Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Damian Collins Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I would very much like that. This is not a difficult recommendation for the Government to accept. No legislation is required. The Prime Minister could simply accept it and implement it.

We are still waiting for the Government’s response to our report. The previous Government declined to take up the recommendation, explaining that

“it must ultimately be for the Prime Minister to account to Parliament for his decisions and actions in relation to the appointment of his Ministers”.

So the Opposition have no one but themselves to blame for the fact that they have had to table this motion today.

Why would it be desirable for the independent adviser to decide what to investigate without waiting for a referral from the Prime Minister? The expectation that that should be the case is generated by the official job title. It is hard to see how any adviser on Ministers’ interests can be deemed to be independent if he is unable to investigate prima facie breaches of the ministerial code without the permission of the Prime Minister. It is only his independence from Government that can provide the necessary assurance that Ministers, including the Prime Minister, will be held objectively and impartially to the standards of the ministerial code. If we deprive him of his independence by depriving him of his initiative, we remove the assurance that we want the public to have.

Above all, it is surely beneficial for Prime Ministers to be absolved of the invidious duty of deciding whether or not to refer potential breaches to the independent adviser. With that responsibility comes a great deal of controversy and public opprobrium. A Prime Minister is damned if he does and damned if he does not. Either he condemns his colleague by referring him, placing him under immediate pressure to resign, or he condemns himself, because it looks as though he is protecting someone from proper scrutiny. I wonder whether, if the Prime Minister had referred this matter to the independent adviser immediately, the Secretary of State would already have been investigated for any breach of the ministerial code by now, and exonerated. This situation places the Secretary of State in an invidious position.

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

I am following my hon. Friend’s argument carefully. Does he agree that the Opposition cannot have it both ways? They cannot spend weeks running around saying that Sir Alex Allan should investigate this matter, and then, when he says that he cannot add any more, say that he is not really independent and should not investigate the matter anyway.

[Mr Jenkin]

I will come to that point. It is ironic that the hon. Member for Newport West describes Sir Alex Allan as a poodle. That is not what we said in our report, incidentally. We were concerned about the manner of his appointment, and about whether it was appropriate for a recently retired civil servant to take that role, because he would not be seen as independent. We did not say that he was not fit to fulfil the role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denham]

I need to make some progress.

What do we now know about the conduct of the Secretary of State? On 12 November 2010, he was advised not to have any external discussions on the merger and not to write to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about it. He was told that if he did so, it carried risks to the robustness of the decisions.

As other Members have said, there were two key parts to the memo sent to the Prime Minister. The first lets us know in no unambiguous terms of the Secretary of State’s support for the merger proceeding and his belief that if it were blocked, our media sector would suffer for years. Secondly, however, and of equal significance, it proposed a meeting between the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Business Secretary and the Culture Secretary himself

“to discuss the policy issues that are thrown up as a result.”

In the light of the legal advice given to the Secretary of State on 12 November, he must have known not only that sending that memo was inappropriate, but that the course of action he was proposing—a cabal of Ministers at the top of Government involving the one person who was meant to be acting in a quasi-judicial manner and who should have had no discussions and no connections with anyone else—flew in the face of the advice he had been given and was clearly acting in an entirely inappropriate manner.

[Damian Collins]

The right hon. Gentleman has read out the last sentence of the memo. Will he read out the preceding sentence?

[Mr Denham]

The previous sentence referred to the procedural processes. [Interruption.] Let me acknowledge that the memo refers to the proper procedures, but I will make this point to the House. The Secretary of State seems to be under the impression that if only he litters his memos and letters with the occasional reference to proper procedure, he can behave in a way that is entirely improper and outside the procedure. The sentence about proper procedure to which the hon. Gentleman wants me to refer is totally invalidated by the following sentence, which effectively says, “Let’s do something completely improper”—have a meeting involving the Business Secretary. The Secretary of State, of all people, should have had no discussions with any Minister, the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, because he was meant to be acting in a quasi-judicial manner.

