Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

For every one of the five years that I have been worrying this bone, people have been telling me to leave it. They have been some very dark years—though latterly rather euphoric, I suppose. Most of the time it has been quite lonely and bleak. We have learnt some pretty dark things about ourselves. By “ourselves,” I do not just mean politicians and the media; I mean the whole of what used to be called the establishment—the quiet cabal that runs the country, all within five miles of where we sit tonight. I am talking about not just politicians, but prosecutors; not just journalists, but judges, industrialists and editors; policemen, commentators and publicists; the bold with the meek; and the guilty and the damned. We were all part of this. This was not a conspiracy that no one knew about—not in the establishment anyway. Among the people I am talking about—the few thousand most powerful people in the land, in whose collective charge are the freedoms of everybody else—in that wealthy, privileged powerful group with so much to lose, everybody knew.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Watson]

In a minute. They did not all perhaps appreciate the scale of what went on, but everybody knew that a crucial part of our nation’s body politic was rotten. We did not know that they were hacking Milly Dowler’s phone, but we knew that that was the kind of thing they did. We knew that there were virtually no limits to the kind of things they did, and we did nothing. For years, perhaps decades, we collectively looked the other way. To be candid, even now we have let families such as the Dowlers shoulder a heavy load. They should not have been put in a position to mediate on these proposals, but they were and they did so—they had to—under great duress, but with customary dignity. They did so because while the most atrocious things were being done by people charged with upholding the highest standards, we averted our eyes—or we actively conspired. We joined in with what they did to other people because it made it less likely—we thought—that they would do it to us.

At the root of all this was fear: an abject, dark-hours-of-the-morning screaming terror that they would turn the lights of hatred on us, destroy us and humiliate us—with pure lies or half truth, it did not matter which—deliberately and viciously, for no reason other than because they can, it makes money and it is just what they do. The effect was that the lives of the not-rich and the not-powerful—the utterly innocent, so much less able to defend themselves—were laid equally bare to the random acts of malice that we came to believe were inevitable.

That was the dark hour of our parliamentary democracy, whose lessons we must not forget as we congratulate ourselves today. But we can also take heart from having finally fought back. Parliament showed its strength where Governments failed. Brave journalists showed that the profession itself is a proud one. Honest police—more than any in the person of Sue Akers—showed that the long arm of the law, once unshackled, can still reach where it should.

Today’s agreement is a good one; it is more than just a moral victory. It took patience and strength to see it through. It almost feels like a kind of closure—but I do mean almost. We have a responsibility to give something back to journalism with strengthened freedom of information laws, a proper public interest defence and imaginative ways to support investigative journalism through the disruption of digital transition. At this late hour, I hear that the charter extends its remit to internet publishing. I hope that we can make the distinction between self-publishing for pleasure and digital news reporting for profit.

The central characters in this tragedy are Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation. He still sits at the head of the most powerful media conglomerate the world has ever seen and he still has politicians in his pocket. They still will not change the media ownership rules because they are frightened of him and they curry his favour. Amid it all, the Prime Minister looks over his shoulder as Murdoch’s people start to replace the current generation of leaders with the next. It is most naked on the Conservative Benches, but let us not avert our eyes again and pretend that it is not happening on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches, too.

As we reflect on the terrible cost of failures today, let us not leave the lessons half learned. Our children will not thank us for leaving the hydra with one head.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on preventing us from going down the route of full-scale statutory legislation of the media. Undoubtedly, what he has achieved was the best possible measure that could command a majority in the House. I urge the House, however, to remember that when Members on both Front Benches agree, we invariably make our worst blunders because the normal adversarial process of criticising measures is put aside. I hope we will consider what may be wrong with this measure, as well as what may be right.

The Leveson inquiry was set up because of phone hacking and libel, both of which were and are against the law, and neither of which is tackled by this royal charter. Those who always—rightly or wrongly—wanted to legislate to control the press have seized on the abuses of hacking and libel to propose legislation that tackles quite other problems that they see and have always wanted to deal with.

I sympathise with those who have been victims of press abuse—I, my family and relatives have probably been subject to more defamation and intrusion than almost anybody else in this House. Only last month I sent another cheque for 20 grand to a charity in my constituency after the latest offensive defamation. I do not think, however, that we should automatically presume that those who have been victims of abuse have great expertise in legislative matters, or grant those of us who have been victims a licence to legislate without criticism. That is simply mawkish sentimentality and it has led the House to focus exclusively on the legal framework we are establishing—a royal charter versus statutory regulation —and not on the powers we are giving the regulator, or that the regulator will be able to give itself.

I asked the Hacked Off lobby group, which was lobbying me and saying that it was keen to answer my questions, what powers to prevent or require publication the regulator will be given by this royal charter, what sort of material it could prevent or require the publication of, and what limits there are to the sorts of material it could prevent or require publication of.

