Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

In this country, the compensation system works through the courts. There are times when the NHS is liable and there are times when the drugs companies are liable. I hope that Baroness Cumberlege’s work will take us closer to understanding where the liability actually lies, so that we can give relief to the families who have suffered for too long.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to my constituents, Emma Murphy and her colleague Janet Williams, for their courageous campaigning to highlight the risks presented by sodium valproate? As he and other hon. Members have acknowledged, victims are incredibly suspicious of the health establishment, and for very good reason. I ask him sincerely whether he is concerned by the fact that Baroness Cumberlege is the director of a company that specialises in advising pharmaceutical companies on how they can most effectively lobby Parliament. What will that do for victims who are already incredibly suspicious of us in this House and of the NHS establishment?

[Mr Hunt]

I understand the respectful tone in which the hon. Gentleman has asked this question. I do not think that anyone has a better track record than Baroness Cumberlege on campaigning for women’s health issues. In her career, she has shown an absolute willingness to take on the medical and scientific establishments when she thinks that that is the right thing to do, and she does so with a great deal of knowledge and a huge amount of passion, so I have every confidence that she will do a good job.

Mental Health and NHS Performance

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend has raised an issue of public accountability. These are our national health services, and we need to treat them in a responsible way. It is selfish to behave irresponsibly and impose pressure on an A&E department, because someone else who needs help may not be able to get it.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

First, may I ask whether the Secretary of State is accusing the Red Cross of weaponising the national health service? Secondly, let me point out that when the NHS makes cuts, the services that suffer time and again are the so-called Cinderella services: mental health services. The only way to prevent that is to ring-fence the funds and force local commissioners to demonstrate to local populations that the extra money is genuinely being spent on improving mental health services. Finally, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), when local authority services are cut to the bone, they can only provide statutory services and all the preventive services go—never mind the cuts in social care. What is preventing the Secretary of State from commissioning an all-party group to seek a sustainable, long-term funding model for social care?

[Mr Hunt]

The Prime Minister has said that we need to find a long-term solution to the problem of funding social care, and that work is ongoing. We recognise the urgency of the situation.

As for the evidence of whether mental health services are reaching the frontline, we need to establish whether more money is being spent on mental health provision than in previous years, and, as I said earlier, about £1 billion more is being spent than two years ago.

Mental Health

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

We have close working relations with the Department for Work and Pensions, which I shall come on to explain. I would urge caution, however, on the issue of suicide rates. The BMJ study said that no conclusions could be drawn about cause and effect from it. When it comes to work, we need to remember the many studies that talk about the improved health and wellbeing that comes from being in work, and the tremendous progress made, with 2 million additional jobs created over the last Parliament.

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

I acknowledge the progress made, but let me tell the Secretary of State that what really winds up people outside this place is the rhetoric-reality gap. When they hear politicians on all sides making grand statements about access to treatment, but the reality is different, it damages the integrity of politics. There are two options for the Secretary of State. The first is using political will at a national level to say to local commissioners that they have to prioritise mental health and close the gap in terms of parity of esteem. The second is to address the fact that commissioners on the ground do not have adequate resources; they have to make impossible choices because sufficient resources are not being made available.

[Mr Hunt]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He of course knows about this as a former journalist. Those at universities have been among the most enthusiastic people about local TV, not least at Birmingham City university, which has hosted two events on local TV in the past year. The reason is that they see this as an opportunity to found a new sector in the creative industries, which employ more than 50,000 people in the United States. That makes the opposition of the Labour party all the more extraordinary.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hunt]

But the shadow Secretary of State wrote to me in July saying that this was a waste of ministerial time. I hope that he might review that position, because this is a big opportunity for jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to look carefully at cross-media ownership laws. I agree with him as well that this needs to be done on a cross-media basis; it is not about the dominance of any individual platform any more. We also need to look at whether the merger rules for media takeovers work as effectively as they might. We will listen very carefully to the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson before taking action.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Let me say to the Secretary of State that I may have included the words “Ministers” and “waste of time” in the same sentence, but not in the context of local television. I appeared on Channel M, the example of my local TV station, but the project ended in tears because it was simply not viable.

Throughout the BSkyB process, the Secretary of State maintained that he could consider only plurality and that allegations about phone hacking and other illegal practices were not covered by the relevant legislation. Is he now willing to work with me and the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) to introduce amendments to the current legislation on an all-party basis to include a wider public interest test and to allow regulators to apply a “fit and proper person” test? That would close loopholes in advance of the longer-term reform of media ownership that will come as a result of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. Is the Secretary of State willing to work with me and the right hon. Gentleman on an all-party basis to bring forward those amendments?

