The Daily Politics Special

:00:30. > :00:34.Morning and welcome to this Daily Politics special on the day the

:00:34. > :00:38.Commons has postponed its summer recess so that the Prime Minister

:00:38. > :00:41.can address MPs on the phone hacking scandal. David Cameron

:00:41. > :00:46.returned to Westminster last night after cutting short his trade

:00:46. > :00:49.mission to Africa. He will make a statement at 11:30am and then take

:00:49. > :00:53.questions from both sides of the House. The Commons will continue to

:00:53. > :00:58.debate for they have rest of the afternoon in matter that has

:00:58. > :01:01.convulsed media, the politics and the police. Hot on the heels of

:01:01. > :01:08.yesterday's evidence, police are accused of a catalogue of failures

:01:08. > :01:11.in their evidence. -- in their investigations. And we will be

:01:11. > :01:19.examining where this extraordinary state of affairs leaves of British

:01:19. > :01:23.politics. And with us to watch the Prime

:01:23. > :01:27.Minister's statement, we will shortly be joined by Philip Hammond,

:01:27. > :01:31.the Transport Secretary. Naturally, as usual, he is late for the

:01:31. > :01:37.programme. He is always late. We're going to get him a watch for his

:01:37. > :01:45.Christmas. We are also joined by Tessa Jowell and the Liberal

:01:45. > :01:48.Democrat spokesman on Culture, Media and Sport, Don Foster.

:01:48. > :01:52.Bomb Affairs Select Committee have this morning released the report

:01:52. > :01:55.into phone hacking. It accuses News International of trying to thought

:01:55. > :02:00.to the investigation, but it is also scathing about the police,

:02:00. > :02:06.accusing them of a catalogue of failures. Here is one of highlights

:02:06. > :02:11.from yesterday's evidence, with John Yates, who resigned on Monday,

:02:11. > :02:15.being asked why he held the daughter of former News of the

:02:16. > :02:22.World editor Neil Wallis get a job with the police. I was a post box

:02:22. > :02:27.for a CBE. From Mr Wallis's daughter. I am very happy to give

:02:27. > :02:33.the committee the e-mail, which gives an equivocal interest in

:02:33. > :02:36.whether she gets employment or not. I passed on her e-mail and her CV

:02:36. > :02:42.to the director of human resources. Thereafter, I do not know what

:02:43. > :02:46.happened to it. It happens to it all the time. I know that many

:02:46. > :02:51.members of parliament employ friends and family. That was John

:02:51. > :02:54.Yates giving evidence yesterday. A few minutes ago, I spoke to the

:02:54. > :03:00.chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, key fast. I think we

:03:00. > :03:03.have a problem with Keith Vaz. I know you interviewed him a few

:03:03. > :03:09.moments ago. I did, and he was all right a few

:03:09. > :03:15.minutes ago. This business of the police not

:03:15. > :03:20.only being thwarted by News International, but in the words of

:03:20. > :03:25.the committee, showing no real will to override the failure to co-

:03:25. > :03:29.operate and get on with it. It is quite a damning condemnation of

:03:29. > :03:34.News International, which it would have been useful to have had before

:03:34. > :03:40.yesterday's keeling, and it is just as damning of the police. Agreed?

:03:40. > :03:43.It absolutely is. There is a lot of material here that these to be

:03:43. > :03:50.looked at in more detail in the Levenson inquiry which is just

:03:50. > :03:54.about to start. If we take the Home Affairs Select Committee report,

:03:54. > :03:58.which is basically saying that News International strutted the inquiry,

:03:58. > :04:02.but actually the police were not up for an inquiry in the first place,

:04:03. > :04:06.and now we know of this interlocking set of relationships

:04:06. > :04:10.between News International and the police, should we be surprised that

:04:10. > :04:14.they had no appetite to do an investigation? I do not know about

:04:14. > :04:18.that, because we do not know who was involved in the links with

:04:18. > :04:25.journalists. You're right, there is lots of evidence for a lack of

:04:25. > :04:29.appetite. One example, John Yates admitted he spent eight hours only

:04:29. > :04:33.reviewing 11,000 pages of evidence, and then came to the conclusion

:04:33. > :04:40.based on that very limited flick through it that there was no

:04:40. > :04:42.further need for an inquiry. Frankly, that is disgraceful.

:04:42. > :04:46.evidence for News International obstruction and for the

:04:46. > :04:51.indifference of the police was gathering throughout the years

:04:51. > :04:57.Labour was in power. Yet I do not remember your party in opposition

:04:57. > :05:03.ever making a deal about it. Indeed, your leader went and hired a former

:05:03. > :05:07.editor of News International. of us saw what was going on. With

:05:07. > :05:12.the benefit of hindsight, we are all very shocked about this. Tories

:05:12. > :05:17.do not regard Ian? None of us saw the scale of what was happening. --

:05:17. > :05:20.do not read the Guardian. I do not think we understood the connections

:05:20. > :05:25.between the police and News International. Nobody did.

:05:25. > :05:29.Basically, you were ignorant? was a police inquiry and we were

:05:29. > :05:35.told that that had concluded and that people had been through the

:05:35. > :05:40.courts and gone to jail. But we knew that was not true in the 2009.

:05:40. > :05:45.We knew that News International had basically signed a hush money

:05:45. > :05:51.agreement with Mr Taylor and Mr Clifford. Obviously, those

:05:51. > :05:56.settlements had been made. We knew that something was wrong. Yeah, but

:05:56. > :06:00.hindsight is a wonderful thing. was there not hindsight in 2009?

:06:00. > :06:06.can all see that something was wrong and the relationships are

:06:06. > :06:10.extremely problematic. But you were told in 2009 and before that

:06:10. > :06:14.something was a mess, that the original role reporter defence

:06:14. > :06:22.collapsed with the Taylor incident and the Clifford incident. The

:06:22. > :06:26.royal reporter was not investigating their head of the FA.

:06:26. > :06:32.And not only did you have someone from News International at the

:06:32. > :06:35.heart of opposition, he then took him into government. But the police

:06:36. > :06:39.have looked at these allegations and decided there were no further...

:06:39. > :06:43.But the police look as if they were in the pockets of News

:06:43. > :06:46.International. We know that now but the presumption has always been to

:06:46. > :06:51.assume that the police are also investigating the issues put before

:06:51. > :06:59.them. When the police tell us there is no case to answer, that is what

:06:59. > :07:04.Morse people have accepted. -- most people. I wonder why you go back to

:07:04. > :07:09.2009. In 2006, we had the report saying that 305 journalists had

:07:09. > :07:14.illegally obtained information. understand that, but he was not in

:07:14. > :07:20.power them. Tessa Jowell was, so you have teed me up my sleeve. To

:07:20. > :07:25.go further back, when Rebekah Brooks told a Select Committee of

:07:25. > :07:35.the House of Commons that News International had paid police in

:07:35. > :07:35.

