Category Archives: Politics

LIVE: Former senior Met officers face MPs

Follow our live blog of today’s (July 19) Commons select committee appearances by former Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and former assistant commissioner John Yates, and the director of public affairs Dick Fedorcio.

You will need to refresh this page for updates.

 

12:43pm: Julian Huppert says that he cannot find any public declaration of Stephenson’s hospitality at Champneys.

Stephenson says that he put it into the hospitality register, and it will be published in due course.

12:42pm: Stephenson is giving assurances to Keith Vaz that he never met Andy Coulson and Neil Wallis together.

He adds that Wallis had “a minor part-time role” through which he received a small amount of advice.

Vaz asks whether Stephenson was consulted before Wallis was employed.

Stephenson says he was, along with Dick Fedorcio, but stresses that he now regrets that contract as it has become “embarrassing”.

He says that he was confident Fedorcio would conduct the proper checks on Wallis at the time of employment. Stephenson says that he was not involved in the procuremnt process of Wallis, and did not know that Wallis’ daughter was also employed by the Metropolitan police, and only found out at the weeklend.

12:41pm: Labour’s David Winneck asks Stephenson about the assurances he gave to the Guardian in July 2009, after the newspaper published fresh allegations about the case.

Stephenson says he suggested that Guardain editor Alan Rusbridger speak directly to John Yates.

12.40pm: Stephenson is asked if there are question marks about a person involved receiving such hospitality? Wouldn’t a superior be asking questions about this sort of relationship?

Stephenson said it was declared and put in his hospitality register, even though that was not needed. It was not a secret, he said.

12:39pm: David Winneck says he is not questioning Sir Paul’s integrity. But asked, leaving aside Wallis’ position, was there not a situation which was inappropriate for any police officer to receive such substantial hospitality.

Stephenson says he does not think so. He says the owner of Champneys is a family friend connection, he paid for many treatments and it enabled him to get back to work very quickly. “I think it was damnedly unlucky Wallis was connected, he said.

12:38pm: Stephenson says the connection to Champneys was a family connection, and that it was not inappropriate but “damnably unlucky”.

12:37pm: Stephen McCabe asks Stephenson about his knowledge of Wallis’ business connection with Champneys, where Stephenson stayed after accepting a week’s free hospitality there.

Stephenson says he knew of no one that knew Wallis was conected with Champneys.

McCabe asks whether, “in normal circumstances”, he should expect his senior officers to know that Wallis was connected with Champneys, especially given that John Yates said he was a “personal friend” of Wallis.

12:35pm: Nicola Blackwood asks Stephenson about his statement that he has no reason to suspect Wallis was involved in phone hacking. And yet in the year he met Wallis, the ICO report was released stating that there was a “widespread” market in police information to journalists.

News of the World was listed in the report, with 228 transactions. Blackwood asks, do you not think that should have alerted you to the possible that Wallis could have been involved?

Stephenson says that Wallis was not named, and reiterates that his job was to prioritise risks. He looked at high-profile risks.

He says there was no reason for the ICO report to be on his desk, above the nightstalker case or the Stephen Lawrence case.

12:33pm: Julian Huppert asks about the morale of the Metropolitan Police going forward.

Says he was stopped by a Metropolitan Police officer who said he was embarrassed by the senior officers.

Huppert asks about what his successor can do to improve morale.

Stephenson says he has spoken to many police officers following his resignation who have spoken about their pride, and says it is proper to walk away before interfering with an investigation.

12:31pm: Stephenson is asked why, prior to his resignation, he did not tell the prime minister about Wallis.

Stephenson says he “would not want to open to the prime minister or anyone else to such compromise”.

Adding that he has not told the prime minister or home secretary about any other suspects in the case.

Stephenson says he would also not want to compromise the mayor, and so did not tell him about the arrest of Rebekah Brooks in advance either.

12:29pm: Bridget Phillipson asks Stephenson whether he should have been alerted sooner to the issues concerning Wallis.

Stephenson says he could not have been alerted sooner, that there was no one able to suggest there was a potential conflict of interest, except for Wallis himself, if indeed he could.

The contracting of Wallis, he says, was of no relevance until we knew he was a suspect. And to go public with that before we had evidence would compromise him.

12:27pm: Stephenson: “Prior to Wallis becoming a name related to phone hacking, I had never heard him connected to hacking.

