Sir Gus O’Donnell

Cabinet Secretary

Cabinet Office

70 Whitehall

London

SW1A 2AS

23 December 2010

Dear Gus,

I have written to you several times in the past few weeks about matters of propriety and the ethics of government. I am now writing to ask about such matters again, this time in relation to the behaviour and statements of Vince Cable and Jeremy Hunt regarding News Corp.

1. Vince Cable

Vince Cable was revealed, in a tape recording which the nation has heard, to have been explicitly intending to abuse his position in the most extraordinary way. He was planning, while pretending quasi-judicial impartiality, to make an entirely political ruling without regard to the facts or to Ofcom advice.

How does removing him from this particular decision alter his unsuitability for office? How can he be considered a fit and proper person to take decisions about the rest of the nation’s business, industry and higher education?

I would be grateful to know whether and what advice you gave the Prime Minister about Vince Cable’s suitability to remain in office in light of his intention to pervert the proper processes of government.

2. Jeremy Hunt

It has been revealed today that a DCMS official confirmed Jeremy Hunt met James Murdoch on 28 June – shortly after News Corp made its takeover bid to buy the remaining 61 per cent of BSkyB. The spokesperson said: “I can confirm that this was an informal first meeting between Jeremy Hunt as secretary of state and James Murdoch, and there was no written agenda or briefing. Officials did not sit in on the meeting”.

The official also stated that a second meeting took place between Mr Hunt and Jeremy Darroch, BSkyB’s chief executive, on 21 July where no minutes were taken either; and that an unnamed civil servant had warned Mr Hunt that Mr Darroch was likely to ask about changes to media regulation.

And yet, in a written Parliamentary answer on this matter, I was told that no formal meetings had taken place with either James Murdoch or other representatives of News International (17852).

When I subsequently asked what constituted an official meeting, and whether the Department holds records of other meetings, I was told, in another written Parliamentary answer, that the Department “holds no records of other meetings with Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch or representatives of News International” (23829).

The statements made by a DCMS spokesperson to the Daily Telegraph quite clearly contradict the Parliamentary answers that I have been given.

• Why was I told by John Penrose MP on 15th November: “This Department (DCMS) holds no record of other meetings with Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch or representatives of News International. Any meeting on official departmental business would normally be considered formal”?

• Did you know about Jeremy Hunt’s 28 June meeting with James Murdoch and his 21 July meeting with Jeremy Darroch when responsibility for ruling on News Corp’s proposal to take full control of BSkyB was transferred from Vince Cable to Jeremy Hunt?

• What was discussed during Jeremy Hunt’s meeting with James Murdoch on 28 June?

• Where was that meeting held, and at what time?

• As no civil servants were present at the meeting, can you be entirely satisfied that this meeting will not prejudice Mr Hunt’s judgement when acting in the quasi-judicial role?

• Did Jeremy Hunt discuss News Corp’s proposed purchase of the remaining BSkyB shares at his meeting with James Murdoch on 28 June?

In your letter to John Denham yesterday, you said that you took legal advice on the question of whether there was any legal impediment to moving ministerial responsibility for competition and policy issues relating to media, broadcasting, digital and telecoms sectors from BIS to DCMS. You did not say, though, whether you had taken legal advice on Mr Hunt’s conflict of interest.

• Did you take legal advice specifically about Mr Hunt’s conflict of interest?

• If you did, did the lawyers know about the 28 June meeting between Jeremy Hunt and James Murdoch in providing this advice?

• Did they know about Mr Hunt’s 21 July meeting with Jeremy Darroch?

• Did they know about his several published highly prejudicial statements?

• Did you know about these meetings?

• Did you, and any lawyers consulted, know about Jeremy Hunt’s formal meetings with News Corp on 10 June and with BSkyB on 10 July?

• Did you know about Ed Vaizey’s lunch with Rebekah Brooks on 12 July?

• Did you know about the News Corp dinner attended by Jeremy Hunt and Adam Smith on 20 May?

• Did you know that DCMS had denied the existence of some of these meetings in written Parliamentary answers to me?

Are you seriously going to attempt to hold the line that Jeremy Hunt has no conflict of interest? He has made unprecedentedly prejudicial public statements. And, in a short and busy time since taking office:

• He has had several formal meetings with News Corp and its subsidiaries;

• He has been to their dinners;

• His junior minister has been to lunch;

• He has had several, unminuted, private, secret, “informal” meetings with News Corp, the existence of which DCMS ministers have then denied in written answers to Parliament.

Jeremy Hunt is neck deep in News Corp, and you know it.

Remember, nobody expects the Prime Minister to tell the truth or do the decent thing. But the Cabinet Secretary is supposed to be the government’s conscience.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Tom Watson

Member of Parliament for West Bromwich East

Tags: Jeremy Hunt, Tom Watson, Vince Cable

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 23rd, 2010 at 2:17 pm and is filed under Inside. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.