:07:35. > :07:39.2003, who was Home Secretary? 2003, I think John Reid was. No, it

:07:39. > :07:42.was David Blunkett, and he did nothing about it. You add the

:07:42. > :07:47.editor of the biggest-selling daily newspaper in the country saying

:07:47. > :07:54.that she paid the police and the government did nothing about it.

:07:54. > :08:04.look back on this time and the time when I was told that my phone was

:08:04. > :08:11.hacked, and what is absolutely clear is that to take Philip's.,

:08:11. > :08:19.with hindsight, all the signs of real trouble with their but we did

:08:19. > :08:25.nothing. -- to take fill-up's point. For the record, David Blunkett now

:08:25. > :08:31.works for News International. He writes a column and I think he is

:08:31. > :08:38.an adviser. So you did nothing them. Let us move on. Andrew, just a

:08:38. > :08:42.second... No, let me move on. 2006, the Information Commissioner

:08:42. > :08:48.produces a devastating report showing that the illegal gathering

:08:48. > :08:52.of information is endemic in the Fleet Street, endemic. News of the

:08:52. > :08:56.World, definitely part of it, but not the worst. What did the Labour

:08:56. > :09:06.government do about it? What happened then, and I have checked

:09:06. > :09:06.

:09:06. > :09:11.this, we did introduce legislation to make forms of hacking a criminal

:09:11. > :09:14.offence at that stage. But you did nothing to investigate the

:09:14. > :09:21.information commissioner's report which showed these practices were

:09:21. > :09:26.endemic. He looked at the other way. That is not true. We did legislate

:09:26. > :09:33.in order to create a new offence in relation to a particular aspect of

:09:33. > :09:37.hacking. I don't think it was implemented with that degree of

:09:37. > :09:41.vigour because of broader concerns about prison numbers and so forth,

:09:41. > :09:46.but we certainly did not simply turn our faces away from the

:09:47. > :09:50.information. I have no knowledge of what you did. In July 2009, the

:09:50. > :09:55.Guardian published a report which showed that the police

:09:55. > :10:00.investigation which had only touched on one reporter and one

:10:00. > :10:04.private detective had clearly been inadequate, otherwise News

:10:04. > :10:14.International would not be shelling out �2 million, who was the Home

:10:14. > :10:14.

:10:15. > :10:19.Secretary? It change rather a lot. It was Alan Johnson. And there was

:10:19. > :10:26.no pressure from the government to reopen its investigation. I think

:10:26. > :10:29.Alan has been on record on a number of occasions making clear that it

:10:29. > :10:38.was not simply that he did nothing, he considered the evidence

:10:38. > :10:42.available to them. At that stage, he did not pursue it. And then we

:10:42. > :10:48.had... Journalism here has played a magnificent part in getting to the

:10:48. > :10:53.bottom of this. It was not for journalists, we would not know.

:10:53. > :10:57.When you look at this situation, with a country's most important

:10:57. > :11:01.newspaper group seems to be interlocked with the police from

:11:01. > :11:06.the very top down, and that there is a revolving door of job was

:11:06. > :11:10.going back and forward, and some people are actually working for

:11:10. > :11:16.both organisations at the same time, do not have to scratch yourself and

:11:16. > :11:22.saying, are we living in London or -- London or Pola more? It looks

:11:22. > :11:29.and feels very uncomfortable. Basically, we may have to start

:11:29. > :11:35.again without the media works and how the police work. On the face of

:11:35. > :11:40.the evidence we have before us, it is not working in a way that is

:11:40. > :11:44.conducive to good governance. there not a need for a massive

:11:44. > :11:47.clear-out of the London Metropolitan Police? Yeah, and

:11:47. > :11:50.bathing for one thing I would say above all is that when they're

:11:51. > :11:56.looking to replace Stephenson with a new commissioner, they have got

:11:56. > :12:01.to look outside the Met for somebody to succeed him. Very

:12:01. > :12:05.quickly, I do not want for the outstanding police officers, like

:12:05. > :12:10.the officers who run the police forces in the boroughs that I

:12:10. > :12:13.represent, to be denigrated. They are not a problem. They did not

:12:13. > :12:19.hire Neil Wallis. They did not have 18 dinners with News International.

:12:19. > :12:23.No one is attacking them. Let us speak up for the decent police and

:12:23. > :12:26.not assume that all organisation is corrupt. You have done that, and

:12:26. > :12:30.they do not think anybody is saying that is the case. If anybody

:12:30. > :12:34.doubted it, you have set them right. The Prime Minister has returned

:12:34. > :12:39.early from his trip to Africa. He had already cut it short ones to

:12:39. > :12:43.address the Commons. We will bring that to you live. He will have to

:12:43. > :12:47.give a good performance. He has to win over Tory backbenchers. As we

:12:47. > :12:53.speak to them, they're really unhappy with how he has been

:12:53. > :12:57.handling the hacking scandal. There is a 1922 Committee tonight, and

:12:57. > :13:01.they seem to be cruising for a bruising with the Prime Minister

:13:01. > :13:05.this evening. He has to show today that he is in command of the

:13:05. > :13:15.situation. Downing Street has said coverage of the scandal has lost a

:13:15. > :13:18.sense of perspective. Calls for the Prime Minister to resign have only

:13:18. > :13:21.come from one or two quarters. Labour have also been criticised

:13:21. > :13:26.for their links with News International and what they did or

:13:26. > :13:31.did not do during their years in power. We could be in for a feisty

:13:31. > :13:36.debate in the chamber. We do the parties stand?

:13:36. > :13:39.The Prime Minister's troubles began with his decision to give former

:13:39. > :13:45.News of the World editor Andy Coulson a second chance by hiring

:13:45. > :13:48.him as his communications chief. He is now on police bail but denies

:13:48. > :13:52.any wrongdoing. Yesterday, it emerged that the Prime Minister's

:13:52. > :13:54.chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, turned down an offer to be briefed

:13:54. > :13:57.turned down an offer to be briefed by the police on aspects of the

:13:57. > :14:01.phone hacking inquiry. And we learnt that the former deputy

:14:01. > :14:04.editor of the News of the World, Neil Wallis, also arrested in

:14:04. > :14:07.connection with hacking allegations but not charged, had offered

:14:07. > :14:10.but not charged, had offered informal advice to Andy Coulson

:14:10. > :14:14.before the general election. Labour and Ed Miliband wanted to be seen

:14:14. > :14:21.taking the lead over the hacking scandal. He called for Rebekah

:14:21. > :14:26.Brooks to resign and the BSkyB bid to be blocked. But he is also faced

:14:26. > :14:29.questions after he hired Tom Baldwin as his director of

:14:29. > :14:33.communications. Earlier this year, a leaked e-mail from Tom Baldwin

:14:33. > :14:40.showed he had discouraged MPs from linking their opposition to News

:14:40. > :14:44.Corps takeover of BSkyB with allegations of phone hacking. --

:14:44. > :14:47.News Corp's takeover. As for the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg

:14:47. > :14:52.claims they are the only party not to have courted News International.

