Special Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to Special. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It is 2pm here in Westminster and people across the world are on


Rupert Murdoch, his son, James, and Rebekah Brooks as they give


evidence to MPs on the great phone Good afternoon. Welcome to the


special edition of Daily Politics in an unprecedented day for the


British Parliament. In just half an hour, the most powerful media boss


on the planet, Rupert Murdoch, and his son, James, who was also at the


heart of the Empire, will begin answering questions to a select


committee of MPs about the phone hacking scandal which has rocked a


British public life and already seen 10 arrests, 6 designations and


the end of the News of the World. Also giving evidence this afternoon,


Rebekah Brooks, who has had to resign on Friday as chief executive


of News International, the British arm of the global operations. She


was released without charge on Sunday and will face questions


about what she knew of phone hacking when she edited the Sun


newspaper and the News of the World and then became boss of all of his


UK papers. This is a major unique and historic parliamentary occasion.


Members of the public and the press have been queuing for hours for a


place at the hearings. They had to be moved from the House of Commons


to a bigger committee room in a nearby portcullis House. Even that


can't cope with the numbers wanting to be there. We have room for


everybody with live and uninterrupted coverage of this


afternoon's session and we will be discussing the implications with


the press, politicians, and the All that to come over the next


couple of hours. Joining me Alastair Campbell, David Davies and


a Times columnist David Aaronovitch. Welcome to you all. It is a key day,


not just in a phone hacking saga but for Parliament. The leader of


the opposition Ed Miliband spelt out what he wanted to hear. What


members of the public will want to know is whether Rupert and James


Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks have some remorse for what happened and


are willing to apologise and say that they have let down the British


people and indeed all the victims of the phone hacking, and also to


account for what they knew about phone hacking and when they knew it.


I'm sure they are the kind of questions they will be asked.


Miliband. David Cameron is Bill in Africa. He has had to cut his


journey short and will fly back to the UK later today to address the


Commons tomorrow. The Deputy Prime Minister was out and about this


morning. He said today marked the beginning of a shift in relations


between the media and politicians. Why is it, for years and years and


years, and I can say this, of the other parties spend their time


constantly kowtowing to the press in what I think is an extremely


unhealthy way. I think that will change and I think it's a good


thing. The meeting today is a start of a process of change. Let's get


the latest from Laura Kuenssberg. She is outside the committee room.


I think it is called there will some room. -- will some room.


have spent a lot of time here in the last few years and I have never


seen portcullis House quite like this. You can probably see the


queue to get into the room to be there when the Murdochs are giving


evidence. A couple of other members of the committee had been preparing


furiously and have just passed me and one of them said to me, it is


certainly very exciting. A couple of minutes ago I saw James Murdoch


just over their asking officials for a glass of water, surrounded by


an entourage of five advisers with him. So, not very long to go now


and I have to say, this feels like it has been the hottest ticket in


town. Portcullis House is buzzing. Quite a lot of exciting things


happen here normally but I have to say, I've never seen anything quite


like this. Never seen anything like it. Let's start with the basics.


Why is there such a frenzy surrounding this? Partly because of


the scale of the scandal. It has engulfed the Murdoch empire,


getting close to government and has brought about crisis in the


Metropolitan Police and also I think the fact that Rupert Murdoch


himself appears so infrequently in public, I think a lot of your


regular viewers will be tuning in this afternoon and will be


intrigued to learn how he speaks. The voice. As you know, he is not a


very loud person. He mumbles a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if at some


point, John Whittingdale asks him to speak up. This is one of those


stories which has been bubbling away for years and years and years,


and the Milly Dowler things tip that in one direction. Part of this,


and I have been in these select committees when you do get a sense


of media frenzy, but I think this one has got through to the public


and people out there are talking about this. Rebekah Brooks, a month


ago could have walked down any street without anybody knowing who


she is, but now everybody is talking about her. People will be


interested to see the extent of MPs, who are beginning to reassert their


authority, to see whether they can do a frenzied job of examining


these guys who are not used to being questioned about this. What


are the stakes for Rupert Murdoch? Survival of his empire. Absolutely.


First off, you have the cases which will flow from this, criminal and


other. You have an inquiry and an outcome which may end up deciding


fit and proper or not. The Americans are now starting to take


an interest and his liberal opponents in America are gathering


impetus, sympathies, like the foreign corrupt practice, to see if


they can parlay that back into what is after all, the Crown Jewels.


James Murdoch's career on the line, too? There seems to be as are the


big questions about it. The question we are talking about today


is going to be whether or not there was a culture of ignoring what were


effectively corrupted journalistic practices. That is what people want


to know. That is what they will concentrate on. It's very dramatic


because it's one of the few opportunities the Christians get to


throw the Emperor to the lions, isn't it? I thought for a second, I


could see television commentators. What will we see today? You have


famously appeared in front of they commit that committee, you are the


paperclip stabbed into your hand when you're losing your rag, so


what will we see? It's a big day for MPs and the Empire. Will we see


a rigorous but calm inquiry? Or will it be the modern equivalent of


the stocks? I think one or two will probably have thought through their


questions. The ones who do it well, like TV presenters...


The ones who do it well tend to be forensic. I think David is


absolutely right but the question for James Murdoch about why he


authorised these massive pay-offs. Reminding David, when I first


appeared in the select committee, again, he phoned me on the morning


and gave me some very good advice about the committee. He said, show


respect, stay calm and don't lose your temper. Hence the club!


would be surprised at some point, James Andrew but don't get slightly


irritated because -- James and Rupert, because we don't have


respect for them but they will have to show it today. Bayern not


trained inquisitors, are they? -- this is not a trained inquisitors,


are they? No, they don't say, I have spotted a weakness here so I


will carry on. However, I have just been watching the other committee


talking to the police officers. And actually, that is a fairly


impressive performance by the MPs. It can be done. They learned a


lesson from last week. Lastly, that same committee was about


showboating for the No forensics at all. Everybody jumped on that. I


think this committee has we learnt from this. I think we will see a


lot of forensics. The we will find out if it is tag wrestling or mud-


wrestling in a moment. She is Adam with a reminder of the breathtaking


events of the past two weeks. -- here is Adam.


This long-running scandal reached a new level a fortnight ago when it


emerged the voice mails of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler


may have been intercepted. As her family met the party because, it


was alleged that other victims may have included those caught up in 77


and service personnel killed in action. Rupert Murdoch flew in to


quell the crisis engulfing his empire. Asked what his crisis was


that proud to was, he said this one. In the coming days, the close to


the News of the World. 168 years after it first rolled off the


presses. He withdrew his bid for BSkyB. And he lost Rebekah Brooks,


who resigned as chief executive of News International. And then at


Number Ten became involved. David Cameron announced an inquiry led


into the affair and of the state of the media and had to justify why he


had hired the ex News of the World editor Andy Coulson as his PR


person. He said he didn't know what was happening at the News of the


World in terms of packing and resigned as a result of this and I


decided to give him a second chance. That's all I can do. A former Prime


Minister made a rare appearance in the Commons. Not the misconduct of


a few rogues and freelancers, but I have to say, law-breaking on an


industrial scale. Ed Miliband piled on the pressure. We need leadership


to get to the truth of what happened. But the Prime Minister is


hamstrung by the decisions he made and his refusal to face up to them.


Meanwhile, the police gathered evidence for two investigations,


Operation Weeting and Operation Elveden into allegations officers


were paid by the press for information. They have been a


number of arrests including Andy Coulson, Rebekah Brooks and the


former deputy editor of the News of the World, Neil Wallis. He was


hired by Scotland Yard to help to their media work with serious


consequences for senior officers. At the weekend, this led to the


resignation of the Metropolitan Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson,


and yesterday John Yates, left as well. Two weeks of revelations that


have rocked the media, the police and politics.


Adam planning reporting on a truly breathtaking events -- Adam


planning. It has dangers to take a sleeper. -- Adam Fleming. Let's


look at the politics of this with my guests. David Cameron is out of


the country but very much in the frame. Yes, the Labour Party, Ed


Miliband, his try and keep him in the frame, but I think, Alastair


said this engaging people, but I don't think politics does, frankly.


Two polls yesterday, one went in one direction and one went the


other. What do you say to that? Mr Miliband is getting good press


reviews but they're not moving his way necessarily. No, but the terms


of the debate a changing and I think David Cameron is losing a lot


of respect for people at the moment because the one thing people want


from the Prime Minister is a sense of good judgment. Every time he


looks like he doesn't get this whole area of concern about his


relationship with Andy Coulson. Then, I think he just erodes his


own respect and authority. I think at some point is going have to say,


I made a mistake. I shouldn't have done it and I realise that. Here's


what I want to learn from it but he appears very reluctant to do it.


it time to admit that it was a mistake? That's one aspect of this


whole thing, Twenty20 hindsight apply to everybody. Let's take the


decision to hire Andy Coulson in the first place. He got


undertakings from him and he carried out a check on him. When he


came into government, he would have had a positive check. By the time


he moved into government, the Prime Minister as he had become, knew a


lot more about the accusations then when he appointed him. Yes, but


politics is full of accusations and most of them are wrong. He would


have had a cheque. This plays back into the police. He would have


consulted with the Metropolitan Police and said, is there anything


in this and I suspect, what came back was anything not. --


absolutely not. Given a choice to listening to Labour comments, on


the one hand, and what was a concrete review on the other, who


would you believe? I would believe the review. I doubt... So you don't


think he should admit it was a mistake? I think there's been a lot


of hindsight. He said last week, if it turns out that Andy Coulson lied


to him, it will involve prosecution. I think people think it doesn't


affect him. This isn't Tyneside because at the time, people were


saying this story is not going to go away. There are too many


unanswered questions. Why was he so desperate to get this guy and the


other guy? He wanted Alastair Campbell. He wanted a lookalike for


you, David. Journalistically, you know what this is. Even if somebody


like Andy Coulson were not guilty, we don't actually know what he was


guilty of, what we do know is he worked in the world of the tabloid


press. The tabloid press is famous for this kind of sharp practice,


and even if it hadn't done something like this, he would have


Worded to work before he joined Tony Blair? The tabloid press.


part of the problem as it has turned out, Alastair Campbell is


the Tories wanted their Alastair Campbell. I remember hearing it off


the record, Lee Mead and Alastair Campbell. Particularly in the


summer of 2007 when Mr Brown was doing well when he became leader.


That is when Andy Coulson was hired. They wanted someone who had good


relations with News International, as you had. It is lucky for Mr


Blair and Mr Brown, and for use this has happened on the Andy


Coulson, David Cameron watch. It could have happened on yours?


could have done. But I don't think we could have been as sucked into


it. I did all sorts of things as a journalist, but I am confident I


never broke the law. My point is, Mr Cameron is suffering because of


his very close relations he developed after 2007... You have


the same relations? He is suffering because of the judgment he showed


in hiring Andy Coulson. And second to that, he is suffering because he


allowed himself to be ensnared by the Murdoch empire, having first


decided he wouldn't do. It is true, we try to get a better relationship


with Murdoch, the Daily Mail and the Express and we exceeded. But we


did not do, and in Government what we should have done is take them on


in a way Tony did not want to do. It all happened on your watch.


should have taken action when the information report was published.


Until the last couple of weeks, it was still going on. On the


conservative side we know about. But Saturday, July 2nd just gone.


Leading Labour figures, James Purnell, Tessa Jowell, the mind you


back as leader of the Labour Party, David Miliband partied in the


Cotswold with James Murdoch. the director of the BBC if I


remember. It was wrong of you to leave out the director of the BBC


from that list all the presenter, Jon Snow from Channel Four News. It


is about the fear politicians have had, not so much the fear of the


press, but the fact they wanted something from the press. They have


wanted endorsements and these relationships. There is an issue to


this, it is about the fear of the press in the sense Rebekah Brooks


in particular, the paper she edited actually went out to damage people.


She told Tom Watson she was going to do that. That is like Tom Watson


has been so vigorous about this. What is that about? Today isn't


just about the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks answering questions. The two


most important policeman in this country were forced to resign. The


Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Paul Stephenson and John Yates gave


evidence to another select committee about phone hacking. They


both came a cropper because they hired former deputy editor of the


News of the World, Neil Wallis to provide them with PR advice. Paul


Stephenson was asked if he tried to dissuade the Guardian from its


phone hacking campaign when he went to see them.


The Guardian carried a report a couple of days ago that you have


had a meeting with them to say you had tried to persuade them the


coverage of phone hacking was exaggerated and incorrect. And that


you had a meeting to that effect in December 2009, is that right?


Paul Stephenson was then asked why he should question the Guardian's


journalism and pointed the finger firmly at Assistant Commissioner


John Yates. Why would you go to a newspaper like the Guardian to


persuade them they were getting it wrong. I presume you looked at the


evidence and over the case to be in a position to give them that


assurance? I am the Commissioner of the Met and I have senior grade


Chief Constable's like John Yates. He gave me assurances there was


nothing new coming out of the Guardian article. I think I have a


right to rely on those assurances and I had no reason to doubt the


first operation. I went to the Guardian because they continued to


run the campaign and I acknowledged in my speech, we should be grateful


for them to do that. I went to them because I did not understand it.


The resigning head of the Metropolitan Police, probably his


last appearance before a select committee in that role, which is


still going on. It is a difference select committee to the one we are


going to live at 2:30pm. Excepted from John Yates, who had supposedly


looked at the inquiry that the Guardian was barking up the wrong


tree. You could not get it more wrong could you Alastair Campbell?


A feel a bit sorry for him, because I think the man at the top is


entitled to trust people one down. The more you hear about this first


inquiry and John Yates, you wonder how that man has been in charge


against a campaign against terrorism. It is probably a good


thing he has gone. The reason people are concerned, the police


have relations with all sorts of media, the BBC and other newspapers


as well. The reason why the police have entered the frame in the


centre, is there is a feeling centre, is there is a feeling


evidence is mounting a combination of News International and senior


policemen work together to close down the investigation. Do you


agree? What you have got his two things. You have incompetence.


Whether it is John Yates for Andy Hayman, neither of them have


impressed in terms of their handling of this. And second, you


have this great big, too difficult basket into which all of the News


International stuff was pushed because they knew it mainly to a


political problem, a certain amount of bad press in the News of the


World. It is not a conspiracy in the normal sense of the word, it is


a combination of competence and not wanting to take on that animal.


This isn't the finest aspect of policing. Let's not be crass,


terrorism is much more fun. It you want to be a policeman, what do you


want to spend your time on question of people wonder why this went to


the anti-terrorist squad in the first place. If they said they did


not have the time, why didn't they pass it on to a more mundane part


of the Met? Why after of the 2006 Information


Commissioner's report, why wasn't it taken seriously? When Rebekah


Brooks gave evidence in 2003, why didn't we jump up and say, it is a


criminal offence! Nobody did. me come back to the point then that


people wonder about Rupert Murdoch but they have never accused him of


being a terrorist. Why did it end up with the anti- terrorist group?


