THE GUARDIAN - Tuesday 19 July 2011
• Rupert Murdoch attacked at select committee
• 'This is the most humble day of my life,' Murdoch tells MPs
• News Corp chair was 'asked to enter No 10 by back door'
• Rupert 'had no knowledge at all of Taylor settlement'
• James admits NI paid some of Mulcaire's legal fees
8.12am: BSkyB haven't yet launched Sky Select Committees as a premium pay channel, but there would be a lot of us who would willing to pay good money to watch Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks go through the wringer this afternoon.
In one paper at the weekend this was described as the most important select committee hearing in parliament's history and - although claims of this kind are generally, by their nature, implausible - it's hard, off-hand, to think of any single hearing that beats it.
But what are we going to actually find out? Two quotes in today's Guardian are worth considering. In her article on the hearing, Jane Martinson points out that the Murdochs and Brooks will have two conflicting priorities.
This will be the conundrum for the Murdoch team: how to present their man as an honest, open and humble executive who is sorry about past failings while at the same time shielding him from further inquiries. One senior media lawyer said: "The PR advice will be to look them in the eyes, tell the truth and look upfront for the global TV audience. The legal advice will be to say nothing."
And, in his article, Patrick Wintour quotes Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has been campaigning tirelessly on phone hacking and who sits on the culture committee.
"There is not going to be a killer blow on Tuesday. Expectations are way too high," [Watson] told the Guardian. "We will get the symbolism of parliament holding these people to account for the first time. We will look for facts, and not just offer rhetoric. This story has been like slicing a cucumber, you just get a little bit closer to the truth each time."
I''ve never heard the "cucumber theory" of select committee procedure before, but Watson is almost certainly on to something.
The culture committee hearing is getting all the attention but, like a rival impresario, the home affairs committee's Keith Vaz is also putting on his own show and he has got three of the most important figures from Scotland Yard giving evidence, as well as three other key witnesses coming on later. If anyone ever makes Hackgate: the movie, the story will involve a handful of key figures. Many of them are appearing in parliament today.
Here's the full running order.
12pm: Sir Paul Stephenson, the outgoing commissioner of the Metropolitan police, gives evidence to the home affairs committee.
12.45pm: Dick Fedorcio, director of public affairs at the Met, gives evidence to the home affairs committee.
1.15pm: John Yates, who resigned yesterday as assistant commissioner at the Met, gives evidence to the home affairs committee.
2.30pm: Rupert Murdoch and his son James give evidence to the culture committee.
3.30pm: Rebekah Brooks gives evidence to the culture committee.
5.30pm: Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, gives evidence to the home affairs committee.
6pm: Keir Starmer, the current director of public prosecutions, gives evidence to the home affairs committee.
6.20pm: Mark Lewis, the solicitor representing the Dowler family, gives evidence to the home affairs committee.
We'll be blogging all the evidence in full, as well as bringing you all the other developments in the phone hacking story and rounding up the best reaction from the web.
8.26am: Neil Kinnock, the former Labour leader, has just given an interview to the Today programme. He resisted the temptation to say: "Will the last person to leave News International please turn out the lights?" But he did suggest that the press should be regulated in such a way as to enforce political balance. John Humphrys was so horrified that he almost fell of his chair (because he seemed to think the idea unworkable.) I'll post the full quotes shortly.
8.32am: Earlier Sir Hugh Orde, (left) the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, was on the Today programme. He praised Sir Paul Stephenson and Paul Yates for the "honourable" way they both resigned, but the most newsworthy moment in the interview came when he dropped a clear hint that he would like to succeed Stephenson as commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Asked if he wanted the job, Orde replied:
I think the dust needs to settle before anyone makes a decision on the way forward.
Asked whether that meant he was waiting to decide whether to put his name forward, Orde said: "Exactly."
8.40am: Just in case you missed it, here are some details about the story that broke last night about Scotland Yard employing a senior News of the World executive as an interpreter. This is from the story filed by the Press Association.
Alex Marunchak had been employed by the Metropolitan Police as a Ukrainian language interpreter with access to highly sensitive police information.
In a statement, Scotland Yard confirmed he had been on the Met's list of interpreters - providing interpretation and translation services for victims, witnesses and suspects who do not speak English - between 1980 and 2000.
It acknowledged that his employment "may cause concern", adding that some professions may be "incompatible" with such a sensitive job. It said the Met's language services were now looking into the matter.
"Since the records system became electronic in 1996, we know that he undertook work as a Ukrainian language interpreter on one occasion in 1997 and six in 1999, as well as two translation assignments, totalling around 27 hours of work. It is likely he undertook work prior to 1996 as well," the statement said.
"Interpreters are vetted by the MPS and all sign the Official Secrets Act. They are employed on a freelance, self-employed basis.
"We recognise that this may cause concern and that some professions may be incompatible with the role of an interpreter."
8.43am: MPs who sit on select committees often get criticised (particularly by journalists) for not asking particularly good questions. On BBC Breakfast this morning Geoffrey Robertson QC made this point rather grandly. "None of the committee members are good examiners", he said, in a discussion about the culture committee hearing.
8.48am: Alastair Campbell has been doing the rounds this morning. He has made a few high-profile committee or inquiry appearances in his time and, according to PoliticsHome, he had this advice for Rupert Murdoch.
The most important thing is to be right on top of [it], you've got to think through every question you're going to be asked and you've got to think through what it is you're likely to say and, I think, even more important than that, is having an overall strategy for it because it's several hours. You need to think through what you want to come out of it at the end, what it is that you want to get over and the weak points in your argument that you know they're going to come at. I didn't rehearse but I certainly spent any spare time I had preparing for it and understanding it's a really important moment.
Sadly, he didn't advise Murdoch to stick a drawing pin in his hand. This - supposedly - is the technique Campbell used to stop him losing his temper when he was giving evidence to a Commons committee in 2003 about his war with the BBC about its Iraq coverage.
9.02am: Here's a short reading list of hacking-related articles on the web this morning.
• Bloomberg says News Corporation is thinking of replacing Rupert Murdoch as the company's chief executive officer with Chase Carey.
News Corp. is considering elevating Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey to chief executive officer to succeed Rupert Murdoch, people with knowledge of the situation said.
A decision hasn't been made and a move depends in part on Murdoch's performance before the U.K. Parliament today, said the people, who weren't authorized to speak publicly. Murdoch would remain chairman, the people said.
News Corp. executives who watched Murdoch, 80, rehearse for his appearance had concerns about how he handled questions, according to three people, who weren't authorized to speak publicly. Murdoch and his son James are scheduled to discuss the company's role in the alleged phone hacking of murder victims, members of the royal family and others by the News of the World, which was closed on July 10.
• Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome wants to know why Downing Street is not fighting to protect David Cameron's reputation.
Where is the publicised push to haul Piers Morgan before a Select Committee? (The running on the story has been made by Guido Fawkes.) Why is there no campaign to ram home the message that the Daily Mirror carried out three times as many illegal transactions as the News of the World (according to the Information Commissioner)? Who advised the Prime Minister to fly off abroad rather than go on TV here - telling viewers that his priorities are theirs: curbing the deficit, controlling immigration, improving schools, tackling the Euro-zone crisis? How come published details of meetings with Rebekah Wade were wrong?
The buck for all this stops not with CCHQ but with Number 10, where there are three main problems, which Downing Street sources themselves concede. First, that while Cameron's relationship with Downing Street's main players is strong, their relationship with each other is less so: Llewellyn, Oliver, Hilton and Cooper, for all their individual talents, haven't bonded into a coherent, collective unit. Second, as Tim and I have repeatedly said (try here and here), there is no single, strong Lynton Crosby-type figure in command of the Downing Street operation: its flaws derive from there being no clear structure at the centre.
Third, there is a shortage of grey hair. The appointment of Fallon to some degree made up for this. But no-one plays for Cameron the role that Stephen Sherbourne played for Michael Howard - the old hand who can draw on memories of past crises to deal with present ones.
• Robert Pollock in the Wall Street Journal says that Rupert Murdoch has not tried to influence the editorial direction of the WSJ.
Most people go about their business in semi-autonomous units, perhaps with a vague notion of pleasing someone distant up the chain of command, but most often with a simple desire to do their best job as they and their immediate colleagues see it. If you want an example of editorial independence at News Corp., look at how often "The Simpsons" mock their broadcasters at Fox.
So what about the phone-hacking issue that now has politicians on both sides of the pond demanding investigations of the Murdoch "empire"? It's not part of a corporate culture that I have been exposed to. Do I believe some editors and reporters could have skirted ethical norms without direction or knowledge at the top? Yes, such things happen in large organizations.
9.14am: In the comments some readers have been asking who sits on the culture committee and on the home affairs committee. Here are the official lists.
• Members of the culture committee
• Members of the home affairs committee
The BBC has also got a good list with mini profiles of all the members of the culture committee.
9.18am: Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who has been campaigning on phone hacking for ages, has just dropped an intriguing hint about "more to come" in an interview on BBC News.
The theatre of [today's appearance] is irrelevant. In the end we've got to get to the bottom of what is a very murky pool. And I tell you Rebekah Brooks was right. We're only half way into that pool at the moment. There's stuff about Surrey police as well and other things that are still to come out.
When pressed, Bryant refused to say any more.
Bryant was referring to reports saying that Brooks said that there were worse revelations to come when she told staff at the News of the World that the paper was closing.
9.25am: It's not true to say that Rupert Murdoch has never given evidence to a parliamentary committee before. Lord Fowler, the chairman of the Lords communications committee, has just told BBC News that Murdoch gave evidence to his committee four years ago. It was not in a public hearing. The committee flew to the US and spoke to Murdoch, and other media figures, in private. But they did publish minutes of their meeting. They are in appendix 4 of the committee's report, The Ownership of the News.