:14:52. > :14:56.At Christmas, Vince Cable was caught in a secret recording saying

:14:56. > :15:00.he had declared war on Rupert Murdoch and as a result, had

:15:00. > :15:04.responsibility for considering News Corp's bid taken away from them.

:15:04. > :15:14.Last week, he joked that he was delighted to discover that everyone

:15:14. > :15:16.

:15:16. > :15:22.in Britain and House of Commons now Philip Hammond, your party not

:15:22. > :15:25.content with hiring the editor of the newspaper at the centre of the

:15:25. > :15:31.hacking row, you then went on to take advice from the deputy editor

:15:31. > :15:35.of that newspaper. That was very smart. The story as I understand it

:15:35. > :15:39.is that Neil Wallis may have been informally in contact with Andy

:15:39. > :15:45.Coulson during the election campaign. He advised on the Tory's

:15:45. > :15:51.election campaign. Not in a paid up as a bit, I imagine in a totally

:15:51. > :15:56.voluntary capacity. -- not in a paid capacity. You get a lot of

:15:56. > :16:02.free, unsolicited advice in a general election. Two of the people

:16:03. > :16:07.advising your election campaign have now been arrested. Anybody

:16:07. > :16:11.else advising you been arrested? That is an absurd extrapolation.

:16:11. > :16:15.Andy Coulson was of course involved in the management of the election

:16:15. > :16:20.campaign but the fact that somebody who used to wear quicken had a

:16:20. > :16:25.conversation with him does not make that person and adviser to our

:16:25. > :16:30.election campaign. Did you have any red -- any reservations about using

:16:30. > :16:34.Andy Coulson? Might contact with Andy Coulson showed him to be

:16:34. > :16:38.extremely professional. We were all aware of the issues around the

:16:38. > :16:44.phone hacking story and the circumstances. Did you have

:16:44. > :16:48.reservations? De Prime Minister, the then leader of the opposition,

:16:48. > :16:54.dealt with those reservations by seeking an assurance from Andy

:16:54. > :17:00.Coulson, which he was given... know all of that, I asked you a

:17:00. > :17:05.simple question about you, did you have reservations about using as

:17:05. > :17:09.your cheek spin-doctor someone from Mr Paulson's background? I would

:17:09. > :17:13.have sought the same reassurances that the Prime Minister sought and

:17:13. > :17:19.my understanding is he was given a clear assurances that there was no

:17:19. > :17:24.connection, nothing to come out. Did you have any reservations?

:17:24. > :17:29.I was satisfied by the reassurances the Prime Minister received. I

:17:29. > :17:35.would be buried disappointed if it turns out we were lied to. -- be

:17:35. > :17:41.very disappointed. By 2010 when you took him into government, was it

:17:41. > :17:51.not clearly a mistake to take him into government? I don't think any

:17:51. > :17:56.new evidence... De Clifford drs had been done. As opposed to innuendo,

:17:56. > :18:01.I don't think any new evidence was available. By 2010, you knew that

:18:01. > :18:05.News International had done deals, confidential deals, done in secret,

:18:05. > :18:10.with two other people who had been hacked into on the defence from his

:18:10. > :18:15.paper that no one else had been involved. Surely that should have

:18:15. > :18:19.been a red flag that you needed to move on? Andy Coulson has

:18:19. > :18:24.maintained his innocence throughout. He is entitled to be presumed

:18:24. > :18:27.innocent until found otherwise. We have set up an inquiry which will

:18:27. > :18:31.look into these matters for everybody to see the facts of what

:18:32. > :18:35.was happening when and who knew what, and the Prime Minister has

:18:35. > :18:40.made clear that if it turns out Andy Coulson's assurances were not

:18:40. > :18:47.true, not only does he have no part to play in our politics but he has

:18:47. > :18:52.serious charges to answer. If he has lied to you, to Parliament,

:18:52. > :18:56.about being involved, he is obviously in serious trouble. If he

:18:57. > :19:00.has lied, he goes to jail, you do not need to be Prime Minister to

:19:00. > :19:08.know that. The Prime Minister has been out of the glen to for the

:19:08. > :19:12.last 48 hours, why has there been a silence among Tories to defend him?

:19:13. > :19:19.I have been on your programme twice in the last week, I have been on

:19:19. > :19:23.Newsnight. Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, normally when the party is in

:19:23. > :19:29.trouble the chairman's job is to defend a party, where has she been?

:19:30. > :19:38.As far as I am aware, she is around. Have you seen her? Yes.

:19:38. > :19:41.television? No, in a cabinet meeting. Why isn't she out there

:19:42. > :19:45.defending your beleaguered Prime Minister? Who goes on to which

:19:45. > :19:49.programme to deal with the issues raised is a matter that gets

:19:49. > :19:53.discussed between the party and broadcasters, and, as you know, it

:19:53. > :19:58.depends partly on who the broadcasters asked to have and

:19:58. > :20:03.partly on who the party wants to put up. There have been a number of

:20:03. > :20:10.ministers out. I saw Damian Green on Newsnight last night, one of our

:20:10. > :20:16.backbenchers the night before. not the party chair. We have not

:20:16. > :20:22.seen her at all. We asked her to come on yesterday. You got me a

:20:22. > :20:26.second best. She did not come on. Missing in action, maybe that is

:20:26. > :20:31.the phrase we should use. Tessa Jowell, by the end of June,

:20:31. > :20:36.it was clear that something was rotten in the state of Denmark,

:20:36. > :20:46.that something was rotten about my macrosystem and the Murdochs were

:20:46. > :20:53.

:20:53. > :20:58.at the centre of it. Why did you go to the Committee on July 2nd?

:20:58. > :21:02.Because he was a good friend of mine. Was it a good idea to go to a

:21:02. > :21:07.party like that for people who are accused of running a company that

:21:07. > :21:17.has got in the way of a police investigation? Is it wise to mix

:21:17. > :21:17.

:21:17. > :21:21.with these people? Are I think you stand by your friends. Elizabeth

:21:21. > :21:25.never worked for News Of The World. Elizabeth is a successful

:21:25. > :21:32.entrepreneur in her own right. you talk to James Murdoch? Ola.

:21:32. > :21:38.Rebekah Brooks? I had a green -- a brief conversation with Rebekah

:21:38. > :21:43.Brooks. What did you say? I met lots of my other friends, people I

:21:43. > :21:46.do not necessarily see very often, and it was a lovely party. I was

:21:46. > :21:52.not there for terribly long but I enjoyed going there and certainly

:21:52. > :21:58.would not have declined invitation on the basis that you suggest.

