I decided to leave the final events of my London trip until after reading the chapters of Clash of Kings which cover the second season first episodes of Game of Thones, in fact the name of the first book in the series Fire and Ice, the mammoth of George R R Martin. This I have achieved in three pieces covering the end and first of the new month of May 2012. However I will further delay the writing together with the review of the Opera Rigoletto and other films and TV and sport experienced over the past two weeks.
The cause is the appearance of Rupert Murdoch and his son James at Leveson, in the week before the publication of the delayed House of Commons Culture Committee report inquiry whether members of the Murdoch Committee had misled Parliament during their appearance before them three years previously. Sandwiched between these two events there was a political bombshell that threatened the political future of the Culture Secretary and which also challenged the Prime Minister and threatened to have a disproportionate impact on the local government elections to be held on Thursday May 3rd. It was also a period when the official economic figures indicated that subject to revision the UK has entered recession for the second time since the Coalition government took office thus question the strategy and everything that had been said and claimed by the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and their supporters.
I was travelling on Tuesday of last week when James Murdoch appeared before the Committee and attached several hundred pages of documentation to his evidence. This included all the correspondence between the Murdoch’s chief public relations man cum spin doctor and the Department of Culture and Leisure(includes Media) over the application to buy 100% of the shares of B skyB in a situation where they are already the largest shareholder with 39%. Because of the weather I would have been torn between listening to cricket commentary from the Oval where Durham was scheduled o play Surrey and the appearance of Rupert Murdoch on the Wednesday and Thursdays. However there was no play on either day or on the other two days which made the match a complete wash out. Rupert had been clearly briefed by his lawyers and media advisers as had his son and he also provided several hundred pages of associated documentation.
Rupert denied any knowledge of the criminal activities of numerous employees the majority of whom are yet to face a British Court of law but did argue there had been a conspiracy covers up without naming names for obvious reasons. He was surprising court and I would have to say disingenuous about the extent of his involvement in the policies of his newspapers or his decisions to give support to the leaders of political parties in the UK at times of General Elections. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at first switching the David Cameron. He denied that he had ever asked British Political Leaders for help or concessions in relation tot he creation and development of his media empire in the UK.
I have not studied the text or listened sufficiently close to be able to say with certainty but my impression is that the question was not rather than side stepped that someone asking on his behalf is in effect the same as if had asked directly although he has also made known his views on the monopolistic funding of the BBC or that broadcasting in general should remain bipartisan in terms of its overall content. It was difficult to see what he got out of all the fawning which political leaders had given him over several decades other than from the enjoyment being able to go to the residence of the Prime Minister in London through the back door with a parking space. There was no quid pro quo especially in terms of Mr Cameron being promised support against Mr Brown at he last General Election for Tory support of the BSkyB take over. This is where the documentation supplied to inquiry was so important and triggered a major party political. Mr Cameron when questioned at PMQ’s on Wednesday, the day after the documentation disclosure and then in response from a special question from the Leader of the Opposition on Monday afternoon of this week, made the strong point that there would not have been a problem if Vince Cable had not been indiscrete to a scam by a newspaper declaring that he would stop the take over when as Minister he had the judicial role of taking decisions about the matter.
Appropriate civil service and legal interests had been consulted about whether the Culture Secretary could then take the same role given that he had expressed opinions in support of the bid previously to he transfer of duties. He had acted judiciously throughout his involvement and although he had authorised his political adviser to maintained contact with the applicants and this had been approved by the Civil Service he had not known he nature and the extent of the contact and in the light of the information now available the Adviser had tendered his resignation.
The exchange went like this. The Leader of the Opposition said that from the evidence published yesterday, that throughout the time when the Culture Secretary was supposed to be acting in an impartial manner, he and his office were providing in advance a constant flow of confidential information to News Corporation about statements to be made in this House, his private discussions with the regulators and his discussions with opposing parties. Having seen the 163 pages published yesterday, is the Prime Minister seriously telling us that the Secretary of State was acting as he should have done, in a transparent, impartial and fair manner?
The Prime Minister after responding to earlier question about the economy said. “Let me turn to the Leveson inquiry. I set up the Leveson inquiry and its terms of reference were agreed by the leader of the Liberal Democrat party and the leader of the Labour party. I believe that to step in and prejudge that inquiry would be wrong. Lord Justice Leveson has made that precise point this morning. Let me read to the House what he has said. [Interruption.] Perhaps the House would like to listen. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear what the Prime Minister has to say, and then the questioning will continue.
The Prime Minister: Lord Justice Leveson said this morning that
“it is very important to hear every side of the story before drawing conclusions.”
He then said that
“although I have seen requests for other inquiries and investigations and, of course, I do not seek to constrain Parliament, it seems to me that the better course is to allow this Inquiry to proceed.”
