BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I come to this debate slightly late, as I am actually responding to a debate that took place almost a year ago to the day. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) made his points powerfully but succinctly: he had just 16 minutes to speak. The Minister at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), had one minute to respond. I will therefore set the context of the debate and answer a number of the points I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would have made if he had had longer when he moved the Second Reading of his Bill.

Just over 100 years ago, on 18 October 1922, the BBC came into being as the British Broadcasting Company. It was an arrangement between the Post Office and a group of radio set manufacturers to provide radio content and promote the sale of wireless sets. It was funded through a 10 shilling licence fee. In 1927, the BBC received its first royal charter, becoming the British Broadcasting Corporation, with a mission to inform, educate and entertain. Since then, the BBC has continued to evolve and to play a hugely important role in British life, as it has touched the lives of almost everyone in the UK and made a unique contribution to our cultural heritage.

In December 1932, the BBC launched its Empire Service. Days later, the service broadcast the first Christmas day message by a British monarch when King George V addressed the empire live from Sandringham. In 1940, Winston Churchill delivered his first radio broadcast as Prime Minister. In 1946, the first combined radio and TV licence fee was introduced, at a cost of £2, which then became the TV licence in 1971.

In 1985, Live Aid was broadcast to an estimated 400 million viewers, and in 2007, iPlayer pioneered a whole new way to watch BBC content on demand via the internet. A year later, that was followed by BBC Sounds, which is a streaming media and audio download service hosting a range of content including live radio broadcasts, audio on demand and podcasts. As was noted in the brief debate we had a year ago by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), last year the BBC’s coverage of the funeral of Her late Majesty the Queen was watched by 22.4 million people across BBC channels at peak viewing time.

The BBC, now just over 100 years old, continues to be a great national institution. It is an invaluable source of education, information and entertainment, particularly for the most vulnerable and isolated people in our society, including older people. It is respected globally and reaches hundreds of millions of people across the world every week. No other country in the world has anything quite like it.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

If the BBC is as wonderful and magnificent as my right hon. Friend is telling us, and it provides such wonderful value for money, as the BBC keeps telling us, why does it need the criminal law to force people to pay for it?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, that is a point I intend to address in some substance a little later on. He makes an argument that many have made, and I understand it. The quality of the content of the BBC is considerable, although I—like everybody in this House, I suspect—occasionally have reason to question it. It is, in my view, still the finest broadcaster in the world, but that is a separate issue from the question of how we pay for it, which is the issue at stake in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

In the licence fee settlement, which is written into the charter, I froze the licence fee for two years and then said that it should return to increasing in line with inflation, but by precisely how much it will increase and when are matters on which the Government will be able to provide my hon. Friend with further information relatively soon—that is not yet determined. The requirement is written into the charter, as I said.

The Government recognise the importance of television to people of all ages, particularly older people who value television as a source of entertainment and companionship and as a way to stay connected. We remain committed to ensuring economic security for people at every stage of their life. We believe that the BBC has a duty to ensure that it uses its substantial licence fee income to support older people. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) suggested, the BBC has informed the Government that no enforcement action has been taken against over-75s at this stage.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) asked about inflation and the income that the BBC needs, which is, of course, leading to the end of the benefit for over-75s, but the one factor that I hope the Minister will not ignore in all this is the number of new houses being built. It seems to me that the Government and main Opposition parties are determined to build more and more houses—the Labour party has proposed building 1.5 million—and when all these houses are built, it will mean more income for the BBC. I hope that house building targets will be taken into consideration when it comes to how much money the BBC needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

If people fail to pay their licence fee, it is a matter for criminal prosecution, but as the BBC is responsible for the collection of the licence fee, it is a matter of choice as to whether or not it wishes to prosecute. In response to our request that it addresses the matter with sensitivity, the BBC has assured us that it has not, to date, sought to prosecute anyone over 75.

I want to say a little more about the challenge to the licence fee going forward. When it was reviewed in 2015, it was recognised that there were a number of drawbacks. In some ways, it is a flat-rate charge for which there is no means-tested assistance, and therefore it is highly regressive. At that time, it was concluded that there was no better system of funding the BBC and that it was the most appropriate. For that reason, it was agreed that the licence fee would continue for the remaining period of the current charter.

As the media landscape has changed in the way that I have described, that has had a consequence. Despite the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about housebuilding, the number of TV licences held has declined by 1.9 million since 2017-18. That is because, probably for the first time, a large number of people are genuinely saying that they do not watch live television and that they are perfectly adequately entertained by watching streaming services, on demand and catch-up TV. Under the current rules for the licence fee, they are not required to have a licence.

