European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Lady is entirely correct because Austria is an anti-nuclear state, and there is some suspicion that some difficulties may emerge if the matter is not wrapped up before the Austrian presidency.

The amendment’s purpose is to provide parliamentary scrutiny of the important process of replicating the effect of a treaty that nobody wanted to leave. My challenge to Ministers is to engage with the amendment, and I look forward to hearing from the Dispatch Box whether the amendment is acceptable or whether they have an alternative way of providing the House with a strategy. On that note, after 14 minutes, I will sit down.

[Chris Bryant]

Sir David—for you are indeed beknighted—it is good to take part in this debate immediately after the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). However, I am slightly saddened that he was so disparaging of all the Opposition Members who have signed his amendment. If we are just cast aside with such casual, reckless, gay abandon, we are never going to do that again, are we?

The British way in parliamentary matters has always been that we govern by consent, not by Government fiat, so Parliament should never be conceived of by a Government as an inconvenience that has to be avoided if possible. Parliament should be seen as an essential part of how we carry the whole nation with us. The Government should have more strength in Parliament than they do if they try to circumvent Parliament.

Getting the process right, as several hon. Members have already said, is absolutely essential. We are going to be deciding what many assume will be a long-term settlement for this country for generations to come. We cannot simply try to go ahead with a railroaded version of that settlement that only carries 52% of the country, or perhaps even less by then—who knows?—because we will in the end undermine the very institutions that people have been trying to say should be sovereign. I say to the Government that no amount of jiggery-pokery will sort things out. At the end of the day, parliamentary shenanigans will do far more harm to this country’s political institutions than we should countenance.

The Government already have phenomenal power and—I have used this figure before, but it is true—this is the first time in our history that more than half of Government Members are now either Ministers, trade envoys or Parliamentary Private Secretaries and are beholden unto the Government in some way or other. We have more Ministers than Italy, France and Germany put together, so the Government’s hold on Parliament in our system is already phenomenal, yet they have introduced clause 9, which is truly exceptional. I have tabled several amendments, which I will not address because I do not think there is any great point. The honest truth is that I would prefer to see the whole clause out of the Bill.

The moment I saw clause 9, I thought, “If there is a real reason for this, surely by now the Government would have argued why they have to have these powers.” Now the Government say a Bill will be introduced on the agreement and its implementation. If there really is a need for those powers, clause 9 should be in that Bill and not in this Bill at all.

I love all four of the Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench to death, and obviously the safest thing to do today is for one of them to stand up—they could stand up one after another, as in “Spartacus”—and say, “We will not support this. We will not urge the Committee to consider taking on this clause as part of the Bill, because we know we do not really need it.”

People might ask, “If the Government do not really need clause 9, why does it matter if the clause is in the Bill at all?” The problem is that every single Government in the history of the world have always used every power they have to the umpteenth degree. It is a temptation, and we should take temptation out of the Government’s hands if they are not prepared to take it out of their own hands. Let us bear in mind that the Bill will allow the Government to change the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice is standing up! Oh, he’s not.

Admittedly, changes to the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts by secondary legislation would have to be made via the affirmative process and there would be a vote in both Houses.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

I will be as brief as possible. First, let me say how much I have enjoyed this afternoon’s debate. For the past six years, as a Minister, having been locked up—

[Chris Bryant]

You should be.

[Mr Vaizey]

Yes, I should be. But being locked up as a Minister, I did not have the benefit of hearing the wise constitutional pronouncements of my now prone hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—very few hon. Friends will be able to see him as he is sunbathing at the moment. I have found myself in an “Alice in Wonderland” world, where the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was praising the House of Lords from the Labour Front Bench, and my hon. Friend was attacking it. I really did not know where to turn. That is the first thing that has interested me in the debate.

The second is the extraordinarily complex constitutional argument going on about the various powers of the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. I think we have come to the clear conclusion and have constitutional clarity that this House can now amend legislation that then goes into force in Scotland without waiting for a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament. That is a welcome, if interesting, concession from the Scottish National party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

That is precisely the point. I was intrigued by what the hon. and learned Lady said. She said that they had not hacked and would therefore not be affected. This is not some retrospective legislation that will impose costs on newspapers that have hacked; it is legislation that will impose costs on newspapers in the future. Again, I hate to sound utterly feeble in holding on to the coat tails of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, but I could not put the argument better than he did. The key point about the clause—I would probably oppose it even it was in the right Bill—is that it gives anyone who wants to “try it on”, to use a phrase that is perhaps slightly casual for this Chamber, the opportunity to do so with a newspaper that wants to protect its source. The claimant can allege that information has come to the newspaper by means of phone hacking or interception of email. It is then, as my hon. Friend said, up to the newspaper to prove a negative. Common sense dictates that the only way it can do that is to, effectively, give up its source.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), it is precisely the regional newspapers which could be hit by this measure. A small claim, one in the tens of thousands of pounds rather than in the hundreds of thousands, can still cause them immense financial damage. As MPs, we all know that our regional papers have been through a torrid time. Ten years ago when I started as the MP for Wantage, every one of the four major towns in my constituency had their own dedicated reporter. I have seen the decimation of journalism in my constituency, although I praise my local newspapers for holding on as much as they can to their journalists.

I will not be supporting the amendment. I will support the Government in the Lobby.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I was struck by the Minister—well, not physically—I was struck by the Minister’s accusation that I was an impatient man. That felt just a little bit patronising. It reminded me of the time I was in the theatre and the couple in front of me, as the curtain was about to rise, were having a terrible row. The woman said, “The worst of it is that you are so blasted paytronising.” The man kissed her on the forehead and said, “It’s ‘pahtronising’, dear.” [Laughter.] I don’t know how Hansard will write that up.

The Minister’s only argument was that this is the wrong Bill—that was his only argument. Interestingly, the Minister in the House of Lords, when these Lords amendments were carried, said that a clear message had been sent by the debate, which would not be lost on her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as she considered these matters. Well, that was then. Today, we have seen that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has no interest whatever in what their lordships have to say on this matter, even though this was a Cross-Bench Lords amendment carried by a majority of very nearly 100. She has decided today to effectively try to unwind the whole of the Leveson provisions. That is the problem we face.