My final point is about the relevance of the motion. I believe that the Secretary of State’s and, indeed, the Prime Minister’s actions in concealing this memo are an absolute disgrace, placing the advice that the Cabinet Secretary was able to give us in a very bad light. They failed to correct that; they failed to go to the Cabinet Secretary to say, “You should know about his memo.” What is more, and it is directly relevant to the motion, when the Culture Secretary had the opportunity to put the record straight on 25 April in response to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), he failed to do so. He has concealed the existence of the memo, concealed the fact that he was proposing to act in an entirely inappropriate manner and failed to disclose it to the House when he had the opportunity to so. At the very least, shall we say, might that not suggest in the mind of a reasonable person that there is a question or two for Sir Alex Allan to consider? It is the refusal even to look into these matters that makes this matter such a disgrace. That is why this motion should be carried.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) that this is an important issue that should be debated, and the Opposition should have an opportunity to raise it on the Floor of the House, but we have heard nothing new today—nothing that has not been covered many times before. With respect, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) that I did not hear what the pertinent extra questions that the Secretary of State must answer were; I did not learn what outstanding issues have not yet been covered. We have gone around in circles on all the old issues. That is why it was right for Sir Alex Allan to say there was nothing more he could add because what more was there to say after the six hours of evidence at the Leveson inquiry and all the previous opportunities for questioning on the Floor of the House?

A lot has been made of the memo that the Secretary of State sent to the Prime Minister. It was sent at a time when the Secretary of State had no idea that he would be asked to be involved in this process. The memo rightly deals with media policy and a recommendation about that any decision not to allow the bid to go forward should be taken on grounds of media plurality and not as a result of lobbying from outside organisations which may be open to judicial review. That was a perfectly proper point of view, and perfectly reasonable advice of the sort that a Culture Secretary might give to a Prime Minister.

Earlier, I asked the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) to read out the sentence in which the Secretary of State says:

“It would be totally wrong for the Government to get involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm’s length.”

Could the Secretary of State have been any clearer about his views on the process and how it should be followed by members of the Government? We should see his final sentence—his request for a meeting—in the context of that remark. There may well be some broader issues about media policy that it would be perfectly appropriate for the Culture Secretary and the Business Secretary to discuss with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—issues that were not at all specific to the merger deal that was on the table. The significance of this memo has been blown out of all proportion.

Let us turn to the guidance that the Secretary of State received. I have not heard any Member question the method by which he sought outside independent advice during the course of his deliberations on this matter, or challenge whether he asked for more information than he needed or ask questions about publishing all the advice on the record so everyone could see it—something no Secretary of State had done before in a similar situation. No one has questioned that, so I challenge the notion that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) touched on at the beginning of the debate: that this process was always flawed and the Secretary of State was always prejudiced in his view, because there is absolutely no evidence of that at all. There is no evidence that the Secretary of State did anything other than follow the independent advice and undertake his legal obligations as Secretary of State through the process. No Member today has challenged him on the substance of what he did.

Let us consider what the Leader of the Opposition said at the Leveson inquiry yesterday. He was asked what his view was on how this process may be changed for the future—about what we can learn from what has happened. He said he thought politicians should remain involved. When this matter was debated last summer, that was not the view of the shadow Secretary of State, who said politicians should be taken out of the process entirely. The Labour party now believe politicians should be involved in taking these decisions. Where the Secretary of State moves away from independent advice, that should be published, and it can be reviewed and appealed. Under the Leader of the Opposition’s view of how things should work in future, the result would have been exactly the same. Nothing would have been different, because the Secretary of State followed all the advice, so there would have been no need for a referral or appeal. There can be no proper questions about whether something wrong was done.

Opposition Members claim there was some massive conspiracy to favour News Corporation, but they have absolutely no evidence of that. It is a bit like someone complaining that an assailant has picked their pocket even though they remain in possession of the wallet they claim has been stolen. The Secretary of State did not abuse his power. He was not open to influence and external lobbying from News Corporation that in any way could have affected his judgment, because there is no evidence of any such action by him.

[Angie Bray]

Is that not the disgraceful thing about today’s debate? We have had no new evidence, but just a lot of smears and highly partisan accusations. Such behaviour is what demeans the reputation of the House of Commons.