“Why would I raise with anyone a very minor contract? I had no reason to suspect he was involved.”

12:25pm: Stephenson is asked about not disclosing the information about Wallis to the home secretary, also.

“Why was this a matter that you felt you could not disclose? This has been interpreted negatively.”

12:23pm: My understanding is that it was exactly the advice from a senior officer in Number 10 that we “don’t compromise the pm”. Which is why, he says, he did not tell Cameron about Wallis.

“I work very hard not to compromise people.”

“It was only several weeks ago that I knew Wallis was involved, and only last week that I knew he was a suspect.”

12:21pm: Reckless asks Stephenson about his non-disclosure of the employment of Wallis,

Stephenson says he had no reason to doubt Wallis, or connect his name with phone hacking.

“I had no reason to disclose a very minor contract with someone who was advising my DPA.”

12:20pm: Responding to Reckless, Stephenson is describing his work as commissioner, saying that he “manages risk”, rather than investigating crime.

He says that he had close involvement in the case of the nightstalker, and the case of Stephen Lawrence, but never asked any questions about phone hacking, says he had no reason to suspect the investigation was not going well.

12:19pm: MP Mark Reckless asks Stephenson if he is surprised that his comments are being interpreted as an attack on Cameron.

Stephenson says he cannot control the press and reiterates that he made no such attack on the prime minister.

12:18pm: Stephenson says he was trying to draw the contrast that he had no reason to doubt Wallis’ integrity or to link him with hacking.

“I meant to impune the pm or no one by it. I just meant to give an example that Wallis’ name was never related to hacking.”

12:16pm: Stephenson says that “we live in a world in which the media speculates, and I was taking no such swipe at the prime minster”.

“Of course that the employment of Coulson and the employment of Mr Wallis was different.”

12:15pm: Vaz asks Stephenson about his comment about David Cameron, and whether he was “taking a swipe” at the prime minster, which has “excited a lot of comment“.

12:13pm: Vaz has asked whether anybody asked him to go. Stephenson says no, that the mayor felt the resignation was wrong and that the home secretary was very upset.
He took the decision against the advice of his colleagues and his wife, he says.

12:12pm: Vaz says that when he spoke to Stephenson last week, resignation was not in his mind. Asks him when he made up his mind when he had to go.

12:11pm: He says, “clearly there were significant stories about me,” and says “we are in extraordinary times”.

“In the run up to the Olympic year, if there is going to be continuing speculation about the commissioner, then if I was going to do something I had to do it quickly.”

12:10pm: Stephenson says that he made it very clear when he took the post he would never allow the story to become about him.

12:09pm:
Committee chairman Keith Vaz begins questioning Sir Paul Stephenson.

Vaz asks Stephenson why he resigned, despite claiming that he had “done absolutely nothing wrong” and having no knowledge of impropriety.

Phone hacking: How to follow the committee meetings later today

There will be plenty of eyes on parliament this afternoon, as some of the most senior figures of the Metropolitan police and News Corporation (prior to a handful of resignations in the past few days), are due to attend select committee meetings for questions on the phone hacking scandal and related issues.

First up is John Yates, who yesterday resigned from his post as assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan police and Sir Paul Stephenson, who announced his intention to step down as commissioner on Sunday. They will both be appearing in front of the home affairs committee, along with Dick Fedorcio the director of public affairs at the Metropolitan police, at 12 noon.

Later in the day the spotlight will move to the culture, media and sport select committee, where News Corporation boss Rupert Murdoch and his son and chairman of News International James Murdoch, will face questions from MPs at 2.30pm. Rebekah Brooks, who resigned from her post as News International chief executive on Friday and was arrested and bailed on Sunday in connection to allegations of phone hacking and corruption, is also due to appear before the committee.

Journalism.co.uk will be closely watching each session this afternoon, offering regular updates via a live-blog on Journalism.co.uk as the sessions take place. You can also follow breaking news from the committees via our Twitter channels, @journalismnews and @journalism_live. In the meantime you can use our ‘More on…’ topic page on phone hacking to get up-to-date on the latest developments in the scandal.

Update: The home affairs committee says it will also meet at 5.30pm to hear from Lord Ken MacDonald, former director of public prosecutions (DPP), Keir Starmer QC, the current DPP and Mark Lewis, the solicitor representing the Dowler family.

