“I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win.” With these words, secretly recorded and published at the end of 2010, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, landed himself in trouble. But, as it turned out, the trouble he landed Jeremy Hunt, his coalition colleague, in was even greater.
Yesterday the Culture Secretary appeared before the inquiry that the Government has established into the ethics and practices of the press. It should have been the occasion for the minister with responsibility for the media to set out his policy. Instead he spent almost an entire day answering questions about his own ethics and practices. Had he, as the minister deciding on the purchase by News Corporation of the outstanding shares in BSkyB, acted inappropriately and favoured the company for political reasons?
There was evidence of two kinds that he may have done. The first is the astonishing quantity of contact between Adam Smith, his special adviser, and Frédéric Michel, the News Corporation lobbyist . Both in tone and in content some of this was inappropriate and had taken place when Mr Smith’s minister was already supposed to be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
The second kind of evidence was that Mr Hunt had made public statements, sent personal texts and provided the Prime Minister with a memo, all of which indicated his sympathy with the bid.
Under examination, how did Mr Hunt’s case that he had nothing to be ashamed of bear up? Mr Hunt was, as Culture Secretary, not merely free to state his view on the News Corporation bid but had a duty to do so. This was an important move made in his area of responsibility. Of course he had a view. Of course he expressed it. It is important to separate the merits of the bid — which were strong, particularly given that News Corporation already had effective control of BSkyB, and might have proved of great economic value to the country — from the undoubtedly grave failings of the company in managing the News of the World.
Advertisement
Dr Cable was already supposed to be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when he linked his antipathy to the “Murdoch press” with the decisions he was making on the bid. This is different from Mr Hunt’s saying what he thought, publicly and privately, before accepting quasi-judicial responsibilities.
Nevertheless, given how controversial the bid was, Mr Cameron will have to explain, when he appears before the inquiry, why he thought it a good idea to appoint someone who favoured the bid so strongly. To be sure, there is not a politician who does not have a view one way or another on Rupert Murdoch. Dr Cable had to give up his role for showing an anti-Murdoch bias. It is striking that Mr Cameron then chose a man with a pro-Murdoch bias. And then there are the texts of Mr Smith, and Mr Hunt himself, which are, frankly, embarrassing.
At one point yesterday, Mr Hunt explained the lengths he had gone to in order to show the public that the process was fair and open. The fact is that the public think it has been anything but. This has been a political fiasco. The entire idea of politicians’ acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it comes to takeovers and acquisitions in the media needs further consideration.
However, on the question whether Mr Hunt behaved appropriately when in a quasi-judicial capacity, the oral and documentary evidence was clear and overwhelming. He did. It is hard to see how he could have taken more care. And, critically, his attempt to put aside his sympathy for the bid was not merely for show. The decisions he made were, repeatedly, not ones that News Corporation wanted. On the question over which his resignation has been demanded, therefore, the case against Mr Hunt failed decisively.