Having set up this inquiry and agreed with the inquiry, the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the inquiry.
Edward Miliband: Lord Justice Leveson is responsible for a lot of things, but he is not responsible for the integrity of the Prime Minister’s Government. In case he has forgotten, that is his responsibility as the Prime Minister.
It beggars belief that the Prime Minister can defend the Culture Secretary, because he was not judging this bid—he was helping the bid by News Corporation. Two days before the statement to the House on 25 January, the Culture Secretary’s office was not only colluding with News Corp to provide it with information in advance, it was hatching a plan to ensure that it would be “game over for the opposition” to the bid. Does the Prime Minister really believe that is how a judge and his advisers are supposed to act?
The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition clearly does not think that what Lord Leveson said this morning matters. Let me remind him of what he said yesterday about the Leveson inquiry. He said:
“I think”—this is the Leader of the Opposition speaking—
“that it’s right that the Leveson Inquiry takes its course”.
He went on to say that “the most important thing is that the Leveson Inquiry gets to the bottom of what happened, of what Labour did, of what the Conservatives did and we reach a judgment about that.”
Is it not typical of the right hon. Gentleman? In the morning he sets out his very clear position, but in the afternoon he cannot resist the passing political bandwagon.
Edward Miliband: Totally—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. I said the Prime Minister must be heard, and the Leader of the Opposition must be heard. Both will be heard, however long it takes. It is very clear.
Edward Miliband: Totally pathetic answers. He is the Prime Minister. If he cannot defend the conduct of his own Ministers, his Ministers should be out of the door. He should fire them. He does not even try to defend the Secretary of State and what he did. The Secretary of State told the House on 3 March, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), that “today we are publishing…all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation.”— [Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]
But he did not, because 163 pages have now emerged. The Prime Minister does not defend him over giving confidential information to one party in the case; he does not defend him over collusion; is he really going to defend him about not being straight with this House of Commons?
The Prime Minister: Let me make it absolutely clear that the Culture Secretary, who has my full support for the excellent job that he does, will be giving a full account of himself in this House of Commons this afternoon and in front of the Leveson inquiry, and he will give a very good account of himself for this very simple reason: that in judging this important bid, he sought independent advice from independent regulators at every stage, although he did not need to, and he took that independent advice at every stage, although he did not need to. The way he has dealt with this issue is in stark contrast to the Governments of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
Edward Miliband: I say this to the Prime Minister: while his Culture Secretary remains in place, and while he refuses to come clean on his and the Chancellor’s meetings with Rupert Murdoch, the shadow of sleaze will hang over this Government. It is a pattern with this Prime Minister—Andy Coulson, Rebekah Brooks and now the Culture Secretary. When is he going to realise that it is time to stop putting his cronies before the interests of the country?
The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he called for an independent judicial inquiry. That is the inquiry I have set up. He agreed the terms of reference. Now he is flip-flopping all over the place. The fact is that the problem of closeness between politicians and media proprietors had been going on for years and it is this Government who are going to sort it out. Whether it is the proper regulation of the press, whether it is cleaning up our financial system, whether it is dealing with our debts: I don’t duck my responsibilities. What a pity he cannot live up to his.
Hon. Members: More!
It was then the turn of the Culture Secretary to make a statement.
12.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt): With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following yesterday’s developments at the Leveson inquiry. Although I intend to respond fully to allegations about my conduct and that of my Department when I present my evidence to Lord Justice Leveson, I believe that it is important to update the House on actions that have been taken as a result of evidence released yesterday.
We are 273 days into a process whose first stage will last until October. This is not the time to jump on a political bandwagon—[Interruption.] What the public want to hear are not my views or those of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but the views of Lord Justice Leveson when he has considered all the evidence. I do, however, think that it is right to set the record right on a number of issues, in the light of the evidence heard yesterday at the inquiry. Specifically, on the merger of News Corp with BSkyB, I would like to remind the House of the process that I followed. Throughout, I have followed due process, seeking the advice of independent regulators—something I did not have to do—and after careful consideration, acting on their advice. I have published all advice that I have received from Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading, together with correspondence between myself and News Corporation, including details of all meetings that I have held in relation to this process.
As part of this process, my officials and I have engaged with News Corporation and its representatives, as well as other interested parties—both supporters and opponents of the merger. Transcripts of conversations and texts published yesterday between my special adviser, Adam Smith, and a News Corporation representative have been alleged to indicate that there was a back channel through which News Corporation was able to influence my decisions. That is categorically not the case—[ Interruption. ]
Mr Speaker: Order. The House must calm down a bit. The statement must be heard. There will be a full opportunity for questioning of the Secretary of State, as he would expect. Whether he expects it or not, that is what will happen. That is right and proper, but it is also right and proper that the statement should be heard with courtesy.
