Legal Advice: Prorogation

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

My right hon. Friend is asking me to look into a crystal ball. Far be it from me to fathom the inscrutable minds of their lordships in the Supreme Court as to why they chose not to dissent if they were minded to dissent, or to agree if they were minded not to agree.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I for one am delighted that we are sitting, but the Attorney General is absolutely right about one thing: the result of yesterday’s ruling is that all future Prorogations will be justiciable by the courts. The only answer to that, frankly, is legislation by this House. My gentle suggestion is that it might be a good idea if, in the future, Prorogation were only allowed to proceed if there had been a vote in this House in favour of it.

[The Attorney General]

Well, if I may say to the hon. Gentleman, that is as I would expect from him, particularly in his new guise as an aspirant to even higher office—it is constructive, helpful, impartial and a model to us all.

Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I give way first to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I think the Solicitor General said earlier that what we have to do is find a way to find a plan to find a way forward. That sounds just a little bit nebulous, if he does not mind me saying so; it seems quite unlikely that that is going to be very concrete by 30 June. So if the European Council says, “Actually, we think you need to have an extension to the end of the year,” will the Government be open to that?

[The Solicitor General]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations will carry on in the Council tomorrow, and I think it would be idle speculation for me to try and anticipate what might be agreed. Some people take offence at the word nebulous; I do not. [Interruption.] I really do not. What I have tried to do, at all stages of this process, is to find a way forward and to seek a solution. It is in all our hands, and I say that in a spirit of friendship and co-operation to all hon. Members.

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I must make progress, but I will give way, particularly to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

The reason for the motion today, and for the form of the motion, is that it enables the House to secure this legal right. It is the case that the Government make that the agreement is required in any event. Members on the other side do not dispute the requirement for the agreement to be passed, so we invite the House to secure the certainty of the extension; to continue the process of the political declaration reconsiderations; to enable us, by 22 May, to ratify the domestic implementing legislation; and to conclude discussions on the political declaration.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Attorney General’s argument is basically that this is a way to guarantee certainty for business in the country. However, if today’s motion is carried, there will be no certainty. The Government will not be able to ratify the treaty—I think that he accepts that they will not be able to do so—and a proper motion will still have to be introduced in this House, and the other House, including both sides. There will still have to be a Bill, which will be the subject of contentious dispute. There is no certainty—if anything, today throws more uncertainty into the process.

[The Attorney General]

There will certainly have to be a Bill. There will have to be a process of ratification in the House, which is why, if it votes for the withdrawal agreement today, it would be surprising if it did not vote to implement the withdrawal agreement. This is the step that we need to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed, and it has always been the case, because of the withdrawal agreement, that it would have to reverse the—

[Chris Bryant]

It cannot, because it is the same session.

[Hilary Benn]

That is an interesting question, but I am being diverted from the final point that I want to make.

I listened to the Attorney-General’s kind reference to the indicative votes process. I almost forgot that the Government voted against it happening this week. If they were taking it seriously, they would indicate a willingness to compromise if the House is able to find a way forward.

The deal has been defeated twice because it offers no clarity or certainty for our future. If businesses come to me in my constituency and say, “Hilary, I know how it works today. I export. Tell me how it will work with this political declaration in three, five or 10 years.” I have to look them in the eye and tell them the truth: I have absolutely no idea. So is it right to ask the House to take us out of the European Union on that basis, especially when a new Prime Minister may be coming?

On “Newsnight” last night, it was reported that a Cabinet Minister was asked why the Government were going ahead with this vote and they replied, expletive deleted:

“I’m past caring. It’s like the living dead in here.”

I will not comment on the language, but that is the problem and it has always been the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I admire her consistency, but she will not agree with what I am about to say. I am afraid that I did not agree with what she said.

This is a simple question of democracy, sovereignty and accountability. That is why 17.4 million people voted to leave. They were told, “You are sovereign. You make a decision. The Commons, as elected, will interpret that.” They trusted us to deliver what they voted for. They will be bitterly disappointed. At 11 o’clock tonight, we should be leaving, and we will not be leaving, and that is a terrible blow to integrity and their trust in us. The Conservative manifesto was very clear that we would interpret leave to mean leaving the single market, leaving the customs union and leaving the European Court of Justice. The Labour party pretty well said the same thing. More than two thirds of Members of Parliament represent seats that said leave, and 444 and 498 Members voted for the Second and Third Readings of the Bill to trigger article 50. At that stage, perhaps Opposition Members were stunned by the effect of the referendum, but now I am amazed by the nature of these debates. There is a sense that that enormous vote—that enormous expression of popular demand—has faded into the past. It is seen as a bit embarrassing and bit like a bad smell at a dinner party

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

Other Members want to speak, so I must push on.

The issue is live. Those people are out there and they believe that it should happen and that we should deliver it. It is not going back. It cannot be put back in the bottle, with the top screwed on, and then hidden in a cupboard or put in the fridge. That huge vote will continue to dominate our politics. The issue is not going away.