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I believe there are no grounds for further inquiries; we have covered all these points. This is still an important issue, however, and it is perfectly valid for the House to debate it. The Secretary of State has now had a chance to come to the House and set the record straight on many of the important outstanding questions, but some Opposition Members will never be satisfied. The genesis of this debate came a few weeks ago when the shadow Secretary of State called for the resignation of the Secretary of State without having read the evidence submitted to the Leveson inquiry. The call came only 23 minutes after a great volume of paper had been produced. I cannot presume that the shadow Secretary of State read all of that in the 23 minutes it took to make the decision. She has dug a hole and kept on digging, and not been able to produce any new evidence—nothing of significance at all.

Why are we even in this position, why are we even having this debate and why do we know so much about what the Secretary of State said? At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said the only reason why the News Corporation bid could have come in was that the last Government changed the rules on allowing foreign companies to own UK broadcasters. We would all be fascinated to see the chain of e-mails, text messages and correspondence between Ministers in the last Government on that matter, but we will never do so. We only know about this issue because the Prime Minister decided there should be a full public inquiry and all the information has been made public. Ministers have been questioned on the record about it.

We also know from the Leveson inquiry the reasons why Tony Blair did not feel the last Government should have had an inquiry in 2006-07, after the Information Commissioner’s report looking at illegal use of information in news stories had been published and after concerns had been raised. He did not do it because he did not want the fight with the press. The last Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), ducked that issue as well, despite the revelations in The Guardian about phone hacking and despite the work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the last Parliament producing more concerns and more evidence. He did not dare take on the media and have this row.

This Government have done that. In the handling of the News Corporation-BSkyB merger, there can never have been a more transparent process in respect of understanding the thinking and working of a Secretary of State in making his decision. It is clear that the Secretary of State always followed independent advice, and no Member today has advanced any argument that questions that in any way.

Privilege

Damian Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and I join him and other Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) for the great care and skill with which he chaired what was a lengthy and challenging inquiry.

I want to address the key point that the hon. Member for Rhondda brought to our attention: there must not be no sanction for lying to a parliamentary Committee. However, although we may like reassuring ourselves about the traditions of this House and its rights, it is not clear what the sanctions should be. It is unclear whether someone giving evidence not under oath to a Select Committee has the same obligations as if they were under oath. The Committee obviously considered that before the Murdochs gave evidence to us last July. I believe it is very important that there are consistent procedures. There should not be some witnesses who are made to swear on the Bible and some witnesses who are not.

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

Are we not in danger of getting into a situation where all witnesses before Committees have to appear under oath? The vast majority of witnesses who appear before Select Committees do so willingly in order to give of their information and expertise, and these issues therefore do not arise.

[Damian Collins]

I agree, but it should be implicit that someone giving evidence to a parliamentary Committee is telling the truth. I therefore do not think there should be a separate group of people who are made to take an oath. It should be implicit in the act of their giving evidence that they are telling the truth and openly answering the questions asked by Members of Parliament. It must be built into the processes of our methods of inquiry, particularly in Select Committees, that witnesses will tell the truth and there is some form of sanction against them if it can be demonstrated that they have not done so.

At present, however, that is not clear. It is not clear what powers the Standards and Privileges Committee has to punish or recommend punishment. There may even be a question as to whether the recommendation of a penal sentence, as the hon. Member for Rhondda suggested, would itself be open to some form of legal challenge in the courts, including the European Court, which may seek to overrule the House on any such decision. We therefore need much clearer guidance about the available punishments and the processes for summoning witnesses to appear before a Committee.

The Select Committee is posing an interesting challenge to the Standards and Privileges Committee, because in our conclusions in chapter 8 of the report we make recommendations about three named individuals—Colin Myler, Tom Crone and Les Hinton—in respect of instances where we believe they gave misleading evidence to the Committee. Members can read the report, the evidence given in previous sessions and the written evidence presented to the Committee, and thereby see that there are discrepancies in testimony and, I feel, clear evidence that we were given misleading testimony by those witnesses.

There is a second issue that the Standards and Privileges Committee must consider: the corporate guilt of News Corporation, as also expressed in the conclusions of the report, and what sanctions there should be against a company and its directors and representatives, as opposed to a named individual who has given misleading testimony to Parliament. This is an important issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon touched on it in his speech.