9.34am: Bob Crow, the RMT general secretary, has been told that it will take three months before the police can tell him whether he was a victim of phone hacking. "We have been informed by officers from Operation Weeting that it will be up to three months before we get answers from the investigations into the suspicion that Bob Crow, and possibly other officials of the RMT, were targeted by the news international hacking conspiracy," an RMT spokesman said.
9.43am: John Prescott has just been on BBC News. He has revealed that the Labour MP Cathy Jamieson was lined up to be made a member of the culture committee but, when the motion to include her went before the Commons last night, it was blocked by Tories. Jamieson is a former justice minister in the Scottish executive and Prescott suggested that the move to exclude her was somehow connected with Tommy Sheridan's libel case against the News of the World in Scotland, which ultimately led to Sheridan being convicted for perjury.
9.55am: Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has said that he does not want today's hearing with Rupert Murdoch to be a witch-hunt. According to PoliticsHome, this is what he told BBC News.
I think this has to be done in a calm and level-headed way and I'm sure it will be on all sides of the house, from MPs from all parties, because the key thing here is to get to the truth. It is not about a witch-hunt. It's about getting at the truth.
"Not a witch-hunt" must be the line to take because Jim Sheridan, a Labour MP who sits on the culture committee, used exactly the same phrase when he was interviewed on Irish radio earlier. My colleague Lisa O'Carroll was listening. This is what Sheridan said about what he would be asking.
I like to know what kind of relationship [Murdoch has] had with senior politicians, what influence does he think he has had ... What it won't be today, as some of the leading commentators were suggesting that it will be, [is] some sort of witch-hunt of the MPs against the press. That is certainly not what it's about, we will be asking in a polite way, robust questions.
10.04am: According to the Press Association, a post-mortem examination is taking place this morning as police continued to investigate the death of Sean Hoare, the News of the World whistleblower. A Hertfordshire Police spokeswoman said: "The man's next of kin have been informed and the family are being supported by police at this sad time." Officers have yet to confirm arrangements for an inquest.
10.20am: Mark Ferguson at LabourList has more on the way Labour's Cathy Jamieson was excluded from the culture committee last night. (See 9.43am.) He names the Tory MP responsible.
Last night Labour MP Cathy Jamieson should have been elected unopposed to the DCMS Select Committee, replacing the recently deceased David Cairns ahead of today's showdown with Rebekah Brooks and the Murdochs. And yet Tory MP Nick De Bois decided to shout "object", which meant that Jamieson has yet to be elected to the committee, and won't be able to question the News International trio today.
On his own blog, Paul Waugh suggests this might have been retaliation for a Labour attempt to keep David Laws off a committee dealing with the draft finance bill.
I called De Bois to find out for myself why he blocked Jamieson. He was not available, but they took a message in his office. I'll let you know if he rings back.
10.31am: As promised, but a bit late, here is what Neil Kinnock said about changing the law to ensure that the press is politically balanced. (See 8.26am.) I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.
We have had, since the 1950s, independent television, commercially independent and commercially run subject to a charter which it has honoured with great fidelity, and I see no reason at all why those general rules, which have certainly not impeded freedom of expression or activity in any way at all, shouldn't have wider applications.
When he was asked if he meant that the impartiality rules that apply to broadcasters should apply to the press, Kinnock replied: "What they require is balance, and I think that [that is] all that anyone would possibly ask for in terms of freedom of expression."
10.39am: A Labour MP has written to Sir Gus O'Donnell asking for an investigation into the allegation that David Cameron broke the ministerial code, the Daily Telegraph reports. John Mann has suggested that, in having dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks on 23 December last year (when the government was still considering News Corporation's bid for BSkyB), Cameron broke the section of the code saying that "ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests".
Number 10 has an independent adviser on ministerial interests who can investigate complaints of this kind. But, as the Telegraph points it, it is the prime minister himself who decides if a complaint merits investigation. Cameron will have to rule on himself. I think we can predict what he will say.
10.52am: Today's culture select committee hearing raises tricky legal problems because the committee won't want anything to be said that could prejudice any court proceedings in the future. Joshua Rozenberg has written a guide to this problem for Guardian Law.
11.02am: Dick Fedorcio, the Metropolitan police's director of public affairs, is being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over his relationship with the former News of the World executive Neil Wallis, the Press Association is reporting.
11.12am: Which papers benefited from the closure of the News of the World? My colleague Josh Halliday has been looking at the figures, and he says the Sunday Mirror did best, gaining almost 730,000 in sales.
11.21am: Westminster feels as if it is in general election-mode because there's so much interest in the select committee hearings. The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg says on Twitter she has seen 16 camera crews on College Green. And Paul Waugh, who is standing in the queue for the culture committee hearing, says on Twitter he's seen the great Harry Evans, the former Sunday Times editor, try to barge his way to the front.
11.29am: The phone hacking affair is a "three-headed monster", according to the Labour MP Chris Bryant. According to PoliticsHome, this is what he told BBC News.
There was the original criminality at the News of the World - the phone hacking. There was the attempt to hush it up by News International and there was the failure of the Metropolitan police to investigate, probably because the Murdoch empire had all its tentacles creeping into every nook and cranny of the Metropolitan police ... I think it is that combination that makes it into one of the biggest scandals that we've known in British political history for the last 75 years.
11.38am: Is there any similarity between the phone hacking affair and the death of Diana? In a provocative article for Spiked Online, Brendan O'Neill says: "This is now something akin to a 'Diana moment', except we are implored to shelve our critical faculties in the name of collectively hating a mogul rather than collectively loving a princess."
O'Neill argues the commentators who are celebrating the phone hacking affair because it will weaken the power of the Murdoch empire are missing the point.
Which brings us to the present day and the harebrained idea that loosening Murdoch's alleged grip will liberate and re-populate with principle the British political sphere. Whatever you think of Murdoch - I am not a fan, and I believe that the phone-hacking antics at the News of the World were deplorable and indefensible - this is clearly nonsense. Because it was the already existing disarray of the British political sphere that empowered Murdoch in the first place. The respectable commentariat has effectively declared war on a man who was merely the beneficiary of historic political fallout, not the orchestrator of it. Remove him from the picture and those various profound problems - the emptying out of both left and right ideologies, the aloofness of the political class, the transformation of politics into a purely elite pastime - will still exist. Our politicians will still have nothing of substance to say, just fewer tabloids in which not to say it.
11.44am: My colleague Jane Martinson has sent me this from the queue for the culture committee hearing.
A former employee of the now closed News of the World is waiting in the public queue. "I want to see the hairs on the back of Rupert Murdoch's neck and I want to see Rebekah put on the spot." Odd atmosphere here with public queue full of people reading books and sitting down and hacks chatting to each other.
11.45am: My colleague Paul Owen has been looking at today's coverage of the hacking scandal in the British press.
All the Guardian's stories can be found here, including this piece by John Harris looking at the extent and reach of senior figures in News Corporation and News International and their influence on British politics and politicians.
It's also worth revisiting Nick Davies's list of questions the members of the culture committee should ask Murdoch, his son James, and Rebekah Brooks this afternoon.
The Daily Mirror's leader column suggests that David Cameron will be feeling "sick to the put of his stomach" when Rupert Murdoch gives evidence this afternoon.
Murdoch Senior is most dangerous when he's cornered and, among those he feels betrayed by, is a Prime Minister on the run.
The Daily Mail reports on a BBC Radio 5 Live phone-in in which Ed Miliband was criticised for using the family of Milly Dowler as "a political football". The Labour leader has won widespread praise elsewhere for his handling of the scandal.
The Mail also repeats its call for "a sense of proportion" in covering the phone-hacking cases – particularly when the economies of Britain and the world are in such trouble.
The Independent has an informative piece comparing the relationship between Sir Paul Stephenson and Neil Wallis with that between David Cameron and Andy Coulson. It concludes:
Sir Paul is right to point out that he has taken responsibility for his force's close relationship with News International in way political leaders have not. But it is difficult to equate the employment by police of a man who held a senior role at a newspaper they were being asked to investigate with No 10's decision to employ an adept tabloid attack dog.
The Times, a News International paper, says in a leader column that today is an "opportunity for sober clarity", and lists a number of questions MPs should ask Brooks and the Murdochs.
A Times/Populus poll echoes today's Guardian/ICM survey in showing little benefit accruing to Labour in the scandal.
11.48am: The Tories have put out a statement attacking Lord Kinnock for suggesting that impartiality rules should apply to the press. (See 10.31am.) This is from Michael Fallon, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party.
For a politician to call for political control of the press is pretty sinister. Having spent the last decade and a half cosying up to the Murdoch press, Labour are now trying to turn this into a political vendetta which threatens to damage our democracy. Ed Miliband needs to distance himself from his mentor immediately.
11.55am: It's all about to start.
Sir Paul Stephenson, the outgoing commissioner of the Metropolitan police, is giving evidence to the home affairs committee first. They are due to start at 12pm.
Here's the resignation statement he made on Sunday.
12.03pm: I'm watching on BBC News. Jon Sopel is playing to time at the moment. There's an atmosphere of "subdued fevered excitement" at Wesminster, he said. Not sure what that means, but we get the point.
With luck, Keith Vaz will put him out of his misery by starting the hearing soon.
12.05pm: Sir Paul Stephenson (left) is coming in now.
Keith Vaz opens the meeting. He says Stephenson is still commissioner of the Met. "That's my understanding," Stephenson says.
Vaz declares some interests. He met Stephenson at the Police Bravery Awards run by the Sun. And they both know the owner of Champneys, the health spa where Stephenson accepted a £12,000 freebie.
Q: Why did you resign, given you say you did nothing wrong?
Stephenson says he thinks he was explicit in this resignation statement. He was always clear that he did not want the story to be about him. He saw the consequences of that in the past (a reference to Sir Ian Blair, his predecessor).
He might have considered the matter for a little longer. But we are in the Olympic year, he says. If he was going to do something, he had to to it quickly. He quotes Shakespeare: if it were best it were done, twere best it were done quickly.
(It's not often that you hear coppers quoting Shakespeare.)
Q: Did the Home Secretary not give you the support to stay on?
