Phone Hacking

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I was asked in 2006 to collaborate with the first police inquiry, because I had been one of the victims of hacking. I collaborated and gave evidence, and I was very pleased that it resulted in the conviction of two people for clearly illegal activity. I am collaborating currently with the police in their second inquiry, which is of course ranging much more widely.

I have said this in the House before, but I am clear that from the beginning the issue has not been principally about whether politicians, the royal family or celebrities have had their phones hacked, but about whether ordinary members of the public have had their privacy invaded by people much more powerful than them. It has been about people who have not had the opportunity to speak for themselves or to command the airwaves in return.

I thought it bad enough that families, friends and constituents had had their information picked over, and I know from experience that it severely affected the career and health of one friend, but we now realise that it was much worse than that, because it has been about not just ordinary members of the public doing ordinary jobs, but people at their most vulnerable and traumatised. They have been exploited purely in the interests of a media story, so I, like every Member, join in the expressions of revulsion by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all colleagues. It is the most unacceptable of behaviour.

Given the acceptance that there should be inquiries, we should make clear the questions that we need the public inquiries to answer. If there is a robbery, three sorts of people are involved: the people who are visibly involved; the people who commission the robbery and benefit from the proceeds, although we never see them; and the people who know all about the robbery but try to pretend that they do not.

The inquiries and the police investigations must go to all those people, because it is no good picking off the small guys, the guys who are pushed out to do the jobs, when the decisions have been clearly taken by the big guys—or in this case, the big girls. We need to ensure, therefore, that we encourage the police to be absolutely ruthless in investigating everything that may have happened, and to give our full support to the new commissioner and his team now carrying out the inquiry.

There is an obvious second set of questions. The Metropolitan police did not do a good job in 2006, and they probably did not start back in 2002, when the issues appear to have come to light. When the investigation took place into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, institutional racism was discovered in the Met police. I am not alleging that there is institutional corruption in the Met police, but it has been widely known for years that there has been regular corruption on such issues in the Met police and in other police forces.

The very fact that the Information Commissioner produced a report in 2006, instancing how often and in how many papers such practices were going on, makes it absolutely clear that there has been an endemic problem in policing, with payments involving the police and people acting illegally in order to get stories, and with collaboration outside the public gaze. That is why I do not think it would be appropriate for another police service to investigate the Met, although I heard what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said in her intervention. There has to be an inquiry that is absolutely free of the police service, and is led by somebody who is entirely independent. In my view, that person has to be a judge. The inquiry must have the power to call all evidence and to require people to attend and answer questions, and it must be completely fearless.

I accept the argument that it may be possible for an inquiry to begin now with activities that will not compromise the police investigation. I am also absolutely clear that the police must be allowed to get on and complete their investigation, produce the evidence and go to the Crown Prosecution Service, so that charges can be brought and prosecutions made.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that although the public investigative processes that he is describing are absolutely necessary, we have a body that has the professional competence and capacity to investigate police actions? It is right that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has today referred certain matters to that body.

[Simon Hughes]

Yes, that body exists and I do not cavil at its independence. However, given the extent of the clear corruption in this case, the length of time over which these practices have continued and the huge public interest, it is logical to have the sort of inquiry that was held on the Stephen Lawrence case and others, which goes beyond the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Given what we have been told about the extent of the police and media connection, and about the way in which many stories appeared in the press with incredible speed the very next day, thanks to those tip-offs, does my right hon. Friend agree that the public will be satisfied with nothing less than what he is recommending?

[Simon Hughes]

I agree.

Another issue is the future of the companies involved and their interrelationship. I have no criticism of the way in which the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has carried out his inquiries into competition in the British media industry. However, as the shadow Home Secretary and others have implied, there is a separate issue, which is about “fit and proper persons”. That is to do with the regulation of the media. Ofcom, the regulator, is based in my constituency. The rules are clear and I have checked them with Ofcom today. Under section 3(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, Ofcom

“shall not grant a licence to any person unless they are satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold it; and…shall do all that they can to secure that, if they cease to be so satisfied in the case of any person holding a licence, that person does not remain the holder of the licence”.

Ofcom therefore has an ongoing duty to be satisfied that those at BSkyB are fit and proper persons to hold a broadcasting licence.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think it is appropriate for Ofcom to be formally requested to consider whether BSkyB is a company whose directors will be fit and proper people. As the local Member of Parliament for Ofcom, I intend to go through its door and make that request in person before the end of the week. It needs to know that this House, which owes the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) a great tribute for initiating this debate, wants that matter to be considered at the earliest possible opportunity.

Ofcom will, of course, not prejudge a criminal trial. It cannot come to a conclusion that somebody is guilty of an offence before they are found to be guilty. However, it has a statutory obligation to consider at any time who is appropriate to hold a broadcasting licence. The message from this House must be that we want it actively to consider that obligation. If it comes to the view that the future owners of BSkyB are inappropriate, it should rule accordingly, which would mean that the BSkyB merger could not go ahead.