This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/may/02/politics-live-blog-leveson-pmqs
The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Politics live blog: Wednesday 2 May | Politics live blog: Wednesday 2 May |
| (40 minutes later) | |
| 10.11am: William Hague was on Radio 5 Live this morning. He made it pretty clear that he disagreed with the Commons culture committee finding about Rupert Murdoch not being a fit person to run a major international company. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome. | |
| I don't know [Rupert Murdoch] that well actually. What I would say about him - and actually all newspaper proprietors who have this difficult relationship with politicians - I don't think I've ever liked or disliked these proprietors they are just people you have to deal with. I'm not a very judgemental person. They are great business people, let us be clear about that. Of course people who run big businesses around the world are very capable people and they all have their charming ways, and they all have their downsides as well. | |
| 9.39am: Members of the Commons culture committee are still arguing about the phone hacking report they published yesterday. Louise Mensch, a Conservative, said the committee did not spend any time discussing the claim that Rupert Murdoch was not a fit person to run a major company. But Paul Farrelly, a Labour member of the committee, told the Today programme this morning that the issue was dicussed. We've got a story about it here. | 9.39am: Members of the Commons culture committee are still arguing about the phone hacking report they published yesterday. Louise Mensch, a Conservative, said the committee did not spend any time discussing the claim that Rupert Murdoch was not a fit person to run a major company. But Paul Farrelly, a Labour member of the committee, told the Today programme this morning that the issue was dicussed. We've got a story about it here. |
| After Farrelly spoke to Today, Mensch took to Twitter to say she was not backing down. | After Farrelly spoke to Today, Mensch took to Twitter to say she was not backing down. |
| Radio 4 today asked me for a quote but said they would not have me on; a great pity as we did not discuss "fit and proper". | Radio 4 today asked me for a quote but said they would not have me on; a great pity as we did not discuss "fit and proper". |
| — Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 2, 2012 | — Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 2, 2012 |
| 9.14am: Leveson will not cover exactly what went wrong at News International in detail in the first part of his inquiry because he does not want to prejudice any criminal proceedings. In his 25-page "Application of Rule 13" ruling (see 9.00am), which I'm afraid I've only skimmed, he also seems to be playing down the prospects of the report he will publish after part 1 of his inquiry is over containing extensive criticism of individuals. | 9.14am: Leveson will not cover exactly what went wrong at News International in detail in the first part of his inquiry because he does not want to prejudice any criminal proceedings. In his 25-page "Application of Rule 13" ruling (see 9.00am), which I'm afraid I've only skimmed, he also seems to be playing down the prospects of the report he will publish after part 1 of his inquiry is over containing extensive criticism of individuals. |
| He says he is more interested in finding out what was wrong with the culture of the press in general. | He says he is more interested in finding out what was wrong with the culture of the press in general. |
| In this Part of the Inquiry, I am not addressing the detail for its own sake but, rather, the culture, practices and ethics of the press in general. The purpose (as defined by the Terms of Reference) is specifically to be able to make recommendations about an effective regulatory regime which itself requires me to look primarily at whether the present regulatory regime has either succeeded or failed: that is the reason why a narrative of facts is essential ...The identity of those who are responsible for any breach of standards is incidental to this exercise and does not take forward the necessary analysis. | In this Part of the Inquiry, I am not addressing the detail for its own sake but, rather, the culture, practices and ethics of the press in general. The purpose (as defined by the Terms of Reference) is specifically to be able to make recommendations about an effective regulatory regime which itself requires me to look primarily at whether the present regulatory regime has either succeeded or failed: that is the reason why a narrative of facts is essential ...The identity of those who are responsible for any breach of standards is incidental to this exercise and does not take forward the necessary analysis. |
| He also says that, because he will not be able to criticise individuals facing possible criminal prosecution, it would be unfair to criticise others who may have been responsible for "less reprehensible conduct". | He also says that, because he will not be able to criticise individuals facing possible criminal prosecution, it would be unfair to criticise others who may have been responsible for "less reprehensible conduct". |
| The limits that I place on criticising individuals revolve around the fact that those caught up in Operation Weeting or Operation Elveden have not been asked about those issues and cannot be criticised in relation to that which is there under investigation so that, in connection with that type of activity, it does not seem fair specifically to criticise others for less reprehensible conduct although that will not prevent me from identifying the evidence upon which I reach conclusions as to culture, practices or ethics and I recognise that this will not prevent anyone from searching the transcripts to identify names or titles used to exemplify the concerns that I express. | The limits that I place on criticising individuals revolve around the fact that those caught up in Operation Weeting or Operation Elveden have not been asked about those issues and cannot be criticised in relation to that which is there under investigation so that, in connection with that type of activity, it does not seem fair specifically to criticise others for less reprehensible conduct although that will not prevent me from identifying the evidence upon which I reach conclusions as to culture, practices or ethics and I recognise that this will not prevent anyone from searching the transcripts to identify names or titles used to exemplify the concerns that I express. |
| Leveson stresses that this does not mean that he will not be criticising anyone at all. He will have something to say about phone hacking, he says. | Leveson stresses that this does not mean that he will not be criticising anyone at all. He will have something to say about phone hacking, he says. |
As I have already explained, I have no intention of making detailed findings of fact of the 'who did what' variety on any isolated basis, although some examples fully rehearsed in the evidence may exemplify rather wider conclusions about what I perceive to be the generally understood practices in, at least, some areas of the press. As a number of journalists have been prepared to speak specifically about interception of mobile telephone messages, it should not be a surprise if I reach conclusions about that. | As I have already explained, I have no intention of making detailed findings of fact of the 'who did what' variety on any isolated basis, although some examples fully rehearsed in the evidence may exemplify rather wider conclusions about what I perceive to be the generally understood practices in, at least, some areas of the press. As a number of journalists have been prepared to speak specifically about interception of mobile telephone messages, it should not be a surprise if I reach conclusions about that. |