Stephenson says he has received "the full support" of the home secretary, the mayor, the chairman of the Metropolitan police authority (MPA) and the prime minister.
But when he became aware of the Champneys story, his mind changed. He does not think he has done anything wrong. But, on Saturday, when he became aware that there was a link between Champneys and Neil Wallis, the former News of the World deputy editor, he realised it would become a "very difficult" story.
It was his decision to quit. He took it against the advice of his colleagues, he says, and against the advice of his wife.
Boris Johnson was "very cross". He did not want Stephenson to go.
12.13pm: Vaz is now asking about the line in Stephenson's resignation statement about David Cameron employing Andy Coulson.
Q: Were you upset at the fact that you were treated differently to the prime minister?
Stephen says:
I was taking no such swipe at the prime minister ... I do agree with the prime minister when he says this was something entirely different.
Wallis was not employed to be Stephenson's personal assistant. He played a minor role. That is one of the differences.
(I don't know whether Stephenson intends this to be damning, but it is. Coulson played a much more important part in Cameron's office than Wallis did in Stephenson's.)
Stephenson says Wallis's name was never associated with phone hacking.
12.17pm: Mark Reckless is asking the questions now. He asks again about Stephenson's resignation statement. Stephenson says he made "no personal attack" on the prime minister.
Stephenson says when he became commissioner he asked for detailed briefings on various cases. But he did not ask for a detailed briefing on phone hacking.
Q: You implied in your statement that the prime minister was "compromised"?
Stephenson says:
I certainly did not imply that the prime minister could not be trusted at all.
He says he did not tell Cameron about Neil Wallis because he had no reason to think he was associated with phone hacking. This was "a very minor contract" involving someone working part-time.
Stephenson says a senior official in Number 10 advised that the prime minister should not be "compromised".
(That's new. The MPs seems surprised. Stephenson says John Yates can say more.)
Q: But politicians were told about the arrest of Damian Green in advance?
Stephenson said he might have told the mayor about the Green arrest in advance. That was to ensure the mayor could answer questions if asked about it.
Keith Vaz asks if Sue Akers, who is now heading the phone hacking investigation, tells Stephenson who she is going to arrest.
Stephenson says he learnt about the arrest of Rebekah Brooks a day or two in advance.
12.23pm: Michael Ellis, a Conservative, asks Stephenson why the home secretary was not told about the Neil Wallis contract.
Stephenson says that he first heard Wallis's name mentioned in connection with the phone hacking story in January 2011. He was off work at the time, and read Wallis's name in a newspaper story about the matter.
12.26pm: Bridget Phillipson, a Labour MP, suggests the Met should have told the Home Office about Neil Wallis's work for the Met sooner.
Stephenson says he put protecting the integrity of the police investigation ahead of protecting his own reputation.
12.30pm: Julian Huppert, a Lib Dem MP, asks what can be done to restore morale in the Met.
Stephenson says there is "great pride" in many areas of the force.
Operation Weeting must restore the public's faith in the force, he says.
Nicola Blackwood, a Conservative, says the Information Commissioner's Office produced a report in 2006 showing that journalists were buying private information obtained illegally. Shouldn't that have alerted you to the fact that Neil Wallis might have been involved in phone hacking.
Stephenson says that report (What Price Privacy Now? - pdf) mentioned various news organisations. Wallis was not named in that.
Stephenson becomes tongue-tied and talks and says "when I became prime minister". Then he jokes about being not ready for that office yet.
12.35pm: Labour's Steve McCabe asks if Stephenson was surprised that no one at the Met told him that Neil Wallis had a business connection with Champneys.
Stephenson says he does not see how anyone at the Met would have known this.
Q: Don't you think someone should have pointed this out to you?
Stephenson says he does not know that anyone knew Wallis was connected with Champneys.
Stephenson says he was recovering from a serious injury. He was in a wheelchair, and in pain.
Q: But Wallis had a business connection with Champneys. Was it appropriate to accept hospitality there? Wouldn't you expect your senior officers to know this?
No, says Stephenson.
Q: Even though one of your senior officers describes Wallis as a personal friend?
Stephenson says the MPs will have to asks John Yates (the friend McCable was referring to) about this. He thinks Yates would not have known about Wallis's link to Champneys.
12.39pm: Stephenson says it was "damnedly unlucky" that Neil Wallis was connected with Champneys.
Labour's David Winnick asks whether questions would have been asked if a junior officer had received hospitality worth £12,000.
Stephenson says questions would have been asked if there was no good reason for this, and if it had been done secretly. But Stephenson declared the hospitality he received. And he had a good reason to accept it.
12.41pm: James Clappison is asking the questions now.
Q: Why did you have to have so many dinners with the News of the World? And seven or eight with Neil Wallis?
Stephenson says the commissioner has to meet the media to discuss what the Met does. But "we need to change the way we do it", he says.
He asked for Elizabeth Filkin to come in and advise the Met on this.
Stephenson says 17% of his press contacts related to the News of the World. But the NoW has 16% of all newspaper readers. Some 30% of his contacts were with News International. But News International has 42% of the market.
Q: You had a meeting with the Guardian and told them there coverage of phone hacking was misleading. Is that correct?
Yes, says Stephenson. In December 2009.
Q: Didn't you review the phone hacking case yourself before making your case to the Guardian?
Stephenson says he relied on what he was told by his senior officers like John Yates. He wanted the Guardian to accept the assurances he had been given. The Guardian did not accept those assurances. So Stephenson suggested to the editor of the Guardian that he should speak to John Yates.
12.47pm: Keith Vaz says Andy Coulson must have known that Neil Wallis worked for the Met.
Stephenson says he cannot recall meeting Coulson before David Cameron became prime minister.
He never met Coulson and Wallis together, Stephenson says.
Stephenson says Wallis was not working directly for him. Wallis had a "minor, part-time role".
Q: Were you consulted about Neil Wallis's appointment?
Yes, says Stephenson. He says he now regrets the appointment.
Stephenson says he told Dick Fedorcio that he needed extra support (because Fedorcio's deputy was off.)
Q: Did the Met ask Wallis to do this job?
You would have to ask Fedorcio, Stephenson says.
Q: Did you know that Neil Wallis's daughter worked for the Met?
Stephenson says he only found out about this at the weekend.
12.52pm: Mark Reckless, a Conservative, asks if Stephenson put pressure on the Guardian's Alan Rusbridger to lay off the phone hacking story.
Stephenson says he was told there was nothing new in the story.
Q: You told the the Guardian their story was incorrect?
The Met were not engaged in a conspiracy, Stephenson says.
Lorraine Fullbrook, a Conservative, says Stephenson wrote to the Guardian's editor saying the phone hacking stories were misleading. Was Neil Wallis consulted about this?
No, says Stephenson. Stephenson says he has never had a conversation with Wallis about phone hacking.
Wallis was employed to give media support to Dick Fedorcio. Wallis did not get involved in the running of Stephenson's office.
1.03pm: Nicola Blackwood, a Conservative, is asking now about John Yates's relationship with Wallis. She quotes from this article in the Observer on Sunday.
The answer, say sources, is that they may have been blinded by friendship. "Yates thought Wallis was a fantastic guy and really one of the very best journalists around," said one source. "The strange thing is that Wallis was regarded as a monster by lots of people in the newsrooms he worked in, but Yates had the utmost respect for him.
Were some relationships clouded by friendship, she asks.
Stephenson says he has no reason to believe this.
1.08pm: James Clappison asks if there was a conflict of interest in asking John Yates to review the phone hacking case, given Yates's friendship with Neil Wallis
Stephenson says he did not know that Wallis was connected with phone hacking. He did not ask Yates to review the case. He asked Yates to look at the matter, because he (Stephenson) would have to make a statement about it.
1.08pm: Keith Vaz asks if Stephenson accepts that the original phone-hacking investigation was inadequate.
Stephenson says the man who ran the investigation, Peter Clarke, is a man "of great integrity".
Q: Are you implying that Andy Hayman (who gave evidence to the home affairs committee with Clarke) is not a man of great integrity?
Stephenson says he is not saying that. He mentions Clarke because he ran the original inquiry. Hayman did not run the original inquiry.
1.13pm: Labour's Alun Michael asks what John Yates was expected to do when he reviewed the phone hacking investigation in July 2009.
Stephenson says Yates was asked to see if there was any new information in the Guardian story. At the time Stephenson thought the original investigation had been carried out properly.
Q: In September 2010 we were asking if a new investigation was going on. John Yates was unable to answer.
Stephenson says Yates was conducting a "scoping" exercise, based on a story in the New York Times.
Keith Vaz says Yates briefed Boris Johnson at the time. That led Johnson to describe the story as "codswallop".
1.16pm: My colleague Lisa O'Carroll writes that News Corporation is dismissing reports that Rupert Murdoch is preparing to move sideways to allow one of his most trusted lieutenants take day-to-day charge of his global media empire in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.
As mentioned earlier, Bloomberg is reporting that News Corporation is "considering elevating" chief operating officer Chase Carey (left) to chief executive officer, in a move that would immediately raise questions about his children's chances to succeed him at the helm.
Sources familiar with the situation said: "It's not something in active discussion." They indicated that the last time job titles were formally discussed was when James Murdoch, who is currently in charge of his European operations, was promoted to a New York-based job.
1.19pm: Nicola Blackwood, a Conservative, says Peter Clarke told the committee last week that a lot of the evidence was not inspected thoroughly at the time of the original investigation because of a shortage of resources. Were you told this?
Stephenson says he was not told this in 2009.
Labour's Bridget Phillipson asks what Stephenson asked John Yates to do exactly when he told him to review the phone-hacking case in 2009.
Stephenson says: "I told him to have a look at it." He did not need to tell someone of Yates's experience exactly what to do.
Nicola Blackwood MP questions Sir Paul Stephenson. Photograph: BBC Q: Earlier you said that a No 10 official did not want Cameron compromised in relation to Neil Wallis.
