Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies
Frank Dobson Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I will give way again in a moment, but in the interests of the whole House I must make some progress.
The issue was considered in full by an independent and expert body, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which said that it considered it
“desirable for the House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests. If that were not so, Parliament would be less well-informed and effective than it is now, and might well be more dependent on lobbyists.”
I agree. I am leaving this House in five weeks’ time, as hon. Members know—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”]—and I fear for the future of the House of Commons if rules are adopted that risk it consisting entirely of people who are rich or who are professional politicians throughout their lives. That is the danger of the course that the Opposition suggest.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Everybody has been amused by the points that the right hon. Gentleman has been making, quite rightly, but I do not think the public will be particularly amused. The public’s real concern is not about people with a continuing interest; it is about people who become Members of Parliament and then obtain directorships and consultancies and who are perceived as being in something like a system of outdoor relief for grasping MPs.
Mr Hague
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a distinction between different circumstances, as another Member did earlier, but that distinction is not made in the Opposition motion, and the debate is on the motion. That suggests that if he disagrees to some extent with the Opposition’s policy—
Hybrid Bill Procedure
Frank Dobson Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
As the House heard during the previous debate, the Government are introducing a hybrid Bill to Parliament later this year to allow consideration of whether the powers to construct, operate and maintain the HS2 scheme should be granted. Given the significance of this decision it will be clear to the House that it is essential that Parliament have the means in place to support effective decision making in relation to the Bill. However, it has been a while since the last hybrid Bill and some of the rules governing this process are now out of date. Therefore, the motions I am moving today will update this parliamentary procedure. If I may, I will explain them to the House. I believe that the House will not find them objectionable.
On the motion for electronic deposit, the House may be aware that, along with the HS2 hybrid Bill later this year, we will provide Parliament with the environmental statement. This will set out the likely significant environmental effects of the scheme and put forward proposals for alleviating them. For a project of this magnitude, there is a considerable level of detail involved. We expect the statement to be up to 50,000 pages long. It is of course important that communities can easily find out what the impact will be on their local area. However, current Standing Orders require us to deposit a hard copy of that document to every local authority area along the line of route. It is estimated that each document would weigh up to 1 tonne in that form. In this day and age, that is inconvenient for the communities involved and wasteful of Government resources. That is why our first motion allows for the electronic deposit of bill documentation for the HS2 hybrid Bill. That will make it easier for communities across the line of route to find the information most relevant to their area without having to work through an enormous document. It will also make it easier for local authorities, including parish councils, to meet their obligations to make the information available for public inspection.
It should also be noted that this is a permissive power. It does not require documents to be deposited in electronic format only. HS2 Ltd is clear that if a deposit location wants all the documents in hard copy, they can have them in hard copy. In all cases, HS2 Ltd will make available the key documents in hard copy, such as the Bill and the non-technical summary of the environmental statement.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s clarification, because several people have raised with me the possible difficulties with the large maps, which, without sophisticated IT gear, can be difficult to reproduce. If HS2 will still be obliged to provide large maps in solid form, I will be pleased with the reassurance he has given.
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Gentleman raises a sensible point. For most people with access to electronic equipment, navigating large documents is perfectly straightforward. In fact, it is probably easier to navigate documents of this length and complexity electronically than in hard copy. Not least, of course, it affords people the opportunity to focus on a local area or to do things such as word searches. I can confirm, however, that reasonable requests for hard copies of maps and section drawings will be met. These could be requested either from local authorities, which will be provided with hard copies for inspection, or directly from HS2 Ltd, which will provide A3 copies. It should further be noted that copies of all maps and sections will be available for inspection in both Houses. I hope that gives the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he was looking for.
If a deposit location would like documents in electronic format, but does not have the equipment to make them available to the community, HS2 Ltd has committed to providing that equipment at its own expense. This is a wholly sensible modernisation of Standing Order requirements, which were originally conceived in the 19th century, and is about making it easier for people to engage with the hybrid Bill process and therefore ensuring the most effective decision making by Parliament.
The second motion also relates to the environmental statement. It is vital that members of the public be made aware of these environmental effects and have an opportunity to comment. It is also important that the public’s views be shared with Parliament before it makes a decision on the principle of the Bill. That is why our proposed changes to Standing Orders will incorporate a formal consultation period for the environmental statement between introduction and Second Reading of the hybrid Bill. Although this follows the precedent of the Crossrail Act 2008, by enshrining this consultation in Standing Orders, we will improve the transparency and certainty of the hybrid Bill procedure.
