“Mr Murdoch – at what point did you find out that criminality was endemic at the News of the World ?”
Tom Watson’s question (on the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife ?”) was one of the highlights of the Media, Culture and Sports SubCommittee meeting for me. Leaving aside the foam pie and Wendi’s impressive defence. One of the most fascinating days (for me) was played down by many of the media analysts – who were perhaps expecting more dramatic exposées and cross examination.
Because of everything else that’s scheduled, that was never going to happen.
But this was Round One. There was a lot of sparring, and – as the John Whittingdale (the Chairman) said later – it was important to get this information on the record. Because there’s going to be a long enquiry, there’s still a police investigation running, and probably a few court cases. So that position has been set down, and it’ll be difficult to change it (unless, presumably, there are more solicitors with document stashes waiting to be discovered).
Those same analysts were pointing out that there wasn’t much information gleaned by asking Rupert questions he couldn’t answer, and characterised it as a failure. I couldn’t disagree more. It clearly showed that the person responsible for the Corporate Governance of News Corp. didn’t know what was going on. People let him down. People he trusted – or people they trusted – didn’t pass on the message.
I wrote on this subject just over a week ago, but I don’t think most of the journos have cottoned on yet – they’re looking only at the words, rather than at the overall picture that’s painted.
It looks like this is already delivering results, as Jeremy Hunt says he’s “shocked” that people at the top didn’t know what was going on. That’s likely to be taken into account when Ofcom review the “fit and proper” status.
And that’s the thing about Corporate Governance. you’re supposed to have systems and processes that force these things up the line. And the significance of the Gordon Taylor pay-off wasn’t in the amount of that settlement alone – it was in the risk posed to the organisation from all of the other – several thousand – claims that were still in the pipeline.
That’s a risk that could have run (at that rate) into hundreds of millions of dollars. An unquantified potential liability that (perhaps) should have been reported in the company accounts.
And the Chairman knew nothing about it.
Or about the criminal activities which – it is alleged – had been rife throughout the paper.
Now, NotW may not form that great a part of the News Corp. empire, but it formed a significant and influential part of the UK media, so we’re entitled to expect it to be run properly. Or why should we entrust its owner with BSkyB – our biggest broadcaster ?
Taxing Questions
The other question I found interesting came from Jim Sheridan MP. He asked if the witnesses were were aware of any investigations into News International by the SFO. Or the FSA. Or HMRC. I suspect that it’s the last one that’s of particular interest.
Of course, it has been reported that NI has arranged its tax affairs so that it doesn’t pay tax in Europe. But that might not be the point – the point may well be that PAYE wasn’t deducted from the bungs to coppers and sleuths. This is more “fit and proper” stuff. And – as I wrote in that last post – it’s the stuff that put Capone away.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if Wapping is visited by a plague of Inspectors in the next few weeks.
Who’s to Blame ?
Fair Play to Rupert for coming back to finish the session.
Louise Mensch asked whether questions were being asked in the other News Corp companies. Apparently not. So … it’s being taken seriously, then.
“Have you considered suing Harbottle and Lewis”. “That’s a matter for the future” (James). Of course, if the solicitors were sued, they may find documentation to throw the blame straight back.
James said that the company’s confidence rested on 1) the Police ceasing their case 2) Harbottle and Lewis and 3) The PCC decision (SERIOUSLY ?)
Now, I’ve not been able to track this down on the rerun, but I seem to recall Rupert being asked who he thought was to blame. My recollection is that he blamed competitors for stirring things up.
If I’ve remembered right, that suggests that – at heart – it’s the disclosure he resents, rather than the original acts.
He doesn’t understand that he should have processes which drive these things to the attention of the News Corp. Board.
And ultimately, that may be the sin of omission that leads to the collapse of his UK business – including satellite broadcasting.