Party -- partly an accident because the Royal protection is part of the


anti- terrorist group. There was a Royal hacking and that is why it


got dealt with. Second, because they trust the counter-terrorist


unit to be more secure than others. That is why when Damian Green was


arrested, the MP was arrested by the police it was the counter-


terrorism unit, who incidentally could not find his house in the


village of Kent. They went to the wrong house? It would have been


very scary for the man with the biggest house in the village!


are just learning John Yates who is giving testimony to the same


committee as Paul Stephenson, he said he spoke to her Llewellyn,


David Cameron's chief-of-staff, in 2010 and offered to give him a


briefing on the language around the phone hacking, but Eddie Llewellyn


decline that offer. This is the biggest crisis for the Metropolitan


Police in modern times. Agreed? seems most peculiar. When I look at


the resignation of Paul Stephenson, I wasn't sure why he resigned. He


went to Champney's for free. It was declared in his proper interest,


and as far as I know he did not break the code. So how has he got


in this business of Neil Wallis being employed, former deputy


editor of the News of the World by somebody who turns out to be his


friend. Somebody in the Home Affairs Committee said it was the


lack of diligence done on the employment of Neil Wallis. He was a


friend of the police he was brought in to do it friend of the police


job. It is the interlocking network. We have learned it between News


International and the politicians on the left and the right. But also


between News International and the police. In the Metropolitan Police


press department there are former News International employees, why


don't they just merge and form one press office? You will know from


the days of being an editor, crime correspondents have kept as close


as they can to the police. But this has surprised me. Again, I think


Paul Stevenson probably reached a judgment that his own judgment


would probably be called into question for the fact that with


this investigation still going on, it is just as extraordinary that


David Cameron could not see the dangers of Andy Coulson, neither


could they see the dangers. called for Ian Blair's resignation


after the shooting of Jean Paul Dominguez. But he hung on and his


reputation went down. It is about five minutes to go until we expect


the Murdochs to appear in front of the select committee and we will be


passing to the Wilson Room in Portcullis House. But let's remind


ourselves of the key players in today's performance. First up is


the man at the top, Rupert Murdoch. 80 years of age, he is chairman of


News Corporation which wanted full control of BSkyB. He has about 40%


at the moment. The committee will want to know what he knew about


phone hacking at the News of the World. What did he know and when


did he know it? Then there will be his son James, chairman of News


Corporation in Europe and Asia. The committee will want to know why he


authorised payments to victims of hacking. Then at around 3:30pm when


they have gone, I assume we will hear from Rebekah Brooks who was


until last week, chief executive of News International and was editor


of the News of the World when Milly Dowler's telephone was hacked into


us. She was arrested and questioned on Sunday but denies any knowledge


of what went on at her newspaper. There are two key political figures


about to take centre stage. The Conservative MP, John Whittingdale


who chairs the culture committee and last week took the step of


issuing a Parliamentary summons to compel the Murdochs to attend this


committee session. Also sitting on the committee is a Labour MP called


Tom Watson. He has been at the forefront of the campaign to expose


phone hacking. What are the key points you will be looking out for


this afternoon? What do you want to find out? For me it is the James


Murdoch authorisation of these huge payments out of court settlements.


He said in one of the few statements he has made, he was not


in full possession of the fact. Presumably now he is. So what were


the full facts? Rupert Murdoch will be questioned whether it it is his


culture that has permeated all levels of the organisation. And for


Rebekah Brooks, they will be quizzing her about what she said to


the committee in the past. During the Watergate scandal a senator


became famous for asking "what did Juno And When Did You Know It"?


They could take a leaf out of his book? It will be more specific than


that. And also at the point when you decide to close the News of the


World, a new mood there was a problem. He did not choose to sack


Rebekah Brooks, you just shut down been News of the World. Why didn't


you get to the bottom of its then and there. And for Rupert Murdoch,


this does go back to Les Hinton. has also had to resign. Also the


common denominator is Rupert Murdoch. What we your instructions


to Les Hinton at that time? David, what would you like to find out


this afternoon? I want to know if they decided to close their ears to


what is going on. We will shut this down, we won't let it happen. We


have some suspicions but we won't run with it. Or whether they


genuinely didn't have their eye on the ball until it was too late and


then they did not have the capacity to respond. A thing I am the only


person in this room who has not met Rupert Murdoch. I shall be very


interested to see how that question It's about the advice of not losing


your temper and being calm, I think if there is the slightest sign of


them getting irritated, it will backfire on them. People will be


interest the see whether they have worked better strategy. To get


themselves though it. I'm not sure 1 hour will be long enough. It


could overrun. And I hope it does because there's a lot of serious


questions. The demeanour is incredibly important. They should


take the emotion out of the questions and find the facts in the


questions put up and deal with the facts. Rupert Murdoch is not used


to this kind of public accountability. Hasn't he appeared


before the Senate in the USA. was pretty uncontroversial. It


wasn't like this. We are just watching pictures of people going


into the committee. It has gone at 2:30pm, so they are running late.


Would it be sensible if either of the Murdochs intentionally gave us


new information today? If I was them, I would. I would start with


an apology, up front, and a completely unlimited apology, not


try to be reticent about it. I'm sorry my employees let you down


kind of thing. I would try and say, what I have managed to find out in


the time since the crisis blew up, as it were, and at least Telegraph


to the committee that I intend to be straightforward with them.


People have said Murdoch will announce his resignation. I will


believe that when I see it. resignation in favour of who?


it is difficult for two men, particularly the older one, who is


used to be so powerful, being interviewed by people they employ,


and used to being treated with huge respect and deference by


politicians, some of them, I suspect, are now going to give them


a tough time. One big problem with people this powerful is they do


attract coteries and so on. They have people running around after


them. They tell them they are effectively immortal. I think that


happens. It happens everywhere. Power attracts it. This is a


wonderful experience if the committee do it right because what


it shows is that nobody is so powerful they are not answerable to


a committee. The committee has got to ask the questions correctly


force up my understanding is they had been training over the past


couple of days for this. The way the party leaders trained for the


debates. They have been having mock sessions and so on. The one thing


they have to avoid, I would suggest, is the, "You can't handle the


tricky" Moment. Because anger it could rebound on them. -- you can't


handle the truth. We can see, with police protection to help him get


through the people forming along the corridor, in this relatively


new building, portcullis House, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch,


his father, going into the committee room. You can see the


rather lovely atrium there. They will be nervous. I remember that


little walk and I was nervous on several occasions. These MPs, some


of them will have done their homework. I think most important


thing is they have bought through every possible question and answer.


They are taking their seats now in front of the committee. Mr Murdoch


senior on the left. And James Murdoch on the right. Get your


glass of water, I suspect. Mr Murdoch is not used to speaking


off-the-cuff. He is more used to We would like the opportunity to


make a statement. Would you allow us? The committee discussed that


earlier and we do feel be a lot of questions and we hope all you want


to say well, to question. If you feel that is not the case, please


make the statement at the end. Excuse me, can we not have that,


please? The in that case, we would like to submit the statement in


writing. That would be acceptable. Could we please remove the people


STUDIO: We are keeping the cameras on the chairman of the committee.


There was a bit of a protest just as we got out of the way as James


Murdoch asked for the committee's permission to make a statement. It


wasn't really granted. They have This is a special meeting of the


committee. A follow-up to the committee the committee held in the


2009 into press standards, privacy and libel during which we took


evidence on the extent of the phone hacking which are taking place in


the News of the World. In our report last year, we stated that we


thought it was inconceivable that only one reporter had been involved.


In the last few weeks, it has emerged that, not only evidence has


come out which I think has vindicated this conclusion, but


also abuses have been revealed which have shocked the entire


country. It's also clear parliament has been misled. We are very


conscious in the committee that there is an ongoing police


investigation. And possible criminal proceedings to follow.


This committee would not wish to jeopardise that. However, we are


encouraged by the statements which have been made by all the witnesses


this afternoon that they wish to co-operate with the committee and


help us to establish the truth. So, as our first witnesses this up in,


can I welcome Rupert Murdoch and the deputy chief operating officer


and chairman and chief executive of News Corp International, James


Murdoch. Can I thank you for making yourself available to the committee


this afternoon. Thank you, Mr Chairman. We are more than prepared


to. If I could start the James Murdoch. You made a statement on


7th July in which you stated the paper had made statements to


Parliament without being in possession of the facts and that


was wrong. You essentially admitted Parliament had been misled in what


we had been told. Can you tell us to what extent where we misled when


you became aware of it? Thank you very much and first of all I would


like to say just how sorry I am and how sorry we are two particularly


the victims of a legal voice mail interceptions and to their families.


It's a matter of great regret. Mind, my father's, and everyone at News


Corporation and these are standards, these actions do not live up to the


standards that our company aspires to. It is our determination to both


put things right, make sure these things don't happen again, and to


be the company that I know we have always aspired to be. As for my


statement, which I believe it was around the closure of the News of


the World newspaper,... This is the most humble day of my life.


statement around the closure of the News of the World newspaper, where


I stated that the company had not been in full possession of the fact


when certain statements were made to this committee, was referring to


the emergence of new facts, largely that came about at the end of 2010,


as the due process of a number of civil trials reached their point


Word document disclosure and evidence disclosure made it


apparent to the company and to myself at that time that, indeed,


there was reason to believe that, potentially, more people had been


involved in the News of the World illegal voice mail interceptions


from before. That was new evidence and information at the time that


post-dated the 2009 hearings. That is what I was referring to.


Subsequent to our discovery of that information, in one of the civil


trials at the end of 2010, which I believe was the CNN Mellor trial,


the company immediately went to look at additional record around


the individual involved -- CNN a laugh. We alerted the police who


restarted on that basis, the investigation that is now under way.


And, since then, the company has admitted liability to victims of a


legal voice mail interception, apologised unreservedly, which I


repeat today, to those victims, and the company has also set up a


compensation scheme independently managed by a former High Court


judge to be able to deal with legitimate claims coming from


victims of those terrible incidents. Voice mail interception. Those are


the actions which were taken as soon as new evidence emerged, so


when I made a statement about not being in possession of the fact, it


was those facts at that point, were in the future, and it was the due


process of the civil trial that that evidence really emerged for us.


And we acted as swiftly and transparently as possible. When


this committee took evidence in at 2009, we heard from the managing


editor of the News of the World, the legal manager of News


International and News of the World editor, the former editor Andy


Coulson and Les Hinton, the former chairman. All of them told us that


there had been a thorough investigation, no evidence had ever


been found that anybody else was involved for that clearly was not


correct. Were any of them lying to his committee? Mr Thurnham, the


company relied on three things -- Mr Chairman. Until the new evidence


emerged, the company relied on a police investigation in 2007,


before I was involved. I became involved in at News Corporation at


the end of 2007. In the 2007 period, there was a police investigation,


successful prosecutions against two individuals, and the editor of the


News of the World resigned. The company relied on both the police


having closed the investigation and repeated assertions that there was


no new evidence for them to reopen their investigation, the company


relied on be PCC, but said there was no more to this at the time.


The company relied on the legal opinion, outside counsel, that was


brought in a related to those matters with respect to their


review, and had issued a clear opinion that there was no


additional illegality than the two individuals involved before. The


company relied on those facts and for the company in at 2008-nine, it


was not clear that there was a reason to believe that those


matters were anything other than settled matters and in the past.


visit your test the need to this committee the individuals who gave


us evidence in 2009, none of them knew at that time what's been going


on? -- Is it your testimony? I do not have direct knowledge of what


they knew and what time, but I can tell you that the critical new


facts, as I saw them, and as the company saw them, really emerged in


the production of documents and evidence in the civil trial at the


end of 2010. And the duration from 2008 until the end of 2010, the


length of time it took for that to come Clear and for that real


evidence to be there, is a matter of deep frustration, because I know


and sympathise with the frustration of this committee. It is a matter


of real regret that the facts could not emerge and could not be got


into, to my understanding, Foster. -- faster. You are made it clear


the information we were giving was incorrect. Have you established, as


well as Clive Goodman, was involved I am sorry, can you repeat that?


Who as well as Clive Goodman was involved in phone hacking at the


News of the World? As I think you made it clear earlier Mr Chairman,


there have been a number of arrests of former News of the World


employees. These are matters for current criminal investigations,


and I think it is difficult for me to comment in particular around


some of those individuals. Have you carried out your own investigation


since the discovery of this information, to find out the extent


of involvement in phone hacking at the News of the World? We have


established a group in the company co-operating very closely with the


police on their investigations. Their investigation is brought with


respect to journalistic practices and in particular journalistic


practices at the News of the World. And the policy and direction the


company has given them is to co- operate with the police and provide


information and evidence that the company believes and they believe


is relevant to those investigations. Sometimes prayer -- pro actively


and sometimes in response to those requests. I think the provision of


the new information to the police in the first place when there was


no ongoing police investigation, led to, in part, the reopening of


this new investigation being established. I hope that can be


established as being proactive to getting to the right place in


finding out the facts, understanding all of the


allegations that are coming in and moving forward to help the police


in the successful completion of the important, serious work they are


doing. And a departure from your company in the recent few days of


Tom Crone, of Rebekah Brooks and of Les Hinton, is it because any of


them acknowledged phone hacking? have no knowledge, and there is no


evidence that I am aware of, that Rebekah Brooks, or Les Hinton or


any of those executives had knowledge of that. And their


assertions, certainly Rebekah Brooks and her assertions to meet


that her knowledge of those things has been clear. Nonetheless, those


resignations have been accepted but it is important on the basis there


is no evidence today that I have seen or I have any knowledge of,


but there was any impropriety by them. I am going to turn to Tom


Watson. Mr Murdoch's senior, Good


afternoon.. You have stated News Corp has a


zero tolerance to wrongdoing by employees, is that right? It is,


yes. In 20th October 10 Did you still it believed to be true when


you made your speech, when you said "let me be clear we will go in


search of the truth". Yes. That is what the police are investigating


and we are helping them with. acknowledge you were misled?


Clearly. Can I take you back to 2003? Are you aware in March of


that year Rebekah Brooks gave evidence to this committee


admitting paying the police? I am now aware of that. I was not aware


of it at the time. I'm also aware she amended that considerably very


quickly afterwards. I think she amended its seven or eight years


after it. Sorry! Did you or anyone else at your in this --


organisation investigate this at the time? No. Can you explain why?


I did not know of it. I am sorry, if I can just say something? This


is not an excuse. Maybe it is an explanation, the News of the World


is less than 1% of the company, I employ 53,000 people around the


world hoo-ha great and ethical and distinguished people. They are


professionals in their own right. And I am spread watching and


appointing people with whom I trust to run those divisions. I do accept


you have many distinguished people who work for your company. You what


ultimately responsible for the Government source of News Corp. So


I want to establish who knew about wrong doing at the time. If I can


take you to 2006, and when Clive Goodman was arrested and convicted


of intercepting voice mails, where you made aware of that? I was


certainly made aware of it when he was convicted. What did News


International do subsequent to the rest of Clive Goodman and Glenn


Mulcaire to get to the facts? worked with the police with a


further investigation and eventually we quickly appointed a


Bury leading firm of lawyers in the city to investigated further.


would like to finish my line of questioning. What did you


personally do to investigate that after Clive Goodman went to prison?


You were obviously concerned about it. I spoke to Les Hinton, who told


me about it. Can I ask in 2008, why did you not dismiss News of the


World chief reporter, Neville far back following the Moseley case?


had never heard of him. Despite a judge at making clear that he set


out he went out to set out to blackmail two of the women involved


in the case? That is the first I have heard of that. So none of your


UK staff draw your attention to this serious wrongdoing even though


the case received extensive media attention? Maybe my son can answer


that. I will come to your son in a minute. And despite blackmail


resulted in a 14 year sentence, nobody in your UK company brought


this to your attention? blackmail charges, no. Do you think


that is because they thought you might think nothing of it? No. I


cannot answer, I do not know. you agree with Mr Justice e d when


he said the lack of action discloses a remarkable state of


affairs at News International? Mr Murdoch, a judge found a chief


reporter guilty of blackmail. It was widely reported, he said it was


a remarkable state of affairs. didn't he put him in jail? It was a


civil case. Were you aware that News


International commissioned an investigation into News


International e-mails by the solicitors' firm, Harbottle &


Lewis? Yes, I did not appoint them but I was told of it happening.


claimed in the Wall Street Journal Harbottle & Lewis are made a major


mistake. What a mistake way you referring to? -- what mistake way


you referring to? I think again that is a question for James. But a


we re-examined that. We found things we admittedly went to


council with to get advice on how to present it to the police.


their written response to these questions, are you aware News


International stated that both John Chapman and Daniel cloak reviewed


these e-mails before RIF -- affording them to Harbottle &


Lewis? Know. So nobody in the company told you that two of your


executives had reviewed the e- mails? I thought then, everything


had been sent to them. You are a word Lord MacDonald QC has refute


the e-mails on behalf of News International are you not? Yes.


you aware he stated evidence... reported them to News International.