Stephenson says he did not say that a senior official told him that he did not want Cameron compromised. He said that his position was "consistent" with the advice given by a senior No 10 official.
Q: Who was that?
Stephenson says they should take this up with John Yates. Keith Vaz says they will.
1.22pm: The hearing is already running more than half an hour behind schedule. We could well see a clash later between the home affairs committee and the culture committee, which starts at 2.30pm.
1.26pm: Nicola Blackwood is asking the questions again.
Q: Did you have any informal discussions with John Yates about his 2009 review of the phone hacking case?
No, says Stephenson. They just had a conversation on the telephone.
Labour's Alun Michael suggests that the Met operated as a series of "baronial empires". Senior officers could do what they want.
Stephenson says that might have happened in the past. But he suggests he addressed this problem.
Stephenson says 10 former members of the News of the World have worked in the press office at the Met.
1.29pm: Stephenson says he was not "pushed" when he stood down. That's it for Stephenson's evidence – Dick Fedorcio, director of public affairs at the Met, is giving evidence now.
1.30pm: Here are the key points from Sir Paul Stephenson's evidence.
• Stephenson said 10 former members of News International have worked at the Met.
• Stephenson said that a senior official in No 10 did not want David Cameron to be told about Neil Wallis's connection with the phone hacking inquiry in case that compromised Cameron. When pressed, he said that No 10 did not tell him this. He found out that his view - which was that Cameron should be protected - was shared by someone at No 10. Stephenson did not name the official, but he said John Yates knew more about this.
• Stephenson said he regretted the fact that the Met hired Neil Wallis.
• Stephenson said that he only found that that Wallis's daughter worked for the Met at the weekend.
• Stephenson said his decision to quit was an act of leadership. At the end of his evidence, he gave a closing statement describing his resignation as an act of leadership.
• Stephenson said Boris Johnson and other politicians did not want him to resign. Stephenson only decided to go after the story about Champneys appeared.
1.32pm: Paul Owen has been watching reaction to the Paul Stephenson hearing on Twitter.
Of Stephenson's insistence he was not taking a swipe at David Cameron's relationship to Andy Coulson in his resignation speech, my colleague Peter Walker tweets:
Still sounds like a swipe by Stephenson, just a more convoluted one #hacking
Neil McMahon adds:
They've got Stephenson cranky rather quickly. Augurs well for mild-mannered Rupert! #hacking
There is also much amusement at Stephenson's slip in referring to himself as prime minister instead of Met commissioner. And many tweeters are unimpressed by the quality of questioning. DannyDoubleD writes:
Pretty average questioning there. Need some experienced barristers or the like #notw
Alan Gillespie writes:
This cmtee needs to start asking relevant questions, its toothless #Stephenson #Hacking #NOtW
George Michael, who has been very vocal on Twitter about the demise of the News of the World, is also watching today's hearings. He tweets:
Paul Stephenson sounding less convincing by the minute. He seems to have not 'been informed' about anything at all....good job committee!
Meanwhile, William Hill has tweeted that it is offering 16/1 that David Cameron is no longer Tory leader by midnight on Sunday.
Looking ahead to this afternoon, Andrew Pryde tweets:
Willing Rupe to shout: 'You can't handle the truth!' to startled committee. #NOTW
And a Press Gazette/ID Factor survey has revealed the damage the News of the World scandal has caused to other newspapers. Thirteen per cent of those surveyed said they would be less likely to be the Sun in light of the phone-hacking affair, but 21% said they were less likely to buy any newspaper because of the scandal.
Forty-nine per cent of those who described themselves as News of the World readers said they would buy another newspaper now - with one third of those going to the Mail on Sunday and one third going to the Sunday Mirror.
1.33pm: The next witness is Dick Fedorcio, director of public affairs at the Met.
Nick Davies has an article in today's paper highlighting some of the questions the committee will want to ask him.
• Was Scotland Yard's failure to get to the truth in the original investigation in 2006 simply a case of incompetence (which is, in effect, their defence), or did the Yard deliberately cut short that inquiry as a favour to powerful friends at News International? MPs will want to know whether Fedorcio formally or informally had any influence over the decision.
• Was Scotland Yard's rapid decision to refuse to reopen the case in July 2009 influenced in any way by its close links with the News of the World? In relation to that controversial decision, was there any form of contact between Fedorcio and anyone at News International?
• Did Fedorcio play any role at all in the subsequent police statements to parliament, press and public which, we now know, included falsehoods, half-truths and evasions?
1.36pm: Keith Vaz opens the questioning. He asks why Dick Fedorcio decided to hire Neil Wallis.
Fedorcio says he only found out today that he had been reported to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. He does not want to prejudice that.
Vaz says all the witnesses are under investigation by the IPCC. They are answering questions.
Q: The News of the World was investigated in 2006. Why did you decide to hire Wallis?
Fedorcio says he needed help. He had been looking for someone with the right "background and knowledge". He needed "a retainer contract" that would give him access to someone at short notice.
Neil Wallis's name was put to him, Fedorcio says.
He knew Wallis as a professional colleague. "But he is not a personal friend that I socialise with outside work," Fedorcio says.
Q: When did he get the contract?
It was awarded September 2009.
Vaz says that was eight weeks after John Yates reviewed the phone hacking case.
1.43pm: Mark Reckless, a Conservative, asks why the Met has so many press officers.
Fedorcio says the media want information. If the press officers were not there to do that job, police officers would have to answer queries. Press officers are cheaper than police officers, he says.
Julian Huppert, a Lib Dem, says the directorate of public affairs had declared no hospitality since 2009.
Fedorcio says until recently only the commissioner's and the deputy commissioner's hospitality register was published on the website. That is now changing. The information will be published in due course.
1.44pm: My colleague Jane Martinson is at the culture, media and sport committee waiting for the Murdochs. She writes:
The Wilson room is one of smallest rooms for select committee hearings – only 40 or so spaces. I'm (un)lucky 13.
Looks like no one at the front of queue from the Times, though AA Gill (Sunday Times) is number 14. Ann Treneman just tried to queue-jump, or could have been confused by the labyrinthine rules policed by a constable in the serjeant at arms's office.
Harry Evans, the former editor of Times when Murdoch bought it, is second in line, having flown in from New York yesterday.
Jemima Khan was allowed in as press photographers mobbed her outside, but she can't queue jump. It's a tricky job trying to police the line as huge numbers of public are interested – queueing since 7am.
There are two overspill rooms, the Boothroyd first and then (fabulously) the Thatcher room. Nick Davies was here at 10.30am and is one of the lucky 15 so far. It's unclear whether the Murdochs will be ushered in through some special way or will come in the same way as everybody else.
1.47pm: Lorraine Fullbrook, a Conservative, asks if Wallis's contract went out to tender.
Fedorcio says he got three quotes. Wallis's was the cheapest.
Q: But, out of the 45 people in your department, could no one else have done this?
No, says Fedorcio. There was no one with the right experience.
Q: Isn't it the case that you employed him to repair relations with the News of the World after the phone hacking affair?
No, says Fedorcio. That's not true.
He says he did not discuss phone hacking with Wallis.
1.49pm: Labour's Steve McCabe asks if Fedorcio will supply the committee with details of the contract that went out to tender.
Fedorcio says he prepared a short specification that he emailed to three people.
Q: Is that available?
Fedorcio says it is with the IPCC now.
1.52pm: Nicola Blackwood asks why Fedorcio thought it would be a good idea to get John Yates to do "due diligence" on Wallis when Yates had been investigating the News of the World.
Fedorcio says he trusted Yates's judgment.
Q: Did you know Yates had been a friend of Wallis's since 1998?
Fedorcio says he did not know that they had been friends that long. He knew Wallis was a contact of Yates's.
Q: Didn't you think that made him unsuitable to vet Wallis?
Fedorcio says he had no reason to doubt Yates's integrity.
Vaz asks if Fedorcio would have appointed Wallis knowing what he does now.
"Certainly not," says Fedorcio.
1.54pm: News Corporation sources say Rupert Murdoch will deliver an apology to victims of phone hacking if he is allowed to by the culture select committee this afternoon.
The 80-year-old media mogul has prepared a short opening statement, which he hopes to read out to the committee when the hearing begins. Advisers to the Murdochs expect Rupert to be contrite throughout, allowing attention to concentrate on the hacking issue.
James Murdoch will not make any opening statement - but he is expected to contribute throughout. The concern about James - who can have a short fuse - is whether he will be antagonised by the committee, several of whose members will be hoping to trip him up. If Rupert remains apologetic, and James clear and calm, News Corp will feel it has had as good a day as can be expected.
1.57pm: Mark Reckless asks if Fedorcio was particularly close to News of the World or News International.
Fedorcio says he has read that suggestion. He is "dismayed" about that. It was suggested he placed stories with them. But he placed stories with various papers.
Q: Did you know Wallis's daughter worked at the Met?
Not until yesterday, says Fedorci.
Keith Vaz asks if Wallis was offered a second contract with the Met.
Fedorcio says the first contract ran from 1 October 2009 to 31 March 2010. Wallis was then offered an extension until September. At that point Fedorcio considered offering Wallis a further extension. But this coincided with the New York Times publishing new revelations about the News of the World. Fedorcio thought it would not be right to extend the contract, but Wallis had also come to the same view.
Vaz asks when Fedorcio first found out about phone hacking.
Fedorcio says he had a dinner with News International in 2006 with Andy Hayman. But at that point Fedorcio did not know about phone hacking.
1.58pm: Keith Vaz ends the session with Dick Fedorcio. He says he is not necessarily any clearer than he was when he started. John Yates is up next.
2.00pm: Here are the main points from Fedorcio's evidence:
• Fedorcio said he did not discuss phone hacking with Neil Wallis.
• He said he now regrets hiring Wallis as a PR consultant.
• He said that the decision to terminate Wallis's contract was taken after the New York Times published fresh revelations about phone hacking.
1.59pm: Here's a story on the public queuing for eight hours to see the Murdochs.