It is extraordinary that the fifth largest economy in the world is proposing to have laws imposed on it by 27 other countries, many of which are competitors that have no incentive to pass law in our interest. We will not be present when the law is made and we will not be able to amend or repeal it, and if we do not apply it to the satisfaction of the European Commission and, ultimately, the European Court of Justice, we will be subject, as we heard during last week’s urgent question, to unlimited fines—“disallowance”, in EU-speak.

We have the horror facing Northern Ireland. The whole basis of getting the Unionist population to vote for the Belfast agreement was the principle of consent. There was an extraordinarily successful campaign by Lord Trimble; it was an amazing effort to get Unionists to vote for it. The basis was trust that the status of Northern Ireland could not be changed, yet we are going to have something horrible called UKNI, which is actually in breach of the Acts of Union of 1801.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), and I very much hope that he will now join the all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury, since he has some spare time.

Round and round and round we go. It is not so much a stuck record as a record played at the wrong speed, and frankly it is about time we changed direction. I am going to vote against the motion—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) looks depressed and upset as if I have let him down terribly.

The truth is that this is a ludicrous attempt at a body swerve by the Government. This House decided in this parliamentary Session the proper process for proceeding: first, a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, all in one—that is what the House decided and enacted in this Session—and secondly, an Act of Parliament to implement them. I feel that the Government actually intend to use the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to repeal section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and yet we have already made a decision about the proper process in this Session of Parliament. I do not think that they will be able to do so, which is why our passing the motion today does not provide more certainty, as the Attorney General argued. It provides more uncertainty, because we will still have to go through the process of a full meaningful vote.

Until this moment, the Prime Minister has always agreed that the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement must be taken together. Her party’s manifesto expressly says it; she is always preaching to us about manifestos, so I am preaching back to her. She also said repeatedly, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) that we should never separate out the divorce settlement and the custody of the children. The whole thing has to go together. That is an intrinsic, fundamental principle.

There may be good reasons for voting for the motion, and I fully accept that many Ministers adopt those, but it worries me that so many have said that they loathe this deal but none the less intend to support it today. That is not a good reason. The European Research Group said of the agreement:

“we will become a ‘vassal state’ many of whose laws will have been created abroad and over which we have no influence.”

How can they possible vote for this?

This is a constitutional crisis. We need a settlement that will last for generations. There is a deep wound in the body politic, and a sticking plaster will not suffice. We need to stitch the nation back together, and we can only do that if we proceed in good order, with no more parliamentary shenanigans, no more partisan jiggery-pokery and behind-stairs work and no more subjugating the national interest to private ambition.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion

Chris Bryant Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I think I had better just say that I agree with that one.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Attorney General’s argument seems to hinge on this matter of “highly unlikely”. I do not know whether this is his reading of recent history, but it seems to me that everything that I thought was highly unlikely five, six or seven years ago has now come to pass. Should we not be worrying about what may be likely over the next few years? After all, many of the Governments in Europe may change and the European Commission President will certainly change, so the highly unlikely may indeed come to pass. I have a sneaking memory of a conversation that the Attorney General and I had once in the Lobby, around three years ago. I asked him, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea if you should become Attorney General?”, and he said, “Oh no, that’s highly unlikely.” [Laughter.]

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I will give way in a moment. I intend to take many interventions in the course of this speech.

We are playing with people’s lives. We are debating the effects of legal continuity. Forty-five years of legal integration have brought our two legal systems into a situation where they are organically linked. To appeal to those who have a medical background, it is the same as if we were to separate from a living organism, with all its arteries and veins, a living organ—a central part from this body politic. We cannot underestimate the complexity of what we are embarked upon doing.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Attorney General give way?

[The Attorney General]

I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

The Attorney General, as per usual, is addressing the House with a remarkable combination of the intellect of Einstein and the eloquence of Demosthenes. We are all enjoying it enormously— [Interruption.] Well, I am certainly enjoying it, but I hope he will not cavil if I gently remind him that 71 Members wish to contribute. I know he will tailor his contribution to take account of that important fact.

[Chris Bryant]

The Attorney General is making a good point, which a lot of us agree with—legal uncertainty is the worst possible outcome. That is why some of us are so angry that the vote was taken away from us in December. There is not a single chance of the Government getting the necessary legislation through by 29 March, even if the Attorney General were to get his way today. Can he confirm that if the vote is not won tonight, the Government will have to defer leaving the European Union on 29 March?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman knows the affection that I hold for him. It is not “my way”. I understand the heartfelt, passionate and sincere views held on both sides. I listened all last night to the speeches from Members on the Opposition and Government Benches. We must come together now, as mature legislators, to ask ourselves: what are the fundamental objections, if there are any, to this withdrawal agreement? Whether or not it can be done by 29 March does not affect the decision we have to take today, which is: do we opt for order, or do we choose chaos?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

How is it possible for the right hon. and hon. Members who speak today to capture the past two and a half years in five minutes? How is it possible to capture the 45 years of our membership in five minutes? The good news for those who like to debate Europe is that we do not have to do that, because there will be many, many more debates to come—

[Chris Bryant]

What joy!