He found evidence of indirect hacking, breaches of national


security and evidence of serious crime in the Harbottle & Lewis


file? I did indeed. I can address these in some detail


if you will allow me. It is your father who is responsible for


corporate governance and I want to know what he knew but I will come


back to you. He was aware of how awful and there was findings at a


News International? It went to the senior officials of News Corp.


Certainly the top legal officer. Tom crone or Les Hinton? No, they


were not the top legal officers. Who are the top legal officers?


John Chapman was the top legal officer at news International and


Mr John crone was head of legal affairs at News Group Newspapers.


Away you informed about the findings by your son, Mr Murdoch or


by Rebekah Brooks? I forget, but I suspect it was my son. I was in


daily contact with them both. we were informed about the payments


are made to Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford? Know. You were not


informed? Know. At no point you knew that Gordon Taylor and Max


Clifford were made payments? You never informed the chief executives


at News Corp that you made payments and authorise payments to Gordon


Taylor as a result of him being a victim of a crime? The settlement


with Mr Taylor, and I am happy to address the matter of Mr Taylor in


some detail if you would like. My father became a were after the


settlement was made in 2009, I believe after the confidential


settlement had become public. As a newspaper reported on the out of


court settlement afterwards. Please understand the settlement of an


out-of-court settlement of a civil claim of that nature and with that


quantum is something that normally in a company car size, the


responsible executives in the territory of the country would be


authorised to make. And that is the way the company is functioning and


it is below the approval threshold, if you will. There are other


questions I could ask, but there are other colleagues who have


specific questions on this Mr Murdoch. I will move back to your


father. Mr Murdoch when did you find out criminality was endemic at


the News of the World? Endemic is a very wide-ranging what. I also have


to be careful not to prejudice the course of justice taking place now.


That has been disclosed. I became aware as it became apparent. I was


absolutely shocked, appalled and ashamed when I heard about the


Milly Dowler case. That was only two weeks ago. I was graciously


received by the family. Did you read our last report into the


matter when we referred to the collective amnesia of your


executives who gave evidence to a committee? I have not heard that.


Nobody brought it to your attention? So a Parliamentary


inquiry found your senior executives in the UK guilty of


collective amnesia and nobody brought it to your attention? I


don't see why you think it is not very serious? You are not saying


Anisha, you would be saying they were lying? We found your


executives guilty of collective amnesia. I would have thought


somebody would have brought back to your attention and that it would


concern you? Did they forget? I don't think so. What has been


obvious to most of the observers from the summer of 2009 phone


hacking was widespread. You knew in January of this year the one road


report a line was false. Is that right? -- Road reporter. I forget


the days. Why was he the only person to leave the News of the


World last January? We have given all of our files and all of our


knowledge and everything to the police. They have not asked for


Glenn Mulcaire's diaries, so we do not know what was in that. There


was eight-page which appeared to be addressed... Again my son can


answer that. Perhaps it would be helpful to the committee if you


would like to go through that particular detail around why


decisions were made by the management team at News


International and the precise chronology, would be more helpful


if I could answer those questions as the chief executive of the


regional businesses across Europe. Your father is responsible. He is


revealing what he doesn't know and what executives chose not to tell


him so, with respect to you, I will pursue my line of questioning and


come back to you later. Why was no one fired in April when the News


International finally admitted that the News of the World have been


engaged in criminal interception of voice mails? It was not our job to


get in the course of justice. It was up to the police to bring those


charges and carry out their investigation which we were 100%


co-operating with. In April, the company admitted liability for


phone hacking and nobody took responsibility for it then. No one


was fired. The company admitted they had been involved in criminal


wrongdoing and nobody was fired. Why was that? There were people in


the company which apparently were guilty. And we have to find them


and deal with them appropriately. If I can clarify, is to the


individuals implicated in the allegations there, had long since


left the company. Some of that were still there, you mention one,


Exeter the business as soon as To he co-operate with the police to


aid them with the things they wanted to do. But many of the


individuals that were potentially implicated in those civil


litigation and a criminal matters had already left the building and


were not in the News of the World at this time. The executives and


journalists at the time, many of whom were not there, in a 2006-


seven, so some of them had already left. Thank you. Mr Murdoch, why


did you decide to risk the jobs of 200 people before pointing the


finger at those responsible for running the company at the time of


the illegality? Your son and Rebekah books? When a company


closes down, it's natural for people to lose their jobs. In this


case, we are continuing to make effort to see those people are


employed in other divisions of the company. If they are not part of


the small group of, whatever group was involved. Did you close it


because of the criminality? Yes, we felt ashamed of what had happened.


People lied to you and to their readers. We had broken our trust


with our readers. The important point was we had broken our trust


with our readers. Were you aware there was other forms of illicit


surveillance being used by private investigators used by News


International? Other forms of? Computer hacking, tracking cars?


All news organisations have used private detectives and do so in


their investigations from time to time. I don't think illegally.


it could be shown to you that private investigators working for


newspapers and News International used other forms of illicit so they


don't like computer hacking, would to immediately introduce another


investigation? That would be up to the police, but we would certainly


work with the police. If they wanted to do it, they would do it.


Can I ask you, when did you first meet Mr Alex Marincek? I don't know.


He worked for the company for 25 years. I may have shaken his hand


at one day in the office, but I have no memory. The bank you. Jim


Could I ask you a number of short questions? Why did you enter the


back door at Number Ten when you visit to the Prime Minister


following the last general election? Because I was asked to.


You were asked to come in the back door of Number Ten? Yes, to avoid


photographers in the front, I would imagine. I just did what I was told.


It's strange but heads of state managed to go in the front door.


Yes. But you had to go in the back door? Yes. That's up to the Prime


Minister or their staff. So it was under the Prime Minister's direct


instructions you come through the back door? I was asked to come


through the back door. I don't think my father had any direct


knowledge of arrangements to go into any building, respectively.


Have you ever imposed any preconditions... Which a visit to


Downing Street are you talking about? Following the general


election. I was invited for a cup of tea to be thanked for support by


Mr Cameron. No other conversation took place. And that's the one when


you came into the back door? Yes. I have also been asked by Mr Brown


many times. Through the back door? Yes.


My family went there many times. Have you ever imposed any


preconditions on a party leader in the UK before giving them the


support of your newspapers? I have never guaranteed any one support of


the newspapers. We had been supporting the Thatcher government,


the Conservative government, and we felt it was a good time and we


changed and are supported the Labour Party whenever it was, 13


years ago, with the direct loss of 200,000 circulation. Did you ever


impose any preconditions on the Labour Party? No. None whatsoever?


The only conversation I had with him, Tony Blair, we were arguing


about Europe. Mr Blair visited you are halfway around the world before


the 1997 election. It doesn't matter. It was something Mr


Campbell arranged. Yes. It is understood that the FBI are


investigating the 9/11 victims. Have you commissioned an


investigation into these allegations? We have seen no


evidence of that at all and as far as we know, the F B I haven't


either. If they do, we will treated exactly the same way as we treat it


here, and I cannot believe it happened. Anyone in America. The


News of the World, where the Glenn Mulcaire took it upon themselves to


do it, I don't know. I will come back to you in a moment for so I


just want to clarify, if these allegations are true whatsoever,


will you commission an investigation into them?


absolute it. -- absolutely. must be horrified by the scandal


and the fact it has cost to the BSkyB transaction and led to the


closure of the News of the World. Who do you blame for that? A lot of


people had different agendas, I think. Tried to build this hysteria.


All our competitors in this country formally announced a consortium to


try and stop us and they caught us with dirty hands and booked us.


was your competitors that stop you getting at? No, and mood developed


which made it impractical to go ahead. We have been very clear that


serious allegations of wrongdoing have been levelled to the News of


the World. We believed that the News of the World, the actions of


some reporters and people some years ago, have a fundamentally


tarnished the trust the News of the World had with its reserves --


readers, and this is a matter of huge and sincere regret, mind, my


father's, the companies. The company's priority very much so is


to restore that trust, to operate in the right way, to make sure that


the company can be the company it is always aspired to be. And the


removal of the offer to make, the proposal to make an offer to BSkyB


shareholders, is simply a reflection of that priority moving


forward. I have every sympathy with what you're saying, but do you


understand that people who have been the victims of the News of the


World, based on allegations, will find that a bit strange? It is our


absolute priority,... What happened at the News of the World was wrong.


I have apologised profusely and unreservedly for that. And my


father has, as well. These are very, very serious matters and we are


trying to establish the facts of any new allegations as they come up.


We are working closely with the police to find out where the wrong


doing was and hold people accountable. I think, importantly,


as well, to the victims of illegal voice mail interceptions, not just


if we apologise, but we have admitted liability, the company has


admitted liability, and we have set up the appropriate third party


compensation scheme to deal with that. These are all matters that we


are fully engaged in. Just turning to your father, I know it's a very


stressful time for yourself, but, Mr Murdoch, do you accept


responsibility for this whole fiasco? No. Who is responsible?


people that I trusted and then maybe the people they trusted. I


worked with Les Hinton for 22 years and I would trust him with my life.


Are you satisfied that the cash payments made by the News


Corporation companies to informants for stories were registered with


appropriate tax authorities? don't know anything about that, no.


If people were given money... In order to accomplish stories, was


that notified? All of our financial affairs and, as a public company, a


transparent, audited, the tax jurisdictions all around the world,


our work transparently and thoroughly. Tax compliance is an


important priority for any business and we comply with the laws. Does


that include people in a regular monthly retainers, registering


their affairs? I have no knowledge of separate people on a retainers


in the company, their own tax arrangements, but I can't speak for


the company's tax arrangements and, to the best of my knowledge, we are


a company which takes tax compliant, transparency, hugely seriously. It


is something we are very proud of. Can I just turn to James, you will


be aware of the situation with Tommy Sheridan, who is currently in


prison. The jury was misled in the Tommy Sheridan's perjury trial.


Your company has not disclosed the internal e-mails for that before


the wires that? I have no knowledge of that and I apologise for that. I


have additional questions on that and in future I will supply a


written answers but I don't have direct knowledge. I can't answer


James, could you please confirm or deny whether any News Corporation


company is the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud


Office? I have no knowledge of that at this point. Could you also


confirm or deny whether any News Corporation company is the subject


of an investigation by the financial services authority?


don't believe so, but not to my knowledge. Please confirm or deny


whether any News Corporation company is the subject of an


investigation by HMRC? Not to my knowledge, we have ongoing dialogue


with the HMRC and the various subsidiaries here. As far as


investigations are concerned, I have no knowledge of one.


Mr Murdoch, who made the recommendation to close down the


News of the World to the board of News Corp? I assume it was a board


decision made by News Corp? It was a discussion between my son, myself


and senior executives and Rebekah Brooks one morning. We called the


board of News Corporation, the whole board to seek their agreement.


You have already suggested he felt ashamed. It is not suggested it was


a commercial decision? Far from it. Moving on to the financial


governance arrangements within News Corp. James Murdoch, you suggested


the payments to Gordon Taylor were not notified at News Corp level


because of the finance thresholds? Could you tell us more about that?


I understand you had to agree for the payment to Mr Taylor, could you


tell us, was it financial or a managerial decision? It is a good


question, I am happy to discuss the matter of Mr Taylor. The out of


court settlement with Mr Taylor was related to a voice mail


interception that had occurred previously and was one of the


counts, as I understand of the 2007 trial of Glenn Mulcaire. It is


important to think back to 2008 to understand what we knew them and


what the Ince -- information was in the context. It was not a disputed


fact. It was the advice, and further to that it was the advice


and the clear view of the company that if litigated, the company


would lose that case, it was almost certain to lose the case because


the underlying fact was not in dispute. Third, the company sought


distinguish outside counsel to understand that if the case was


litigated and to be lost, which was the great likelihood, what it would


cost the company. It was advised that with expenses, legal expenses


and damages, it could be between �500,001 million, or they're about,


I don't recall the exact number of the advice, I think it was 250,000,


plus expenses. This was in a context in the first half of 2008


and this was my first real involvement with any of these


issues, where there was no reason at the time to believe the issue of


the voice mail interceptions was anything but a settled matter. And


that it was in the past after the successful prosecution of the two


individuals we discussed, as well as the resignation of the editor.


So the out-of-court settlement was made in that context. And it was


within the authorities, as I understood it, of News


International to be able to make those out of court settlements in


due course without going to the global level company. At the time,


I was the regional head for Europe and Asia of News Corporation. And I


directed it was all right to settle that, but did not get involved in


any of the Nicosia Asians directly about that settlements but I do


recall in 2008, those were the things that were done. Can I just


add, my son had only been with the company for a matter of a very few


weeks in this instance. It was a few months, but I had come back to


the company at the end of 2007 in the middle of December. This was


some time in the first half of 2008. Giving you renewed to the company,


what level of financial payments could news International executives


sanctioned, people like Rebekah Brooks without recourse to you as


the chairman? Generally speaking, the way the company will operate,


as any company will operate, is within certain financial parameters


and financial planning perspective. Much like a house will manage its


budget, and say how much money do we have to spend? As long as they


stay within those guidelines the belief is, they should be empowered


to make those judgments to spend the money and achieve the end as


they can. I don't have at the tip of my fingers, the precise


financial authorities in that. I can discuss after the committee


hearing with you, what exactly you would like to know and discuss


whether or not it is right to come back to you with that. What level


of financial payout would it have taken an authorisation from the


board of News Corp? A thing for the full board it is in the millions.


But her don't know the exact answer. Do you know how much has been paid


out to people, authorised by your executives? Paid out in what way?


Pay out in settlements? Illegal settlements? I do not know of the


total number. Around the world it is customary to reach out of court


settlements in civil litigation is an civil matters. It is something


that rather than go through the lengthy and expensive litigation


process and what the risk that often entails, sometimes at his


best to reach out of court settlements in many cases. We have


a very strong board committee at News Corporation which would know


about this. Neither of us are members of that, they are outside


directors and they will review all of these things. Building on that,


how is it possible to make payments to people if they do not invoice


you or they are not an employee of News Corp subsidiaries? How is it


possible to transfer cash or some other form of remuneration to


people who do not invoice you, or who are not employees of News Corp


subsidiaries? I don't know the exact arrangements of that. I don't


do that myself. Sometimes in certain instances, it is


appropriate for journalists or managers in a certain environment


to have the ability to use cash and in some instances, it is customary


for those to be recorded and all of the cash expenses, as well as


invoice expenses should be looked at and recorded. So things like the


use of petty cash could be big sums of money or small? At the moment


you just record the journalist gave it to somebody? I don't have direct


knowledge of all of those arrangements. I was going to ask if


payments could have been made to family members of those alleged to


have been hacked? But can other forms of renumeration be used in


your company other than cash, things like travellers' cheques,


things that can be redeemed for cash? And don't have any knowledge


of that. Looking at some of your own code, page two and page four


talking about directors and employees and if officers acting


for News Corporation including consultants, agents and suppliers


and business partners must adhere to the standards. We would never


ask any third party to perform any act to violate the standards. How


do you try and make that happen as an organisation? How we work is,


each newspaper has its own editor or manager. But, they have to


approve the expense claims up every reporter. The reporter has no


authority to pay money out. So the managing editor often manages a lot


of expenses and budgets. And should do so, and is directed to do so


with propriety. Do you require your executives to make annual


statements that they have abided by your code of conduct and ethics?


Every employee, every colleague around the world of News


Corporation receives the code of conduct, a set... It is a pamphlet


that has some detail in it. It is not too much so people read it,


with respect to what ethical conduct is required. It is about


ethical conduct, the law, breaking the rules and so on. Everyone he


becomes an employee is required to do that. Our legal internal council


conducts workshops around the world with staff, in Mumbai to Manchester


around those rules and that code of conduct and it is something we


tried to communicate as crisply as we can to everyone in the business.


