Privileges Committee Phone Hacking Report

initial reaction from Paul Farrelly MP

As a member of the Culture, Media & Sport Select
Committee, which investigated phone hacking at the
News of the World, I was given notice on Monday of the
Privileges Committees intention finally to publish their
report, which has been underway all year.
I was emailed an embargoed copy at 10am on Tuesday,
when we were in session with the Chair of the
Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), Sir
Alan Moses, over press regulation. The Committee,
therefore, has had no chance to discuss this before
publication.
Tied up with Boundary Changes, which were also
announced on Monday, I have only had the opportunity
to read the report on Tuesday evening, and clearly
closer study is needed.
Conscious that News International, and the individuals
we criticised, will be wellprepared for its publication,
these are my initial reactions:
I am pleased that the Committee has agreed with us
that Colin Myler (former editor of the News of the
World) and Tom Crone (former Legal Manager at News
Group Newspapers and News International) seriously
misled us and have been found in contempt of
Parliament.
The second half of the report, however, is more
disappointing.
One of the key issues we sought to get to the bottom of
was, when the organisation was trotting out its one
rogue reporter defence, how widespread was suspicion
or knowledge of hacking beyond Clive Goodman, its

then Royal Reporter. And how open or honest was the

evidence given to us during three difficult enquiries
stretching from 2006 to 2012.
Regarding Les Hinton, the former Executive Chairman
of News International, for example, the Privileges
Committee agrees that his evidence was misleading in
not disclosing allegations which had been made by
Goodman internally in these respects (p.99, para 269).
But the report then concludes that the evidence that
Hinton misled us does not meet the standard of proof
we have set for a finding of contempt (that the
allegations are significantly more likely than not to be
true). I think the public and media will find this
confusing.
Mr Hinton was the most senior executive at News
International at the start of this affair, and continued to
be employed by the parent, News Corporation, after his
transfer to Dow Jones in late 2007. But he was by no
means the only senior NGN or NI executive we
interviewed.
There is plenty of evidence that the organisation long
obstructed the search for the truth, yet the Privileges
Committee finds itself unable to draw that conclusion
(p.119, para 322) and therefore does not consider NI to
have committed a contempt (p.119, para 323).
What we need to do now is analyse this report in more
detail, before it is debated. I certainly agree, though,
that it is time the House overhauled its sanctions so
that Select Committees can operate effectively. Nothing
has been done since a Joint Committee on Privilege
reported in 2013, and the admonishments here are in
reality no more than the findings we reached.
In one sense, our final 2012 report was incomplete. On

advice from clerks of the House and Speakers Counsel,

as throughout our report, we made no findings
regarding exeditor Andy Coulson nor then NI chief
executive Rebekah Brooks, owing to criminal
proceedings.
In considering this report further, I will certainly want to
go back over their evidence, and also disclosures made
during the successful civil claims made by phone
hacking victims.