Party Funding

Jack Straw Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It was a pity that the opportunity was not taken in the Hayden Phillips discussions to go ahead with the reforms that were so close to agreement, because one of the proposals was to have more state funding to match smaller donations. That would have achieved exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about, which is increasing the spread of those who support political parties. We sometimes lose sight of the fact that it is good for people to support political parties. Democracy depends on it.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman first confirm that the only legislation on party funding of any significance was put through by the previous Government in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009?

Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what is wrong with having Sir Alex Allan, a distinguished civil servant who has served Labour and Conservative Governments, including the Thatcher Administration, so well, hold an inquiry into this scandal, which differs wholly in its character from those that have gone before, because it goes to the role of the Prime Minister?

Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman, who was at the talks in 2007, as was I and as was the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), is right to recall that we came “agonisingly close” to an agreement—so close that we almost initialled the agreement in June 2007. However, to use not my words but those of the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, the Conservative party walked away, and he described the right hon. Gentleman’s approach as “bogus”. What guarantee can we have that if new talks take place, the right hon. Gentleman will not operate in the same way?

[Mr Maude]

The investigation is not fundamentally about ministerial propriety, but about party funding. No money changed hands, nor was it ever likely to, because what was suggested by Mr Cruddas was fantasy and could never have come to fruition. If it was good enough for a former general secretary of the Labour party to investigate the Labour party’s scandal over donations by proxy, it is good enough for a distinguished lawyer to conduct the investigation into this matter.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the breakdown of the talks with Sir Hayden Phillips, I refer him to what was said by Peter Watt, the then general secretary of the Labour party, who represented the Labour party with the right hon. Gentleman. He said in absolutely clear terms how frustrated he was that it was the Labour party that was blocking reform. Those are not my words, but those of Peter Watt.

Diamond Jubilee

Jack Straw Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

It is a great honour to speak in this debate and particularly to follow the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), the Father of the House. I hope, Mr Speaker, that you, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, having listened with care to the address by the Father of the House, will have it in mind that the next diamond jubilee to be organised should be the one to celebrate his 60th year in the House—such has he become a national treasure and an entertainment to us all.

Of the many privileges that go with the best job in the British Cabinet—that of Foreign Secretary—the greatest is that the whole office is expected to accompany Her Majesty the Queen on state visits abroad. During my five years as Foreign Secretary, I went with Her Majesty to, among other places, Germany, France, Malta and Nigeria. Those visits gave me the opportunity to witness at close hand the extraordinary preparation, dedication, commitment and time that Her Majesty and Prince Philip devoted to these sometimes very difficult public engagements. The pace that the Queen and the Prince set for these visits would have tired somebody half their age.

In Nigeria, the arrangements for the day-to-day engagements showed a little flexibility—to be delicate about the matter—and Her Majesty and Prince Philip had to accommodate that flexibility. She had taken part in one engagement at which I thought she did stunningly well. I said to her afterwards, “Ma’am, if I may say so, that showed extraordinary professionalism.” There was a pause. She looked at me and said, with a benign motherly smile, “Foreign Secretary, it should have been professional. I’ve been doing this for long enough.”

As Home Secretary and then Lord Chancellor, I had a rather less public duty—that of administering the oath of homage, which all new bishops of the Church of England have to make to the sovereign, and have done since the age of Henry VIII. Through that prism, I was able to observe the profound seriousness with which the Queen treats her duties as Head of our established Church, as well as her encyclopaedic knowledge of the parishes and personalities of the Anglican communion.

As Member of Parliament for Blackburn for the past 33 years, I have seen the excitement and, more importantly, the sense of recognition that visits by Her Majesty and other members of the royal family have brought to the people of my area, as they have to every constituency and to people of every ethnic background and religion. These are but a handful of examples of the extraordinary, exemplary way in which Her Majesty has led our nation over the past 60 years.

Of the three most recent of the Queen’s dozen Prime Ministers, one was in nappies and two were not born when she acceded to the throne in February 1952. I guess that I am one of a diminishing band of Members who can recall that day and period. Food and clothes rationing were still in operation and, much more importantly for a six-year-old, so was sweet rationing. There was an acute housing shortage. Vast areas of our great towns and cities were still bombed wastelands, Britain was almost exclusively a white society and, at primary school, I can still recall, in the second year of infant school, the map of the world that our teacher had permanently fixed on the wall and to which he pointed with great regularity. It showed a quarter of the world’s land mass painted pink to signify the British empire.