And finally, I appreciate Mr murder's statements at the


beginning. Giving you have been in the media spotlight and not


appreciated the attention you have had, will this make you think again


on how you approach your headlines, your targets in future? That could


the people from the Hillsborough 96, celebrities or others. We you think


again about what your headlines will say in future? I think all of


our editors certainly will. I am not aware of any transgressions as


a matter of taste. It is a difficult issue we have in this


country. We have a wonderful variety of voices and naturally


very competitive. I am sure headlines, can occasionally give


offence. But it is not intentional. Mr James Murdoch? It is important


to say one of the lessons from all of this for us is we do need to


think, as a business as well as an industry, in this country more


forcefully and more thoughtfully about journalistic ethics. About


what exactly the codes of conduct should be, not just for News


International, are UK publishing subsidiary, but for the industry as


a whole. And what sort of Government should be around this


whole sort of area and we welcomed last week the Prime Minister's


announcements for a judicial inquiry into journalistic ethics,


and relationships between the police and politicians. It is a


good thing for the country and for all of the interested parties to


engage with. One of the specific actions we have taken to try to be


as proactive as we can around us, is we have set up what we call a


management and Standards Committee, that is outside the actual


management of our publishing company and reports to the


independent directors through the independent directors of our global


public board. They will be looking at this issue around, first the


specific issues, how we co-operate with the investigations, how we


deal with allegations of wrongdoing and get to the bottom of it. Also,


it is important how we co-ordinate and productively engaged with the


judicial enquiries and how we set a code of conduct and a code of


ethics that we think, and that it thinks is something that can both


be apparent on top of all of our newspapers, and all of the industry


and also something that has teeth and can hold the company to account.


It is independently chaired, this management and Standards Committee


and we think it is going to be a much better way to go in the future.


We would like, over the next six months and years to be judged on


the actions the company takes to put that right and to put it in


place. I would like to say it does not take the weight off what we


have been saying, our apologies. But this country does greatly


benefit from having a competitive press and therefore have a very


transparent society. That is sometimes very inconvenient to


people. But I think we are better Is it your intention to launch a


new Sunday tabloid newspaper? have made no decision on that.


There is no decision on that. the moment there's no plans to


other News International title coming out on Sunday? No immediate


plans for that. We had talked in the past two moving to seven-day


news rooms, speculation about the sun on Sunday. I think we will


leave those options open. It's not the company's priority now. In the


last week, it has come up. But, you know, our direction is that this is


not the time to be worrying about that. The company has to move


forward on all of these other actions and really get to grips


with the facts of these allegations and understand them as fully as we


can. Can I appeal both to the witnesses and indeed to members to


try to keep brief because we have a lot to get through?


In your statement on 7th July 2011, to James Murdoch, you said the


company paid out court settlement approved by me, and I did not have


a complete picture when I did so. What do you know now that you did


not know then? I think, essentially, the new information that image to


that is critical here, is the information that came out of the


ongoing process of civil litigation in 2010 -- emerged. At the end of


2010, the presentation of the evidence would not be in opposition


previously from this civil litigation, that widen the circle


definitively, at least made it very apparent, the circle was wider than


the two individuals, Glenn McKerr. But information was critical. --


Glenn Mulcaire. If I go back to my earlier comment, the commercial and


legal rationality around that was very clear. The underlying fact was


not in dispute for the it was known from previous trials. The a device


was very, very clear as to what sort of damages could be expected


to be paid and it was quite clear and likely that if litigated, the


company would lose that case. In the context of none of this other


information, and full before some of the new allegations in the press


a rose, from afar, and there was no reason to believe at the time it


was anything other than in the past. Knowing them what I know now, would


I still have directed to negotiate to settle that case? I would,


actually, but I would have coupled it with the other actions we have


taken since the new evidence emerged at the end of September


2010, and that is to immediately go and look at whatever we could find


internally around the individuals involved, to immediately contact


the police about information which may be of information -- interest


to them. To put in place the process, which I think we did in


the early part of 2011, editing liability to the civil litigants,


putting a process in place to get to the bottom of what legitimate


allegations their work, apologising unreservedly to the victims of the


voice mail intercepts which were inexcusable, and having a system of


compensation there. If I knew then what I know now, with the benefit


of hindsight, we can look at all these things. But if I knew then


what I know now, we would have taken more action around that and


moved faster to get to the bottom of these allegations. Were the


settlement paid by News International, News Corp or News


Group Newspapers? I don't recall. I would imagine it's News Corp or


News International. I'm sure we can provide you with that information


of this up what advice did Colin Myler give you in relation to


That the underlying factor in the case was a previous fact which came


up in the trial of Glenn Mulcaire. Were you aware the case included a


criminal act of phone hacking? Pardon me? Were you aware the case


involved the criminal act of a phone hacking? That was my


understanding that that was what the litigation was four, damages


for the illegal voice mail interception. When did you get this


advice? In the first half of 2008. In 2009, and they said they would


settle this claim based on external legal advisers. Was this received


from Farrer and Co solicitors? have done work for us. I don't know


precisely which external council they engaged on that, but I can


clarify it. Did you see the advice? No, the advice I had was oral from


Tom Crone and Colin Myler. What was that advice? As I described it.


Outside legal advice have been taken with respect to quantum of


damages and the advice was the cases would be lost and the advice


was in the absence of any new evidence, certainly no new evidence


was made aware to me, this was simply a matter to do with events


which had come to light in 2007 and the criminal trials before I was


there, and that this was in the past. And the police, as well, and


closed their case and said there was no new evidence there, so the


context was that it was about events which were a year or more


world, underlying staff previous to that. Was part of the advice given


that the High pavement was that the matter would be kept confidential?


Not at fault. The confidential nature of an out-of-court


settlement is a normal thing. -- not at all. I don't know many which


are not kept confidential files I'm sure there are some, but there was


nothing about confidentiality. I think I understand were you are


going with this, but no, the amount paid and the advice there was on


advice from outside counsel, with respect to the amount we would be


expected to pay in damages plus expenses in litigation costs.


you question why such high payments were made to Mr Taylor and Mr


Clifford? It's so just have to be �700,000 and �1 million


respectively for privacy when the record amount opera was the damages


awarded by a court remains �60,000, ironically against the News of the


World. I did question the amount but not in relation to the 60,000.


If you recall, as I'm sure you do, the chronology here, the settlement


made with respect to �60,000 against the News of the World what


I believe was the Moseley case, was after the authorisation the advice


that we sought from senior distinguished outside counsel with


respect to the quantum of damages expected to pay which, in damages


terms, was a quarter of a million pounds plus expenses and litigation


costs expected to be between �500,000 and �1 million. I think


that chronology is important and afterwards you would obviously have


different information but it wasn't afterwards, it was before. You have


since said when you approved the settlement you did not actually


have all the facts. What do you know now that you didn't then?


have testified, the key facts and evidence, that came to light as the


lengthy due process of the civil litigation involving these matters


to their cause, it was of that process which unearthed the key


evidence there, and it was really only after that, that any one said


they should start the investigation is in as we had that new


information. It indicated to us that there was a wider involvement.


We acted on it immediately. Crone said he did not know why he


left News Group Newspapers. Why was he asked to leave after 26 years of


service? Well, last week, the News of the World, two weeks ago, I


guess, Tom Crone was very involved over the years, but the company


believed and the management of the company believed that it was time


to part ways. I was not involved in those direct discussions with Tom


Crone and I can't comment on their nature and content. I don't have


information. The New Statesman it carries a story last week that News


International subsidised Andy Coulson's wages after he left your


employee. Can you shed any light on that? I have no knowledge of Andy


Coulson's wages after he left the company. Finally, are you familiar


with the term will fall blindness? -- wilful. It came up in the ENRON


scandal, a legal term which states that if there is information you


choose not to have, you are still responsible. Do you have a


question? The question was, are you aware of that? I'm not aware of


that phrase. I have heard of that phrase before and we were not ever


guilty of that. When we had our inquiry in a 2009,


the evidence given by News International executives was at


rather hopeless, really. They came with a game-plan, to tell us that


they didn't know anything, they couldn't remember anything, and


they didn't know anybody who would know anything. I just wonder, so we


can get off on a reasonable footing, what coaching you have had to date


and who has advised you on how to handle this session and what their


advice was? With respect to today, after scheduling this appearance,


we took some advice around what the context of this sort of setting


would be. This is our first time in a committee meeting like this.


Mostly logistics and so on, what sort of questions we would be asked,


and we were advised fundamentally to tell the truth. And then come


and be as open and transparent as possible. And that is hour intent,


intention, and I hope we can show you that is what is happening.


answering questions from at Mr Watson, you seemed to indicate you


had a rather hands-off approach to your company, and the point you


made was that the News of the World was less than 1% of your entire


worldwide business and so you wouldn't really be expected to know


the ins and outs of what was going on. Could you just give us an


illustration of how many times, how often you would speak to the editor


of your newspapers? How often you speak to the editor of the Sun, for


Very seldom. Sometimes I would ring the editor on a Saturday night and


say, have we got any news tonight? Keeping in touch. I ring the editor


of the Sunday Times nearly every Saturday. Not to influence what he


has got to say, at all. I'm always careful not to promise any remark I


I'm not really in touch. I have got to tell you, the editor I have


spent most time with, it's the Wall Street Journal. To say that we are


hands-off is wrong. I work a 12 hour day and I cannot tell the


multitude of issues which come my way. The News of the World, I lost


sight of it, maybe because it was so small in the general frame of


our company. But we're doing a lot If I can help you out. It some of


the had told me you would speak to somebody like the editor of the Sun


newspaper daily and twice a day, wouldn't you recognise that


description? No. You wouldn't historically, traditionally spoke


to the editor of the Sun newspaper that a number of times? No. I would


like to, but no. When you said you speak to the editor of the News of


the World may be on a Saturday night before the publication, not


to influence what they say, I understand that. I am intrigued as


to how these conversations go? I would imagine it would go something


along the lines of to the editor of the News of the World, anything to


report? Anything interesting going on? And the editor of the News of


the World says, no, it's been a standard way, we have paid Gordon


Taylor �600,000! He never said that last sentence. In your weekly


conversations with the editor of the News of the World, something as


big as that, paying somebody �700,000, you would have expected


the editor of the News of the World to drop it into the conversation at


some point? No. I would have called him at least once a month I guess.


What we do discuss with him? What was on the agenda? I would say,


what is doing? What sort of response which are expect? He might


say we have a great story exposing this or that. Or he would say,


actually nothing special. James,... He might refer to the fact extra


pages have been added to the football that week. But he wouldn't


refer to a �1 million pay-off? James, we do acknowledge in your


view, you overpaid Max Clifford and Gordon Taylor? I cannot speak about


the arrangements of Max Clifford because I don't have direct


knowledge in terms I wasn't involved in those pieces. With


respect to Gordon Taylor, I made a judgment given the advice of


counsel, given the advice of the executives involved and going back


and looking at what we knew in 2000 inmates and looking at that advice


and remembering that advice. -- 2008. It we look back from now, it


was a decision, given that context, I would still stand by, I think.


Apparently there was a contract with Max Clifford. It was cancelled


by Andy Coulson. I don't know about that. I don't have knowledge about


that. It just seems strange to me... I don't know what was in the


contract. We might ask you to come back with details about that. But


it seems odd to me as a layman, 600,000, a million pounds, Andy


Gray had his phone hacked but he did not get 600,000, 500,000 or


even 50,000. He got 20,000. Somebody else gets their phone Act


and they get 600,000 or one million. And surely you can see the


difference most people draw is one was when it was all out in the open


and everybody knew about these things, Andy Gray. And the other


one was paid when it was all trying to be kept quiet, 600,000. Do you


not see, to most people looking at that it smells a bit? I understand


why you are coming from. These are big sums of money we are talking


about, 100,000, 200,000, 600,000. It is a lot of money. He would ask,


why would a company do that? I would go back to my answer to Mr


Sanders's question, be precise about the chronology. I'm not a


lawyer, but at my understanding is that the 60,000 settlements in the


Moseley judgment case, which was after the advice given around the


Gordon Taylor settlements, is an important chronology. And courts


and judges have set a different standard here. What we knew and


what I knew at the time was we had seen your distinguished outside


counsel who had said if this case is as -- if this case is litigated


and the company will lose the case, what sort of damages would we


expect to pay? And the company received an answer that was


substantial. The answer was 250,000, so you settle for 600? It is


important to be clear. The 600,000, 700,000, included damages, legal


fees and an estimation of what it would have cost otherwise. Because


the other side is negotiating. So it is damages plus costs that get


you to that number. It is important to be clear about that. I want to


concentrate on payments you make to your staff. Going back to the trial


of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman. Clive Goodman was pleading guilty


to phone hacking, criminal offence. Did News International pay Clive


Goodman's legal fees for his trial? I do want to be clear about the


chronology, I don't have first-hand knowledge of those times. Remember,


my involvement in these matters started in 2008. In 2007 in


December I was focused in my role of a public company and I was not


involved. Who would know? contrite to answer the first


question first. It is customary, certainly with employees and with


litigation to pay some set of legal expenses on behalf of those, to try


to bring all of the evidence to a court and so on. That has all been


done in accordance with, since any involvement I have had any


knowledge, in accordance with legal advice about the proper way to do


things. I can speed -- I cannot speak about the 2007 arrangements.


Clive Goodman employed the services of a QC called John Kelsey-Fry. I


don't know whether you ever came across him? We don't know him.


is probably one of the most expensive and eminent more is in


the country. He is the go to a lawyer celebrities. Steven Gerrard


used him recently. It seems odd to me a journalist on the News of the


World who is pleading guilty to a crime, uses in mitigation, probably


the most expensive lawyer in the country which obviously leads some


people to suspect his legal fees were not being paid for by himself.


But were being paid for by News International. Given he was


pleading guilty to a criminal act, phone hacking, which presumably


needs to summary dismissal, gross misconduct? Why would News


International even think about, even dream about playing -- paying


the legal fees of somebody engaged in criminal activity and committed


something which was clearly gross misconduct? I don't have any direct


knowledge of the specific legal arrangements of Clive Goodman in


2007. I cannot answer the specifics of that question. I have asked the


question as well more recently than that. With respect to who the


company pays legal fees, what contribution to legal fees do we


make, or does the company make? I think I can tell you that in asking


the question I have been surprised, and this is legal counsel telling


me this, it is customary in here it is sometimes made contributions to


the legal costs of either co- defendants or defendants in related


matters. But I have no direct knowledge of that particular


instance you mentioned. If you have any additional specific questions


about that, perhaps Mr chairman, we can follow up with you on that and


I am happy to do so. These are issues that go back some time, I am


surprised you have not followed upon them already. Where any


payments paid subsequently to Glenn Mulcaire and Clyde and following


their convictions? -- Clive Goodman. It is a good question and it is a


specific question. To my knowledge, and upon asking because allegations


had been made that legal fees had been paid after that time in 2007.


I asked the question myself and I was very surprised to find the


company had made certain contributions to legal settlements.


I don't have all are the details around each of those. Not legal


settlements sorry I mean legal fees. I was surprised, very surprised.


Who authorised them? They were done, as I understand it, in accordance


with legal counsel and strong advice. I'm not asking who advised,


who signed it off? Q-side the Czechs at News International and


agreed to make those of payments? have no idea. The talk about the


managing editor, would the managing editor have made them? It would


have been the management of the legal cases I would think. I am


happy to go back and look at that, but it was not something that came


to my attention. It wouldn't have anything to do with the managing


editors. Would it have been above the managing editor or below?


would have been above. It would have been on legal advice, had to


handle payments in legal litigation has. I don't have direct knowledge


of the current status of those. But I was surprised as you are to find


some of those arrangements had been made. Mr Murdoch senior, I seem to


be getting further with you. Would it have been Les Hinton? Would he


have agreed and signed those cheques? It could have been. Would


have been or could have been? have been. The who else could it


have been? The chief legal officer. They both had authority to sign


cheques. It would have been on the instructions of the chief legal


officer. James, you said you were not involved in the decision to get


rid of Tom Crone, whose decision was that? The management of the


company at the time, recently the chief executive, Rebekah Brooks.


it was her decision? She is the chief executive of the company and


senior personnel decisions are made by her. When Stuart left the


company, he left the day after all on the day allegations were made in


the Guardian, allegedly about her own -- phone hacking. What happened


to Stuart cut no, how did he leave the company? That I do not know.


