Privileges
Debate between George Eustice and Damian Collins(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Collins
Indeed. The questions that we wished to put to Mr Cummings were highly relevant to our inquiry. They were also highly relevant to evidence presented by other people, including representatives of organisations that had worked with him in his capacity as director of Vote Leave. I think that we should have had an opportunity to put those questions, as a relevant part of our inquiry and the work of the Committee. As the Committee of Privileges says in its report, it cannot be for individuals to seek to interfere with the work of a parliamentary Committee. We should regard that as a very serious matter.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but is there not also an issue of consistency? I am told that Mark Zuckerberg also declined to give evidence to the Committee during the same inquiry. Moreover, it is quite common for Ministers to decline to give evidence to inquiries, including Ministers in some of the devolved Administrations and Assemblies. I think that the point my hon. Friend is making should be applied consistently and across the board to all potential witnesses, and that we should not fall into the trap of singling out one individual.
Damian Collins
I do not believe that we are singling out one individual in this case. It is highly unusual for anyone to behave in the way in which Dominic Cummings behaved towards the Committee. My right hon. Friend is right in saying that we issued an invitation to Mark Zuckerberg, but that is all that we could do. We did not issue a summons or an order for him to appear, because we do not have the jurisdictional powers to do so. He is not a UK national, and is not resident in the UK. We can only issue summonses of that sort to foreign nationals if they happen to be in this country. We said that we would do that, but obviously we do not have an opportunity to do it. So the circumstances in that case are very different.
On the day that we issued the order for Dominic Cummings to appear before the Committee, we also issued an order to Alexander Nix, the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, and he chose to accept. The personal circumstances of Mr Nix at the time, in terms of the investigations of him and his former company, gave far greater reason for him not to attend than Dominic Cummings, who was not under personal investigation at all at that stage. There were no reasons in law why he should not appear. The normal sub judice rules that protect witnesses from incriminating themselves did not apply in his case. The Committee sought legal advice in that regard. I think that, when we have gone through a thorough process and there are no particular grounds for a witness not to appear, if the Committee and the House believe that it is important for that witness to appear, he should do so.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the privileges of Ministers, but the rules of the House in that regard are very different from those applying to private citizens.
George Eustice
Will my hon. Friend confirm, then, that it is his view that it is illegitimate for Ministers ever to claim that they cannot give evidence to a Committee because legal proceedings on a particular issue are under way?
Damian Collins
The House does have rules relating to matters that are before UK courts and may prevent witnesses from giving evidence, but I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend has cited. I do not believe that Ministers should claim special privileges in order not to give evidence to a Committee, but they do have a different status. I do not think that that different status should give any individual in the country an opportunity to ignore an order from a Committee or a summons to appear before Parliament simply because they happen to take exception to the idea that Ministers have special privileges that they do not have—as, indeed, do Members of the House of Lords.
Damian Collins
As I said to other hon. Members, I am sympathetic to any Select Committee that seeks to interview a public official or Minister as part of their inquiry. In my three years’ experience as Chair of a Select Committee I have never had that problem, but others have. There is a big difference between a Minister of the Crown and a private citizen, in that a Minister is a Member of Parliament and can be questioned, in this House or in the House of Lords, as part of their ministerial duties. The only opportunity we have to question people outside Parliament, as part of an inquiry, is to invite them to appear before the Committee. There is no other avenue, be it a ministerial question time or debate, where we can pursue that person. That is why the rules concerning private citizens are particularly important. I would be very sympathetic to the idea of looking at the rules for Ministers, but at least other avenues are open for challenging a Minister as part of parliamentary process.
George Eustice
I recall, as a Minister, having agreed to give evidence to a Committee of the Welsh Assembly and being told that it was not Government policy for Ministers in Westminster to attend such Committees, since they had no rights to hold us to account. Does my hon. Friend think that, bearing in mind what he has just said, perhaps a different set of rules should apply to the devolved Administrations, and that Westminster Ministers should be required to attend such hearings in devolved assemblies?