| But generally he seems to be saying that he will not be publishing a wide-ranging, "name-and-shame" indictment. I can think of a few journos who might be quite relieved. | But generally he seems to be saying that he will not be publishing a wide-ranging, "name-and-shame" indictment. I can think of a few journos who might be quite relieved. |
| 9.00am: Bad news for everyone who's been enjoying the Leveson inquiry. It could be over a lot sooner than we thought. Yesterday Lord Justice Leveson published a 25-page ruling with the snappy title: Ruling on the Application of Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 (pdf). Under the public inquiry rules, people who are going to be significantly criticised in an inquiry report have a right to be warned in advance and the ruling explains how Leveson will apply this rule. It's written in dense legalese - one section is headed "What constitutes a 'person'" - but the final paragraph contains some hot news. David Cameron ordered Leveson to conduct his inquiry in two parts: the first part, which is supposed to conclude by the end of this year, will make recommendations for the reform of media regulation; and second part, which will conclude after any criminal prosecutions are over, is supposed to explain exactly what went wrong at News International. But Leveson now seems to think that part two will be superfluous. | 9.00am: Bad news for everyone who's been enjoying the Leveson inquiry. It could be over a lot sooner than we thought. Yesterday Lord Justice Leveson published a 25-page ruling with the snappy title: Ruling on the Application of Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 (pdf). Under the public inquiry rules, people who are going to be significantly criticised in an inquiry report have a right to be warned in advance and the ruling explains how Leveson will apply this rule. It's written in dense legalese - one section is headed "What constitutes a 'person'" - but the final paragraph contains some hot news. David Cameron ordered Leveson to conduct his inquiry in two parts: the first part, which is supposed to conclude by the end of this year, will make recommendations for the reform of media regulation; and second part, which will conclude after any criminal prosecutions are over, is supposed to explain exactly what went wrong at News International. But Leveson now seems to think that part two will be superfluous. |
| Before leaving the Ruling, I add one further comment which I emphasise has played no part in my thinking or my analysis of the appropriate approach but which is, to my mind, a point worth making although I do so with some diffidence. The public concern which led to the setting up of this Inquiry is beyond argument or debate. I do not know whether there will be prosecutions but, having regard to the number of arrests and the quantity of material seized (including the 300m emails which it is said have had to be analysed), if there are, it is likely that the process of pre-trial disclosure and trial will be lengthy so that Part 2 of this Inquiry will be delayed for very many months if not longer. In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is in everyone's interests that Part 1 goes as far as it possibly can. If the transparent way in which the Inquiry has been conducted, the Report and the response by government and the press (along with a new acceptable regulatory regime) addresses the public concern, at the conclusion of any trial or trials, consideration can be given by everyone to the value to be gained from a further inquiry into Part 2. That inquiry will involve yet more enormous cost (both to the public purse and the participants); it will trawl over material then more years out of date and is likely to take longer than the present Inquiry which has not over focussed on individual conduct. Obviously, the more restrictive in its analysis that Part 1 has been, the greater will be the legitimate public demand for Part 2. I repeat that this possibility has not affected my approach to what I perceive to be appropriate in law and, when necessary, in the exercise of my discretion but it is undeniably a sensible strategic consideration for those who have participated in this Inquiry. | Before leaving the Ruling, I add one further comment which I emphasise has played no part in my thinking or my analysis of the appropriate approach but which is, to my mind, a point worth making although I do so with some diffidence. The public concern which led to the setting up of this Inquiry is beyond argument or debate. I do not know whether there will be prosecutions but, having regard to the number of arrests and the quantity of material seized (including the 300m emails which it is said have had to be analysed), if there are, it is likely that the process of pre-trial disclosure and trial will be lengthy so that Part 2 of this Inquiry will be delayed for very many months if not longer. In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is in everyone's interests that Part 1 goes as far as it possibly can. If the transparent way in which the Inquiry has been conducted, the Report and the response by government and the press (along with a new acceptable regulatory regime) addresses the public concern, at the conclusion of any trial or trials, consideration can be given by everyone to the value to be gained from a further inquiry into Part 2. That inquiry will involve yet more enormous cost (both to the public purse and the participants); it will trawl over material then more years out of date and is likely to take longer than the present Inquiry which has not over focussed on individual conduct. Obviously, the more restrictive in its analysis that Part 1 has been, the greater will be the legitimate public demand for Part 2. I repeat that this possibility has not affected my approach to what I perceive to be appropriate in law and, when necessary, in the exercise of my discretion but it is undeniably a sensible strategic consideration for those who have participated in this Inquiry. |
| He seems to be saying: After part one is over, do I really have to keep going? | He seems to be saying: After part one is over, do I really have to keep going? |
| I'm highlighting this at length because, with parliament prorogued and the government in purdah because of the local elections tomorrow, there's not much else going on. Bu, as usual, I'll be covering any breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another in the afternoon. | I'm highlighting this at length because, with parliament prorogued and the government in purdah because of the local elections tomorrow, there's not much else going on. Bu, as usual, I'll be covering any breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another in the afternoon. |
| In response to a question from JamesCracknell, I'm also going to put up a post about what makes a "win" at PMQs. | In response to a question from JamesCracknell, I'm also going to put up a post about what makes a "win" at PMQs. |
| If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow. | If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow. |
| And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog. | And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog. |