Dear Mr Heywood,

MEETINGS BETWEEN THE PRIME MINISTER, MEDIA PROPRIETORS, EDITORS AND SENIOR EXECUTIVES

It was reported by Christopher Hope in The Telegraph on 9 May 2012 that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, failed to declare two new meetings with former News International chief Rebekah Brooks, including one just two days after his press aide Andy Coulson quit his role as Director of Communications on 23 January 2011. These two instances do not appear in the official list of meetings published between Mr Cameron, proprietors, editors and senior media executives in July 2011.

It is simply not credible for Downing Street to respond to the 23 January meeting by claiming it was not an official meeting, particularly as it came just two days after Mr Coulson’s resignation. While it is certainly not possible for Downing Street to detail everyone Mr Cameron meets at an event, The Telegraph makes the astonishing allegation that the pair texted each other on their mobile phones to ensure they were not spotted together, and that the release of photographs of this encounter have since been suppressed at Mr Cameron’s request.

In addition, I would like to bring to your attention allegations raised by my parliamentary colleague, Chris Bryant MP, two weeks ago that the original list placed in the House of Commons Library was incomplete. This was denied by Downing Street and the suggestion was made that Mr Bryant was mistaken. Indeed, as recently as eleven days ago, on 30 April 2012 (Hansard: Column 1242), Mr Cameron claimed that he had only met Rupert Murdoch four times during his tenure.

However, in evidence submitted to the Leveson Inquiry, Rupert Murdoch himself publishes details of four undisputed meetings and two possible ones with Mr Cameron – one of which is a New York party thrown by Mayor Bloomberg in honour of Mr Cameron on 21^st July 2010. In evidence to the Leveson Inquiry yesterday, Mr Andy Coulson confirms Mr Cameron’s attendance at this event by stating that:

“The second post-election meeting with Rupert Murdoch was in New York on the day Mayor Bloomberg organised a party in honour of the Prime Minister. Before the party Rupert Murdoch met David Cameron for around half an hour. He and I met briefly when he arrived, but I did not sit in on the meeting.”

Curiously, this meeting is acknowledged in the quarterly information published on the Cabinet Office website for the Prime Minister’s meetings with external organisations – including meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives – as an addendum for the period 1 April-30 June 2011. Despite this, the Prime Minister and his office have made absolutely no reference to this meeting having taken place in recent weeks. This raises a series of further questions that I would like you to answer:

1. When did the Prime Minister recall this extra meeting, and why was the House of Commons not informed that the list originally placed in the library was incomplete?

2. Precisely, when was the addendum added? Why do electronic checks show the document as having been updated as recently as April 2012 on the Cabinet Office website?

3. Why was the Prime Minister claiming four meetings with Rupert Murdoch as late as 30 April 2012?

4. Are there any further meetings Mr Cameron may have failed to disclose?

The disclosure of these three new meetings threatens to make a mockery of Mr Cameron’s attempts to be more transparent about his meetings with senior media figures. It also places the Prime Minister in breach with the addendum to the Ministerial Code agreed on 15 July 2011, which said:

“The Government will be open about its links with the media. All meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives will be published quarterly regardless of the purpose of the meeting.”

Paragraph 1.2 (c) and (d) of the Ministerial Code also make it quite clear that it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Disclosure of these meetings was clearly in the public interest and there is simply no logical explanation as to why this information should have been withheld.

As Cabinet Secretary, I urge you to investigate these claims so that you are satisfied that Parliament has not been misled and the Ministerial Code has not been breached.

I would also ask that you publish details of all official advice sought by the Prime Minister in relation to these three meetings, provide full details of who attended in each instance and release all minutes that were taken by officials at these events.

I look forward to your early reply.

“The Government will be open about its links with the media. All meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives will be published quarterly regardless of the purpose of the meeting.”

1. Neville Thurlbeck would like us to let you know his house is not semi-detached. It’s detached.
2. We got the public school of James Harding wrong. He went to St Pauls school and not Eton.
3. Nick Robinson. We said Nick used to work for Sky when he worked for ITN. I have apologised  to him personally but would like to do so publicly. I do not want to give the impression that Nick’s former employment clouded his current reporting. Obviously, we’ll put the matter right in future editions and the electronic version. So Nick - my apologies, once again.

Five days ago Rupert Murdoch admitted there was a cover up at News Corporation.

We found that News Corporation carried out an extensive cover-up of its rampant lawbreaking. It’s most senior executives repeatedly misled Parliament and the two men at the top, Rupert and James Murdoch – who were in charge of the company – must now answer for that.

In the view of the majority of committee members Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run and international company like BSkyB.

I’m disappointed that some members didn’t feel sufficiently convinced or confident to hold the most powerful to account. (They felt they couldn’t support sections 216-229 of the report)

Many hacking victims have still not been informed of what was done to them. And Rupert Murdoch has not said his last apology to the families of murdered children.

Let us also remember that this scandal cost many hundreds of hard working, innocent journalists their jobs. They’ve found it hard to find work. I know this because I’ve provided references for a number of them.

Parliament was misled, that we now know.

But there were four issues we couldn’t get to the bottom of because of time constraints, decisions of the committee not to proceed or because they fall outside our remit.

Former member of the Scottish Parliament Tommy Sheridan lost his liberty on a majority verdict of a jury which was not in full possession of the facts. He received a three year prison sentence. I believe the judgement is unsound.