Mr Hunt: However, the volume and tone of those communications were clearly not appropriate in a quasi-judicial process, and today Adam Smith has resigned as my special adviser. Although he accepts that he overstepped the mark on this occasion, I want to set on record that I believe that he did so unintentionally and did not believe that he was doing anything more than giving advice on process. I believe him to be someone of integrity and decency, and it is a matter of huge regret to me that this has happened.
I only saw the transcripts of these communications yesterday. They did not influence my decisions in any way at all—not least because I insisted on hearing the advice of independent regulators at every stage of the process. I will give my full record of events when I give
evidence to Lord Justice Leveson. However, I would like to resolve this issue as soon as possible, which is why I have written to Lord Justice Leveson asking if my appearance can be brought forward. I am totally confident that when I present my evidence, the public will see that I conducted this process with scrupulous fairness throughout.
12.38 pm
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Everyone recognises that the £8 billion News Corp bid for BSkyB was of huge commercial importance and that it had profound implications for newspapers and for all of broadcasting, including the BBC. The Business Secretary had been stripped of his responsibility for deciding on the bid because he had already made up his mind against it, but the Culture Secretary too had made up his mind, in favour of the bid, so how could he have thought it proper to take on that decision? Of course he could take advice, but the decision as to whether he should do it, and could do it fairly, was a matter for him and him alone.
The Secretary of State took on the responsibility, and assured the House that he would be acting in a quasi-judicial role, like a judge, and that he would be transparent, impartial and fair. However, is it not the case that James Murdoch was receiving information in advance about what the Secretary of State was going to do and what he was going to say—information that was given to only one side, which had not been given to those who were opposed to the bid, and before it was given to this House.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it acceptable that Murdoch knew not only about what he was going to do and say, but, crucially, what the regulator, Ofcom, had said to the Secretary of State on 10 January 2011 and what the bid’s opponents had said to the Secretary of State on 20 and 31 March 2011. Is he really going to suggest to this House that James Murdoch’s adviser, Fred Michel, knowing all this was just a coincidence? Can the Secretary of State explain how Fred Michel, in a series of e-mails beginning on 23 January, was in a position to tell Murdoch the full detail of a statement that the Secretary of State was not going to give to this House until two days later? Whatever interpretation is put on e-mails, there can be no doubt that Michel’s e-mail accurately and in detail described meetings that the Secretary of State had had, and accurately foretold what the Secretary of State was going to do. Either Michel was mystic Meg or he had been told.
When it comes to the transparency that the Secretary of State promised, there appears to have been a great deal of transparency for Murdoch, but precious little for opponents of the bid or for this House. If, as suggested on the right hon. Gentleman’s behalf in the media, he was negotiating with Murdoch, why did he not tell the opponents of the bid and why did he not tell the House? Will he tell us now whether he believed himself to have been negotiating? Is that what was going on?
On 3 March, the Secretary of State told this House that he had published details of all the exchanges between his Department and News Corporation. In the light of all the information that we now know that Fred Michel had, does he still maintain that that is the case? His special adviser has admitted that his activities at times went too far, and he has resigned, but will the Secretary of State confirm that under paragraph 3.3 of the ministerial code, it is the Secretary of State himself who is responsible for the conduct of his special adviser?
This was a controversial bid. The right hon. Gentleman could have refused to take it on, but he did not. He could have referred it to the Competition Commission, but he did not. His role was to be impartial, but he was not. His conduct should have been quasi-judicial, but it fell far, far short of that, and fell short of the standards required by his office. The reality is that he was not judging this bid; he was backing it, so he should resign.
Mr Hunt: I am hugely disappointed by the right and learned hon. Lady’s response today. She had the opportunity to rise above party politics and work towards a solution to a problem that has bedevilled British politics for many years; instead, she has chosen to jump on the political bandwagon. Let me remind her that the Labour party spent over a decade in power and did nothing other than cosy up to the press barons and their families. She speaks for a party whose Prime Minister, when in opposition, flew half-way round the world, in Rupert Murdoch’s words, to “make love” to him “like a scorpion”. [Interruption.] This is a party whose Prime Minister was godfather to Rupert Murdoch’s daughter and whose Prime Minister’s wife organised a sleepover at Chequers. [Interruption.] I will come on to deal with all the right hon. and learned Lady’s points.
Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to calm down. I politely but explicitly suggest to the Secretary of State that in addressing these matters, he seeks to address the questions put to him and to address the matters for which he is responsible, which obviously does not include the conduct of other political parties.
