This has been one of those weeks in which it really feels like something big has changed. Pillars of the British establishment have been put under the spotlight - the media, politicians, the police - with public confidence in each crumbling before us.
As the Prime Minister explained yesterday, the Government has set up an Inquiry into these events. A two-stage, judge-led Inquiry looking, without delay, at the culture, ethics and practices of the British press as well as the role of the police and politicians. Reporting, we hope, in a year, and also looking at the specific allegations as soon as criminal investigations are complete.
Yesterday, News Corps' bid to takeover BSkyB was dramatically withdrawn and, for the first time in days, it feels like this morning we have a chance to catch our breath, and ask: what next? What are we going to do about everything we have seen and heard over recent days? What are we going to build from the rubble of the last week? Is it enough to just clean up the current mess? Or, are we going to go further? Tackling the institutional failings that have allowed these gross intrusions to occur in the first place so that they can never happen again.
I want to set out today the principles that I believe must now guide future reform.
First, that the freedom of the press is vital. Liberty and democracy are founded on freedom of expression.
Second, that our media must be held to account ensuring it acts within the bounds of the law and decent behaviour, with politicians and police equally accountable for their role.
Third, that our free, accountable press must be plural, guaranteeing healthy competition and diverse debate.
Freedom, accountability, plurality. That is how we preserve the best qualities of investigative journalism, but mitigate the worst excesses of an unfettered press too.
Before I talk about those principles, we first need to be clear about the problem.
The charge sheet is, by now, familiar. Newspapers hacking into the phones of missing children, of the grieving parents of fallen soldiers, of the victims of terrorist attacks. We've also heard allegations of journalists bribing police officers. And, while we await the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the Government has been assured by the Independent Police Complaints Commission that it has the resources and powers necessary to properly deal with these allegations. No matter how senior or powerful the people in question.
These scandals are a disgrace and misconduct and lawbreaking must now be punished. But they are also symptomatic of problems that go much deeper.
They flow from a fundamentally corrupted relationship between politics, the media, and the police. All these groups are supposed to serve the people. But too often they have been serving only themselves or each other. A light has been shone on the murky underworld of British public life. A world in which confidential information is for sale; in which journalists cross the line from public interest into vulgar voyeurism; and politicians, petrified of the power of the media, fail in their duty to ensure a free, accountable, plural press.
So it's time for fundamental reform. Liberalism, as a political creed, is deeply sceptical about untrammelled media power. In a liberal, open and democratic society, we are constantly alert to the dangers of power that is concentrated and unaccountable in government, politics, the economy and the media. That's why plurality and diversity, along with accountability and transparency, are so vital. And liberals also believe it's necessary to maintain a clear distinction between different domains of power. Because, when financial, political, law enforcement, and media power spill over into each other, the fabric of liberty is threatened.
So the problems we face can't be put down to the behaviour of a few individuals. This isn't just about Rebekah Brooks or the Murdochs or what happens with BSkyB. This is about a systemic failure. A failure, above all, to keep power in check.
We now have an opportunity to fix those failings. I know that there is real fear, among reformers, that this opportunity will pass us by. That there will be plenty of heat, but no light. That, now that the BSkyB bid has been withdrawn, now that one tabloid has been sacrificed, soon we will be back to business as usual.
The pessimists have a point. In recent decades the political class has consistently failed to stand up to the media. Seeking to curry favour with powerful media barons or prevent their own personal lives from being splashed across the front pages.
It's not a new problem. It was the Conservative Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin who warned in 1931 that the media was exercising: "power without responsibility". But the same challenge plagues us today.
In 1981 the then Conservative government waved through Murdoch's takeover of the Times newspapers and then excluded that same proprietor from rules preventing simultaneous ownership of newspapers and television stations.
When the rules were being redrawn on media ownership in the mid-1990s and John Major attempted, to his credit, to retain rules that that prevented major newspaper proprietors from controlling British television stations, Labour opposed. Tony Blair travelled to the other side of the world to speak at a conference in Murdoch's defence. Literally flying to his rescue.
In 2006, when the Information Commissioner provided incontrovertible evidence of the unlawful trade in confidential information, proving that private medical records, tax records, financial records, phone records - even records only accessible through the police database, were being bought and sold on an industrial scale - nothing really changed. Labour refused to take on Murdoch. And, as Peter Mandelson admitted this week, the reason was simple: fear.
So the political establishment has hardly covered itself in glory. But, whatever this politician did, or that party did, we now have a rare opportunity to work together in the national interest. If we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that change in Britain's institutions is best secured at moments of public outcry. That's what brought about the clean up of MPs' expenses, it's what turned attention onto our big banks. Now, it's the media's turn.
So what are the three principles that should drive future reform?
The first is press freedom. It would be wholly wrong to respond to the present crisis with any action that inhibits a free and vigorous press. That is the lifeblood of liberal democracy. It is absolutely central to an open society in which information is dispersed, corruption is exposed, and the powerful are kept honest. And let's not forget - while we are currently witnessing the humbling of certain types of journalism - the last week has also been a triumph for proper, investigative reporting.
So politicians must resist any temptation to impose knee-jerk, short-sighted restrictions on the media. This is an area where it would be easy to legislate in haste and repent at our leisure. The Coalition will not succumb to that temptation and if you needed proof of our commitment to press freedom - commitment that predates this crisis - let me remind you that we are already taking far-reaching action to reform England's libel laws. So that public-spirited journalists can publish free from the threat of litigation by big businesses and wealthy individuals.
But, if we support press freedom, as we do, we have to be realistic about what that means. A raucous, probing press, able to hold politicians and public figures to account, comes at a price. Journalists will always operate at the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable in order to unearth the truth for the sake of the public interest. And we need to now have a proper debate about where that line lies.
Newsrooms will never be a place for shrinking violets. The daily cut-and-thrust of Fleet Street will always attract individuals hungry for a story - tenacious, irreverent, often idealistic and cynical in equal measure. And papers will never be owned by angels. Like any other business, they will compete ferociously with each other for their core product: information.
Yes, the press is a national institution, and a public good. But it is commercial too, serving private interests. At its best, the competitive instinct of journalists and proprietors to get the story first helps ensure other institutions are held to account. But, at its worst, the unscrupulous and illegal pursuit of a headline to drive sales has led to the revelations of the last week. That is the reality we face.
Like all liberals, I don't want to live in a society where journalism is enfeebled and hemmed-in. So our challenge is getting the balance right, ensuring our media is as free as possible, but without sacrificing ethical standards or seeing itself as above the law.
Which brings me to accountability. Over the last few years, there has been greater awareness of the impact of certain institutions on the public good, including professions such as the law, and institutions like the banks. And there have been huge improvements in the way professional and public bodies are now held to account through professional codes of conduct and independent scrutineers. The medical profession, the legal profession, financial services, the police, although they have some way to go, as recent events have shown. And all are now far more accountable for their behaviour.
The media, however, has not kept up. Together, the political class, parts of the police, and the press have granted our media an institutionalised immunity from the basic standards that govern the rest of society.
Clearly, part of the problem has been a monumental failure of corporate governance. As a group of investors said of News Corps earlier this week. And all media organisations, the senior staff and board at News International included, should now be looking very hard at the composition of their boards and their systems of corporate governance.
But we also need to ask more widely whether corporate law in the UK does enough to push managers and directors into being more active. Something must be wrong when misconduct and lawbreaking can become endemic within an organisation. While the senior staff do nothing. So we need to look at whether or not there is a failure of enforcement of the existing corporate governance rules. Or if the problems lie within the rules themselves.
We also need to address the lack of clarity over who or what constitutes a fit and proper owner of a media corporation. It is not clear whether or not institutions can be deemed unfit and improper. Or if the issue is strictly one of personal liability. And even legal experts well-versed in these issues do not agree. That then creates potential for organisations to evade responsibility by blaming a handful of individuals, when clearly the problem is ingrained across the culture of an institution.
Beyond that, there is now an inescapable need for an overhaul of the regulatory system too. The PCC has failed as an effective watchdog.
It is a complaints body at best, and a limited one at that, able only to respond to complaints made by the individuals directly affected by the reports in question. So, for example, anyone who was shocked in 2007 by the sight of Kate Middleton being hounded by photographers and film crews couldn't complain. In that situation, until she herself complains, the PCC won't investigate. That is absolutely ludicrous - as if the public have no say whatsoever over the conduct of journalists.
Nor is the PCC independent. It is run by the newspapers, for the newspapers, who act as their own judge and jury. No wonder it has no teeth - that's exactly how the industry wants it. It doesn't provide real redress. A person can have their public reputation left in tatters after ruinous accusations splashed across a front page and all the PCC gets them is a short apology hidden somewhere at the back of the paper. And the PCC doesn't even cover the whole industry.
Major news outlets can opt out. And that is precisely what has happened with the Daily Express, the Sunday Express and the Daily Star.
No one now believes that the status quo can continue. Much of the debate has been about whether or not we should replace it with a reformed system of self-regulation or else a new system of statutory regulation. But, in my view, that misses the key point: what we need is independent regulation, insulated from vested interests within the media, and free from Government interference too.
There are a number of very sensible proposals out there already, not least the need for the regulator to have proper sanctions at their disposal, including financial penalties, against editors, journalists and proprietors who breach the Code of Conduct.
Greater accountability and scrutiny must also extend to dealings between the press, politicians and the police. That's why the Government will amend the Ministerial Code so that Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and Special Advisers have to record all meetings with newspaper proprietors, editors and chief executives, regardless of the nature of the meeting with the information published quarterly.
On the police, we've heard some extraordinary things from the Met this week. Not least that a high-ranking officer felt it acceptable to be wined and dined by senior newspaper executives under investigation. The Met now has a big job on its hands winning back the public confidence that has been lost and the Independent Police Complaints Commission is now looking into allegations over criminality and misconduct.
On the issue of selling confidential information to journalists specifically, a whole range of professions have been implicated. Not just the police, but also private investigators, medical professionals and phone companies. Under the current law, for fraud and phone hacking you can go to prison. Whereas, under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act, unlawful use of personal data can get you a fine. The Information Commissioner recommended in 2006 that that offence should also attract a custodial sentence. It wasn't taken up then, and this Government has said it will keep it under review. I think that now - where it cannot be proved that information was obtained in the public interest - there is a case for looking at this issue again.
That leaves the third principle: plurality.
It is not the place of politicians - not least liberal politicians - to dictate who should own which newspapers. But diversity of ownership is an indelible liberal principle because a corporate media monopoly threatens a free press almost as much as a state monopoly does. For liberals, a cacophony of dissenting and conflicting voices is a prerequisite for healthy competition and vibrant debate. Some say that the rise in social media and internet news means we should worry less about plurality.
It is true that the media landscape is changing, but it simply is not the case that traditional media no longer matters. It is still responsible for the majority of original journalism and so it is as important as ever to ensure it is not concentrated in a small number of hands. That said, the increasing diversification of media sources does raise new issues over cross-media ownership, which is something the Inquiry will now look at.
We also need to address the way in which the rules on plurality are applied.
At the moment we have a plurality test which can be used to prevent media mergers when they are deemed to undermine the public interest. However, it only made it onto the statute book in the first place as a concession from the previous government. When they were passing legislation that otherwise relaxed the rules on ownership, so it was never developed as a comprehensive safeguard. We now need to go back to first principles to make sure we get the framework right for the future.
Crucially, the plurality test can only be applied at the point of mergers or acquisitions, but why doesn't it cover companies which expand their market share gradually, over time, by natural growth? And can we be sure plurality will be defined sufficiently broadly? In the case of the BSkyB bid it only covered news and current affairs, but would a broader understanding be better? These are all questions we must now ask.
We should also look at the way competition law operates and one idea we are investigating is to give the competition authority the power to report on public interest issues, which could include media plurality, in the same way as it can now for mergers.
So, to sum up, three principles: freedom, accountability, plurality.
That is how we create a press that is bold, dissenting, and fearless but bound by fair rules and decent standards. That is the best of all worlds, and it is the balance we seek.
The hacking scandals will no doubt continue to lurch from one headline to the next, but we must stay focused on the endgame. If we get this right, if we get the ball rolling while the demand for change is still strong, we can rebuild the confidence in our major institutions that, this week, has been so badly knocked. And we can make sure this never, ever happens again.
Gerald will follow Liverpool Councillor Richard Kemp who has been Lib Dem Leader for the last six years.
Gerald has been Deputy Leader of the Lib Dem Group at the LGA for the last six years. He has been Leader of Portsmouth City Council for the Last 7 years and will continue in this role. He will give up his role as Joint National Lib Dem Lead at LGID (Local Government Improvement and Development).
"My colleagues and I have been warning for 17 years of the dangers of the growing influence of the Murdochs in Britain.
"Three days ago the most popular Murdoch title disappeared - ruined by the excesses of some of its staff. Today the News Corp bid for BSkyB has been withdrawn.
"At last the sun is setting on Rupert Murdoch's British empire.
"Journalism in the UK used to have the reputation as the best in the world. It is in the interests of all the public that this reputation is now restored."
Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Culture, Media and Sport, Don Foster added:
"This is a huge victory for the British people who forced politicians to take action.
"While I welcome this announcement, it doesn't remove the urgent need to address issues including the ineffectiveness of the PCC, rules around media ownership, the 'fit and proper' rule and wider issues of plurality.
"It's vital that the inquiry now goes ahead. We must get to the bottom of the wrong doing that has taken place, bringing those who have broken the law to justice while protecting and promoting a free and open press which can rightly hold people to account."
"So many people - friends and family of the pilots, my predecessor Ray Mitchie, and others - campaigned for many years to overturn the original verdict which found the two young pilots, who died doing their duty, guilty of gross negligence.
"This review is long overdue. Where the previous Labour government stalled and obstructed, the Coalition Government has ensured that justice has been done.
"I hope that today's report and conclusions will help many people to put this horrible accident behind them and I join them in remembering and paying tribute to all those who passed away on that disastrous day."
The full text of the letter, signed by the party's Deputy Leader Simon Hughes, President Tim Farron and Culture, Media and Sport spokesperson Don Foster, is below.
Rupert Murdoch
Chairman and Chief Executive
News Corporation
c/o News International Ltd
3 Thomas More Square,
London E98 1XY
Commenting, MP for Cheadle Mark Hunter who originally launched the 'Save the Cheque' campaign through an Early Day Motion in Parliament in November 2009 said:
"This is a great victory for people power and common sense, and proves the banks cannot afford to ignore the views of their customers.
"After years campaigning alongside small businesses, charities and voluntary groups, who will welcome this with open arms, I am absolutely delighted by this news."
Commenting further, Co-chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Business Innovations and Skills, Lorely Burt said:
"I've spoken to hundreds of small businesses who were concerned that the removal of cheques would drive up their costs and end up putting them out of business.
"Today's announcement means that those small businesses and tradesmen who rely on cheque payments can now be sure of their future."
She will also be calling on the Mayor of London Boris Johnson to support her call for his resignation at July's Mayor Question Time, taking place at City Hall tomorrow (Wednesday 13th July).
Commenting Dee said:
"It is shameful that John Yates found time to have a five lunches with the News of the World and News International, but after just a few hours decided there was no additional evidence to justify a further investigation into phone hacking.
"John Yates has failed literally hundreds of victims of phone hacking. While he remains in post as Assistant Commissioner of the Met its reputation will not recover.
"He must take responsibility for this pitiful review and accept that he has lost all credibility. It is time for him to go."
"The media, politicians and the police have failed the public.
"But it is not true that 'they were all at it' - whether it be all journalists or all senior politicians.
"Labour and the Conservatives spent decades cosying up to Rupert Murdoch and his cronies in the hope of an endorsement or a favourable headline. The Liberal Democrats did not.
"What David Cameron, Tony Blair or Gordon Brown knew about the practices of the newspapers they sought to curry favour with, no one knows, but it appears they certainly didn't waste much energy finding out.
"More than that, both David Cameron and Ed Miliband allowed Murdoch newspapermen into their inner circles.
"David Cameron hired Andy Coulson and brought him into Number 10, despite apparent warnings of the skeletons in his closet.
"Ed Miliband hired ex-News International hack Tom Baldwin just a few months ago. No doubt Baldwin helped him up on to the pedestal he used for his many media appearances this week.
"Miliband has admitted that just a couple of weeks ago he went to Murdoch's summer party, alongside Cameron, and didn't bring up phone hacking.
"I don't know what Tom Baldwin has done in his past, so I'll leave the criticism there, but Andy Coulson has many questions to answer - not least to the police - and so does the Prime Minister.
"What did Cameron ask Coulson of his background? Did he grill him until he was satisfied or did he ask no questions so that he heard no lies?
"One thing's for sure, Coulson's employment is a stain on the Government and I'm not happy about it.
"We are not all the same, not inside the Government or outside it. Nick Clegg did not beg for the scraps from Murdoch's table. During the election campaign, former Sun editor David Yelland said 'One man utterly beyond the tentacles of any of [Murdoch's] family, his editors or his advisers?is Nick Clegg'.
"I am bitterly disappointed that a non-Murdoch newspaper honey trap cost Vince Cable his right to adjudicate over Murdoch's proposed BSkyB takeover. But the private comments Vince made, that he had 'declared war on Murdoch', should make it clear that the Liberal Democrats are far from in his pocket.
"The phone hacking scandal is not over.
"Yes, we need apologies.
"Yes, we need a full judge-led public inquiry into the failures of the original police investigation. Yes, we need another to shine light on the murky operations of tabloid newspapers.
"Yes, we need the culprits of this sorry affair to be punished and heads to roll at News International, and not just those of the staff at the News of the World, the vast majority of whom will have never done anything as remotely appalling as hacking phones.But apologies, inquiries and punishment are not enough.
"That doesn't just mean an end to corrupt practices in newsrooms and police stations. That doesn't just mean proper regulation either, although that is vital. We need to get rid of the toothless Press Complaints Commission and replace it with something that can hold newspapers properly to account - something I'm proud the Lib Dems called for at our Autumn conference last year.
"That doesn't just mean making sure Murdoch and his executives are scrutinised to see if they are 'fit and proper' people to take over BSkyB.
"We need a new order. Journalists must act ethically and obey the law. The police must never breach their bond of trust with the public and politicians must put people before the powerful."
"The passage of Mr Andrew Lansley's Health and Social Care bill through Parliament has been attended by growing concern and confusion. Initially only a small number of politicians and journalists, among them the Financial Times' Philip Stephens, and a few prominent members of the medical profession, sounded alarm bells. Most people thought of the bill in the context of the General Election campaign and the subsequent Coalition Agreement, that nothing fundamental would change.
"By the beginning of this year, attitudes began to alter. The Royal Colleges, the elite of the medical profession, began to ask searching questions. So did a few peers and MPs. At the Spring Conference of the Liberal Democrats in Sheffield, a group of concerned representatives, several of them men and women with long experience of the NHS, including Dr Evan Harris, former MP for Oxfordshire West, drafted a resolution for the Conference expressing their strong reservations about the proposals. The conference passed the motion overwhelmingly.
"Their anxieties were taken up by the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, and by some members of the official Labour opposition. Clegg studied the Bill, and argued relentlessly for the changes he and the Liberal Democrats believed to be essential for the future of the NHS as a public service. Discussions between the Coalition leaders led to the listening exercise by the NHS Future Forum, chaired by Professor Steve Field, and the publication of the detailed recommendations in the Forum's report. There were three significant developments which I shall now set out.
"First, the listening exercise was just what it claimed to be. Professor Field and his associates spoke to hundreds of people -members of the public, of the medical professions, of the NHS staff, of local authorities and many more. The report reflected those many conversations. It proposed substantial changes to the legislation, while upholding some of the best elements in the Lansley proposals such as integrated health and social care, the emphasis on preventive health policies, patient involvement and the role of local authorities in the delivery of health services.
"Second, the medical professions demonstrated impressive loyalty to the idea of health as a public service. I have been in public life long enough to know how the pursuit of status and money can deform and even destroy principles and values, even in the most admirable of vocations. Nevertheless, the evident commitment to the NHS demonstrated in the listening exercise by so many doctors, nurses, administrators and NHS staff, to the concept of a public service accessible to all and free at the point of need, remains impressively strong.
"Third, the significance of some of the proposals for change, and the urgent need for them, came across in the exercise, driven by growing awareness of the scale of the challenge facing us all: a financial debt that sharply curtails public expenditure, a much longer expectation of life and therefore of the proportion of elderly people in our society, and the increased need for health care for them, and also of many people with chronic illnesses or conditions who now thankfully live on into old age. The NHS's problems are partly bred by its own success.
These developments do raise some large issues I shall not pursue further today, though I hope the Confederation and others will consider them. "No decision about me without me" is a two sided commitment - for all of us must bear some responsibility for our own health. As a society we need to address self-inflicted illness, whether from lack of exercise, inadvisable diets, excessive drinking or uncontrolled violent behaviour.
"Valuable though it has been, the listening exercise - the pause - has also been costly in money and time. Every week that passes makes the achievement of the necessary efficiency savings more difficult. The NHS goes on losing good staff, and paying people for redundancy. It is today a shell of its former self. The listening exercise, while offering welcome opportunities to the profession and the public, has entailed a major redrafting of the Bill, so much so that some have called for us all to draft a completely new bill. And there is something a little odd in listening - really listening - for eight weeks followed by a rushed Parliamentary response in which all the amendments and recommendations have to be dealt with in just five days. Some of the wiser proposals may be lost in the scramble to produce a redrafted Bill to be voted on in less than a week's time.
"Despite the pressures, the moment must be seized. The Bill is in places still confusing, obscure and ambiguous. It would be easier to amend at this stage than in its later passage through both Houses of Parliament, though undoubtedly the House of Lords with its eminent medical contingent will have substantial ideas for improvement.
"I welcome many of the recommendations made by the Future Forum, the emphases on transparency and openness, the far-reaching changes in the composition and government of the clinical consortia to bring in people knowledgeable about secondary care, nursing, public health and indeed lay people in a senior position; to ensure that the exciting work of the specialist networks is made available through direct advice and local senates; to require that the consortia meet in public and respond to public concerns, a proposal that extends even to foundation trusts, all these changes are responses to strongly expressed concerns.
"But I would be less than candid if I failed to mention that there are still some unresolved and troubling issues to be addressed. Fundamental to the whole edifice is the role of the Secretary of State. Despite the new clause on the Secretary of State's duty to promote a comprehensive health service, it remains far from clear whether this amounts to a duty to provide or secure the provision of health services. There are new provisions for the Secretary of State to intervene if there is a significant failure in the duty of the National Commissioning Board or the clinical consortia to arrange the necessary services. But in a recent letter from the Minister of State, it was made clear that the Secretary of State will have no default duty to provide these services himself. In other words we are still in a shadowy area where nothing is clear; legal advisers tell me that the current Bill 's words, enticing though they may be, do not add up to a duty to provide a comprehensive health service as laid down in the 2006 NHS Act. It is vitally important that the position is made unambiguously clear.
"With regard to competition and choice, there are again some ambiguities, though the emphasis on quality rather than price and the transformed position of Monitor are reassuring. I am concerned about the removal of the cap on private beds in foundation hospitals, not least because the mixture of NHS patients with private ones provides a better basis for the training of young clinicians, as well as ensuring outstanding medical practice to less advantaged patients. As for choice, many elderly or frail patients prefer a good local hospital or home-based community care to making complex comparisons. The idea of a personal health budget would be better expressed as a personal care budget, given the new ideas on how to finance care of the elderly.
"The training of NHS staff is in the end the best guarantee of the quality of health care. NHS staff need to feel part of the whole enterprise - one reason why I do not favour outsourcing of tasks like cleaning in hospitals. They also need to be praised and defended, for they have been daily in the health care front line. We need to think what sanctions can be applied to those members of the public who abuse them or swear at them simply for doing their job. The role of nurses is very important, and many of us regret the disappearance of state-enrolled nurses, the front line of communication with patients as well as doctors.
"As for the training of doctors, I hope we will keep the deaneries and the precious link between medical schools and the hands-on experience of practice in the wards. The Government response refers to the transition period but this is a system of training that has proved itself. I hope too that the silly idea of limiting the period Commonwealth and non-EU trainee doctors can spend here in the UK to one year will be dropped. It makes no sense medically, and these guest medics play an important part in NHS provision, as well as carrying their valuable experience back to their own countries. Finally the experience of hospices and the burgeoning of patient groups, especially among those with rare or complex conditions, shows how much the wider society can contribute to better health. It is yet another of the new lessons to be learned.
"Nobody should minimise the challenge facing our health services. But let us say loud and clear, as both the US Commonwealth Fund study and the OECD have done, that ours is one of the most accessible, fair and cost-efficient health services anywhere in the world. Given closer integration of health services, and greater transparency and accountability, it could become the model of the best there is. We, politicians of all parties, must now give the medical community the stability and the space it needs to deliver that promise."
I write to ask for you to investigate and rule on whether BSkyB is a 'fit and proper person' to hold a broadcasting licence and whether this will remain the case if there was to be a takeover of the company by News International.
I am aware that, under the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996 section 3(3) Ofcom:
(a) "shall not grant a licence to any person unless satisfied that the person is "a fit and proper person to hold it"; and
(b) "shall do all that they can to secure that, if they cease to be so satisfied in the case of any person holding a licence, that person does not remain the holder of the licence".
BSkyB
James Murdoch is the chairman of BSkyB and News International. Rebekah Brooks is currently the chief executive of News International which owns 40% of BSkyB. James Murdoch was, on Wednesday 6 July, accused on the floor of the House of Commons of seeking to pervert the course of justice. Tom Watson MP, speaking in the debate on phone hacking said 'It is clear now that he personally [James Murdoch], without board approval, authorised money to be paid by his company to silence people who had been hacked, and to cover up criminal behaviour within his organisation. That is nothing short of an attempt to pervert the course of justice'. On Thursday 7 July James Murdoch confirmed in a statement that he had approved out of court settlements with hacking victims which prevented the public disclosure of documents which have now led to the arrest of senior journalists at the News of the World on criminal charges.
News International
As James Murdoch is the chairman of News International, and Rebekah Brooks is the Chief Executive of News International, the activities of News International are also relevant to the 'fit and proper' test in relation to BSkyB.
It is now clear that in order to cover up the allegations of criminal behaviour News International has been untruthful in its dealings with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). It was reported in the Financial Times on July 7 2011 that Baroness Buscombe, the chair of the Press Complaints Commission, had said that the PCC had been lied to by News International. She also said that 'The corporate culture was clearly there to mislead us'.
News of the World
You will be aware of the ongoing allegations of illegal activity at the 'News of the World' newspaper, currently owned by News International. These accusations were originally made against one reporter and one agent of the newspaper. These two people have been convicted and imprisoned, on evidence which included the evidence I gave relating to the hacking of my phone. Other employees of the 'News of the World' have subsequently been arrested.
It has now become apparent that people working directly or indirectly for the 'News of the World' were engaged in very extensive criminal activity. There is increasing evidence to suggest that this criminal activity was known about, condoned and encouraged at the highest level of the organisation. I highlight in particular the testimony in 2003 of Rebekah Wade (now Rebekah Brooks), the then editor of the 'News of the World', to the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. Ms Brooks said 'we have paid the police for information in the past'. With this statement Ms Brooks admitted to knowledge of a serious criminal offence or offences being carried out by the newspaper she was in charge of. In addition, there are now allegations that Andy Coulson, who was editor of the 'News of the World' from 2003 to 2007 illegally paid the police for information which they had obtained in the course of their duty.
Given the very serious accusations levelled at James Murdoch, the chairman of BSkyB, and the accusations levelled against News International, which he also chairs, I would like you to make a judgement as to whether BSkyB can still be considered to be fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence as long as James Murdoch continues to act as chairman of the company. The admissions made by and the allegations made against the Chairman of BSkyB must directly reflect on and influence the reputation of BSkyB, and its fitness and propriety to continue to hold a broadcasting licence.
News International is currently seeking to acquire BSkyB. Ahead of any decision that the acquisition were to be approved, and without prejudice to the separate consideration of the merits of this, I ask that you consider the history and reputation of News International in deciding whether it is or would be a 'fit and proper' person to have a broadcasting licence. Certain elements in the history of the 'News of the Word' are relevant to this.
Fit and proper
It is my view that the fit and proper test cannot be taken only to mean the absence of criminal convictions or financial impropriety. Broadcast licence holders have a wider public duty to act with decency, honesty and truthfulness. It must be the case that regardless of criminal convictions, if there is evidence and admission of wrongdoing by organisations or individuals which would impact on their conduct or reputation as responsible broadcasters or publishers, this should be acted on.
In the case of James Murdoch I do not believe that it would be acceptable for a person who led an organisation which has a corporate culture of misleading the watchdog for its print media and has admitted to making payments to stop information coming out about his company which will now lead to criminal convictions to be in charge of a company which holds a broadcast licence.
In the case of Rebekah Brooks we have a Chief Executive of a company who has admitted to her newspaper committing criminal acts under her leadership in making payments to police to acquire information. She was also editor of the newspaper over the period when some of the worst cases of phone hacking took place, incidents which have shocked and disgusted the nation. As CEO of News International she presided over a company which repeatedly failed to uncover the truth, and which misled the PCC and others to stop them from discovering the truth. This company is now seeking to take over one of the largest broadcasters in the UK.
I hope that you will be able to consider my request and that you will able to come to a view on these matters quickly. This is a matter of great public interest, and as you may know the investigation against the 'News of the World' and News International is currently one of the largest criminal investigations in the country. The accusations which have been made against News International executives are a scandal which is being followed in the media around the world.