2.04pm: Twitter users seem to like Keith Vaz's comment that Dick Fedorcio's evidence leaves us no clearer than when we started. And Robert Scott tweets:
How does someone like Fedorcio become a PR person! Useless! #fedorcio #hackgate
2.06pm: John Yates is giving evidence now. Keith Vaz asks him about his decision to resign. Yates says that recently he has not been able to focus on his counter-terrorism job.
Q: Fedorcio says that he decided to employ Neil Wallis after you conducted "due diligence". What do you say to that?
Yates says that is "slightly over-egging the pudding". He sought assurances from Wallis before the contract was let in the matters investigated by Nick Davies that could embarrass the Met. He was told there was not. That was not "due diligence". Due diligence was a matter for Fedorcio.
This is significant.
• Two senior figures in the Met - John Yates and Dick Fedorcio - are both saying the other was responsible for carrying out 'due diligence' regarding the employment of Neil Wallis.
2.08pm: Yates says he did not have a "scintilla" of doubt about taking on Wallis.
Q: Did you help Wallis's daughter get a job at the Met?
Yates says this is being investigated by the IPCC.
I simply acted as a postbox.
Yates says he was "completely equivocal" as to whether Wallis's daughter got the job. He passed on her CV. There is only one email. It shows that he asked about her chances because he said he wanted to "manage expectations".
Yates is now being asked about his friendship with Wallis.
Yates says be became a friend of his. He has only been to his house once, before a football match. Their friendship mostly revolved around sport.
2.09pm: Jane Martinson at the media committee sends more. Harry Evans has been asked to be a witness so he is not here as a journalist, Jane reports, although obviously he will be writing for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He says he's going to update his book with chapter "paying tribute to the Guardian". Tom Watson has just gone in, and Rebekah Brooks has been spotted.
2.11pm: Television footage is already showing Rupert Murdoch arriving at Westminster for the hearing amid media reports that he may be replaced as chairman of News Corporation, as mentioned earlier.
2.13pm: Julian Huppert, a Lib Dem, suggests that Yates sending on a CV might have increased someone's chances of getting a job.
Yates says the head of HR would have handled the matter with integrity.
He says he is sure that this happens in the House of Commons.
2.14pm: Keith Vaz asks about Sir Paul Stephenson's evidence, and the suggestion that an official at No 10 wanted David Cameron protected.
Yates says there are rare occasions when prime ministers are told about operational matters.
In September 2010 there was an offer to a senior official in No 10 that Yates would brief him about phone hacking, in particular what Yates's "scoping" exercise involved.
That official was Ed Llewellyn, the chief of staff, Yates says.
That offer was "properly" rejected, Yates goes on.
It was an offer to explain police protocol.
• Ed Llewellyn, David Cameron's chief of staff, turned down the chance to have a briefing on phone hacking, Yates revealed. This is what Sir Paul Stephenson was referring to earlier when he talked about an official wanting to protect David Cameron. But Yates did not say why Llewellyn turned down the offer. But he said the offer was "properly" rejected.
2.17pm: John Yates says that, if he had known in 2009 that News International had covered up phone hacking, he would have made a different decision.
In 2009 there was no evidence that News of the World executives had covered up phone hacking. Sometimes police officers are jailed for corruption. That does not mean the Met is corrupt, he says.
2.24pm: Bridget Phillipson asks about the Ed Llewellyn offer.
Yates says that in his reply Llewellyn said that he did not want to take up the offer and that he would be "grateful" if the matter was not raised.
This implies that Llewellyn did not want Yates to discuss it with David Cameron.
2.25pm: The culture committee hearing with Rupert and James Murdoch is due to start in 10 minutes. It will clash with the end of Yates, I think, but my colleague Matt Wells will be covering the start of the Murdoch one while I finish listening to Yates.
2.26pm: Back to Yates. He says he has accepted that the Met's approach to the victims of phone hacking has not been satisfactory.
He says that when he reviewed the phone hacking case in 2009, he was told that the original evidence had been inspected by counsel.
He says that the review was a response to "an article in a newspaper". It was not as if a body had been found, he says.
2.27pm: We will have a live feed of the Murdochs and Brooks before the culture committee at the top of this page – please press refresh now to view it.
2.34pm: Yates says he is aware of the meeting between in 2002 Dick Fedorcio and Rebekah Brooks about the News of the World being involved in surveillance of an officer investigating a murder. But he did not know the outcome of that meeting, he said.
2.35pm: The Murdochs are appearing at the culture, media and sport committee.
2.38pm: The Murdochs wanted to make an opening statement, but John Whittingdale has refused permission. And as the committee gets under way, there is a small protest in the back of the room, and Whittingdale asks for the protesters to be removed.
2.39pm: Rupert Murdoch interrupts his son to say:
This is the most humble day of my life.
2.40pm: Matthew Taylor writes that David Cameron's chief of staff Ed Llewellyn appears to be under increasing pressure after John Yates revealed he was the "senior official" who asked the Met not to brief the prime minister on the hacking scandal in September 2010.
Last week it emerged that Llewellyn also failed to pass Guardian warnings about former News of the World editor Andy Coulson over hacking and his connections to Jonathan Rees, a private detective then facing charges for conspiracy to murder, to Cameron. Despite the warnings Llewellyn took the judgment that the information was already substantially contained in news reports in the public domain.
Today Met commissioner Paul Stephenson said a senior official in No 10 had advised the Met not to inform the prime minister about the police's decision to hire former NoW deputy editor Neil Wallis. Yates confirmed Llewellyn was the adviser in question and said Llewellyn told him it was not appropriate for him to brief the PM on the hacking investigation, adding: "And I'd be grateful if it wasn't raised."
2.42pm: Before Rupert Murdoch interrupted his son James, John Whittingdale asked James to what extent parliament was misled. Murdoch started with an apology to victims of illegal phone hacking. Before he could get onto the meat of his answer, his father, sitting to his left, interjected to say: "This is the most humble day of my life."
Back with Yates at the home affairs committee, Michael Ellis, a Conservative, asks if Yates is surprised about suspects not wanting to cooperate with the police.
Yates says he has already told the committee about the difficulty in obtaining "production orders" to get corporations to disclose evidence. The police need evidence that a firm is failing to cooperate, he says.
Q: Who recommended Neil Wallis to Fedorcio?
Yates says he cannot recall how Fedorcio ran the process.
Vaz asks if Yates suggested his name.
Yates says he cannot recall. It is "possible" that Yates did suggest his name. Wallis was just the type of person they needed.
Q: You have acted as a "postbox" for Wallis's daughter. How often have you done that?
Yates says he has done that a few times.
2.47pm: Still with Yates, the former assistant commissioner says an article in the Observer this weekend about his friendship with Wallis was "codswallop".
He says he would be "pretty surprised" if Fedorcio did not know about Yates's friendship with Wallis.
Yates says that, if the corruption cases referred to the police are properly investigated, some officers will go to jail.
2.48pm: At the culture committee, John Whittingdale questions James Murdoch on the evidence given to the committee in 2007 by News International executives, who said there was no evidence that anyone else had indulged in phone hacking apart from the royal reporter Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire. James Murdoch says the company relied on the police having closed the investigation and their repeated assertions that they had no new evidence; on the PCC report that said the same; and on its own legal advice, which said there was "no additional illegality" beyond the two convictions.
The 2007 committee inquiry heard from News International legal manager Tom Crone; former executive chairman Les Hinton; former NoW editor Andy Coulson; managing editor Stuart Kuttner, and Colin Myler, the
paper's then-editor.
2.53pm: James Murdoch denies that Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton knew about phone hacking when they resigned.
Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has pursued the hacking affair doggedly, starts with Rupert Murdoch, pointing him to past comments that he had a "zero tolerance" attitude to wrongdoing. He must have been misled, Watson says. "I don't know – that is what the police are investigating." He accepts that he was misled.
2.54pm: At the home affairs committee, John Yates has now finished his evidence. Keith Vaz asked how long evidence was kept.
Yates said he thought it was six or seven years. But if a case was a matter of national importance, evidence is kept in perpetuity.
Q: Did you know about the arrest of Rebekah Brooks in advance?
No, says Yates.
Q: What are your future plans?
Yates says he is accountable. It is time for others to "stand up" and be accountable.
Q: Who do you mean?
News International, says Yates.
Q: Should News International take the responsibility that you and Sir Paul Stephenson have taken? Should more people resign?
Yates says that is a matter for them.
Here are the key points from Yates's evidence:
• Yates has revealed that Ed Llewellyn, David Cameron's chief of staff, turned down the chance to have a briefing on the phone hacking in September last year.
• Yates has denied securing a job at the Met for Neil Wallis's daughter. He just passed on a CV, he said. "I simply acted as a postbox."
• Yates has insisted that it was Dick Fedorcio's decision to offer Wallis a job at the Met. Playing down the importance of the advice he gave, he says that he did not provide "due diligence".
• But Yates also has also said that it was "possible" that he suggested to Fedorcio that he should hire Wallis as a PR adviser. Yates said he could not remember exactly who suggested Wallis's name first.
• Yates has played down the closeness of his friendship with Wallis. It mostly revolved around sport, he said.
2.56pm: Tom Watson is now pursuing Rupert Murdoch over a civil case involving Neville Thurlbeck, former chief reporter of the News of the World, and now a suspect in the hacking case, in which Thurlbeck was accused of blackmail. Murdoch says he had "never heard" of Thurlbeck, and says he knows nothing about the blackmail case.
2.57pm: Tom Watson is engaging in a thorough and detailed questioning of Rupert Murdoch of the details of the phone hacking investigations carried out internally at News International - who knew what, and when. Rupert Murdoch, who is 80, appears to be having considerable trouble following the questions and finding appropriate answers. There are long pauses between the end of Watson's questions and Murdoch's answers.
2.59pm: My colleagues on the video desk send this video of the scenes outside parliament today.
3.03pm: My colleague Matt Wells has been covering the opening of the Murdoch hearing. But this is
Andrew Sparrow taking over again now.
