Telephone Hacking

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to prevent telephone hacking.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the intentional, unauthorised interception of communications in the course of their transmission is illegal under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The police are responsible for the investigation of unlawful interception, including telephone hacking, and the Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for the prosecution of such cases.

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he remember the Watergate scandal, in which one brave newspaper protected the public interest? Has not exactly the opposite happened in the phone hacking scandal, in which one newspaper—and possibly others—has not exposed injustice but instead directly conspired against the public? Does he agree that after any further criminal proceedings there will be a need for a full-scale inquiry to ascertain what happened and how the public can be protected?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the House will appreciate that this is a topical Question that is almost too topical for me to be able to answer—I am up to date with the “Today” programme but not entirely up to date with what may or may not have happened since. Noble Lords will be aware that the Metropolitan Police announced yesterday that, in light of the fresh information supplied by the News of the World, the police will conduct a new investigation into phone hacking allegations. The investigation will be led by the specialist crime directorate, which is a different unit within the Metropolitan Police from that which carried out the original investigation. The investigation will be led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers. In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions announced earlier this month that a comprehensive assessment of all the material in the possession of the police in relation to phone hacking would be carried out by an independent reviewer, Alison Levitt QC.

[Lord Soley]

Given that, as the Minister says, telephone hacking is unlawful and always has been, does he accept that there is an underlying problem here within the culture of journalism? This started with fishing expeditions to see whether any interesting stories could be pulled up, but these expeditions are also carried out in other ways, as was the case in the incident concerning Vince Cable MP. Bizarrely, the editor of that newspaper then tried to hush up the story because it was not its policy to draw attention to Rupert Murdoch’s takeover of BSkyB. Will a major effort be made at some stage to get journalism to recognise that it has a cultural problem here, which the PCC is not addressing in the way that it should?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I think that we all understand that the press as a whole now faces a crisis of trust that is at least as great as the crisis of trust in politics, which we need to address. We look to the press to act up to its own responsibilities, which it is very clear many of its members have failed to do.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, will the Minister have a word with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission on how it has addressed this issue? Will he further inquire how it intends to deal with such matters so that in future people’s privacy is not breached?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, it is evident that the role of the Press Complaints Commission and the extent to which its code of practice is observed and enforced are questions that we will have to address. While the Government believe that a press free of state intervention is fundamental to our democracy, there is no place for illegal activity.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it has taken the police five years to take this matter seriously. Is the noble Lord aware of the comments today from the former assistant commissioner Brian Paddick, who said that the reason for police inaction was fear of upsetting newspaper editors? Does that not argue for greater media plurality in this country? Why are the Government so reluctant to refer the proposed takeover by News Corporation of BSkyB to the Competition Commission?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are all aware that this raises large questions about the future of the press, the relationship between the press and the police and the role of a plural press in our democracy. We will return to these issues on a number of occasions. We will certainly return to the question of police accountability when we debate the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, now that the Government accept that this was a criminal act, do they also accept the excuse that was given that it was the work of a single rogue operator? That proposal was put forward by the Metropolitan Police, the newspaper editors, the Press Complaints Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service. After a number of inquiries, they still came to that conclusion. That is unacceptable. I ask the honourable, I mean noble, Lord—I knew that I would fall over—whether he accepts that these acts were commissioned to undermine the human rights of the individuals? In a debate in this House in July last year on the Defamation Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the Government promised that they would investigate and bring in legislation to deal with defamation. Are they now prepared to consider how the conflict between Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights works against the individual's rights? Will the Government put that in their promised consultation document or in a future Bill?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we all recognise that this goes very wide. I say to noble Lords opposite who tend to slip into saying “honourable Member” that one member of staff said to me the other day that they feared that the Benches in this Chamber were about to be reupholstered in green rather than red. We all understand why that is being said.

The serious questions of defamation and who should have been informed are very important. My understanding is that the police have informed all those about whom they have evidence that their phones were hacked. In addition, they have found a great many other names of people who were clearly targets of inquiry, but they do not have information on whether their phones were hacked. This is part of the ongoing and widening inquiry in which the police now have to be engaged.