Six decades on, the world is a very different place, and so is the United Kingdom. We are now a heterogeneous society, with people from many religious and ethnic backgrounds proud to call themselves British. The empire has gone, to be replaced by the Commonwealth. The rate of social, industrial and technological change has been breathtaking. But through all this change, there has been the Queen—constant, reassuring, providing a sense of security and stability in an uncertain world, yet, remarkably, remaining in touch. I am delighted to support the Prime Minister’s motion.

Informal European Council

Jack Straw Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. We must ask a simple question: what is in the interests of the UK? It is in our interests to let the eurozone get on with the job of sorting out its problems, and to ensure that this new treaty is restricted to the issues of fiscal union. It is therefore in our interests to use leverage over the institutions and the legal issues to keep them focused on fiscal union. That is the approach we have taken and it is entirely right.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Every single article bar one of the treaty, which I have read, refers to institutions of the European Union, including the Commission and the Court of Justice. Leaving aside its form, how can the Prime Minister possibly say that, in substance, the treaty is not equivalent to a European Union treaty? Given the provisions of article 12—it provides for non-euro contracting parties to participate in discussions on competitiveness, but not those outside the treaty—what has been achieved by his veto except that we are outside the door?

[The Prime Minister]

It is not an EU treaty, because it does not amend EU law; it is not a treaty within all of the treaties of the EU, and that is very important, because it would have been wrong to sign up for that without the safeguards for the single market, financial services and the other things that I set out. Let me just explain how important article 2 is in this agreement of the other countries. Let me read it in full:

“The provisions of this Treaty shall apply insofar as they are compatible with the Treaties on which the Union is founded and with European Union law. They shall not encroach upon the competences of the Union to act in the area of the economic union”—

that is, this treaty is outside EU law. Why is it outside EU law? It is because I made it outside EU law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Straw Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mark Tami. He is not here.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister said earlier that there was no criminal sanction on individuals if they failed to register to vote. The only reason that is so is that the obligation rests on the householder, on whom there is a criminal sanction. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that as we move towards individual registration, Ministers must reconsider the proposal to allow opting out without any criminal sanction whatsoever?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I made it clear to the House on a previous occasion that we accept the arguments against providing an opt-out, and we will reflect that in the final legislation. On the quite tangled issue of what is, and what is not, an offence, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that at the moment the offence applies not to registration, but to the provision of information on behalf of a household—in other words, to the obligation to provide information about other people in the household. It is not an offence at the moment not to register. He makes a valid point that is a valid subject for debate, and it was raised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: under individual electoral registration, the obligation clearly falls more squarely on the individual, rather than on the so-called head of the household. We think that we need to proceed very carefully when it comes to creating new offences in this area, but we are, of course, prepared to listen, and will continue to do so.

United Kingdom Statistics Authority

Jack Straw Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Let me begin by declaring an interest: I am an honorary fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. The society graciously bestowed that honour on me for my work in the 1990s in advancing the case for an independent national statistical service and proper parliamentary scrutiny of statistics.

I am delighted to observe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) is present. It was he who introduced the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, which completed the journey from a statistical service that was half independent and half controlled by Government to a service in which the producers of the statistics, the Office for National Statistics and its agents, and the supervisor of that production, the United Kingdom Statistics Authority, became entirely independent of Government.

I also commend the Public Administration Committee for its work both in monitoring the work of the authority and in conducting the process of this appointment. It is interesting to recall, as I do, the nervousness that was abroad at one time about Select Committees having any role in public appointments, given that this appointment has effectively been made entirely by Parliament, and has been endorsed by a Select Committee with the approval—hopefully—of the House.

I know Sir Michael Scholar well and I think that he did an outstanding job as the first chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, in difficult circumstances. Nobody should underestimate the pressure that was put on him when he dared to criticise the Government of whom I was a member. He criticised the frankly preposterous behaviour of part of the Government—special advisers in No. 10 and in the Home Office—in allowing not just the pre-release of statistics, but the traducing of statistics that should have been properly released by the Office for National Statistics.

That was part of a culture that went back to previous Administrations, and we have seen one example of it during this Administration, whereby special advisers in No. 10, all jockeying among themselves to show that they are more adept than their colleagues in getting material into the newspapers and anxious for attention from the master, cajole the people they believe are their subordinates—the special advisers in the individual Departments. They say, “We can see this on the grid”—the wretched grid—“and we must know about this. We want early information. There is something else coming up. We have heard a rumour that those nasty people in the Opposition are about to do X or Y, or there is a terribly bad news story, Z, and if only we can get this good news out, all will be fine.” That is all without purpose, it never works, it always ends in tears and it carries on. The problem is that previously, unless a strong and confident Minister was looking after those statistics, it was all too easy for this abuse to run away with itself. I had only one occasion when those at No. 10 tried this on me and I told them to get lost, saying that if they wanted I would come to the House to make a statement about what they were trying to suborn my officials and special advisers, who are of the highest integrity, into doing. I was secure in my position but a very large number of Ministers, sadly, are not in that happy position.

