John Whittingdale - Member of Parliament for Maldon

Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (1) if he will make it his policy to finance the installation costs for filters to allow reception of digital terrestrial television following the adoption of 4G mobile technology in (a) households with amplifiers fitted and (b) multiple dwelling units; [115386]

(2) what estimate he has made of the cost of installing filters to allow reception of digital terrestrial television (DTT) following the adoption of 4G mobile technology in (a) all DTT households, (b) DTT households with amplifiers fitted and (b) multiple dwelling units; [115387]

(3) if he will make it his policy to finance the cost of filters where necessary for second television sets to continue to receive digital terrestrial television following the adoption of 4G mobile technology. [115388]

Mr Vaizey [holding answer 5 July 2012]:As set out in the Government's announcement of 21 February, every home that needs one will be provided with a filter free of charge.

Owners of properties with communal distribution systems will be provided with the filter appropriate to such equipment, free of charge. Ofcom estimate that approximately 20,000 multi dwelling buildings could be affected. Ofcom estimate that the typical cost for a fitting a filter for a communal aerial installation would be around £220, although it could be significantly lower, and that there are an average of 16 dwellings served by each system. For multi-dwelling units similar to a single household property the costs would be similar to those for single occupancy buildings. It is normally the responsibility of each landlord to maintain any TV signal distribution system in the property, and this should extend to the fitting of any filter that is required. In general, we are not proposing to fund the fitting-of filters in these cases.

The one in four homes with residents deemed to be “vulnerable”—that is they meet the eligibility criteria that have been used for the Switchover Help Scheme—will be entitled to. installation of the filter, if needed, free of charge, The cost of fitting these filters should be much less than for an antenna installation. Charges may vary from installer to installer but typically could be as low as £50 + VAT. All these costs will be met from the £180 million funding to be provided by the mobile network operators.

Support specifically for second and subsequent sets will not be provided. This is consistent with the approach we took in TV switchover where help was provided (to those eligible) for one set only. All homes living in the geographical area where they are predicted to experience interference to TV reception will be sent one filter with clear instructions for installation. This includes the 60% of homes whose primary viewing is on satellite or cable platforms who will be able to use the filter on a secondary set connected to an aerial.

The funding provision of £180 million is based on Ofcom estimates of the size of the expected problem and includes a significant margin. A breakdown of how Ofcom arrived at this figure is contained within their recent consultation on coexistence between new services in the 800 MHz band and digital terrestrial television.

Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (1) if he will make it his policy to finance the installation costs for filters to allow reception of digital terrestrial television following the adoption of 4G mobile technology in (a) households with amplifiers fitted and (b) multiple dwelling units; [115386]

(2) what estimate he has made of the cost of installing filters to allow reception of digital terrestrial television (DTT) following the adoption of 4G mobile technology in (a) all DTT households, (b) DTT households with amplifiers fitted and (b) multiple dwelling units; [115387]

(3) if he will make it his policy to finance the cost of filters where necessary for second television sets to continue to receive digital terrestrial television following the adoption of 4G mobile technology. [115388]

Mr Vaizey [holding answer 5 July 2012]:As set out in the Government's announcement of 21 February, every home that needs one will be provided with a filter free of charge.

Owners of properties with communal distribution systems will be provided with the filter appropriate to such equipment, free of charge. Ofcom estimate that approximately 20,000 multi dwelling buildings could be affected. Ofcom estimate that the typical cost for a fitting a filter for a communal aerial installation would be around £220, although it could be significantly lower, and that there are an average of 16 dwellings served by each system. For multi-dwelling units similar to a single household property the costs would be similar to those for single occupancy buildings. It is normally the responsibility of each landlord to maintain any TV signal distribution system in the property, and this should extend to the fitting of any filter that is required. In general, we are not proposing to fund the fitting-of filters in these cases.

The one in four homes with residents deemed to be “vulnerable”—that is they meet the eligibility criteria that have been used for the Switchover Help Scheme—will be entitled to. installation of the filter, if needed, free of charge, The cost of fitting these filters should be much less than for an antenna installation. Charges may vary from installer to installer but typically could be as low as £50 + VAT. All these costs will be met from the £180 million funding to be provided by the mobile network operators.