Let me take the House back to 18 March 2013. It was an extraordinary day. Lord Justice Leveson had produced his report on 29 November 2012. For the first time in our history, the Prime Minister came to the House to seek a Standing Order No. 24 motion, so that we could urgently debate the regulation of the press and the royal charter that had been agreed over the weekend in 48 hours of negotiations in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The royal charter, which can be amended only by a two-thirds majority in this House and a two-thirds majority in the House of Lords—it is here to stay, I would suggest—would set up a press recognition panel. Accompanying that was to be an amendment to the then Crime and Courts Bill. Why do those who argue that the Investigatory Powers Bill is the wrong Bill because it does not relate to press regulation think it was right to amend the Crime and Courts Bill on the matter of press regulation, something the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) advocated?

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Steady!

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

It is a beautiful Bill!

Local Newspapers

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 19th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is always a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. In fact, there is a never a delight greater than serving under your chairmanship—and if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing the debate. I knew that he and other hon. Members were seeking it, and I am delighted that it has come to pass. Perhaps he thought that only a few of us would be here and that we would have to stretch our speeches out for hours to fill the allocated time—we know that the Minister finds that difficult to do—but what my hon. Friend had forgotten was that the debate has a subtitle, “How to get in your local newspaper”, and an awful lot of colleagues have come along to get in their local newspaper. We have heard an array of names of local newspapers and a great deal of name-checking, and we are all grateful for it.

It is a shame that the beknighted Gentleman, the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), is unable to join us for the end of the debate. He has apologised, and obviously we understand that he has to fight off the Labour contender in his seat, so he cannot stay here for the rest of the debate.

I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who made extremely important points about what is happening in Wales, which I will refer to later.

It is always a delight to hear from the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the honourable toyboy of Mrs Thatcher—[Laughter.] Well, that is what the press described him as, so we can only presume that it was the truth. Maldon, of course, has a great tradition of journalist MPs. Tom Driberg had quite a reputation, which the hon. Gentleman has not quite managed to live up to—or live down to, or live across, but I have never crossed Westminster bridge with him, so I do not know.

I am envious of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), because I think the Rhondda, too, should be the Great Rhondda. His constituency should not be the only one called “Great”. In fact, my constituency used to be the Great Rhondda, in that it was Rhondda Fawr and there was a Rhondda Fach as well. Perhaps we will return to the Greater Rhondda at some point.

It was a delight to hear from the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). He also represents Oadby and Wigston, though he left those two bits out, and I see that he has departed this realm—or this room, anyway.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has obviously gone off to his constituency as well. He referred to Martin Shipton and David Williamson as great scions of Welsh journalism. I would only say that Martin Shipton laid a bet with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), when I was selected as the Labour candidate in the Rhondda in 2000, that I would lose the seat because of my sexuality. My hon. Friend said that I would win by more than 10,000 votes, and he had better political antennae than Mr Shipton, for which I am grateful.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), which is always a delight—oh, he’s gone as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) told charmingly entertaining stories of the various different careers that she has had in the past, and it was a delight to hear from her.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) referred to selfies, and as one of the early proponents of the selfie, it is a delight to hear that everybody has now come round to my opinion on this matter. I merely point out that further to The Mail on Sunday and The Sun advertising my selfie in November 2003, I increased my majority at the next election, so it pays to advertise—although perhaps not in quite that fashion, would be my advice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has been derided by the press in the past, in many different ways and in many different guises. He has the scars on his back and he is proud of them, as are many of us.

The truth is that, as many have adumbrated this afternoon, there are enormous problems in the local newspaper industry. As people have mentioned, first of all, there are the closures, with 150 titles gone since 2008. In November 2014, Trinity Mirror itself closed seven newspapers, losing 50 journalists. It does not feel as though the pace of those closures is slowing, and if anything, there is a danger that it will increase.

There has also been a dramatic fall in sales, not only in local newspapers, but in national newspapers: it has been 15% year on year for some time now. Last year, sales of the Bolton Journal fell by 39% in a single year, whereas for the Coventry Telegraph, they were down by 14.4%. In Wales, as we know even more keenly than I suspect many other places, sales of the Western Mail fell last year by 14%, and it is now down to just 19,654 copies. It does not feel like a national newspaper any longer, given that 3 million people live in Wales. The figure for the South Wales Echo is similar—20,634—and they are virtually identical newspapers now, with many articles repeated word for word from one to the other, or nicked from the Rhondda Leader.

As I have mentioned the Rhondda Leader—because I have to do my bit about getting into my local newspaper—it is a depressing fact that, when I was first elected, the number of copies sold every week was in the tens of thousands, and it is now 4,342. It is not a local newspaper any more, and frankly, that is partly because most of the news is not local news. It is published out of a hub. The paper is not published in the Rhondda and has not been for some time. It does not have its own distinct set of reporters and the inside pages often refer to all sorts of other places in south Wales that have nothing to do with the Rhondda. The fall even in the last few years, from nearly 10,000 copies in 2009 to 4,432 now, means that sales have halved in the period of this Parliament, and that represents a major problem.

There has been the collapse in journalism as well. In 1999, Media Wales had 700 journalists, but it now has 136. It simply cannot provide the same degree and level of expertise about a wide range of subjects—from agricultural through to politics, to broadcasting and so on—that the national newspaper of Wales really needs. Many local newspapers now have barely any truly local content, and certainly none with investigative reporting or fact-checking behind it, as many hon. Members mentioned.

Advertising revenue fell dramatically during the recession, but there have been further problems since then. The advertising revenue for local newspapers is still falling, in part because they used to rely on people selling or buying a car or their home, and many of these things are now done entirely on the internet. Some hon. Members have asked, “Would it not be a good idea if Government advertised more in these newspapers?” The legal requirements are clear, but I do not think that Government should advertise in newspapers solely to keep the newspapers alive. That would be inappropriate. Government have to decide what is the most cost-effective way of communicating with all the community.