I know what the chuntering was when Sir Michael Scholar criticised the practice of the Home Office and No. 10 in December 2008—I believe it was then. It is no coincidence that much of the attempt to bypass official release mechanisms has taken place in respect of Home Office statistics. That is not because the Home Office statisticians—or now the Ministry of Justice statisticians—are any less worthy or any less replete with integrity; it is because of the highly political nature of the information they convey. Sir Michael set out, in handling that abuse, to continue in a similar manner, and he put his foot down on a number of further occasions—two when the Labour Government were in power and once under this Government. I hope that, bit by bit, Ministers, officials and special advisers will get the message that in the 21st century it is no more appropriate to try to interfere with the generation, organisation, analysis and publication of official statistics than it is to interfere in the generation, analysis and publication of the accounts of a Department.

No Minister or senior official at any level would dream of saying, “We’ve got to alter the accounts. It is a bit inconvenient but this has come up and we seem to have lost some money.” Such alteration is a criminal offence for directors of companies. It is worth remembering that in the early part of the 19th century it was perfectly commonplace for Ministers to ensure that there was a bit of fiddling of the statistics. A lot of Ministers lined their own pockets, a few got charged with corruption but generally got away with it, and one or two were impeached. That was the culture of the times. We have moved away from that in respect of financial probity, but we now have to see a similar cultural shift in respect of statistical probity because otherwise the whole political debate and discourse in this country will be the loser.

We can have serious discussions when it comes to arguments about finance. We know what the deficit is and we can argue about what its components are, but no one suggests that it has somehow been made up. It is there. With other statistics—particularly social statistics, and particularly those on crime and immigration—there has been a ridiculous argument about whether crime has gone up or down. The same applies to unemployment and so on. We must move away from that, because it is a real turn-off for the public and it is very undermining for the quality of debate in this country.

Let me make two points, the first of which is on pre-release statistics. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was quite right to draw attention to the fact that before the election the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General made a lot of play of the fact that he was going to abandon pre-release notice, or move at best to one hour. We should have abandoned it when we were in government, but we did not do so. He said that he would and then, when he came into government, hey presto, he supped at the royal jelly—or something like that—or had a nod from somebody at No. 10 and suddenly decided that he was wrong.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on what interests prevented him from persuading his colleagues to abolish it and does he therefore have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General as regards the opposition he might be facing?

[Mr Straw]

I have sympathy with the Minister, of course. He happens to be my pair, anyway, so I declare that interest too. I have every sympathy with him, but the forces of darkness get tiring after a while. People always think that the Government will do better if only they can get early information and slip this or that past, but that is all nonsense.

My officials and others used to regard it as slightly tedious that I was not terribly bothered about when the figures were coming out—although I was early on, when I was neurotic about when the crime figures were being released. My view was that one had to ask what the point was of knowing in advance. It just led to a suspicion that we had somehow fiddled the figures because we had had them early and all the rest of it. There was absolutely no point at all. Why not find out at exactly the same time as anybody else? It is impertinent to think that Ministers should have any right to find out in advance. Why should they? They are not Ministers of figures—the figures belong to the public and Parliament. It is also self-defeating, in my opinion.

My advice to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General and his colleagues is: chill and defeat the forces of darkness. I am sorry I did not complete that task, notwithstanding being joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne. Ministers will do themselves an enormous favour if they abandon pre-release notice.

[Robert Halfon]

I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Does he not agree, however, that there is a very small case for certain statistics—particularly market-sensitive information—to be released to the Government early, given the effect they might have?

[Mr Straw]

There might be, and there could have been in the days when the Treasury was responsible for setting interest rates. At a time when by all-party agreement the Treasury is no longer responsible for setting interest rates, what can the Government do about it anyway? If they have advance information that there will be a sudden huge—mega—balance of trade deficit then, with a bit of luck, it will gradually emerge through the tax data anyway. What can they do about it? If the markets react adversely, the Bank of England will come in and buy sterling, or not. I accept that there might be a narrow case for examining that, however.