Damian Collins
As I said to my hon. Friend earlier, I think there is a basic principle and a presumption that witnesses, be they a Minister or not, should attend Committees conducting inquiries. Select Committees conduct such inquiries on behalf of the House, with powers delegated to them by the House. I also believe that if a Member of the House of Lords chose to use their special privileges as a parliamentarian not to be summoned in front of a Committee, that would not be appropriate if that Member of the House of Lords held an important public position, as many Members of the House of Lords do.
Other options are available to question Members of Parliament and Ministers that are not available to question a private citizen. The only forum we have to question a private citizen as part of a parliamentary inquiry is to invite them to appear before a Select Committee. That power is incredibly important, because the role of a Select Committee is not just to scrutinise the work of a Government Department or a public body, but to scrutinise other matters of public interest, where a Committee believes there is a case for Government intervention, new rules or new laws on something important. It is for the Committees to determine the scope of their inquiries, and witnesses should attend when required. It is very rare that witnesses choose not to attend.
Damian Collins
The correspondence between me as Chair of the Committee and Mr Cummings is published in full in the Committee’s report, so any Member can read that and make their own judgment as to the case that Mr Cummings made. Obviously, the matter was also reviewed by the Privileges Committee, which also invited Mr Cummings to speak to it as part of its inquiry, which he declined. Mr Cummings stated that other cases were involved, and that he had been guided by the people he had spoken to not to appear, but there was no reason in law for that. He was not under personal investigation; he was not likely to be charged with an offence. He may have all sorts of private grounds for not wanting to do it, but unless there is a particular legal reason why witnesses should not appear, I do not believe it is good enough for them to create reasons why they would rather not give evidence; that would undermine the whole process. If a witness declines to give evidence simply because it is unsatisfactory to him to do so, I do not think we should accept it.
George Eustice
Does my hon. Friend not have at least some sympathy for the argument that Vote Leave was under investigation by the Electoral Commission—a full-scale legal investigation? Given that that was an ongoing investigation, a request to give evidence after that had concluded was not at all unreasonable.
Damian Collins
We had a similar issue with other witnesses during the inquiry. When Arron Banks gave evidence to the Committee, some aspects of Leave.EU’s work that were relevant to the Committee investigation were under investigation by the Electoral Commission at that time. My hon. Friend may check the official record of the evidence session. We told Mr Banks at that session that we would not question him about matters that were under investigation by the Electoral Commission, as it would not be proper to do so, but there were a large number of other topics on which we wanted to pursue relevant lines of inquiry.
It was exactly the same with Dominic Cummings. We could have reached an accommodation, but he was not prepared, in principle, to attend. During the course of our correspondence we set out why we thought he should attend, and it became quite clear that once he was aware that we were determined to issue an order requesting that he appear on a certain day, he would refuse point-blank to appear at all. He then requested all sorts of other conditions—that he would not appear before the DCMS Committee but he might appear before a specially constructed ad hoc Committee of the House, and that members of the Committee should swear an oath before questioning him, in addition to his swearing an oath. This is nonsense. We either respect our rules and the powers that we have, or we do not.
Not just my Committee found this. I am sure that the Chair of the Privileges Committee will speak for herself about her inquiry. During the Treasury Committee’s inquiry before the referendum, different parties were invited to give evidence, and it too is scathing about the experience of dealing with Mr Cummings and the general contempt that he showed. We have to accept that if we do not really take our own powers seriously, other people will behave in a similar way. Other people will look at this case and say, “Actually, you can just ignore the Committees’ requests. There is nothing they can do.”
There are often important reasons why Committees wish to call in private citizens to account for their work. Mr Cummings is not just a private citizen going about his business in a quiet part of the country. He has held a series of important offices, he is a former Government special adviser and he was director of an incredibly important national political campaign. The work of that campaign had been referenced already in a parliamentary inquiry, and we wished to ask him about the evidence that had been given, of which he himself was critical and to which he felt there should have been some right to reply.
Damian Collins
Those conditions certainly applied in the case of Rupert Murdoch, because he was asked expressly what he knew about the practice of phone hacking at his newspapers, as was Rebekah Brooks, who gave evidence on the same day. That was a major part of the hearing. Those people could have used that excuse. There are different questions involved here. The right to non-incrimination for someone who is likely to face court proceedings and be charged with a particular offence, or who has already been charged, is already covered by the House’s sub judice rules. There are already clear rules in place for that. In this case, however, Mr Cummings had not been directly charged with an offence, although there were other ongoing investigations. As I have said, we agreed with other witnesses that there were certain things that we would not discuss as being on topic, so as not to interfere with other ongoing inquiries. Nevertheless, we managed to conduct a proper hearing with those witnesses and gain valuable evidence from them. There is no reason why that could not have been done in Mr Cummings’s case.