Mr Hunt: I will happily do that, Mr Speaker, but I do think that Opposition Members need to show a degree of humility when they deal with these issues—[Interruption]—because if we are going to solve this problem, it is necessary for the whole House to work together and not to jump on bandwagons.
Let me now deal with the specific points made by the right hon. and learned Lady. She said that I was backing the bid—that I had made up my mind. That is not true. Let me say this. First, when I was appointed to be responsible for the bid, my views about the bid, some of which had been made public, were explicitly reported to the Cabinet Secretary, who decided that it was appropriate for me to take responsibility for it in a quasi-judicial role, but—this is the crucial point: it is very important—the right hon. and learned Lady must understand that because I had expressed some sympathy for the bid when I was not responsible for it, I changed the process so that at every stage before I made a decision, I obtained the advice of independent regulators, which I carefully considered and which I followed. I put it to the right hon. and learned Lady that if I had been backing the bid, I would not have sought the advice of independent regulators who might well have opposed it.
I made four decisions in this process, and each of those decisions was contrary to what News Corporation wanted. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members are making the very serious allegation that I was supporting this bid and not acting quasi-judicially, they must at least listen to the evidence of what happened.
The first decision I made was that I was minded to refer the bid to the Competition Commission, which is precisely what James Murdoch did not want me to do. I said that I was minded to do it. I then had an obligation to consider undertakings in lieu of a reference to the Competition Commission, and I made my second decision, which was that I would not accept those undertakings until I had received and considered the advice of Ofcom and the OFT on whether they dealt with the plurality concerns. That was something about which James Murdoch was extremely angry. [Interruption.] I had a meeting which was minuted.
The third decision that I made was to extend the period of consultation—again, at any stage I could have accepted those undertakings—and to insist again that Ofcom and the OFT must have full sight of the undertakings, that I would see their advice, and in practice I followed their advice after careful consideration.
My final decision, at the very end of the process, was made at the time of the Milly Dowler revelations. At that stage, I wrote to Ofcom and asked it whether those allegations should have any impact on my decision with respect to accepting the undertakings, because I thought that there was a question mark over corporate governance procedures which might affect any decision to accept them.
Those four decisions were contrary to what News Corporation wanted. The idea that I was backing the bid is laughable.
The right hon. and learned Lady talked about the e-mails between Frederic Michel and me. In his evidence to the inquiry, Frederic Michel also said—[Interruption.] I think that Opposition Members should listen to the evidence that was presented yesterday. Frederic Michel said:
“some of my emails… may incorrectly suggest to a reader that I had contact with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt, when in fact my contact was solely with Mr Hunt’s adviser”.
[Interruption.] I accept, and my adviser accepts, that those communications overstepped the mark. However, I am telling the House today that all the evidence makes it absolutely clear that none of those conversations influenced the decisions that I made.
Let me just say this. The right hon. and learned Lady’s party had 13 years in which to do something about this. During the last year of the last Labour Government, the Cabinet discussed the issue of press behaviour and decided to do nothing. In contrast, she faces a Prime Minister and Culture Secretary who set up the Leveson inquiry within two weeks of the Milly Dowler situation, who therefore have put in place a process that, while fully protecting freedom of expression—which is the foundation of our democracy—will oversee some of the most fundamental reforms of press practices in a generation, and who have shown more commitment to transparency and openness than her Government ever did.
The decision to refer the matter to Leveson has to be regarded as a smokes screen and delaying tactic. If The Minister has done nothing wrong then it would simple and straightforward for the Prime Minister to refer the complaint to the man specifically appoint to investigate such complaint against Ministers and have the matter cleared up. There was no question, as it transpired of the Leveson Inquiring agreeing to hearing the counter evidence from the Culture secretary in advance of the scheduled programme. More over Lord Leveson would not be ruling on whether the Minister had broken the Ministerial code.
It is evident from the code that the Minister is responsible for the actions of his political adviser. Quite apart from the inequality that that Minister never spoke to his adviser about his approach and developments in relation to the application, by resigning the adviser admits that he acted in inappropriately over a long period and if he was responsible for releasing information before it was reported to Parliament he stands in contempt of Parliament and the Minister should resign. It is no different from the Murdoch’s claiming ignorance of what was going on because they did not question the lies and the cover up being presented to them.
This exchange took place while Mr Murdoch was giving his evidence to the Committee and while Mr Cameron the Culture Secretary had hoped to kick the issue into the long grass or at least until after the Local Government Elections, the Opposition, one suspect with substantial Liberal Democrat support continued to press he issue over the weekend, In a foretaste of what was to come the Deputy Opposition leader in the Commons Ms Harriet Harman, was pressed and came off the fence when talking to Andrew Neil in the Sunday morning Politics show. She argued that as a consequence of all the revelations, the arrests, the latest development the Murdoch’s should not allowed to continue to control British media to the extent that they do.
More dramatic developments took place over the next two days as the Parliament came to its end.
The cause is the appearance of Rupert Murdoch and his son James at Leveson, in the week before the publication of the delayed House of Commons Culture Committee report inquiry whether members of the Murdoch Committee had misled Parliament during their appearance before them three years previously. Sandwiched between these two events there was a political bombshell that threatened the political future of the Culture Secretary and which also challenged the Prime Minister and threatened to have a disproportionate impact on the local government elections to be held on Thursday May 3rd. It was also a period when the official economic figures indicated that subject to revision the UK has entered recession for the second time since the Coalition government took office thus question the strategy and everything that had been said and claimed by the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and their supporters.
I was travelling on Tuesday of last week when James Murdoch appeared before the Committee and attached several hundred pages of documentation to his evidence. This included all the correspondence between the Murdoch’s chief public relations man cum spin doctor and the Department of Culture and Leisure(includes Media) over the application to buy 100% of the shares of B skyB in a situation where they are already the largest shareholder with 39%. Because of the weather I would have been torn between listening to cricket commentary from the Oval where Durham was scheduled o play Surrey and the appearance of Rupert Murdoch on the Wednesday and Thursdays. However there was no play on either day or on the other two days which made the match a complete wash out. Rupert had been clearly briefed by his lawyers and media advisers as had his son and he also provided several hundred pages of associated documentation.
Rupert denied any knowledge of the criminal activities of numerous employees the majority of whom are yet to face a British Court of law but did argue there had been a conspiracy covers up without naming names for obvious reasons. He was surprising court and I would have to say disingenuous about the extent of his involvement in the policies of his newspapers or his decisions to give support to the leaders of political parties in the UK at times of General Elections. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at first switching the David Cameron. He denied that he had ever asked British Political Leaders for help or concessions in relation tot he creation and development of his media empire in the UK.
I have not studied the text or listened sufficiently close to be able to say with certainty but my impression is that the question was not rather than side stepped that someone asking on his behalf is in effect the same as if had asked directly although he has also made known his views on the monopolistic funding of the BBC or that broadcasting in general should remain bipartisan in terms of its overall content. It was difficult to see what he got out of all the fawning which political leaders had given him over several decades other than from the enjoyment being able to go to the residence of the Prime Minister in London through the back door with a parking space. There was no quid pro quo especially in terms of Mr Cameron being promised support against Mr Brown at he last General Election for Tory support of the BSkyB take over. This is where the documentation supplied to inquiry was so important and triggered a major party political. Mr Cameron when questioned at PMQ’s on Wednesday, the day after the documentation disclosure and then in response from a special question from the Leader of the Opposition on Monday afternoon of this week, made the strong point that there would not have been a problem if Vince Cable had not been indiscrete to a scam by a newspaper declaring that he would stop the take over when as Minister he had the judicial role of taking decisions about the matter.
Appropriate civil service and legal interests had been consulted about whether the Culture Secretary could then take the same role given that he had expressed opinions in support of the bid previously to he transfer of duties. He had acted judiciously throughout his involvement and although he had authorised his political adviser to maintained contact with the applicants and this had been approved by the Civil Service he had not known he nature and the extent of the contact and in the light of the information now available the Adviser had tendered his resignation.
The exchange went like this. The Leader of the Opposition said that from the evidence published yesterday, that throughout the time when the Culture Secretary was supposed to be acting in an impartial manner, he and his office were providing in advance a constant flow of confidential information to News Corporation about statements to be made in this House, his private discussions with the regulators and his discussions with opposing parties. Having seen the 163 pages published yesterday, is the Prime Minister seriously telling us that the Secretary of State was acting as he should have done, in a transparent, impartial and fair manner?
The Prime Minister after responding to earlier question about the economy said. “Let me turn to the Leveson inquiry. I set up the Leveson inquiry and its terms of reference were agreed by the leader of the Liberal Democrat party and the leader of the Labour party. I believe that to step in and prejudge that inquiry would be wrong. Lord Justice Leveson has made that precise point this morning. Let me read to the House what he has said. [Interruption.] Perhaps the House would like to listen. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear what the Prime Minister has to say, and then the questioning will continue.
The Prime Minister: Lord Justice Leveson said this morning that
“it is very important to hear every side of the story before drawing conclusions.”
He then said that
“although I have seen requests for other inquiries and investigations and, of course, I do not seek to constrain Parliament, it seems to me that the better course is to allow this Inquiry to proceed.”
Having set up this inquiry and agreed with the inquiry, the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the inquiry.