My second point is about the responsibility for defining the components of series. Let us recall the great debate about the components of youth unemployment figures. There was irritation among those in the Government of whom I was a member that that series included people in full-time education, and I gather there is also irritation about that in this Government. Of course, support for the current definition has stayed on the Opposition side of the Chamber. My view is that there is a case for saying that people in full-time education should not be included in the definition of the unemployed because they are not available for work, although they might want a part-time job. There might not be a case for that but, whether or not it is to the advantage of Government, that issue ought to be examined independently and decided independently, without regard to which party might, for the time being, gain partisan advantage.

Lastly, I commend the recommendation of the Public Administration Committee that Mr Andrew Dilnot be appointed as the successor to Sir Michael Scholar. He is brilliant, he has a very fine mind and he has a great understanding of public affairs. I can think of no better successor to Sir Michael Scholar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

This appointment is a major development in our parliamentary procedures. This is the first time that the pre-appointment hearings made a significant difference and had an influence in changing the candidate. The pre-appointment hearings came out of an investigation in the previous Parliament by the Public Administration Committee, which went to America and recommended that certain senior appointments should be subject to the procedure. We have heard the explanation given by the Chair of how the decision arising from the interview with the first candidate resulted in a second candidate coming along and how a member of the Committee was appointed to the panel that took part in the process. These are important changes that reinforce the view that this is a useful way of proceeding. The House has behaved in a responsible manner in this process.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred to the forces of darkness and the queen bee jelly that takes over Governments. Some of us can rejoice in being the forces of light who were against the previous scheme and against our own Government, and are still against it and against the new Government. So often when Governments change, it is not a change of philosophy, but an exchange of scripts. Of course Governments neurotically want to hoard their secrets for as long as possible. It seems extraordinary that it was only in 2007 that the arguments were exactly reversed—when I was sitting on the Government Benches arguing with my own Government, the Tory Opposition were saying that this was the big weakness in the Bill that went through. Now they flip over without a blush.

There was a time when I recall accusing Mr Alan Clark of supervising the largest and most shameless massage parlour in London, which was the Department of Employment, in his use of employment statistics. There was some truth in that. I had an exchange of letters with Margaret Thatcher in 1989, when a group of statisticians came to see me. They were distressed because the responsibility for statistics was being moved from the Cabinet Office to the Treasury, and they rightly said, “This is our life’s work. That will reduce these pristine, glorious statistics, wonderful graphs and histograms to garbage by politicians on the make.” They suggested that the Treasury was the Department with the greatest vested interest in fiddling the statistics and damaging the result of their work. Their whole professional raison d’être was diminished by that.

Mrs Thatcher sent me a letter in which she expressed her deep shock that anyone should express the unworthy idea that her Department would want to fiddle statistics in any way. We do not feel quite that way now. There has been a move forward. I mentioned the distressing episode involving the Mayor of London. It goes to show that the advance has not been complete—not all Departments have changed their mind.

The Mayor of London was rightly criticised by Sir Michael Scholar, and we have all praised him for the way in which he did that. Sir Michael has done very well. He challenged the Home Department with great courage. He challenged the previous Government and he has challenged Departments now. He did the job that he was set to do, but when he attacked the Mayor of London, the Mayor’s reaction was not to say, “All right, I got it wrong. I’ll change the statistics”.—no humility from Boris, of course. Instead, he called him a Labour stooge. It was an outrageous thing to say, given his lifetime of independence. Michael Scholar, as all today’s contributors have said, has done a splendid job of establishing that independence, and it is what we see in Dilnot.

There are still a few old lags in the House from the passage in 2007 of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, which went through with hardly a flicker of interest; this is a crowded House compared with the number of people who attended back then. There was only one tiny piece of interest in the press, too, but it was an article that I repeated ad nauseum to the House at the time, because it stated that it was the most important Bill of the Labour Government—we had been in power for 10 years—and would have a bigger effect than anything we had done, including handing over power and independence to the Bank of England. The article was written by a certain Andrew Dilnot, and his entire career has rightly been in that area—suggesting that statistics need to be independent.

In the Public Administration Committee, we all saw Dilnot’s boyish enthusiasm for statistics. He talks about them as “Statistics”—these wonderful things, which are the key to all happiness and the path to knowledge and wisdom—

[Mr Straw]

And employment in your constituency!

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed. I will turn to that point now.

I do have a slight vested interest in the matter, because the largest employer in my constituency happens to be the Office for National Statistics, and that is why I like to deal with the cynicism that occasionally crops up about the well-being statistics. They might have cost £2 million, but they have certainly added to my sense of well-being, because they provide work in my constituency, and we should not be cynical about them. In the past we measured happiness, success and politics on the basis of gross domestic product, but that is not a sensible thing to do, because, when the nation’s prosperity increased, unhappiness increased as well.