:21:58. > :22:03.James and Elisabeth Murdoch threw a party tonight, would you go?

:22:03. > :22:10.think probably... The chances of entering a party for a long time

:22:10. > :22:14.are remote. -- the chances of them throwing a party. And you never got

:22:14. > :22:20.invited to the party at all because the family did not think you were

:22:20. > :22:26.worth the time. A week ago you said on this programme that they thought

:22:26. > :22:32.of us as left-wing and had no interest in us. It was a lucky get

:22:32. > :22:38.out of jail card for you! I think it is a little unfair. Going to

:22:38. > :22:43.parties is very different from some of the backdoor deals and sucking

:22:43. > :22:49.up to and not taking the action. Earlier we were talking about what

:22:49. > :22:52.we could be doing about it, we needed tougher regulations and

:22:52. > :22:58.frankly were let down by the previous government to did not take

:22:58. > :23:01.the action they should have done. Does any of this, given what we now

:23:01. > :23:08.know about Mr Cameron, who became leader of the opposition saying he

:23:08. > :23:14.would not follow in the Blair, Brown food stops when it came to Mr

:23:14. > :23:18.Murdoch -- footsteps when it came to Mr Murdoch, what is the feeling

:23:18. > :23:23.of the implication of this for the coalition? The first thing is we

:23:23. > :23:26.have to end the back door meetings. We heard of Mr Murdoch being

:23:26. > :23:31.invited through the back door of Number Ten to avoid the

:23:31. > :23:40.photographers yesterday but it was obviously to try to keep the

:23:40. > :23:44.meeting relatively quiet. When you see the Prime Minister, do you go

:23:44. > :23:50.in the front or back door? crucial thing is that we have to

:23:50. > :23:54.stop these backdoor deals. The Prime Minister said he would do

:23:54. > :24:00.that and has published a list of all of us ministers -- all of his

:24:00. > :24:07.meetings. Nick Clegg will be doing the same. For the record, when I

:24:07. > :24:15.went to see the Prime Minister last week, I went through the front door.

:24:15. > :24:21.I think we have to move on. I would rather we didn't, can we just go

:24:21. > :24:27.back... We are even dropping Keith Vaz so that we can move on.

:24:27. > :24:33.Well, forget Keith Vaz, it seems we have! The real killer blow that

:24:33. > :24:41.really caught our eye was the 43- year-old rights of Rupert Murdoch,

:24:41. > :24:51.Wendi Deng. -- wife of Rupert Murdoch. Here is a glimpse of her

:24:51. > :24:56.

:24:57. > :25:06.The News Of The World is less than 1% of our company. We employed

:25:07. > :25:14.

:25:14. > :25:20.53,000 people around the world who I hear you have been doing some

:25:20. > :25:26.research and Wendi Deng? I don't often read this magazine. It is

:25:26. > :25:32.always in your handbag! The Economist is wrapped around it!

:25:32. > :25:38.Thank you, Andrew! Basically, they have done a profile on Wendi Deng

:25:38. > :25:44.and the Murdochs, and she is no trophy wife. She is extremely smart,

:25:44. > :25:50.extremely clever, and extremely protective, it seems, after

:25:50. > :25:54.yesterday's a slap across the face. Not a left hook, as Tom Watson said.

:25:54. > :26:04.Someone who never mixes up their left and right is Nick Robinson.

:26:04. > :26:05.

:26:05. > :26:12.Did you like that segue? It was brilliant. You were there. Tell us

:26:12. > :26:18.more. You said before we came on air that the Prime did hit Mr

:26:18. > :26:21.Murdoch? I went on to the News Channel to describe what had

:26:21. > :26:26.happened without realising none of you who were not in the room could

:26:27. > :26:33.not see it. I was about four feet away from Mr Murdoch, and it was a

:26:33. > :26:39.false circus moment. The whole foam pie was on his face for some time.

:26:40. > :26:47.The Sun tells us it was a custard pie, you told us it was foam. Was

:26:47. > :26:56.the son rank? Who would you believe, Nick Robinson or the son? De DEC

:26:56. > :26:59.Wendi Deng's action? -- did you see? The speed with which she was

:26:59. > :27:07.up was extraordinary, and she shouted when she had done it, I

:27:07. > :27:10.have got him! Did she kick him when he was damned? No. Rupert Murdoch

:27:10. > :27:18.sat completely impassive, I don't know whether it was shock or

:27:18. > :27:23.whether it was an acceptance. It was remarkable, within seconds he

:27:23. > :27:29.was having this foam white off his face, the chairman of the committee

:27:29. > :27:34.said the public had to get out. James Murdoch was very anxious in a

:27:34. > :27:38.way that a son would be of their father, he looked very upset,

:27:38. > :27:43.started to berate the police about why they had not protected his

:27:43. > :27:46.father. I think he used the phrase, this is a circus. In a bad week for

:27:46. > :27:52.the police, the picture of the policemen trotting afterwards was

:27:52. > :27:56.not a great image. It was not clever, was it? The fact that Wendi

:27:56. > :27:59.Deng was able to get up with in a second and deal with it and the

:27:59. > :28:04.police officer had to saunter across the room was not terribly

:28:04. > :28:08.clever. I am sure Parliament does not want the site of witnesses

:28:08. > :28:12.flanked by security guards and police officers, but it seems to

:28:12. > :28:17.make will probably think a bit harder about how you protect people

:28:17. > :28:23.from that sort of attack in the feature. I know the Speaker called

:28:23. > :28:32.in the chairman. You have given him an excuse not to turn up, you

:28:32. > :28:35.cannot guarantee security? You have. It is claimed that someone

:28:36. > :28:41.whispered to James, this is all right, because they thought, in PR

:28:41. > :28:44.terms, thank you very much, this is what we need. They removed some

:28:44. > :28:51.protesters before the session even started so there had been some

:28:51. > :28:57.effort. Though I am surprised, Mr Robinson, that you did not see,

:28:57. > :29:03.being there, this man pull out a plate, pull out the foam! What did

:29:03. > :29:11.you think, he was having his lunch?! Nick Robinson is now in the

:29:11. > :29:16.dock of hindsight! In the dock of hindsight! I plead guilty. Although

:29:16. > :29:19.if I could plead the Murdoch defence, I work for a big

:29:19. > :29:23.organisation and cannot be responsible for everything. Let's

:29:23. > :29:28.go into the dock of fore sight. The Prime Minister will be on his feet

:29:28. > :29:33.in a minute. This is an important statement not just in content but

:29:33. > :29:37.in how it goes down with his own party. That is absolutely right.

