Live Leveson Inquiry Statement House of Commons

forward Digital, culture, media and

sport. Secretary Matt Hancock.

Thank

you very much, Mr Speaker. Mr

Speaker, with your permission, I

wish to make a statement on the

Leveson Inquiry and its

implementation and the freedom of

the breast. Over many centuries in

Britain, our press has held the

powerful to account and been free to

report on investigate without fear

or favour. These principles underpin

our democracy and our -- and are

integral to our freedom as a nation

and today in a world of internet and

click bait, our press face critical

challenges that threaten their

livelihood unsustainability, with

declining circulations and a

changing media landscape. It is in

this context that we approach the

Leveson Inquiry which was set up

seven years ago, in 2011, and

reported six years ago in 2012, in

response to events over a decade

ago. The Leveson Inquiry was a

diligent and thorough examination of

the culture, practices and ethics of

our press in response to illegal and

improper press intrusion. There were

far too many cases of terrible

behaviour and, having met some of

the victims, I understand the impact

that this had. From the start I want

to thank Sir Brian for his work the

inquiry lasted over a year and heard

evidence from more than 300 people,

including journalists, editors and

victims. Three major police

investigation is examined a wide

range of offences and more than 40

people were convicted. The inquiry

and investigations were

comprehensive and since it was set

up, the terms of reference for a

part two of the inquiry have largely

been met. There have also been

extensive reforms to policing

practices and significant changes to

press self-regulation. Ipso has been

established and now regulates 95 %

of national newspapers by

circulation. It has taken

significant steps to determine its

independence as a regulator and in

2016, so Joseph Pilling concluded

that ipso had largely complied with

lovers and's recommendation. There

have been further improvement since

and, I hope, more to come. Ipso

introduced a low cost arbitration

system and it has processed more

than 40,000 complaints in its first

two years of operation and ordered

multiple front-page corrections or

clarifications and newspapers have

made improvements to their

governance frameworks to improve

internal controls, standards and

compliance. One regulator, Impress,

has been recognised under the Royal

charter. The College of policing has

published a code of ethics and

developed national guidance for

police officers on how to engage

with the press and we have

legislated in the policing and crime

act to strengthen protections for

police whistle-blowers. So it is

clear that we have seen significant

progress from publications, from the

police and from the new regulator.

And the media landscape today is

markedly different from that which

Sir Brian Leveson 2011. The way in

which we consume news has changed

dramatically. Newspaper circulation

has fallen by around 30 % since the

conclusions of the lovers and

inquiry and although digital

circulation is rising, publishers

are finding it much harder to

generate revenue online. In 2015 for

every £100 newspapers lost in print

revenue they gained only £3 in

digital revenue. Our local papers in

particular are under severe

pressure. Local papers help to bring

together local voices and shine a

light an important local issues, in

communities, courtrooms and council

chambers and as we devolve more

power further to local communities,

they will become even more important

and yet over 200 local newspapers

have closed since 2005, including

two in my own constituency. These

are the new challenges and there are

also challenges that were only in

their infancy in 2011. We've seen a

dramatic and continued rise in

social media, which is largely

unregulated, and issues like click

bait and fake news and malicious

disinformation and online abuse

threatened high-quality journalism.

The foundation of a successful

democracy is a sound basis for

democratic discourse and this is

under threat from these new forces,

and that requires urgent attention.

These are today's challenges and

this is where we need to focus,

especially as over £48 million was

spent on a police investigation and

inquiry. During the consultation,

12% of direct respondents were in

favour of reopening the Leveson

Inquiry, with 66% against. We agree

and this is the position that we set

out in the Conservative party

manifesto. Sir Brian, who I think

for his service, agrees that the

inquiry should not proceed on the

current terms of reference but

believes that it should continue in

an amended form. We do not believe

that reopening this costly and

time-consuming public inquiry is the

right way forward. So, considering

all of the factors, I have informed

Sir Brian that we are formally

closing the inquiry.

