Points of Order

Debate between John Whittingdale and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving up the point of order from the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), because I think that it is a rather juicy one. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).

[Mr Speaker]

My initial response to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is open to the Northern Ireland Office, which will be privy to all the material, to correct the record if it judges that to be necessary. I do not think that I can add anything to that statement at this stage and we will leave it there for today. I thank him for his point of order.

[Mr Whittingdale]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that in November last year, I raised a point of order to express my concern that Dato Makudi had been given leave to take to the Court of Appeal his action for defamation that related to remarks made by Lord Triesman to the Football Association, in which he merely referred to statements that he had made to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport about possible corruption in FIFA. Those remarks were, of course, made under privilege.

At that time, I expressed my concern that the action represented a significant threat to the privilege conferred on Members and, indeed, on witnesses who appear before Select Committees of this House, and that it could have the severe effects of preventing us from exposing truth and giving witnesses the impression that they do not enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege. You were sufficiently concerned, Mr Speaker, to make a submission to the Court of Appeal.

As you may be aware, Mr Speaker, the Court of Appeal has reached a judgment in which it is clearly stated that Lord Triesman’s remarks were covered by article 9 of the Bill of Rights. I believe that that is a significant re-establishment of the rights of this House. I wonder whether you would like to make a statement in the light of that.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he rightly says, I shared his grave concern, not principally on behalf of Lord Triesman, but on behalf of the House, that a threat to parliamentary privilege and, therefore, to Parliament was entailed. I did, as I indicated to the hon. Gentleman was my intention, cause representations to be made to the Court of Appeal. It was, of course, a matter for the court and I am absolutely delighted that it found in favour of Lord Triesman. That was a victory not just for Lord Triesman, but for the precious principle of parliamentary privilege and for Parliament itself. It was a very important day, and the hon. Gentleman is right to celebrate it and to give me the opportunity, on behalf of the House, to do the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Whittingdale and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Extreme brevity is now required, as will be exemplified, I know, by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale).

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest laws passed in Ukraine severely restricting democratic protest represent a further step backwards and are fuel for the shocking violence seen overnight? Will he send a clear message to the Ukrainian Government that we will take measures against those responsible and a message to the Russian Government that this is for the Ukrainian people to resolve?

Point of Order

Debate between John Whittingdale and John Bercow

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Exceptionally, I shall take the point of order before the statement.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am most grateful to you for making an exception in this case, Mr Speaker. As you are aware, Lord Triesman gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee as part of our inquiry into the 2018 world cup bid. During his evidence, under parliamentary privilege, Lord Triesman made specific accusations of corruption against four named members of FIFA’s executive committee. In the subsequent review conducted by the Football Association, Lord Triesman was careful to say in answer to questions from James Dingemans QC, who was conducting the review, that he invited him to rely on the evidence that he had given to the Select Committee, and that he did not wish to add to it. In January 2013, one of those accused, Mr Makudi, brought an action for defamation against Lord Triesman, which was struck out. However, in June this year the Court of Appeal granted leave to Mr Makudi to appeal.

This matter goes to the heart of the privilege afforded to Members of Parliament and to witnesses who give evidence to Parliament. If witnesses to Select Committees cannot be confident that their evidence is covered by absolute privilege, and that if they do not repeat the allegations outside Parliament they are fully protected against legal action, that will severely damage the ability of Select Committees to obtain the information that they require. I should therefore be grateful, Mr Speaker, if you would consider what action you, or Parliament, can take to defend the principle of parliamentary privilege, which is a fundamental right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee with great skill, for his courtesy in giving me notice of his point of order.

I have followed these matters very closely, and the possible implications give me cause for grave concern. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is awaiting determination by the Court of Appeal, so I will not of course comment on the substance of the case; but I will say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House, that I consider these matters to be of such importance for the House and for its Members, and to the protection of free speech in our proceedings, that written submissions have been made to the court on my behalf by Speaker’s Counsel. I shall of course be following developments closely, as, I know, will the hon. Gentleman. I am extremely grateful to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Whittingdale and John Bercow

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We will treat that as a rhetorical question, because questions are put to Ministers, rather than asked by them.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I endorse the view of my colleague on the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), that there is no serious justification for saying that the royal charter marks the end of press freedom. Will the Secretary of State accept, however, that the ability of Parliament to have a say on the rules under which the press regulator operates—even with a requirement for a two-thirds majority, which, as she knows, has no constitutional validity—allows that claim to be made? If it is that provision that is preventing some newspapers from joining, will she now, even at this late stage, consider alternative safeguards such as the one in the PressBoF charter?