And that would have been at the time, a News of the World matter


for them. It would be for you to ask him. Why did Les Hinton resign?


Les Hinton resigned sadly last Friday following Rebekah Brooks's


resignation saying I was in charge of the company during this period


we are getting criticism for. He said he felt he Muster down.


Rebekah Brooks, Les Hinton, were they asked to leave? They both


asked to leave. Why did you not accept Rebekah Brooks resignation


when she first offered to do it? Because I trust her. Why did you


accepted the second time round? was insistent. She was at a point


of extreme anguish. How much have all of these characters been paid


off? How much financial settlement have they been given on their


departure from News International? I cannot tell you, but in the case


of Les Hinton, it will be considerable because there will be


pensions for 52 years' service. Would it be 10 million, 5 million?


It is confidential. Is there any confidentiality in the pay-off they


are not supposed to speak about what happened, with their time at


When somebody leaves the business in circumstances like this, there


are commercial confidentiality agreements but nothing that would


stop or inhibit the executives from co-operating fully with


investigations or being transparent about any wrong doing or anything


like that. It's important to know in these agreements, they are made


on the basis of no evidence of impropriety, and if evidence of


impropriety images, or was their prior to that the party, then you


would have a different piece, but that's an important pointer to be


clear about. My final question is, it seems to me on the face of it,


the News of the World was sacrificed in order to try and


protect Rebekah Brooks's position at News International, in effect,


rather than her being, having her departure announced, the News of


the World was offered up to deal with the whole thing. Do you regret


making a decision, closing the News of the World to try to save a


Rebekah Brooks and, in hindsight, do you wish you had accepted her


resignation to start with, in order that that paper could probably


continue and all of the people now out of work, struggling to find a


job, could still be in work? regret the fact people won't be


able to find work. The two decisions are totally unrelated.


Absolutely and totally unrelated. When you came into the UK, your


priorities was Rebekah Brooks. not sure I said that. I went aside


my flat and I had about 20 microphones stuck in my mouth, so


I'm not sure what I said. You were misquoted. I'm not saying that.


It's important that the closure of a newspaper with a history 160


years, is something which the great thing, something which is a serious


matter of regret for as, for the company, but much more serious than


that is the seriousness of the violation of privacy, the her to


that certain individuals the News of the World caused to the victims


of voice mail interceptions and their families -- hurt. I advocated


that this was a step that we should take. This was a newspaper and


title which had fundamentally violated the trust of its readers.


It is something which was a matter of great regret, real gravity but,


under the circumstances, and with respect to the bad things that


certain things happened at the News of the World a couple of years ago,


it was the right choice for the paper to cease publication. Now, it


is important to note, and they want to be clear on this, the company is


doing everything it can to make sure that journalists and staff at


the News of the World to add nothing to do with any of these


issues, who are completely blameless, in any of these things,


and many have done a tremendous work journalistically,


professionally, commercially, and for the business, that we find re-


employment for them whenever we can and I think the company is being as


generous as we can be under the circumstances. The company is being


as thoughtful and compassionate for them and their families to get


through this, but it is a very regrettable situation and one that


we did not take lightly in any way. I'm going to ask for numbers. We do


still have some way to go. Thank you, John. I want to return


to how John opened the session and the evidence given previously. In


connection with Mr Davies's question, there was one key


question he omitted to ask. James, through all the civil actions, have


you been paying Glenn Mulcaire lack of legal fees, not personally?


said earlier,... Let's keep it short. Yes or no. I don't know the


current status. Have you been paying legal fees for Glenn


Mulcaire during the civil actions? I don't know the details of the


civil actions but I do know that certainly, legal fees were paid for


Glenn Mulcaire by the company. I was as shocked to learn that as you


off. Can you understand that people might ask why a company might wish


to pay the legal fees of a convicted felon who has been


involved in the destruction of a reputation? Was it to buy his


silence? I can understand that. That's exactly why I ask the


question. When the allegations came out I said, are we doing this? Is


this what the company is doing? On a legal advice, and again, I don't


want to be legalistic, I'm not a lawyer, but these are serious


litigation has. It's important for all the evidence from the


defendants to get to court of the right time and the strong advice


was, from time to time, it was customary to pay co-defendants's


legal fees. I have to rest on counsel's advice on some of these


litigation matters. If the organisation still contributing to


his legal fees? I don't know the precise status of that now but I do


know that I asked for those things to cease. Will you let us know?


happy to follow up on that. Murdoch senior, is it not time for


the organisation to say enough is enough? This man allegedly hacked


the phone of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. Is it not


time for the organisation to say, do your worst? You have behaved


disgracefully. We're not going to pay any more of your costs. I would


like to do that. I don't have the status of what we're doing a or


indeed what his contract was and whether it still has any course.


The if the organisation is still paying his fees, will you give the


instruction now that that will stop? Provided it's not in breach


of contract, a legal contract, yes. I just want to return now to the


question of making statements to Parliament without being in full


possession of the facts. During our inquiry into 1009, all the


witnesses who came to us testified to been intimately involved, in


particular a huge lot but e-mails after the arrival of Colin Myler.


It seems over the past few days, they have been quick to distance


themselves from that investigation according to the newspapers. It has


made clear that that investigation uncovered no new evidence. James


Murdoch, can you tell us about the e-mails, the internal reports,


discovered allegedly in the offices of Harbottle & Lewis? Can you tell


us when you first came to know about it? What is in it? I first


came to know about but earlier this year, in a 2011. Can you be more


precise? It would have been around springtime of I don't remember the


exact date. Before April? April or May. I can try to find the media


schedules and come back for so a few months ago. I can speak a


little bit about it, but as to the activity that was carried out in at


2007, again, I pieces back together from the past, be formed any of my


involvement, but the company at the time, I think you're referring to a


dismissal case that was brought by a Mr Goodman, and that was the


basis for conducting the period of the convictions. That is what we


inferred in our report last year. It was right at the time Colin


Myler had come in and the code of standards have been talked about,


this was before my time, and an investigation was done around this


and there was an outside council brought in, Harbottle & Lewis, by


the company at the time, and I understand that the Legal


executives, Mr Chapman at the time, along with Colin Myler who


testified, took a report and from that, the opinion was clear that,


as to their review, there was no additional illegality with respect


to phone hacking at in that file. As to their review, that was the


opinion. The company really rested on a number of things from then on


and they certainly know in at 2009, when additional allegations came in


the summer, the company rested on a handful of those things for I want


to move right up to date to what was discovered in the offices of


Harbottle & Lewis. So, in at 2010, after the civil


litigation has had put a spotlight on the company, new information had


not been there before and the police investigation started off.


One of the things which was locked up, I suppose, in the spring, by


senior people at a News International, was that file. It


was looked at again, and it was rapidly brought to our attention


that this was something. When was this look that? Between May, April


May-June. Who looked at it first? William Lewis? The people managing


the work on behalf of News International from earlier this


year, led by Mr Lewis, that's correct. What is in that file? A


collection of 300 e-mails, loosely bandied? As you know, there's an


ongoing criminal investigation and I think it would be wrong of me to


talk about specific information and evidence subject to, which could


make problems to the police. don't thing it could cause problems


if you tell us whether it was in a It is pay but also of his e-mails,


documents. -- It is paper. But also e-mails. Have you read it all?


things have been shown to me. I have not read it. Did you use an


expletive when you first read some of these e-mails? I try not to.


Occasionally when you do? reaction immediately was to agree


with the recommendation of the executives involved but this was


something we should bring to the police with respect to the ongoing


investigations and perhaps a new ones. When was it given to the


police? June 20th? Up to inform the board. That date is accurate?


yes. The Sunday Times, great newspaper, portrayed a picture on


10th July from this file that showed a six gatekeepers of the


news desk who dealt with Glenn Mulcaire. And they were named for


that Clive Goodman. James Weatherall. Ian Edmondson. Do you


recognise that summary from the file? Mr Farrelly, respectfully, I


would ask you to please understand it but detailed questions about any


of the evidence, information we are passed to the police in relation to


the ongoing criminal inquiries are difficult for me to answer. I would


appreciate it if we would allow the police to undergo the important


work that they are undergoing. There is a process which is


important. We are co-operating with it and provide the information on a


regular basis. On a regular basis as needed by the police. I really


believe we have to allow the police to conduct their investigation and


told the people who did wrong to account in this area. OK, I will


On anything now. It could result in guilty people... I fully understand


that and I respect that clearly. The descriptions and the press said


they mentioned the e-mails implicate Andy Coulson in knowledge


of payments to the police but they were not expected to comment on


that so I will just turn to the Harbottle & Lewis letter provided


to ask by Rebekah Brooks as evidence during her inquiry, the e-


mails have produced nothing more. That letter from Lawrence Abraham,


senior partner of Harbottle & Lewis, I mention that e-mails have been


reviewed of Andy Coulson, Stuart coupler, Ian Edmondson, Clive


Goodman, and Jules Stenson, and that nothing had come to light in


that review which contradicted the report -- a lone reporter working


with Glenn Mulcaire. Knowing what you know now, from the other


evidence you discovered, have you looked back in detail at the basis


And why they gave such a clean bill of health? Having looked at some of


the things in that and the advice of the senior people inside the


company more recently that went and looked at that, it was the view of


the company's self- evidently, it was right to bring this to the


attention of the police and go forward. And that opinion from the


council was something the company rested on and it was a clear


opinion about a review that was done around those records. And in


addition in conjunction with the police continuing to say there was


no new evidence and there was no reason to open a new investigation,


and in conjunction with the PCC saying they had done their review


an inquiry and there was nothing new. It was viewed it was a settled


the matter. It was only when you evidence emerged those three things


began to be undermined. In the follow up to the session, can you


provide us with the instruction that was given to Harbottle & Lewis,


the information, the extent of the information given to them out of


the totality of the information available? That detail would help


us conclude... If there is additional detail required around


some of those legal instructions we will consult and come back to the


chairman in a way to satisfy you with the information you have.


review coincided not so much with Mr miler's a rival but in timing


with the industrial tribunal action that Clive Goodman and Glenn Moore


clerk were planning. Do you know it was limited to the six individuals?


I don't know, I think... I was not there at the time and they cannot


tell you the conversations people had with Harbottle & Lewis and the


terms of reference of that. Be it had been viewed after the fact it


had been a thorough look at information based on that reviewed


that opinion was issued. Neville further back is one of mission that


is immediately jumping out. Again, in hindsight we can all say that


somebody had looked at this, and if somebody had known some think that


it was unknown at the time, I cannot comment on why the terms and


wider scope was what it was. proceedings by a Clive Goodman and


Glenn Mulcaire for unfair dismissal, not withstanding their criminal


conditions never saw the light of day because they were settled


because then we do not know what they were planning to serve on you.


The you-know-what allegations they were making? Have you satisfied


yourself with what types of allegations they were making?


think some of these individuals are subject to criminal investigation.


Some of them have been arrested recently and they are important


matters for the police now. It is important I am not lead into


commenting specifically about individuals for allegations made in


the past. Have you satisfied yourself as to what Clive Goodman


and Glenn Mulcaire were alleging in discussions that led up to the


settlements, if they brought industrial tribunal proceedings


against you? That was the question. Not what they were alleging, but


have you satisfied yourself about what they were alleging? As for


Glenn Mulcaire I am not aware of allegations at the time and other


things. And in 2007, with Clive Goodman again, before I was there,


it is my understanding that is what Harbottle & Lewis were helping to


do with and they did satisfy the company at the time and the company


rested on that opinion for a period of time. Would you like to take the


opportunity to withdraw this letter as an accurate portrayal as to what


went on at the News of the World? This is the Harbottle & Lewis


letter? It is something I am glad you have asked about. It is a bit


of the legal advice from senior council that was provided to the


company and the company rested on. It goes some distance in providing


information as to why it took so long to provide that information.


It was one of the basis for a push back the company made against new


allegations. It is one of the pillars are the environment around


the place that led the company to believe that these matters were


from the past and new allegations... The question was different Mr


Murdoch. I astute whether this letter, which is still lying on the


record as evidence to Miss -- this committee, would you like to


withdraw it? Respectfully, I'm not a were of the legal technicalities


of withdrawing that or submitting it on the record. It is a relevant


document in trying to understand how News International was thinking


at the time. I can say no, but I come back after taking Council.


want to wind up, given the time but I have a few more questions. As you


have described it, and as Colin Myler described it, the


investigation was carried about by the IT department and was overseen


by the Director of Legal Affairs, John Chapman and the page are


director, Daniel cloak. Is that your understanding? Pardon me, what


is the question? The investigation yourself, you describe it to us and


Colin Myler describe it to us, it was carried out by the IT


department and overseen by the Director of Legal Affairs, John


Chapman and the page are personnel director, Daniel cloaks. Is that an


accurate description? That is my understanding. Why has John Chapman


left the organisation? John Chapman and the organisation decided it was


in mutual interest to part ways. I think one of the pieces here it is


for the company to move forward, and it is for, and I think this is


important, many of the individuals, even if there is no evidence of


wrongdoing, or anything like that and no evidence of impropriety,


many individuals have chosen it is time to part ways. I was not


involved with the discussions with Mr Chapman. You have no information


of complicity by Mr Chapman to cover up the file? I have no


knowledge. Can you tell us their employment status of Daniel cloak?


He left some time ago, I don't know what he is doing. He is not in the


business. He was director of human resources for a number of years,


not that many, I am not sure. quickly, the witnesses who came to


us. In respect of the file you have discovered this year, regarding Les


Hinton, when did he first become aware of this collection of the e-


mails and paper, you disk covered - - discovered, when did he hear


about it? I cannot speak to his knowledge of that. Are you


referring in 2011 or 2007? This document that was left... In 2007?


I cannot speak to his knowledge, but I know Les Hinton was aware of


the work that had been carried out and I think he has testified to


this committee as to that effect. Mr Murdoch's senior, had you asked


lessons at last -- Les Hinton if he knew about this document? No.


not? About? The document that was discovered in April, May in the


offices of Harbottle & Lewis? have not asked him. And I think he


has testified to this, as the chief executive of News International at


the time wouldn't have been expected to read hundreds and


thousands of e-mails, but it would rely on the opinion of council.


Colin Myler aware of this evidence lying with Harbottle & Lewis?


cannot speak to other individuals knowledge in the past. I simply


cannot speak for them. And Stuart cut and a? The same goes, I cannot


speak for them. And Rebekah Brooks? I simply cannot speak. I cannot


speak about the knowledge of Rebekah Brooks when she was chief


executive of this, but she brought it to my attention as a new thing.


To finish off this questioning, we are left now in a situation, you


having looked into this affair, having co-operated with the police,


cannot tell us who lodged the file with Harbottle & Lewis. He was


aware of its contents and who kept you from being in the full


possession of the facts, evidence that is clearly now being submitted


to the police which contradicts all of the assurances we were given,


not in one but in two select committee inquiries? Frankly, I


hope he would agree it is unsatisfactory? I can say the


company at the time engaged in -- engaged an outside law firm to


review a number of these e-mails. They reviewed an opinion based on


the review issued to the company of a respected law firm and the


opinion was clear. The company rested on that. I cannot speak to


individuals knowledge at different times because I simply don't know.


The company rested on that, rested on the fact the police told us


there was no new evidence and no reason for a new investigation and


rested on the opinion of the PCC there was no reason to carry it


further. It wasn't until new evidence emerged from the civil


litigation is that it would go in on that the company immediately


went to the police, restarted this. And the company has done the right


thing. This was evidence that was lying with your lawyer's at the


same time, it did not emerge simply out of litigation. It was looked at


in conjunction with the new and restarted criminal investigation.


These are serious matters and we take them seriously. When it was


looked at, it was deemed these things would be of interest to the


police, we brought in additional council, Lord MacDonald, who you


mentioned earlier, to help advise the company on the appropriate way


forward in terms of full transparency and co-operation with


the police investigations were. They are serious matters and the


company took them at very seriously. Mr Rupert Murdoch, two questions.