We will take action to safeguard the

lifeblood of democratic discourse

and tackle challenges the media face

to day but died decades ago. During

the consultation be found serious

concerns with section 40 of the

crime act. It would exacerbate the

problems. Respondents worry it will

pose further burdens. As one high

profile viewer put it he said and I

quote newspapers are already

operating in a tough environment and

these proposals will make it

tougher. They will add to the risk

of self-censorship. The threat of

having to pay both costs no matter

what the challenge would have the

effect of leaving journalists

questioning every import named and

including the most innocuous data.

Section 40 risks damaging the paper

you love and the impact meaning that

papers will find it difficult to

survive. These aren't my words but

the words of Alistair Campbell

talking about the chilling threat of

section 40. If anybody knows about

the threats to the press it is

Alistair Campbell. Of the 7% of

direct respondents only 7% of direct

respondents favoured full

commencement of section 40. By

contrast, 79% favoured full repeal.

Mr Speaker we have decided not to

comment section 40 of the crime and

to seek repeal at the earliest

opportunity. Action is needed not

based on what is in the past but

what is needed to address today's

problems. And the majority are

Internet safety strategy is looking

at online behaviour and would firmly

tackle the problems of online abuse.

The review into sustainability of

high-quality journalism will address

concerns on news on media. It will

do that in a forward-looking way and

respond to the challenges of today

but the challenges of yesterday. The

future of a vibrant press matters to

us all. There has been a huge

response from the public to the

conservation and I want to thank

everyone of the respondents. We have

considered all the evidence,

consulted widely, with regulators

and publications, and the world has

changed since the livers and enquiry

was established and we have seen a

side the lead actress Isaac

Chamberlain the landscape of the

media. The work of the enquiry has

had a huge impact. We thank Sir

Brian for lending his delegation at

national and local levels. A press

to hold the powerful to account is

an essential component of our

journalism. Received a press and a

media that is robust and

independently regulated. The steps I

have set out today will help give

Britain a press to hold the powers

that are to account.

Thank you Mr

Speaker. As I have said through you

before timing is everything in

politics. If I'm looking breathless

and fatigued this morning it is

because I have carried a heavy load,

in the gym, lifting weights,

visualising Paul Dacre. For those

increasing number of colleagues who

do not read the Daily Mail any more,

I refer them to my register of

members interests. I think should

take Mosley issue head-on, and if I

thought for one moment he held those

views contained in the leaflet of 57

years ago I would not have given him

the time of day. He is a man though

who in the face of great family

tragedy and overwhelming media

intimidation just uses emitted

resources to support the weak

against the strong. And on this

issue I would like to thank the

secretary of state or his statement

is not just in the last half-hour

but over and over again. Yeah after

year. This announcement,

conveniently timed to be buried

under a flurry of snow is a

disappointment, a breach of trust,

and a bitter blow to the victims of

press intrusion... But it is not in

any way a surprise. We know now for

certain what we have suspected all

the time. Conservative Prime

Minister David Cameron joined other

party leaders to say he would keep

his promises to the victims of phone

hacking, he and his party were

acting not out of conviction that

out of weakness and for a breach

period of time and for the first

time ever, there was more to be

gained politically by political

parties from standing up to the

tabloid media and bowing down to it.

And when every Conservative MP then

important back this policy including

the current Prime Minister and the

present Secretary of State they did

not really mean it. They were

waiting for winds to change, waiting

for the fast to die down, waiting

for a time when they could as

quietly as possible break their

promises. Today Mr Speaker the time

has finally come. We knew what the

Conservatives really thought when

successive secretaries and state

refused to implement section 40 of

the crime of Courts act, the part of

the Levenson system that would

provide access to justice for

ordinary citizens. While offering

protections to journalists and

newspapers which signed up to any

Levenson complied self-regulatory

body. The papers absurdly cherish

you heard it as state regulation and

point instead to the independence of

their alternative non-Levenson

complied regulation ipso. The

government still has too scared to

make the case for its own policy and

finally today it is formally

capitulating. And they capitulate to

on the question of whether to

complete the investigation into how

phone hacking happened, and what is

happening now? Underlying the phone

hacking scandal we saw one of the

biggest corporate scandals and one

of the biggest corporate governance

failures of modern times. The

Secretary of State say the terms of

reference of levels and to have

largely been met. But I don't agree.