[Nicky Morgan]

I can hear the joy on the Opposition Benches.

As the Attorney General said, this is only the end of phase 1. I think that the point he was trying to make in his speech was that today’s debate should be about the 625 pages of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. I will support the agreement tonight—as with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), people perhaps might not have expected that, given some of the statements I have made. I do not want to go into the detail, because it is easy to get stuck in the weeds of the EU debate and to talk about this appendix or that clause of the withdrawal agreement that we do not like. This House is in danger of getting so bogged down in the detail that we forget that the country is looking at us—not just at the detailed debate, but at the tone of the debate and the way that we conduct ourselves and disagree—and that we can do it well and in a way that, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, will hopefully, eventually, lead us to a place where there can be broader consensus and a majority can be found. Unfortunately, that ability to find a consensus has been somewhat lacking.

A previous Prime Minister talked about “general wellbeing”; there has not been nearly enough talk about flourishing. I have heard some contributors begin to say what people want—what is a positive way forward—and that is where we need to be, as a House, if the House does not approve the agreement tonight. The country is deeply divided, our constituencies are divided and this House is divided, but it is up to us as Members of Parliament to change the tone and start to heal the divisions if we are ever to get to talking about other issues. That is one of the lessons I have learned in the past two and half years. That is not to say that I have always practised it, but it is certainly something for which we should all aim.

Whatever is said today—whatever right hon. and hon. Members on all sides say—a substantial number of those watching and of our constituents will disagree with us. As we know, some will disagree more vehemently and violently than others, but there is a vast silent majority out in the country who are watching today and hoping against hope that the House does approve the agreement. On the basis of what I am hearing, I do not think they will be satisfied, but I have never before had so many members of the public coming up to me as a Member of Parliament and wishing us well for this vote. The country is watching what we do today and beyond.

I wrote an open letter to my constituents. I do not hear enough Members of Parliament talking about their constituencies in this debate today. We are their representatives. It is not about us; it is not about how we feel; it is not about our heads and our hearts: it is about who we are representing and what is best for them. I have come to a conclusion after wrestling with this greatly over the last two and a half years. Of course I would have been happy to see the referendum result go differently. I would be happy to see an even closer relationship with the EU going forward. But that is not what people voted for—the majority who voted in 2016. They did vote for change and it is up to us to deliver that change.

I have always been very clear that Brexit should not undermine our constitution, and we have put our representative democracy under massive strain through having one referendum. It should not be about undermining our economy, although that is not all about numbers. In order for people to flourish in this country, it is not just about the size of our economy—it is about other issues, too, that have not been tackled by Brexit, nor by the Government over the last two years as our UK politics have stalled. It should be about our values and not undermining our values as a country. One of those, undoubtedly, is that the British people are very independently minded, and I can understand why it is that people took the decision they did in June 2016.

Let me, in the time available, briefly take one issue from what the Attorney General said. If the deal goes down tonight, there are other deals—other models—on the table where I believe this House can find consensus and compromise. Carrying on with this deal cannot be an option, and I would be disappointed if the Prime Minister did that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

To be honest, the withdrawal agreement is not a deal. It means we will pay £39 billion for the right to obey EU rules without the right to sit at the table when those rules are written. The political declaration is so woolly that it could mean whatever we want it to mean or, for that matter and more importantly, whatever the next Presidents of the European Council and European Commission want it to mean. We have no idea whether we shall have open trade with our closest neighbours or whether we shall continue to share information about dangerous international criminals or take part in Europol or be able to extradite criminals to face justice across European Union borders. The deal is bad for British jobs, and it puts our national security at risk.

I am angry that we have wasted so much money on Brexit—money that could have been spent on decent services in my constituency. However, what pains me most of all is that we British, who have always been proud to welcome strangers from other countries, who have travelled across Europe to build great British companies, who followed Churchill’s injunction to build a Europe of peaceful co-operation, and who prided ourselves on the rule of law and our robust parliamentary system, have utterly squandered two years on a massive distraction from the real subjects that matter: inequality, poverty wages, the state of our public services, and low productivity. In the process, we have become an international laughing stock—anxious, angry, uncertain, divided—and we have received death threats at our constituency offices. I have not heard a single Member say that this deal is better for Britain than our present deal—not even the Prime Minister—so how on earth can we vote for it? Consensus is a delusion. Party politics has failed. The PM must build a new coalition and the people must have the final say.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

There is a formula in the agreement for the calculation of our obligations, but it depends on others’ contributions, what particular programmes there are and whether they spend particular sums of money. There is a series of variable factors, which is why we cannot give a firm, clear and precise figure. If my hon. Friend is referring to what may be due after no deal, that would depend on a series of arguments that would be untested except in a court.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Oddly, I had more sympathy for the Attorney General before today, because he has pushed the House into this situation. He knows perfectly well that the Government chose not to oppose the motion; they accepted it. It is the will of the House. He is, in effect, pushing us to say that he is in contempt of Parliament, because at some point, surely even a Government have to bow the knee to Parliament.