I say gently to the newspaper proprietors that I think sometimes they have conspired in their own downfall with regard to local newspapers—I truly do. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made extremely good points about boardroom pay and profits simply not matching, or being completely out of kilter with what was needed in the industry to invest for the future to make sure that there was an ongoing revenue stream. Therefore, to try to keep the figures up, companies ended up putting cover prices up. The Rhondda Leader now costs 90p—quite a significant sum if there is to be no local newspaper content. When The Northern Echo put up its price by 15p a little over a year ago, the number of people buying the newspaper fell dramatically. Fifteen pence may be nothing to Members of Parliament or to many people listening to this debate, but that just made it an unattractive option for many people in the north. Somehow or other, we have to deal with that vicious circle. Why does that matter? It matters for the simple reason that local newspapers are an essential part of local democracy and local culture—people understanding what is happening around them.

At the moment, there is a little story going on in my constituency. Maerdy surgery has decided to go part time on Thursdays and has threatened to close on Fridays. There is no means of knowing that from a local newspaper now. To all intents and purposes, it is barely reported at all. There is a grass fire going on in Porth this afternoon. I doubt whether that will get into a printed newspaper in any shape or form, and if the kids who probably started the fire got arrested, I doubt whether that would end up being in a newspaper, either.

This is a problem for us all, because local government is where most of the policies and most of the public services that we talk about are administered. If no one gets to find out what is happening in their local area, there is no true accountability. That is all the more difficult in Wales. Scotland has quite a substantial national set of newspapers. They compete with one another. There is competition for voice, political posture and quality. Very little of that happens in Wales, where virtually only one voice can be heard in any given area and many people simply do not understand the devolved settlement. Sorry, I mislead the House. It is not a settlement; it is the devolved process, which changes every year because some new Secretary of State for Wales comes in and decides, “Right, we’ve got to do another chunk of devolution that no one will end up understanding.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby referred to local newspapers as the breeding ground for this country’s great journalists. Nearly every journalist, whether on television, on radio or at a great national newspaper, started life on a local newspaper. But even in south Wales, which in Cardiff has one of the best schools of journalism in the land and in Europe—it is much respected around the world—those newspapers are finding it difficult to take people on. There will be a very significant problem in the long term for the whole newspaper industry if we do not manage to address that.

Of course we should not overstate the problem, because it is possible to find out what is happening with the Maerdy surgery on Facebook, and that is increasingly changing the pattern out there. Many local people will create a local Maerdy page, a Ferndale page, a Treorchy page, a Tonypandy page, a Llwynypia page and so on, and people go there and have great conversations about what is happening in local politics and so on. However, that excludes a significant proportion of the population, who do not have internet access or do not want it, and we need to be aware of that.

Of course we must have a plurality of voices. My particular anxiety in relation to Wales—this was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli and for Newport West—is that the BBC could all too easily be the only news voice in Wales, providing news for S4C and deciding how much funding it gets, completely out-resourcing ITV and making it difficult for anyone to listen to anything other than one single voice. This has always been depressing to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli mentioned the problem of a newspaper referring to whether Castell Coch was on the right or left of the motorway and revealing that the person had obviously been going in the wrong direction. In fact, it would be quite nice if BBC journalists could occasionally get north of the M4 to see Castell Coch. The problems with the BBC in London never managing to get any further than Camden are replicated elsewhere in the country because they cannot get any further than Llanishen.

I should say, however, that it is not only local newspapers that sometimes get things wrong. I remember that on one occasion the Daily Mail wrote that I was an ex-gay vicar, and it took me 20 minutes to explain that I am not an ex-gay vicar; I am a gay ex-vicar. There is a very significant difference between those two propositions—I have put aside one thing, but not the other.

The problem for us, of course, is whether this is all just a load of howling at the wind. Are we, like King Lear, finding it easy to spot the problem but not so easy to find the solution? That is a real question for the Government, because in response to many of the suggestions that have been made, other hon. Members have said, “Well, that doesn’t really work.” For instance, it was suggested that a bit of the licence fee might be taken to pay for local newspapers. I do not think that that is a goer myself. I think that any suggestion that there should be some kind of state subsidy for local newspapers is a major problem, for the obvious reasons about freedom of the press and so on. That leaves us with some difficult issues to address.

We need to hold on to some clear principles. The first is that in any given part of the country, there cannot be just one voice dominating what people hear. That applies to the whole country as well. A single person should not have so much power over the media that they can dominate—I hope that we will be able to say something about that in the general election—but it is also true for regional news and local news. I think that an important point to pursue is the one that I made to the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough in relation to newspaper groups that close a title but then are so jealous of their intellectual property that they refuse to allow anyone else to take over the title. I am sure that if the Rhondda Leader were ever to close, people in the Rhondda would want to take it over as a community venture.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is not here now, but he referred earlier to the Camden New Journal, which is a completely different model of doing a newspaper. It has managed to survive through remarkably difficult periods, and perhaps others could, too. I gently say to some of the newspaper organisations that if they are closing down a title, they could look at handing it on to others in a constructive way. There are other models, and we need to pursue them.

I support the idea from the National Union of Journalists that there should be a short sharp inquiry. The hon. Member for Maldon is stepping down as Chair of the Select Committee—well, he does not have any choice, but he is leaving. He is departing from that Committee. Who knows? He may have more greatness thrust upon him. The point is that the Select Committee did a very good report in 2010. I think that the Select Committee is the right body to do the next inquiry, because it can bring people in; it can force people to come, and it can do it swiftly and relatively cheaply. I would very much welcome that, but it is not for a shadow Minister or even a Minister, were I to become one, to tell a Select Committee what reports it should engage in.

Finally, I want to ask the Minister a few questions if that is all right.

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

If you must.

[Chris Bryant]

The Kraken rises! The Minister is shuffling his papers and getting ready for the questions.

We were all intrigued by the Government’s announcement yesterday, but I am slightly sceptical about it. What is proposed might be a good thing, but I am nervous about how it will work. I say that because I blew a fanfare, as did the Cory band in the Rhondda—incidentally, it is the greatest brass band that Britain has had—when the orchestra tax relief was announced in December; but then of course we all discovered that it does not apply to most orchestras and it does not apply to brass bands, because of how the Government have drafted the concept of an orchestra. Not even the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment is counted as an orchestra under the tax relief.