On first inspection, it appears that the charter can require prominent apologies for abuse of individuals. If that were all it could do, I would be fine with it. In my time, I have had a banner front-page headline apology—I forget which newspaper it was, but the bottom banner headline on the front page was, “We apologise to Peter Lilley”. I hope others get the same when they are similarly abused.

However, that is not all the charter can do—the powers go beyond that to enabling the regulator to do other things, such as requiring those who subscribe to publish a factual correction. That is a pretty dangerous step. We are giving a body the right to decide what is fact and what is true. At best, that is a recipe for multitudinous time-wasting complaints that something is factually incorrect; at worst, it will establish a mini, self-appointed “Ministry of Truth”, which can decide what is true and must be published and what is false and must be withdrawn.

We note that no similar powers are taken with respect to the BBC, which will never be required by an outside body to publish corrections when it is factually incorrect, as it frequently is—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) advises me how to get corrections, but it is difficult enough even to get a reply.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lilley]

No; I have got the hon. Gentleman’s point.

My third point is on prevention. The charter says:

“The board should not have the power to prevent publication of any material”.

I am not sure what the legal power of “should not” is. The charter also states that the board “should” be able to do other things.

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

My right hon. Friend raises an important point about the wording of the document. The document sets out the criteria for recognising the regulator, not the terms of reference for the regulator itself, which will be a separate matter for the independent regulator. That is why the word “should” is used.

[Mr Lilley]

My hon. Friend reinforces my point. The document does not prevent the regulator from preventing publication; it says merely that publication “should” be prevented by someone else if they get around to it.

In any case, since the regulator can offer advice to editors of subscribing publications on how they should best comply with the code, and punish editors with fines of up to £1 million if they subsequently do not follow such advice, it effectively means that the regulator has the considerable power to prohibit or discourage publication.

The final question I asked Hacked Off was whether there were any limits in the measure as to how far the body and the code can go in future when it is annually reviewed. Each time it will be made more intense and its scope will be extended because that is how regulators work—they always increase their powers. As far as I could work out from Hacked Off’s rather incoherent reply, there are no limits to the powers that the body can grant itself or the extent to which it can go.

It find it worrying that we are, so far with no discussion, setting up a body with open-ended powers. It will have the ability to levy £1 million fines and effectively to deprive people of a livelihood if they break the code it establishes—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) says, like the Climate Change Act 2008, which we have subsequently learnt to regret, the charter has the support of those on both Front Benches.

I hope that when the body is established, a lot of media organisations will have the courage to follow The Spectator and stand aside from it and remain free while, hopefully, adopting the highest standards in how they publish and how they treat the public.

European Council

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There was not a specific discussion about Frontex, but under the so-called heading 3 the home affairs heading, spending is going up from €12.4 billion to €15.7 billion. That is an area where there are new responsibilities, not least because of the new member states, which is why the spending under that heading is going up.

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

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on demonstrating that when a British leader takes a resolute, reasoned and constructive approach on what is good for Britain and good for Europe, we can succeed in carrying other people with us, and on disproving the craven prediction of the Leader of the Opposition that by articulating Britain’s distinctive vision for the future of Europe we would undermine our influence?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. What is required is not only building these alliances and making those arguments, but, as I said, making it clear that if you cannot get a reasonable deal, you are prepared to go on negotiating right through the night, as we did, or, as we did in November, saying, “This deal isn’t acceptable. You have to go back and think again.”

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One of the things that the victims have been most concerned about is that part 2 of the investigation should go ahead—because of the concerns about that first police investigation and about improper relationships between journalists and police officers. It is right that it should go ahead, and that is fully our intention.

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

The two scandals that gave rise to this inquiry were phone hacking and bribing the police, both of which are against the criminal law. Now, some 90 arrests have been made. Strangely, however, Lord Leveson concludes:

“More rigorous application of the criminal law…does not and will not provide the solution.”

Instead he goes off on building proposals for what would ultimately be statutorily underpinned regulation, which is largely irrelevant to what has happened. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on not going down that route, as that would not solve the problems that gave rise to the inquiry.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support. I would, however, make the point that, while the press must always act within the law—it is subject to the criminal law, the civil law and the laws on data protection, and that is vitally important—there is also a role for strong, independent regulation. Those victims should not have had to wait for action through civil litigation, and they should not have had to wait until the criminal actions were taken. A proper regulatory system could have protected more of those people and prevented many more of them from becoming victims in the first place.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

No one doubts the commitment and public service of many Members of the House of Lords, but dedicated individuals cannot compensate for flawed institutions. The Bill is about fixing a flawed institution, so let me begin by setting out why our upper Chamber is in need of these reforms—the three simple reasons why I hope Members will give it their full support. The first is that we—all of us here—believe in democracy. We believe that the people who make the laws should be chosen by the people who are subject to those laws. That principle was established in Britain after centuries of struggle and it is a principle that we still send our servicemen and women halfway across the world to defend, yet right now we are only one of only two countries in the world —the other being Lesotho—with an upper parliamentary chamber that is totally unelected and instead selects its members by birthright and patronage.