[Mr Hunt]

Of course I will listen to all representations made, but I do not think that the shadow Culture Secretary quite understands the way the law works. If the bid were re-presented, under the Enterprise Act 2002 it would count as a new bid and, as Secretary of State, I would have the power to refer it to Ofcom on the basis of broadcasting standards, media plurality or, indeed, national security, so safeguards exist. However, if what the hon. Gentleman is really trying to say is that Rupert Murdoch and his children are evil and must be stopped at all costs, just wait until he sees “The Godfather”.

[Mr Lewis]

I think the Secretary of State should speak for himself on those issues. It is absolutely clear that if there were to be a new bid, the only basis on which he could consider it would be plurality and broadcasting standards. He could not ask regulators to look at the wider public interest, nor could he insist that they apply a “fit and proper person” test. That is why we urgently need action now.

Let me turn quickly to a related issue. Can the Secretary of State clear up once and for all whether he discussed News Corp’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB with the Prime Minister at any stage during the quasi-judicial process? To be clear: I am not asking whether he consulted the Prime Minister on any decision that he had to make, but whether they discussed it during that period.

[Mr Hunt]

As I have told the shadow Culture Secretary, the decision was mine and mine alone, and I did not consult the Prime Minister about that decision. Not only that, but I consulted Ofcom and got independent advice, which I followed. However, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that he still does not appreciate that section 3 of the Communications Act 2003, which was passed by his Government, gives Ofcom the duty to ensure that all holders of broadcast licences are fit and proper at all times and the duty to remove them at any time, so these powers exist. We want to strengthen them in specific areas, and we are working hard to ensure that we make the right changes to avoid what happened before happening again.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I will confirm that the Prime Minister had no inappropriate conversations with Rebekah Brooks at any time.

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

With respect to the Secretary of State, it is never a good idea to contradict the Prime Minister, especially when he is sitting next to you. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Prime Minister publishes all the details of the discussions that took place with regard to BSkyB, so that the House can make a judgment about the transparency and independence of the process?

[Mr Hunt]

Will the shadow Culture Secretary be good enough to publish all his conversations with News International about the BSkyB deal? The Opposition should show some transparency, following the example that the Government have set.

The right hon. Member for Blackburn made an important point, echoed by a number of hon. Members, that it is possible to find a system of regulation that is independent and that has teeth. It is not an either/or choice between statutory regulation and self-regulation. There are many combinations used in other professions that can be looked at as models. The important thing is the independence of the regulation.

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Today the House has come together to speak with one voice, but we must also show some humility. In reality, there were only two or three hon. Members willing to pursue these issues over a long period. My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) deserve our respect for their courage and relentless pursuit of the public interest. That is ultimately why we are elected to this place. We also heard a remarkable speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who not only provided sensational new information, but reminded us that this issue goes to the heart of the character of our country, or the good society, as he would say.

In truth, the public do not ask much of their public institutions or private corporations. They have a right to expect a free and responsible press, clean and competent police, politicians who speak up for the public interest without fear or favour and businesses that obey the law and have decent ethical standards. On all those counts they have reason today to ask, “Who can we trust?” In the aftermath of the global banking crisis and the MPs’ expenses crisis, there is an urgent need to answer that question. Today is our chance to make a start, but it is also a day for Mr Murdoch to reflect on the consequences of his company, which had no limits and a “story at all costs” culture that not only fuelled criminality, but offended every standard of decency. It is also a day for other newspapers to reflect on their level of involvement in illegal activities, because it is wrong that the reputation of the vast majority of journalists and editors is being undermined by the actions of a few. Remaining silent is no longer an option.

Given the outstanding serious allegations of criminality, the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone and of the phones of relatives of 7/7 victims and brave soldiers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, the public would never have understood this deal being allowed to go ahead. From the beginning we have called for it to be referred to the Competition Commission for a full and independent inquiry, but I was told time and again by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport that that was not necessary and, in recent days, not possible.

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

On that basis, does the hon. Gentleman think that I was wrong to follow the procedures laid down in the Enterprise Act 2002 and—the Act does not require this—to ask for and publish independent advice at every stage?