Olympics and Paralympics (Funding)

Debate between John Whittingdale and John Bercow

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

One of the concerns, if not of many Members of the House, then of many people outside it, is that very little attention seems to have been paid at the beginning to how much this would all cost. Various figures were bandied around at that juncture, and £2.5 billion was suggested as the cost of the overall package. I accept that it is good that we have the games and that there is unity across the House about that, but it is equally important that there is an open debate on funding and other related issues, particularly the question of whether there will be the legacy we all hope for in that part of east London, which we will not have a definite answer to for at least another decade. One of the concerns at the outset—of course, that was a very different economic time—was that there was very little scrutiny of the whole funding issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Gentleman speaks for two cities, as opposed to a smaller area, a degree of economy when intervening from now on would be appreciated.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to disagree with him, but although he may well be right that perhaps insufficient attention was paid to funding outside in the wider world, I can assure him that the Select Committee paid close attention to it. I will deal with that in more detail, as it is the prime focus of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Jowell]

May I just deal with that point, which is tediously technical? When we compiled the budget, the status of the delivery organisation had not been settled. The definition of status could have placed the delivery authority on one side or the other of liability for VAT. If it had been, in effect, a local authority, it would not have been liable for VAT. It was judged not to be a proxy body for a local authority and was therefore liable for VAT. That was not clear until, having won the bid, we were able to nail down the role and function of the delivery authority.

[Mr Speaker]

We are now clear.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I recall having that debate with the right hon. Lady in the Select Committee at the time.

The other element that increased the budget dramatically was the inclusion of the programme contingency. The Select Committee spent some time examining that, because we discovered that the £2.7 billion programme contingency came on top of the contingencies that were built into each of the individual projects. That resulted in an overall contingency within the £9.3 billion budget of £3.5 billion. We observed that that was extraordinarily large. As it happens, it will almost all be spent.

To some extent, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was correct in setting, right at the start, the budget with a substantial contingency, which we all hoped would not be spent, rather than having to come back and increase the budget each time. There is no doubt that there would have been far more adverse publicity if the budget had gone up every single year. The then Government decided—I do not criticise them for this—to set a substantial budget with a large contingency right at the beginning, with the expectation, I imagine, that there was no possibility that it could be overrun. As it is, it will be pretty close, but I hope that the budget will be met.

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Debate between John Whittingdale and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was his predecessor as Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. As he also knows, we asked Rebekah Brooks—then Rebekah Wade—to give evidence to the Committee, with Andy Coulson, at that time. She admitted with clarity that she had been involved in paying money to the police. Andy Coulson said that that had been done only within the law, which was an unbelievable lie because it is impossible for a newspaper to pay money to the police within the law. When the hon. Gentleman has Rebekah Brooks and the other people from News International before him, I advise him to take a long spoon with him, because of the way in which they will try to lie and cheat their way out of the predicament that they are in.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I recall vividly the evidence given by Rebekah Brooks to the Committee when the right hon. Gentleman was its Chairman. It included matters that he rightly says might turn out to be criminal, and I am certain that the judicial inquiry will want to examine them. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues on the Select Committee, who are extremely robust on these matters, might well wish to ask questions about those matters as well, should they have the chance to do so.

In regard to the takeover of BSkyB—which is, after all, the matter that we are supposed to be debating this afternoon—it has always been the case that there are more stringent tests for the acquisition of a media company in this country. That is right; it is a reflection of the power of the media that they should be subject to greater tests. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), who has been utterly scrupulous in his handling of this matter. I believe that he has acted on the basis of independent advice at every stage, and it is difficult to find fault with the way in which he has conducted himself.

Phone Hacking

Debate between John Whittingdale and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of colleagues wish to catch my eye, so I appeal to each Back Bencher to ask a single short supplementary question, and to the Prime Minister for his characteristically economical replies.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and thank him for consulting me, and my two fellow Select Committee Chairmen, about the terms of reference last night. Although there is no doubt that we need a stronger system of regulation of the press in this country, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that although it was newspapers that were responsible for these wholly unacceptable and often illegal activities, it was also newspapers that exposed them? I hope he will agree that a free press is a fundamental cornerstone of a free society, and that we must do nothing to jeopardise that.