Tom Watson is still questioning Murdoch Sr.
Q: When were you informed about the payments made to Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford?
No, says Murdoch. Murdoch Jr offers to answer.
Rupert Murdoch became aware after the settlement became public, says James.
Watson says other people will asks JM about this.
He carries on questioning RM.
Q: At what point did you find out that criminality was endemic?
Endemic is a wide-ranging word, RM says. And it is important not to prejudice legal cases.
I was absolutely shocked and appalled and ashamed by the Milly Dowler case … Eight days after I was graciously received by the Dowlers.
3.05pm: Rupert Murdoch says that he was not told of the crucial £700,000 settlement with Gordon Taylor, the former chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, which James Murdoch says it was below the "approval threshold" required to inform Rupert Murdoch.
3.07pm: Rupert Murdoch is asked why he has had to enter Downing Street through the back door when visitng Downing Street. He says that has been the decision of the prime minister's staff.
3.09pm: Asked about allegations in the Daily Mirror that News of the World journalists hacked into the phones of 9/11 victims, Rupert Murdoch says:
We have seen no evidence of that at all and as far as we know the FBI haven't either. If they do we will treat it exactly the same way as we do here.
He says if he does see evidence he will start up an investigation.
3.13pm: Some more detail from the previous exchanges.
Q: When did you realise a parliamentary committee had accused your executives of collective amnesia?
RM does not know.
JM offers to answer. But Watson says RM is responsible for corporate governance. If he does not know the answer to questions, that is revealing.
Q: Why was no one fired in April, when the company took responsibility for large-scale phone hacking?
RM says people in the company were guilty. "We have to find them and we have to deal with them appropriately."
JM says most of those responsible had long since left the company.
Q: Why did you decide to risk the jobs of 200 people before pointing the finger at those responsible for running the company - your son and Rebekah Brooks?
RM says he is making every efforts to find jobs for those in other parts of the company.
Q: Did you close the paper down because of the criminality?
RM replies:
We felt ashamed of what had happened … We had broken our trust with our readers.
Q: Are you aware of other types of covert surveillance being used by your papers?
RM says all papers use investigators. He does not think his journalists have done so illegally.
Q: When did you first meet Alex Marunchak?
RM says he does not recall meeting him. But he might have shaken his hand walking through the office.
Labour's Jim Sheridan is asking the questions now. He is questioning RM.
Q: Why did you go into Downing Street through the back door when you met David Cameron after the election?
RM says he was asked to go in that way. I do what I'm told, he says.
RM says he has been asked many times by Gordon Brown.
Q: Through the back door?
Yes, says RM.
RM says he never guaranteed anyone the support of his papers.
His decision to support Labour 13 years ago cost 200,000 in circulation (in sales of the Sun, I presume - he does not clarify).
Sheridan asks about Tony Blair's decision to fly half way around the world to speak to a Murdoch conference.
RM replies:
That was something Mr Cameron arranged … Mr Campbell.
(Interesting to note that he gets David Cameron and Alastair Campbell confused. Not something either man would be happy with, I guess.)
3.19pm: Jim Sheridan is still speaking.
Q: Do you accept that, ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco?
No, says RM.
• Rupert Murdoch denies overall responsibility for the phone hacking affair.
Q: Who is responsible?
RM says the people he trusted, and the people they trusted.
He says he worked with Les Hinton for 52 years. He would trust him with his life.
(It is not clear from this whether he thinks he has now been let down by Hinton, or whether he is saying he still trusts Hinton, but that Hinton was let down by others.)
Q: Why has your company not provided the internal emails that could help Tommy Sheridan's appeal?
JM answers this one. He says he has no knowledge of this.
3.20pm: Therese Coffey, a Conservative, is asking the questions now. She asks James Murdoch about the payment to Gordon Taylor.
JM says this related to a voicemail message that was intercepted and that was part of the evidence in the case that led to the conviction of Glenn Mulcaire.
If it went to trial, the company would have lost, JM says, because the facts were not in dispute.
If it had gone to court, it could have cost the company between £500,000 and £1m.
JM says he had not reason to believe that the issue was "anything other than a settled matter".
JM says he said it was OK to settle this. But he did not get involved in the details.
RM says his son had only been with the company for a few weeks at this point.
JM corrects his dad. It was actually a few months, he says.
3.22pm: This is the opening statement Rupert Murdoch would have made to the committee had he been allowed:
Mr. Chairman. Select Committee Members:
With your permission, I would like to read a short statement.
My son and I have come here with great respect for all of you, for Parliament and for the people of Britain whom you represent.
This is the most humble day of my career.
After all that has happened, I know we need to be here today.
Before going further, James and I would like to say how sorry we are for what has happened – especially with regard to listening to the voicemail of victims of crime.
My company has 52,000 employees. I have led it for 57 years and I have made my share of mistakes. I have lived in many countries, employed thousands of honest and hardworking journalists, owned nearly 200 newspapers and followed countless stories about people and families around the world.
At no time do I remember being as sickened as when I heard what the Dowler family had to endure – nor do I recall being as angry as when I was told that the News of the World could have compounded their distress. I want to thank the Dowlers for graciously giving me the opportunity to apologise in person.
I would like all the victims of phone hacking to know how completely and deeply sorry I am. Apologising cannot take back what has happened. Still, I want them to know the depth of my regret for the horrible invasions into their lives.
I fully understand their ire. And I intend to work tirelessly to merit their forgiveness.
I understand our responsibility to cooperate with today's session as well as with future inquiries. We will respond to your questions to the best of our ability and follow up if we are not capable of answering anything today. Please remember that some facts and information are still being uncovered.
We now know that things went badly wrong at the News of the World. For a newspaper that held others to account, it failed when it came to itself. The behaviour that occurred went against everything that I stand for. It not only betrayed our readers and me, but also the many thousands of magnificent professionals in our other divisions around the world.
So, let me be clear in saying: invading people's privacy by listening to their voicemail is wrong. Paying police officers for information is wrong. They are inconsistent with our codes of conduct and neither has any place, in any part of the company I run.
But saying sorry is not enough. Things must be put right. No excuses. This is why News International is cooperating fully with the police whose job it is to see that justice is done. It is our duty not to prejudice the outcome of the legal process. I am sure the committee will understand this.
I wish we had managed to see and fully solve these problems earlier. When two men were sent to prison in 2007, I thought this matter had been settled. The police ended their investigations and I was told that News International conducted an internal review. I am confident that when James later rejoined News Corporation he thought the case was closed too. These are subjects you will no doubt wish to explore today.
This country has given me, our companies and our employees many opportunities. I am grateful for them. I hope our contribution to Britain will one day also be recognised.
Above all, I hope that, through the process that is beginning with your questions today, we will come to understand the wrongs of the past, prevent them from happening again and, in the years ahead, restore the nation's trust in our company and in all British journalism.
I am committed to doing everything in my power to make this happen.
Thank you. We are happy to answer your questions.
3.24pm: The pre-committee News Corporation strategy is becoming clear, Matt Wells writes.
James Murdoch appears to have been briefed to talk as much as possible and to keep the interventions of Rupert Murdoch to a minimum. The role of James Murdoch is to "translate" his father's curt responses into comprehensive replies. He might as well precede every answer with: "What my father means to say ... "
Fortunately the committee members are having none of it: Tom Watson in particular was determined to keep the focus on Rupert Murdoch, who as the chairman and CEO of News Corporation was in charge of corporate governance. The problem for Rupert Murdoch is that he is old and frail, he has difficulty hearing some of the questions, and he has little grasp of detail.
3.28pm: Therese Coffey is still questioning JM.
Q: What payments could executives like Rebekah Brooks sanction on their own?
JM says people like Brooks had budgets. As long as they stayed within those budgets, that would have been fine.
Q: How much has the company paid in out-of-court settlements?
JM says he does not have that figure. It is customary to reach out-of-court settlements.
Q: How do you pay people if they do not invoice you?
JM says in some instances it is appropriate for journalists or managers to use cash. But it is customary to record those payments.
Q: Are things like travellers' cheques used by your company?
JM says he does not have knowledge of that.
3.29pm: Here are the key parts of the statement Rupert Murdoch would have made at the beginning of the session had he been allowed:
My son and I have come here with great respect for all of you, for parliament and for the people of Britain whom you represent.
This is the most humble day of my career ...
My company has 52,000 employees. I have led it for 57 years and I have made my share of mistakes. I have lived in many countries, employed thousands of honest and hardworking journalists, owned nearly 200 newspapers and followed countless stories about people and families around the world.
At no time do I remember being as sickened as when I heard what the Dowler family had to endure – nor do I recall being as angry as when I was told that the News of the World could have compounded their distress. I want to thank the Dowlers for graciously giving me the opportunity to apologise in person.
I would like all the victims of phone hacking to know how completely and deeply sorry I am. Apologising cannot take back what has happened. Still, I want them to know the depth of my regret for the horrible invasions into their lives ...
I wish we had managed to see and fully solve these problems earlier. When two men were sent to prison in 2007, I thought this matter had been settled. The police ended their investigations and I was told that News International conducted an internal review. I am confident that when James later rejoined News Corporation he thought the case was closed too. These are subjects you will no doubt wish to explore today.
This country has given me, our companies and our employees many opportunities. I am grateful for them. I hope our contribution to Britain will one day also be recognised.
3.30pm: James Murdoch says there are no immediate plans to open a new Sunday tabloid – although "we leave all options open".
3.32pm: RM says Britain does benefit from having a competitive press. It makes society transparent. "That is sometimes very inconvenient to people," he says. But the country is stronger for that.
3.33pm: When John Whittingdale asked if there were plans for a new Sunday tabloid from News International, Rupert and James Murdoch both, at much the same time, said no. Eventually James said that there are no plans for those. He said it has been discussed. But it is not a priority.
