‘Something very dark lurks in the evidence files of the Mulcaire case, and dark and mysterious forces are keeping it that way,’ Labour MP Tom Watson told the House of Commons last Thursday.
Speaking for the emergency motion to refer the allegations of phone hacking against MPs to the Standards and Privileges Committee, Watson urged MPs to no longer fear the ‘red-topped assassins’ of the tabloid press, who he said had the power to make ‘prime ministers quail’.
The allegations are that the phone hacking for which former ‘News of the World’ royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed in 2007, is just the tip of an iceberg – and that Andy Coulson (then ‘News of the World’ editor and now Prime Minister Cameron’s communications chief), knew what was going on.
Moving the motion, Rhondda Labour MP Chris Bryant told parliament: ‘The vast majority of those who had their phones hacked were not MPs, but of necessity this motion deals solely with the hacking of MPs’ phones.
‘That is not because we are in any sense more important than anyone else – it is a scandal that the royal princes, footballers, actors and, in many cases, ordinary members of the public had their phone messages intercepted and interfered with.’
He continued: ‘While I passionately believe in the freedom of the press, and agree that investigative journalism is an important and proud tradition in this country, illegal hacking, suborning police officers and obtaining information by illegal means do not enhance our democracy. In fact, they undermine it.
‘This motion is exclusively about this House because I contend that it is a contempt of Parliament and a severe breach of parliamentary privilege to intercept the mobile phone messages of elected Members, to tap their phones, to bug their conversations, to intercept their emails or to seek to do so.
‘There are those who would want to play this down.
‘People have said to me, “After all, what’s the fuss about a few phone messages?’’
‘I ask honourable Members what the last phone message was that they had left on their answer phone.
‘It might have been a soppy, sentimental message from their wife or partner, but it might have been something far more significant.
‘It might have been a Minister ringing about a piece of legislation – in parliamentary language, a proceeding in Parliament.
‘It might have been the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ringing about a highly sensitive matter and leaving a message.
‘Or it might have been a constituent ringing their elected Member of Parliament, leaving a message and asking them to return a call about something that was highly confidential to them.
‘The House has rightly been very angry in the past when it has been felt that the right of an MP to speak without let, hindrance or interception, which stems in essence from the Bill of Rights 1689, has been violated.
‘It took action on several occasions in the 18th century, on many occasions in the 19th century and on more than 15 occasions in the 20th century.
‘It is for that reason that we have a secure doctrine – the Wilson doctrine – that MPs will not be bugged by the security services, and I am sure that were there any information that MPs had been bugged by the security services, many honourable Members would be standing on their feet to condemn it.’
Bryant said: ‘The reason this reference is necessary now is simple. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which is admirably chaired by the honourable Member for Maldon – he should probably be the right honourable Member for Maldon, and for all I know he might be the right honourable Member – produced an excellent report on the wider issue.
‘Since then, however, there has been new information.
‘First, several MPs, including myself, have contacted the Met and have discovered that we were the subjects of Glenn Mulcaire’s investigations.
‘In the words of the Metropolitan police, we were persons of interest to Mr Mulcaire.
‘I am sorry to say that in very few, if any, of those cases have the police pursued any lines of investigation.’
Bryant continued: ‘I suspect that, so far, we have seen only the tip of the iceberg in relation to right honourable and honourable Members, and that the hacking extended not just to Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs but to a large number of Conservative Members.
‘I urge every right honourable and honourable Member who has any suspicion that they might have been a person of interest to Mr Mulcaire, which probably includes the vast majority of us, to write to the Met asking whether they were included, because Assistant Commissioner Yates made it clear the other day, in evidence to another Select Committee, that he has not been notifying Members.
‘We have to do the work ourselves.’
Ian Lucas, Labour MP for Wrexham, then asked: ‘Does my honourable Friend agree that the Standards and Privileges Committee should look in particular at why the police did not approach Members named in the information they had in order to acquire more evidence from those Members, who were unaware – and still are unaware, in many cases – that their names were on the list?
‘Is that not a hugely important issue that the Committee should investigate?’
Chris Bryant said: ‘My honourable Friend is right. If somebody went to the police and alleged that somebody was stalking them, and the police visited the stalker’s house and found not only photographs of, and personal details about, the person who made the allegation, but photographs of another 20 people, I presume and hope that the police would go to those other 20 people and inform them that their personal situation had been compromised and that they had been the subjects of that person’s activities.
‘The police should have engaged in precisely the same duty of care towards not just right honourable and honourable Members, but any member of the public who had been the subject of Mr Mulcaire’s attention.’
Bryant said: ‘There is a second piece of new information.
‘Two former members of staff at the News of the World have said that the hacking was far more extensive than so far revealed.
‘Indeed, today, Paul McMullan, a former features executive and member of the News of the World’s investigations team, has said that he personally commissioned several hundred illegal acts, and that the use of illegal techniques at the newspaper was absolutely no secret.