[Mr Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman was wrong not to refer the matter to the Competition Commission and to rely on the good faith of a company that has been involved in this kind of activity.

What lessons have been learnt from this sorry episode? In matters of media ownership and mergers, politicians should never again fulfil a quasi-judicial role. Market share and power, and not simply plurality, must now be at the heart of the debate we are to have on the future. We welcome the fact that this will be part of an independent inquiry. A “fit and proper person” test should be applicable in all cases of serious failure of corporate governance. A new independent press regulatory system must reflect the new digital age and the rights of ordinary citizens more than the politician and the celebrity.

The Secretary of State must reflect on the judgments he has made, and I say to Government Members that the BBC may need reform, but its strength is absolutely central to the vitality of our democracy. We all know that the Conservative party has wanted to undermine the BBC at every opportunity. The Prime Minister described cuts to it as delicious, which demonstrates the kind of broadcasting environment they wanted to see in this country before these revelations changed for ever the course of how we make these decisions. Today is an historic day for this country. This House has asserted the public interest and finally made it clear, according to the values of my party, that no corporate interest can be allowed to write the law or break it.

BSkyB

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I completely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. The regulatory authorities have both confirmed, both on 3 March and today, that they are satisfied that the undertakings I am putting before the House address the concerns that were raised about media plurality. I have taken that advice very seriously indeed.

My hon. Friend’s second point about Sky News is particularly important today because in the revised undertakings that we have published there are two things that particularly strengthen what the public value about Sky News. First, News Corp undertakes that it will not do anything to cause Sky News to contribute less to media plurality in this country if this deal goes through. Secondly, it agrees that it will continue to cross-promote Sky News on the Sky platform at the same level it currently does. In terms both of financial viability and of that all-important contribution to media plurality I am satisfied that if I proceed with the undertakings as published today, we will continue to have a free and plural media.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State could have made different choices. He could have chosen to appear before the House today and make an oral statement rather than be dragged kicking and screaming to the House. He could have chosen to refer this acquisition to the Competition Commission for an independent inquiry to remove any doubts about the objectivity and transparency of the process. Will he answer the following questions? In view of the fact that this process has now taken six months, why did he not follow Ofcom’s original advice and refer this deal to the Competition Commission? How can he say that he has delivered greater independence for Sky News when it will be almost entirely dependent on News Corp for both distribution and funding? Will he publish in full the independent legal advice he has received on all aspects of this acquisition?

In relation to media issues, the Secretary of State has responsibility for media policy in this country, and it is therefore very disappointing to say the least that he has had so little to say about the phone-hacking scandal. The current police investigation must, this time, lead to full disclosure of all evidence, with those responsible brought to justice. Does the Secretary of State agree that once that investigation has been concluded there should be an independent inquiry into the conduct of the British press? The issues go further than one newspaper group. We have made it clear that we support self-regulation, but self-regulation must be accompanied by responsibility and accountability. It is surely time for lessons to be learned and reforms to be put in place so that such unlawful practices can never happen again.

[Mr Lewis]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Does the Secretary of State agree that such an inquiry is now necessary?

[Mr Hunt]

I am quite bemused by what the shadow Culture Secretary is saying. He has said that the phone-hacking issue is not linked to the BSkyB merger. Those were his words. Now he is telling the House that there is a link. He says that I could have chosen to refer this to the Competition Commission but have chosen not to. Would he have chosen to refer it to the Competition Commission, because he has not said so? If he is now saying so, that is a big change in the Labour party’s position. Let me tell him that it is the Enterprise Act 2002, introduced by the last Labour Government, that gives the Secretary of State the right to accept undertakings in lieu instead of a referral to the Competition Commission. I am following precisely the process that was set up in law by his Government. I am doing so after expert, independent advice by regulators who understand the market extremely well—Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading—and I am publishing that advice so that people can see the basis on which I have made the decision.

The hon. Gentleman also raised issues of the dependency of the new company on News Corp for its funding. He is right: the financial resilience of Sky News is central to the sustainability of the deal. That is why, as part of the undertakings, we have reached agreement on a carriage agreement, which will give financial security to the new company for a 10-year period, which addresses those concerns. The company is able to develop its business outside Sky during that period, which will make it less financially dependent on Sky, but even if it does not do that, it has the security of a 10-year funding agreement, which is considerably greater than that of the BBC, for example, in the licence fee settlement.