There was a splendid T-shirt in Hungary in 2000. On the front it said, “What has 10 years of right-wing government done that 50 years of communism could never do?” and the answer on the back was, “Made the people love socialism”. They had put up with the equality of misery, because everyone was treated badly, but when they moved to the inequality of choice they were unhappy, because young men were becoming millionaires on the stock exchange while pensions were increasing slower than inflation.

There is a crucial difference between the two, and one of the myths of politics is that choice is an example to be pursued, and that everyone will be happy if they have choice. No, they will not. I am a child of the war, when there was no choice and we wore utility clothes, but everyone was on the same level, and that was much better than what we have now, with our children wanting to wear quality, fashion clothes. All the great myths of politics are there, so it is crucial that we measure scientifically our sense of well-being.

Many points that I wished to make have been made, but it was telling of Andrew Dilnot to give us one striking example of the need for truth and honesty in statistics. He did not mention the newspaper, but most people will recognise that he was citing The Daily Telegraph, which put out a big, 36-point, front-page headline, stating, “Public pensions to cost you £4,000 a year”. It had divided £9.4 billion by 26 million and got an answer of almost £4,000. The answer is actually £400, but that particular piece of fiction was repeated on the “Today” programme and in the day’s headlines, and it became part of common knowledge which is actually common ignorance, so it is right that someone such as Andrew Dilnot should be there to take on the powerful forces that put fiction into the public domain because they are innumerate.

Mr Dilnot made a number of other points, which were entertaining, about how we should move forward. He talked about an idea called “Tell me a story”. He would suggest to schoolchildren that they go to the website of the Office for National Statistics or the Government statistical service and tell him a story about aspects of the country, but expressed in statistics.

It is a matter of great satisfaction and pleasure for my constituents that this Swansea boy should have been upgraded to Newport—a matter of some congratulations. He can work in Newport under the benign observance of a quality MP, and I am sure that he will be extremely content. The hugely successful relocation of the ONS to Newport can continue and prosper. Gales of applause will be coming up the M4 today as a result of the House’s decision, which I am sure will be to reinforce the decision of the Public Administration Committee to appoint Andrew Dilnot as the best possible candidate.

EU Council

Jack Straw Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend on the balance of effort that has been given, on the one hand, to new treaty powers and changes, and, on the other, to actually looking at what needs to be done, particularly in the short term, in terms of the firewall, bank recapitalisation and action by the ECB. More needs to be focused on those things rather than on the medium-term power changes in the EU, which I do not think are being hovered over by the markets, which are working out whether countries can pay their debts. In that regard, my right hon. Friend is right.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

There was no draft treaty before the European Council last Thursday and Friday; there was a set of draft conclusions. Will the Prime Minister set out the paragraph numbers that he thinks would have damaged Britain’s interests had we agreed to them? Will he also confirm that we had a veto on a financial transactions tax before the Council and that we still have one; and that financial services regulation was subject to qualified majority voting before last Thursday and still is?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said in my statement, the eurozone members wanted to create a new treaty within the EU, which has all sorts of dangers. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the letter that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy sent, he will see that they specifically wanted the 17 to look at issues such as financial services and the market within that treaty. Without safeguards, a treaty within a treaty would have been far more dangerous than a treaty outside the EU.

Let me repeat this point: a treaty outside the EU cannot do anything that cuts across European treaties or European legislation. Of course, that is not without its dangers, but my judgment was that without safeguards, an EU treaty was more dangerous.

Libya

Jack Straw Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely right. It is very important that when people are looking at the humanitarian plan, the reconstruction plan and the plan for political progress in Libya, we recognise that this is something that the Libyans are doing themselves. We are there to help and to assist, but it is their plan, not our plan. Humility on this occasion is right.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in praising the leadership that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have shown during the whole of this period. There is no doubt that that was decisive in securing international co-operation and in following it through.

On the allegations that have been made overnight, as Foreign Secretary at the time, may I say two things? First, as the Prime Minister knows, it was the consistent policy of the previous Government, as it is of his, to be wholly opposed to any complicity in torture, ill treatment or unlawful rendition. Secondly, given the serious nature of the allegations, it is entirely right that they should be examined in every detail by the inquiry under Sir Peter Gibson.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he says about me, the Foreign Secretary and others. On the issue that he raises, it is right that Sir Peter Gibson can look at the whole area. It is important that nobody rushes to judgment. We have to remember that in 2003, two years after 9/11, there was a Libyan terrorist group that was allied to al-Qaeda. At all times our security services and intelligence services are trying to work for the good of the country to keep us safe, so it is important to remember the circumstances at the time. Nobody should rush to judgment, but it is the right hon. Gentleman’s view, my view and the view of the entire House that Britain should never be complicit in torture or in extraordinary rendition, and it is very important that we make sure that that is the case.