[The Attorney General]

Suppose there was advice, and suppose the advice contained—this is a hypothetical situation—[Interruption.] Well, the same principle applies. Suppose the advice contained information, facts or considerations of the most acute significance for the national interests of this country.

[Chris Bryant]

Oppose the motion.

[The Attorney General]

But one might lose the vote. What then? No Minister could go ahead and harm the nation merely because of a resolution, when the House had not seen the document. In court, there is a mechanism for weighing this, but the House has not seen the document. The motion for a return was traditionally always confined to public and official documents.

[Chris Bryant]

In previous editions of “Erskine May”.

[The Attorney General]

That is because this procedure has been reinvented recently. The truth of the matter is that the House has no power to command documents that are not public and official. That is the constitutional question that the House needs to grapple with.

Points of Order

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a completely different issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well—it is completely different, I feel sure.

[Chris Bryant]

Because you are a cerebral fellow, Mr Speaker, you will know that on 30 October, I asked the Foreign Secretary why the Magnitsky provisions of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 had not yet been implemented. He said in the Chamber that it was because we were members of the European Union and we cannot implement sanctions of our own until we have left. He repeated this the next day in the Foreign Affairs Committee, but a week later, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office said, “No, it’s nothing to do with that—it’s because we do not have any time to draft the statutory instruments.” The Prime Minister today returned to the original advice that was provided by the Foreign Secretary. The legal advice that has been provided to the Committee by the Clerks of the House was that actually there is no reason why we cannot introduce our own sanctions, because we did so back in 2011. I just wonder where I could get definitive legal advice from and whether you think, considering that the Foreign Secretary said on 30 October that he would write to me, that sufficient time has passed for me to have had a reply.

[Mr Speaker]

First, I recall the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry. I would not have been able to pinpoint the date—I advise those attending to our proceedings outwith the Chamber—as I do not have that level of anorakish recall of his parliamentary contributions, but I do recall the fact of the question being put. It made an impression on me, as does so much of what he says. Secondly, as a matter of principle, the Foreign Secretary ought by now to have replied to a request of that date—if it was of that date—from the hon. Gentleman. Thirdly, as a matter of practicality, I say that it is somewhat unwise for a Minister—in this case, apparently, the Foreign Secretary, an extremely experienced and dextrous, as well as courteous, parliamentarian—not to have replied to the hon. Gentleman by now, for failure to provide one was bound to invite excoriation. The Foreign Secretary will now be on the receiving end of that as soon as he learns of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. I hope that on all three counts I have brought some happiness into his life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

That is extremely interesting information, and I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. I feel sure that she feels that she has done the House a signal service.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well, but it must be very brief. I feel that the hon. Gentleman will tax the patience of the House.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If what my hon. Friend says is true, the Prime Minister this afternoon inadvertently misled the House and must have an opportunity to apologise and correct the record.

[Mr Speaker]

If anybody has inadvertently misled the House, that person must correct the record, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not think it incumbent on me now to act as arbiter of whether it happened. The issue has been given a full airing. Both hon. Members are very experienced, are not backward in coming forward and can pursue this matter either through the use of the Order Paper or by other means in the days ahead. I do not in any sense seek to deny them the opportunity to do so.

If there are no further points of order, if the appetite has at last been satisfied—it is very important that Members have the opportunity to express themselves—we can now proceed. The Minister looks very relieved about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Leaving will not make a difference to how human rights are defended in this country. It is worth remembering—I am sure she made this point on the doorsteps—that this Government have a good record in the defence of human rights, both domestically and abroad. It was this Government that put forward a modern slavery Bill, which was not just the first in this country, but the first in Europe, and Conservatives in Government promoted the idea of sexual violence in conflict being something that the world must take seriously. We are proud of that record, and we will continue with it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Government’s proposals, published this week, on non-UK EU citizens after Brexit suggest that they, and not British citizens, will need documentation to access public services. In other words, that means an identity card for some, but not for everyone. How can that possibly be consistent with the European convention on human rights?

[The Attorney General]

We have to work through the practicalities. It will be important to understand how people demonstrate that they are who they say they are, but I do not accept that that will lead to a system of identity cards. The hon. Gentleman will recall that Conservatives in government got rid of the Labour idea of having identity cards in the first place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I do.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that often, even though the Government may say they have met their targets and the broadband providers will say that they have got fantastic speeds, people in their house or in their business will experience speeds that are much, much slower and nowhere near what the Government are promising? I am not attacking the Government in saying this; I am simply trying to get reality into the equation, so that people in their homes and in their businesses can get proper superfast broadband.