George Eustice
The argument that my hon. Friend is making is a curious one, because Dominic Cummings was the director of Vote Leave, and the investigation into Vote Leave was ongoing. As the former director of that organisation, it was obviously legitimate for him to be concerned that the investigation might be prejudiced, in much the same way as a Minister, while not being directly charged with anything, might nevertheless have concern for proceedings being made against the Government.
Damian Collins
Well, it sort of depends on what Mr Cummings thought he was going to say and whether he thought he was likely to be in that position. As I have said, the Committee wished to discuss a range of issues and topics with him that were not at the time being expressly investigated by the Electoral Commission. Its investigation was largely to do with funding issues and the co-ordination between Vote Leave and other campaigns involved in the referendum. We had lots of questions about Vote Leave’s work with AggregateIQ and about its involvement in data analytics and the way data was being gathered, stored and used during the campaign that were highly relevant to our inquiry. He could have come in to discuss those issues. If there were no grounds for him not to appear, and he just did not want to appear, I do not believe that the House should accept that as an excuse.
Fishing Discards and Quotas
Debate between George Eustice and Damian Collins(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this timely debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss some of these issues because DEFRA has a number of consultations out at the moment, looking at the discard ban and how we implement it for the demersal fleet, as well as at some of the issues that are of direct relevance to the under-10 metre fleet.
Let me begin by saying a little about the common fisheries reform that was agreed at the end of 2013. The UK worked hard to ensure that the reforms were a success. A great deal of credit is due to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), for doing so much to get what is quite a radical reform. It was said earlier that the European Union was a big problem in this regard. When it comes to the common fisheries policy, I think we have some potentially quite radical reforms, which I shall describe in a minute. I believe that those reforms can help to safeguard the marine environment while giving new flexibilities to our fishermen.
There are three key aspects to the reforms. First, there is a ban on the wasteful practice of discarding fish, or the so-called landing obligation. Secondly, there will be more regional fisheries management, with more power given back to the nation states that actually have an interest in those waters. In future, much more of the plans we have for individual waters will be agreed multilaterally by member states before being put to the European Union for final agreement. The third and final key component is a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably—that is, at maximum sustainable yield. Together, those three components make up a radical reform, but I am under no illusion that there will be challenges along the way. As always, the marine environment is very complex. It will not be easy to do some of those things, but by working together with industry, NGOs, scientists and other European member states, we can ensure that the reforms are a success.
Let me turn to the discard ban. It is important to note that we have been trialling an early forerunner of the discard ban for some time. I am proud to say that the UK has been leading the way in Europe in tackling the problem of discarding. For several years now we have trialled so-called catch quota schemes, which manage fisheries in line with what is caught rather than what is landed. Those schemes have shown that we can significantly reduce discards. In the North sea, vessels on our catch quota schemes reduced discards of cod, for instance, to just 0.1%, compared with 41% for vessels that were not part of the scheme. That shows just what we can do by working with industry.
The first stage of the discard ban, covering the pelagic fisheries—predominantly mackerel and herring—entered into force in January this year and has been working well. As with any radical change in policy, we have encountered some issues along the way, but I am pleased to say that we have successfully overcome each of these. The discard ban will progressively cover all remaining fisheries—the so-called demersal fleet—between 2016 and 2019. I am under no illusion that the next stage will be more complex, but that is a reason to get going and develop those plans now, and why on 23 January we launched a public consultation seeking views on various implementation issues. The consultation closes at the end of March.
My officials are currently travelling the length and breadth of the English coast from Newlyn to Whitehaven visiting fishing ports. They are answering any questions or concerns the industry has, but they are also tapping into the detailed local knowledge of our fishermen. It is essential that we do that. Fishermen often complain to me that they are not listened to. They sometimes feel that science is done to them rather than with them, but we know from experience that policy works well when scientists and fishermen work together to identify solutions.
My officials have not yet visited Folkestone and Hythe, but I have said to them that we should visit the area as part of the roadshow. If my hon. Friend thinks that will be useful for his fishermen, I am happy for my officials to go down there.
Damian Collins
If I were to write to the Minister tomorrow, would he give a date before Parliament is dissolved on 30 March when his officials can come down that we can offer to the fishermen?
George Eustice
I am more than happy to do that. My officials are in the officials’ box listening. I can assure my hon. Friend of that offer. They wanted to hold one of those meetings in Kent; Folkestone and Hythe would be a perfect place for it.
Exemptions and flexibilities will help to make the discard ban work. To ensure that it works in practice as well as in theory, during the deal we negotiated increased flexibility in how we manage quota. Those problems were considered during the reform. There are a number of key flexibilities. First and perhaps most importantly, there is inter-species flexibility. If fishermen put their nets out in a mixed fishery and catch more haddock than they expected but do not have the quota for it, they might be able to count that haddock against whiting or cod. That inter-species flexibility is essential to making sense of a quota regime.
Secondly, fishermen will be able to bank or borrow up to 10% of their quota from one year to the next, which gives them more flexibility in matching catches to quota. Thirdly, to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend, there is a survivability exemption. Fishermen will be able to return some catches to the sea if they have been scientifically proven to have a high rate of survival. Returning those fish to the sea allows them to grow and spawn, fortifying the stock for the future. As he pointed out, landing under-sized, juvenile plaice for which there is little market makes no sense if, by returning them and they survive, they can continue to grow.
Last year, we commissioned a large-scale research project to assess the survivability of plaice in different fisheries around the coast. The industry has identified plaice as a key species that has a high rate of survival. Once we have marshalled and considered that evidence, we will argue for exemptions on the basis of survivability for plaice and probably for a number of flat-fish species. It is important to recognise that we have access to other exemptions. That can include reasons such as disproportionate cost, or that it is not possible to further increase selectivity and reduce unwanted catches—that is the so-called de minimis exemption.
Finally, another point to bear in mind is that when implementing the discard ban, we will start with the species that define the fishery. It will not be a discard ban on every quota species from the beginning. We will start with those that define the fishery in 2016 and aim for it to cover all quota species by 2019. For instance, in the North sea, hake is sometimes referred to as a choke species. Fishermen find it difficult to avoid as a by-catch, but it would be possible to get to a discard ban on hake in later years, closer to 2019.
There are specific issues for the inshore fleet. I greatly value our inshore fishing communities and understand the specific problems they face. My hon. Friend used a figure that is often quoted to me—he said that they have access to only around 4% of quota. It is not quite as simple as that: the less mobile nature of the inshore fleet means that it is unable to access about 60% of the UK quota because it is in offshore waters—for instance, some of the mackerel fisheries well offshore are outside the range of the inshore under-10 metre fleet.
Within their inshore area of operation, however, by value the under-10 metre fleet land about a third of all quota stocks. At December Council I fought hard to secure roll-overs and quota increases for stocks around the UK, including some of those stocks that are important for the inshore fleet. Where there were cuts, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, we made an argument and brought fresh science to the table in order to reduce them. For instance, we managed to get a 10% increase in North sea skates and rays for Folkestone and Hythe and a roll-over for other areas in the UK, as opposed to a proposed 20% cut. I also agreed an extra 300 tonnes of whiting for the under-10 metre fleet in the north-east of England to allow it to land and sell its by-catch.
I recognise that many under-10 metre fleet fishermen will still feel that the current allocation means that they do not get a fair share, and they have a fair point. The reference period for when current allocations were decided was around the mid-’90s. By all accounts, some of the data for the under-10 metre fleet at that time were quite patchy and one result of that may be unfair allocation. That is why, since 2012, we have given the under-10 metre fleet access to additional quota to try to support it, and we continue to work with the industry on the quota realignment from unused quota on the larger vessels and producer organisations to the under-10 metre fleet. We are currently working to make that permanent and we are working through a number of appeals that some producer organisations have made to our approach. It is our intention to put that on a permanent footing.