Here are some of the things Levenson

two was supposed to guess to get. To

enquire into the extent of

illegality at News International. To

enquire into the way that police

investigated allegations into News

International and other groups. To

enquire into corrupt police

agreements and Robert investigation

of complaints. To enquire into the

extent of corporate governance and

management failures at News

International and the organisation

none of these questions have been

answered. And by betraying the

victims of phone hacking in this

statement today the Secretary of

State is trying to ensure that they

never will be. So can I ask him if

it is revealed that the criminality

that took place at News of the World

extended to other newspapers, will

he reconsider his position. The last

thing the Murdoch and other empires

wanted was for an enquiry, with

powers and the axe to gets documents

and get their dirty laundry. The

last thing they wanted was more

attention of their methods. At a

time where it may be revealed that

other papers not necessarily the

ones at the heart of the scandal

were also involved in criminality,

they have been lobbying today, hard,

for today's outcome. They would give

the secretary of state a man who

enjoys favourable headlines plaudits

in tomorrow's leader columns. We

already know Paul Dacre and rebut

Modoc and the Barclay brothers have

proved that the secretary of state

statements, after all they write it.

He could have chosen to do the right

thing. But he chose not to stand up

to the tabloid style newspapers

robbing other Prime Minister in this

government. He could have pulled the

rug from under them, they could pull

it from him whenever they choose.

Let me close with David Cameron's

words to the Levenson enquiry in

June 9012. I will never forget

meeting the family in Downing Street

to run through terms of this enquiry

with and to hear what they have been

through. How it is redoubled,

trebled the pain and agony there

been through over losing Millie. I

will never forget that. That is the

test of all of this. It is not do

the politicians or the press feel

happy with what we get? It's are we

really look protecting people who

have been caught up and thrown to

the Wolf by this process. That is

what the test is. The secretary of

state will prosper politically from

this statement today. But he has

failed that test.

Thank you Mr

Speaker. Now of course the case of

the victims of press intrusion is an

incredibly important consideration

in making these judgments but I make

these judgments not based on the

register of members interests but on

the basis of national interests and

the issues faced by the victims had

been looked into in the enquiry, in

the three police investigations, and

the issues of the future of our

media include this but are much,

much broader than it. He stands at

the dispatch box and talked about

the greed of the media but proposals

from inside his side of the press

would lead to a press bettered but

not free. We do not love every story

that is written about us in the

press but the idea that the solution

lies in shackling our free press

with the punitive costs of any

complainant is completely wrong and

that the honourable gentleman

opposite nose and we all know where

he is coming from on the issue of

press freedom, he is tied up with

the opponents of press freedom. The

democratic countries face huge

challenges in making sure that we

have robust but fair discussions in

public life and the approach

proposed by his side of the house

would make it even harder. He talks

about keeping promises and we are

keeping promises made to ask

constituents who elected us on this

side on the manifesto to support a

free press, and he talks about the

need to look into the past, but

there have been investigations and

enquiries costing many millions of

pounds and my judgment is that it is

not proportional and in the natural

interest to follow with millions of

pounds more. So the message should

go out loud and clear from this

house that we support every single

local newspaper in this country, big

or small, these publications, and

that is why we propose real and

meaningful solutions for a vibrant

and free and independent press and

we will face up to the challenges

that we see before us today and I

hope the honourable gentleman and

his party will come to support us in

this because we need a strong

democratic discourse over the

future.