Support specifically for second and subsequent sets will not be provided. This is consistent with the approach we took in TV switchover where help was provided (to those eligible) for one set only. All homes living in the geographical area where they are predicted to experience interference to TV reception will be sent one filter with clear instructions for installation. This includes the 60% of homes whose primary viewing is on satellite or cable platforms who will be able to use the filter on a secondary set connected to an aerial.

The funding provision of £180 million is based on Ofcom estimates of the size of the expected problem and includes a significant margin. A breakdown of how Ofcom arrived at this figure is contained within their recent consultation on coexistence between new services in the 800 MHz band and digital terrestrial television.

Mr Whittingdale: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, what further steps he plans to take to extend wi-fi access throughout the parliamentary estate.

John Thurso: A business case to provide a comprehensive wi-fi service across the parliamentary estate was approved in December 2011. A full OJEU tender process was commenced in January. Subject to the successful outcome of the tender, the renewal and extension of wi-fi will begin towards the end of this financial year with plans to complete the implementation in April 2013.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): One of the alternative ways of making faster broadband available is through the roll-out of 4G mobile services, but has the Secretary of State seen the analysis by Freeview that suggests that over 2 million homes may have their digital television service interfered with as a result, and that the funds secured by the Government to counter that interference may not be anything like sufficient? Does he agree with that analysis, and what is he proposing to do about it?

Mr Hunt: I absolutely agree that the roll-out of 4G is another opportunity. One of the options proposed by Ofcom would mean 98% coverage of 4G, which would be extremely important in many of the rural areas about which hon. Friends are concerned. We have an ongoing consultation about the mitigation plans for people whose signals will be affected by these auctions. Ofcom has not told me that it has any concerns about the plans that are in place, but I will listen to it very carefully in that regard.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): It is not that long since I spoke in the Chamber on the subject of individuals misleading Parliament, so I am in no doubt about the seriousness of that charge. I do not question the right of the Opposition to table the motion, but I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State and commend him for the way in which he has responded to each individual accusation and for his conduct over the past few months, which cannot have been easy.

Some have suggested that the Secretary of State should not have had a view about the bid by News Corp to acquire all of BSkyB, but one of his first responsibilities is to be the sponsoring Minister for the media industry of this country. It would have been utterly extraordinary if he did not have a view. BSkyB is one of the most important media companies in the country and plays a vital part in the future of the media: of course he would have a view about it.

Not only was the Secretary of State entitled to have a view, but I believe he held the correct view. Had the bid gone through, it would have had good implications for the survival of newspapers in this country. He was not responsible for that matter at the time; it was a quasi-judicial matter for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Saudi business man almost certainly exists? The Rachel Ehrenfeld case was heard in this country when there was no connection other than the 23 copies of her book that were sold, yet it resulted in the passage of the Libel Terrorism Protection Act in New York. It is a mark of shame against this country that New York state thought it necessary to pass an Act specifically aimed against this country.

Mr Clarke: I made my remark about the case being hypothetical to avoid being drawn into arguments about that case, which is rather familiar to people who know this subject. There are arguments about how far the plaintiff had connections with this country and a reputation here, but as it happens I was producing the example of a Saudi and an American purely hypothetically and I do not think I should get drawn into the merits of a past case. My hon. Friend, who is an expert in this field, rapidly understood why those particular nationalities had leapt to my mind when I gave the example.

Alongside these adjustments in the law to help support freedom of expression, I want to ensure that effective remedies are available for those defamed. Often what most concerns claimants is not financial compensation, but meaningful public clarification that a story was wrong. We have therefore included provisions in clause 12 extending existing powers to enable the court to order publication of a summary of its judgment. Parties will be encouraged to reach agreement, where possible, on the contents of the summary and issues such as where, when and how it is to be published. However, in the absence of agreement, the court will be empowered to settle the wording of the summary and give directions on those other matters.

In addition to protecting freedom of expression and reputation, the Bill seeks to modernise the law. Our biggest difficulty has been in relation to the web, the internet and so on. Currently, website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their site, even though the content is often determined by their users, but most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted by their users is defamatory or not, and very often, faced with a complaint, they will immediately remove material. The Government want a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively, but which ensures that information online cannot be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): Does the Secretary of State accept that copyright is the legal expression of intellectual property rights, and is not a regulation? Is he aware of the widespread concern among the creative industries about clause 56, which will allow copyright to be amended by statutory instrument without full parliamentary debate? Will he assure the House that the Government will not change copyright in that way without proper parliamentary scrutiny?