:29:37. > :29:40.His party have come to despair that he can pull away from this crisis.

:29:40. > :29:47.They are frustrated that the headlines have been dominated by it

:29:47. > :29:52.for so long, but I think he needs to prove that he will not

:29:52. > :29:57.constantly be dragged back by the past. I think he wants to say, what

:29:57. > :30:01.matters is how we stop this happening again, hence the police

:30:01. > :30:05.inquiry, the judge lead inquiry, whereas the Labour Party,

:30:05. > :30:08.legitimately, one to say, there are a lot of questions about you and

:30:08. > :30:13.your past and why you did not listen to the warnings before and

:30:13. > :30:18.after the election about Andy Coulson and why on them, you let

:30:18. > :30:23.him walk away at a time of his own choosing. That is the tussle, but

:30:23. > :30:28.the point about his party is a good one, they are worried that despite

:30:28. > :30:32.two big efforts to do this, he keeps being sucked back into

:30:32. > :30:40.questions about what he did and why he did what he did with Andy

:30:41. > :30:44.Some people will be saying we are on the brink of a major Eurozone

:30:44. > :30:48.crisis which could well for all our banking system into turmoil and

:30:48. > :30:56.that is why Parliament should not be in summer recess, not because of

:30:56. > :30:59.this hacking scandal which has been obsessed with the media village.

:30:59. > :31:04.This degree of criminality, the Prime Minister has been compromised

:31:05. > :31:10.by the conflict of interest in appointing Andy Coulson. It is

:31:10. > :31:14.profoundly important, but you're absolutely right to that across the

:31:14. > :31:23.Channel, we are seeing European economies in meltdown. We are also

:31:23. > :31:30.seeing the worst recorded famine in Africa. I think that to some extent,

:31:30. > :31:37.the Select Committee hearings yesterday will call a pause in this.

:31:37. > :31:42.Although, many people, and Nick Robinson will know better than us,

:31:42. > :31:46.say that there is more and worse to come. It will still be there in the

:31:46. > :31:50.headlines. Is there a danger that a combination of the police and News

:31:50. > :31:54.International have hijacked our politics? I think politicians have

:31:54. > :31:57.something to answer. We keep talking about the problem with the

:31:57. > :32:01.police and the problem with journalists and it is not all

:32:01. > :32:06.police or all journalists. There is also a problem with politicians

:32:06. > :32:10.which needs to be addressed. Tessa Jowell cannot just have it that we

:32:10. > :32:14.ask questions of the Prime Minister, we need to look back at the track

:32:14. > :32:17.record of her party in government, the failure to take action on

:32:17. > :32:20.numerous occasions, even the most recent one in terms of failure to

:32:20. > :32:25.address the level of fines and punishments for people obtaining

:32:25. > :32:30.illegal information. In the earlier part of the programme, of course, I

:32:30. > :32:34.did ask Tessa Jowell about these matters. I'm trying to look forward.

:32:34. > :32:38.And now you have a Prime Minister compromised by the appointment of

:32:38. > :32:47.his director of communications. thought I was the one that was

:32:47. > :32:53.meant to interrupt people! We have now got a judicial inquiry and

:32:53. > :32:56.within that, another inquiry, ongoing major police investigations

:32:56. > :33:01.involving 70 people, and I'm sure there will be other Select

:33:02. > :33:06.Committee hearings. Is there a danger as a time of economic crisis

:33:06. > :33:10.that this whole issue is hijacking our politics? I do not think it

:33:10. > :33:14.will last much longer. The public appetite for this will fade away.

:33:14. > :33:20.Politicians will go away on a summer break and we will then be

:33:20. > :33:26.hit by a European funding crisis. As Tessa Jowell says, the famine in

:33:26. > :33:31.Ethiopia, those issues will tend to dominate. Then we can get back to

:33:31. > :33:35.getting on with those inquiries and other staff will no doubt emerge

:33:35. > :33:38.which will race off -- resurface elsewhere. I still do not know the

:33:38. > :33:45.answer to this question, when we heard any evidence yesterday that

:33:45. > :33:49.Rebekah Brooks was away on holiday at the time of signing off the

:33:49. > :33:55.Milly Dowler story, who actually signed it? I want to know the

:33:55. > :33:59.answer. That will emerge at some point. Are you confident that this

:33:59. > :34:03.story is going to disappear? I think I will be turning on my TV

:34:03. > :34:09.set during the summer and something else will appear. That is my

:34:09. > :34:16.opinion as well. I think there are many news organisations debating

:34:16. > :34:19.these questions. Remember cash for honours? The difficulty for

:34:19. > :34:25.politicians in Downing Street, Tony Blair had it and David Cameron had

:34:25. > :34:29.it, they're not in control of this level of information. -- the flow

:34:29. > :34:32.of information. Information is coming sometimes from the police,

:34:32. > :34:37.sometimes from News International, sometimes from the lawyers. Just

:34:37. > :34:39.this morning, for example, there is a court case in which the judge has

:34:39. > :34:44.ordered the Mets to release information about the alleged

:34:44. > :34:50.hacking of Jemima Khan and Hugh Grant, another front-page story

:34:50. > :34:57.that the Prime Minister cannot deal with. Of course, they will try to

:34:57. > :35:04.get back to talk about the economy. But they will find it difficult

:35:04. > :35:07.because they will cause some may be -- there may -- there will

:35:07. > :35:12.constantly be questions. We have former Prime Ministers in the dock

:35:12. > :35:20.on oath and so on and so on. What about public appetite? Well that

:35:20. > :35:23.continue? The polls have not shown a huge continued public appetite.

:35:23. > :35:32.News Pollitt -- news organisations respond to the public like

:35:32. > :35:40.politicians. If the media is making a statement about by chucking... --

:35:40. > :35:50.pie chucking. I do not think we can go to that yet. Let us go and see

:35:50. > :35:50.

:35:50. > :35:57.what the Speaker's policy on pies are. This investigation will be

:35:57. > :36:03.entirely independent of the House authorities. Statement, the Prime

:36:03. > :36:07.Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker. With permission I would like to

:36:07. > :36:12.make a statement. Over the past two weeks, a torrent of revelations and

:36:12. > :36:16.allegations has engulfed some of this country's most important

:36:16. > :36:19.institutions. It has shaken people's cross in the media and the

:36:19. > :36:24.legality of all they do, in the police and their ability to

:36:24. > :36:29.investigate media malpractice, and yes, in politics and politicians'

:36:29. > :36:33.ability to get to grips with these issues. People desperately want us

:36:33. > :36:36.to put a stop to the illegal practices, to ensure the

:36:37. > :36:40.independence and effectiveness of the police, and to establish a more

:36:40. > :36:45.healthy relationship between politicians and media owners. Above

:36:45. > :36:49.all, they want us to Act on behalf of the victims, people who have

:36:49. > :36:55.suffered dreadfully, including through murder and terrorism, and

:36:55. > :36:58.to have had to relive that agony all over again because of phone

:36:58. > :37:03.hacking. -- and to have had. The public want us to work together and

:37:03. > :37:06.sort the problem out. Until we do so, it is impossible to get back to

:37:06. > :37:12.the issues they care about even more, getting the economy moving,

:37:12. > :37:16.creating jobs, helping with the cost of living, protecting us from

:37:16. > :37:21.terrorism and restoring fairness to our welfare and immigration systems.