The secretary of state

public predecessor spies the select

committee that we would feel a full

response to the commission. We have

yet to receive that, can he give me

a assurance that the members will

receive that in good time before his

appearance in front of the select

committee on the 14th of March? I

have not only made this statement

today but also will be publishing

the full response to the

consultation with good details and

look forward to the select committee

to discuss the question narrowly and

also the wider actions to be taken

she plays a full part in and take a

full basis for discourse in this

country.

I thank the Secretary of

State for his statement. The

secretary of State will no, I wrote

to him on the 25th of February

seeking an update on the progress of

this enquiry and asking if and when

it would be incremented, I pleased

it has come to the dispatch box at

least today to firefighter.

Our position has always been that

should a UK wide part two of leather

soon go ahead, this must take into

account the distinct legal content

in Scotland. We believe all

individuals should have a right to

redress when they feel they have

been victims of malpractice.

However, the Scottish Government has

no plans to introduce statutory

today plans to... Are areas that are

clearly within devolved competence

for Scottish Parliament. Can hear

sure is going forward that he will

respect the devolution settlement

and respect independence of the

Scottish legal system? And does he

agree that by not doing so he would

set a dangerous precedent when

determining the ability of the

Scottish Parliament to take

decisions in devolved areas?

Well,

Mr Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly

with what the SNP spokesman has

said. It is of course part of the

devolution settlement that these

issues are dealt with in Scotland.

And I of course respect the separate

and distinct legal system in this

area. Now he asked about whether we

would respect that going forward. He

will know as well as I do that there

are amendments put in by the data

protection Bill by which we have the

second reading on Monday. With

respect to data protection only

called for and with wire at Levenson

to type enquiry and the commencement

of section 40 on a UK wide basis.

And I look forward to discussing

with him how we can make sure that

we have the respect we need for the

devolution settlement and for the

Scottish press and it is my view

that the single best way that we can

deal with this problem that he

rightly raises is to dispose with

those amendments in their entirety.

I very strongly welcome my right

honourable friend's statement. Does

he agree that now more than ever

newspapers play a vital role in

holding both government and

opposition to account? And he's

absolutely right that rather than

looking backwards at the events of

ten years ago and adding to the

costs of local newspapers, we should

be supporting newspapers in meeting

the challenges of the Internet

giants.

Well, I agree with my right

honourable friend wholeheartedly,

not least because as points out one

of the jobs that you have got to do

when you are Secretary of State is

look forward and look at the

problems that we have today and how

we solve them. And the problem that

he raises about local newspapers

isn't a marginal or a side issue.

Over 200 local papers have closed in

the past decade and a bit, including

local papers in my patch and I do

not want to see that. I do not want

to see that accelerated by the

actions of this House and that is

what would happen if we do not take

the course of action

that we have put forward today.

Having spent many hours with the

Dowling family and with Christopher

Jefferies and many others, can I

just say on behalf of all the

victims that many of us will feel

that the Secretary of State has just

shoved another little knife in our

heart. In all honesty, we had hoped

that the promises were real

promises. Promises that we would get

to the truth, not just of the bits

and pieces that were able to be

dealt with as Sir Brian says but the

elements that were expressly

excluded from that original

investigation, in particular the

collusion of the Metropolitan Police

with the press, which could not be

looked at all. And I do find it

inconceivable that he only talks

about the freedom of the press when

there are of course the feeling that

the press is important but too many

others of us it's also important

that politicians should be able to

speak without fear or favour. And

that means we should no longer be

cowed by press barons, we should be

able to do what is right for

society. Simply ask for the

Secretary of State, if everything

that he said today's true, why on

earth did the government make all

those promises in the past and why

did he vote for the legislation?

