Murdoch empire threatened to ‘do over’ Lib Dems, says Cable

The Business Secretary yesterday said he felt “under siege” and was “seriously disturbed” at what appeared to be a co-ordinated effort to politicise the decision.

He blamed the alleged pressure for his unguarded outburst to undercover reporters that he had “declared war” on Mr Murdoch – an outburst that saw him stripped of responsibility for media issues.

But although he accepted that it had been appropriate to remove him from the process, he insisted that none of his personal concerns about the influence of Murdoch newspapers would have affected his decision.

“I had heard directly and indirectly from colleagues that there had been veiled threats that if I made the wrong decision from the point of view of the company, my party would be – I think somebody used the phrase ‘done over’ in News International press,” Mr Cable told the inquiry into media standards.

“I took those things seriously, I was very concerned.”

Mr Cable, who refused to say who tipped him off to the threats, added: “I had myself tried to deal with the process entirely properly and impartially and I discovered this was happening in the background.”

Setting out the context of his “war” remark to two Daily Telegraph journalists posing as constituents at a local meeting - he said he was already “tense and emotional” because of dealing with angry protesters.

The recent reports that News Corp representatives were “either trying to influence my views or seeking material which might be used to challenge any adverse ruling I might make” only inflamed his mood, he said.

It was “a new and somewhat unsettling experience” for a political party which had previously been all but ignored by the big media groups, he said in written evidence.

“My references to a ‘War on Murdoch’ were making the point, no doubt rather hyperbolically, that I had no intention of being intimidated,” he said.

Mr Cable agreed that he had personal concerns about the mounting influence of the Murdoch empire, but insisted that they had not in any way affected his decision.

“In my opinion as a politician, I believed that the Murdochs’ influence, exercised through their newspapers, had become disproportionate,” he told the inquiry.

“This was not a factor in my decision,” he said. “Absolutely not.”

Defending his handling of the bid, he rejected News International complaints about his refusal to meet him to hear News International’s arguments in favour of the takeover.

Quizzed on the issue by the lawyer acting for News International and News Corp, he said it “could have looked like bias” if he had not also held meetings with the many organisations lined up in opposition to the takeover.

News International had been able to express its case “fully and forcefully” through official channels, he suggested.

Mr Cable also firmly rejected claims by News Corp lobbyist Frederic Michel that he had stated that there would “not be a policy issue” with regard to the takeover in the course of a conference call.

Shown an email from Mr Michel reporting back on the conversation, Mr Cable said: “I almost certainly did not say that and I am confident that I didn’t say it.”

Officials listening in would have “taken me to task if I had said it”, he suggested.

Mr Cable also discussed the role of Ministerial special advisers (Spads) – insisting his own Spad had “no responsibilities to speak for me” with regards to consideration of the takeover.

“I certainly didn’t give him any responsibility,” he told the inquiry, insisting he was “aware of the sensitivity” of the issue.

The issue will be one of the central concerns when Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who took over responsibility for the bid from Mr Cable, faces questions over his own conduct before the Inquiry today.

Adam Smith, Mr Hunt’s former Spad, stepped down last month after it emerged he had repeated contact with Mr Michel.

Mr Cable said he accepted that his “war” remark had gone beyond the point at which the public would believe he could act impartially in the takeover - even though that was not the case.

“I don’t mean to say that I would have been biased.

“I would not have been. But, nonetheless, there was a perception issue and that had to be taken into account.”

Responding to Mr Cable’s evidence, Shadow Culture Secretary Harriet Harman said: “This was a bid of huge importance for the media landscape, worth £8bn, and Vince Cable was supposed to be dealing with it with the utmost professionalism and impartiality.

“Instead, he showed a degree of indiscretion and incompetence such that the decision had to be taken from him.

“On a bid of huge importance for which his department had responsibility, he mishandled it,” she added.