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

rose—

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I should like to make a little progress.

The House of Lords is an institution that offers its Members a job for life; an institution that serves the whole of the United Kingdom, yet draws around half its members from London and the south-east; an institution in which there are eight times as many people over 90 as there are people under 40; an institution that has no democratic mandate—none whatsoever—but that exercises real power. The House of Lords initiates Bills, it shapes legislation and, as Governments of all persuasions know, it can block Government proposals, too. These reforms seek to create a democratic House of Lords, matching power with legitimacy.

[Mr Lilley]

In his preamble to the draft Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote:

“The House of Lords performs its work well”.

Is he saying that it works in practice, but not in theory?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think that it is both flawed in theory, because of its lack of democratic legitimacy, and flawed in practice, because the status quo is unsustainable, as I shall now explain.

EU Council

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, I want to stay in the European Union for the reasons I have given. But I will always stand up for the British national interest as I see it. That is the job of being Prime Minister.

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

My right hon. Friend will know that my opposition to excessive centralisation of power in Europe has never been in doubt. Indeed, the only doubt that my Euroscepticism has given rise to was that which John Major cast upon my paternity. Will the Prime Minister, none the less, agree that what we need is not a commitment to an in/out referendum, but a commitment to insisting that our partners give us back powers to govern ourselves if they want our agreement for them to subordinate themselves further to centralisation in Europe?

Rio+20 Summit

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We certainly want to see full ratification of the Nagoya protocol. It is something that this country has done, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with her counterparts in the European Union to encourage those who have not yet taken the necessary steps to do so. To make one observation, the Nagoya protocol flowed from the original Rio+20 summit, but it was not agreed at that summit. The only reason why I make that point is that, for those who say that an insufficient number of legal texts were agreed this time around, it is worth recalling that the history of the last Rio+20 summit was that, while it was much more substantive than this one, it did lead and create a momentum that subsequently led to legal texts. I say to those who have responded with complete despair about this summit that it is now a matter of what we do with it and whether we can turn it into legally binding documents, which is the challenge for the future.

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

Within the privacy of this Chamber, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that Rio actually showed that it is now blindingly obvious that no other major country proposes to follow us in imposing a legally binding obligation to cut emissions by 80% at a cost of £430 billion to our economy, so we should discreetly shelve the Climate Change Act 2008 as soon as possible?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My understanding is that Mexico has done just that, just now, so it is not right to say that countries are not seeking to follow our lead. In my bilateral discussions with members of the Brazilian Government, I was struck by how forceful they were, as a major emerging economic power, in expressing the view that their own future success would be defined by their ability to grow sustainably, which would require a departure from simply copying how development has been pursued in the past. I am afraid that I do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s pessimism about the virtues of, and potential for, sustainable growth in the future.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I respect hugely the right hon. Gentleman and his experience in government and I think he would know that I consulted the Cabinet Secretary, asking the question, “What is the right process to follow to ensure we get to the truth and we deal with this issue?” The right process to follow is to allow Lord Leveson to find the facts of the case and if at any stage there is a question of the ministerial code being broken I can act. The ministerial code in respect of special advisers is absolutely clear: Ministers are responsible and they have to take responsibility, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did when he came to the House.

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

Given that the role of the adviser on the ministerial code is purely to advise the Prime Minister on whether a Minister’s actions are in breach of that code, and not to investigate or establish the facts of those actions, is it not sensible to allow the Leveson inquiry to establish the facts and, in the unlikely event—in my view—that it discovers that there is a prima facie case to answer, then to refer it to the independent adviser on the ministerial code?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. It is worth examining for a second what would happen if the independent adviser was commissioned to set off down a process of factual discovery. He would have to look at all the information that is about to be provided and is being provided to the Leveson inquiry, which would literally duplicate the findings of fact and would literally be prejudging what the judge himself will be judging.

EU Council

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman, like so many of those who oppose what has happened, is part of exactly the same group of people who wanted us to join the single currency in the first place. They are never prepared to recognise that there are occasions when we need to safeguard our nation’s interests and we have to be able to say no.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to increase one’s influence within Europe and, indeed, within a coalition Government is to set up one’s position and stick to it?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. I always find this slightly surprising. Before going to Brussels I set out exactly what I was going to do and what I would do if I could not get the safeguards. I did exactly what I said I was going to do, but apparently in politics these days that is very surprising.

Libya

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Public Disorder

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.