[Matt Hancock]

Working with the hon. Gentleman on this subject has been unusually enjoyable, because he is not making party political points on this one; he has been working hard for his constituents and we have been engaged in serious correspondence. The truth is that we use independent figures on the roll-out, but a lot of people do not take up the broadband that is available to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I can, and they do not.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the Bill will not be called the great repeal Bill?

[The Attorney General]

I suspect that we will find a rather more technical title for the Bill when it comes forward.

Phone Hacking

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of whether there should be a public inquiry into the phone hacking at the News of the World; and the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Service between 2006 and 2011.

At 8.50 am tomorrow, it will be six years since the London bombings, which saw 52 people murdered and 700 injured. Today we hear that the police are investigating whether the mobile phones of several of those who lost family members in those attacks were hacked by the News of the World. One such family member spoke—very movingly, I thought—on the “Today” programme this morning. Another has been in touch with me and there may be several others. In addition, I am told that the police are looking not just at Milly Dowler’s phone and the phones of the families of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, but at the case of Madeleine McCann and of 15-year-old Danielle Jones, who was abducted and murdered in Essex in 2001 by her uncle, Stuart Campbell.

The charge sheet is even longer, unfortunately. I am told that the News of the World also hacked the phones of police officers, including those investigating the still unsolved murder of Daniel Morgan. This is particularly worrying considering the collapse of the long-delayed trial of the private investigator, Jonathan Rees, who also worked for newspapers, earlier this year. Scandalously, it also seems that the News of the World targeted some of those police officers who were, at various times, in charge of the investigation into the News of the World itself. We can only speculate, Mr Speaker, on why they would want to do that.

These are not just the amoral actions of some lone private investigator tied to a rogue News of the World reporter; they are the immoral and almost certainly criminal deeds of an organisation that was appallingly led and had completely lost sight of any idea of decency or shared humanity. The private voicemail messages of victims of crime should never, ever have become a commodity to be traded between journalists and private investigators for a cheap story and a quick sale, and I know that the vast majority of journalists in this country would agree with that.

If we want to understand the complete moral failure here, we need only listen to the words of Mr Glenn Mulcaire himself:

“Working for the News of the World was never easy. There was relentless pressure. There was a constant demand for results. I knew what we did pushed the limits ethically. But, at the time, I didn’t understand that I had broken the law at all”.

To be honest, the ethics are the big issue here, just as much as whether the law was broken. The journalists and the private investigators should be ashamed of what happened. But so, too, should those who ran the newspaper. It is simply no excuse to say they did not know what was going on. Managerial and executive negligence is tantamount to complicity in this case. I believe that if Rebekah Brooks had a single shred of decency, she would now resign. God knows, if a Minister were in the spotlight at the moment, she would be demanding their head on a plate.

Let me be clear, though. The News of the World is not the only magician practising the dark arts. In 2006, the Information Commissioner produced a devastating report, “What price privacy now?”, which detailed literally hundreds—in fact, thousands—of dubious or criminal acts by journalists or agents of national newspapers: illegally obtaining driving licence details, illegal criminal records or vehicle registration searches, telephone reverse traces and mobile telephone conversions. He listed 1,218 instances at the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday alone, 802 at The People and—I say sadly as a Labour Member—681 at the Daily Mirror. Earlier this year, the new Information Commissioner revealed that many patients’ records held by the NHS are far from secure from the prying eyes of journalists. That is the most private information possible about members of the public.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that I share with him—indeed, I have debated it with him across the Floor of the House—an appreciation of the Information Commissioner’s excellent report, “What price privacy now?”? Does he also agree that, regardless of party politics, it is shameful that the Government of the day did not take action when that report was published in the first place?

[Chris Bryant]

I will come on later to make some remarks, with which I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, about how we have all failed in this process. I believe that the whole political system has failed in this. I take my own share of the blame for that. I asked Rebekah Wade questions about this a long time ago, but in the end the whole of the political system in this country did not take action. Now is our chance to do so.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not keen to give way too often, as I am aware that many others want to speak.

This issue is not just about what went on at the News of the World; it is also about the behaviour of the Metropolitan police. In the course of the limited investigation of 2006, which led to the conviction of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman, the police secured a vast amount of information. They could have—and, I believe, should have—interrogated that information so that it became evidence. They could have approached all those affected. They could have contacted the mobile phone companies to ensure their customers were better protected. Unfortunately, they did none of those things.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend may recall that as Police Minister at the time, I answered an urgent question on 9 July 2009, and put down a written ministerial statement on 14 July and again on 21 July in good faith. Included in one of the ministerial statements was this comment made by the Metropolitan police:

“The Metropolitan Police has also confirmed that it does not consider that there is anything else substantive in relation to additional evidence or information that would justify it re-opening the original investigation.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 11WS.]