I just want to be precise and pin the Government down. Why consider only business rates? Why have the Government gone for that angle? I understand, of course, that some of these issues are devolved, but a tax relief would not normally be devolved and would be available in Wales and in Northern Ireland and, for that matter, in Scotland, depending on how it was crafted.

What counts as a local newspaper? That sounds like a stupid question, because we have all referred to so many local newspapers, but is something that carries only advertising and no locally created content a local newspaper? Does something that is produced by a local council count as a local newspaper? If the Government stick with the business rate model that they have gone with, what happens if all the content of a newspaper is produced in England but the newspaper is distributed in Wales, or vice versa? I presume that the Government do not intend to legislate on that before the general election—if that is to be the case, we might have to meet rather more frequently than usual next week—but I wonder when the Government intend to publish their consultation on the matter.

With those comments, and with enormous thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for securing the debate, I will close my remarks. I agree with the octogenarians who have spoken in the debate that there are far too few of them. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby heard that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I co-chair the cultural education group with the Minister for Schools. We are having a meeting next week. I was pleased to see that Ofsted has made it clear that under its new inspections beginning later this year, an inspection must take account of whether a school offers a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum. Music will be a clear element of that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that whatever spin he may put on it, when the Education Secretary told pupils not to study arts subjects because it would hold them back for the rest of their lives, she and his Government were systematically undermining artistic education for all children in this country? Is he not ashamed that on his watch the number of children taking part in music in schools has fallen from 55% to 36%? Does he not realise that a strong artistic and cultural education should be the universal entitlement of every single child in this country, because it is good for them, good for the economy and good for this nation?

[Mr Vaizey]

This week we celebrated the 50th anniversary of Jennie Lee’s first White Paper on the arts, and I am pleased that 50 years later we continue to support the arts, particularly in education. The Education Secretary did not say what the hon. Gentleman claims that she said; she said that for too long people had thought that science had held back their careers. She has praised arts education and she is giving a very important speech on cultural education next week. The hon. Gentleman is invited.

Rural Phone and Broadband Connectivity

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

On the Government’s record, I think what everybody has said today is that we have to take the whole country with us. That means 100%, not 93% or 95%. I merely point out to hon. Members that the original target was 2 megabits a second by 2012. That was abandoned by this Government, who moved the target to 2015. Now, the target has been moved to 2016. I suggest that that means we want lots of people to be able to run before some people are even able to walk in the digital economy, and I think that that is a mistake.

The superfast target of 24 megabits a second has also been changed. It was 90% by 2015. Then, when the Government worked out that that simply was not going to happen, for all the reasons hon. Members have set out today, they moved it to 95% by 2016.

[Mr Vaizey]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. We are going to hear from the Minister—

[Mr Vaizey]

Give way!

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely nothing.

[Mr Vaizey]

I do enjoy the running commentary that we get from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) throughout questions. Like the Duracell bunny, will he ever run out of energy? It is really impressive.

In this country we have some of the lowest costs for superfast broadband, but I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), along with the hon. Member for Rhondda, will welcome our fantastic advertising campaign for superfast broadband, which I hope will bridge the gap between availability and take-up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

As part of our commitment from the Department of Health to get Britain moving, we might have to leave my hon. Friend’s home out of our rural broadband roll-out, so that he keeps moving about the house rather than taking calls from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] I am waiting to establish what point the Labour Front-Bench team are trying to make.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

We want you to speed up!

[Mr Vaizey]

They want me to speed up. I can take as long as you want, Mr Speaker. As has been repeatedly stated from this Dispatch Box, a landmark deal at the end of last year with mobile phone companies will see partial not spots reduced by two thirds and not spots reduced by half.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that more than £5 million has been set aside to enable secondary schools to visit battlefield sites. Over the course of four years, every secondary school in the United Kingdom will be able to send at least two pupils to visit the battlefields of world war one.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I urge the Minister to think carefully about the contribution that Members of this House and of the other House made to the first world war? On 6 November 1914, Arthur O’Neill, a Member of this House, was killed at Klein Zillebeke while on active service. Four days later, Henry Parnell, a Member of the other House, and Bernard Gordon-Lennox had also been killed. They have a war grave at Klein Zillebeke. Would it not be a good idea to commemorate them in Belgium? Perhaps the Minister could mention this to any important Belgian visitors who might be coming here today.

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. It is important that we recognise the contribution to world war one made over a wide range by many different groups. Recognising the contribution made by hon. Members is particularly apposite.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I have frequent engagement with Manchester Camerata and I commend its imaginative approach in engaging other parts of local services, particularly the fire and rescue service and the health service. The arts can not only engage young people and children in education, they can also help to engage adults in a whole range of other local services.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

This is a very convoluted question, so I hope the Minister will bear with me. I just wonder whether he has had an opportunity to see the National Youth Theatre production of “Tory Boyz”, which I am told is about a lot of homosexual Conservatives. They, among many others, might want to ask the Government why they are taking such a long time to allow the upgrade of civil partnerships to full same-sex marriages. He is having plenty of time to ask the Secretary of State now. Will he bring it forward a bit faster?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss any issues. The rural community broadband fund is designed to support community broadband projects that the programme is not reaching.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

This is not just an issue for rural areas. Semi-rural areas often fall between two stools. It is difficult for people to get broadband to their home, either because they are too far from the final mile or because the bung that has been given to BT to roll this out across the country and make it almost impossible for anybody else to compete has made it difficult for other operators to get into areas such as the Rhondda.

[Mr Vaizey]

BT has not been given a bung. BT is a partner in the project that is delivering superfast broadband to 90% of the country, and we have found additional money to reach 95% of the country by 2017. The programme is going extremely well.

Prime Minister’s Evidence (Leveson Inquiry)

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone.

We also know the Prime Minister’s interpretation of what is relevant, because he has already announced it to the Leveson inquiry. He said that he had looked for

“text messages…in relation to the BSkyB bid.”

He went on:

“In relation to my e-mails”—

meaning his e-mails—

“searches are still being carried out.”

That is from his written evidence to the Leveson inquiry. In both those cases, as I understand it, he understood that the only thing that he was looking for was material relevant to the BSkyB bid.

I think that most reasonable people in this country would conclude that any text or e-mail that showed an extensive relationship between the Prime Minister or a member of his staff and members of News International—for instance, around the time of the setting of the licence fee, if it related to the licence fee—was material that should be published and be in the public domain. Any reasonable person would expect that, at a time when decisions were being taken about the future regulation of Ofcom and a new communications Bill was being considered, any communications showing much closer access between the Prime Minister or his office and one set of people in the media market, such as News International—Rebekah Brooks, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch—is material that should be in the public domain, so that the public could decide whether that is relevant.

Indeed, the Leveson inquiry is not explicitly into the BSkyB takeover bid at all. It is expressly, as the Prime Minister says in his written evidence, into

“the role of the media and its relationship with the public, police and politicians.”

I would therefore have thought that any texts and e-mails between the Prime Minister or his office and the people we are talking about at News International were material to that inquiry, and so should be handed over.

We also know that the relationship between the Prime Minister and Rebekah Brooks was certainly far more than neighbourly. Some people have suggested that, as they were neighbours, they were bound to know each other. In the Rhondda, “neighbours” means those living in the same street; Dean and Churchill, where the two families live, are six and a half miles apart, so that is a different understanding of neighbourliness. In the evidence, Mr Jay asked the Prime Minister:

“did you see her every weekend or most weekends in the period 2008, 2009?”

He replied, “Not every weekend.” “But most weekends?” was the next question, to which the Prime Minister replied:

“In 2008, 2009? I’d have to check. I might be able to go back and check, but I don’t think every weekend. I don’t think most weekends. But it would depend.”

My contention is that if extensive material held by No. 10 Downing street refers to conversations held during that time—2008 and 2009—or held otherwise by the Prime Minister reveals that his answer was not entirely complete when he was speaking to the Leveson inquiry, it is only right and proper that it should be published. In a sense, that is the sole point that I am trying to make.

There is lots that we do not know. The Government have trumpeted their transparency over the past two years. Yet, I note—I hope that the Minister will be able to correct this—that no Ministers’ list of meetings with outside bodies has been available since June this year. The June to September list is not available, but it should normally have been out by now. It is important that that is published before the Leveson inquiry reports. Most people would want to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Culture Secretary or other Cabinet Ministers, as well as the Prime Minister, are now having extensive conversations with all the editors and proprietors of newspapers in advance of the Leveson report, so that they can make a fair judgment about the bona fides of the Government’s intentions.

As I have already said to the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), there are discrepancies in the list of meetings that the Prime Minister has thus far advanced. I am also somewhat doubtful about some of the lists of Ministers’ meetings. I merely note that a large number of Ministers only ever record eight meetings with external bodies in three months. Eight meetings in three months would seem to be something of a dereliction of duty. I would have thought it would be eight meetings a day. I have looked at the Minister’s list—it is a very, very thin list.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Thin! It is a long list.

[Chris Bryant]

It is a thin list, I suggest.

Why should all this material be published? That it should is not my word, but that of a civil servant at No. 10 Downing street. The material that is being held—its existence is not now being denied by Downing street—has been described as salacious. I believe that everyone has a right to privacy, which is a fundamental principle, and not everything should always be published: people should be able to retain a degree of privacy. However, when the person is the Prime Minister or a Minister who is making executive decisions about a particular industry, it is important that there is full transparency, so that everybody knows whether they are acting on a clean slate or are parti pris and whether they are doing favours for their friends or are entirely free, open, clear and transparent in making their decisions. As I think the Prime Minister has said many times, the only antiseptic is full transparency.

I believe that this material needs to be published, because it has been described as deeply embarrassing—again, not by me, but by a civil servant in Downing street. I know better than many others that one can get over embarrassment—indeed, extreme embarrassment—in life. The Prime Minister knows that, too: he knows that if this material is just embarrassing, it is neither here nor there. I can only conclude that this material may be incriminating because it suggests that the Prime Minister knew what was going on far sooner than we realise; or because it makes explicit how the Prime Minister and Mrs Brooks were working together; or because it shows No. 10, in the shape of Mr Coulson, in cahoots with News International—I particularly want to know whether the material gathered by No. 10 has been given to the Metropolitan police for its ongoing investigations—or because it details the deal that I believe was secured between the Conservative party and News International or News Corporation before the general election, which led to the BBC having the World Service and S4C rolled into its budget and to its total budget being cut by 16%; or because it shows a consistency and regularity of access and contact that would make most reasonable people in this country question the bona fides of the Prime Minister.

I believe that all this will come out. I put in a freedom of information request on 18 October, and I have to receive a reply by Thursday. I can see no reason why the Government should say no, but they may do so, in which case we will simply have to go through the process of going to the Information Commissioner. I understand that many journalists have also put in identical or similar freedom of information requests. I say to the Prime Minister that however long he puts his fingers in his ears, screams “La, la, la” and refuses to answer questions, in the end this material will come out. The message of the News of the World saga must surely be that the original criminality might be terrible, but the cover-up always does for people in the end. This is not going to go away.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I certainly would not describe it as “dubious”. However, I was interested to learn this morning that you are our secret weapon in Corby, so I will endeavour to keep to time in order to release you on to the people of Corby later today.

This is an opportunity to debate some important issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), not least his assertion that my list of meetings was thin. I take some exception to being accused of having a thin list of meetings. When I became a Minister, and the first set of meetings of Ministers was published, I came top of the list because of the number of meetings I had had—twice as many as some ministerial colleagues. It is, however, always difficult to win in politics. I was proud for a day to have the longest list of ministerial meetings until I read on Twitter that it was clear evidence that I was in hock to corporate interests. That just goes to show.

As the Prime Minister has made clear on many occasions, it was this Government who set up the Leveson inquiry, but it is worth reminding the House that it had all-party support—including that of the Leader of the Opposition, and of the Chairmen of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the Justice Committee. The whole House has got behind it and is looking forward to the outcome. We should, however, use the opportunity of this important debate to set out in more detail the background to the inquiry, and the powers and procedures of inquiries set up under the Inquiries Act 2005.

[Chris Bryant]

Has the Prime Minister provided a single text or e-mail to the Leveson inquiry, and was he asked to provide his evidence under section 21(2)?