On top of that decline of 1.9 million, estimated TV licence evasion has now risen to its highest level since 1995, standing at about 10.3%. If the trends taking place continue, that represents a significant challenge to the sustainability of the licence fee, and that comes on top of the concerns about the fairness of the model and, indeed, about whether it is right to continue to enforce it through a criminal sanction.

Already we have seen the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee suggest that the drawbacks to the current licence fee model are becoming more salient. It called for a comprehensive review of the licence fee system. In response, the Government have established the BBC future funding review, with the purpose of examining the options for alternative means of funding the BBC after the end of the current settlement.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister, as always, is making a very coherent argument. Would he agree with me that, not least for reasons of impartiality, it would be completely unacceptable for the BBC’s income to be paid by a Government out of general taxation?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It has always been said that if the BBC were funded directly from the Treasury out of general taxation, that would make it susceptible to political pressure, and it would reduce the distance of the arm’s length relationship between the BBC and the Government. There may be some truth in that. I have never entirely bought the argument that the licence fee protects it from political interference. It just means that the opportunity is slightly less regular in that it must wait until the next licence fee settlement.

However, the relationship between the Government and the BBC, particularly over the funding settlement, is one of negotiation, and it is right that the Government should ultimately decide the level of licence fee. There have been suggestions by some—I do not believe my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley would be among them—that the licence fee should be set by some independent committee or by Ofcom, and that the Government should not have a say. That is not something that I believe would be right. I think the Government have a duty to take account of the pressures on household budgets more widely, and the Government are also accountable for that decision. Therefore, I see no chance of that aspect changing, but there are options that will become available over time for alternative means of funding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I look forward to discussing this matter further with the hon. Lady when I appear before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in due course. The Media Bill is published in draft, with part of the reason being so that we can have a debate about the precise definitions contained in it. I am happy to look at that, but we remain committed to the prominence obligations that the Bill will put in place.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), does the Secretary of State believe that people should be forced by the criminal law to buy a Sky TV package even if they do not want one? If not, why should they be forced to buy a BBC licence fee if they do not want one? Does she not agree that both positions are equally absurd?

White Paper on the BBC Charter

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am sympathetic to those comments. Arrangements for appointments to the board will be made clear tomorrow, but the importance of diversity is central to the White Paper and it applies to those who work for the BBC, those who appear on BBC programmes and indeed those who watch them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Following the lefty-lovey hysteria at the weekend, does my right hon. Friend agree that scrapping the discredited BBC Trust, asking for more transparency in a publicly funded organisation and wanting the BBC to be distinctive and impartial is hardly the end of public service broadcasting as we know it?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think he will find that our proposals certainly do not represent the end of public service broadcasting. Indeed, I hope it will be felt that they strengthen public service broadcasting. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I understand the concern about fixed odds betting terminals, and we keep the issue under review. The hon. Lady may be aware that last year we brought in new requirements that improved player protection, in particular by putting a stop to unsupervised play for stakes of over £50. It is already clear that that has had an impact on player behaviour. As far as we can see, the rate of problem gambling remains at under 1% and has not shown any sign of rising as a result of FOBTs.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State knows, the inconvenient truth is that problem gambling rates have reduced since the introduction of fixed odds betting terminals. The Campaign for Fairer Gambling claimed that each fixed odds betting terminal makes a profit of £1,000 a week. As a betting shop is open for more than 90 hours a week, that works out at an average profit of around £11 an hour. Does the Secretary of State think that that is an excessive profit rate? If he does, what does he think an acceptable profit rate would be?

[Mr Whittingdale]

An awful lot of claims and counter-claims are made in this area, and not all of them stand up to close scrutiny. The Government intend to maintain a close watch over the issue, and any further changes that we introduce will be firmly evidence-based.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Whittingdale]

This country produces some of the finest music acts in the world. A lot of the ones that I go to see certainly did not go to public school, and I am looking forward to going to see Muse and, I hope, Rainbow in the coming months. Of course, I want to see opportunity for everybody who has talent to succeed.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Victoria Pendleton, the Olympic champion, on riding her first winner over fences at Wincanton yesterday, on Pacha Du Polder, a horse owned by Andy Stewart and trained by Paul Nicholls? Her exploits are a big boost for the racing industry. Will the Secretary of State confirm that when he sets the rate of the new levy, he will be taking into account all the current streams of funding that go into racing from bookmakers, such as picture rights?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I of course join my hon. Friend in congratulating Victoria Pendleton. I heard her talking about her success this morning, and it shows how somebody can achieve great accomplishment in one sport and then go on to succeed in a second. On the specific point he raises about the extension of the levy to cover offshore, the amount will be determined by an analysis, which we have commissioned, of the funding and costs of racing. That will take account of all sources of revenue, including media rights, as he points out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

Even if I wanted to tell the BBC that it should not broadcast “Strictly Come Dancing” or “The Great British Bake Off”—and I do not—I would not be able to do so. It is up to the BBC to choose. What I do think is appropriate is that, at the time of charter renewal, we should have a debate about the BBC’s purpose, its scale and scope, its funding and its governance. That is what we are doing, and we are extremely pleased at the very high level of response that we have received.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I associate myself with your remarks about Michael Meacher, Mr Speaker? Unusually, we shared a member of staff across the House, which I do not think happens very often. He was a great man and your words were very well said. I send my sympathies to his family.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be far better for subscribers to the BBC to determine the scale and scope of its services, rather than the Government? If the BBC is as popular with the public as it claims, it has nothing to fear from moving to a subscription model. Given its international recognition, is it not inevitable that, freed from the shackles of the licence fee, the BBC’s revenue would increase substantially if it moved to a subscription model?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am, of course, familiar with my hon. Friend’s views on the BBC. He has made his case with customary strength and fluency. We are analysing the responses to the consultation and his view will be taken into account, as will the other 192,000 we have received.

Concessionary Television Licences

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman and I agreed many times when we served together on the Committee, but I do not agree with him on this occasion. What I have announced does not conflict with what is in the Select Committee report. The licence fee settlement will be subject to debate and a widespread consultation. This is not a licence fee settlement. We have sought to give the BBC some confidence, when it comes to plan for the future, that if the charter review does not conclude that there should be changes in purposes and scope, it can look forward to a rise in line with inflation after that time. That does not rule out any option that we will consider during the process of charter review.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Given that the BBC gets in more income every time a new home is built, does the Secretary of State agree that it has been pretty well protected during the period of austerity that other parts of the public sector have faced? Does he also agree that if the BBC ever feels short-changed from sucking on the teat of the licence fee payer, it can always try its luck in the commercial sector and move to a subscription model?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While the BBC’s licence fee has been frozen since 2010, its income has nevertheless been rising year on year due to the growth in the number of households. That is not widely recognised but it should certainly be taken into account in these decisions.

Indictment against FIFA Officials

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

Thursday 28th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. As I have observed elsewhere, I hope my appointment sets a useful precedent for Select Committee Chairmen.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, the SFO investigation is a matter for the SFO, but it will have heard the calls today and the calls made by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) in the debate in the previous Parliament—I understand that it is considering them. I have not yet had an opportunity to talk to the Attorney General, but I will be happy to do so, and to make it clear to him and to the SFO that we will assist in any way we can.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. I hope other Ministers will forgive me when I say that, when the new Government were put together, his was the best appointment made by the Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State should be very proud of his record on this issue, and of the leadership he showed when he was Chairman of the Select Committee. We know from those inquiries that FIFA is clearly corrupt, that Sepp Blatter has been leading the way in that corruption, and that somebody has to make a stand. If the election goes ahead and Sepp Blatter is re-elected, unbelievably, as the head of FIFA, will my right hon. Friend encourage the home nations to withdraw from FIFA and to make a stand, or if they were to make that decision, would the Government support them?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, I am delighted to see, maintains his record of doing nothing to curry favour with the Chief Whip.

As my hon. Friend says, we need to look at the matter carefully. What happens after Friday if Sepp Blatter is re-elected will need careful consideration, primarily by the FA. It has been taken for granted up until now that Sepp Blatter will win, but the election has not yet taken place, and elections do not always produce the outcome that the experts predict. We shall wait and see. I shall certainly be seeing Greg Dyke very shortly to discuss the attitude of the FA. There are a number of options. Whether one would resort to the nuclear option my hon. Friend suggests is a matter for the FA, but we will need to discuss that option with it.

Culture, Media and Sport committee

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s sadness that he was unable to support us. It was interesting that three of my colleagues felt unable to support the final conclusions in our report, but I think it fair to say that each of them did so for entirely different reasons—it was not necessarily a meeting of minds. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, there is going to be a lot of argument about the different models, and we saw considerable attraction in the original proposals made by Lord Burns. Most—I suspect all—of us thought it a pity that the previous Government did not adopt the Burns model, rather than create the rather unsatisfactory BBC Trust. The BBC Trust has failed and we do not want to create a body that is basically another BBC Trust. His idea of the ex ante regulator is in danger of falling into that trap; personally I think there needs to be a very clear responsibility for the oversight and running of the BBC, and a single unitary board is the best way of achieving that.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend as an outstanding Chairman of a Select Committee and a perfect illustration of why the two-term rule for Select Committee Chairmen should be scrapped immediately. He will be aware that I was in a minority of one in calling for the licence fee to be replaced by subscription. Given the number of channels that are now available, those of us who believe in freedom of choice must surely believe that people who want to watch the BBC should be able to do so and pay for it, and those who do not want to watch the BBC should not have to pay for it and should be able to exercise that choice too. Has not the time come for that? If the licence fee represents such wonderful value for money, as the BBC tells us, surely it has nothing to fear from moving to a subscription model, because presumably everyone will be queuing round the corner to buy their subscription.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has always acted as my Thatcherite conscience on the Committee, and I have a lot of sympathy with what he has just said. However, I will make two observations. First, we are not yet able to move to a subscription model because that would require big changes, such as the installation of conditional access in every household. Secondly, I think that there will always be some content that should be provided and publicly financed, because there are certain things that might not be viable on a subscription basis but are nevertheless important for the public good. I therefore think that there will always be an element of public finance, but I can certainly see the attraction of moving in the direction of having a growing proportion of content paid for by subscription.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is all very well restricting stakes and prizes in betting shops, there is nothing to stop the people involved going back home where they can play exactly the same games on the internet with unlimited stakes and unlimited prizes?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I was going to come on to that point.

The latest statistics in the English health survey show that something like 0.5% of the population might be suffering from problem gambling, which represents a drop from the previous figure in the gambling prevalence study.

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Gibraltar gaming authorities whether they intend to launch legal action. They have certainly expressed concern as to whether the Bill’s provisions are legal, and it is obviously up to them whether they take legal action. I made it clear to the authorities and the gaming associations that I supported the Bill, and that therefore I would certainly discourage them from doing so. They did raise some concerns, which I shall discuss in the course of my remarks.

I wish to make it clear that my Select Committee supports the Bill’s general provisions, as do I. The Committee has spent some time examining gambling. We carried out post-legislative scrutiny in 2011-12 of the entire Gambling Act 2005. Although we examined online gaming, which is obviously the most rapidly increasing form of gambling, inevitably the main focus on the 2005 Act related to casinos, the previous Government’s abortive attempt to introduce regional casinos—super-casinos—in the UK and the provisions relating to fixed odds betting terminals in betting shops. I do not propose to explore the latter issue at great length today, although it remains one of some controversy.

Hon. Members may recall that when that Gambling Bill became an Act, the then Secretary of State declared that one of its purposes was to make the UK the world centre for online gaming and that that would be of great benefit to the UK economy. Unfortunately, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer holed the then Secretary of State amidships by setting the tax rate at a level that led to almost every operator moving offshore. There is a single exception, which I am sure the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), my friend from the Select Committee, will mention: bet365 remains the last operator headquartered in the UK. Almost all the others have moved to offshore jurisdictions such as Gibraltar, Alderney and some European Union member states.

The system that existed at that time of operating a white list to recognise the regulatory authorities of different jurisdictions appears, in the main, to have worked reasonably well. The Government, in putting forward the arguments for this Bill, have raised one or two concerns about how the current regime works. In particular, they have said that there is some confusion about the different regimes in different jurisdictions, and that consumers may sometimes be confused as to where responsibility lies and where they should go with their complaints.

There are undoubtedly some differences between the rules applied in different jurisdictions. I agree with the Remote Gambling Association that, in general, the industry is reasonably well regulated in the white list countries. As CARE—Christian Action Research and Education—has pointed out, one or two jurisdictions, particularly Gibraltar, operate slightly stronger regulatory conditions than those in the UK. In particular, the Gibraltar rules governing the reporting of suspicion that individuals might have a problem with their gambling habits are slightly stronger. The UK Gambling Commission might want to consider whether it can tighten its licensing conditions, particularly on problem gambling, which is rightly a great concern to everybody who considers gambling and the policies governing it.

[Philip Davies]

I challenge my hon. Friend, who does a fantastic job as the Chair of the Select Committee, to stand there and say with a straight face that he believes that the Bill is all about regulation. Might he concede that it is more to do with taxation than regulation?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend has made his view known during the course of our debates and I shall reach a conclusion on that point very shortly. As I say, however, the Government have advanced the argument that the Bill will result in major gains in consumer protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Whittingdale]

I think that would go rather further than defining sports betting and financial speculation and would have other implications that would need further consideration. I am not sure that I am convinced by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I would certainly be happy to debate it with him later.

Let me return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. The Government have made it very clear that the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen consumer protection and, of course, the Committee accepted the evidence given to us by the Minister on that point. It is important that that is its purpose, because if it had other purposes the Government might, as has been pointed out, be vulnerable to legal challenge. However, it seems entirely acceptable to argue that those people who sell gambling services to UK consumers should be required to pay UK tax. Although that might not be the purpose behind the Bill, if the consequence is that they come within the tax net, that would benefit the Exchequer and create a level playing field, which it is important we should have.

Some operators might even choose to return to the UK once the new licensing regime comes in. I realise that the level at which the tax is set is not an issue for my hon. Friend the Minister, but that is what will determine whether they return. Many of the remote gambling operators in Gibraltar and other jurisdictions have expressed concern that there is a danger that the tax will be set too high, which will have an impact on their operations and create an incentive for consumers to look elsewhere—to go outside the licensed operators to the black market. That is a serious threat, which I want to talk about.

[Philip Davies]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Treasury has already given some estimates of the amount of money it expects from this measure? It believes that if the tax is imposed at a 15% rate, 20% of the UK market will be unlicensed, unregulated and not paying tax. That will mean that a higher proportion of people will be playing on unregulated sites.

[Mr Whittingdale]

That is a matter for the Treasury, but I agree with my hon. Friend that a 15% rate would have a damaging impact. The Remote Gambling Association has suggested 5% as a reasonable level, but the Treasury will obviously have to examine that and strike a balance. The Treasury will need to bear in mind the risk not only that its revenues might suffer if consumers were driven from the licensed market to the black market but that consumers would suffer, as they would have none of the protections that would result from the new licensing requirements in the Bill. That seems to be at the heart of the issue, so although it is important that we should debate all the provisions in the Bill, the critical question will be determined not by the Minister but by her colleague in the Treasury.

One or two other concerns have been raised, particularly about the fact that this is an enormous new responsibility for the UK Gambling Commission, which will have to issue licences to a huge number of operators based in all parts of the world. The Select Committee had some concerns about the commission’s ability to do that and about the resource implications. The Gibraltar betting and gaming association has raised the concern that the change could result in brass plating, with the Gambling Commission merely giving an operator a tick because it does not have the resources to go to the other jurisdictions to question the regulating authorities. The UK Gambling Commission will have to rely on other regulators in a way not dissimilar from its reliance on those on the white list, so if it is to accept the regulatory approval of other regulators in different countries it is important that it satisfies itself that those regulators are doing a good job. That might require additional resources, and we expressed some concerns about the degree of the extra responsibilities that will be placed on the commission.

Let me return to the question of the consequence of consumers being driven into the black market. The industry is highly competitive and a very small difference in cost can result in operators offering more attractive odds than the licensed operators. On those grounds, there is a risk that people will look towards the black market.

Privilege

Debate between Philip Davies and John Whittingdale

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I hope that the full facts will continue to emerge, not just through the work of the Committee but through that of Lord Justice Leveson and the police investigation and the possible charges to follow. I have to say that the Committee reached that conclusion in our work. Initially, it was suggested that the “For Neville” e-mail might have been going to any old Neville in the News of the World. We made inquiries and discovered that in fact there was only one person called Neville in the employment of the News of the World, and he was its chief reporter. Therefore, in 2009 the Committee concluded:

“Evidence we have seen makes it inconceivable that no-one else at the News of the World, bar Clive Goodman, knew about the phone-hacking”.

In relation to the previous assurance about the rigour of the inquiry, we said:

“The newspaper’s enquiries were far from ‘full’ or ‘rigorous’, as we—and the PCC—had been assured. Throughout our inquiry, too, we have been struck by the collective amnesia afflicting witnesses from the News of the World.”

We published that report and nothing happened. It is perhaps a matter of regret that no further action was taken for another two years. However, evidence then started to emerge from the civil cases being brought by the victims of phone hacking, which led to the initiation of Operation Weeting—the police inquiry—and an Adjournment debate introduced by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), in which he suggested that the Committee had been misled. Those events, plus the decision of James Murdoch to close the News of the World and to make a statement saying that the evidence and statements given to Parliament were wrong, caused the Committee to decide to reopen the inquiry.

We took evidence from a wide range of people, including John Yates, then of the Metropolitan police, Rupert and James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, Jonathan Chapman, Daniel Cloke, Tom Crone, Colin Myler, Les Hinton and Julian Pike. We were assured at the time that News International was extremely keen to co-operate with the Committee and to establish the facts, but during the course of our subsequent inquiry three crucial documents emerged. It is worth noting that none were supplied to the Committee by News International, and that they actually came from various lawyers acting for the personalities involved.

The first document was the letter sent in March 2007 by Clive Goodman to Les Hinton, the then chairman, objecting to his dismissal. The reason Clive Goodman gave for his objection to his dismissal was as follows:

“This practice [phone hacking] was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, until explicit reference to it was banned by the Editor. The legal manager, Tom Crone, attended virtually every meeting of my legal team and was given full access to the Crown Prosecution Service’s evidence files. He, and other senior staff of the paper, had long advanced knowledge that I would plead guilty.”

The second document we obtained was an internal e-mail sent from Tom Crone to Colin Myler before a meeting with James Murdoch to discuss the terms of the settlement with Gordon Taylor. The e-mail states that

“this evidence, particularly the e-mail”—

the “For Neville” e-mail—

“from the News of the World is fatal to our case.”

Tom Crone went on to say:

“Our position is very perilous. The damning e-mail is genuine and proves we actively made use of a large number of extremely private voicemails from Taylor’s telephone in June/July 2005 and that this was pursuant to a February 2005 contract.”

Of course, that was written almost a year before Mr Crone appeared before the Committee and suggested that the “For Neville” e-mail was of no real significance because they could not remember where it had gone or find any record of it.

The third document was the opinion obtained by Michael Silverleaf QC, who advised News Group Newspapers that it should reach a settlement because, as he said:

“there is a powerful case that there is (or was) a culture of illegal information access used at News Group Newspapers in order to produce stories for publication.”

The Committee, in its conclusions, comments on several specific issues that I will not go into in great detail, but they include such matters as the decision to authorise payments to Clive Goodman following his conviction; the importance of confidentiality in the size of the Gordon Taylor settlement; and the commissioning of surveillance of at least some members and former members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. These are matters that we describe in detail, and I hope that the Standards and Privileges Committee will also consider them.

Our overall conclusion was that the evidence that we had obtained made it clear that the evidence given to us in our previous inquiry, when the individuals involved had once again attempted to assure us that there was no real suggestion or evidence that anyone else at the News of the World was involved in phone hacking other than Clive Goodman, was not true. They certainly did have documents that indicated very clearly that that was not the case. It was for that reason that the Committee concluded that we had been misled by Les Hinton, Tom Crone and Colin Myler—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for the skilled way in which he has chaired the Committee over a long period, including during these very difficult inquiries, on which there was not always agreement. Will he just reiterate that, despite all the controversy over other parts of the report, on the chapter we are discussing today the Committee was united in finding that these people had misled the Committee, and there was no disagreement about any part of this chapter?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is correct: on whether the three individuals whom I have just named misled the Committee we were unanimous in our finding. It is for that reason that I was very pleased that the Committee agreed to support the motion that I am moving.

We took evidence from other individuals, and the Committee deliberately decided that we would reach no conclusion on the evidence given to us by people who have since been arrested and could face criminal charges. The Committee reserves the right to return to that question once proceedings are concluded, but the three individuals we identified have not been arrested, and we therefore felt it was right that we should draw the conclusions that we have and bring them to the attention of the House.

We are under no illusion: these are serious matters. The conclusions we have reached bear profound consequences. I am not entirely clear what those consequences are, but there is no question but that these are very serious matters. It was also brought to our attention that those individuals should have a right to rebut the charges and to respond to them. We respected that, and we therefore felt that the right procedure was to refer the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee, so that it had an opportunity to consider the evidence that led to our findings and to consider the responses that have already been given by two of the individuals named. On that basis, I ask the House to refer the Committee’s report and the evidence we received to the Standards and Privileges Committee.