Public Disorder

Jack Straw Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly do that, and I was impressed, in the control room of the West Midlands police and emergency services yesterday, by how amateur photographers have been sending in footage to help the police to arrest those who are guilty. As has been said today, everyone has a responsibility. Media organisations, too, have a responsibility, and I hope that they will act on it.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

No one disputes for a second the Prime Minister’s determination to meet what he describes as the first duty of Government to keep the streets safe, but does he not understand that his repetition of what amount to Treasury lines about police numbers and police budgets, and about prison numbers, sounds very complacent? I beg of him to recognise not only the reality that those cuts will lead to fewer police on the streets, but that he must reverse the softer sentencing plans of his Justice Secretary and stop the ludicrous plan that the Justice Secretary has to close prisons when there is patently now an urgent need for more prison places.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about police numbers, and indeed neither do many chief constables. The chief constable of Thames Valley police said that

“what I haven’t done at all is reduce the number of officers who do the patrol functions, so the officers you see in vehicles, on foot, in uniform, on bicycles. We haven’t cut those numbers at all.”

Let me make this additional point to the right hon. Gentleman. One thing the past three days have demonstrated is that the Met, where we have 32,000 officers, actually could take the action to surge from 3,000 on the streets to 16,000 on the streets. I think that is a demonstration of using what you have to maximum effect.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Jack Straw Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I know that it was widely believed that Sean Hoare’s testimony would not stand up in court.

I want to raise one other matter that relates to the actions that could have been taken by the previous Government. The one recommendation from the Information Commissioner, right back at the time of the “What price privacy?” report, was that the maximum penalty for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 should be a custodial sentence. Press freedom is protected because there is a public interest defence in that Act. My understanding is that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who was the Home Secretary at the time, accepted that recommendation and it was Government policy to impose a custodial sentence as a maximum sentence, but he was then overruled by the then Prime Minister following pressure from the media.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The answer, which I will explain in more detail if I catch Mr Speaker’s eye, is that provisions to do both are on the statute book. They are in section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and it is a matter for the Government to implement them. It is quite wrong for the Government to assert that we took no action. We did act, consistently, with the Information Commissioner’s report.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will elaborate, because he is right to say that the measure is on the statute book, but it would have required a statutory instrument, I think, to implement, and that SI was going to be introduced, but was then dropped following meetings that took place in Downing street between members of the media and the Prime Minister.

The two issues that we are debating this afternoon—freedom of the media and the honesty of the police—are both absolutely fundamental to a free society. Therefore, I welcome the inquiries and the judicial review. I urge a slight note of caution on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he says that he is contemplating whether politicians should be entirely removed from the process of assessing whether newspaper, press or media acquisitions or mergers should take place. There is a public interest test, and it is elected and accountable politicians who, ultimately, should determine the public interest. If politicians are entirely removed from the process, you have people who are unelected and unaccountable, and I am not sure that that is wholly desirable. However, I am sure that that is something that the review will wish to examine in due course.

I would also like to say a brief word in defence of the Press Complaints Commission, which does good work for many individuals who have specific complaints against single reports that have appeared in newspapers. It is a good complaint-handling organisation, but it was never intended to deal with the regular systemic breaches of the code, indeed breaches of the law, that are now being exposed. However, the fact that it did the job that it was asked to do well does not mean that we do not now need a stronger and more independent regulator, and I do believe that we have reached that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

I want to raise three points. Although I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on his Committee’s report, one or two loose ends seem not to have been followed up. On 30 May 2006, a Crown Prosecution file note recorded that the police had written a briefing paper informing the Attorney-General and the then Director of Public Prosecutions that

“a vast number of unique voicemail numbers belonging to high-profile individuals (politicians, celebrities) have been identified as being accessed without authority. These may be the subject of wider investigation.”

In a memorandum dated 8 August 2006, a senior Crown Prosecution Service lawyer wrote:

“It was recognised early in this case that the investigation was likely to reveal a vast array of offending behaviour.”

However, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police concluded that aspects of the investigation could be focused on a discrete area of offending relating to two officials at the palace and the suspects Goodman and Mulcaire.

From those documents, it is absolutely manifest that the Attorney-General in the previous Government, who sits when appropriate in the Cabinet, was informed that there was “a vast array” of offending behaviour in which hundreds of celebrities, Members of the House and of the other place and others had had their phones accessed without authority. Why was nothing done?