3.36pm: JM says that, knowing what he knows now, he would still have wanted to settle the Gordon Taylor case, as he did in 2009. But he would have launched the internal investigation into what went wrong at the same time if he had known then what he knows now.
3.38pm: Wall Street trading began just as the Murdochs sat down, and my colleague Graeme Wearden has been watching the reaction to the hearing:
News Corporation shares staged an early rally in New York, gaining more than 4%. The A-shares (generally owned by ordinary investors) hit a high of $15.67, although dropped back slightly as the hearing has progressed (up 3.57% at pixel time).
Is this a vote of confidence in Rupert Murdoch's performance? Hard to say, but it's worth noting that News Corp's Australian-listed shares spiked early this morning following a report that chief operating officer Chase Carey was being lined up to replace Murdoch senior as chief executive officer. They then slipped back after one board member offered Rupert his full support. So a rallying News Corp share price may not be a great sign for its founder.
Also, even at today's highs the News Corp share price is still 13% lower than before the phone-hacking crisis broke.
3.43pm: Adrian Sanders, a Liberal Democrat, is asking the questions now.
Q: What advice did Colin Myler and Tom Crone give you before you settled the Gordon Taylor case.
JM says he has already covered this.
Q: Did you know the case involved criminal behaviour?
JM says he did.
Q: Did you see the external advice that Myler and Crone had?
No, says JM. He relied on what he was told by his executives.
Q: Did you question the amount paid, when the record amount made in relation to a privacy claim was £60,000?
JM says the £60,000 figure came from the Max Mosley case, which took place afterwards. At the time he was advised that the paper could be liable for damages of £250,000.
Q: Why was Tom Crone asked to leave News International?
JM says Crone was involved in the News of the World. The management believed it was time for him to go. JM was not directly involved in that decision.
Q: Did News International subsidise Andy Coulson's salary after he left the company. (There have been claims that the company topped up Coulson's salary when he was working in Downing Street.)
JM says he has no knowledge of this.
Q: Were you guilty of "wilful blindness"?
JM says he does not know the term.
Rupert interrupts to say:
I have heard that term before, and we were not ever guilty of that.
3.46pm: Philip Davies, a Conservative, is asking the questions now.
Q: What advice did you have about appearing here today?
JM says they were advised essentially to tell the truth.
Q: How often do you speak to your editors?
RM says he sometimes rings the editor of the News of the World on a Saturday to find out what they are doing. He always rings the editor of the Sunday Times, but he stresses he is not interfering.
I'm not really in touch.
RM says if there is an editor he is most closely in touch with it's the editor of the Wall Street Journal, because they work in the same building.
Q: Do you speak to the editor of the Sun twice a day?
No, says RM.
3.47pm: Dan Sabbagh, the Guardian's head of media, is providing live analysis of the session as it happens here. Dan says "the great old man of newspapers looked hopelessly out of touch in the early stages of the father and son grilling in front of MPs today".
There were the marathon pauses; the one word answers; the look, again and again of mystification. He tried, several times, to defer to James, who clearly had plenty of answers at his finger tips. His hand beat the desk several times to emphasise the occasional long answer. But above all, Rupert Murdoch knew nothing about phone hacking - and he didn't look like he was acting either.
3.49pm: Davies is still asking the questions.
Q: Surely the £700,000 payment to Gordon Taylor came up? Wouldn't you have expected the editor of the NoW to mention that?
RM says he would have spoken to him at least once a month.
Q: So what would you discuss?
"What's doing," says Rupert.
3.52pm: The News of the World had a "contract with Max Clifford", says Rupert Murdoch. If so, that's new. Or has he misunderstood?
3.55pm: James Murdoch says payments were made to Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire after their convictions.
I was very surprised to find that the company had made certain contributions to legal fees. I was surprised. I was very surprised.
3.58pm: More on the preceding exchanges, with questions from Philip Davies.
Q: Did you overpay Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford?
JM says he is not sure about this.
In relation to Clifford, RM says one factor was that Clifford had a contract cancelled by Andy Coulson.
Q: Isn't the size of the Gordon Taylor payment suspicious?
JM says these are big numbers. But he is not a lawyer.
Q: Did News International pay Clive Goodman's legal fees at his trial?
JM says he does not have first-hand knowledge of this.
It is customary with employees to pay their legal expenses, he says.
Q: Goodman employed one of the most expensive QCs in the country. He was pleading guilty. Given that he was pleading guilty to an offence that would lead to summary dismissal, why on earth would News International pay his legal fees?
JM says he has no knowledge of this. He has been surprised to find that it is sometimes customary to make contributions to the legal costs of defendants or co-defendants.
Q: Were any payments made subsequently to Clive Goodman or Glenn Mulcaire after their conviction?
JM says that is a good question. He was "very surprised" to find the company had made contributions to legal settlements. They were done in accordance with legal counsel.
Q: Who signed them off?
JM says he does not know.
Q: Would it have been the managing editor?
RM intervenes. It would not have had anything to do with the managing editors.
Q: Above or below the managing editor?
Above, says RM.
JM says it would have been on legal advice.
Q: Was it Les Hinton?
RM says: "It could have been."
But it would have been on the advice of the chief legal manager.
Q: Who decided to get rid of Tom Crone?
JM says Rebekah Brooks took the decision.
4.00pm: Q: Why did Les Hinton resign?
JM takes this one. He says Hinton resigned "sadly" after Brooks resigned because he was in charge of the company during this period.
Q: Why did you you not accept Brooks's first offer to resign?
RM says: "Because I trusted her." He still trusts her.
Q: So why did she resign?
Eventually she insisted, RM says. She was in such "anguish", Rupert Murdoch says.
4.01pm: Matt Wells writes that, under later questioning, James Murdoch has assumed control.
This hearing is crucial for him: there are suggestions that he could be asked to stand aside as non-executive chairman of BSkyB if he is seen to be engulfed by the phone hacking issue. But - in part because later questioners have not been as dogged as Watson - Murdoch Jr is breezing through the answers. He's appearing humble, regularly expressing regret and apologising. He has adopted a tone of helpful contrition - appearing more like a Church of England parson than the brittle, short-tempered man that those who work with him would find hard to recognise. And Rupert Murdoch hasn't said much for a while: good move, as News Corporation stock is up 3%.
4.04pm: Davies is still asking questions.
Q: Was the News of the World sacrificed to protect Rebekah Brooks? And do you regret that?
RM says he regrets "the fate of people who will not be able to find work".
RM says Brooks's resignation and the closure of the News of the World were not related.
Q: But you said protecting Brooks was your "priority"?
RM says he is not sure that he did say that. He came out of his house and 20 microphones were stuck in his face. He's not sure what he said.
4.08pm: Labour's Paul Farrelly is asking questions now.
Q: Have you been paying legal fees for Glenn Mulcaire during the course of the civil actions?
JM says he does not know the details, but some fees have been paid. He was "surprised and shocked" when he learnt this.
Q: Can you understand why people would be shocked to hear that you are paying the legal fees of a convicted criminal? Aren't you trying to cover something up?
JM says that he has been advised that, in legal cases of this kind, sometimes these payments are appropriate.
Q: Isn't it time to stop paying Mulcaire's fees?
This question is directed at the elder Murdoch.
RM says he does not know the details of this arrangement.
Q: Will you stop paying these fees now?
RM says that, as long as that is not in contravention of a contract, he will give that agreement.
4.17pm: Paul Farrelly is still asking the questions.
Q: The Sunday Times said in a recent article that the new paperwork discovered by News International, and disclosed to the police, named various News International figures who were "gatekeepers" to the phone-hacking information. The article said they included Alex Marunchak, Greg Miskiw, Clive Goodman, Neville Thurlbeck and Ian Edmondson. Was that right?
JM says that he does not want to answer this for legal reasons.
4.19pm: Here's a piece by Peter Walker on 10 things we learned from the Met police at the home affairs committee earlier today.
4.20pm: Turning away from the Murdochs for a moment, Downing Street have just sent out the email exchange between John Yates and Ed Llewellyn that Yates mentioned in his evidence to the home affairs committee.
Here they are:
10 September 2010: John Yates to Ed Llewellyn:
Ed,
Hope all well.
I am coming over to see the PM at 12.30 today regarding [redacted: national security] matters. I am very happy to have a conversation in the margins around the other matters that have caught my attention this week if you thought it would be useful.
Best wishes,
John
Response: 10 September 2010: Ed Llewellyn to John Yates:
John -
Thanks - all well.
On the other matters that have caught your attention this week, assuming we are thinking of the same thing, I am sure you will understand that we will want to be able to be entirely clear, for your sake and ours, that we have not been in contact with you about this subject.
So I don't think it would really be appropriate for the PM, or anyone else at No 10, to discuss this issue with you, and would be grateful if it were not raised please.
But the PM looks forward to seeing you, with Peter Ricketts and Jonathan Evans, purely on [redacted: national security] matters at 1230.
With best wishes,
Ed
4.32pm: Back to the Murdochs. Paul Farrelly is still asking the questions.
Q: In 2009 News International told the culture committee about a search of company emails that showed no evidence of phone hacking. One of the people involved was Jon Chapman. Why has he left the company?
JM says Chapman and the company decided to part ways.
Q: When did Les Hinton first become aware of the collection of paperwork discovered by the company this year in the offices of Harbottle & Lewis that appears to reveal evidence of wrongdoing?
JM says he does not know when Hinton read it.
Q: Was Colin Myler aware of it?
JM says he cannot speak for Myler.
Q: And did Tom Crone know about it?
JM says he does not know.
Q: And when did Rebekah Brooks become aware of it?
JM says Brooks bought it to his attention recently.
Q: You cannot tell us who lodged this document, or who was aware of it? That's unsatisfactory.
RM answers this one. He says Jon Chapman, who was in charge of the file, has left the company.
Q: Given the picture that has been painted of individuals on a newsdesk acting as gatekeepers for information from a private detectives, is is possible that the editors did not know what was going on?
RM replies:
I cannot say that because of the police inquiries.