The total increase in quota will vary from species to species, because it often depends on what is unutilised by the under 10-metre fleet. For instance, there could be significant increases in flatfish species that are particularly important to the under 10-metre fleet. Across the board, we estimate that the increase in quota could be about 12% for the under-10 metre fleet.
I also recognise that the under-10 metre fleet faces particular issues when implementing the discard ban, and we are looking at options to try to address them. As part of our consultation, we are seeking views on possible exemptions and changes to quota management for that part of the fleet, including options to make best use of any quota uplift. One option we have suggested in the consultation is to ring-fence 25% of the total national uplift in quota for the inshore fleet. That could give a significant increase in quota for the under-10 metre fleet.
I am also aware that the issue of latent capacity in the inshore fleet causes concern. We are currently consulting on options to make sure that inactive vessels are not able to re-enter the fisheries. That would provide certainty and security for those vessels operating in the under-10 meter pool. However, having discussed the issue at a number of fishing ports, I am aware that there are mixed feelings about that in the fishing industry. Obviously, I shall wait to see the full responses to the consultation.
I want to say a little about the new European maritime and fisheries fund, which will open shortly. The UK will receive some £200 million from the fund, which will help us to meet the challenges of implementing CFP reform. For instance, the lion’s share will go on selective net gear, helping fishermen to get the equipment they need to fish more selectively. It will also be used to help foster growth in the sector. Fishermen will be able to use the funding to help them adapt to the discard ban by purchasing more selective gear.
Across Europe, we have made real progress towards more sustainable fishing and stock recovery. In 2014, 27 stocks in the north-east Atlantic, North sea and Baltic were managed at maximum sustainable yield, up from just five species in 2009. At December Fisheries Council, I was pleased to secure a continued increase in the number of sustainable stocks this year and we expect to have 30 or more species that are fished sustainably. We are moving in the right direction with sustainable fisheries.
In my time as Fisheries Minister, I have visited many different ports across the UK and have always been impressed by the enthusiasm, determination and resourcefulness of the fishing industry. The marine environment, as I said at the beginning, is very complex.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between George Eustice and Damian Collins(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
2. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of a discard ban on the inshore fishing fleet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We recently launched a consultation on the implementation of the discard ban, which will help us to make that assessment. The consultation is being used to identify how to phase in the ban, how to allocate increases in quotas, where to introduce exemptions and how to manage the under-10 metre quota pool. The discard ban can provide significant benefits for all sectors of the fleet.
Damian Collins
Trawlermen in Folkestone, Hythe and Dungeness have raised with me their concerns about the lack of quota for the inshore fishing fleet and the potentially devastating impact of the discard ban. Will the Minister urgently consider making more quota available for the inshore fishing fleet and granting an exemption from the discard ban?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between George Eustice and Damian Collins(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
My hon. Friend is right and I am delighted to continue the good work that he started in those areas. That shows the commitment of this Government to protecting and enhancing our marine environment.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
15. Instead of establishing a marine conservation zone across Hythe bay, will the Minister consider other conservation measures that could be carried out in harmony with the work of the inshore fishing fleet in the bay?
George Eustice
We have today made clear our intention to designate 27 sites as marine conservation zones. I confirm that Hythe bay is not currently one of those, although we are doing further work on that and holding further discussions with stakeholders. We hope to make a decision on Hythe bay in the new year. One interesting area we are considering is whether we might reach an agreement with stakeholders by looking at zoning that site, rather than having it as an entire block.
Royal Charter on Press Conduct
Debate between George Eustice and Damian Collins(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for doing that damage. Before I move on, it is important to note that all party leaders have behaved very responsibly in this matter and I would like to give credit to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for the way in which she has approached it; she genuinely tried to seek agreement in a very difficult situation. I find myself in the unusual, almost unique, position of agreeing even with the Liberal Democrats. I speak as someone who campaigned against the euro and dislodged a Lib Dem MP to get elected here. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I campaigned against the alternative vote and then voted against Lords reform to boot. On this issue, however, I have been able to work with the Liberal Democrats.
