Phone Hacking

Debate between John Whittingdale and Dominic Grieve

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

It is a matter that I am very happy to go away and check, but I think the hon. Gentleman might be mistaken. I think that in fact Ofcom could intervene at any stage if it were to conclude that somebody was not a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence. As these matters can be complex and I would not wish in any way to mislead the House, I would be happy to go away and check that point and to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I can confirm that I spoke to the chief executive of Ofcom yesterday, who told me that Ofcom has the power to intervene at any stage if it determines that somebody is no longer a fit and proper person to own a media organisation.

[The Attorney-General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and that confirms what I already thought. Of course, that will not prevent me from going away and triple-checking the matter before I write to the hon. Member for Rhondda about it.

I am conscious that I ought to make progress and I want to allow time for debate. Because of my rather limited ability to comment on many of the allegations made, I was going to remind the House of some of the history of this matter. The House will be aware that these problems originated in November 2005 when the Metropolitan police were contacted by the royal household with concerns that voicemails relating to members of the royal family had been intercepted—

Injunctions

Debate between John Whittingdale and Dominic Grieve

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the granting and enforcement of privacy injunctions, particularly in light of the recent report chaired by the Master of the Rolls.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend on an issue that I know is of considerable concern in this House as well as to the public and the media. The Government believe that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and that it is of the greatest importance that people should be able to discuss and debate issues as freely and openly as possible. This includes those occasions when freedom of speech is exercised provocatively, as it is supposed to be in a free country.

Plainly, however, there are also occasions when an individual is entitled to have their privacy protected. There is a balance to be struck and this is reflected in our existing legal framework. The Government recognise the importance of finding the correct balance between individual rights to privacy on the one hand and rights to freedom of expression and transparency of official information on the other. We also recognise that there are widely differing views on what that balance should be. It is in no one’s interest to rush to judgment on this.

The complexity of the issue and the lack of consensus are some of the reasons why the report of the Master of the Rolls’ committee on the procedural aspects of super-injunctions and anonymity injunctions published last Friday is to be welcomed, and why we will want to take on board its carefully thought through recommendations. It reaffirms that open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle, and that exceptions are permissible only to the extent that they are strictly necessary in the interests of justice. While such decisions will necessarily be made in each particular case, dependent on the facts of that case, it does offer a likelihood of some greater clarity.

The report indicates that when some degree of secrecy is necessary, the facts of the case and the reason for secrecy should be explained, as far as possible, in an openly available judgment. It also emphasises that super-injunctions—where the fact that there is an injunction, as well as the substantive issues, has to be kept secret—are now only being granted for very short periods where secrecy is necessary to ensure that the whole point of the order is not destroyed. We hope that its analysis and recommendations should help to allay concerns that super-injunctions were being granted far too readily and about their potential open-endedness.

Of course, a range of wider issues has been raised by the events of the past few months and especially the past weekend. We take seriously the need to ensure that we have the correct balance between privacy and freedom of expression. Today, the Prime Minister will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) recommending that a Joint Committee be established to consider how current arrangements can be improved. Such a Committee will be able to use representation of both Houses and the considerable expertise that Select Committees have to examine whether the current arrangements are working and to consider whether we might make any changes that would make things work better.

In the meantime, it is right to emphasise that just as any change in the law is a matter for Parliament, the interpretation of the law is a responsibility placed on the judiciary. Legal mechanisms exist to review individual decisions that may be mistaken. If we believe in the rule of law, it is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold those principles.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I welcome the report from the committee of the Master of the Rolls, which contains a number of sensible recommendations, and also the Prime Minister’s decision to establish a Committee to examine all the issues surrounding the granting of injunctions and super-injunctions. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept, however, that matters are developing very rapidly? Does he accept that the revelation on Friday of some of the details of the injunction granted to Sir Fred Goodwin raised important issues of public interest, and that that raises the question of why the injunction was granted in the first place? Does he agree that he would virtually have to live in an igloo not to know the identity of at least one premier league footballer who has obtained an injunction, and that the actions by thousands of people who posted details of it on Twitter are in danger of making the law look an ass?

In the report by the Master of the Rolls, doubt is cast once again on the right of the press to report the proceedings of Parliament. Does that not have worrying implications for the rights of Members of the House of Commons, and for parliamentary privilege?

More than a year ago, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport called for the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 to be replaced by a clear and comprehensive statute upholding the fundamental rights of the press to report what is said in this place. Will he ensure that that, too, is considered by the Prime Minister’s Committee as a matter of urgency?

[The Attorney-General]

Let me respond to my hon. Friend’s reference to individual cases by saying that he will not be surprised if I am not drawn into commenting on the matter. What I can say is that widespread public interest and, indeed, disquiet have been expressed about the events of the past few weeks and days, and that—as the report by the Master of the Rolls clearly showed—they raise the question of how a person’s privacy can be balanced against the requirement for the public to be properly informed, and also the question of how injunctions may be enforced. I would add, however, that the courts have power to punish those who breach injunctions, and those who decide flagrantly to do so should bear that in mind when they embark on such a course.

The question of parliamentary privilege is not a new issue. While it is fully recognised that we have complete privilege in this Chamber to say what we like—and the Lord Chief Justice reiterated that in the clearest and most unequivocal terms in his comments last Friday— the question of the extent to which communication between a constituent and a Member of Parliament is covered by parliamentary privilege remains uncertain. What is entirely clear is that—from the judiciary’s point of view as much as those of the Government and Parliament—that is an undesirable state of affairs, which is undoubtedly susceptible to both clarification and rectification if the will is there for that to be done.