4.34pm: Taking a break from the hearing, I see that Downing Street has responded to the revelation that Rupert Murdoch says he was asked to enter No 10 by the back door when he visited David Cameron after the election. "Arrangements for any visit are made by mutual consent," a spokesman said.
Rupert Murdoch refers to Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister and media mogul, as "a tricky competitor" in Italy.
4.38pm: Joshua Rozenberg writes that James Murdoch declined to answer several questions, notably from Paul Farrelly, on the ground that it would prejudice police investigations.
This seems unduly generous of him. As a witness giving evidence to a parliamentary committee, he has immunity for what he says. There is no risk that he will face legal proceedings - either for contempt of court or libel - arising from anything he tells MPs. He must know that.
4.39pm: Labour's Alan Keen is asking the questions now. He wants to know what gets reported up the chain of command in a newspaper.
RM responds:
Anything that's seen as a crisis comes to me.
Q: News International has reached a crisis. Who's responsible?
JM says that's a good question. But he is not saying he was not told.
To my knowledge, certain things weren't known.
(I think we might be into Donald Rumsfeld "unknown unknowns" territory.)
JM says the "pushback" in 2009 given by the company "may have been too strong".
(By "pushbacks", he means denials of wrongdoing.)
4.41pm: Keen is still asking the questions.
Q: Is there too much nepotism in News Corporation?
RM says that when the position as head of BSkyB became available, several people applied, including his son. JM was given the job because RM thought he was the best candidate.
4.45pm: John Whittingdale says two more MPs are going to ask questions.
Damian Collins, a Conservative, is asking the questions now. He starts with a declaration of interest. His wife works for Edelman, the PR company working for News International. But she does not work on that account.
Q: Do public figures have a right to total privacy?
No, says RM.
RM mentions the Telegraph's expenses investigation. In Singapore ministers are all paid £1m and there is no corruption. He seems to be sympathising with MPs over the amount they get paid in the UK.
Collins suggests that the idea of such high wages for MPs would not take off here. Rupert Murdoch says:
I mean that seriously. I think it's ridiculous that people were reduced to doing what they did.
4.51pm: RM says papers should never break the law.
He was brought up by a father who was not rich, but who was a great journalist. He bought a small paper and said that he would use it to do good. He used it to expose the scandal of Gallipoli - something which aroused hostility in Britain.
Collins asks about RM's relations with politicians.
RM says he wishes they would leave him alone. The prime minister to whom he was closest was Gordon Brown, he says. He thought Brown had good values. Their wives became close. Their children played together (he has two young daughters). He is sorry that Brown has fallen out with him, but he hopes they will repair their relationship.
He adds:
I'm sorry – my son has just told me not to gesticulate.
4.54pm: Someone has just tried to attack Rupert Murdoch. His wife Wendi seemed to slap the person.
4.55pm: A young man in a checked shirt has been detained by police.
4.56pm: The BBC says the young man has been handcuffed. Sky showed the footage again – it seemed to be an attack from Rupert Murdoch's left.
4.57pm: The suspect looks like he has a substance like white paint on his face.
My colleague Jackie Ashley tells Twitter: "Wendi [Murdoch's wife] can throw quite a punch."
4.58pm: The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg thinks it's a bandage on the young man's face – Nick Robinson says it is shaving foam and the young man hit Rupert Murdoch with it.
4.59pm: Reports claim the assailant is a UK Uncut activist.
5.02pm: Jonnie Marbles has tweeted that he is the man responsible.
He is a UK Uncut activist.
5.01pm: Jane Martinson reports from the hearing: "He was sitting four rows back, calmly walked up with a plate of shaving foam - smacked it in Rupert's face - Wendi intervened."
5.17pm: Chris Byrant is responding on BBC News. "I think that's just despicable," he says. Murdoch was giving evidence on an important issue and the country was listening. Witnesses should not be treated like this, he says. And Murdoch is over 80. Bryant says that this is contempt of parliament.
Evan Harris, the former Lib Dem MP, a campaigner for Hacked Off (and, cynics may say, a World Class headline-grabber) has just let us know on Twitter that he managed to get into the committee room as it was being cleared. The police let him him so that he could offer medical assistance, he says. (He's a doctor.) But Murdoch senior didn't need it. "Murdoch told me he was ok," Harris says.
The committee has got going again. Louise Mensch, the Tory MP and chick-lit novelist Louise Bagshawe, says Rupert Murdoch has shown "huge guts" in being willing to carry on.
Q: When did you find out that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked?
JM says only when it was publicised by the Guardian. He was shocked, he says.
5.18pm: Q: Jude Law is alleging that his phone was hacked on American soil. Are you confident that no employee of yours hacked the phones of relatives of 9/11 victims.
RM says: "We have no evidence of that at all."
5.19pm: Jane Martinson writes:
The man lobbed a plate of shaving foam into Murdoch's face at point blank range. Astonishing reaction from Wendi who, sitting behind her husband, immediately returned fire. James looked stunned, several members of room gasped, but Wendi then sat on desk calmly wiping foam from her husband's face. Foam all over her blue painted toes as well as two police officers who immediately grabbed him. Shock that he got foam in given tight security. Another man with a long beard also questioned.
5.20pm: Ben Quinn reports that UK Uncut's Twitter accounts have distanced the umbrella group from the pie-throwing incident
UKuncut tweeted:
The pie in Murdoch's face was NOT a UK Uncut action, everyone!
5.21pm: Jane Martinson sends more from parliament:
All press kept in overspill room as committee resumes. Not sure how foam man hid paper plate. He was wearing black combat trousers and walked straight past me from the back row where public was sat to within inches. Wendi was on her feet lobbing the plate back at her husband's assailant before James got up. Another woman – small and dark-haired – was the one who accosted the assailant first.
5.23pm: Ben Quinn reports that Marbles appears to have been planning his move carefully. He tweeted three hours ago: Does anyone know what order the CMS select committee will be interviewing witnesses?
5.24pm: Mensch is still asking questions.
Q: Have you considered suing Harbottle & Lewis, the legal firm that investigated phone hacking at the company.
JM says any legal claims are a matter for the future. He won't comment on this.
Q: Have you consider resigning?
RM says: No.
Q: Why not?
RM says it is because people he trusted let him down. He goes on:
I'm the best person to clean this up.
5.25pm: Here's video of the attack on Murdoch and his wife's reaction.
5.28pm: Tom Watson tells Rupert Murdoch his wife has "a very good left hook". (It was actually her right.)
5.28pm: Rupert Murdoch is now reading out the statement that he wanted to read out at the start (see 3.22pm).
5.31pm: The protest against Rupert Murdoch seems to have completely backfired, Paul Owen writes. It has transformed Murdoch into a sympathetic figure, an old man under attack from a young one, and may have contributed to the committee's decision to allow Murdoch to read his lengthy statement in full. He ended the session having the last word, able to express his contrition to the country. The headlines tonight and tomorrow may well be about the attack on Murdoch rather than the complex and detailed issues that were discussed in the session itself.
5.34pm: That was meant to last an hour. It lasted three. Here are the main points.
• Rupert Murdoch has had a plate of shaving foam thrust in his face by a protester. The attacker has been arrested. Labour's Chris Bryant said that attack was "despicable" and a contempt of parliament.
• Rupert Murdoch said that giving evidence to the committee was "the most humble day of my career".
• The Murdochs confirmed that News International carried on paying some of Glenn Mulcaire's legal fees after his conviction for phone hacking in 2007. One MP suggested that this could be interpreted as News International funding a cover-up (because Mulcaire has been fighting demands that he should disclose full details of his phone-hacking activities). James Murdoch said that he was "surprised and shocked" when he heard about these payments. Rupert Murdoch said that he would stop future payments, as long as there were no contractual reasons why he should not do so.
• Murdoch said that he did not feel that he was personally responsible for what went wrong at the company.
• The Murdochs said they had "no plans" to set up a Sunday title. They conceded that they had discussed this, but they said it was not priority.
• James Murdoch said that he agreed to the £700,000 payment to Gordon Taylor because he thought it was a hangover from the original court case.
• Rupert Murdoch said he did not find out about the Taylor payment - which has been perceived as hush money - until it was publicised in the Guardian.
• Rupert Murdoch said that he thought that the phone-hacking matter had been settled after 2007. "The police ended their investigations and I was told that News International conducted an internal review," he said. (Interestingly, Murdoch is blaming the police for not investigating the matter more thoroughly in 2006. But last week Peter Clarke, the officer in charge of that investigation, said he could not carry it out properly because News International did not co-operate.)
• Rupert Murdoch played down his influence on his British newspaper editors. He did not even phone the editor of the News of the World every week, he says. Of all his papers, he pays most attention to the Wall Street Journal, he said.
• Rupert Murdoch said in his opening statement: "I hope our contribution to Britain will one day ... be recognised."
• Rupert Murdoch said Downing Street asked to him to use the back door when he visited David Cameron at No 10 after the general election.
• Rupert Murdoch said that he hoped to repair his relationship with Gordon Brown.
5.39pm: Here's Jonnie Marbles's tweet taking responsibility for the pie attack.
5.45pm: Those are the news lines. But this is one of those events that where what really matters is the impression left by the witnesses. And what impression did they leave? Here are some off-the-cuff thoughts.
Rupert Murdoch
"Most humble day of my career" was the soundbite he gave us, but humility wasn't really what anyone will remember. It will be the short, gruff answers, delivered as if he was not entirely clear what had been going on. Was it because he's 80 and he can't hear very well any more, or was it because he didn't really want to engage? Probably a mixture of the two. But he did seem unflappable when the "foam hacker" struck. Tough bugger.
James Murdoch
Evasive, but in a way that was smooth and articulate. He kept telling the MPs how good their questions were and launching into long answers that weren't always particularly illuminating.
5.50pm: This blog will now continue with Rebekah Brooks's testimony here.
Posted by
Andrew Sparrow, Paul Owen and Matt Wells
Tuesday 19 July 2011 08.21 BST
guardian.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment