13 Jun 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has called for statutory backing of a reformed press regulator, while making the case for protecting press freedom.
Clegg told the Leveson Inquiry this morning that public confidence needed to be restored in the British press following the phone hacking scandal, but said a solution could “work in parallel”, noting that reforms to press regulation should be “balanced against those enshrining the freedom of the press and the ability of journalists to go after the truth without fear or impediment.”
“A little tweak here and there of a fundamentally flawed model is not going to solve this,” Clegg said, adding later that the recommendations Lord Justice Leveson is due to make in the autumn must lead to change that would celebrate and protect press freedom rather than denigrate it.
The Lib Dem leader said a statutory role should be in the “background” of any regulatory reforms, suggesting statute could play a part in incentivising or cajoling media groups to join into a reformed regulator.
Clegg said he had not yet seen a “convincing case for independent, voluntary regulation of the press” be made, referring to the Irish model as a “fascinating” example.
He made a strong case for supplementing regulatory reform with a stronger definition of the public interest to help guide and protect reporters. “If the press has confidence in a public interest that protects them,” Clegg said, it would “allow them to be a bit more comfortable with the unavoidable reforms of being held to account that they are anxious about.”
While he admitted that a “chilling effect” on press freedom would mean the country would be “losing something very precious”, he branded the claim — as alluded to by education secretary Michael Gove — that the Inquiry is chilling journalists as “preposterous”.
Despite asking his party to abstain on a vote in the Commons today over the future of Jeremy Hunt, Clegg defended the culture secretary’s handling of the £8bn BSkyB bid, arguing that Hunt had given the Inquiry a “full, good and convincing” account of how he handled the bid for the takeover of the satellite broadcaster.
Yet, reminiscent of business secretary Vince Cable’s claim that “veiled threats” had been made to the Lib Dems in connection with News Corp’s takeover bid, Clegg told the Inquiry that his colleague Norman Lamb had told him he had been warned that the party could expect “unfavourable treatment” from the Murdoch papers if they were not open to the bid.
“Norman was quite agitated about that”, Clegg said.
The Inquiry continues this afternoon with evidence from Scottish first minister Alex Salmond.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
12 Jun 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Ed Miliband and Harriet Harman today called for cross-party consensus on the Leveson Inquiry’s recommendations for future press regulation, suggesting also that the Inquiry examine media ownership.
Labour leader Miliband said he felt News International’s share of 34 per cent of the national newspaper market was “too much”, and suggested limiting media ownership to 20 to 30 per cent. “More than 30 per cent is worrying,” he said, adding that his aim was “plurality”.
Miliband said it was good for democracy to have plurality in the market, stressing that his intention was not “to stifle one organisation or another”, but instead that “one organisation does not exercise overweening power.”
Harman, Miliband’s deputy, stressed the “opportunity” presented by the Inquiry into press standards, which is due to report this autumn. “People want this sorted,” she said of the press malpractice that led to the Inquiry being launched last summer.
“They want a strong free press and want it to act fairly, not a dressed-up version of the status quo.”
She said a new system of redress that operated on a voluntary opt-in basis — similar to the Press Complaints Commission — would be “pointless”. Miliband suggested the need for a body independent of press and politicians and stressed he was “conscious of the limits of statutory recognition”, while still suggesting a kind of statutory support might be needed for a reformed PCC.
Both emphasised the need for cross-party support of Leveson’s recommendations, a topic Leveson himself alluded to yesterday in stressing his desire to avoid “inter-party politics and the politics of personality”.
“The default position for us as politicians must be to try our hardest to use the recommendations of the Inquiry to provide a framework for the future,” Miliband said.
Miliband gave an impassioned defence of press freedom, reminding the judge that his recommendations should protect it.
He highlighted what he saw as a “mutual culture of contempt” between the press and politicians, and that we were a “long way” from the ideal of a relationship of mutual respect between the two.
He told the Inquiry there had been a “failure of the establishment” not to have spoken out sooner on abuses by the press, noting that there had been a sense of fear, anxiety and unwillingness to do so.
He compared calling for a public inquiry into phone hacking in July 2011 to “crossing the Rubicon”, suggesting it would have been seen by News International as “an act of war”.
“In retrospect I wish I would have said it earlier,” Miliband said.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and Scottish first minister Alex Salmond.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
31 May 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Jeremy Hunt texted George Osborne shortly before he was handed control of News Corp’s £8 billion bid for full control of BSkyB, telling the chancellor he was “seriously worried” the government would “screw up” the bid.
In evidence disclosed to the Leveson Inquiry this morning, it was also revealed that the embattled culture secretary texted James Murdoch on the same day, congratulating him for receiving approval from the European Commission on the company’s bid.
This text message was sent just hours before the BBC revealed that business secretary Vince Cable — at that point in charge of adjudicating the bid — had told undercover Telegraph reporters he had “declared war” on News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch, remarks that were seen as proof of bias. Cable was later stripped of his responsibility, which was passed over to Hunt and announced by Downing Street at around 6pm on 21 December 2010.
At 12:57pm on 21 December, Hunt texted James Murdoch: “Great and congrats on Brussels. Just Ofcom to go”, shortly after the European Commission’s approval of the bid.
At 2:30pm the BBC published Cable’s comments, which Hunt said were discussed in a phone call with James Murdoch at 4pm.
Eight minutes later Hunt texted Osborne, noting he was “seriously worried we are going to screw this up” regarding the bid. In a second message to the chancellor, he noted that Murdoch was accusing Cable of “acute bias” over the bid.
Osborne later texted Hunt: “I hope you like our solution”, shortly before Downing Street’s announcement that Hunt had been given charge for the bid.
Such revelatory messages place further pressure on Leveson to call the chancellor to give evidence before the Inquiry.
Elsewhere in an intense morning of evidence, Hunt defended his handling of the bid, saying he was .”sympathetic” to it rather than “supportive” of it”, and repeated his defence that he did not feel it presented a “major plurality” issue.
Hunt confirmed he received legal advice in November 2010 urging him that it would be “unwise” to intervene. Yet, explaining a memo he sent to David Cameron in the same month, in which he told the PM that it would be “totally wrong to cave in” to the bid’s opponents, Hunt said he had concerns about a situation “where we had a significant merger in my sector” that was encountering obstacles, adding that he sought to be “absolutely proper” in his approach.
“I had an absolute duty to be across the most important issue in that industry,” Hunt said.
He also defended as “appropriate” his 16 November phone call with James Murdoch, despite having received legal advice to avoid becoming involved in News Corp’s bid. Hunt told the Inquiry he “heard what was on his [Murdoch’s] mind.”
“I probably gave him a sympathetic hearing but I probably said I couldn’t get involved in that decision because I had taken legal advice that I couldn’t,” Hunt said.
A meeting between the two was cancelled the day before, following the legal advice, with Hunt explaining he did not see the telephone call as a replacement. “My interpretation of the advice was that I should not involve myself in a quasi-judicial process that’s being run by another secretary of state [Cable].”
Discussing the high level of contact revealed by the Inquiry last month between Hunt’s former adviser Adam Smith and News Corp lobbyist Fred Michel, Hunt said his department was not prepared for the “barrage” of messages from Michel.
“I doubt there’s a minister who worked more closely with a special adviser than I worked with Adam Smith,” Hunt said, explaining that Smith, who resigned in the wake of the revelations, was aware of his views but this did not mean he spoke for him.
He added that Smith was never given instructions on how to deal with News Corp. He repeatedly referred to the adviser as an “official point of contact” to answer questions on the bid process. He rejected counsel Robert Jay QC’s suggestion that the Michel-Smith contact — which included over 1,000 text messages over the course of the bid — was an “extra layer”.
The Labour party has since upped the volume on its calls for Hunt to resign, arguing he was not the “impartial arbiter” he was required to be.
Hunt has maintained he acted properly and within the ministerial code. David Cameron said last week he did not regret handing the bid to Hunt, stressing he acted “impartially”, but has said he will take action if evidence to the Inquiry suggests Hunt breached the code.
The Inquiry continues with further evidence from Hunt this afternoon.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