Edward Miliband: Lord Justice Leveson is responsible for a lot of things, but he is not responsible for the integrity of the Prime Minister’s Government. In case he has forgotten, that is his responsibility as the Prime Minister.
It beggars belief that the Prime Minister can defend the Culture Secretary, because he was not judging this bid—he was helping the bid by News Corporation. Two days before the statement to the House on 25 January, the Culture Secretary’s office was not only colluding with News Corp to provide it with information in advance, it was hatching a plan to ensure that it would be “game over for the opposition” to the bid. Does the Prime Minister really believe that is how a judge and his advisers are supposed to act?
The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition clearly does not think that what Lord Leveson said this morning matters. Let me remind him of what he said yesterday about the Leveson inquiry. He said:
“I think”—this is the Leader of the Opposition speaking—
“that it’s right that the Leveson Inquiry takes its course”.
He went on to say that “the most important thing is that the Leveson Inquiry gets to the bottom of what happened, of what Labour did, of what the Conservatives did and we reach a judgment about that.”
Is it not typical of the right hon. Gentleman? In the morning he sets out his very clear position, but in the afternoon he cannot resist the passing political bandwagon.
Edward Miliband: Totally—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. I said the Prime Minister must be heard, and the Leader of the Opposition must be heard. Both will be heard, however long it takes. It is very clear.
Edward Miliband: Totally pathetic answers. He is the Prime Minister. If he cannot defend the conduct of his own Ministers, his Ministers should be out of the door. He should fire them. He does not even try to defend the Secretary of State and what he did. The Secretary of State told the House on 3 March, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), that “today we are publishing…all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation.”— [Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]
But he did not, because 163 pages have now emerged. The Prime Minister does not defend him over giving confidential information to one party in the case; he does not defend him over collusion; is he really going to defend him about not being straight with this House of Commons?
The Prime Minister: Let me make it absolutely clear that the Culture Secretary, who has my full support for the excellent job that he does, will be giving a full account of himself in this House of Commons this afternoon and in front of the Leveson inquiry, and he will give a very good account of himself for this very simple reason: that in judging this important bid, he sought independent advice from independent regulators at every stage, although he did not need to, and he took that independent advice at every stage, although he did not need to. The way he has dealt with this issue is in stark contrast to the Governments of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
Edward Miliband: I say this to the Prime Minister: while his Culture Secretary remains in place, and while he refuses to come clean on his and the Chancellor’s meetings with Rupert Murdoch, the shadow of sleaze will hang over this Government. It is a pattern with this Prime Minister—Andy Coulson, Rebekah Brooks and now the Culture Secretary. When is he going to realise that it is time to stop putting his cronies before the interests of the country?
The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he called for an independent judicial inquiry. That is the inquiry I have set up. He agreed the terms of reference. Now he is flip-flopping all over the place. The fact is that the problem of closeness between politicians and media proprietors had been going on for years and it is this Government who are going to sort it out. Whether it is the proper regulation of the press, whether it is cleaning up our financial system, whether it is dealing with our debts: I don’t duck my responsibilities. What a pity he cannot live up to his.
Hon. Members: More!
It was then the turn of the Culture Secretary to make a statement.
12.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt): With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following yesterday’s developments at the Leveson inquiry. Although I intend to respond fully to allegations about my conduct and that of my Department when I present my evidence to Lord Justice Leveson, I believe that it is important to update the House on actions that have been taken as a result of evidence released yesterday.
We are 273 days into a process whose first stage will last until October. This is not the time to jump on a political bandwagon—[Interruption.] What the public want to hear are not my views or those of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but the views of Lord Justice Leveson when he has considered all the evidence. I do, however, think that it is right to set the record right on a number of issues, in the light of the evidence heard yesterday at the inquiry. Specifically, on the merger of News Corp with BSkyB, I would like to remind the House of the process that I followed. Throughout, I have followed due process, seeking the advice of independent regulators—something I did not have to do—and after careful consideration, acting on their advice. I have published all advice that I have received from Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading, together with correspondence between myself and News Corporation, including details of all meetings that I have held in relation to this process.
As part of this process, my officials and I have engaged with News Corporation and its representatives, as well as other interested parties—both supporters and opponents of the merger. Transcripts of conversations and texts published yesterday between my special adviser, Adam Smith, and a News Corporation representative have been alleged to indicate that there was a back channel through which News Corporation was able to influence my decisions. That is categorically not the case—[ Interruption. ]
Mr Speaker: Order. The House must calm down a bit. The statement must be heard. There will be a full opportunity for questioning of the Secretary of State, as he would expect. Whether he expects it or not, that is what will happen. That is right and proper, but it is also right and proper that the statement should be heard with courtesy.