Well, the world has changed since

2011 and the truth is that the rise

of the Internet means that some of

the issues that he rightly raises

about making sure that the debates

that we have is a reasonable one and

not based on abuse and bullying is

much, much broader and it is

tackling the problems of today that

is our task now. Now, of course

there were abuses that were looked

into in the enquiry and they have

been looked into by the police in

three investigations with over 40

criminal convictions since. And the

judgment that we have to make is

what is the best thing to do for the

future of this country where the way

in which we debate politics, make

decisions, is under challenge

because of new technology in a way

that it has not been for decades if

not centuries and getting those

solutions right is mission-critical,

I would suggest, to our future as a

liberal democracy and that is where

we're putting our to.

I welcome the

Secretary of State's response to the

consultation and the concerns raised

about section 40. Could the

Secretary of State outline further

its potential impact on the

viability of local newspapers such

as the long meeting Chronicle and

others in my constituency?

Well, she

mentions three local papers and what

I would say is because of the nature

of section 40 of the crime and

Courts act, anybody making a

complaint will have the costs

awarded to the newspaper and not to

the complainant if they are not a

member of a Royal Charter approved

regulator. And that means that

anybody making any complaint would

effectively be able to stop a

journalist from pursuing a story, as

set out by Alistair Campbell very

eloquently I thought. And the

situation I thought the Reed has

changed since 2011 because nobody

imagined that self regulator in it

so would come to the fore, which now

covers 95% of national newspapers,

which has a low-cost arbitration

system and can require the

corrections to be put in place. Now

it is not perfect and I hope they

make further progress but nobody

imagined that it would be there at

all and so we have a better system

than was in place and that allows

both for redress but also from local

newspapers to thrive as much as

possible.

I welcome my honourable friend's

statements because I believe that

whilst newspapers often make the

life it intolerable they make in Day

complacency impossible. I do worry

about local newspapers and I welcome

what you said about section 40

because we used to have three, we

now have one and we have a very good

Internet site but could I ask my

honourable friend what other things

he's going to do to help strengthen

local newspapers?

This is an

important question and we are

working hard on what we can do

through this review of the

sustainability of the press, with

which I hope that he and Harlow

start will engage with to make sure

that we support not just from the

big organisations such as the BBC

and big Internet giants but also

commercial models that work

effectively to deliver news locally

and nationally.

I am very

disappointed with the statement the

secretary of State has made today

and feel personally let down by the

comments he has made in answer to

some of the questions. I'd like to

know what is in this for the victims

of phone hacking and press abuse?

What does the Secretary of State say

to that dour and Hillsborough

families and other countless victims

of the appalling press abuse? There

is nothing in this, the promises

that were made to them by a

Conservative Prime Minister and the

legislation that was voted on by the

Secretary of State, times have not

changed for the victims and there is

nothing in this for them. What will

he say to them?

Well, what I have

said and what I will say to them is

that we have to make sure that the

media and news industry that we have

in the UK can hold the powerful to

account and can respond to today's

challenges. And that means facing

the country as it is now, including

with the stronger press

self-regulation that we have but

also making sure that we take the

wider context into account, which is

that there is an undermining of the

ability to have an objective and the

positive political discussion

because of the technology that's

available. And in that the proposals

that were set out over five, six

years ago, they would make these

challenges and worse rather than

better.

I welcome the statement

today. Does my right honourable

friend agree that as the press,

local press and national press has a

critical role in holding politicians

are powerful to account and state

regulation is highly undesirable in

a democracy.

I am concerned by some

statements that they seem to think

that state control of newspapers is

a good idea.

As a former journalist,

Secretary of State, I am utterly

dismayed by your statement today. I

value freedom of the press but does

the Secretary of State not see the

sad irony in talking about how they

press has helped the powerful to

account and then closing the door on

our opportunity to hold the powerful

voices of the press to account on

behalf of the victims. Victims who

were promised, promised, the sort of

legislation in section 40 that you

are now turning away from. And

frankly, the problems faced by local

newspapers and the newspaper

industry in general are nothing to

do with leather scent. They are to

do with modern technology. So

wilfully Secretary of State

reconsider thinking about the

victims of this and giving them a

chance to raise legitimate concerns

under section 40?