The situation I painted, we are now here, not knowing who at News


International, News of the World was complicit in keeping that file


containing however many bits of paper, we are no where near a


knowing who knew what and when about that file. Evidence that


clearly contradicts, not only statements given to the select


committee, but evidence as it would appear that it leads your closest


and trusted aide over many years, Les Hinton to give misleading


evidence. Defined it a satisfactory state of affairs? No, I do not.


What do you think the company should do in the follow-up to this


select committee inquiry? Chapman, who was in charge of this


has left us. And, he had that report for a number of years. It


wasn't until Mr Lewis looked at it carefully we immediately said we


need legal advice, go to the police with this and how we should present


it. The file was what the law firm and there wouldn't have been any


reason to look at it. The opinion was clear based on the review that


was stunned. As soon as it was in a new criminal investigation, it was


deemed appropriate to look at and Given the picture painted of


individuals on the newsdesk, asking it -- acting as a great cure for a


private investigator, do you think it's possible at all what editors


of your newspaper would not have known about these activities? Do


you think it's remotely possible? can't say that because of the


police inquiry. And the coming judicial proceedings. That's all I


can tell you except it was my understanding... I better not say


it... That Colin Myler was appointed by a Mr Hinton to find a


what the hell was going on and he commissioned that inquiry. Now,


that is my understanding of it. I cannot see where to the accuracy of


it. Thank you. I am going to appeal for brevity because we have been


going for two hours now. James Murdoch, it's a mystery to us


how Sunday newspapers are run. I'm familiar with the engineering


industry. Can you paint a picture of a week's operation at the News


of the World? What period were you controlling the News of the World?


My involvement overseeing Europe and Asia, in at 2008, the middle of


December, I was chief executive for Europe and Asia, the television


business, and the UK publishing business. One title of which is the


News of the World. I can't say that I was ever intimately involved with


the workings of the News of the World. What results would come to


you seven days after publication? Presumably the advertising, sales,


income, and to run the paper on the profitability, week by week,


presumably? I know Rupert Murdoch is far removed from that. Yes,


these are enterprises. Sales and advertising figures. Personnel


numbers and all those things, they are relevant. Managers look at


these things. We understand that when it comes to legal issues,


settlements of claims, that is taking out side from the day-to-day


management of the newspaper. Each group of companies will have their


own legal executives who will deal with things like libel and other


things and we'll try to check that something does not going to the


paper which will be wrong etc. Sometimes it's right, sometimes


it's wrong, but each has its own resources. Each manager is involved


in that. The editor of the News of the World... My son's typical week


could well have been a day in a Munich, or in a Italian Sky TV. We


had a difficult situation with a tricky competitor. He had a lot on


his plate. I will leave a more of the mundane issues, then. It became


clear from the first couple of questions to you, Rupert Murdoch,


you were kept in the dark quite a bit. On serious issues. Not in the


dark. I may have been lax in not asking but it was such a tiny part


of our business. But you wouldn't be here if it was an extremely


serious. It has become extremely service. -- serious. Is there no


written rules that certain things have to go straight to the very


top? It sounds as if there are no such things. Anything seen as a


crisis comes to me. I think it's important to know the difference


between being kept in a dark and a large company, the management of


which is delegated, two managers of different companies within the


group and so on and so forth. I think to suggest that my father and


myself were kept in the dark is a different thing from suggesting the


management and the running of these businesses are often delegated to


chief executives, and editor, and managing editor, and decision-


making has to be there. There are threshold of materiality, if you


will, whereby things have to move upstream so something has to be


brought to the attention. From a financial point of view, we address


that earlier would respect of settlement out-of-court settlement


with Mr Taylor. But also from the standpoint of things like alleged


criminality, violations of our code of conduct, things like that, those


are things which the company's internal audit function, as well as


the audit committee and senior executives of the committee are


expected to be made aware of. As they were in the case of the


criminal prosecutions in 2007. Whatever efforts were made and


whatever rules their work, we have reached News International Mac was


crisis point, otherwise you wouldn't be here today and the News


of the World wouldn't have been closed. Who do you hold responsible


for that failure? You say people should have told you. You're really


saying to us now, not that they should have told you, but you will


let them get on and manage it. What has gone wrong? It's a good


question but I'm not saying somebody should have told me. To my


knowledge, certain things were not known. When a new information came


to light in respect to my knowledge of these events and the


understanding of new information coming to light, the company acted


on it in a right and proper way as best it could. But it is difficult


saying the company should have been told something if it's not known


but a thing was a known fact to be told. Now, I have been asked today


about what other new people knew then, and I can only tell you what


they told me or what they have told you in previous hearings, and I


understand completely your frustration about this. You can


imagine my own frustration in the 2010 When this civil litigation


came to a point where these things were coming out and I suddenly


realised, actually, the denial of allegations made earlier,


particularly in a 2009, had been too strong. And that is a matter of


real regret because all the facts were not known when that was done


and that is a matter of deep regret. That is why we are here today with


you trying to be as transparent as you possibly can. I suppose this is


a rhetorical question. I'm sure your answer will be what I expect,


but it is admirable that fact you have had such long-term employees


who have become very close friends. Rupert explained that with his


determination to look after Rebekah Brooks, so it is admirable, but


there was a lot of criticism at the time. This is not a criticism,


James, of your ability, but that it was nepotism to a point you. --


appointee. -- a point you. Do you regret it has become a family


organisation? When the job became available as head of BSkyB, several


people applied, including my son. They passed all sorts of board


committees, outside experts, etc, who came to the conclusion that he


a field day. When he left to go to, I promoted him to take charge of


much wider responsibilities, we had calls from all the big shareholders


saying it was a terrible thing to take him away because he had done


such a great job. I wasn't disputing his ability. The fact


that you didn't know about so many of these criminal activities which


went on, do you not think that was made more likely because of the


family history? I'm talking about people are not direct members of a


family but became friends? No. I don't think that. It has been


mismanaged. I don't think Les Hinton this led me for me but you


must find out that and make your own conclusions. Other people who


gave evidence may have been misleading you, but he certainly


did not know of anything. Thank you very much. I have a two more


members. I would like to make a short


declaration of my own which was something previously declared to


the committee to say my wife is employed by News Corporation has


never worked on his account and has no access to information on this.


Mr Rupert Murdoch, you said earlier on that we live in a transparent


society. Do you think it's right people in public life can expect


total privacy? No. I noticed in the Watergate investigation for example,


personal banking and phone records were used belonging to one of the


witnesses, relevant that investigation. To what extent you


think the use of confidential private information, phone records,


phone hacking, is permissible? Phone hacking is something quite


different but I do believe that investigative journalism,


particularly competitive, does lead to a more transparent and open


society. I think we're a better society because of it. We are


probably more an open society than the USA. Where do you draw a line


on that? Where are the boundaries of legitimate investigation? What


is out of bounds? I'm sorry to say this, when the Daily Telegraph


bought a series of stolen documents of all the expenses of MPs, it


caused a huge outcry. One of which I feel has not been properly


addressed. There is an answer to it. We ought to look at the most open


and clear society in the world, Singapore, where every minister


gets at least a million dollars a year and the Prime Minister a lot


more and there is no temptation, and it is the cleanest society you


will find anywhere. Good luck in selling that idea!


I mean that seriously. It is ridiculous. People were reduced to


doing what they did. I think it's a very good question and an important


question and I understand it's going to be one of the subjects of


the judicial inquiry which the Prime Minister announced last week,


which, as a company, we immediately welcome and look forward to. This


question of public interest, the question of what is acceptable and


what isn't in terms investigative techniques is an important one but


let me be clear, the codes of conduct of News Corporation


globally for our employees, journalist and otherwise, are very


clear, that breaking the law is a very, very serious matter and


people who are law-breakers should be held to account. In the matter


of something like phone hacking and payments to police, and things like


that, we just don't think they should have any place in our


business. You would be very clear within your company, your


organisation, senior people should have been aware phone hacking was


not only illegal but totally unacceptable? I think after the


successful prosecutions and convictions of the individuals


involved in 2007, it could not be taken more seriously and if new


evidence emerges, as it has in cases, the company acts on it very


very quickly. The what extent do think of a cultural problem? Duping


people only tell you things you want to hear and even people who


have been your trusted advisers simply withhold information because


No, not my trusted advisers. should hear the conversations in my


office. A lot of you trusted advisers... A lot of people say I


have crazy ideas. A lot of your trusted advisers have left your


company? We are a very big company. I'm sure I get people who try to


please me. That could be human nature and it is up to me to see


through that. What is the pressure on senior managers and editors to


get scoops that leads them to take risks and clearly in the case of


the News of the World, push boundaries that broke the law?


you ask that again, I am sorry. you think there is a pressure on


editors of Your News papers which leads them to take risks and break


boundaries? In the legal -- in the News of the World, there was


illegal action and people but the law to get scoops? The to totally


wrong. There is no excuse for breaking the law at any time. It is


right for all newspapers, when they wish to to campaign for a change in


the law. But never to break it. Just two further questions if I


make? -- if I may. I was brought up by a father who was not rich, but


made a great journalist. And he, just before he died left a piece of


paper in his will, specifically giving me the chance to do some


good. He gave me the chance to expose the scandal at Gallipoli.


Which I am very, very proud of. Which goes to the suggestion it is


a family business. Rupert Murdoch, you said earlier on you have had


frequent meetings with prime ministers during your career. In


the period after the arrest... wish they would leave me alone.


arrest of Clive Goodman, which you said earlier on you were aware of


the situation when Clive Goodman was sent to prison. In the years


after that, when there were numerous reports and investigations,


he rings at this Committee, did any senior politicians are you were in


contact with during that period of time raise this as an issue with


you, about phone hacking? Absolutely never. The prime


ministers I met in those days was Mr Brown when he was Chancellor of


the X Cheshire. -- Chancellor of the Exchequer. His wife and my wife


struck up a great friendship. We had great values that we shared, I


am sorry we have come apart and I hope we can put it together again.


You said in the interview you gave to the Wall Street Journal, your


fellow executives at News Corporation had handled this crisis


very well with just a few minor mistakes. Do you stand by that


statement or do you believe the level of mistakes was far greater


than that? They seem much bigger now. What we did was terrible. The


handling of the crisis. I am sorry, I had just been told not to


gesticulate. They don't believe that either he or Les Hinton made


any great mistakes. But were mistakes made within the


organisation? Absolutely. People I trust it, people they trusted, we


were betrayed, yes. Finally, James Murdoch, it was reported while


Rebekah Brooks wrote to staff or when the News of the World closure


was made, she said in a year's time they might understand why the paper


had to close. Are you expecting there to be more revelations to


come out that made the closure of the News of the World with


hindsight, inevitable? I cannot speak to what she was specifically


referring to, she made those comments herself. And when she was


saying goodbye, sadly to the staff. But I can say, what happened at the


News of the World and the events leading up to the 2007 affairs and


prosecutions and at what we know about those things now, were bad.


And there are things that shouldn't have any place in our organisation.


There were things we unreservedly, and since Sealey are sorry for. We


haven't seen the end of this in terms of the ongoing police


investigations that of her. As you know, there are a number of people


who have been arrested. We don't know what is going to happen in the


future around those things. Given the breach of trust, given the


allegations that were emerging at a rapid pace, you know it was clear,


to me anyway and I think the future will bear this out with any


specific knowledge of the future obviously, it was the right thing


for the paper to cease publication. Your father said in his Wall Street


Journal interview, he acted as fast as he could, the moment he could.


Does that suggest you have been held back at any point, had he been


frustrated during this process in the past few weeks? This has been a


frustrating process and my frustration, my real anger to learn


there was new evidence emerging as late as the end of 2010, was real


and is real. What I have done and what the company has tried to do is


take new information, at just the course, behaved with propriety, the


Hague quickly and behave in a humble way with respect to what has


happened and with respect to trying to put it right. That is what we


are trying to do. It does not mean I have any knowledge of anyone


intentionally misleading me in the company, I don't. Which makes it


even more frustrating. We are where we are, new information emerge


through a legitimate due process of the civil trial. The company acted


on it as fast as could possibly be expected. Add new allegations are


emerging that the company, we are trying to deal with him as best way


as possible. And finally, the good news is I am your last questioner


and I will try to have a few specific questions that I would


like to ask you. Starting with you, Mr James Murdoch. I know we have


been over at length, the differences in the settlements, the


Taylor sufferance -- settlement, did that include a confidentiality


clause and maybe the other This hearing is suspended for 10


minutes. We are leaving the committee


hearing there has been some sort of altercation. We could not help but


we will let you know, somebody had moved to attack Rupert Murdoch, or


it was happening at his side of the table. We have had to cut away from


the committee hearing and it has been postponed for at least 10


minutes to get back to some order. We have heard a lot already, my


three guests are still with me. I will get their overall reactions.


Alastair Campbell? I think people will have been surprised how


distant Rupert Murdoch seemed from everything. I thought he be came a


bit more cogent in the second half. But in the first half, it was


almost like, I don't really know what has gone on anyway. James


Murdoch as well, there were a lot of questions where I thought, in


the time he has had to research and prepare for this, he would have


known the answers. He looked most uncomfortable in relation to the


specific questions to Glenn Mulcaire's legal bills, and he


should have known the answer. And Gordon Taylor, Louise Mensch was


going when that incident occurred, and Gordon Taylor situation looks


where they feel a bit vulnerable. Over all, you had a feeling of two


people in charge of a company that was saying, we were not in charge


of this. The theme that seemed to be coming through, sometimes from


questioning that was less than penetrating, but did reveal things


in the end, was the implication of a lot of the questions was, a new


revelation, he continued to pay Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman,


the two who went down. The Guardian you that, and now we know it is


definitely true. We are just giving you live pictures as I speak. We


are not sure what has happened. The police moved in very quickly, or on


attendance, security attend and moved very quickly when the


incident happened. We saw it, just as he was seeing it, with a look of


shock on the face of John Whittingdale, the chairman of the


committee. It was then we knew something was happening at


Portcullis House. There is very strong security in the sense you


have to go through the detectors you have to go through at airports


and bags are checked and so on. That does not mean somebody could


at least getting he wanted to be up to no good. We will stay on these


pictures for a second. I will continue with David. The


implication, is that we have shut them down by paying money. The


other implication of the questioning was to Mr Taylor and Mr


Max Clifford, we paid them a shed load of money and that shut them


down, too? That goes right to the question, which have two outcomes


is this? Is it gross negligence in terms of the management not going


on, or is it to cover up? wilful blindness argument. James


Murdoch answered, after Mosley, the �60,000 settlement, it dropped away.


He had been given advice, it will be more than this, but then it


dropped away. What was interesting as well for me, I said to you at


the beginning this might mean the end... I am being told, my


understanding is it looks as if somebody, a woman tried to grab


Rupert Murdoch from behind. And that was kind of the indication we


were getting. It did look like that. Another report, Kevin Maguire of


the Daily Mirror, a long-standing friend of this programme, also


trying to attack Rupert Murdoch and Wendy Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's


wife who was sitting right behind him moved in to intervene when she


saw that happening. These are early reports, they are not confirmed yet,


so as soon as we get confirmation, we will bring it to you. I said


this may be the end of the Empire, but what was interesting in


watching the Emperor in action. Tom Watson's initial long series of


questions serve to show essentially, Rupert Murdoch did not know what


was going on in his organisation, in this part of his organisation,


at all. I don't know how that will play in America, how will the


shareholders look at that? How can you be at the centre of this storm,


come before a select committee and appeared to be ignorant of what


previous select committee inquiries had stated. He honestly look like


the collective amnesia point. It was the first time anybody had ever


suggested that to him! So all of the briefings, rehearsals and


preparation... Which they admitted to. As if nobody had given him a


chronology. My feeling is anybody could have given him any chronology


than they wanted to. You did not get the impression of somebody he


was going to be big on the detail of this and was even going to


necessarily recall the details. We saw the real human drama about the


succession of one generation by another. James Murdoch's narrative


is interesting. He says, I come in in 2007, and it is not until 2010,


it was all shut down. We had no reason to believe it was bigger.


