Speaking from G8 in Italy, prime minister says Guardian story raises questions that need to be considered
Gordon Brown said today the questions raised by the phone-hacking affair were “very serious”.
The prime minister told a press conference at the G8 in L’Aquila, Italy: “This raises questions that are very serious, that will have to be considered. And I understand the police are considering an inquiry and so I have nothing more to say.”
In the Commons, David Hanson, the police minister, claimed today that neither the government nor Scotland Yard were aware of allegations that Rupert Murdoch’s News Group had hacked the answerphone messages of thousands of public figures until the Guardian published its report today.
“My understanding is that both the Metropolitan police, and indeed myself and my right honourable friend the home secretary, discovered these allegations on the production of the newspapers overnight and this morning,” Hanson told the Commons today.
The minister’s claim that the police were unaware of the phone-hacking was made in response to a question from Keith Vaz, the home affairs select committee chairman, who pointed out that his committee had been told by senior officers in its recent inquiry into the arrest of shadow immigration spokesman Damian Green that the home secretary and other politicians on the Metropolitan Police Authority were routinely informed of any investigation involving a high-profile politician.
Hanson stood in for Alan Johnson, the home secretary, to field a series of questions by MPs following the Guardian’s report highlighting widespread phone-hacking in 2006 by the News of the World, whose editor at the time was Andy Coulson, now David Cameron’s head of communications.
Johnson was attending the Association of Chief Police Officers’ conference in Manchester as Hanson struggled to answer most of the queries raised this morning on the grounds that the Guardian allegations were news to both the government and to the police.
The minister told MPs that the Met was “urgently considering” the allegations and would make a statement later, though not necessarily today. “These are serious allegations that have been made. They deserve an examination.”
Evan Harris, the Lib Dem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon who had demanded the emergency statement from Hanson, said the Guardian’s story had raised fears that surveillance was now undertaken not just by the government, but also the media. “We all want to see healthy, responsible investigative journalism,” he said, “especially of public figures who wield power – but that must be within the law …
“It will be extremely toxic for our democracy if vested interests are seen to be able to buy their way out, in some way, of the criminal justice system.”
John Whittingdale, the Tory chair of the culture committee, said that while it was well known at the time that a private investigator had intercepted calls by a wide number of people, the chair of News International had given a “categoric assurance” that no other journalist beyond Clive Goodman had any involvement or knowledge in that matter.
The committee took evidence from Les Hinton, who ran Rupert Murdoch’s stable of British newspapers at the time, about phone hacking at the News of the World during an earlier 2007 inquiry into self-regulation of the press.
That was prompted, in part, by the arrest of Goodman, the former News of the World royal editor, in August 2006 on charges of obtaining information illegally. Goodman was jailed in January 2007, prompting Coulson’s resignation.
The matters that came to light have prompted the Commons committee to launch an urgent investigation. Whittingdale asked Hanson whether he was aware of any evidence to contradict Hinton’s previous statement.
“And when my select committee reopens its inquiry as we have decided to do, will he ask the Metropolitan police to provide us with any information that they have relevant to this case?”
Hanson said he would take care of what Whittingdale had suggested but that the allegations were still being examined at this stage.
Hanson was similarly unable to answer David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, when he raised his concerns about the fact that none of the public figures targeted for surveillance had been notified that they were the victims of a crime. “Now that is a matter for the home secretary. Can he give an answer to that?”
But Hanson reiterated that it was too early for him to comment.
The Commons heard calls for Coulson to be sacked by the Tories following allegations of his possible involvement in criminal activity.
Chris Huhne, the Lib Dems’ home affairs spokesman, said: “It is extraordinary that the leader of the opposition, who wants to be a prime minister, employs Andy Coulson, who at best was responsible for a newspaper that was out of control and at worst was personally [involved] with criminal activity. The exact parallel is surely with Damian McBride. If the prime minister was right to sack Damian McBride, should the leader of the opposition not sack Andy Coulson?”
Hanson told MPs that phone-hacking without authority was a criminal offence punishable with a fine or a prison sentence of up to two years.
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, prompted laughter as he urged everyone in the house to give a “measured response” to the issues raised and leave it to the police to decide whether there was “any new information that warrants further action”.
The web needs a highway code
Following the BT/Phorm saga, the government must clear up confusion over consumer protection and monitoring software
BT’s announcement that it is dropping its involvement with Phorm “for the moment” is unsurprising. The telecoms giant has a high level of trust among consumers, and pushing forward with the controversial web monitoring and profiling system would have been a very dangerous move for the company. It might have destroyed BT customers’ trust in the company had they felt that their web traffic was being intercepted in a way they did not understand. Even with reassurance that there would be an “opt-in” system, Phorm’s plans did not take account of public worry of just what this would mean in reality.
The government’s role in the affair has been dubious. It has never taken responsibility for ensuring that all players were clear about what protection consumers could expect from the law under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and whether it was enforceable over interceptions of the BT/Phorm kind. Despite constant questioning, the government would only say that “it was a matter for the courts” to decide. The Home Office may have its own use for deep packet inspection for intercepting web traffic, but it is mistaken if it thinks ambiguity in the commercial sector would help the technology develop unhindered.
One of the main opponents of the Phorm-type of monitoring is the web’s inventor, Tim Berners-Lee, who branded it as “snooping”. He has been appointed as a special adviser to the government. Leaving the government is Lord Carter, the erstwhile communications minister who was a Phorm enthusiast. The Information Commissioner’s Office remains in its Alice-in-Wonderland position of backing Phorm’s technology, provided it complies with data protection laws – which, of course, is the unresolved issue. Another player is Ed Richards, chief executive of Ofcom. The telecoms watchdog has a regulatory role but also an interest in ensuring some resolution to the parlous position that the media has found itself in regarding advertising.
One of the primary roles for the government is to create certainty for citizens and for business. In this sorry saga it has created uncertainty and it was left to the EU to take a line on the original trials, which were ruled illegal. The government knows that there is now an information superhighway where everyone is busy trying to put up billboards. When roads became very busy with cars, a highway code and a planning system was developed to prevent dangerous situations. What is needed now is a similar clear plan for the web highway.