We must consider what in the evidence that was given has undone the News Corporation executives. They were not undone by a witness changing their story or a new witness giving evidence that was different from evidence given to our predecessor Committee in the last Parliament. They have largely been undone by documents that have always existed and were in the possession of the company, and which subsequently came to light as a result of the inquiry—by information that was always there and was always accessible to those executives, and that we believe they could, and should, have had access to. Indeed, we know that some of them—including Tom Crone and Colin Myler, who played a pivotal role in these investigations—did have access. We know that they had access to the Queen’s Counsel opinion suggesting that phone hacking and the use of illegal methods to obtain information was widespread. We know that information was received by the legal department of the company. We know that Clive Goodman suggested in his letter to Les Hinton that phone hacking was widely discussed within the company, and that that was rejected. We know that that information was known, and these executives have been undone by information that was neither presented to Parliament nor freely given but released as a result of cross-examination of witnesses by the Committee or released by lawyers or other people who chose to make it available to us. It would have been much better if the company, when it gave evidence last July, had provided that information. If the Murdochs had sought it themselves, they might have given us clearer and better evidence last July and we would have been able to conclude our inquiry somewhat sooner.

We were consistently given false reassurances about the rigour of internal investigation, the work that was done to uncover phone hacking and those who had knowledge of it. Indeed, we have received information from Surrey police that states categorically that the police discussed the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone with executives at News of the World in 2002. That was not a minor discrepancy or new information that had recently come to light; the information was known by people within that company for a very long time. Parliament was misled over a long time by some of those people and I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda that we will probably not get the full picture until the conclusion of the police investigation and any subsequent trials. I am sure that the Committee, next year or in future years, will wish to return to the matter and give the House a fuller picture of exactly what happened based on all the evidence that has come to light.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

We have decided to pass the initial report generated by the DCMS Committee back to it for further consideration and ask for its recommendations. I would not want to give the hon. Gentleman a firm commitment before I have seen the Committee’s recommendations, but I am absolutely determined to ensure that supporters are better represented and have a more central role in the running of their clubs.

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

Does the Minister agree that the proposed FA regulatory authority needs to have real teeth and that there should not just be a rebadging of rules that have failed, in some cases, to identify the ultimate owners of clubs or to protect communities from the impact of a club’s insolvency?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Kevin Brennan. He is not here.

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

9. What plans his Department has to increase participation in sport.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Sport England is investing £480 million in 46 national governing bodies between 2009 and 2013 to grow and sustain participation. In addition, we have introduced the new Places People Play lottery-funded legacy programme and will be launching a new sports participation strategy aimed at 16 to 25-year-olds in the new year, to ensure we create a real lasting sports legacy after London’s games.

[Damian Collins]

Sportsmen and women need to have confidence in the governing bodies of the competitions they play in. Will the Minister send a message to FIFA that following the resignation of Mr Havelange from the International Olympic Committee, Sepp Blatter can and must allow the publication of the Zug court report into the $100 million bribery case involving FIFA officials and International Sport and Leisure—that is, ISL?

[Hugh Robertson]

I shall certainly do that, but I should warn my hon. Friend that I am not sure that FIFA pays a great deal of attention to what we say any more.

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Damian Collins Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I absolutely agree, and I shall come to those issues in a moment. First, I want to say that the introduction of new regulation of the media should not be feared by journalism. Indeed, it could raise the status of journalism and restore confidence in the profession. If clear boundaries are enforced, that will strengthen the position of journalists if they are told to do a hatchet job on some story by their newspaper’s proprietor or editor, perhaps because they are angry that a story was given to a rival paper. In such a situation, a journalist will be in a stronger position to resist and say, “No, that would be in breach of the code and would put us in a difficult position.” At present the boundaries are not clear enough. That undermines journalism and makes it harder for journalists to face down demands from proprietors and editors alike.

It is also wrong for people to be concerned that a code would muzzle free speech. We have a tough broadcasting code to which all our broadcasters are subject, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) mentioned. Sky News is a very good news organisation. It does a good job. There is nothing in that broadcasting code that hinders free debate. We have robust debates in a range of formats, but papers are culturally different so it would be wrong to apply the entire broadcasting code to the print media. In particular, it would be wrong to expect impartiality of the print press.