:37:21. > :37:24.Let me set out the actions we have taken. We now have a well led

:37:24. > :37:28.police investigation which will examine criminal behaviour by the

:37:28. > :37:32.media and corruption in the police. We have set up a wide ranging and

:37:32. > :37:37.independent judicial inquiry under Lord Justice Levison to establish

:37:37. > :37:43.what went wrong, of why, and what we need to do to ensure that it

:37:43. > :37:48.never happens again. I am the first Prime Minister to publish meetings

:37:48. > :37:50.with media editors, proprietors, senior executives, to bring

:37:51. > :37:55.complete transparency to the relationship between government

:37:55. > :38:00.ministers and the media, stretching right back to the general election.

:38:00. > :38:03.And the House of Commons, by speaking so clearly about its

:38:03. > :38:09.revulsion at the phone hacking allegations, helped to cause of the

:38:09. > :38:13.end of the News Corp bid for the rest of BSkyB. Today, I would like

:38:13. > :38:18.to update the House on the action that we are taking. First on the

:38:18. > :38:23.make-up and remit of the public inquiry. Second, on issues

:38:23. > :38:27.concerning the police service. And third, I will answer at some length

:38:27. > :38:34.all the key questions that have been raised about my role and that

:38:34. > :38:40.of my staff. First, the judicial inquiry and the panel of experts

:38:40. > :38:43.who will assist it. Those experts will be the civil liberties

:38:43. > :38:48.campaigner and director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti, the former Chief

:38:48. > :38:54.Constable of the West Midlands, Sir Paul Scott Lee, the former chairman

:38:54. > :38:56.of Ofcom, Lord David Curry, a long- serving former political editor of

:38:56. > :38:59.Channel 4 News Elinor Goodman, the former political editor of the

:38:59. > :39:03.Daily Telegraph and former Special Correspondent of the Press

:39:03. > :39:10.Association George Jones and the former chairman of the Financial

:39:10. > :39:13.Times, Sir David Bell. These people have been chosen not only for their

:39:13. > :39:16.expertise in the media, broadcasting, regulation and

:39:16. > :39:23.policing, but for their complete independence from the interested

:39:23. > :39:30.parties. Mr Speaker, I also said last week that the inquiry will

:39:30. > :39:33.proceed in two parts and I set out a draft terms of reference. We have

:39:34. > :39:37.consulted with justice Levison, with the opposition and chairs of

:39:37. > :39:45.relevant Select Committees. I also talked to the family of Milly

:39:45. > :39:48.Dowler Row and the Act of campaign. -- Milly Dowler. -- hacked off

:39:48. > :39:58.campaign. The problem with the relationship between the press and

:39:58. > :40:01.the police call was wider than just that met. We have agreed that the

:40:01. > :40:06.inquiry should consider not just a relationship between press, police

:40:06. > :40:10.and politicians of their individual conduct, too. We have also made it

:40:10. > :40:14.clear that the inquiry should look not just that the press, but other

:40:14. > :40:17.media organisations including broadcasters and social media, if

:40:17. > :40:20.there is any evidence that they have been involved in criminal

:40:20. > :40:24.activities. I am today placing in the library of the House the final

:40:24. > :40:28.terms of reference. Lord Justice Weatherson and the panel will get

:40:28. > :40:32.to work immediately. He will aim to make a report on the first part of

:40:32. > :40:37.the inquiry within 12 months. There should be no doubt that this public

:40:37. > :40:43.inquiry is as robust as possible. It is fully independent and Lord

:40:43. > :40:46.Justice ladism will be able to summon witnesses under oath. --

:40:47. > :40:51.Lord Justice Levenson. Let me turn to the events we have seen over the

:40:51. > :40:54.past few days at the Met. On Sunday, Sir Paul Stephenson resigned as

:40:54. > :41:00.Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I want to thank him for the

:41:00. > :41:04.work he is carried out in policing over many, many years and -- he has

:41:04. > :41:09.carried out. On Monday, John Yates, assistant commissioner, also

:41:09. > :41:12.resigned. By one to express my gratitude for the work he has done

:41:12. > :41:16.in improving a response to terrorism. Given the departure of

:41:16. > :41:19.two such senior officers, the first concern must be to ensure the

:41:20. > :41:24.effective policing of our capital and confidence in that policing is

:41:24. > :41:29.maintained. I have asked the Home Secretary to ensure that the

:41:29. > :41:33.responsibilities of the matter will continue seamlessly. The current

:41:33. > :41:36.deputy commissioner, Tim Godwin, who stood in for Sir Paul

:41:36. > :41:40.Stephenson when he was ill, will shortly do so again. The vital

:41:40. > :41:45.counter-terrorism job carried out by John Yates will be taken on by

:41:45. > :41:49.the highly experienced Cressida Dick. The responsibility of the

:41:49. > :41:52.Deputy Commissioner, of which the House will remember includes the

:41:52. > :41:59.oversight of the investigations into hacking and into the police,

:41:59. > :42:03.operation pleating and so on, will not be done it by someone inside

:42:03. > :42:06.the Met, but instead by Bernard Holden how, who will join

:42:06. > :42:10.temporarily from her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. We

:42:10. > :42:13.are also looking to speed up the process for selecting and

:42:13. > :42:18.appointing the next commissioner. We cannot hope that a change in

:42:18. > :42:23.personnel at the top of the Met is enough. The simple fact is that all

:42:23. > :42:27.fair raises huge it issues about the ethics and practices of Our

:42:27. > :42:31.police. The vast majority of our police officers are beyond reproach

:42:31. > :42:36.and serve the public with distinction. But police corruption

:42:36. > :42:42.must be rooted out. The inquiry is charged with doing just that. I

:42:42. > :42:45.believe we can and must do more. There are two problems. First, a

:42:45. > :42:50.perception that when problems arise, it is the police investigating the

:42:50. > :42:54.police. Second, a lack of transparency in terms of police

:42:54. > :42:57.contract with the media. We are looking at both. These are the two

:42:57. > :43:03.match point that on secretary dressed in her statement to this

:43:03. > :43:06.House on Monday. -- these are the two points. We are looking to stand

:43:07. > :43:10.back and take a broader look at all culture of policing in this country.