[Mr Vaizey]

Last night, the hon. Gentleman wrote to the Prime Minister, saying, in question No. 6: “You have stated in your written evidence to the inquiry that you have provided all texts related explicitly to the BSkyB takeover but have refused to state whether you have ever provided a single such piece of evidence.” I find that statement completely contradictory. The Prime Minister has made a statement to a judge-led public inquiry, signed a statement of truth, and given evidence on oath, in which he has said that he has provided the evidence to the inquiry, and yet the hon. Gentleman will not accept that.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Vaizey]

I have already given way once, and I am going to carry on with the thrust of my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. That is, of course, a matter for the hon. Member for Rhondda. One can, of course, ask members of the Government questions in debate and through parliamentary procedures, but with other Members of Parliament for whom we cannot use parliamentary procedures, we can use this thing called the post. It could be the internal post, or it could be Royal Mail. The hon. Gentleman could write to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr. Brown) internally in the House of Commons, or he could write to him at his home address, just to check the facts, which I know he is keen to clear up.

I have set out the background to the Leveson inquiry, but I also want to make it absolutely clear for the record that the Government recognise the fundamental importance of free speech, as well as of a vigorous press to support our democratic process. The press plays an essential role in holding the powerful to account. It brings matters of public interest to the fore, informs citizens and enables them to exercise their democratic rights. Whatever steps are proposed, it is vital to maintain a press that is free to conduct that important role in our society but, equally, we all want a regulatory system in which the public can have confidence.

To ensure that the abuses identified and the wider culture could be examined, the Leveson inquiry was given the task of exploring the culture, practice and ethics of the press, particularly in the context of the press’s relationship with the public, the police and politicians. From those investigations, the inquiry will make recommendations for the future of press regulation, and on how future concerns about press behaviour should be dealt with. As the hon. Member for Rhondda made clear, we expect the inquiry to report shortly, but I am unable to give the House a date because that is in the gift of Lord Justice Leveson, as, I remind the hon. Gentleman, is the whole conduct of his inquiry.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Vaizey]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. It is the convention of these half-hour debates that interventions are taken only by agreement of the person who has tabled the debate. I note that the Minister is choosing to give way to people who did not notify me before the debate that they would be seeking to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I am not in the business of making allegations against people and trying to cloud the issues on the basis of personal attacks, but it is clear, and this was said by the Prime Minister from the outset, that all politicians should look to themselves and their relationships with the press. I have always found it odd that the Opposition have developed the theme that the Conservative party was somehow too close to the Murdochs. I have been involved in politics for a while, and I remember that for the past 14 years—before 2009—all News International newspapers were slavishly devoted to the Labour party and played a significant role in securing the election of Tony Blair. Indeed, he flew to Tasmania, I seem to remember—

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. I beg your indulgence. Could you just clarify for me what the terms of this debate are? Are they meant to be the Prime Minister’s evidence to the Leveson inquiry or what we are hearing about at the moment, which has nothing to do with the inquiry or, indeed, with the Prime Minister’s evidence?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I do not have the details of meetings with national editors, but I am happy to share them with the hon. Gentleman by way of a letter. The Press Complaints Commission mediation procedures will continue during the transit to a new arrangement.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Press Complaints Commission is engaging in a pretty ludicrous example of shenanigans at the moment; it is trying to bounce Leveson into some new plan that it is trying to put forward. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that the only thing that the Government are interested in is what Leveson comes up with—not some shoddy deal struck by the editors?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is being entirely fair. My understanding is that although the final answer lies absolutely with Lord Leveson’s inquiry, Lord Leveson has made it clear that he wants the press to begin to make moves to get their house in order while he considers all the evidence.

Media Regulation

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It is a pleasure to finish the debate under your chairmanship, Ms Osborne, it having begun under the chairmanship of Mr Chope, whose name still appears in front of you, which could confuse—well, it certainly should not confuse anyone who is watching the debate either on television or in this Chamber this morning, which is about to become this afternoon.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on calling this timely debate on a subject that I think it is safe to say has been in the news for many months. He may or not may recall that I praised him—perhaps presciently—in my maiden speech in 2005 as a fine Back Bencher. I do not think that anyone gets bored with praise and I am sure that he is aware that many people in the House have admired the way he has fought his corner on this issue over the last few months and, indeed, years.

Each week, as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will be aware, seems to bring fresh reports of questionable, and possibly illegal, activities at some newspapers, and witnesses’ statements at Leveson have further stoked the fires. That was why the Prime Minister announced an inquiry into phone hacking on 13 July last year, following revelations that the News of the World may have routinely paid private investigators to hack into the voicemail messages of celebrities and other people involved in high-profile news stories. I certainly welcome the support for the Leveson inquiry from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is the spokesman for the official Opposition.

We all need to know what journalists and their agents were up to hacking into phone messages. We also need to know what the police knew when, what they did about it and how we might learn lessons for the future. However, it is worth noting, as we have been reminded this week, that the inquiry is not purely about phone hacking. It will also look into allegations that the Metropolitan Police Service’s earlier inquiries, although they resulted in two convictions, were not sufficiently thorough. That raised questions about the relationship between senior Metropolitan Police Service officers and News International.

The ongoing police investigations, which are being led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers of the Metropolitan police, are making good progress, and they are thorough and well resourced. As all hon. Members will agree, we must let those investigations, which may lead to criminal charges, run their course. About 120 members of staff are working on Operation Weeting, which, as hon. Members will recall, is focused on phone hacking. Operation Elvedon is the investigation into allegations of corrupt payments to police by journalists, and it is supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. So far, those operations have seen 17 and 21 arrests respectively.

[Chris Bryant]

As the Minister may know, I asked Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson on 11 March 2003 whether they had ever paid police officers for information. They said that they had, but only within the law, even though such payments are obviously a criminal offence, and it is not possible to make them within the law. My anxiety, however, is this. Although there is an investigation into these issues in the Metropolitan police, I am pretty certain they have happened fairly extensively around the country. We only have to see how regularly the press turn up for the arrest of some famous person, having mysteriously guessed when it would happen. Will the Minister make sure that Operation Elvedon is not restricted and that each of our police forces cleans up its act?