Uncomfortable though that might be for the police—and, possibly, for myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who was Home Secretary at the time—does that not justify having an investigation of the police performance at that time?

[Chris Bryant]

It pains me to say this as well, but the honest truth is that a lot of lies have been told to a lot of people. When police officers tell lies or at least half-truths to Ministers of the Crown so that Parliament ends up being misled, I think it amounts to a major constitutional issue for us to face. I hope that there will end up being a full investigation into that element and that we will come to the truth, but at the moment what hangs around is a very dirty smell. We need the Metropolitan police to be trusted—not just in London but across the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why we need to fight on this issue.

Did the reason that nothing happened have anything to do with the closeness between the Metropolitan police and the News of the World? After all, we know for a fact that Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, who was in charge of the investigation into the News of the World, now works for News International. We know that senior officers were wined and dined by senior News of the World executives at the very time, and occasionally on the very day, when they were making key decisions about whether any further investigation should proceed against that organisation. And we know that the News of the World paid police officers for information.

I say that categorically because, on 11 March 2003, in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I asked Rebekah Wade, as she then was—Rebekah Brooks, as she now is—whether she had paid police officers for information. She said:

“We have paid the police for information in the past.”

I asked:

“And will you do it in the future?”

She replied: “It depends.” Andy Coulson, who was sitting next to her, said:

“We operate within the code and within the law and if there is a clear public interest then we will.”

I said:

“It is illegal for police officers to receive payments.”

Mr Coulson said:

“No. I just said, within the law.”

I do not believe that it is possible to pay police officers “within the law.” That is suborning police officers, it is corruption, and it should stop.

In April this year, Rebekah Brooks was asked by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs to clarify exactly what she had meant. She replied:

“As can be seen from the transcript, I was responding to a specific line of questioning on how newspapers get information. My intention was simply to comment generally on the widely-held belief that payments had been made in the past to police officers. If, in doing so, I gave the impression that I had knowledge of any specific cases, I can assure you that this was not my intention.”

[Laughter.] I see that the Attorney-General himself is smiling.

Even more worryingly, as we discovered only last night, News International has handed over copies of documents that appear to show that former editor Andy Coulson authorised a series of payments to police officers running into tens of thousands of pounds. That is News International saying, “Yeah but no but yeah but…” . The truth is, however, that News International was doing it, and cannot be allowed to get away with it. I know that the News of the World seems to be hanging Andy Coulson out to dry, but surely the buck stops at the top, and that is the chief executive.

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

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can we also agree that, in our handling of this matter, we must not for a moment prejudice the possibility of successful prosecutions of people who did these things?

[Chris Bryant]

As I shall try to prove in my next few remarks, I think that that is absolutely essential. My hope is that people who committed criminality at the News of the World will end up going to prison. The last thing I want is for the debate, or any inquiry, to hamper the police investigation or any possible prosecution. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not, if Members do not mind. Many others wish to speak.

I know that there are those who argue that there cannot be a public inquiry during an ongoing investigation—and I noted the Prime Minister’s earlier comments, when he seemed to vacillate in relation to when that process could or could not start—but I think they are wrong. Indeed, I consider it vital for the police investigation to be supplemented by a public inquiry. First, some of the issues that need to be addressed may not be criminal, but they do strike at the heart of what an ethical code for the media should look like in this country. Secondly, although I have confidence in the officers who are conducting the Weeting investigation, I fear that the rug could be pulled from under their feet at any moment, and there is no certainty about when their investigations will be completed. By the time they are done, many of those involved may have left the scene or, more worryingly, shredded the evidence—or, of course, discovered selective amnesia.

That is why it is vital that an inquiry be set up as soon as possible and as soon as practicable, led by a judge with full powers to summon witnesses who must give evidence under oath. Of course the inquiry should not sit in public until the investigations are complete—I hope that that answers the question asked by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—but an astute judge can easily manage the relationship between a police investigation and an inquiry, prepare evidence, and secure witnesses without compromising any criminal investigation or prosecution.

I am confident that the Prime Minister agrees with that. After all—as was mentioned earlier—a year ago today he announced an inquiry, to be led by Sir Peter Gibson, into allegations of the torture of detainees. He appointed two other members to it, and said that he hoped it would start by the end of last year and be completed within a year. Indeed, he expressly pointed out that he was setting up the inquiry despite the fact that criminal investigations were still ongoing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Lord Chancellor—and Foreign Secretary, and holder of many other posts besides—has received a letter about the Gibson inquiry which makes the position very clear. It states:

“The Inquiry has not yet started as we are still awaiting the conclusion of two related police investigations into the Security Service and SIS.”