I am publishing more advice than any Secretary of State has ever published on any comparable deal. We are being completely transparent about the processes because we want to ensure that the public have confidence, and it would be good if the shadow Culture Secretary could at least acknowledge that transparency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

This is an issue about media plurality. I am not legally allowed to consider any other issues, but phone hacking is incredibly serious. The police are following their investigations and they must follow them wherever they lead. If the hon. Gentleman is not convinced by me, he should perhaps be convinced by his own Front-Bench team, as the shadow Culture Secretary has also said that the serious admissions of culpability by News International are not relevant to the News Corp’s BSkyB media plurality issue.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State promised a decision on this matter on 26 April—and we are still waiting. Does he understand why people have no confidence in the integrity of the process or his role in it when, instead of referral to the Competition Commission, he has taken the unprecedented step of personally overseeing negotiations covering the legal, contractual and financial arrangements involved in establishing Sky News as a standalone company? The Secretary of State tells us that he is currently taking lessons in how to be a football referee. I assume he understands that the referee’s job is to be neutral—not to help one of the teams bundle the ball over the line.

[Mr Hunt]

The shadow Culture Secretary cannot have it both ways. I was accused before of rushing the decision, so now I am taking as long as it takes because we want not a rushed decision, but the right decision. I am not personally overseeing the negotiations. It is being done by Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading, and I am receiving independent written advice from them at every stage, which I have either published or will publish. When it comes to the question of dithering, when I made the announcement on 3 March on what I was minded to do, the shadow Culture Secretary said that after talking to relevant parties, he would announce whether he supported my decision or not. We are still waiting to hear whether he does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

This has widespread support among local communities, universities and the internet community. In fact, the only organisation that does not support it is the Labour party.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Now that the Secretary of State has been forced to abandon “Hunt TV”—otherwise known as “a new national TV spine”—his plans for local television are in disarray. Does he agree that, given his ministerial responsibility for ITV and Channel 4, there would be serious ethical concerns if he attempted to solicit funding from them for his personal vanity project? Can he confirm that, in the midst of 16% cuts, the BBC will be required to spend £25 million of licence fee payers’ money on supporting local television only if it can be proved to be viable, sustainable and good value for money?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Thursday 28th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and that is exactly why it is important that the National Audit Office has full, unrestricted access to the BBC’s accounts, including the ability to examine its spending on the BBC World Service. I have a meeting with the incoming chairman of the BBC Trust on 9 May, and I will discuss that very point with him then.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Before the election, the Secretary of State said that it would be perverse for local television to receive public subsidy, yet he is forcing the BBC to provide £25 million of licence fee payers’ money to subsidise local TV. Does he not agree that it is perverse, at a time when he is promoting local TV, that the BBC is considering cutting local radio, which is so vibrant and so central to the heart of many of our communities? Can we try to achieve cross-party consensus and have a dialogue with the BBC about the importance of BBC local radio to many of our communities?

[Mr Hunt]

The question is about value for money and how the BBC spends the licence fee, and I am very confident that the agreement that I secured with the BBC last autumn will lead to efficiency savings and better use of licence fee payers’ money, but should not lead to reductions in core BBC services. I would be very concerned if any plans announced by the BBC were to lead to any such reductions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend not just for his question, but for his sustained interest in the importance of local television, particularly in Wales. I was especially pleased to learn that Tinopolis, a Welsh independent production company, had expressed interest in running a new local television network channel.

The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that we must look at the spectrum that is available, and see whether we can find a way of attracting bids for it from a new generation of local television companies. I believe that the local television industry could become a brand-new successful, profitable, dynamic creative industry, creating thousands of jobs for this country.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I think that the Secretary of State is aware that “The King’s Speech” was funded by the Film Council, which he has just abolished.

As the Secretary of State has said, the creative industries are a great British success story: apart from financial services, they are the biggest driver of United Kingdom jobs and growth. He was bullish in serving up cuts to the Treasury. What leadership will he provide to produce a jobs and growth strategy for our creative industries?

[Mr Hunt]

First, let me correct something that the hon. Gentleman said. “The King’s Speech” was funded with lottery money. Thanks to the coalition Government’s lottery reforms, lottery money for the film industry will increase by 60% over the period of this Parliament. What we are questioning is whether that money should be distributed by a quango which pays eight people more than £100,000 and three people more than the Prime Minister.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about a few things that we have done. We have secured an additional £530 million to give Britain the best superfast broadband network in Europe. We have announced plans to make the Olympic park into a new east London tech hub. We have reduced corporation tax, and we have got rid of Labour’s jobs tax. All those things are vital to the creative and digital industries, many of which are small companies.

