to lead to an end of self-regulation. Given that Express Newspapers has withdrawn from the Press Complaints Commission, as it did in January, will he acknowledge that some measures may have to be imposed by statute so that there is a stronger system of self-regulation?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks some very wise words. There are ways of setting up a regulatory system that is effectively independent, that is non-statutory, that does not have the Government’s fingertips all over it, as it were, and that can do a good and trusted job, as we see in the case of advertising standards. In any case, this matter will not now be for us, but for the inquiry, and it is important that the inquiry should look into it carefully.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the terms of the public inquiry that he set out, but will the public inquiry consider the role that mobile phone companies have played in the scandal, and will there also be consideration of the responsibilities that they may have to their clients, to protect their privacy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It takes, as it were, two to blag—someone to ask, and someone to give. We do need to consider the matter. The inquiry will have a huge amount of evidence to go through, and it will need to ensure that it has proper technical expertise to get to the bottom of the matter.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I also welcome the inquiry and thank the Prime Minister for consulting the Home Affairs Committee on the terms of reference? He seems to have included our suggestions in his statement today. He is right to say that the Committee was concerned by some of the evidence that we received yesterday, but we were very impressed by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, who is going through the list at the rate of 30 victims a month, and has about 12,000 telephone numbers to go through. If the Met requires further resources, is the Prime Minister able to give it what it needs?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his approach and the constructive suggestions that he made last night, many of which we have put into the terms of reference. We will also consider some of his thoughts on the membership of the panel. Obviously, it is for the Met to decide how it distributes its resources. Sue Akers has two inquiries going on: one into the phone hacking at the News of the World and elsewhere, and one into corruption within the Met—and that inquiry is now reporting to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which might take over part of it, although of course the police must have operational independence.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to concentrate on wider issues than the BSkyB takeover. Is it not the case, however, that over the past few years, all those whom the public expect to behave—bankers, MPs, journalists, the police—have shown, or at least some of them have shown, that they are not capable of meeting that trust. Regulation plays a part, but is it not the case that all those who have positions of responsibility must examine their consciences and work out how best to behave in future to maintain public trust?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. No regulatory system in the world can protect against all bad practice, and a sense of social and moral responsibility is vital, whether one is a banker, an MP or a journalist. I am sure that we can do better than the current system, because on the evidence of what has happened over the past 10 years and the warnings that have been ignored, it is clear that the Press Complaints Commission is not set up in the right way, and has not worked.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

There has been serious disquiet about whether it was appropriate for former senior public servants to take up roles with News International. One example is Andy Hayman, who took a job with News International very soon after leaving the Metropolitan police; another is the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald. Will the inquiry be able to consider the appropriateness of that, given the damage that it does to public confidence?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady knows, in politics we have huge levels of transparency in relation to jobs that former Ministers can go into, and we also have a committee dealing with appointments to ensure that there is an appropriate gap. However, she has made a good point, and I am sure that the committee of inquiry will want to consider it.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Yesterday afternoon we heard that the man who is in charge of counter-terrorism in the Metropolitan police is 99% certain that his phone was hacked. An hour later, I was shown a piece of kit that costs about £1,500 and is readily available on the internet. It effectively sets up an illegal mobile phone mast through which it is possible to listen to any conversation held by anyone on a mobile phone within three miles.

As I have said, that device is publicly available. It is illegal to use it, but private investigators are using it all the time. Is it not vital for the inquiry also to examine the role of private investigators, and the shocking fact that there is absolutely no regulation of them?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. One of the features of an inquiry such as this is that the terms of reference are set out and we can agree them and refine them, but in the end the judge will determine where to go on the basis of where the evidence leads. If the judge concludes that that is an important point, he or she can go absolutely down that track.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