But Les Hinton has asked Clive miler to look at the details which


So, the underlying question is, are you trying to find out what is


going on? Or trying to close it down after this case and say,


whatever has happened, we don't want to talk about it any more?


When they were preparing for this, they must have realised they would


be asked about Glenn Mulcaire's legal bills although James Murdoch


was like, I don't know about that. Andy Coulson's salary. That is be a


long-running theme. Surely that is it, find me the facts, just in case


it comes up? I'm surprised at the extent to which James was not on


top of this. I thought you did the Glenn Mulcaire staff on the Aegean.


-- Staff of stuff on the chin. Now! You can see there, it looked


like someone did move to attack or at least do something to Rupert


Murdoch and it was spotted by a Wendy Murdoch, the lady in the pink,


though you may have seen is sitting immediately behind Rupert Murdoch


during the testimony, sometimes touching him on the shoulder. I


think that slap you here is Mrs Murdoch attacking the attacker.


will get a very good response. don't beat anybody would blame her.


No. That sort of demonstration will get a huge amount of attention.


Alas, in my view, because it takes away from the serious questions.


One of the constant themes alluded to his, let's accept Rupert Murdoch


is remote from this, James Murdoch is in there and have to get across


the past as well as organise the future. When he is asked, did you


see the legal counsel that advised you to do something? He said no, I


just took advice from the in-house lawyers. They had seen the legal


counsel. Did he really know what is in the e-mails? No, I don't think


Les Hinton did either. He is an American-trained manager. Americans


are prone to take senior counsel. They take legal counsel as their


line of protection because so much of American life is very intrusive


on companies. You can go to jail for anti-trust breeches and so on.


I suspect he looked at the lawyer's For I understand that, but if


you're going to take over a company from the Cheviots -- previous chief


executive, and the e-mails are pretty dynamite, wouldn't you say


to the previous executive, did you see these e-mails? Do you know what


is in them? Probably. From a British perspective, you would. It


is said of James, and I don't know James Murdoch, but he does not love


newspapers. He likes electronic media and so on. His focus was on


BSkyB. He would have assumed the team in place would have run it for


the one of the interesting thing is here it is Les Hinton's resignation.


He was there when all of the structure was set up. One doesn't


want to prejudice what happens to them but it looks like it was set


up, not to expose, but to shut down. Any question you would ask at that


stage is, is there any more of this to come? That is the first thing


you would say. You would love to know what the answer was for that


when a dossier had been compiled? Looking at some of the various news


wires, it looks like a young man is being held in handcuffs and it


looks like he either had shaving foam or one of these Pisces, a


cream pie, -- pies. Peter Mandelson garden like this. The public figure


doesn't know what this person has got in their hand. Many years ago,


it happened to me. Wendy and James were clearly on to it. Laura


Kuenssberg is on top of the stories and said it looks like the young


man is being held in handcuffs and it looks like shaving foam all over


his face. Having thrown up high at Rupert Murdoch. Right. -- having


thrown a Paris. Who is to know it is not an acid spray? -- having


thrown a pie. Living in America, you have incidents like this.


Blair, in his book, talks about doing a massive speech and it just


takes one person to come along and they can move the agenda on. Like


water Wolfgang. How would they get the shaving foam into the building?


It is not metallic. It may not show up as a there's a lot of able and


Parliament wandering around. Let's go to Nick Robinson. Can you update


us? I am just being ushered back into the hearing because they are


about to resume it. I will have to be brief, but you saw for yourself


the pictures there. No one in the room had any sense of what was


happening until this plate of what appears to be shaving foam was an


inch away from Rupert Murdoch's face. The horror on his son's face


was palpable. The anger of his wife, Wendy, was clear. She picked up the


plate and are backed her husband's assailant with it and said, "I got


him, I got him". It's not clear what the guy who attacked Rupert


Murdoch said. There was fury from a James Murdoch and the Murdoch party


that his father was attacked in this way in the full view of and


protection of the police. Do we know if this attack actually struck


Rupert Murdoch? Yes, no doubt at all, it went straight into his face.


He was covered. It's a paper plate full of of Bowmer. The sort of in a


climate would do at a circus. -- full of foam. Rupert Murdoch barely


reacted to what had happened. Perhaps out of shock, perhaps out


of anger, perhaps not knowing what to do. The reaction came from his


wife, Wendy, who jumped up on her feet, she was sitting behind her


husband, and proceeded to attack the assailant. He made no effort to


get away, no effort to shout and scream, he had made his point. And


that was the end of it. I briefly saw him outside being held by


police. I don't know who he was and what he said. He refused to say,


saying it was now subject to a police investigation.


That finance so we have heard quite a few times today, Nick Robinson. -


- that is an answer we have had quite a few times today. They are


about to reconvene. There will serious plea be some questions to


I thank you for this. My questions will be just as tough


as ever they would have been had that unfortunate incident not have


occurred. Mr James Murdoch, if I can take you back briefly off


before you were so rudely interrupted to the question of the


disparity between the settlements, could you tell me whether the


Taylor settlement involved a confidential leak caused -- clause


which has not involved previously? I cannot tell you that it was a


confidential settlement. As to other settlements, post that, some


have been confidential, and some not. I don't believe any have been


confidential, but I can certainly follow up as to whether they have


been any. It is customary to have both parties agreeing


confidentiality. There is nothing unusual about an out-of-court


settlement agreed to be confidential, but, with respect to


to the bases of the question, but the disparity and amount of money


involved, there was nothing in the Taylor settlement in respect


confidentiality that spoke to the amount of money. The amount of


money was derived, as I testified earlier, from a judgment made about


what the likely damages would be and are likely expenses and


litigation costs. Had the company taken the litigation to its end tos.


Yes, you have been very clear about it. I merely put it to you that in


front could be drawn if Bollada supplements containing


confidentiality clauses did not, that, despite what to say about it


being a pragmatic decisions, based on the cost to the company, and in


front could be drawn up silence was being bought by the confidentiality


clause. But in France would be false. OK, fair enough. -- that


inference would be false. People would find it hard to believe that


two executives had such little knowledge of widespread criminality


at your flagship papers. Mr James Murdoch, when did you become aware


that the phones are not only of the royal family and celebrities but


victims of crime that had been hacked? When did you become aware


that the phone at Milly Dowler had been hacked? The terrible incidents


of boys will deception around -- Voicemail deception around the


Milly Dowler case only came to my attention when it was reported in


the press a few weeks ago. Only when the Guardian reported it?


can tell you it was a total shock. It was the first I had become aware


of it. Is that the same for hacking of other victims of crime? Have you


been made aware prior to the Milly Dowler story breaking that your


reporters hacked into the phones of any other crime victims? No, I was


not aware of that. Just for the record, you want this earlier but


it's very much interest to the USA, the actor Jude Law has said his


phone was tapped on US soil, but given that allegation, you are


confident no employee or contract up of News Corp or its contractors,


packed the phones at 9/11 victims? Or their families? We have no


incredibly serious allegations. Are they have come to light fairly


recently. We do not know the veracity of his allegations and are


trying to understand precisely what they are and an investigation is


under way. I remember well, September 11th attacks, I was in


the Far East. It is just appalling to think that anyone associated


with one of our papers would have done something like that. I am


aware of no evidence about that. I am well aware of the allegations


and will eagerly co-operate with any investigations or tried to find


out what went on at that time was up these are new allegations, just


a few days old, I think. But they are very serious and that sort of


activity would have absolutely no place. It would be appalling.


the information provided to you so far, Rupert Murdoch back was answer


was emphatic. Your answer, James Murdoch, was more nuanced. Have you


had any information which give you cause for concern that employees of


News Corp may have indulged in a kind of thing? No, we have only


seen the allegations made in the press. I think it is in the mirror.


And we are actively trying to know what the allegations are and how to


understand them. You have seen no internal documents or recede any


verbal reports that any employee hacked the phone? Definitely not.


Have you, as a result of a wider view, heard from any of your


employees of papers in other countries that phone hacking and


illegal practices may have been Are you doing a global review and


have you heard of any allegations of home hacking in any of your


other terror Tories? I have never heard of those allegations, but I


would go back to the code of ethics and code of conduct all of our


colleagues at News Corporation globally, whether they are


journalists, or management's are required to have when they joined a


company and are briefed on those things. It is a matter of real


seriousness. The journalistic ethics of any of the newspapers or


television talons -- channels within the group, certainly on a


global basis, we want to be consistent. We want to be doing the


right thing and when I say illegal behaviour has no place in this


company, that goes for the whole company. Mr Rupert Murdoch you are


ahead of the global company, everything stops with you. Given


these allegations you have said, when you opened the session you


said it was the most humiliating day of your life. Sorry, I beg your


pardon "the most humble day of your life". You feel humbled by these


events and you are in charge of the company. Given your shock these


things are laid out before you and you did not know anything about


them. Have you instructed your editors around the world to make


sure this is not been replicated in other News Corp papers around the


globe? If not, we you do so? I am more than prepared to do so.


final question, he touched earlier, Mr James Murdoch briefly, you


touched on the general culture of phone hacking, blagging and illegal


practices that in the past has happened in this country. If I can


put a couple of things to you? Piers Morgan, who is a celebrity


anchor at CNN, you don't seem to have asked him about phone hacking,


a former editor of the Daily Mirror. A little trick of entering a


standard four digit code allowing people to hear that message in that


book. He said using that a little tricky was able to get the scoop on


the former England manager, Sven- Goran Eriksson. He was very open


about his use of phone hacking. And indeed he was a former News of the


World executive. He was boasting about a story when he was editor of


the Daily Mirror. Paul Baker of Associated Newspapers said to a


committee, in my view the Daily Mail has never in its history run a


story based on phone hacking or blagging in any way. Yet Operation


motorman, which Mr James Murdoch, your advisers will have made you


aware, had 50 journalists paying for 902 pieces of information


obtained by the private investigator, Steve Whitmoor who


had been found to have used some of the docks methods. You said your


advisers in prepping you to come before this committee had told you


to simply tell the truth, which I think is excellent advice. Isn't it


the truth of the matter, journalists at the News of the


World felt entitled to go out there and use blagging, deception and


phone hacking because that was part of the general culture of


corruption in the British tabloid press and they did not kick it up


the chain to you because they felt they were entitled to use the same


methods as everybody else? Isn't that a matter? I am aware of the


reports, the questions around other newspapers and they use of private


investigators. All I can really speak to in this matter is the


behaviours and the culture at the News of the World, as we understand


it. How we are trying to find out what really happens in the period


in question. Also, it is not for me today to impugn other newspapers,


of the journalists and things like that. I am asking if the News of


the World felt in your to engaging in these practices, particularly


phone hacking because it was so wide in British tabloid journalism.


They did not see it as evil as it was because it was so widespread?


don't accept that if the journalist on one of our papers, television


channel or internet news operation feels they don't have to haul


themselves to a higher standard, I think it is important we don't say,


listen everybody was doing it and that is why people are doing this.


At the end of the day we have to have a set of standards we believe


in, titles and journalists who operate to the highest standard.


And we have to make sure if they don't live up to that, they are


held to account and that is the focus to us. Mr Rupert Murdoch,


have you considered suing Harbottle & Lewis? Hughes said in your first


answers is that you relied on the investigation by the police, the


investigation by the PCC and the investigation undertaken by your


solicitors, Harbottle & Lewis. Under whose care this enormous pile


of documents was found. There is an old saying, if you want something


doing, you should do it yourself. In this investigation you relied on


three people whose actions were seriously lacking. Have you


considered suing Harbottle & Lewis? Any action, is an action for the


future. This today is about how we actually make sure these things


don't happen again. So I won't comment or speculate on any future


legal matters. The file of evidence, you were asked by my colleague if


you have read it. You said no. Under the circumstances, you relied


on other people and they let you down. Do you not think you should


take the time and read through everything in that file your cells,


personally? For clarity, I did say I did read some of the contents of


that, they were shown to me. What I saw was sufficient to know that the


right thing to do was to Handy's over to the authorities. You were


shown a representative sample which can be tricky. But under the


circumstances and reputation will damage has been done to News Corp,


do-nothing a senior executives you should take the time to read


through the entire file so you are not relying on anybody else? I am


happy to do so. I have seen a bit of it. My last question is for Mr


Rupert Murdoch. You said that your friend of 52 years I think, Les


Hinton had stepped down and resigned because he was in charge


of the company at the time. In other words he said he was the


captain of the ship and he resigned. Is it not the case you are the


captain of the ship? You are the chief executive officer of News


Corp, the global corporation question marks that is a much


bigger ship. If is a bigger ship, but you are in charge of it. He


said yourself you're not a hands- off chief executive. You work 10 to


12 hours a day, this happened on your watch, Mr Murdoch, have you


considered resigning? No. Why not? Because I feel people I have


trusted, I don't know who, or at what level, have let me down. They


have behaved disgracefully, betrayed the company and more, me.


It is for them to pay. I am the best person to clean this up.


say, I appreciate your immense courage in having seen this session


through despite the common assault that just happen to you. I will


allow Mr Watson a very brief question.


James, when you signed off the Gordon Taylor payment, did you see


or were you made aware of the full transcript? I was not aware of the


time. But you paid an astronomical sum of money and there was no


reason to? There was every reason to settle the case, given the


likelihood of losing a case and given the damages the council said


would be levied. If Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford are prepared to


release their confidentiality, we you release them from their


confidentiality clause so we can get to the full facts of this


matter? As to the Taylor matter, it is a confidential matter. The facts


of this case might help us get to the truth. If he allows his papers


to be released,... Is is a hypothetical scenario and I am


happy to correspond with the chairman about what specifically


more you would like to know. Can I carry on with a few more questions


so I can get to the end of this? I think we have covered this at


some considerable length. Actually Mr Chairman, we haven't.


Your wife has a very good left hook Mr Murdoch.


Mr Murdoch, I know you did ask if you could make a closing statement


and we are entirely content for you to do so.


Members of the committee, I would like to read a short statement. My


son and I came here with great respect for all of you, for


Parliament and the people of Britain for whom you represent.


This is the most humble day of my career. And all that has happened,


I know we needed to be here today. 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 hard-working journalists. I have owned in nearly 200


newspapers of various different sizes, and followed countless


stories about people and families around the world. At no time do I


remember feeling as seconds as to when I heard about what Milly


Dowler's family had to endure. Nor do I recall being as angry as when


I was told the News of the World could have compounded their


distress. I want to thank the family for graciously giving me the


opportunity the of -- the opportunity to apologise in person.


I would like all the victims of phone hacking to know how


completely deeply, sorry I am. Apologising cannot take back what


has happened. I want them to know the depth of my regret for the


horrible invasions into their lives. I fully understand their anger, and


I intend to work tirelessly to merit their forgiveness. I


understand our responsibility to co-operate with this session, as


well as with future enquiries. We now know things went badly wrong at


the News of the World. For a newspaper failed when it came to


itself. The behaviour that occurred went against everything I stand for


and for my son, too. It not only betrayed my readers and made, but


the many thousands of magnificent professionals in 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 doesn't have any place in any part of the


company that I run. But saying sorry is not enough. Things must be


put right. No excuses. This is why News International is co-operating


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


solve these problems much earlier. When two men were sent to prison in


2007, I thought this matter had been settled. The police and bend


it the -- ended their investigations and I was told News


International conducted an internal review. I am confident when James


later rejoined News Corporation, he thought the case had closed, too.


These are subjects you will no doubt wish to explore. And you have


explored them today. This country has given me, our companies and


employees are many opportunities. I'm grateful for them, I hope our


contributions to Britain will one day also be recognised. A but all,


I hope we will come to understand the wrongs of the past and 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 Thank you for giving up your time


for coming here and about to apologise for the Holy


irresponsible treatment you receive from a member of the public. Thank


you, all members. The committee will now have a break for 5 minutes


before we move to the next part. STUDIO: And that brings to an end


the testimony of Rupert and James Murdoch. It lasted for a little bit


shy of two hours. Interrupted by this amazing event which could have


been so dangerous but, in the end, seemed to be a prank when someone


tried to smash a custard pie, shaving foam, in to Rupert


Murdoch's face. The assailant was attacked by Wendy Murdoch, who was


from China. She gave him quite a slap, giving a new meaning to the


term a tiger mum up, and she will be regarded as the hero of the ire.


