Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run a major international company and turned a blind eye to the running of his newspaper empire while phone hacking was taking place, MPs have found.
The News Corporation chairman, whose media empire published the News of the World, was guilty of wilful blindness as News Corp sought to cover up wrongdoing, according to a report into the scandal by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
The LibDems' culture spokesman Don Foster last night called for the media regulator Ofcom to include the report as part of its investigation into Mr Murdoch's fitness to run BSkyB, "given the significant role he has in the governance of NewsCorp".
Last night shares in BSkyB rose 13%, amid speculation that News Corp may be forced to sell its 39% stake.
The report said: "On the basis of the facts and evidence before the Committee, we conclude that, if at all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications.
"This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International. We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company."
It cited Mr Murdoch and his management's failure to focus on "serious wrongdoing" in his response to allegations of blackmail following a News of the World story about former Formula One head Max Mosley's sex life.
And it said Mr Murdoch, giving evidence in July to the committee, offered a "reply that this was the first he had heard of this claim and that no-one in the UK company had brought the allegation to his attention."
It added: "If this was indeed the case, it indicates a seriously wrong state of affairs in his company."
At the report's launch, committee member Tom Watson MP, a leading critic of the Murdochs, said: "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 of profits and his power."
Mr Watson also attacked Tory MPs on the committee after chairman John Whittingdale conceded the report's impact was diluted after every Conservative member dissented from its key finding on Mr Murdoch.
They accused Labour of amending the document to describe Mr Murdoch as "not fit" in a bid to inappropriately influence Ofcom. The wording was inserted after the committee's Labour MPs and the lone LibDem gave it their backing.
But the Tory group defended their decision, which left them appearing to defend Mr Murdoch just as Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt faces intense pressure for his office's apparent closeness to News Corporation's director of public affairs, Frederic Michel.
Tory MP Louise Mensch said none of her colleagues had felt able to back the committee's description of Mr Murdoch.
"We all thought that was wildly outside the scope of a select committee (and) was an improper attempt to influence Ofcom," she said.
Almost every member did agree with most of the main findings. The report said it was "simply astonishing" that Mr Murdoch and his son James, the former News International chairman, only realised in late 2010 that hacking was not confined to a single rogue reporter.
Les Hinton, former chairman of News International, Colin Myler, ex-editor of the News of the World, and Tom Crone, the paper's former legal manager, were accused by the report of misleading parliament. They denied the claims.
The report also found the company repeatedly made misleading and exaggerated claims during the inquiry.
In an email to News International staff, Mr Murdoch last night wrote: "The report affords us a unique opportunity to reflect upon the mistakes we have made and further the course we have already completed to correct them. I recognise that for all of us, myself in particular, it is difficult to read many of the report's findings."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article