‘Thirdly, although it has been stated that the case was an isolated bad apple, the Information Commissioner, as the honourable Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) has mentioned, has suggested that the unlawful trade in confidential personal information is extensive across the media, citing more than 1,000 transactions positively identified by a large number of newspapers.
‘Looking through the list, it seems that the only newspaper that is not included is the Rhondda Leader.
‘Why refer the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee?
‘First, because it is the senior Committee of the House.
‘Secondly, because, by referring it to the Committee, it will have the support and full authority of the whole House – nobody can gainsay it.
‘When the matter of the arrest of the honourable Member for Ashford was referred to a specially created committee of privileges, that committee resolved that such an instance should be referred not to a special committee, but to the Standards and Privileges Committee.
‘I see that the right honourable and learned Gentleman who chaired that committee is nodding his assent.’
Jack Dromey, Birmingham, Erdington Labour MP, said: ‘I welcome the Speaker’s decision, in the best traditions of the House, to allow this debate, so that all Members of the House can defend the rights of all Members to carry out their duties without having their phones hacked into.
‘Does my honourable Friend share my hope that there will be full co-operation from Downing Street, not least because the lesson of Watergate is that the cover-up is worse than the crime?’
Chris Bryant said: ‘My honourable Friend is right. One of the reasons for referring the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee is that it carries the authority of the whole House, and I hope that that would mean that every right honourable and honourable Member, including those at Downing Street, would want to co-operate.
‘I see the Leader of the House nodding his assent. I am sure that it would be true.
‘I urge the Committee to use all the powers at its disposal, including the power to summon any person it wishes and to require them to attend, because some people refused to attend the previous inquiry held by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
‘If necessary, it should issue warrants to require witnesses to attend, and if they still refuse, it should use the offices of the Serjeant at Arms.
‘Likewise, it should be free to use its power to require a witness to answer a question under pain of admonishment by the House.
‘We should not accept it when witnesses simply refuse to give a straight answer to a straight question.
‘That should not be standard practice, which it is becoming.
‘The House should become far more carnivorous.
‘Given that some of the issues we are dealing with are matters of privacy, and we would not want to invade the privacy of those who have already had their phones hacked, the Committee should feel free to take some of its evidence in private if necessary.
‘It should not shy away from recommending motions to the House enforcing its decisions, if it feels it appropriate to do so.
‘Those decisions could include barring a person or persons from the precinct of Parliament, withdrawing a pass from any pass holder or a group of pass holders, or calling somebody to the Bar of the House for admonishment by the House.
‘It is for the Committee to decide precisely how it conducts its inquiry.
‘Indeed, it should be free to decide the timing of its inquiry and report, how best it interacts with other Select Committees and, importantly, how best it avoids conflicting with any ongoing police investigation.
‘I hope that there is an ongoing police investigation, because from what I have heard so far from the police, I have no confidence that there is a full police investigation into every avenue, searching for evidence.
‘I would particularly abhor the fact that the police seem to have developed a new theology, whereby it is for the victim to discover and provide the evidence, rather than for the police to engage in an investigation to find it.
‘I suggest that the Committee might look at the following areas.
‘How many MPs, including Ministers, Opposition spokespeople and Back Benchers of all parties, were the subject of investigation by Glenn Mulcaire – or, in the police’s words, a “person of interest” to Mr Mulcaire?
‘Did they include serving Government Members or people who are now in senior Government positions?
‘Was the hacking limited to the News of the World or did it include other newspapers?
‘Were the security services notified of the hacking of Ministers’ and others’ phones?
‘Are there any further security measures that this House should take to protect Members’ correspondence?
‘Did the Met fully perform its duty of care towards the House by contacting all Members whose names and phone numbers were included in the material secured when it raided Mr Mulcaire’s offices?
‘Have any witnesses who have already given evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the matter lied to the House?
‘Should the interception or attempted interception of right honourable and honourable Members’ phone messages or e-mails be considered an explicit breach of privilege?
‘Should the House adopt a new resolution defining privilege in the modern era to include modern technology?
‘Should the law be changed to strengthen further the provisions against the hacking of the phones of MPs and members of the public?
‘What action should be taken by the House against those who have lied to it, breached its privilege or shown contempt to it?
‘I hope that Members in all parts of the House will support the motion.
‘This issue is not about one man or the one honourable Member whose case has already been to court.
‘It is, however, about what kind of investigative journalism we want in this country-searching, yes; critical, caustic, aggressive and cynical, maybe; but not illegal.
‘It is about whether this House will be supine when its Members’ phones are hacked, or whether it will take action when the democratic rights of MPs to do their job without illegal let, hindrance or interception has been traduced.
‘We have taken action before as a House; we should take action today.’
T