-- our. Just shy of three hours, I should stay -- say. It's now just


coming up to 5:30pm. If you're just joining us on BBC Two, you are


watching a live and uninterrupted coverage of the testimony of the


Rupert and James Murdoch to the Culture Select Committee on the


hacking scandal. The committee, having had three hours, is taking a


short five-minute break, and will be followed by the testimony of


Rebekah Wade, now known as Rebekah Brooks. She was chief executive of


News International at the weekend. She was the editor of the News of


the World and the sun. The News Of the World at the centre of the


hacking scandal for that we will bring you that coverage live when


they reconvene and we will stick with it until 6pm put up then you


can follow it on the BBC News Channel. We will go straight to


Rebekah Brooks as soon as the committee reconvenes but let's just


get an overall reaction from Alastair Campbell. I think Wendy


will be, if Tom Watson can be moved to congratulate her on her left


turn, she will be a big part of the coverage. American cable television,


it's now going to be a big story. Who has got the pictures? Why don't


we show it again. We know how to behave, like American cable TV.


You can see a police man at running their two-try and intervene but not


before Wendy Murdoch got in herself. We believe that was the sound of


Mrs Murdoch attacking the assailant who tried to put this custard pie


in to Mr Murdoch. We are not exactly sure who it is a but there


are some reports that it was some body from UK and cut, but the


person has been bundled off and no doubt will be charged, leaving


serious questions because although it ended up just being shaving foam,


a frightening thing, particularly if you are 80 years old, but it


could have been much more than shaving foam. That will be asked


about later. Where are we now? What do we know now that we didn't know


three hours ago? We know for sure that News International paid some


of the legal bills for Glenn Mulcaire, the private detective


doing the hacking. I think people will be, even though we thought


that, I think there was a sense of that being a new revelation. I


think we know a lot about what they didn't know. And I think, with


regard to Rupert Murdoch, there seems to be an understanding from


the committee, this is a small part of his overall global enterprise,


but I felt from James, in particular, there were things I


thought he would have been able to explain more clearly than he did.


And I think, actually, I suspect John Whittingdale will have a


pretty long follow-up letter to write to James Murdoch about some


of the areas we seemed to know some but not all the background. There


may be speculation that they both came along, particularly James


Murdoch, will fully, intentionally, under briefed. That was the point


somebody made. It's nobody's defence to be wilfully blind. It's


hard to know. Rupert Murdoch didn't know what was happening in his


empire at all. That will be an issue for the shareholders. And, as


you say, James rest of everything on the fact he arrived after the


events happened. I have a slightly different impression of this. When


one talks but the Murdoch empire, and it's a throwaway thing, one


thing about emperors, they are quite personal. What you're


beginning to get the image of is a series of interpersonal


relationships which complicate the business of who would you trust,


who you don't, who you follow upon, will you?. Who would defend and who


don't. I have a growing suspicion that in this area, the


interpersonal relationships, senior international news figures, who


could have followed this up after 2007, may be part of the answer as


to how this happened. impression Rupert Murdoch gave,


that he was under hands on any more as far as the News of the World was


concerned, which is a huge difference from the 1980s when he


was certainly calling the News of the World usually on a Thursday


night to get a taste of what was being prepared and then on Saturday


to find out what the front page was. Now seemingly, he has stepped back


but only three years ago, to the Lords committee on media matters,


he testified, as far as the tabloids were concerned, not the


Times and the Sun, he was in effective editorial control. That


was 2008. I heard your spluttering when he was talking about that


because you, being one of his editors, you know how hands-on he


The point is, this is the second generation of the dynasty. The


first generation was created by the boss. The second generation, was


very different. They may not tell him anything uncomfortable. That


question, who, within the culture, people only told you what you


wanted to hear, he sort of went along with that a bit. I wonder if


that wasn't getting a little bit to the heart of the matter. And how


would he know, actually? How would you mark the card of the committee?


I thought they were pretty good, actually. A lot of good questions.


Remarkably little grandstanding. Tom Watson's questioning, other


people will call it cruelty, will remain in my mind for a long time.


James Murdoch saying, I can answer your questions and Tom Watson


saying, I am going to go for Rupert Murdoch. It brought home to be just


what situation this man is in. That's unusual. You don't usually


determine who answers the question. You're there to gather information,


whoever volunteers of up not to declare some of the innocent and


guilty. I was quite surprised that John Whittingdale didn't allow them


to do the opening statement because what Rupert Murdoch was reading at


the end of the opening statement. He was editing it as he went along.


Normally that is prefixed. surprised it was not sorted out


beforehand. His people should have talked to their people. It happens


and nearly all of these committees. I thought the select committee was


pretty good. The substance of what was going on, paying sums of money


to Glenn Mulcaire and Mr Goodman long after the trial itself, and


then Mr Taylor adding large sums of money and Max Clifford, all that


will play in the subsequent inquiries into the fit and proper


issues. It will also play in to cover up. If you cover up


wrongdoing by definition, you're not fit and proper. I thought Tom


Watson was getting somewhere at the end in relation to... James didn't


like being asked about whether he would waive the confidentiality if


Taylor-Wood. He's not a politician so he doesn't know what to say. He


didn't understand what the guy meant by were to withdraw the


letter? I think that's an area where, I'm not criticising them,


but I don't think they got to the bottom of the tailor cover


settlement. If you look the Times both the Murdochs let down by the


News of the World newsroom, let down by the private detective, and


then let down by the lawyers, let down by Les Hinton, who didn't seem


to know what's going on, in his own company, let down by subsequent


inquiries, too, let down by the Taylor deal, in the end, would do


not had just said, I had bad a day control of theirs and read all of


this myself. Exactly for the put least for the inquiry. Let alone


before for that I was surprised by that. When he said I saw some of


the file. Wouldn't you want to read all of it? Even for curiosity? As a


journalist, we are paid to be curious. What we know about the


story, since it broke break, News International have been behind it,


at every stage, trying to catch up with it, working out where it was


failing to grasp it, not realising it was going to be so big. And I


think the pattern is absolutely clear. You insulate James Murdoch


from the Prix 2007 decisions. He said they didn't know until 2010. I


think he actually has a pretty decent answer on the question of


the payments for instance to the PFA. But the question is, whether


or not they would waive the confidentiality agreements. My own


suspicion, and it's worth very little, there isn't much there.


Where does this leave David Cameron, now flying back from Africa as we


speak? Being fully briefed in what is being said, he appears before a


Commons tomorrow to make a statement. I'm told it is 11:30am,


and we will possibly be live with another Daily Politics special.


don't think a changes things fundamentally because it didn't get


into the Cameron relationship. Rupert Murdoch was fairly clear.


Let me interrupt you and that's go straight back now to the Commons


Select Committee. Rebekah Brooks I would like to thank you for your


willingness to come forward. We are very much aware there's an ongoing


police investigation which could lead to criminal proceedings. We


will bear that in mind but he also appreciate your statement when he


resigned from the company that you want to be as helpful as possible


to various inquiries under way. Can I just start, News International


issued a statement when you're chief executive in July 2009 saying


there never has been evidence to support allegations that News of


the World journalist have access the boy spells of any individual,


instructed private investigators or third parties to do it, all that


there was systemic corporate illegality by News International.


Would you accept now that that is not correct? Thank you, Mr Chairman.


Firstly, just before I answer that question, I would like to add my


own personal apologies to the apologies James and Rupert Murdoch


made today. Clearly, what happened at the News of the World and


certainly when the allegations of voice interception was limited to


victims of crime, it was pretty abhorrent, so I just want to


reiterate that. I also was very keen to come here and answer


questions today. As you know, I was arrested and interviewed by the


police a couple of days ago. So, I have legal representation here just


so I don't impede those criminal proceedings, which you would expect,


but I intend to answer everything as openly as I can and do not use


that if at all possible. I know you add a brief thing around the same


thing. We are grateful for that. Perhaps I can invite you to comment


on whether or not you now accept that the statement issued a saying


that news there will journalist had access to voice mails work


instructing investigators to do so As you have heard in the last few


hours, the fact is that since since the Sienna Miller civil documents


came into our possession at the end of December 2010, that was the


first time we, the senior management of the company at the


time had actually seen some documentary evidence actually


relating to a current employee. I think we acted quickly and


decisively then, when we had that information. As you know it was our


evidence that it opened up the police inquiry in 20th January 11.


And since then we have admitted liability on the civil cases,


endeavour to settle as many as possible. We have appointed Sir


Charles Gray, so victims of phone hacking, if they feel they want to


come directly to us and not incur expensive legal costs, they can


come and be dealt with very swiftly. The court process is taking its


time and those cases won't be heard until I think 20th January 12, so


the compensation scheme is there in order for people to come forward.


Of course there were estates made in the past, but I think and I hope


you will agree, since we saw the evidence at the end of December we


have acted properly and quickly. until you saw the evidence which


was produced in the Sienna Miller case, you continue to believe the


only person at the News of the World who had been implicated in


phone hacking was Clive Goodman? Just the sequence of events, in


2009, I think was the first time that all of us, and I know some


members of the committee have spent a long time on the story and


looking at the whole sequence of events, so I know you know it's


pretty well. But just to reiterate, in 2009 when we heard about the


Gaydon -- Gordon Taylor story appeared in the Guardian, I think


that is when information unravelled. But the very, very slowly. We had


conducted many internal investigations. I know you spends a


lot of time talking to James and Rupert Murdoch about them. But, we


had been told by people at the News of the World at the time, they


consistently denied any of these allegations in various internal


investigations. It was only when we saw the Sienna Miller documentation


we Europe -- realised the severity of the situation. Just to point out


one of the problems in this case is our lack of visibility and what we


have seemed in Glenn Mulcaire's home. We have had zero visibility


and we can only see it during the Civil Procedure and then we act on


it accordingly. It is now your view, based on that evidence, you were


lied to by senior employees? Because of the Criminal Procedure,


am not sure it is possible for me to infer guilt until those criminal


proceedings have taken place. understand. Tom Watson.


There are many questions I would like to ask, but I won't be able to


do it today because you are facing criminal proceedings. So I will be


narrow in my questioning. Why did you sack Tom crone? We did not sack


him. What happened was, when we made the very regrettable decision


to close the News of the World at the 168 years, Tom crone has


predominantly been the News of the World lawyer. His status as legal


manager was spent most of the time, 99% of his time was spent on the


News of the World. The rest of the company and rest of the titles, we


have appointed new lawyers. There wasn't a job for him once we close


the News of the World and he left. Someone is still dealing with the


News of the World legal cases presumably? The civil cases are


being dealt with, the standards and management committee we have set up.


You have seen the announcements on that it recently and I won't go


over it. But also Farrer and Co, have sunk test cases are coming up


before the judge in January and there are people dealing with it.


But Tom's role was as a hands-on legal manager of the News of the


World. And when we close the paper there wasn't a job. I must have


misunderstood what James Murdoch said. He implied you had sacked him.


It has been a busy day, but as an editor and journalist in the News


of the World and the Sun newspaper, how extensively did you work with


private detectives? On the Sun newspaper, not at all. When I was


editor of News of the World, as you know I'd be came editor of the Sun


newspaper and came and spoke at the committee. I think back then, we


answered extensively, questions about the use of private detectives


across Fleet Street. He chart was published of which, I cannot


remember whether News of the World was on it, I think it was four. I


think the Sun newspaper, on the table was below take a break


magazine. The top five or was the Observer, the Guardian, the News of


the World... Can I declare, I worked for the Observer, but left


in 2001. It is not in the top four. The top-six event. If to was on the


table. You extensively work with private investigators, is that if


your answer? No, the use of private detectives in the later 1990s and


2000, was a Phoebe Street practice. -- Fleet Street. In the main, the


use of private detectives was stopped. It was all about the Data


Protection Act and changes to VAT, which were made. That is why we had


the committee in 2003. Just for the third time, how extensively did you


work with private detectives? News of the World employed private


detectives like most newspapers in Fleet Street. So you were aware of


and approve payments to private detectives? I was aware of the use


of private detectives. He would have approved payments to them?


That is not how it works, but I was aware we use them. He would have


approved payments? The payments system in a newspaper, which has


been discussed, the editor's job is to acquire the over all budgets


from the senior management for the paper. It is then given to the


managing editor to allocate to different departments. Each person


in that department has a different level of authorisation. But the


final payments are authorised by the managing editor, unless there


is a particularly big item, a set of photographs or something that


needs to be discussed on a wider level and the editor will be


brought in. So Stuart Cook will have discussed...


We have been on air since 2pm, with this Daily Politics special,


bringing you live coverage of the culture committee hearings. First


of Rupert and James Murdoch, now of Rebekah Wade, now known as Rebekah


Brooks. It is a session now that the public is not allowed in


because of that attack on Rupert Murdoch. Fortunately nobody was


harmed. If you want to continue to see her testimony you can do so on


the BBC News Channel. Let's have some final thoughts from my guests


who have been with me all day on this marathon. Alastair Campbell,


where do we go from here? I said before these hearings I think the


inquiry led by a judge will be important and of long-term


significance. There was a bit of theatre there today, there were


some things we learnt. The committee acquitted themselves


perfectly well. People will be shocked to the extent Rupert


Murdoch appeared to be very divorced from it all. And people


will be surprised that James Murdoch appeared not to be on top


of the detail. As it but tomorrow with David Cameron, I don't think


it is taking any closer to him but the question in his judgments


relating to Andy Coulson are still there. I suspect that will be


centre stage in the Commons tomorrow. Given we suspect James


and Rupert Murdoch will appear before the judicial inquiry, with


firms saying I don't know, I didn't bother to find out for stumpy


cannot get away with that? I think that will take place after the


court cases and we will have a couple of years of prosecutions in


front of us. When full disclosure? Everybody will know precisely what


the score is. I think this is a four year soap opera we are looking


at. It is sad we have List -- missed the last part, because I


suspect something will come out with Rebekah Brooks. Where does


this leave News International? People would look at James


Murdoch's performance. I have never met either of them. I was struck, I


think James Murdoch is a very impressive character. He had a


narrative to give and he gave that narrative. And all of their body


language, they got all of it right. Whether people looking at that, and


investors look at Rupert and say, maybe it is time for somebody else,


is a big and open. After the early part of that performance. Later on


he got it together but early on it was striking. Where do you think it


leaves News International? Is still has a 40% share in BSkyB and three


national newspapers? They are fundamentally damaged. I am not


convinced what they did today repairs the damage. People still


feel shocked and angry about what went on. I am not saying James


Murdoch did not perform perfectly well, but there were some questions


that were so obvious that would be asked, and I was surprised he did


not have the answers. I think his house -- case held together, but


with weak edges. I would be surprised in five years' time it


the papers at least are still in their control. Is that the feeling,


David? I certainly hope that is not the case because the they are very


good owners of the Times and very good runners of journalism and


organisations like the Times. IC other potential owners and to be


honest, I don't prefer any of them. It is not an improvement, I don't


fancy the idea of a Russian oligarch owning the Times. We are


going to have to leave that there. I can reveal this is the story that


keeps on giving. Laura Kuenssberg from the BBC reporting Neil Wallis,


the executive editor just arrested recently and also had been


appointed to Scotland Yard to advise them on PR had been advising


Andy Coulson while Andy Coulson was working as David Cameron's chief


spin-doctor. We don't know any more of that, it was in the run-up to


the election, but it is another twist and turn which will cause


David Cameron some problems when he appears before the Commons tomorrow.


We will be back. We are meant to be on our summer holidays, but we are


so hard working, we will be back with another Daily Politics special


tomorrow. We will start on BBC Two at 11:00am. We will have the lead-


up to the statement by the Prime Minister in the Commons. We suspect


Download Subtitles