If Rupert Murdoch really is sorry, he will order an urgent review of the information his company provided to the jury in the Sheridan case.

Now that we know that the former first minister in Scotland was also a target of hacking, I’m writing to Alex Salmond to recommend he sets up an inquiry by the Scottish Parliament into how and why MSPs were targeted.

Secondly, we asked the Murdochs about computer hacking but we didn’t get very far. I’m not certain but I have reason to believe that the Serious Organsied Crime Agency is in possession of seized hard drives that may show a list of victims who were the targets of computer hackers.

There may well be a Mulcaire 2 out there – where the authorities think it is right not to inform people who have had their privacy invaded by private investigators who have links with national newspapers.

I’m writing to the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee today, to raise my concerns and to ask that his committee do what it can to establish the facts.

Thirdly, we were not able to establish the extent to which committee members were the targets of private investigators or journalists trying to collect information in order to either smear or influence.

Last week former Chief Reporter of the News of the World, Neville Thurlbeck said “it was News International, not the News of the World, which ordered us to dig into the private lives of the MPs on the committee” which was investigating us.

He went on to say that “many News International executives were in the loop” The committee did not have the time to act on these new allegations but I think they are so serious they warrant an inquiry by the Committee of Standards and Privileges for a potential contempt of Parliament.

Fourthly, though we have not had time to discuss it in committee, it is my personal view that we should embark on an investigation into the relationship between ministers, special advisers and lobbyists working for News International and BSkyB.

I repeat my call that the PM should allow the Leveson inquiry to view the private emails and texts of Treasury advisers and Mr Fredric Michel of News International and Mr Graham McWilliam of BSkyB.

The truth is that, whatever we have said in our report, and however you choose to report it tomorrow, the public have made up their minds.

Powerful people were involved in a cover up and they still haven’t accepted responsibility.

And after all of this, the story is not yet over.

It was reported at the weekend that Rebekah Brooks was prepared to release her personal texts and emails to the Leveson inquiry. I think she should. But, as David Cameron said yesterday, the contacts between Rupert Murdoch and senior ministers crossed both sides of the House.

If we really want to see how News Corp in the UK operates, then the current PM and Chancellor, all former Prime Ministers – including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and former Chancellors might want to consider revealing their texts and emails to company executives.

These people corrupted our country. They brought shame on our police force and our Parliament. They lied and cheated, blackmailed and bullied. We should all be ashamed when we think how we cowered before them for so long.

But to really stop requires more than tokenistic retribution. It needs conclusive attribution. The very cornerstone of justice is that those really responsible are held to account – that the rich and the powerful are as low in the face of the law as the most humble and weak.

In the words of Bob Dylan, “that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom”.

And everybody in the world knows who is responsible for the wrongdoing of News Corp: Rupert Murdoch. More than any individual alive, he is to blame. Morally, the deeds are his. He paid the piper and he called the tune.

It is his company, his culture, his people, his business, his failures, his lies, his crimes. The price for his profits and his power.

If Lord Justice Leveson really does want to fully undertand the apparatus constructed by Rupert Murdoch’s executives, then the conversations that were meant to be forever private is the way to get there.

Yet is is not right, that only David Cameron is targeted in such a way. If, as it now appears, Brooks has retained meticulous digital records, then her email and text messages between the current PM and Chancellor and all former Prime Ministers and Chancellors should be disclosed to Leveson.

If this is done, then the country really will get to see how Rupert Murdoch operates in Britain.

“You will be gobsmacked by this account”, Guardian.
“written like a thriller…a gripping account”, Joan Smith, Amazon.
“The book to sink an empire?”, Open Democracy

“A devastating book about a very dark media an political scandal”, Independent on Sunday

“…the fullest account yet of the sordid saga”, Observer

“it wasn’t journalism, it was corporate espionage”. New Statesman

1. The race in London is neck and neck.
2. There are a number of people who tell us on the doorstep that they would vote Labour if there was a general election tomorrow but are currently considering voting Conservative because they either a; like Boris Johnson or b; don’t like Ken.
3. I was trying to say that it is imporant for our campaign to convince these people that even if they didn’t like Ken they should consider voting Labour because David Cameron would claim victory if Boris wins, and from what our campaigners on the ground say, the last thing this group want to do is give an endorsement to David Cameron.
4. I also reminded people of Ken’s pledge on fares – which Nick Ferrari didn’t believe but I do.
5. There is a great picture of Ken and his beautiful labrador dog in today’s Guardian. That prompted me to crack the Harry Truman maxim about politicians and dogs.
6. Peter Dominicazak is already tweeting about this claiming I am suggesting Ken is in trouble. That’s not true. I fear Peter Dominiczak, a man I have never knowingly spoken to, will already have filed a misleading story.
7. You see what I am doing here Peter Domiczak?

Dear Mr Watson,

Thank you for your request of 30 March asking for the following:

“[…] list the date and purpose of all meetings between ministers in your department and representatives of the company NDS since 11 May 2010.”

I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I am able to release the information you requested.

Information is held for one Ministerial meeting with NDS since 11 May 2010. Ed Vaizey visited NDS’s head offices in Jerusalem on Monday 5 March 2012 along with a delegation of leading UK media and broadcasting companies, as part of a 2 day programme (3 days for the delegation) which sought to explore the potential for collaboration with Israeli new media companies.