Most of all, I want to thank and congratulate the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Minister for Government Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), because it is good to be re-united with my own party on this issue. The Prime Minister told me back in November not to worry, as he had a plan to deliver Leveson, and I think that what is before the House today does deliver the Leveson proposals—perhaps even in a slightly better way than in Leveson’s own plan, as I shall explain in a few moments.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) pointed out, the important thing to understand about the Leveson report is that it explicitly said that statutory regulation of the press was not being recommended. Rather, Leveson was recommending a system that was about self-organised, voluntary regulation, to which news publications would be encouraged to subscribe voluntarily. He recommended statute to do two quite simple things. One was to establish the right incentives to join such a body, and that is the protection afforded through exemplary fines and costs; I am delighted that those will be debated later today. The second was simply to establish an independent public body that would judge a regulator—not every week, every month or every year, but every two to three years—on whether it was working effectively and meeting a certain set of criteria.
This may appear a rather ancient device to achieve what we want, but it is undoubtedly the case that a body established by royal charter is an independent public body that can perform the task equally well. There is one important advantage of establishing the body in this way, and that is that the press are more comfortable with it. Before people say, “Well, we should not be doing what the press want,” it is important to realise that in Lord Justice Leveson’s own plan he said that this would be a voluntary system. If we want publications to join something voluntarily and to seek recognition under a system, there will be a benefit in their being comfortable with it—provided, of course, that we get the detail right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) picked up on some detailed points that I would like to touch on. He said that all the crimes committed related to defamation and breaches of privacy, so that the measures before us will do nothing to address those problems. That is not right, because what we have before us establishes an arbitral arm, which is a new thing, and it will provide affordable or even free adjudication on issues where there is a cause of action that previously only millionaires or celebrities could afford to take up through the courts.
My right hon. Friend also seemed to suggest that it was a bad thing for newspapers to make corrections and put right errors, but in all the difficult negotiations we have had the press did not raise this as a problem; indeed, it is what the PCC already does. There is nothing new about this. The criteria in the charter explicitly say that pre-publication advice is simply that—just advice, with no obligation on anyone to take it. A regulator will not have the explicit power to prevent anyone from publishing anything.
The £1 million fines are reserved for very serious and systematic breaches of the code, after prolonged investigations have taken place. I personally believe that we will not see many people being fined £1 million. Whenever I hear people mention them, I am reminded of the Austin Powers film in which Dr Evil says that he is going to hold the world to ransom for $1 million. What we have is a backstop power if there are really serious breaches, but what we are likely to see—this is a good thing—are more prominent apologies, corrections or perhaps lead page corrections for serious breaches.
Damian Collins
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that there is genuine concern in the advertising industry about the commercial and reputational risks of being found to be non-compliant with the code? Has not one of the problems with the press been that legal managers and news managers have not shared the same respect for the code and have been more than happy to fly in the face of it?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The serious problem has not been the code itself, but the fact that it has not been enforced rigorously enough.
Although it has caused us several days of anxious scurrying around to get an agreement, the Prime Minister was right, in my view, to bring the matter to a head, so in some ways that was a relief to us. A number of us have spent week after week in very difficult negotiations trying to reach a conclusion. I remember one particularly dispiriting moment at the end of a meeting with some of the campaign group Hacked Off when we thought that after three and a half hours we had identified the six key things we needed to put right and one of the campaign directors said, “Shall we now move on to the next set of 20 problems that I have?” I am therefore very pleased that we have all been put out of our misery by the Prime Minister’s taking us over the brink and focusing minds in the final few days.
It is important to note, too, that the last few days have not been in vain, as some important changes have been made to the charter. The first change is that it is now clear that the board of the regulator will be independent and that there will be no press veto. That is an important step forward. Secondly, it is clear that where the investigations take place, there must be a simple and clear process so that there is no chance of a regulator putting up all sorts of barriers to make sure that it does not happen. The third point is that when the press code is written, there will be a role for working journalists for the first time. It will no longer be just an editor’s code. That is important because we need younger journalists with a stake in the future of their trade or profession—however they choose call it—to have a role in writing the code. It will be an important step forward and breath of fresh air to get working journalists, not just editors, involved in the code.
We should all get behind this compromise solution. I hope the press can overcome the apprehension it has about such a body. I do not think that there is anything for them to fear. I hope, too, that groups such as Hacked Off will be a little less hacked off and feel a little cheered up by today’s agreement.
Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB
Debate between George Eustice and Damian Collins(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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—