It should also be noted that the lack of a guaranteed consultation process has been raised in the courts. It is important that we are clear that the proceedings of the House should not be subject, as a consequence of that lack of clarity, to interference from the European Courts.
Mr Lansley
On my right hon. Friend’s first point, these are the requirements of the Standing Orders in relation to hybrid Bills, and the promoters of a hybrid Bill, and participants in that process, will be required to comply with them; otherwise, the quality of consideration will be put at risk. They will have to behave in a way that is consistent with what the House and the examiners of the Bill require.
I will come directly to the second point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) made. The new Standing Order requires the appointment of an assessor to prepare a summary of the public’s comments. The independence of the assessor will be assured, because they will be appointed by Parliament and will report directly to it. That summary will make it easier for Members to appreciate and represent the views of the public when debating the principle of the hybrid Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has just pointed out, the length of the consultation period is set in the Standing Order at 56 days. To give that some context, the equivalent consultation period for projects pursued under the Planning Act 2008 can be as short as 28 days. That legislation covers projects of national significance such as new nuclear power stations, which are not intrinsically unlike HS2, given the level of debate that they can create and the significance of their environmental impact.
Frank Dobson
I recognise that I am getting into obscurantist territory with this point. I understand that the examiner of the hybrid Bill will be an Officer of the House, and that the assessor will be appointed by that Officer of the House and not by the House itself, which has, after all, demonstrated this evening that it is party to this matter.
Mr Lansley
As far as I understand it, that is true. The examiner will appoint the assessor, and the assessor will report directly to Parliament. That appointment is not in the gift of the Government. The independence of the assessor is intrinsic to the process, and the role of the assessor is to summarise the views presented during the consultation. The assessor will use their technical expertise to present the environmental assessment issues in a form that Parliament can readily engage with. This is a parliamentary process; the assessor will be appointed by Parliament, not by the Government.
Mr Lansley
I think it is true to say that the draft consultation taking place now is not part of the formal processes, but that does not mean that the public will not have a significant opportunity to make their views known. Having the draft environmental statement as the subject of consultation now directly relates to my right hon. Friend’s point—that 56 days, the eight-week consultation period, does not come in, as it were, in relation to an environmental statement that has not been prefigured by the consultation on the draft. In any case, if those responding to the draft consultation feel strongly about those issues, they should make their views known in the consultation required under the Standing Order.
For the sake of clarity, I was right that the Government are responsible for the remuneration of the assessor, but the amount of remuneration will be the product of a procurement process for the necessary expertise. I hope that is accurate and completes that thought. I hope that, notwithstanding the relative obscurity of these matters, the House will—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) want to intervene again?
Frank Dobson
Yes, I do, before the right hon. Gentleman sits down. It is not my intention to ask obscurantist questions, but it is my understanding that in the Appeal Court hearings—the Government won most cases and lost one—an undertaking was given, in the case that was lost, that the environmental assessment would look at all the alternatives to HS2, including different routes and also air, road and other alternatives. Will he confirm that that is the case?
Mr Lansley
I had better enter the same caveat as I have on one or two other occasions: if I find I am in any sense wrong, I will correct what I say. My understanding is that the environmental statement that is the subject of this Standing Order is an environmental statement relating to the route proposed in the hybrid Bill. It is not an environmental statement that relates to a range of other options. But I will take advice, and if I am wrong I will correct that for the right hon. Gentleman.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Frank Dobson Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Nothing will persuade me to support the Bill. I opposed the Labour Government’s proposals, and this Bill is far worse. I have not heard any convincing arguments in its favour. Most of them boil down to the syllogism, “Something must be done. This Bill is something. Therefore this must be done.” Such sophistry has been augmented with the line, “We must act now to complete the unfinished business left for 100 years, and we must get on with it.” Well, if we have waited for 100 years, we really ought to try to get it right and not botch it, and the Bill is undoubtedly a botch.
The plain fact is that an elected second Chamber would be very different from an unelected House of Lords. No self-respecting elected Member would accept for very long being bound by the conventions that restrict the unelected Lords. If the Lords were to lose their democratic deficit, they would replace the deficit with a surplus—a democratically legitimate surplus—of the dynamism, commitment and energy that election brings to the political process and which we all try to demonstrate.
Frank Dobson
No. I ought to get on.