I agree with her

that there has been a big change

because of modern technology and I

want to make sure that we have

high-quality journalism in the

future and I want to make sure that

that can't be undermined by any

complainant having costs awarded to

the newspaper for any complaint.

That is no way to organise a system

of press regulation and instead what

we have got to do is make sure that

we have sustainable business models

for high quality journalists so just

as she had the opportunity to be a

journalist in the past, so we have

that opportunity for people in the

future.

I also welcome the Secretary

of State's statements and

particularly what he said about

section 40. I also agree what he

says about local press stop is aware

that publishing company have

recently bought a newspaper in my

constituency... I'm confident about

the future?

Well, I am absolutely

delighted to hear it. It is not the

national norm to hear that about the

local press but it does show that

there are sustainable business

models can be found. I'm absolutely

delighted about that. And I want to

do everything I can to make sure

that there are sustainable business

models for high-quality journalism

and that includes not adding extra

costs on to the local press.

Rebecca

Brooks Amanda Coulson came in front

of this House and admitted to

committing crimes by the bribing

police officers, such was the scale

of their arrogance and the feeling

that they were so powerful that they

could take on Parliament, that they

have the Metropolitan Police in

their pockets. That is the scale of

where we were at when the Minister

voted in favour of the legislation

that he is now trying to appeal. Has

he forgotten what happened to those

people? The duty of us in this House

is to give a voice to people who are

weak and vulnerable and we as

members of Parliament have a duty to

stand up for them and he has failed

to do that today.

Well, the

honourable member makes an extremely

powerful case for just how much they

Leveson Inquiry looked into

everything in this area and followed

by three police investigations. And

this is my central point, is that we

looked into these things as a

society. We have a comprehensive

Leveson Inquiry. We spent £48

million of taxpayer's money doing

so. As he said, there were criminal

convictions as a result and some

people were jailed and now my job

Secretary of State is to look

forward at what the country needs

for the future.

Cover Secretary of

State reassure me that the new

regulatory framework is working well

for victims and is much cheaper and

easier than those regulations that

were in force at the time of

Leveson. What I

what I can tell the

House is that we have they knew self

regulator. Secondly, that it has

introduced a low-cost arbitrator in

scheme. Thirdly that it requires

corrections including multiple

front-page collections but that we

would also like

Unfairly pilloried, could he have

explained to the house why he isn't

any forward the recommendation to

further the recommendation on

amended terms. Accuracy is part of

the code against which complaints

are considered and therefore

corrections and apologies can be

required by outdips regulated

newspaper so on the first point

which is very important, accuracy is

a court to the redress. It is

critical that we have a regulatory

system for the press but it is also

critical that it is is not a

regulatory system put in press by

politicians but rather one put into

place by the press themselves.

Many

years ago I was libelled by a

newspaper and took them to court and

won. That was one of the most

stressful times in my whole career

as a member of Parliament. Because

he suddenly wake up with the power

of the great newspaper with the

resources and an ability to mount

costs and bring pressure to you and

that was for a member of Parliament.

Just please think in your democracy

minister what this means for an

ordinary person, one of the

constituents taken on by someone

like the Daily Mail, life traduced,

family ruined and with so little

ability to stand up for themselves

and their family. Will he think

again on this because as far as I

can see if you read the Daily Mail

this week not much has happened.

Having firstly of course with libel

laws critically in this space in the

low cost scheme brought in by ipso

is designed precisely to address

this question and making sure that

works is important.

I agree with my

right honourable friend about

section 40. I don't agree with

personalised attacks on him but can

I bring him back to the second part

of my honourable friend for Harrow

East about the amended terms of

lives on. Sir Brian Levenson is

probably one of the most experienced

judges in criminal matters in this

country and identified in detail the

issue of criminal collusion between

corrupt police officers and corrupt

journalists. Anyone knows the

criminal justice system knows that

has not gone away and continues.

Absent of lives and to an revised

terms what will the government do to

expose and deal with it?