None the less, says the letter, “preparatory matters” are in hand. That is precisely what I believe should happen in this case.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The inquiry into the torture allegations, led by Sir Peter Gibson—himself a former senior judge—has already been able to do a huge amount of work in private, so that if and when the police investigations and any proceedings that follow it are completed, the public part of the inquiry can start immediately.

[Chris Bryant]

I was going to make that point myself.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I give way to the Attorney-General, in the hope that he will make the same point as well.

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Gentleman has taken the wind out of my sails in one respect. I was going to agree with him that it was possible to set up an inquiry. However, I am sure he will appreciate that it becomes extremely difficult for an inquiry to take any evidence while criminal proceedings may still be taking place. That is obviously one reason why the Gibson inquiry has not yet begun its work, which it was hoped would start at the end of last year. I certainly note the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the possibility of setting up an inquiry, but it may not make much progress until the criminal investigations are over.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for the way in which he has expressed himself. That is, in fact, a big concession. I think it important for us to make progress, not least because I think that the police themselves would like the sword of Damocles to hang over their necks, so that they know they must proceed and proceed apace. Also, when it comes to an inquiry—especially in this case—they sometimes have to look through the historiography of all the different documentation, and it is important to ensure that that is garnered now, privately.

I see no reason—other than a lack of will, or fear of what it might unveil—for the Government not to set up an inquiry, establish its terms of reference, and appoint its membership immediately.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am anxious not to give way too often, but of course I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I am extremely sympathetic to the position adopted by the hon. Gentleman, but an inquiry of the kind that he suggests would necessarily require any individual whose interest was affected by it to be legally represented, and any such individual would have to be advised that he or she need not answer any question that might incriminate him or her. Were criminal proceedings to be completed, there would be no such opportunity for witnesses to refuse to answer questions.

[Chris Bryant]

I accept the tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s remarks, but I think that we have hesitated for too long. It is not that I want to rush to summary justice, but I do want to ensure that justice ends up being done. Documents could be seized now, and material could be tied down. Of course, many elements of the form that the inquiry would take need to be hammered out, and I suggest that the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition could have fruitful discussions to ensure that that is possible.

I also believe that we need a public inquiry because Parliament—which has conducted its own Select Committee inquiries under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—has been systematically lied to throughout the process. The list of lies is, I am afraid, endless.

News International claimed that the phone hacking only started in 2004, but we now know for certain of instances relating to 2003 and 2002. News International claimed that it had run a full internal investigation. It is patently clear that if it did, it hid stuff from the police, and that otherwise it did not. News International claimed that it had always helped the police, but only private civil cases pursued by some brave individuals have forced its hand.

The police claimed that they had notified all the victims, and that specifically named people were not victims. We now know that not all the victims were contacted, and that some people who had expressly been told that they were not victims were victims. I think that even Assistant Commissioner John Yates now accepts that he has misled Parliament because he briefed The Independent on Sunday that he was furious at the “inadequate” and “unprofessional” research of those beneath him with the result that some of his public statements at the time were at odds with what has subsequently emerged. I am sorry, but leadership does not involve the leader being rude about their staff; it involves them taking responsibility for what they say to Parliament, and if they have misled Parliament, they should resign.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend was an excellent witness when he came and gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. However, the point is this: if a witness refuses to appear, it is very difficult to start the process of getting them before a Select Committee. A wider inquiry would have more powers than even a Select Committee.

[Chris Bryant]

That is my next sentence.

Many people out in the wider world may not care much whether Parliament is lied to—although I think we should—but this House came into existence to hold what was then the sole power in the land, the Crown and then the Government, to account. Where we now fail often, and sometimes miserably, is in holding the other powers in the land to account. We must do that properly from now on, and this is one such instance. We politicians have colluded for far too long with the media: we rely on them, we seek their favour, and we live and we die politically because of what they write and what they show, and sometimes that means we lack the courage or the spine to stand up when wrong has occurred.

We have let the Press Complaints Commission delude us into thinking that it is genuinely independent and has a bite that everybody is frightened of. Sometimes, we may even have fallen for the threats that have been made when we have spoken out. I know of several Members who have led this debate who have received threats.

We have let one man have far too great a sway over our national life. At least Berlusconi lives in Italy, but Murdoch is not resident in this country; he does not pay tax here and has never appeared before a Select Committee of this House. No other country would allow one man to garner four national newspapers, to be the second largest broadcaster, and to have a monopoly on sports rights and first-view movies. America, the home of the aggressive entrepreneur, does not allow that, and we should not.

Of course the proposed takeover of BSkyB should be put on ice while the police investigation is ongoing. The executive and non-executive directors have completely failed in their legal duty to tackle criminality in the company in question, and it must surely be in doubt, at least, whether some of them are fit and proper people to run a media company.