[Mr Lewis]

The Government have increased VAT, which is destroying our tourist industry. The Secretary of State is clearly living on a different planet. Broadband roll-out has been delayed. There has been no progress on the Digital Economy Act 2010. We have a broken promise on tax breaks for the video games industry. BBC cuts will have an impact on original content. All that is happening at a time when other countries are increasing their support for creative industries.

Will the Secretary of State show some leadership in two specific ways? We are willing to work with him if he will bring forward the new communications Act from 2015 to 2012 or 2013 at the latest; and will he establish a cross-Government taskforce, chaired at Cabinet level, to produce a jobs and growth plan in partnership with creative industries over the next 12 months?

[Mr Hunt]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman the leadership I have been showing. His Government safeguarded £200 million for superfast broadband; we have increased that to £830 million. His Government had no strategy for the tourism industry; we persuaded the industry to contribute £50 million of match funding to draw an additional 2 million visitors to the UK. We are also working hard to implement the Digital Economy Act, as we think the principles behind it are important, but it is very difficult to implement because many of its measures did not get proper parliamentary scrutiny as the hon. Gentleman’s discredited Labour Government rushed it through Parliament in their final dying days.

BSkyB

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Four weeks ago, the Secretary of State said he was minded to refer News Corp’s acquisition of BSkyB to the Competition Commission. Today, it is clear that he has changed his mind. Hon. Members and many people outside the House will want reassurance that the right hon. Gentleman has not put the perceived interests of his party and career ahead of the public interest. Imagine what they would have said if we had made that decision, in that way, in the same week as we had put a former Labour party chairman in charge of the BBC.

Until we get some straight answers to straight questions, doubts will persist. The process has exposed an arrogant Government, cavalier about their responsibility to be impartial and contemptuous of the importance of transparency in circumstances where there is already a high level of public cynicism.

On 21 December, the Business Secretary was stripped of his responsibility for the media and digital economy, because of poor judgment and a lack of impartiality following his boast that he would declare war on Mr Murdoch. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport was given responsibility for this quasi-judicial process, despite being on the record as saying that he did not see a problem with News Corp purchasing BSkyB.

Two days later, on 23 December, the Prime Minister attended a private dinner with James Murdoch in the middle of a quasi-judicial process. That, from a Prime Minister who wrote in the foreword to his own ministerial code:

“In everything we do—the policies we develop and how we implement them, the speeches we give, the meetings we hold—we must remember that we are not masters but servants. Though the British people have been disappointed in their politicians, they still expect the highest standards of conduct….We must be…Transparent about what we do and how we do it. Determined to act in the national interest”.

Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he has had any discussions about the acquisition with the Prime Minister since 23 December—to be clear, not whether he has consulted him, but whether he has had any discussions? If yes, were officials present at these discussions? Does he think that it was right for the Prime Minister to attend that dinner in the middle of this process?

With regard to News Corp’s proposals to float off Sky News as a listed company, I have a number of initial questions. Who will appoint the new Sky News board chair and the board? Will the chair be independent? What proportion of board members will be News Corp representatives? What steps would News Corp have to take if it wanted to change the Sky News governance arrangements or News Corp’s shareholding? Will Sky News be solely dependent on News Corp for finance over the next decade? Who will hire and fire Sky News editorial staff? Will the Sky News board be expected to prevent the bundling of information from News Corp’s newspapers and Sky News? Who will be responsible for monitoring the independence of Sky News over the next decade? What assessment has the Secretary of State undertaken of News Corp’s approach to undertakings given in the past following the purchase of The Times and The Sunday Times in 1981 and The Wall Street Journal in 2007? Can the Secretary of State confirm that broadcasting news impartiality rules will remain in place? Why has he not consulted UK media organisations opposed to this acquisition during the past month?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to examining the public interest test in the context of a new communications Act, but the rapidly changing digital age means that our media organisations need a modern regulatory framework sooner rather than later. Will he work with me to bring the legislation forward from 2015, as the Government propose, to 2012 or 2013 at the latest?

Media ownership and control is integral to our democracy. The integrity of our democracy depends on news being provided from a variety of sources with no one voice being dominant. As we have said all along, the decisions about this acquisition must be determined in the public interest via the due process laid down by Parliament, not through political deals. In the days ahead, I will engage with interested parties before deciding whether we believe that referral to the Competition Commission remains the most appropriate course of action. My party will apply the public interest test without fear or prejudice.