Letters in full from News International bosses to select committee

Here are the responses given by Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch to chairman of the culture, media and sport committee John Whittingdale, who invited them to give evidence next week on phone hacking.

Brooks has accepted an invitation to appear before the committee on Tuesday.

Rebekah Brooks:

Dear John,

Thank you for your letter of 12 July, on behalf of the committee, inviting me to give evidence to you on 19 July.

I am writing to confirm that I am available to appear before the committee on that date and welcome the opportunity to do so.

As you will be aware, the Metropolitan police investigation into illegal voicemail interception continues and we are fully cooperating with that. Aspects of the work to which your committee may wish to refer are likely to be relevant to that investigation. Indeed, the police have already asked us specifically to provide information about those matters.

I understand that various select committees have approached the police over time in relation to this and other cases. The police’s position has been to co-operate where this did not directly impact on the investigation in question. In those cases where it did potentially impact, the police have historically declined to comment at that stage. Our understanding is that this approach has not been challenged. Given that we are in the midst of an investigation, and we do not want to prejudice it, I hope you will understand why we feel it would not be appropriate to respond to such questions at present in order to be consistent with [the] police’s approach, and that as a result this may prevent me from discussing these matters in detail.

I hope this is of help, and look forward to hearing from you to discuss exact timings and other details.

Yours sincerely,
Rebekah Brooks

Rupert Murdoch:

Dear John,

Thank you for your letter of 12 July, on behalf of the committee, inviting me to give evidence to you on 19 July.

Unfortunately, I am not available to attend the session you have planned next Tuesday. However, I am fully prepared to give evidence to the forthcoming judge-led public inquiry and I will be taking steps to notify those conducting the inquiry of my willingness to do so. Having done this, I would be happy to discuss with you how best to give evidence to your committee.

I hope this is of help.

Yours sincerely,
Rupert Murdoch

James Murdoch:

Dear John

Thank you for your letter of 12 July, on behalf of the committee, inviting me to give evidence to you on 19 July.

Unfortunately I am not available to attend the session you have planned next Tuesday.

However, I would be pleased to give evidence to your committee on either the 10 or 11 August. Naturally, if neither of these proves suitable I would be willing to consider any alternative dates you suggest.

I hope this is of help to the committee.

Yours sincerely,
James Murdoch

Given the responses from Rupert and James Murdoch the committee decided it will issue summons for them to appear on Tuesday. It is currently unclear what steps could and would be taken if they are declined.

BBC: Ken Livingstone calls for ‘arms-length relationship’ between media and police

There has been “far too close a relationship” between the media and police involved in investigating the phone hacking scandal, former mayor of London Ken Livingstone said today.

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme Livingstone, who was mayor of London at the time of the previous Metropolitan Police investigation into phone hacking, called for an “arms length relationship” between the press and politicians.

He also insisted that meetings between senior figures on both sides should never be held in private.

How on earth can the prime minister of Britain or mayor of London have a private meal with someone at the centre of a criminal investigation? … It’s just not credible.

Reflecting on the circumstances of the previous inquiry Livingstone said the argument that police had other more serious issues to focus resources on was a “completely spurious defence”.

The police had more police than at any time in their history. The idea they had much more pressing things to do is nonsense. This is a scandal that goes right to the heart of the establishment.

Five senior past and present Metropolitan police officers are to appear before a parliamentary select committee beginning today to be questioned about the force’s investigation into phone hacking.

Assistant commissioner John Yates will appear first before the home affairs select committee. He reviewed the initial investigation into phone hacking in 2009 and ruled there was not sufficient new evidence to reopen a police inquiry.

Jeremy Hunt considering impact of News of the World closure on BSkyB bid

In a statement today the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) announced that culture secretary Jeremy Hunt is currently considering whether the announcement regarding the News of the World’s closure has any impact on the question of media plurality in relation to News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB.

The latest consultation on the bid closed at noon today. At the end of last month Hunt said he plans to give the takeover bid the go ahead, subject to a minor new consultation.

In a statement the DCMS said Hunt had “always been clear that he will take as long as is needed to reach a decision”.

The secretary of state will consider carefully all the responses submitted and take advice from Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading before reaching his decision. Given the volume of responses, we anticipate that this will take some time. He will consider all relevant factors including whether the announcement regarding the News of the World’s closure has any impact on the question of media plurality.