There are many other questions. Who is paying Glenn Mulcaire’s legal fees now? Is News International paying them? Was Clive Goodman paid off handsomely when he came out of prison? What did Rebekah Wade, Andy Coulson and Les Hinton know, and when did they know it? Why has so much material suddenly appeared in News International’s archives? I do not want to be partisan but there is one remaining question: did the Prime Minister ever ask Andy Coulson what really went on at the News of the World before he appointed him to work, on the taxpayers’ bill, at No. 10 Downing street?

I hope that those who broke the law at the News of the World and those who covered it up will be brought to justice. I hope the Metropolitan police’s now tarnished reputation will be restored. I hope the victims, especially the ordinary members of the public who were targeted, will get justice as well. I hope we will all get to know the truth, but even more importantly than all of this, I hope that the British media, who for so long have had a worldwide renown for craftsmanship, for tough intelligence and for robust investigative journalism, will rediscover their true vocation: to bring the truth to light truthfully, honestly, and legally. None of that will happen until we establish the whole unvarnished truth, and that, I believe, needs a public inquiry, and it needs it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have no doubt that that factor, along with every single representation made by Members of this House on how they think the inquiry or inquiries should be conducted, can be taken into account.

[Chris Bryant]

The Attorney-General is absolutely right to say that it is not a matter for the Secretary of State but for Ofcom to decide whether somebody is a fit and proper person, but the whole point is that Ofcom can have no chance to do so unless there is a pause in the Secretary of State’s decision. We need a pause so that Ofcom can come to a conclusion at the end of the police investigation.

[The Attorney-General]

It is a matter that I am very happy to go away and check, but I think the hon. Gentleman might be mistaken. I think that in fact Ofcom could intervene at any stage if it were to conclude that somebody was not a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence. As these matters can be complex and I would not wish in any way to mislead the House, I would be happy to go away and check that point and to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

[The Attorney-General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and that confirms what I already thought. Of course, that will not prevent me from going away and triple-checking the matter before I write to the hon. Member for Rhondda about it.

I am conscious that I ought to make progress and I want to allow time for debate. Because of my rather limited ability to comment on many of the allegations made, I was going to remind the House of some of the history of this matter. The House will be aware that these problems originated in November 2005 when the Metropolitan police were contacted by the royal household with concerns that voicemails relating to members of the royal family had been intercepted—

[Chris Bryant]

We know all this.

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he knows all this. He might know all of it, but it is worth reminding the House of some of the salient facts of the inquiry if we are to have an informed debate. I apologise to him if he feels that it is otiose.

In those circumstances, the arrests of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman took place in August 2006 for unlawful interception of phone messages. Searching Mulcaire’s business premises, police uncovered further evidence of interception relating to a number of other individuals not related to the royal household. As the hon. Member for Rhondda, if not the House, will be aware, Mulcaire and Goodman pleaded guilty— Goodman only to the charges relating to the royal family and Mulcaire to five further counts relating to individuals in the public eye—and were sentenced in January 2007 to four months and six months in prison respectively. It is worth bearing in mind that although I know of the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the matter, after January 2007 matters remained essentially quiet until July 2009, when the media reported fresh allegations relating to further cases of phone hacking.

The Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the material provided to it by the police in order to satisfy itself that appropriate actions had been taken in respect of the material. The CPS was satisfied that the prosecution approach to charging and prosecution was proper and that it would not be appropriate to reopen the cases against Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire. It also concluded that any new information should be reported to the police for further investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I concur absolutely, and I am sure that that sentiment is echoed across the House.

Such is my concern—I have been persuaded by much of what I have heard today—that I think there must now be a pause in the consideration of the matter that has been referred to and will be determined by Ofcom. I urge the Secretary of State to consider whether we should pause things, given what has happened.

In the time remaining, I want to return to the subject of my private Member’s Bill. I am not sure whether it falls within the remit of the public inquiry, but I hope that the Government will consider changing the law. I believe that the press has lost the moral plot and I say that with a heavy heart because before I went back to the Bar I trained as a journalist and worked as one for many years. I am proud to be a member of the National Union of Journalists and I was mother of the chapel at Central in Nottingham. I look on my brothers and sisters at a national level with, frankly, despair. It is important to remind ourselves that small local papers are very different from national papers—

[Chris Bryant]

Any in particular?

[Anna Soubry]

I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman’s sedentary intervention, which is probably a good thing.

In all seriousness, it is right and fair to say that all of us know from our considerable experience that local papers act properly and responsibly. We all enjoy a perfectly proper relationship with them—a relationship that has not been enjoyed between other politicians and national newspapers, which is a situation that must change.

It comes down to this: if people did not buy these newspapers, we would not have this problem. Too many people have an insatiable appetite for gossip, trivia, scandal and the scum of life and that is why we have found ourselves in this position. If people did not buy such papers—I hope that on Sunday the News of the World will get its real punishment through a complete and total slump in its sales—we would effectively see the sort of regulation and change that we all want. There must be a huge cultural shift not only in how we deal with newspapers but in how they conduct themselves. They should act in a much better and more responsible manner in future.