Vince Cable: Yes, I can give assurances on that. We will deal with this subject later, but I totally accept the hon. Gentleman’s crucial point: intellectual property rights are a key part of a market economy. They are not “regulation” in the pejorative sense in which we normally refer to it—absolutely not; but we have to strike a balance between access to information and copyright protection. We think we are striking the right balance, and we are proceeding to implement the Hargreaves report, which has many of those ideas at its heart. On a personal level, I introduced the private Member’s Bill that strengthened criminal penalties for copyright theft, so I have a long-standing interest in upholding that legislation.

Let me deal with the first issue I mentioned—the green investment bank. The transition to a low-carbon economy is a very big challenge. Some analysis suggests that there will be demand for more than £200 billion of investment in the next decade to develop the innovative technologies and products that will underpin it. The challenge is all the greater, given the novelty of these markets and the long-term nature of returns on green infrastructure investment, which may deter private sector investors. There is a market failure here that the green investment bank will address. The bank will break new ground in the financing of projects, while demonstrating to the market that such investments can deliver commercial returns.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): I beg to move,

That this House notes the conclusions set out in chapter 8 of the Eleventh Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2010-12, on News International and Phone-hacking, HC 903-I and orders that the matter be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Let me begin, Mr Speaker, by thanking you for granting precedence to this motion, which I move on behalf of all the members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I am aware that the motion is unusual, if not almost unprecedented in modern times, but as the Committee set out in the conclusions to our report, we believe that the integrity and effectiveness of Select Committees relies on the evidence that we are given being given truthfully and completely. We therefore regard the finding of the Committee that we were misled by specific individuals as an extremely serious matter, and we think it only right that it should be brought to the attention of the whole House of Commons and referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I apologise for throwing this hot potato into the lap of the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), but I think that it is important that his Committee consider this matter, first, to establish whether my Committee was indeed misled in the evidence that it was given; and secondly, to deal with the perhaps rather more difficult question of what Parliament should do in response.

It might help the House if I briefly describe the events that have led to this afternoon’s debate. At the beginning of 2007, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee decided to hold an inquiry into the self-regulation of the press. Three events triggered that decision. The first was the harassment of Kate Middleton —then a commoner, now the Duchess of Cambridge—that was taking place, which was felt to go well beyond what was acceptable.

The second issue was the publication by the Information Commissioner of his report “What price privacy now?”, at the end of 2006. In that report, he published details of the very large number of journalists working for a wide variety of publications who had employed the services of Steve Whittamore, a private investigator who was subsequently convicted for illegally breaching the police national computer and the driver vehicle licensing database in order to obtain information. Although no prosecutions of the journalists were brought, there was certainly a widespread suspicion that many members of the press had been involved in what appeared to have been illegal activity.

The third matter that the Committee decided we needed to consider was the conviction, just a few months previously, of Clive Goodman, the royal editor of the News of the World, and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator, who were found to have conspired to intercept communications without lawful authority. On that third specific issue, the Committee took evidence from the then chairman of News International, Mr Les Hinton. During our evidence, I put this question to him:

“You carried out a full, rigorous internal inquiry, and you are absolutely convinced that Clive Goodman was the only person who knew what was going on?”

Mr Hinton replied:

“Yes, we have and I believe he was the only person, but that investigation, under the new editor, continues.”

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Committee had to accept the assurance that we were given, but we did make some fairly strong comments about the culture that had allowed payments to be made by Clive Goodman without any apparent authority from the management of News International. However, although we concluded that we had not seen evidence that proved otherwise, I think we all heard alarm bells ringing, since we were very much aware that Glenn Mulcaire had been convicted of hacking into the telephone voice messages of Mr Max Clifford, Mr Sky Andrew, Mr Gordon Taylor, Ms Elle Macpherson, and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), none of whom had any obvious connection with the royal family. Yet we were told that the only person at the News of the World who had any knowledge or involvement was the royal editor. There was therefore certainly a suspicion in our minds that the phone hacking may have gone much wider than we were led to believe.