There have

of course been changes to policing,

not least the code of ethics and

national guidance for police

officers and the changes in the

policing and crime act and I

apologise to my right honourable

friend from Harrow that I didn't

address the second part of this

question. We are taking forward the

need to look at and insurer we have

high quality in journalism in this

country, including the press but

also online where a huge amount of

news is now consumed, and I am happy

to talk to him about what he thinks

needs to be done what I want to do

is make sure we address the bones as

I have said that we still face today

Jim Shelton. Our behalf of the

Democratic Unionist Party, we are

listening but we remain concerned

that the Northern Ireland newsrooms

and papers have seemingly got off

scot-free in the first enquiries the

Minister state how the landscape has

changed and so Brian initiated the

reporter where we think we are now

in light of our concerns? There has

been a change, not least in the

wider media, landscape, that we have

talked about but also in terms of

the redress available and self

regulation which is much tougher

with the introduction of ipso and

the ability for people to go through

arbitration, and so in terms of

addressing problems in the press

going forwards, we have the means of

redress now and I hope that will be

strengthened. Simon, while this

celebrate a free press, are we not

also right to demand a responsible

press as well? With freedom comes

responsibility. I my friend have

shared thoughts on whether it is

responsible to open in a democracy a

hand back racially tainted money. On

the second point he raises a very

important question that I am sure

the honourable gentleman opposite

will be thinking heavily about. He

has now admitted it was a mistake to

take this money. On the first point,

the press in online, take this on

responsibly. Though the secretary of

state agreed to meet the Dowler

family, Christopher Jefferies, and

the McCanns to explain to them while

this Conservative government is

breaking the promise given by

Conservative Prime Minister? As I

said I have already met some of the

victims and have already extended an

invitation to meet the victims and

to meet hacked off in order to

discuss what we're doing today and

in the future. Thank you Mr Speaker.

In my 15 years at the Telegraph I

have limited experience of the

present base commission but I insert

your that ipso is a profoundly

different regulator with barbed ETA

powers and more teeth and can I say

to him that section 40 would have a

chilling effect not just on our

local papers that on one national

papers as well and can I say finally

that's the ace use facing us today,

we have better freedom of press and

our accountability than the

alternative course of action that

the opposition would like to see.

My

noble friend speaks with great

authority on this because not only

was he a journalist but a journalist

of technology and so understands the

impact of journalism in a personal

way and I agree entirely with what

he has said. On the importance of

having press that Canberra port

without fear and favour it makes

sure the powerful are held to

account, it sounds glib but

accountability is critical to good

decision-making because it is only

when you can have full

accountability for decisions made

that you have your feet held to the

fire and he thinks really hard about

the courses of action available. Sir

Bryan believes the enquiry should

continue albeit in a different form.

The victims who were promised in

person by David Cameron believe the

enquiry would Ginny. Those victims

have been betrayed today. The

Secretary of State today like the

last one in the last time was that

the government overruled the wishes

of a gut government enquiry judge. I

am only looking at this enquiry and

what I had to do and what I have

done today is made a judgment about

what is in a natural interests of

the nation and I entirely understand

the concerns of the victims in this

pursuit.

As we have heard from the

other side of the house, there have

been significant changes and the

enquiry was a significant

undertaking and led to a year-long

look at all these issues and all the

concerns of the victims and then

there were three police

investigations and over 14th

investigations so this hasn't been

looked into but looked into to the

tune of £48 million and therefore I

had to take a decision today on what

is and the national interests for

the country and that is what I have

done. Thank you Mr Speaker. I

welcome the statement on section 40

today which would jeopardise

fantastic local papers in my

constituency. That the member for

Argyll and Bute, if the members

opposite 's proposal were taken

forward it would have serious

consequences.

The amendments coming

before the house in coming months

would have gone negative impacts on

the devolution settlement that alone

one to go into. I am happy with the

devolution settlement in the area

and I think it is a good settlement

and I look forward to try to ensure