In 2003, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport asked for an investigation of the practice by journalists of making illegal payments to the police. Does the Prime Minister agree that those in charge of the inquiry should interview former Labour Ministers to discover why they appear to have taken absolutely no action at the time?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has made a good point, but I think that if we are to try to get this right, we must all put our hands up and say, “Yes, of course the last Government should have done more to respond to the Richard Thomas reports and the DCMS reports, but we must also ask why the Opposition did not press them more to do so.” We shall all have to answer questions on that basis, and look through the reports and see what was suggested, what was the evidence, and what more could have been done. We will never solve this if we try to do it on a party basis; we must try to do it on a cross-party basis.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I believe that if these measures are carried out, some good will come out of evil. I find myself in the slightly embarrassing position of being able to commend all three party leaders on coming together to ensure that that happens, and I thank them for doing so.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he would allow Lord Justice Leveson access to the intelligence services as well? At the murkier ends of this scandal, there are allegations that rogue elements of those services have very close dealings with executives at News International, and we need to get to the bottom of that.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that the judge can take the inquiry in any direction in which the evidence leads it. He, like others, is free to make submissions to the inquiry, point out evidence, point out conclusions from that evidence, and ask the inquiry to follow that. As well as wanting a broad, independent and tough inquiry, we want some early results—some early harvest—and I am sure that the inquiry will produce that as well.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will the ambit of the judicial inquiry focus on the need to enable ordinary members of the public, such as bereaved families of service personnel who have given their lives for this country, to seek and achieve legitimate redress of grievances through proper complaints against the media and their agents when they are guilty of malpractice?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a good point. We must keep the public, and the victims of what has now emerged, front and centre at all times. Of course we all, as politicians, have strong views about what has gone wrong, what might have happened to all of us and the rest of it, but, although some people have said that there is an element of “revenge for expenses”, this has to be about the public and the victims. Politicians must be very careful. Yes, we want a good and robust system of self-regulation, but we must also be absolutely clear about wanting a strong, free, independent press that is able to challenge and to uncover wrongdoing, as it has done in this case.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Given the Prime Minister’s acknowledgment that a cross-party consensus is essential, why has there been no consultation with the minority parties in the House? Do we just get the conclusions when they are arrived at? May I also ask whether the inquiry will extend to newsrooms in Northern Ireland as well as the other regions of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. That consultation simply was not possible in the time that was available to us. Let me stress, however, that these are draft terms of reference. In the end the judge must be comfortable with them and agree to them, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise devolved issues with the Government and the judge, I am sure that we can ensure that that happens.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Some people find it difficult to sue newspapers that have lied about them because of the complexity and cost that that would involve. I hope the Prime Minister can assure me that the inquiry will look into how people on low incomes can be supported so that they can sue newspapers when they have been lied about.

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously one of the things that the inquiry will have to look into is how people can obtain redress from newspapers when they have been wronged. That has been looked into for many years, but the problem is that Governments have not acted. I believe that part of the solution is an effective regulatory system. If people end up having to sue a newspaper, things have gone too far. It ought to be possible to obtain proper redress through a regulatory system that has not just the confidence of the press but the confidence of the public: I think that is the key.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he had any conversations about phone hacking with Andy Coulson at the time of Mr Coulson’s resignation—not his appointment—and will he place in the Library a log of any meetings and phone calls that have taken place between him and Andy Coulson since Mr Coulson’s resignation?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, all the time during Andy Coulson’s employment, when articles were appearing and there was a storm of allegations, I had that conversation with him many times, because I had employed him. I had accepted his assurances: assurances which, as I have said, were given to many others. In the end, the reason for his resignation, the reason for his giving up on the second chance, was that he just felt that he could not go on doing the job, a job that he did well—no one denies that he did the job well—because of all the allegations. As for contacts, I have said what I have said about transparency, and I think that that is right.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

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

Before the inquiries have been completed, if News Corporation does not heed the mood of the British public and does not heed the voice of the House of Commons this afternoon, will the Prime Minister be prepared to present a short Bill amending cross-media ownership rules, and also addressing the absence of limits to ownership of United Kingdom broadcasters by non-EU companies and non-EU nationals? There is not such an unfettered free market in the United States, for example.

[The Prime Minister]

I think it is difficult to bring forward specific legislation for a specific company; we have got to be a Government under the law. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is worth reminding Labour Members that a US-based company is able to purchase all of a UK broadcaster because of an Act that their Government passed.

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

I welcome the Leveson inquiry and agree very much with the Prime Minister that our focus should be on the innocent victims whom we have heard about recently, but he will be aware that there were concerns in the House that the hacking of telephones has impeded MPs in their work and interfered with freedom of expression, which is one of the most deeply felt and important aspects of our work. The Standards and Privileges Committee produced a report—its 14th report—on this subject. Will the Prime Minister ensure that it is fed into the inquiry and fully considered?

[The Prime Minister]

I will, of course, do that. This inquiry gives us an opportunity to look at some reports that a lot of work has gone into, but, sadly, that have gathered dust, rather than having been taken as seriously as perhaps they should have been.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Everybody is aware that the reason why Murdoch had such tremendous power was that he had more than 40% of the print media, with television stations thrown in. It was not because of his amazing personality that politicians of all parties were in his pocket; it was because he had such power through the newspapers. In answer to the recent question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), the Prime Minister said he did not want to strip Murdoch or anybody else of their titles. Will he therefore include in the inquiry’s terms of reference that the judge can, if he so wishes, say that nobody should have more than one title or one television station? Will the Prime Minister agree to that, because without it this cancer on the body politic—Murdoch—will remain?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, the inquiry can go where it wants to go; it can follow the evidence where it leads. I am sure the judge will want to produce an inquiry under the current law. That is what we have to do; we have to be a Government of the law. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that we cannot have a responsible company owning a television or radio licence and also a newspaper, but we do need rules about plurality. That is why the media have not only a competition policy that they have to obey, but some rules about plurality so we can make sure there is a decent share of voice—a number of different voices in our media. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am afraid that not enough was done over the last 10 years to make that happen.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

We do not want anybody to be arrested in secret, but neither is it right that individual police officers should immediately contact their favourite journalist to let them know when someone is being arrested. Will the Prime Minister look at having a transparent and standard way of it being made public when someone has been arrested, so that this cannot happen in future?

[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.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Is blagging already a criminal offence, and if it is not, will it be made a criminal offence?

[The Prime Minister]

Unlike my hon. Friend, I am not a lawyer, but I believe it is a criminal offence, because someone who obtains information falsely is breaking the law. This is another aspect that I am sure the inquiry can look at, however.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that some of the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday must have come as a shock and a surprise? For instance, how can it be justified for the police to dine with the very people whom they are investigating, and is that not all the more reason why this inquiry is so necessary?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. I watched some of the evidence, and that was very striking. Let us be frank about transparency: MPs have had to go through this over expenses and meetings and other things, and it is time for the police to address it, too. Transparency is the best answer. There are bound to be relationships between senior police leaders and senior media executives, not least because the police have to explain what they are trying to do, but if those relationships are transparent, people can know what is going on.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and may I say that it is good to see him on the front foot? May I also remind him of a sentence in the statement? He stated that “Sir Paul Stephenson is looking to invite a senior public figure to advise him on the ethics that should underpin that relationship for his own force, the Metropolitan police.” May I suggest that there is a wider need throughout the nation for such ethics to be applied, and may I ask the Prime Minister to take action to ensure that other forces are involved in this process?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, relationships that have become unhealthy between some police officers and some media organisations are not just a problem in the Met, but as the Met is our premium and biggest force, I think that if it starts the process of not only transparency but the culture change that is necessary, that would set a good example to others.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In light of the information available to the Prime Minister on phone hacking, what techniques does he anticipate will be used to pressurise Ofcom over its decision as to whether Rupert and James Murdoch are fit and proper persons to run News International and BSkyB, and what action will he take to prevent any such intimidation?

[The Prime Minister]

The “fit and proper” test is a matter for Ofcom; it has to carry that out. It is right in this country that we do not ask individual politicians to make those individual decisions about who is fit and proper. We have also asked the Competition Commission to look at this issue. There is a separate issue, too: we need to allow Ofcom to make a “fit and proper” test at the point of full acquisition. That is a particular detail that we need to look at for the future.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

For the first time ever, I think, I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). What is most disturbing and murkiest about this whole situation is the relationship between politicians and the media. From the moment when Tony Blair flew to Australia back in the 1990s, that relationship has meant that successive leaders of major parties have felt it necessary to cosy-up to media moguls. May we have a situation in future in which party leaders do not go to the birthday parties of these people, and instead keep them at arm’s length, so that the whole country can be assured that it is the public interest, not any media interest, that has power in the land?

[The Prime Minister]

The relationship did get unhealthy. It was too close and, as I have put it, too much time was spent courting the media and not enough time was spent confronting the problems, but let us be honest, we are not suddenly all going to become monks and live in a monastery. We have to have relationships so that politicians can try to persuade media organisations that they are trying to do the right thing. We have a duty to explain our policies and what we are doing for the country. Democracy is government by explanation, so we have to explain ourselves to the media, but I hope that this whole process will end up delivering a healthier relationship where we can do that explaining, but confront the problems at the same time.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Given what the Prime Minister has said about the police’s performance yesterday, was it wise of the Home Secretary to describe John Yates as doing a good job, and of Boris Johnson, when chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, to describe this as a song and dance and a load of codswallop?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me deal specifically with the issue of John Yates, because this is important. He does an extremely important job for the country in terms of counter-terrorism policing. I have watched him and the job that he does at close hand. We have to have a situation where the police are operationally independent, and if we put our trust in Paul Stephenson to run his team, we must allow him to do that. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about this: it would be quite dangerous, would it not, if politicians were able to point at individual police officers, particularly those who were leading investigations into other politicians? So there are some dangers here. I think that John Yates is doing a good job on counter-terrorism. Clearly, as he said himself, he has some questions to answer about what went wrong with the initial investigation, and I hope that he will welcome this inquiry, which will get to the bottom of what went wrong.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister talks about independent regulation. May I ask that the inquiry considers possible remedies in respect of applying pecuniary damages where wrongdoing is found and, more importantly, ensuring that an equal amount of time and space is given to printing a retraction as is spent on vilifying people?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I have worked in a regulated industry, in television, where you could be fined if you got something wrong—the company I worked for was fined a lot of money once—and there is no doubt that that has a huge effect on the business. But it is not for us to say what the rules should be; it is for this inquiry to do that and it should be properly advised by experts who understand how the media works.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and you, Mr Speaker, on granting the Standing Order No. 24 debate in order to put Parliament at the heart of this matter? There is a danger in all this. In the scandal involving MPs, most MPs were of the highest integrity and were working hard in public service. Likewise, most journalists, including those at News International, are hard working and are of the highest integrity. Will the Prime Minister just mention that fact?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The British press has a lot to be proud of in terms of its record of investigative journalism, of uncovering the truth, of providing information and entertainment, and of holding the powerful to account. The point I would make to the sceptics in the press who will worry about this inquiry is that we cannot go on as we are, and we need to do something to stop this firestorm, to protect what is good in the media and to ensure its freedom for the future, and also to deal with the abuse that we clearly see in front of us.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Earlier, in his responses during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister alluded to alleged lying to Select Committees. Given that misleading a Select Committee or refusing to turn up as a witness for a Select Committee is contempt of Parliament but that the last time criminal sanctions were invoked against anybody for that was in 1666, will he undertake to introduce emergency legislation to make contempt of Parliament a criminal offence at the earliest opportunity?

[The Prime Minister]

I will have to look closely at the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Perhaps it is something on which the Leader of the House, who does not quite go back to 1666 but goes some way further towards it than I do, will be able to give him some satisfaction.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

With the number of individuals and organisations with questions to answer growing by the day, will the Prime Minister assure me that, should there be further dramatic developments in the coming weeks he would not hesitate to add his voice to the call for a recall of this place from our summer recess so that they could be debated on the Floor of the House?

[The Prime Minister]

There is never normally any shortage of people calling for Parliament to be recalled—indeed, I remember that a recent recess had not even started when someone called for Parliament to be recalled. I may not be the first out of the traps, if I may put it that way.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s repeated emphasis on transparency. In that respect, does he think it would be useful if freedom of information legislation was extended to public and private bodies that operate fully in the public sphere, notably all the media ones?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that that is something the inquiry can look at. I do not share Tony Blair’s regret on freedom of information; I think that it has actually been a good thing. What we are seeking here is more transparency, so that people can see who is meeting and who is doing what, rather than having to have a process of discovery. What this Government are bringing, across quite a range of areas, is that original transparency to reduce the need for often quite expensive discovery.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s plans to change the ministerial code in respect of meetings with members of the media. May I press him on the definition of “media”? In a world where increasingly people search for their news via Google and so on, and they share their news on Facebook and the like, I suggest that those organisations and meetings with them should also be in the public domain.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point, because “media” now encompasses such a wide range of things. That is one of the reasons why I think it is necessary to consult briefly on this change to the ministerial code before we introduce it, because I want to make sure that we do it in a way that is clear and works well.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

An outraged public demand action and expect leadership in the public interest. At every stage, the Prime Minister has been slow to act. Does he agree that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit and proper person? Given that we now know that Lord Ashdown warned the Prime Minister not to appoint Andy Coulson, does he have any regrets about appointing somebody who was clearly not a fit and proper person?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I would make is that in government you are not just making speeches; you have got to make decisions and you have got to get it right. You have got to make sure the terms of reference are right, make sure the inquiry is right, find the judge, appoint the panel, work out how to be transparent and how to amend the ministerial code. It is not just about saying things; it is about doing things. Of course it takes time to get these things right when this enormous firestorm is going on, but I think that we have taken some major steps forward that will make a big difference. On the “fit and proper” test, that is a matter for Ofcom. We must not get into a situation where the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition is pointing a finger and making a particular point about a particular person—that is Ofcom’s role. As for the other question, I think that I answered it in full.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

In the cash for honours inquiry, the Met judged all suspects to be innocent until they were proved to be Labour. Does the Prime Minister agree that the best-trusted news in the country and the best investigative journalism comes from those broadcasters who already have a statutory duty to balance their news? Instead of having a half solution, would not the ultimate solution be to spread the obligation to provide balanced political reporting to all media?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a matter for the inquiry. I think there are difficulties here. The reason for the statutory regulation of television is that you are dealing with a previously limited spectrum that was a privilege to own and statutory regulation came with it. The reason for not having the statutory regulation of newspapers is that in a free society you should be free to set up a newspaper, to distribute opinions and information—[Interruption.] Even if it is the Morning Star, as someone said. It is important that we hold on to that. I want the newspapers to understand that neither the Government nor the Opposition want to leap into statutory regulation. That is not the intention; we want to improve on what we have now.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for working with the Opposition in dealing with this very serious issue. The Prime Minister will be sharing sensitive information with the Leader of the Opposition, so can I ask him to seek assurances that Tom Baldwin, an ex-News International employee, will not be privy to such sensitive information?

[The Prime Minister]

We all have to answer for the people who work for us and the accusations that are made against them. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will want to do that.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

May I emphasise to the Prime Minister that the feelings of revulsion being expressed against these practices are particularly strong in Scotland? Will he therefore meet the First Minister soon so that we can understand the full extent of phone hacking in Scotland and what needs to be done to tackle it?

[The Prime Minister]

I have regular conversations with the First Minister. In this case, the best thing is to ensure that the devolved Administrations are happy with the terms of reference and to work out how the inquiry will relate to those Administrations. Any evidence can be put straight into the inquiry in the way I have suggested.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Why did his chief of staff not pass on to him what he found out from The Guardian?

[The Prime Minister]

I think I have answered this question in some detail. The fact is that the information was not passed on but the lion’s share of it was included in a published article in The Guardian about which I gave a very extensive answer about an hour ago.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Thank you for that, Mr Speaker.

The Prime Minister has referred repeatedly to media organisations and media executives and he has noted the fact that the word “media” covers a wide range. Does he agree that to be fully comprehensive the terms of reference should also be extended to sound and visual media? It is not impossible, given the uncertainty and unexpected turns of events, that that side of things might be involved, too.

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, whatever terms of reference are agreed with a judge they are free to pursue the evidence. If it takes them to different places, they can follow it and I am sure they will consider carefully what my hon. Friend says.

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

In his statement, the Prime Minister said that Judge Leveson and his panel will inquire into “the contacts made, and discussions had, between national newspapers and politicians”. May I take it, therefore, that he will submit to the inquiry details of all meetings held between him and senior figures at News International, including the names of the individuals who attended such meetings, even if one of them was his ex-chief of staff, Andy Coulson?

[The Prime Minister]

I will be happy to go along to the inquiry and answer any questions it wants to put to me about any contacts I have had with any media organisation at any time, as long as I still have the memory of when it happened. I am very happy to do that.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Home Affairs Committee hearing yesterday was not a one-off but the conclusion of a nine-month inquiry, pursued throughout on a cross-party basis? That raised serious concerns about the role not just of the police but of the Crown Prosecution Service in curtailing the original investigation.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, one thing that the second part of the inquiry will consider, as well as the first police investigation, what went wrong and why it was insufficient, is the review of that investigation and why it did not result in further action. Those are difficult questions and it is right that an inquiry should consider them.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Has the Prime Minister satisfied himself that the proposed double-barrelled inquiry will be proofed against the possible chicane of legal challenges to its conduct and scope that it could face from various interests? Has he also anticipated the various calls, a few of them valid, for legal representation at the inquiry? Will Ministers or former Ministers, when they are giving or preparing evidence, do so with the support and assistance of Law Officers?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very good question. I have found, doing this job, that almost nothing is chicaned, as he put it, from legal inquiry. We think we are doing this in the right way under the Inquiries Act 2005 and all the things that flow from that, but I can perhaps consider the detail of his question about preparation for Ministers.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the police investigation will include payments made to connected parties, such as relatives of police officers, including payments not made in cash, such as electronic transfers to shell companies, vouchers or travellers cheques? In due course, will it also consider others who provide stories, such as paramedics, accident and emergency doctors and prison governors, and who might also be subject to corruption?

[The Prime Minister]

The inquiry must follow the evidence wherever it leads and if it finds malpractice in any of the services my hon. Friend mentioned, it must clearly investigate.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

In recent days, it has become clear that a number of the alleged crimes that will be covered by the inquiry took place in Scotland. The Prime Minister said earlier that he has regular discussions with the First Minister. Has the Prime Minister received reassurances from the Scottish Government that the inquiry will have the full co-operation of the Scottish Government and all the relevant authorities?

[The Prime Minister]

One reason we need to consult about the terms of reference is to ensure that we consult with devolved Administrations, including the First Minister, to see what they have to say.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on grasping the nettle. Let me repeat the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (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?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a repeated call to the one made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (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.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Just to be absolutely clear, the Prime Minister said earlier that proprietors could be called to the inquiry. Will he confirm that if those proprietors are foreign citizens, they could be compelled to attend and give evidence, unlike with Select Committees?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good issue. I do not see why the answer to that should be no. If you own media in this country, then you should be able to be called under oath.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be a mistake if, at the end of this process, we saw the death of good investigative journalism? He has alluded to the investigation into MPs expenses, for example, and it would be wrong if we ended up with such a scandal not coming to light.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not want those people in the press who work hard, who are good investigative reporters, who do not break the law, who find good stories and who hold the powerful to account to watch today’s proceedings and think that we are going to strangle the free press in this country. That is not what we should be doing. It is very important that we all say that and that the inquiry bears that at the heart of what it is doing and it is in the terms of reference.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said that destroying evidence would be a criminal offence, but my understanding is that that is the case only once the terms of reference for the inquiry have been set. Why did he not set up the inquiry last week, when Labour Members asked him to, and will he ensure that the terms of reference are set as soon as possible so that no further evidence is destroyed?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The premise underlying the hon. Gentleman’s question is wrong. My understanding is that when there is a police investigation, as there is with hacking, if evidence is destroyed that breaks the law. That investigation is happening right now. As regards setting up the inquiry, the terms of reference are now in the Library for the hon. Gentleman to see. If he has suggestions and ideas he can make them known, but I sent the terms of reference to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this morning for comments from the Labour party and we have incorporated those comments in full.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

May I push the Prime Minister a little more on the culture of journalism? As with the bankers crisis and the MPs’ expenses crisis, changing the culture and self-responsibility of the industry is important. What will he do to take a lead on that?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should celebrate good journalism and social responsibility in journalism and media organisations. Let me put it on the record that many media organisations do some brilliant things in our country to build up what I call the big society. We must not damn all media because of what is happening and what has happened in some organisations. As well as a good regulatory system, we need a culture that is, yes, about getting to the truth but, no, not about breaking the law.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Given the point made earlier by the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the Metropolitan police’s small team will take many months to go through all the names and phone numbers that they have to go through, may I press the Prime Minister to make sure that they have enough police officers to do the job in good time?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said in my statement, this is one of the biggest police investigations currently ongoing in Britain. In defence of the Metropolitan police, next year is the Olympics and we have an enormous security challenge to get right in this country. The Metropolitan police has to meet a huge number of objectives—it is for the police authority to help to set those—so I do think it is putting adequate resources into this. As I have said, it is one of the biggest operations in Britain today.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

May I for one congratulate the Prime Minister and other party leaders on the speed and scope of all this? I particularly want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) about why the issue of police ethics is being dealt with only in relation to the Metropolitan police. It seems to some of us that there is a kind of cultural tradition across all police forces of having a tight relationship with favoured journalists. Perhaps in the short term my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could talk to chief constables about starting their own procedures.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. First, the inquiry will make recommendations across all police forces from the lessons it learns about this malpractice. The point that Paul Stephenson and I were discussing last night was that there is an opportunity for the Met specifically to take a leadership role in what it does, which I am sure others will follow.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has said on several occasions that we should follow the evidence trail wherever it leads. If that includes the proprietors of News International or other media groups, should we not be hardening the terms of evidence? Is it the Prime Minister’s view that Rupert Murdoch should be required to give evidence to the judge-led inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

The point about the judge-led inquiry is that it must choose who it wants to speak to and it must then call them under oath and make sure that they answer questions accurately. Clearly, it is going to want to talk to editors, proprietors and those who are responsible right across the media. That is going to be the work it does.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we will never be able to stop criminals who are intent on phone-tapping but that whatever we do and whatever steps we take we have to try to minimise the possibility of that?

[The Prime Minister]

That is right; we will never stop all law-breaking through a regulatory system, just as we will never stop all law-breaking through a policing system. Clearly, with the media we want to have a free, independent media that do not feel the heavy hand of statutory regulation, so we need a change of law but we also need a change of culture.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the general public will find it amazing that anyone is suggesting that the press should have self-regulation? Is it not a No. 1 priority that we should have regulation that is independent?

[The Prime Minister]

I like the word “independent” rather than “self”, which sounds as though newspapers will be regulating themselves rather than being regulated by someone more independent, although not reliant on the Government—that would be worrying—who can take a strong view.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the inquiry be able to take evidence from Mr Lance Price who used to work at Downing street and who said in 2006 that when he worked there he sometimes felt as though Rupert Murdoch was the 24th member of the Cabinet?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that Lance Price will be available. I have to say that the book he wrote about the last Government was one of the most depressing things I have ever read.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

If the will of the House this evening is carried and News International simply withdraws its bid for BSkyB, what steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the will of the House is carried and what steps will he take to persuade Rupert Murdoch to do the decent thing?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have tried to explain, the Government have a responsibility to act within the law. We have to deal with each merger, acquisition and process as the law dictates and that is what my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary has to do. Tonight, the House of Commons is going to express a very strong opinion and I hope that opinion will be heeded.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Can he tell the House whether other national Governments have been in contact to express their concerns about the activities of News International and whether US authorities are planning to investigate the company for possible breaches under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

[The Prime Minister]

I have not had any contact with any US politicians about this issue.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

In the firestorm that has hit the country, thousands of families have been thrown back to the trauma of a loved one’s death. Will the Prime Minister ensure that he has conversations with the Press Complaints Commission so that it can start talking to the editors of national newspapers about not regurgitating stories that will increase that trauma to families? Can we also ensure that when police officers approach families, if they need to tell them that their phone calls have been hacked, they provide them with help and guidance as well as information about desist notices so that those families’ trauma can be reduced rather than their grief being added to?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes a very good and sensitive point. It is not just for the PCC but for newspapers themselves to understand the trauma that is being caused and the need to be more sensitive.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the key weaknesses of the PCC is that the public interest defence in the code has, frankly, been used and abused over the years? That is why it is so important to have independent regulation going forward and why those who continue to cling to the idea of self-regulation are wrong.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend did an excellent job as my press secretary for many years before taking the sensible view that he belonged on these Benches. There is a problem, which the inquiry will have to look at: we want the press to take action in the national interests, but we have to have a system in which they are not breaking the law. That has to be resolved.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister explain further the practical difference between self-regulation and independent regulation?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not want to get into theological debate about this, but I think the problem with the phrase “self-regulation” is that it implies too much of a continuation of a scheme under which the press have effectively been regulating themselves. This will be a matter for the judge and his panel, but what we are looking for is something more independent—not statutory regulation with the heavy hand of the state, but independent regulation that means we are able to make sure that proper standards are followed. I gave some examples of how that works elsewhere and I think it can be done.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the leadership he has shown on this matter. Will he clarify a point about the inquiry, given that in recent months and years certain inquiries have held evidence sessions behind closed doors? What will be done to ensure that all the evidence is taken in public so that the public can see what has been done and what is being done to correct it?

[The Prime Minister]

This is an independent public inquiry led by a judge, with evidence being taken under oath and being held in public. That is the whole point. Obviously, if it suddenly decided it was inquiring into deep national security issues it might have to have a different session, but it is a public inquiry.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Prime Minister says that he wants a cross-party approach to this issue, so when will he meet the leaders of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parties in the House? In 2006, the Information Commissioner reported up to 3,000 breaches of privacy. Will the inquiry that the Prime Minister is announcing today look into those cases?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope the inquiry will look at what happened with the Information Commissioner’s report, because that was one of the wake-up calls when, frankly, the politicians did not wake up. In terms of taking into account the views of the other parties in the House, I am going to discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary and see what is the best way forward.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

May I ask the Prime Minister, given the group feeling in the House, whether we could put the full vetting authorities of the Government to the assistance of the Leader of the Opposition so that he can find out more about his director of communications?

[The Prime Minister]

We all have to answer questions about the people we employ and the activities they might have undertaken. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will be doing just that.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

At the turn of the year, when Opposition Members were urging the Culture Secretary to refer the BSkyB bid to the Competition Commission, we were given to understand that, even if it were referred, the terms of reference would be very limited. On Monday, the Culture Secretary indicated to the House that there would be fairly wide terms of reference. Are the terms of reference that have apparently already been sent this week going to be made available to the House?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary can answer this question in the debate later. The point is that the Competition Commission has been asked to look at plurality grounds and also to look at the “fit and proper” issue. We have to do these things under the law though: we cannot suddenly invent new grounds. We can only use the legal instruments and tests that are there.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s reaffirmation that sunlight is the best disinfectant? If we are really going to sort things out on a cross-party basis, surely it is not good enough for this to involve only Government Ministers and special advisers—surely it should involve shadow Ministers and their special advisers as well.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that is right. The point about the relationship between politicians and the press, and where that has gone wrong, is, as I said, that we have been courting support rather than confronting problems. That has been the case for Oppositions. I freely admit that as Leader of the Opposition, you spend quite a lot of time trying to persuade newspapers and others to support you, because you want to explain your policies, your vision and what you are doing for the country. That will not stop. We are not all going to go and live in a monastery and never talk to journalists ever again, wonderful though that might seem by moments. We must have a healthy relationship where we can have those meetings and discussions, but at the same time confront the difficulties that we have. That is what the commission will do.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I am not a legal expert, but I am deeply concerned about the suggestion that there is a non-disclosure agreement between News International and Glenn Mulcaire, the man at the centre of hacking. If a non-disclosure agreement exists, it must have been put in place between News International and him in 2005 or 2006, at the time that Andy Coulson was at the News of the World. I have a deep concern about who negotiated that and the implications. Will the Prime Minister look into the matter personally, and will it be part of the inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

That needs to be part of the police inquiry, never mind the inquiry that is about to start under Judge Leveson. There is a police inquiry now into what went wrong at the News of the World, how much hacking took place, who was hacked and who knew. All those questions need to be answered by the police, and it is a full-on police inquiry, not the rather thin inquiry that happened before.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

On the issue of transparency about meetings between politicians and media proprietors and executives, will my right hon. Friend go further than the Leader of the Opposition suggested and go back not just to the last election, but to the previous Government, so that my constituents can see what people on both sides of the House have been up to in the past?

[The Prime Minister]

We will look at the issue of transparency and how best to put it into the ministerial code, and consider what is right and fair. The inquiry will be able to look at contacts over a period to try to see what went wrong in the relationship.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the meetings of the inquiry be open to the general public? In other words, will we all know what is happening, and will the general public know as well?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, this is a public inquiry held in public.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I have been listening carefully to the Prime Minister’s answers. Does he accept that there is a significant difference between explaining Government policy or the Opposition’s position to the media, and courting their support, and that it is that culture of courting the support of the media that needs to be tackled not by inquiry, but by the Members of the House?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. There is nothing wrong with meeting editors or proprietors and trying to explain why your vision is the right one for the country. People expect you to do that. Where it can go wrong, and where it has gone wrong, is where politicians start doing things, perhaps influenced by those media companies, that they would not otherwise do. I well remember standing at the Opposition Dispatch Box opposing 42-day detention, which I do not think for a minute most of those on the—sorry—then Government Front Bench believed in. I think they were doing it because of the pressure that they felt from some parts of the press. It is profoundly wrong, and the sort of thing that we must stop in the future.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Does he agree that the Press Complaints Commission as currently constituted is clearly not fit for purpose, and that it would have been most helpful if its reform had been initiated back in 2007, when the phone hacking inquiry at that time failed?

[The Prime Minister]

Many people on the Press Complaints Commission have tried to make it work. I would argue that it has made improvements in recent years from when it was originally established, but when we look at what has happened and the trail of reports, problems and the rest of it, the conclusion we must come to is that the PCC did not do enough to pick that up. Reform is therefore needed. That is one of the starting points for the inquiry.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister regret the Opposition’s inaction over such serious and grave issues over a number of years? If they are now to succeed and maintain public support, they need to be above party politics, and political opportunism should be shunned and ignored.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. We need an all-party approach, as far as possible. Sometimes all-party approaches can become a bit of a conspiracy, so we have to make sure that that is not the case. A basic level of agreement exists about the inquiry, the terms of reference, and the need to change the regulatory system. If we can push forward in that way, there will not be too much regulatory arbitrage, so to speak, which is a danger in such a situation. I propose to keep in close touch with the leader of the Labour party about this.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with a senior commentator in the Twittersphere who says that people in glass houses should not throw stones?

[The Prime Minister]

I long ago learned my lesson about not saying anything about the Twittersphere for fear of getting the wrong vowel in the wrong place.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Intelligence and Security Committee

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its valuable work and its latest annual report, Cm. 8114. Following consultation with the committee over matters that could not be published without prejudicing the work of the intelligence and security agencies, I have today laid the report before the House.

The Government’s response to this report will be laid before the House after the summer recess.

Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.