[Mr Hunt]

I am afraid that what we heard from the shadow Culture Secretary displays absolutely blind ignorance of a process that his own Government, when they were in power, set up under the Enterprise Act 2002. He talked about putting the interests of party first. Apart from asking him why the former News International-employed Labour party director of communications sent an e-mail round to all Labour Front Benchers asking them to back off from criticisms of this deal, let me just say this. I have been absolutely scrupulous in making sure that independent views were commissioned, expressed and published at every stage of this process, precisely because I wanted to reassure the public that this decision was not being taken on the basis of party interest. Those documents have been published today so that people can see for themselves that not only did I ask for that independent advice, and not only did I publish that independent advice, but, after careful consideration, I accepted that independent advice.

Let me go through some of the other things that the hon. Gentleman said. He partially quoted something that I said about this deal before I was even part of the process, but he did not read out the end of that quote, which he will have known full well, where I said that I would not second-guess the regulators. I have not second-guessed the regulators. I have listened to the independent regulators and I have accepted their advice.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the chair of the new company that is proposed to be set up will be independent. It is written in undertaking 3.13 that the chairman will be completely independent. There will be a board with majority independent directors. He asked what proportion of the new company’s revenue will be dependent on Sky. As things stand at the moment, it would be about 65%, but I think that any independent board of directors would be likely to want to reduce that dependence over a period of time, and they will have a 10-year carriage agreement with guaranteed income over that period in which to address that issue.

The hon. Gentleman asked who will be responsible for hiring and firing those who are responsible for the operation of Sky News. Again, it is clearly written in the undertakings that have been published today, in undertaking 3.16, that that decision will be the responsibility of the independent board. He talked about The Times and The Sunday Times, but I gently point out to him that this case is different because we will have an independent company that will be floated independently on the stock market with an independent board and an independent chairman—that is a huge difference.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm whether the impartiality rules will remain in place. It is the Government’s policy that they should. On top of that, for the first time in this country, the new company will have in its articles of association that it must respect the broadcasting code, which includes the impartiality requirements. That is set out in undertaking 3.12.

The hon. Gentleman asked when I would consult other media organisations. What I am launching today is a 17-day consultation in which those media organisations will be consulted. This is a consultation and I will listen to what they say. The extraordinary thing in what he said today was the utter cowardice of a party that listens to a statement, criticises a process that it set up, and then refuses to get off the fence and say whether it agrees with what I have done. Last time, he criticised me for not following Ofcom’s advice. In fact, I did follow Ofcom’s advice then, and I am following it now. Does he agree with what Ofcom has said? If he is not prepared to say whether he agrees, no one will take any of his criticisms the remotest bit seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I agree that impartiality at the BBC is paramount and that the particular comments to which my hon. Friend refers were totally inappropriate. I can understand why many people found them offensive. By way of reassurance, I say to him that in the selection process for the new chairman of the BBC Trust, which is responsible for impartiality, we have said that all candidates must show commitment to improving governance at the BBC. I hope that these issues will continue to be addressed.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and I agree about the importance of the impartiality of the BBC. With the withdrawal of Sir Howard Davies from the shortlist for the chairmanship of the BBC Trust, there is growing speculation that the favourite is now the former chairman of the Conservative party. In those circumstances, it is particularly important that the appointment process is transparent. Will the Secretary of State therefore agree that the all-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee should scrutinise the two candidates referred to him by the appointment panel before he makes a recommendation to the Prime Minister?

[Mr Hunt]

Let me reassure the shadow Secretary of State that the process is transparent and fair. If he does not like it, he and the last Labour Government should not have set it up when they established the BBC Trust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

Ministerial discretion is restricted to what is reasonable and fair in the eyes of the law. The process was set up in the Enterprise Act 2002 by the previous Government. It is incredibly important that due process is followed at every stage. We will publish exactly what we have done and whom we have met at every stage of the process when I make my decision, in order for Parliament to be able to scrutinise the process and ensure that it has been totally fair and impartial.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State would accept that the Government’s handling of this quasi-judicial responsibility has been nothing short of a constitutional disgrace. The Business Secretary was stripped of his responsibilities because he

“declared war on Mr Murdoch”,

the Culture Secretary is on record as saying that he sees no problem with this particular deal, and the Prime Minister has now been found tucking into turkey in the middle of the process with the chief executive of News International. What breathtaking arrogance and contempt for their constitutional responsibilities!