[Mr Vaizey]

Police operations are, of course, independent of the Government, as indeed is the Leveson inquiry, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s point will have been heard and taken on board by the respective police forces.

The Government are clear that we need to get to the bottom of this issue. We need to restore public trust in the regulation and activities of all our newspapers, and only an independent inquiry can do that. Let me also emphasise, however, that that should not be characterised as an attack on the press. As I said, the Government are equally clear about the importance of a free press and media that can challenge the Government and others.

To pick up one of the themes in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), more than a third of the world’s people live in countries where there is no press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders. In all the criticism we have seen of the press in the past year, it is easy to forget just how fortunate we are to live in a country where the media are not subjected to Government regulation and where the right to freedom of speech means that people can voice views that may be critical of, or offensive to, others. That independence from state intervention is fundamental to our democratic way of life.

Just a week after war reporter Marie Colvin was killed in Syria, it is worth reminding the House and ourselves that, although she was American, many journalists working in Britain also deserve our respect and thanks for the work they do.

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am sure those listening to the debate will take note of those awards and attend them or look at what is produced.

With press freedom comes responsibility, however, and we have consistently heard reports that certain parts of the press have not lived up to their responsibilities. It will be for Lord Leveson’s inquiry to make specific recommendations on future regulation. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, we will not prejudge what those recommendations might be. We are satisfied that, with this inquiry, we are putting in place the means of establishing the correct regulatory regime.

[Chris Bryant]

If that is true, why did the Minister say on “Question Time” that the answer had to be self-regulation?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that my remark, albeit in shorthand, echoed the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend said:

“I don’t know whether legislation would form part of the solution or not…I would love the industry to come to me with their proposed solution, but what I would say to them is that whatever you propose must have the confidence of the public, because the public are not happy with what’s been going on.”

We all agree that we do not want statutory regulation of the content of the press. We want to hear what proposals the press have for regulation, and we have not ruled out statutory backing for a regulatory system.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently noted in the same interview, there is more agreement than expected on the tougher form of newspaper regulation that will emerge in the light of the phone hacking scandal. It is no secret that we would like a regime for regulating the press that is independent, but which has credible sanctions to deal with transgressors, to pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. It must also cover all the press.

Our preference is that there should be no direct statutory regulation of press content and that the press should be able to come forward with a new regime that is credible to the public. The press have already begun that process with the appointment of a new chair of the Press Complaints Commission—Lord Hunt. We wish him well in tackling the challenges he and the industry face. However, we have ruled nothing out at this stage, and we are certainly not in the business of pre-empting Lord Justice Leveson’s report.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what Lord Hunt has to say, and my understanding is that he wants everyone to be members of the new body. He wants credible sanctions, he wants the body to be independent of the Government and the industry, and he wants the industry to come forward with credible proposals. As I say, however, it would be wrong for me to comment on the specific elements he is putting forward for debate ahead of the Leveson inquiry’s findings.

Let me talk a little about the Leveson process before I make the other point I was about to make. The inquiry will have two parts. As everyone knows, the first part looks at media ethics and will make recommendations for a regulatory regime to ensure we have ethical media. It is important to note that that part of the inquiry will report in October 2012. The second part will look at the extent of illegal behaviour by News International and other media organisations and at the police inquiry into that behaviour. That part of the inquiry is necessarily longer because of the difficulties of operating around live criminal investigations, as the hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned.

The first part of the inquiry is made up of four modules. Module 1 dealt with the press and the public, and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the extensive media coverage of the witness hearings at the royal courts of justice. The evidence given has helped to raise the inquiry’s profile, and the continued coverage serves only to highlight the intense importance the public attach to the regulation of the press and to the inquiry’s outcome.

Hon. Members may have noticed that the hearings for module 2, which focuses on the press and the police, started yesterday. They will be followed by module 3, which focuses on the press and politicians. It is obvious, therefore, that media interest will continue right up until Lord Justice Leveson reports and that there is still a huge amount of evidence to be gathered and considered. Let me therefore repeat—I have said this almost ad nauseam—that it is important to wait for Lord Justice Leveson’s report.

There is, however, another opportunity to look at these issues. We will publish a Green Paper focusing, if I can put this in shorthand, on how to bring the Communications Act 2003 up to date. We hope the Green Paper will lead to a White Paper and then to a communications Bill. I say that in all sincerity because of the work the hon. Member for Rhondda has done on the issue and the position he has taken.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues this morning, and I hope that he does not feel I am being too much of a politician when I say it would be wrong for me to give a view on each of his points about a small claims court or amendments to interception rules, or, indeed, his concerns about the proposed parliamentary privilege Bill, which is still very much in the drafting stage, the fit and proper person test or the need to amend the Communications Act 2003. I hope that he will, perhaps in a personal capacity, submit evidence to the Green Paper.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I think he is being a bit too much of a politician, and not even a very good one, because his boss has already said that he will look at the idea of a small claims court; so I have got further with his boss than I have with him. The draft parliamentary privilege Bill is meant to be published in the next few weeks. I think the Minister could get a bit more up to speed with what is going on in the rest of the Department.

[Mr Vaizey]

It is sad that our relationship has reached this stage, when the hon. Gentleman deliberately mischaracterises what I have said. If he is honest he will say that the Secretary of State has not reached a conclusion on whether the small claims court is the right way forward. My right hon. Friend said merely that it is an idea that should be considered, which is exactly what I said about two minutes ago: the hon. Gentleman put forward some interesting ideas and I would welcome it if he—I am treating him with a lot more respect than he is giving me—would put those ideas into the Green Paper. Is that all right?

I am sorry, Ms Osborne; I got slightly carried away, but it is a bit unfair when all we are saying is that the arguments being put across are perfectly valid and deserve consideration in a process that is being undertaken by the Leveson inquiry and the Green Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

That is the reason for the delay, and I gather that the hon. Lady knows about it.