NUJ to protest against green light for News Corp’s BSkyB takeover

The National Union of Journalists is planning to protest at noon today outside the Department of Culture, Media and Sport headquarters in London, following culture secretary Jeremy Hunts’ announcement that he plans to give News Corp’s BSkyB takeover bid the go-ahead, subject to a minor new consultation.

The union has been readied for a demonstration since earlier indicators that Hunt was preparing to give the green light to the merger, and today confirmed the details.

NUJ members are urged to attend the event, which has been organised by the NUJ, the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom and campaigning groups Avaaz and 38 Degrees.

In reference to the ongoing phone hacking investigation the NUJ’s general secretary Jeremy Dear said: “The NUJ stands opposed to News Corporation’s bid to extend its power. It is unacceptable that the BSkyB merger is even being considered whilst serious charges are outstanding. The NUJ wants the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World to be the subject of a full judicial inquiry, and the development of a media governed by public and not corporate interest.”

Index on Censorship: Russian journalist defeats libel claim

A Russian journalist, who was placed into an induced coma after being beaten in Moscow last year, has defeated a libel claim against him after speculating on the identity of his attackers, according to Index on Censorship.

Kommersant’s political correspondent Oleg Kashin spent five days in a coma after he was attacked outside his apartment in November.

According to Index, a Moscow court ruled in favour of Kashin as it could not be proven that accusations were made as factual statements.

The attack itself sparked an open letter from 26 media outlets and journalists calling on the president to ensure greater protections for journalists, while the Committee to Protect Journalists‘ executive director also gave a statement condemning the attack and calling for action.

Related content:

Living in limbo: Almost 70 journalists exiled in past year says CPJ

Iraq tops impunity index for fourth time over unsolved journalist killings

Austrian journalist fights to uncover political advertising spend

 

Index: Polish journalist faces four years in prison for ‘insulting the president’ of Belarus

Andrey Pochobut, a correspondent for the Polish newspaper GazetaWyborcza, faces a four-year prison sentence for defamation and “insulting the president” of Belarus, according to report from Index on Censorship.

Pochobut’s trial began yesterday but journalists and family members are excluded from proceedings.

Index voices serious concerns over whether Pochobut will receive a fair trial.

If found guilty, Pochobut would be the fourth journalist sent to prison on a charge of “insulting the president” if he is found guilty.

Full report on Index on Censorship at this link.

mySociety publishes analysis reports on its own sites

MySociety, the organisation behind some of the biggest democracy projects in the UK, has today made public two reports which it commissioned to gain greater understanding of two of its sites – TheyWorkForYou and WriteToThem.

As the site itself says: “We think transparency is a good thing for many reasons, but one of its rarely mentioned virtues is how valuable transparency can be for the people within the organisations which are transparent.”

And there have been some interesting discoveries. According to MySociety one of the reasons that both the sites were set up was to make representatives accessible to newcomers to the democratic process. So it was “heartening” to find, for example, that 60 per cent of visitors to TheyWorkForYou had never previously looked up who represents them, and two in five users of WriteToThem have never before contacted one of their political representatives, was a positive sign.

But, as you would expect with any properly neutral evaluation, it’s not all good news. Our sites aim to reach a wide range of people, but compared to the average British internet user, WriteToThem users are twice as likely to have a higher degree and a higher income. It also seems that users are disproportionately male, white, and over 35.

Find the reports here…

Guardian: David Banks on Bahrain’s attempt to sue the Independent

I spoke to media law consultant David Banks this morning for this article about Bahrain’s announcement that it intends to sue the Independent for defamation.

He explained that under case law in the UK local and national governments can’t sue for defamation, as outlined in Derbyshire County Council vs The Times, 1993. He went on to say that one way to circumvent the Derbyshire judgement would be for an individual Bahraini minister to take legal action against the newspaper, but added that the minister would have to prove personal defamation and would likely be up against a robust defence from the Independent. See more on the story in my report.

This afternoon, Banks expands on these legal issues for the Guardian, adding “a note of caution” regarding the Derbyshire judgement:

The judgment refers to the “democratically elected” local and central government of the UK. It does not expressly include the unelected governments of other countries. Whether the high court would take a different view of the unelected government of Bahrain as a claimant than it would a local authority here is not set out.

It would set a curious precedent, though, for the courts here to say that our own elected governments should expect robust media criticism, but unelected dictators and despots can rely on the full protection of our libel laws.

Full the post on Guardian.co.uk at this link.