Mr Hunt: However, the volume and tone of those communications were clearly not appropriate in a quasi-judicial process, and today Adam Smith has resigned as my special adviser. Although he accepts that he overstepped the mark on this occasion, I want to set on record that I believe that he did so unintentionally and did not believe that he was doing anything more than giving advice on process. I believe him to be someone of integrity and decency, and it is a matter of huge regret to me that this has happened.
I only saw the transcripts of these communications yesterday. They did not influence my decisions in any way at all—not least because I insisted on hearing the advice of independent regulators at every stage of the process. I will give my full record of events when I give
evidence to Lord Justice Leveson. However, I would like to resolve this issue as soon as possible, which is why I have written to Lord Justice Leveson asking if my appearance can be brought forward. I am totally confident that when I present my evidence, the public will see that I conducted this process with scrupulous fairness throughout.
12.38 pm
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Everyone recognises that the £8 billion News Corp bid for BSkyB was of huge commercial importance and that it had profound implications for newspapers and for all of broadcasting, including the BBC. The Business Secretary had been stripped of his responsibility for deciding on the bid because he had already made up his mind against it, but the Culture Secretary too had made up his mind, in favour of the bid, so how could he have thought it proper to take on that decision? Of course he could take advice, but the decision as to whether he should do it, and could do it fairly, was a matter for him and him alone.
The Secretary of State took on the responsibility, and assured the House that he would be acting in a quasi-judicial role, like a judge, and that he would be transparent, impartial and fair. However, is it not the case that James Murdoch was receiving information in advance about what the Secretary of State was going to do and what he was going to say—information that was given to only one side, which had not been given to those who were opposed to the bid, and before it was given to this House.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it acceptable that Murdoch knew not only about what he was going to do and say, but, crucially, what the regulator, Ofcom, had said to the Secretary of State on 10 January 2011 and what the bid’s opponents had said to the Secretary of State on 20 and 31 March 2011. Is he really going to suggest to this House that James Murdoch’s adviser, Fred Michel, knowing all this was just a coincidence? Can the Secretary of State explain how Fred Michel, in a series of e-mails beginning on 23 January, was in a position to tell Murdoch the full detail of a statement that the Secretary of State was not going to give to this House until two days later? Whatever interpretation is put on e-mails, there can be no doubt that Michel’s e-mail accurately and in detail described meetings that the Secretary of State had had, and accurately foretold what the Secretary of State was going to do. Either Michel was mystic Meg or he had been told.
When it comes to the transparency that the Secretary of State promised, there appears to have been a great deal of transparency for Murdoch, but precious little for opponents of the bid or for this House. If, as suggested on the right hon. Gentleman’s behalf in the media, he was negotiating with Murdoch, why did he not tell the opponents of the bid and why did he not tell the House? Will he tell us now whether he believed himself to have been negotiating? Is that what was going on?
On 3 March, the Secretary of State told this House that he had published details of all the exchanges between his Department and News Corporation. In the light of all the information that we now know that Fred Michel had, does he still maintain that that is the case? His special adviser has admitted that his activities at times went too far, and he has resigned, but will the Secretary of State confirm that under paragraph 3.3 of the ministerial code, it is the Secretary of State himself who is responsible for the conduct of his special adviser?
This was a controversial bid. The right hon. Gentleman could have refused to take it on, but he did not. He could have referred it to the Competition Commission, but he did not. His role was to be impartial, but he was not. His conduct should have been quasi-judicial, but it fell far, far short of that, and fell short of the standards required by his office. The reality is that he was not judging this bid; he was backing it, so he should resign.
Mr Hunt: I am hugely disappointed by the right and learned hon. Lady’s response today. She had the opportunity to rise above party politics and work towards a solution to a problem that has bedevilled British politics for many years; instead, she has chosen to jump on the political bandwagon. Let me remind her that the Labour party spent over a decade in power and did nothing other than cosy up to the press barons and their families. She speaks for a party whose Prime Minister, when in opposition, flew half-way round the world, in Rupert Murdoch’s words, to “make love” to him “like a scorpion”. [Interruption.] This is a party whose Prime Minister was godfather to Rupert Murdoch’s daughter and whose Prime Minister’s wife organised a sleepover at Chequers. [Interruption.] I will come on to deal with all the right hon. and learned Lady’s points.
Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to calm down. I politely but explicitly suggest to the Secretary of State that in addressing these matters, he seeks to address the questions put to him and to address the matters for which he is responsible, which obviously does not include the conduct of other political parties.
Mr Hunt: I will happily do that, Mr Speaker, but I do think that Opposition Members need to show a degree of humility when they deal with these issues—[Interruption]—because if we are going to solve this problem, it is necessary for the whole House to work together and not to jump on bandwagons.
Let me now deal with the specific points made by the right hon. and learned Lady. She said that I was backing the bid—that I had made up my mind. That is not true. Let me say this. First, when I was appointed to be responsible for the bid, my views about the bid, some of which had been made public, were explicitly reported to the Cabinet Secretary, who decided that it was appropriate for me to take responsibility for it in a quasi-judicial role, but—this is the crucial point: it is very important—the right hon. and learned Lady must understand that because I had expressed some sympathy for the bid when I was not responsible for it, I changed the process so that at every stage before I made a decision, I obtained the advice of independent regulators, which I carefully considered and which I followed. I put it to the right hon. and learned Lady that if I had been backing the bid, I would not have sought the advice of independent regulators who might well have opposed it.
I made four decisions in this process, and each of those decisions was contrary to what News Corporation wanted. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members are making the very serious allegation that I was supporting this bid and not acting quasi-judicially, they must at least listen to the evidence of what happened.
The first decision I made was that I was minded to refer the bid to the Competition Commission, which is precisely what James Murdoch did not want me to do. I said that I was minded to do it. I then had an obligation to consider undertakings in lieu of a reference to the Competition Commission, and I made my second decision, which was that I would not accept those undertakings until I had received and considered the advice of Ofcom and the OFT on whether they dealt with the plurality concerns. That was something about which James Murdoch was extremely angry. [Interruption.] I had a meeting which was minuted.
The third decision that I made was to extend the period of consultation—again, at any stage I could have accepted those undertakings—and to insist again that Ofcom and the OFT must have full sight of the undertakings, that I would see their advice, and in practice I followed their advice after careful consideration.
My final decision, at the very end of the process, was made at the time of the Milly Dowler revelations. At that stage, I wrote to Ofcom and asked it whether those allegations should have any impact on my decision with respect to accepting the undertakings, because I thought that there was a question mark over corporate governance procedures which might affect any decision to accept them.
Those four decisions were contrary to what News Corporation wanted. The idea that I was backing the bid is laughable.
The right hon. and learned Lady talked about the e-mails between Frederic Michel and me. In his evidence to the inquiry, Frederic Michel also said—[Interruption.] I think that Opposition Members should listen to the evidence that was presented yesterday. Frederic Michel said:
“some of my emails… may incorrectly suggest to a reader that I had contact with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt, when in fact my contact was solely with Mr Hunt’s adviser”.
[Interruption.] I accept, and my adviser accepts, that those communications overstepped the mark. However, I am telling the House today that all the evidence makes it absolutely clear that none of those conversations influenced the decisions that I made.
Let me just say this. The right hon. and learned Lady’s party had 13 years in which to do something about this. During the last year of the last Labour Government, the Cabinet discussed the issue of press behaviour and decided to do nothing. In contrast, she faces a Prime Minister and Culture Secretary who set up the Leveson inquiry within two weeks of the Milly Dowler situation, who therefore have put in place a process that, while fully protecting freedom of expression—which is the foundation of our democracy—will oversee some of the most fundamental reforms of press practices in a generation, and who have shown more commitment to transparency and openness than her Government ever did.
The decision to refer the matter to Leveson has to be regarded as a smokes screen and delaying tactic. If The Minister has done nothing wrong then it would simple and straightforward for the Prime Minister to refer the complaint to the man specifically appoint to investigate such complaint against Ministers and have the matter cleared up. There was no question, as it transpired of the Leveson Inquiring agreeing to hearing the counter evidence from the Culture secretary in advance of the scheduled programme. More over Lord Leveson would not be ruling on whether the Minister had broken the Ministerial code.
It is evident from the code that the Minister is responsible for the actions of his political adviser. Quite apart from the inequality that that Minister never spoke to his adviser about his approach and developments in relation to the application, by resigning the adviser admits that he acted in inappropriately over a long period and if he was responsible for releasing information before it was reported to Parliament he stands in contempt of Parliament and the Minister should resign. It is no different from the Murdoch’s claiming ignorance of what was going on because they did not question the lies and the cover up being presented to them.
This exchange took place while Mr Murdoch was giving his evidence to the Committee and while Mr Cameron the Culture Secretary had hoped to kick the issue into the long grass or at least until after the Local Government Elections, the Opposition, one suspect with substantial Liberal Democrat support continued to press he issue over the weekend, In a foretaste of what was to come the Deputy Opposition leader in the Commons Ms Harriet Harman, was pressed and came off the fence when talking to Andrew Neil in the Sunday morning Politics show. She argued that as a consequence of all the revelations, the arrests, the latest development the Murdoch’s should not allowed to continue to control British media to the extent that they do.
More dramatic developments took place over the next two days as the Parliament came to its end.
No comments:
Post a Comment