Will the Secretary of State now tell the whole House whether he intends to meet any of the concerned parties before making a decision on this referral? Will he also release the Ofcom report—he has the ability to do so—in advance of making his decision, so that the House can be reassured that his judgment is impartial?

[Mr Hunt]

I remind the shadow Culture Secretary that when the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) made the decision on the Sky ITV purchase he published the Ofcom report when he announced his decision, so I am doing nothing different to what he did. On the issue of impartiality, I say this:

“Rupert Murdoch”—

has

“been a force for good in improving the quality of broadcasting for British consumers”.

Those are not my words, but those of the shadow Culture Secretary. I wish that he would stop sucking up to the Murdochs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the settlement letter that we gave to all the national museums, which protected their funding to a much greater extent than was possible for many other parts of the public sector, we asked them to come forward with proposals through which they would mentor and help smaller arts organisations in the regions with their fundraising. We hope to announce progress on that front in the next few weeks.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

The Department’s business plan states, intriguingly, that the Secretary of State’s philanthropy strategy will incorporate “insights from behavioural science”. Does he accept that if such a strategy is built solely on a nudge and a wink, or advice from a psychologist, it will be a damp squib in exactly the same way as a nudge and a wink, rather than the coalition’s promised tax break, is doing nothing to support the growth of the UK video games industry?

[Mr Hunt]

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to carp from the sidelines, but where are his proposals to boost philanthropy? Where are his proposals to help increase the money going to the front line? We are doing things to try to boost the amount of private giving to deal with the economic crisis that we inherited from his Government. He should help us, support us and contribute constructively. I am happy to nudge him to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

The money that we have secured from the licence fee settlement is for the part of the country that we believe the market will not satisfy—that is to say, approximately a third of homes including, I believe, homes in his constituency, where we think that left to its own, the market would not provide broadband. We have every confidence that we will have a solution that is not just 2 meg per home, as was the limit of the ambitions of the previous Government, but the best superfast broadband network in Europe.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I start by wishing the Secretary of State and Team England all the best with their mission this week to secure the 2018 World cup. On that, he and the Government will have our full support.

In relation to youth sport, the Secretary of State must come clean. He has overall responsibility for the future of sport in this country. He briefs the press that he is against the decision to dismantle support for school sport, yet on the record he is silent. Does he support the ending of all funding for the Youth Sport Trust and the dismantling of school sport partnerships—yes or no? Was he personally involved in the decision to transfer two questions on youth sport to the Department for Education so as to limit debate on the issue today? Does he accept that 95% of young people are participating in sport for two hours a week in schools, rather than the figure that he inaccurately quoted just a few moments ago and misled the House?

[Mr Hunt]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Jeremy Hunt

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

The licence fee is a curious system, but it has delivered outstanding results for British broadcasting. Most British people, when they go abroad, find that one of the things they miss is the BBC. One reason the BBC has been successful is that it has had sustained income through this rather curious system. That is why we have said that we are on the side of the public on this. We have given the BBC a tough settlement—freezing the licence fee for six years—under which we will continue with the structure of the licence fee as it is.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

We will work with the Government on issues where we agree, such as the Olympic games and England’s World cup bid. The Secretary of State will agree that the BBC is one of this country’s great institutions and its future a matter of public interest. Of course, the BBC cannot be exempt from cuts at this difficult time, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can justify a negotiating process that rode roughshod over the independence of the BBC, crushed any serious prospect of reform and involved no consultation with licence fee payers or parliamentarians? Will he confirm that at one point in the negotiations the BBC Trust board considered mass resignation and that he now faces a judicial review sought by S4C? Is that not another example of the Secretary of State doing a dodgy deal for the Chancellor to further his own political ambitions, instead of providing responsible leadership on an issue of crucial importance to the future of this country?

[Mr Hunt]

May I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his post? I am delighted to talk to him about the BBC because the new licence fee settlement was announced last Wednesday and the silence of the Opposition’s response has been absolutely deafening. They have not been able to work out what to do because we have agreed a settlement that is acceptable to the BBC and is very popular with the public. Let me tell him the difference between what happened when his party negotiated the licence fee and when we did it. With his party, it took two years, it cost £3 million and we ended up with an above-inflation rise. With us, it took two weeks, it cost nothing and we got a freeze for six years.