Not content with what the Lords do now, an elected Chamber would demand new duties to reflect their new democratic legitimacy, and with those duties would go new powers. I have to say to all those who are in favour of this proposal that “new powers” is the phrase that dares not speak its name in this debate. Until we get clear what job we want the second Chamber to do, we cannot sensibly decide how it should be made up. As I first said about 10 years ago, we are being asked to pick the team before we know what game it is going to play. An elected second Chamber would not play the touch rugby played under the present rules. An elected Chamber would lurch into the contact version of that game, crunching tackles and rucks and mauls with the Commons. Yet the Bill pretends that that problem does not arise.
Worse than that, the Bill does not look at what is wrong with Parliament as a whole. It has long been my view and long been my experience that Parliament is not working very well. It is not good at holding Governments to account. It is not good at controlling the raising and spending of tax. If anybody questions that, how can any of us justify the decades-long failure to pass laws which stop tax evasion? Parliament certainly is not good at passing laws that work as those who proposed them intended or that are readily understood by the people who have to try to make them work.
The House of Commons is undoubtedly the dominant Chamber, so most of the fault with Parliament must lie with us, not with the Lords, however good or bad that institution. We need to look radically at how we improve our performance. Then we need to consider, once we have done that, whether we need a second Chamber, and if so, what its functions can be. That is extremely important, because in these turbulent times people, and in particular young people, are becoming disillusioned with the political process, and not just with us. There is a danger that they will become disillusioned with democracy as a whole. We must start doing our job better before we start messing around with the House of Lords.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
Frank Dobson Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I concur with many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), but as regards her quoting of the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I think that the aspirations they alluded to are shared by everybody in the Committee.
As the Minister and others will be aware from the Liberal Democrat submission to the consultation on this issue, we believe that the annual canvass is important and that it should continue. I want to ask the Minister about his reasoning for the discussions that have taken place so far and what tests or standards will have to be passed before the annual canvass is abolished. I understand the point in the explanatory notes that in years to come the annual canvass may no longer be needed because of the online opportunities for registration, to which the hon. Lady alluded. I am a bit more of a sceptic about that because I represent a rural area where the internet is not universally available. It will also be difficult to deem the register perfect at any point as it is constantly changing. What test would have to be passed to deem the annual canvass no longer useful?
The Bill gives electoral registration officers a new duty to maintain the all-important accuracy and completeness, which I welcome. How will they fulfil that duty without a canvass? In other words, how will the Minister ensure that that duty on electoral registration officers is tested?
The Bill provides for the Electoral Commission to be consulted if the annual canvass is to be abolished. That is clear. However, I understand that the Electoral Commission has concerns about why it would not be consulted if the annual canvass were to be reinstated. The Government have said that it is conceivable that that might have to be undertaken in a short time frame. However, the Electoral Commission has said that it has often been required to respond to Cabinet Office consultations in a limited time frame and that it does not believe that the requirement to consult would delay the process unduly. More importantly, it is essential that there is a mechanism for external scrutiny of any step that is taken in a short time frame.
On Second Reading, I expressed concerns about the abolition of the canvass. I noticed my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House wincing slightly when I made that point. He said that there is an obligation, if it is necessary, to reinstate the canvass. That reassured me, but I am concerned about the mechanisms by which such a reinstatement would have the consent of the Electoral Commission. I also have questions about why the annual canvass may need to be abolished.
I am heartened by what Ministers have said about the data-matching pilots and by the aspiration for online voting. However, we have a long way to go and, in the interim, I believe that we still need the annual canvass.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The annual canvass has been, and for the moment still is, the principal method by which we keep the electoral register up to date and accurate, in so far as it is up to date and accurate. I do not think that anyone believes that the current situation is satisfactory, but what we want is improvement, not reduction.
My constituency is rather strange in nature, not simply because it has elected me in eight successive elections, but because it has a huge electorate. It numbered some 87,000 people at the last general election and I understand from the registration officer that the total is now 94,000 electors. That gives me 26,000 more electors than the Deputy Prime Minister and, remarkably, 26,000 more than the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).
Equally different is the turnover of electors, which in my constituency is phenomenal. It has always been high, partly because of the large number of students and young people in the area. People arrive and get a job, and then they decide that they would be better off doing the same job in Lincoln, Scunthorpe or Bolton, usually because the cost of renting or buying a house would be much lower.
We have a massive turnover all the time, and the Government’s proposed housing benefit changes, which will be introduced at the same time as proposals in the Bill, will also lead to an increased movement of people—they will certainly move out of the area, but I am not sure whether they will come in—so the coalition’s social cleansing policies will have an effect on the need for the canvass. The Prime Minister’s latest essay—he wants to knock off housing benefit given to anyone under 25—is also likely to increase turnover in my area.
It is worth reporting that, last year, for the whole of Camden, the annual canvass added 27,000 electors, but also deducted 27,000 electors, which reflects the massive turnover in both my constituency and the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency. It also indicates that the annual canvass is important from the point of view not just of numbers, but of accuracy—it is the principal means by which people who are no longer entitled to vote disappear off the register. The Government and some outside the House who are fanatical about their proposals seem to ignore that.
The annual canvass is the bedrock of the current system—it is not peripheral; it is at the heart of it. Any other means that the Government propose to improve electoral registration, both so that the 6 million people who are entitled to be on the register get on it, and so that the register is accurate, must be introduced only to augment the annual canvass. The canvass still does an important task, and is likely—this is my opinion, and no more—to carry it out more effectively than the proposals.
It seems totally improper to suggest that the annual canvass could disappear before we know the overall effects of all the new changes. Even if the Opposition have tabled no amendment to that effect in Committee, we should perhaps table one on Report. I would hope all hon. Members agree that an annual canvass must be carried out if the numbers come down as a result of the changes, and that we cannot accept a reduction in the number of people on the registers.
Government Members have once or twice quoted judges who have said that registration is currently like something we might find in a banana republic. I suspect that most banana republics would like to give a Minister, without parliamentary approval, the right to end an annual canvass. Nothing should be left to the Minister’s discretion. If anything, the decision should come straight to the House from the Electoral Commission.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Any hon. Member who has played the role of election observer in different parts of the world will know that electoral observation organisations apply themselves to one key thing: ensuring the accuracy of the electoral register. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, the canvass is an integral part of the electoral system, not only to ensure that there is no fraud—cases in certain communities have been highlighted—but to ensure that the register is as accurate and up to date as possible. As an ex-local councillor and an MP, I think it would give the person elected at a local council or other election confidence if they knew that the majority of electors were registered to vote. I accept that the annual canvass is more difficult to undertake in certain parts of the country than in others, but it will concentrate people’s minds on ensuring that they are on the electoral register.
Mr Heath
Yes. The canvass that would have been carried out in 2013, which we have moved to early 2014, will be done in the traditional way. The hon. Lady knows that we are taking advice from the various political parties and others about the exact date that will be most effective. That will be a full household canvass and during 2014, after the European elections, we will move on to the other components of the proposals so that we have the use of all available material and can, as I have repeatedly said, make the register as complete and accurate as possible.
Frank Dobson
I seem to attract snotty remarks from those on the Government Front Bench. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I have been snotted at by better men than him.
If the Government are so confident that the new methods of putting all this together, which they described in their evidence to the House of Lords as providing a more efficient means of obtaining information rather than a more effective one, and believe that the system will result in registers exceeding the numbers presently arrived at by the household canvass, will they guarantee not to proceed until they have the registers up to the level that the previous household canvass produced?
Mr Heath
I repeat again to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not getting rid of the household canvass and it is very difficult to answer his question, which is based on the premise that we are removing it, when we are not doing so. Incidentally, were the circumstances to occur in which this part of the Bill was used to remove the duty for an annual canvass—as I have said, that would happen only if we, the Electoral Commission and both Houses of Parliament were satisfied that other mechanisms were in place that would be as effective or more effective than the annual canvass—the situation would continue to be monitored. If, despite the advice of the Electoral Commission and the best intentions of Ministers and this House, it unexpectedly proved that the proportion of the population that registered was substantially reduced, there is provision within the Bill to reinstate the canvass. Unfortunately, amendment 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, would remove that power. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) asked a specific question and I can give him an absolute assurance that the power to reinstate the canvass is in the Bill, should it be needed.
Frank Dobson
The hon. Gentleman has said that there is a power to reinstate the canvass, but is there an obligation to reinstate it if the new system is not working?
Mr Heath
I do not think that Parliament is normally required to do anything, and this will be a power for Parliament, not for Ministers. We would be treading a strange constitutional path if this Parliament were to require any future Parliament to make any enactment. The power is there to reinstate the canvass without the need for further primary legislation in order to enable the then Government, whoever they are, to react promptly and effectively if necessary. I honestly do not believe that will apply because there are no circumstances in which the annual canvass would be removed without its being absolutely clear, from all the information to hand, that it would not have a detrimental effect on the completeness and the effectiveness of the register.
Public Bodies Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Frank Dobson Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) on being better off than many Opposition Members and perhaps some of his own colleagues, in that his proposals have been selected for debate, even though they might not be reached.
I want to make the general point that this whole approach is a disgrace and an insult to previous Members of the House of Commons who, over many hours, days and years, laboured over the establishment of the various public bodies in question. We are now being asked to dispose of them in an afternoon. I am particularly interested in the fate of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and I have checked the various debates in the House of Commons on its original establishment and on its improvement. Those debates took up more time than this Bill is taking to shift it around, mess it about and do away with it and a large number of other useful public bodies.
I do not think that this is the way to legislate. It is a disgrace, given that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister prated on about a new approach to government. I think that everyone expected a more liberal—with a small l—approach, but it has turned out to be a more absolutist one. I believe that Members of both sides of the House will eventually realise that it is a good idea to allow enough time to debate the things that need to be debated.
Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB
Frank Dobson Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
I entirely agree. We need to keep the issues separate, but as I said earlier, given all that is going on, it is right—
George Eustice
I will not give way. I am sorry. I have given way enough and we are nearly out of time.
We need to change the culture in which, over decades, the press barons have been led to believe that they can decide policy. It is no wonder, if they have had so many politicians coming to court them and seek their support. We need to try and get over that culture, and change things for the better. By weakening the press barons, we could strengthen journalism. It is important that we approach the debate in the right tone. We should be clear that we are not trying to stifle free speech, but that our objective is to strengthen journalism itself.
Frank Dobson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the rot set in when, against the advice of the late Michael Foot, Mrs Thatcher set the precedent of refusing to refer the purchase of The Times and The Sunday Times to the then Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the grounds that 40% ownership of newspapers was too much in one pair of hands?
Mr Heath
We have had abundant evidence since then of what has or has not been done in relationships with the media.
The best contributions to the debate have been the most sober and non-partisan, and I am grateful to colleagues who entered into the debate in that context. I am grateful to the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), whose Committee has done such a lot of good work. I am grateful, as I have indicated, to the hon. Member for Rhondda for what he has said not just today but on previous occasions. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), to the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for his very brief contribution. They talked not only about the criminal behaviour that has been uncovered over recent days and weeks, but about the concentration of power and ownership and the effect that that has on the media in this country, and about the adequacy of the Press Complaints Commission, which we clearly need to look at. The hon. Member for Bracknell warned that new media and technologies will bring new challenges that we have to address.
There were contributions from members of the previous Government. I think that most of what the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said had more to do with the competition authorities and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport than with the contents of this debate, but he took this opportunity to raise those issues. There was a long contribution from the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). May I say that it is genuinely a pleasure to have him contributing to our debates in this House, and he should do so more often? Everybody understands his personal issues concerning the completely inappropriate release of information about his family, and everybody has sympathy for him over that. Everybody will take careful notice of the serious evidence that he produced to the House, which I hope will be properly considered by the inquiry. I hope that he will give full evidence to the inquiry, as he indicated he would in his contribution, as I hope will other members of the previous Government who have a story to tell. I would criticise him because there was a self-exculpatory tone in much of what he said, and I think that that may have grated on some. Nevertheless, it was an important contribution.
The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) did not quite rise to the occasion. He wanted to take a partisan view, in considerable contrast to the leader of his party. He wanted to resile from the body of law that the Government of whom he was a member put in place. He wanted to say that issues that cannot be clearly linked in law should be linked in law. I remind him of what he said on 10 June, because it is relevant to his contribution:
“The serious admissions of culpability by News International aren’t relevant to the News Corp-BSkyB media plurality issue”.
Now he is saying that those admissions are intrinsic to it. He cannot have it both ways.
What we have seen is a systemic failure across the institutions of public life to get to grips with a cancer of wrongdoing. There were abundant signs over the years: admissions of criminal behaviour, Select Committee reports that went unheeded, and clear examples of big media organisations wielding too much power, political and commercial. I hope that the inquiries that are being put in place today will deal with that issue. I hope that that chapter is drawing to a close. I believe that we have a unique window of opportunity to get it right. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) says that we have barely started yet. He is absolutely right. We have barely started getting to grips with this cancer of wrongdoing, but we will get to grips with it. We now have an inquiry that will set us on the right path and a Government determined to act. That is as it should be. I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.