[Chris Bryant]

I hope that the Minister will not get wound up—it seems awfully easy to wind him up. Is it possible that some of the issues that we have been discussing will not be addressed at all in the Green Paper, and there may just be a great big hole? Is that the Government’s intention—a kind of hole, labelled “Please insert Leveson here”? Alternatively will there be an exploratory consultation as part of the Green Paper?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which is that the document is a Green Paper, not a White Paper. It is not a precursor to the legislation. The Green Paper is a consultation document, and it will raise a number of issues. It will, in some areas, give a clear view of the Government’s direction of travel, and in others it will simply raise an issue and invite comments. However, it is important to emphasise that a Green Paper is a precursor to a White Paper and is therefore not necessarily so detailed. It is designed to invite comment, ideas, thoughts and proposals. In that sense it is much more open minded, and is effectively a call for further evidence.

The hon. Member for Rhondda has raised a number of points during the debate, which although its title is “Media Regulation” focused on the issue that has exercised us for the past few months: the future of press regulation.

[Mr Vaizey]

It is worth making the point that the conditional fee arrangements could be interpreted as a restriction on press freedom. I hear what the hon. Lady has said about the Opposition’s case for a clear exemption in the relevant areas; but there is certainly an argument that conditional fee arrangements put the press under undue pressure. I hear what the hon. Member for Rhondda says about the sums of money involved, but there is evidence that newspapers might settle cases that they would otherwise be prepared to fight, on the basis of the legal costs that they are likely to rack up against a litigant. I will happily write to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Rhondda, setting out the position on that issue.

[Chris Bryant]

Some newspapers have advanced the argument that under the proposals they would not write things that they would otherwise write; but if the result is that they choose not to write things that infringe people’s privacy or libel them, that is a good thing, not a bad thing. If there is a chilling effect that means that they do not write lies, that is good, not bad. It is difficult enough, even if conditional fee agreements are allowed for privacy and libel cases, for ordinary people to gain access to lawyers. They just do not know how to go through the process. However, it will be infinitely more difficult, or almost impossible, for someone from, say, Soham to get justice, as it would be for someone involved in any of the big criminal investigations where the victims of crime have ended up in the newspapers unnecessarily and incorrectly, with their privacy traduced.

[Mr Vaizey]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

Certainly, we engage with the Ministry of Justice at length on many of these issues. Going back to the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda, his thesis was that the regulatory regime failed across the board, whether it be the directors of the company, the Press Complaints Commission, the Metropolitan police, the courts or Parliament. However, it is also worth remembering that where there was wrongdoing, there were mechanisms to stop it, such as a proper criminal investigation or a criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, we have quite rightly set up an independent inquiry into the future of press regulation. It seems that there is general agreement that whatever recommendations emerge from that, we need a system of press regulation that is independent both of Government and of newspapers.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister correctly characterised my argument, but there is one other vital element to it that Leveson is probably not considering, which is ownership. Part of my argument is that it was actually the whole pattern of owning BSkyB and 40% of the newspapers that was the problem. It was what led to the sense of hubris about how News International and News Corp owned the Metropolitan police, the British Government, Parliament and politicians and could do what they wanted.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He has obviously raised the issue of the fit and proper test and it is frequently referred to in this context. As he knows, Ofcom, an independent regulator for which I have the highest regard, has an ongoing duty to ensure that anyone who owns a broadcasting licence is, and remains, a fit and proper person. It is frequently suggested by the hon. Gentleman and others that the revelations at News International mean that the owner of News Corporation is not a fit and proper person and hence BSkyB is not fit and proper to continue to hold its broadcast licences. I again emphasise that the regulation is independent of Government and is a matter for Ofcom. I understand that Ofcom has contacted the relevant authorities and asked to be kept informed of any information that might assist it in assessing whether BSkyB is, and remains, fit and proper to continue to hold its broadcast licences.

In the last five minutes, I wish to raise the issue of technology, which has not come up so far in this debate. It is worth looking at other systems of regulation. We now have the Authority for Television on Demand, which regulates broadcast-style services over the internet. It is interesting to see how that system of co-regulation is working; we have already had references to self-regulation, independent regulation and Government regulation. It will be interesting to see whether something emerges from Leveson and from our Green Paper about how to join up those different elements of regulation. Newspapers on the web do not currently fall under the regime of ATVOD because they are not pursuing broadcast-like services. That is an interesting matter for genuine debate about the future of press regulation.

We have had an entertaining and interesting debate. The hon. Member for Rhondda has put his case with the clarity and force for which he has become renowned in the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West for reminding the House about the importance of press freedom not just in this country but around the world where perhaps more oppressive regimes may exist. I am grateful for the support from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for the Leveson inquiry and for her pertinent comments about the position of the official Opposition. The common position is that we must wait for the Leveson inquiry to reach its conclusions. I hope that people, including hon. Members with a particular interest in this area, will use the opportunity of the Green Paper to put forward their views on the future of media regulation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I do not have the figures to hand, but—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Write to her.

[Mr Vaizey]

I shall certainly write to the hon. Lady. I was going to add that I am sure she will wish to join me in welcoming the settlement between S4C and the BBC, as 100% of the programming budget will go to independent companies such as Tinopolis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

And doubtless next year you will blame the jubilee for the collapse in the economy.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s very optimistic comment and depressed by the sedentary cynical comment by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. We are all aware of inaccurate spelling in subtitling services. Sixty-nine of the 72 broadcasters exceed the minimum requirements, but I will continue to press them to provide an efficient service.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

In 2007, News International’s lawyers, as we now know but have recently learned, wrote to senior management at the News of the World, including James Murdoch, to make it explicit that the “sole rogue reporter” line was completely untrue. Does the Secretary of State really believe, with BSkyB’s annual general meeting coming up on 29 November, that James Murdoch is a fit and proper person to chair the company any longer?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

We in Wales know that digital switchover is a great thing, but it is not quite a utopia. The Freeview package that is available in my constituency and many other valleys communities is greatly diminished compared with the rest of the country. This means that Rupert Murdoch has a virtual monopoly not just on first-view American movies and many sports matches but on the actual provision of television services. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that my constituents get a fair deal?

[Mr Vaizey]

I would certainly be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss coverage in south Wales. I have learned from many years’ experience that there is no such thing as utopia, but we can strive towards it. As far as Mr Murdoch’s monopoly is concerned, I know that he will have taken note of Ofcom’s investigation into pay TV, sports rights and other such competition issues.