:43:10. > :43:17.At the moment, the police system is to closed. There is only one point

:43:17. > :43:21.of entry into the force. There are too few and arguably, to similar

:43:21. > :43:25.candidates for the top job. Tom Windsor is looking into police

:43:25. > :43:30.Careers and I want to see proposals for bringing in fresh leadership.

:43:30. > :43:36.The Government is bringing in elected police and crime

:43:36. > :43:40.institutions, assuring that there is an elected official holding the

:43:40. > :43:44.local force -- the local force to account. We need to see if we can

:43:44. > :43:47.extend that openness to the operational side, too. Why should

:43:47. > :43:52.all police officers start at the same level? Why should someone with

:43:52. > :43:57.a different but -- different skill sets not be able to join the police

:43:57. > :44:01.source at a different role? -- at a different level? I believe we

:44:01. > :44:07.should ask these questions to get a greater transparency and a stronger

:44:07. > :44:11.corporate governance in Britain's policing. Finally, let me turn to

:44:11. > :44:15.the specific questions that I have been asked in recent days. First,

:44:15. > :44:20.it has been suggested that my chief of staff was behaving wrongly when

:44:20. > :44:26.he did not take up John Yates' offer to be briefed on police

:44:26. > :44:30.investigations around phone hacking. I have said repeatedly about the

:44:30. > :44:33.police investigation that they should pursue the evidence was ever

:44:33. > :44:38.at Leeds and arrest exactly who they wish, and that is exactly what

:44:38. > :44:41.they have done. Number 10 has now published the full e-mail exchange

:44:41. > :44:50.between my chief of staff and John Yates and it shows that my staff

:44:50. > :44:53.behaved entirely properly. Ed Llewellyn's reply to the police

:44:54. > :45:03.made clear that it would not be appropriate to give me or my staff

:45:04. > :45:03.

:45:04. > :45:09.any privileged briefing. The reply that he sent was cleared in advance

:45:09. > :45:15.by my permanent secretary, Jeremy a word. Just imagine if they had done

:45:15. > :45:19.the opposite, if they had asked for acquiesced in receiving privileged

:45:19. > :45:29.information, even if there was no intention to use it. There would

:45:29. > :45:33.

:45:33. > :45:36.To risk any perception that Number Ten was seeking to influence a

:45:36. > :45:43.sensitive police investigation in any way would have been completely

:45:43. > :45:48.wrong. Mr Yates and Sir Paul both backed this in their evidence

:45:48. > :45:52.yesterday. John Yates said, the offer was properly and

:45:52. > :45:55.understandably rejected. The Cabinet Secretary and the chair of

:45:55. > :46:00.the Home Affairs Select Committee have both now backed that judgment,

:46:00. > :46:05.too. Next, there is the question of whether the ministerial code was

:46:05. > :46:08.broken in relation to the BSkyB merger and meetings with News

:46:08. > :46:12.International executives. The Cabinet Secretary has ruled very

:46:12. > :46:17.clearly that the code was not broken, not least because I had

:46:17. > :46:21.asked to be entirely excluded from the decision. Next, I would like to

:46:21. > :46:25.set the record straight on another question that arose yesterday,

:46:26. > :46:28.whether the Conservative Party had also employed Neil Wallis. The

:46:28. > :46:32.Conservative Party chairman has assured that all accounts have been

:46:32. > :46:36.gone through and has confirmed to make that neither Neil Wallis nor

:46:36. > :46:39.his company has ever been employed by or contracted by the

:46:39. > :46:47.Conservative Party, nor has the Conservative Party made payments to

:46:47. > :46:51.either of them. It has been drawn to our attention... It has been

:46:51. > :46:55.drawn to our attention that he may have provided Andy Coulson with

:46:55. > :46:58.informal advice on a voluntary basis before the election. To the

:46:58. > :47:03.best of my knowledge, I did not know anything about this until

:47:03. > :47:09.Sunday night. But as we do with feeling this information, we will

:47:09. > :47:15.be entirely transparent about this issue. -- ASDA with a revealing of

:47:15. > :47:19.this information. Finally, there is the question whether everyone, the

:47:19. > :47:23.police, media, politicians, is taking responsibility in an

:47:23. > :47:28.appropriate manner. I want to redress my own responsibilities

:47:28. > :47:32.very directly, which brings me to my decision to employ Andy Coulson.

:47:32. > :47:36.I have said very clearly that, if it turns out Andy Coulson knew

:47:36. > :47:40.about the hacking at the News Of The World, he will not only have

:47:40. > :47:43.lied to me but to the police, to a select committee, to the Press

:47:43. > :47:48.Complaints Commission, and, of course, perjured himself in a court

:47:48. > :47:53.of law. More to the point, if that comes to pass, he could also expect

:47:54. > :48:00.to face severe criminal charges. I have that old fashioned view about

:48:00. > :48:04.innocent until proven guilty. But if it turns out I have been lied to,

:48:04. > :48:09.that would be a moment for a profound apology, and in that event

:48:09. > :48:13.I could tell you I will not fall short. My responsibilities are for

:48:14. > :48:18.hiring him and for the work he did in Downing Street. On the work he

:48:18. > :48:21.did, I will repeat, perhaps not for the last time, that his work at

:48:21. > :48:26.Downing Street has not been the subject of any serious complaint

:48:27. > :48:33.and, of course, he left months ago. On the decision to hire him, I

:48:33. > :48:38.believe I have answered every question about this. It was my

:48:38. > :48:43.decision, I take responsibility, people will, of course...

:48:43. > :48:48.apologise for interrupting. The house must come to order and here

:48:48. > :48:52.in silence the remainder of the statement. -- and hear. People will

:48:52. > :48:58.of course make judgments about it. Of course I regret and am sorry

:48:58. > :49:01.about the few Rory it has caused. With 20/20 hindsight and all that

:49:01. > :49:05.has followed, I would not have offered him the job and suspect he

:49:05. > :49:11.would not have taken it, but you do not make decisions in hindsight,

:49:11. > :49:18.you make them in the present. You live and you learn and, believe you

:49:18. > :49:22.me, I have learned. Now, I look forward to answering any and all

:49:22. > :49:26.questions about these issues and, following this statement, I will

:49:26. > :49:31.open the debate. But the greatest responsibility I have is to clear

:49:31. > :49:34.up this mess, so let me finish by saying this: there are accusations

:49:34. > :49:38.of criminal behaviour by parts of the press and potentially the

:49:38. > :49:44.police where the most proud -- most rapid and decisive action is

:49:44. > :49:48.required. There are issues with media groups and owners where

:49:48. > :49:52.Labour and Conservative have to make a fresh start. There is the

:49:52. > :49:56.history of missed warnings, select committee report, Information

:49:56. > :50:01.Commissioner reports, missed by the last government and missed by the

:50:01. > :50:09.official opposition, too. What the public expects is not petty

:50:09. > :50:12.political point scoring... What they want, what they deserve, his

:50:12. > :50:17.concerted action to rise to the level of events and pledged to work

:50:17. > :50:21.together to sort this issue out once and for all, and it is in that

:50:21. > :50:31.spirit that I commend this statement to the house. Mr Ed

:50:31. > :50:31.