The Leader of the Opposition has left the Chamber. Can he or former members of the Cabinet tell us whether the Attorney-General in 2006 brought to the attention of his colleagues the fact that a vast array of offending behaviour had been committed by News International but it was not intended that it be investigated by the police? The Attorney-General has a solemn duty to draw to the attention of the Cabinet such matters if they affect the public interest. The Attorney-General has a right of oversight of the CPS—the ultimate resort—and could at least instruct that advice be given to the police on such matters. Why was nothing done?

I invite the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee to call for that evidence and to examine it closely, because it seems to me a matter of the most pressing public interest.

[Mr Straw]

The hon. and learned Gentleman invites members of the then Cabinet at large to say whether the information was ever shared with them by the then Attorney-General. I can only speak for myself. I served in that Cabinet and subsequent ones and on no occasion do I recall that Attorney-General, or any Attorney-General, ever informing members of the Cabinet either at a formal meeting or informally, of an ongoing investigation. Even when I was Home Secretary, the Attorney-General of the day would never have informed me about an investigation and decisions he or she had made, nor would I have sought that information.

[Mr Cox]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information, but the fact remains that the Attorney-General under the previous Government appears to have countenanced a prosecution strategy when he and the then Director of Public Prosecutions knew that the voicemails of hundreds of individuals had been accessed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I want to deal with three issues, the first of which is the Prime Minister’s opaque answers to the very straight question about whether in the course of his 26 meetings with representatives of News International the BSkyB bid was discussed.

The Prime Minister is trying, understandably, to develop a reputation for straight dealing, but I am afraid that that was not what we saw. He was all over the place, relying on suggestion. In one answer, he said that he had not acted outside the ministerial code—that was not the question. In another, he relied on an answer given by Rebekah Brooks. The answer to that question is very straightforward—it is either yes or no—and I hope that the Minister will provide it when he winds up the debate.

Secondly, I want to consider what followed the Information Commissioner’s report on breaches of data protection rules in 2006. It is incorrect to state, as the Conservative research department did in its briefing this morning, that we took no action. It is important that the House understands that we did take action, as we agreed with the report, and in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 we introduced powers to increase the penalties for a breach of section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 from a fine to up to two years’ imprisonment on indictment. There was a substantial objection to that provision from the media, who said that there was no proper public interest defence. Above all, may I tell the Conservatives, particularly the briefers in their research department, that a powerful objection was expressed by Members on the Conservative Front Bench? The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier), said in Committee:

“The facts and arguments that I have presented to the Committee suggested that existing penalties”—

which, as I said, were a fine only—

“are more than sufficient to deal with offences under section 55.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2007; c. 585.]

I hope that we hear no more from Government Members suggesting that we did not take action.

There was then a negotiation between the Information Commissioner, media representatives and me. We tabled new provisions that provided for the public interest defence, entirely correctly, and we provided new penalties of imprisonment under section 76 of the 2008 Act, to be imposed by affirmative order. I consulted on that towards the end of the previous Parliament. We lost the election, and the duty to consider the consultations and make decisions fell to my successors. I assume that the consultations have concluded—if not, they should be concluded immediately—and the Secretary of State for Justice should come to the House to bring both parts of that provision into force.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I do not answer for those on the Conservative Front Bench, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport called unanimously for the Information Commissioner’s recommendation to be implemented. We welcome the fact that the Ministry of Justice has issued a consultation paper, but it is still my understanding that representatives of The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and News International went to meet the Prime Minister to argue forcefully that that consultation should be dropped and that custodial sentences should not be imposed.

[Mr Straw]

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the previous Administration, what he says is exactly correct. It is certainly true that representatives went to see the Prime Minister. They also came to see me. I had a discussion with them—they were entitled to their view—and I said, “We will have a public interest defence, but we will also have this increase in penalties to two years’ imprisonment on the statute book,” and both happened. It is there on the face of the Act. I would have introduced—

[Mr Whittingdale]

Why was it not implemented?

[Mr Straw]

It was not implemented at the time because we were required by the provisions which the Conservatives were desperate for—they would have done nothing. It was in the face of not only press opposition but Conservative opposition that I moved in the way I did to consider the matter. Both provisions went on the statute book, and both are there. I would have introduced both of them, had we won the election. Sadly, for this and other reasons, we failed to do so. It is up to my successor to follow that up.

[Simon Hughes]

My understanding is that the consultation ended in January 2010. The measure could have been implemented before the general election.

[Mr Straw]

In practice, in those circumstances, it probably could not have done. My only regret is that I listened too much to the Conservative Opposition. It is not a mistake I will make again.

On press regulation, I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say. His formulation of independent regulation is a sensible one, if I may say so. As I wrote in an article in The Times on Monday, which was a synopsis of a lecture I gave last week, it is important that we do not frame the debate about press regulation in terms of four legs good, two legs bad, so to speak—between self-regulation, which is apparently good, and imposed regulation, which is apparently bad. We must have a balance between the two.

The press will always be subject to the general law—the law of defamation, the law of copyright, and the emerging law of privacy. That is entirely correct. It is also the case that there should be a high degree of self-regulation, but self-regulation, as we now know, cannot operate by itself because ultimately self-regulation is self-serving. The best proof of the failure of self-regulation is the fact that the Express newspaper group withdrew altogether from the Press Complaints Commission structure in January this year, rendering any possibility of sanction by the PCC nugatory.

So there has to be a statutory framework, but I suggest that that statutory framework can strengthen the freedom of the press if it is properly imposed. An independent press commission should be established, which should have a duty to protect and enhance the freedom of the press, as well as to protect the rights of individuals, particularly in respect of their privacy.

The membership of that body should not be appointed by Ministers or by Parliament. Instead, what should be established by law is an appointing committee at arm’s length from both that, in turn, on a formula, would appoint the independent members of that committee, and the majority of those members ought to be independent, not media representatives. As we have heard, the powers of that commission should include powers of investigation, powers to require a retraction and, in extremis, powers of financial penalty.

I profoundly disagree with my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Kinnock. There is not a parallel here between the broadcast media and the print media. That is a profound error. The broadcast media have to be statutorily regulated—apart from anything else, there is a shortage of spectrum and a high value on it. Of course, it has to be regulated, and in our culture, that regulation is subject to a requirement of balance. However, it would be antithetical to a democratic society to place a requirement of balance on the print media. Doing so, in turn, would also require newspapers to be licensed, which would be anathema.

Instead, we need the commission to establish these high standards. The Government should do what neither the Labour Government nor previous Governments going back more than 40 years did: follow the recommendations of the Younger commission and the late Sir David Calcutt’s committee in 1991 and put in place a tort of infringement of privacy, in addition to the development of a privacy law under the Human Rights Act 1998. Many will think that a slightly technical point, but it is of great importance. Each of us as citizens has direct rights if we are defamed or if our intellectual property rights to what we write are transgressed, but we do not have direct rights if our privacy is invaded. We should. The reforms that I have suggested, which I think can command support across the House—by the way, I am glad that the Press Complaints Commission said in The Times yesterday that it supports them too—could provide a basis for this House to make strong recommendations to Lord Leveson’s inquiry about the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of what I was saying about press regulation. May I take him back to an important statement that he made a moment ago, when he said that none of the discussions that the Prime Minister had had about BSkyB were relevant because he himself—the Culture Secretary—was making the decision? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is the first occasion in the course of a six-hour debate when there has been any admission that the Prime Minister had had any discussions whatsoever about BskyB? Would it not be for the House to judge whether those were relevant or not?

[Mr Hunt]

The Prime Minister has said over and over again that there were no inappropriate discussions.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Jack Straw Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, I accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about transparency, and what I have set out is not just meetings that were, if you like, business meetings—official meetings with media executives and proprietors—but private meetings as well.

In relation to the meeting I held with Rupert Murdoch, the question is not whether he came in through the back door or front door but whether it was declared in the proper way, and yes, it was. In the old days, the only way we found out whether someone had met Rupert Murdoch was by waiting for Alastair Campbell’s diaries. In our case we have been very transparent about it. The information goes all the way back to the election and includes both private and official meetings, whether they were at Chequers or No. 10 Downing street. I think we need to go further in that regard, and I think that should be the new standard. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, who has published the information back to when he became leader of the Labour party: why cannot we see it right back to the general election?

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

When the Prime Minister read of the extensive investigation in The New York Times on 1 September last year, what was his reaction, and what did he do?

[The Prime Minister]

The question I ask myself all the way through is, “Is there new information that Andy Coulson knew about hacking at the News of the World?” I could not be clearer about this: if it turns out that he knew about that hacking, he will have lied to a Select Committee, he will have lied to the police, he will have lied to a court of law and he will have lied to me. I made the decision to employ him in good faith, because of the assurances he gave me. There was no information in that article that would lead me to change my mind about those assurances, but if it turns out—[Interruption.] As I said, I could not be clearer. If it turns out that he knew about the hacking, that will be a matter of huge regret and a matter for great apology, and it will be not only a disgrace that he worked in government but, vitally, something that would be subject to criminal prosecutions.