I shall touch on some of the aspects where we could improve the PCC or its replacement. There is not much wrong with the PCC code. The problem is that it has not been enforced with the rigour that we should require. In particular, the public interest defence, which is a kind of get out of jail card in so many areas, has been used and abused over the years, and used in all sorts of cases where there was no such public interest to justify the pursuit of certain means.

Another problem is a lack of sanctions. As the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) said, broadcasters who breach their code face serious and heavy fines of £250,000 and sometimes more. The press does not have such a culture. If there is no real consequence for newspapers that breach the code, they will not be too bothered about abiding by it. Finally, I wish to pick up on something that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) said, and which I have been pushing for some time. If a newspaper wilfully prints a story that it knows to be untrue, it is right and proportionate that it should give the same space to its correction as it gave to the original story. Sensible changes like that could help a great deal.

We all accept that the relationship between politicians and the media has got far too cosy over the years.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the role of the regulators on ownership is important? Although we in the House are right to express our views and anger about BSkyB and other issues, it should not be for politicians to make arbitrary decisions about who owns what, or that may be seen as too much political interference in a free press.

[George Eustice]

I entirely agree. We need to keep the issues separate, but as I said earlier, given all that is going on, it is right—

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Far from our plans being in disarray, we have published plans for about 10 local television stations, and we hope to have double or triple that number by the time the process has been completed. ITV is quite capable of looking after itself.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little bit consistent. When his party was in government, it planned to take £40 million from the licence fee to support two regional television channels, and to top-slice the fee. We are taking much less money, and we will create far more local television stations. I urge all Labour Back Benchers to encourage Front Benchers to back this initiative, because their constituents will support it wholeheartedly.

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

13. What his policy is on support for a future bid for England to host the FIFA World cup.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Any future bid for a FIFA World cup is some time away, which is probably not a bad thing. Such a bid is unlikely to be submitted until 2030. Any decision would be considered on its merits, but I would expect a far greater degree of transparency and accountability in FIFA before we could consider any future bid.

[Damian Collins]

Does the Minister agree that without reform of FIFA to give it greater transparency and accountability, any England bid is likely to fail in the world of double-dealing and self-interest that FIFA has become under Sepp Blatter—unless, of course, he wants to get Del boy to front the next England bid?

[Hugh Robertson]

It is clear, both from our experience of the last bid and from what has happened subsequently at FIFA, that the organisation is in need of radical structural reform, and the principles of transparency and accountability must govern that. The newly re-elected president has set a process in train, and we will watch it carefully, but I doubt that we will consider a future bid until that process has been completed.

Business of the House

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the article written by the Deputy Prime Minister rather than the interpretation of it in The Times? I have looked at it, and what he said about welfare being an engine for mobility seemed to me to be eminently sensible.

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

Documents placed in the House of Commons Library by the Foreign Office this week give us a fuller picture of the Government’s role in the lead-up to the release of the Libyan Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi and also confirm that the Libyan Government threatened British commercial contracts in Libya if al-Megrahi were excluded from the prisoner transfer agreement. Given that members of the US Senate are seeking to investigate these matters, will the Leader of the House consider having a debate in this House so that we can discuss them more fully?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend’s plea for a debate will have been heard by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the release of Megrahi was a mistake and he has asked the Cabinet Secretary to review papers held by the Government to see whether more could be published about the background to the decision. The Cabinet Secretary aims to conclude that work as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

As the hon. Lady may know, I am a passionate supporter of both music and cultural education in the round. We could do more to make such programmes more coherent, so that they work in a more joined-up fashion, but as I said, the future of Creative Partnerships and how it works is very much a matter between it and Arts Council England.

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

Does the Minister agree that because Arts Council England set up a separate body to deliver that programme—Creative Partnerships—and even if much of the work on the ground and delivery is excellent, we need to be careful how many tiers of management are involved? Creative partnerships are possible through local authorities and some excellent private sector organisations that do a lot of work with the community, such as the Creative Foundation in my constituency.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his well-made point. As I said, I feel very strongly that we need to bring some coherence to the sector. Many very good initiatives are happening on the ground, and it is important that we join them up as much as possible to make them as effective as possible.