During 2009, two years later, the Committee conducted an inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel. During that inquiry, in July 2009, The Guardian reported that News Group Newspapers had paid more than £1 million to settle privacy cases that had been brought by Gordon Taylor, one of those on the charge sheet for Glenn Mulcaire, and by Jo Armstrong and a lawyer, all of whom were involved in football matters. We decided that the size of that settlement was so large that it cast doubt on the previous testimony that we had received. On that basis, we decided to reopen our inquiry.

That decision, and certainly the report that appeared in The Guardian, was vigorously attacked by News International to such an extent that when we summoned the editor of The Guardian and the journalist who had written the story, Mr Nick Davies, to appear before us, they responded by providing the Committee with certain documents. In particular, there was a contract between Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator, and Greg Miskiw, a senior executive on the News of the World, and also what has become known as the “For Neville” e-mail. That was a heavily redacted transcript of an exchange that took place between Gordon Taylor and Jo Armstrong on their voicemails.

To us, that clearly suggested that others had been involved. We therefore took evidence during the course of our inquiry in 2009 from quite a number of senior executives of News International, including Tom Crone, the legal manager; Colin Myler, the then editor of the News of the World; Andy Coulson, the previous editor of the News of the World; Stuart Kuttner, the managing editor; and Les Hinton, the executive chairman. Mr Crone told us that he had become aware of the e-mail in April 2008, but in his evidence to us he suggested that an investigation had found little real evidence that it had gone any further. His implication was certainly that it did not amount to much. As we commented in our report:

“In summary, Mr Crone’s investigation, he said, had established that nobody remembered the ‘for Neville’ email, apart from Mr Hindley”—

the journalist who taken the transcription—

“who could not remember what he did with it.”

We went on to note:

“In spite of the allegations contained in the Guardian, the News of the World has continued to assert that Clive Goodman acted alone. Les Hinton, the former Executive Chairman of News International, told us: ‘There was never any evidence delivered to me that suggested that the conduct of Clive Goodman spread beyond him.’”

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): I thank the hon. Gentleman not just for his work and that of his Committee but for the measured way in which he is putting the case.

May I make it quite clear—this is in the public domain, so I am not breaching any prospective prosecutions —that there was substantial evidence, at all material times soon after the arrest of the two people who were subsequently convicted, that a series of other people at higher levels in the same newspaper had been involved, because they had been told what was going on? That is now in the public domain, and some of us believe that that knowledge cannot have been limited to those who were named in the documents seized by the police. It must have been held more widely.

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.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need to restore public confidence in the process that led to decisions in this matter and that to achieve that an inquiry needs to be held, in the open, in which witnesses give evidence in public, subject to cross-examination and under oath? Will he confirm that if at the end of that process there remain questions to be answered, he will refer the matter to the ministerial adviser—or it might be appropriate that it be looked into by a Select Committee of this House?

The Prime Minister: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I agree with him. Having seen some of the Leveson inquiry on television, I know that it is immensely powerful that people are questioned under oath, that all the documentation is carefully gone through and that questions on that documentation are properly followed up. As I say, that is far more robust than anything the independent adviser or the civil service could provide. As my hon. Friend says, I am not waiting for Leveson to complete his investigations. If at any stage information comes out that shows that anyone has breached the ministerial code, of course I will act. That is the right approach and I think people should respect the integrity of the fact-finding mission in which Leveson is engaged. It does not remove from me the necessity to police the ministerial code; that is my job and I will fulfil it properly.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): My hon. Friend referred to the Treasury’s own estimate that the measure may lead to a 30% reduction in demand. If that figure is correct, the measure will have a devastating effect on the parks in my constituency. However, I do not know whether my hon. Friend’s experience is the same as mine, but all my park owners are saying that they regard the 30% reduction as a gross underestimate. Osea leisure park, just one of those park owners, has told me that it believes that there could be a 60% reduction in demand for new homes.

Mr Stuart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, many parks have made major investments, some of them—I hate to say it, as one hates to talk about vulnerable businesses—are highly geared, and if there is a chilling impact and eddies of demand, notwithstanding a little additional demand before 1 October, we could subsequently see more than a 30% reduction, which could result in the closure of manufacturers and park businesses that have invested for the longer term in this excellent British tourism industry.