:50:31. > :50:36.Miliband. Can I start by thanking the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, for

:50:36. > :50:40.his statement. Recalling Parliament was the right thing to do because

:50:40. > :50:45.we building trust in the press, police and politics is essential

:50:45. > :50:50.for our society. The most powerful institutions in the land must show

:50:50. > :50:53.the responsibility we expect from everybody else. That is why the

:50:53. > :50:57.country wants answers from those involved in the crisis so that

:50:57. > :51:02.those responsible can be held to account and so we, as a country,

:51:02. > :51:06.can look forward to address all the issues the Prime Minister mentioned

:51:06. > :51:10.in his statement. That is why I welcome Lord Teverson's inquiry and

:51:10. > :51:13.the announcement of the terms of reference and indeed the panel

:51:13. > :51:20.members chosen by the Prime Minister for that purpose. It is

:51:20. > :51:24.why I welcome the Prime Minister's agreement with us about the need

:51:24. > :51:29.for the Press Complaints Commission to be replaced. It is why I welcome

:51:29. > :51:32.the apology from Rupert Murdoch and the withdrawal of the BSkyB bid,

:51:32. > :51:35.and it is why every respect the decision of Sir Paul Stephenson to

:51:35. > :51:40.stand down so that going forward the leadership of the Met Police

:51:40. > :51:44.can focus on the vital work that is necessary. So we are beginning to

:51:44. > :51:49.see answers given and responsibility taken, and that is

:51:49. > :51:59.right. But the Prime Minister knows that he must do the same if the

:51:59. > :52:02.country is to move forward. The Prime Minister, I have a number of

:52:02. > :52:07.questions for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in his

:52:07. > :52:12.statement... Order, I said a few moments ago that the remainder of

:52:12. > :52:18.the Prime Minister's statement should be heard in silence. Order!

:52:18. > :52:25.I say the same two members who are now heckling. Think of what the

:52:25. > :52:31.public thinks of our behaviour. Order! And stop it without delay.

:52:31. > :52:34.Mr Ed Miliband. Mr Speaker, let me start with BSkyB. The Prime

:52:34. > :52:37.Minister said in his statement something he said on a number of

:52:37. > :52:41.occasions, that he was excluded from the formal decision-making

:52:41. > :52:47.process. With respect, that does not answer the questions he has

:52:47. > :52:50.been asked. Last Friday he revealed that since taking office he had met

:52:50. > :52:54.representatives of News International or News Corp,

:52:54. > :52:59.including Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch, on the 26 separate

:52:59. > :53:03.occasions. So the first question I have for the Prime Minister is

:53:03. > :53:08.whether he can assure the House that the BSkyB bid was not raised

:53:08. > :53:15.in any of those meetings or phone calls with those organisations, and

:53:15. > :53:20.whether he can also say, whether at any time he discussed the bid with

:53:20. > :53:24.the culture secretary or any of his officials discussed at the bid with

:53:24. > :53:28.the Culture Secretary? Let me turn to Andy Coulson. 10 days ago the

:53:28. > :53:31.Prime Minister said about his decision to employ Andy Coulson, I

:53:31. > :53:36.was not given any specific information that would lead me to

:53:36. > :53:41.change my mind. Mr Speaker, the country has a right to expect that

:53:41. > :53:46.the Prime Minister would have made every effort to uncover the

:53:46. > :53:50.information about Andy Coulson, to protect himself and his office. Yet

:53:50. > :53:57.the pattern of events suggest the opposite, that the Prime Minister

:53:57. > :54:02.and those around him made every effort not to hear the facts about

:54:02. > :54:05.Mr Coulson. In the last week, we have become aware of five

:54:06. > :54:09.opportunities for the Prime Minister or his staff to have acted

:54:09. > :54:15.on specific information that would surely have led him to change his

:54:15. > :54:20.mind about Mr Coulson. All of them were declined. His chief of staff,

:54:20. > :54:24.Ed Llewellyn, was told in February, 2010, that Mr Coulson had hired a

:54:24. > :54:28.convicted criminal to work at the News Of The World who was accused

:54:28. > :54:32.of making payments to police on behalf of the newspaper. Even

:54:32. > :54:36.Rebekah Brooks said yesterday that this decision was extraordinary,

:54:36. > :54:41.yet the Prime Minister's chief of staff apparently did nothing with

:54:41. > :54:45.the information. In May, 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister warned the

:54:45. > :54:52.Prime Minister about bringing Mr Coulson into Downing Street. He did

:54:52. > :54:55.nothing. On September 1st, 2010, the New York Times published an

:54:55. > :55:01.investigation quoting multiple sources saying Mr Coulson knew

:55:01. > :55:05.about hacking which was rife at the News Of The World. We now know from

:55:06. > :55:11.John Yates that article was enough to lead the police to reopen their

:55:11. > :55:14.inquiries and it led to Operation Weeting. We also know now it

:55:14. > :55:19.triggered the termination of the Metropolitan Police's contract with

:55:19. > :55:23.Neil Wallis, Mr Coulson's former deputy at the News Of The World,

:55:23. > :55:26.and it led to the offer by Mr Yates to Ed Llewellyn for the Prime

:55:26. > :55:31.Minister to be breached. The Cabinet Secretary has said it was

:55:31. > :55:39.right the offer was not taken up, but the question is why? Because it

:55:39. > :55:44.would seem... Because the Prime Minister was compromised by his

:55:44. > :55:48.relationship with Mr Coulson, and therefore could not be told

:55:48. > :55:54.anything at all about an investigation concerning a member

:55:54. > :55:59.of his own staff. He was hamstrung by a conflict of interest. But, Mr

:55:59. > :56:04.Speaker, the Prime Minister should not have had to rely on briefings

:56:04. > :56:09.from his cheek of staff. Here was a major investigation published by a

:56:09. > :56:14.leading global newspaper about the Prime Minister's director of

:56:14. > :56:18.communication. Mr Speaker, the Met fired Mr Wallace even though he was

:56:18. > :56:23.not mentioned in the article, because of the association's he had

:56:23. > :56:28.with Mr Coulson and the publication of the article. And what did the

:56:29. > :56:33.Prime Minister do? He did nothing. Mr Speaker, given the New York

:56:33. > :56:37.Times Book of evidence, the public will rightly have expected very

:56:37. > :56:42.loud alarm bells to ring in the Prime Minister's mind, yet

:56:42. > :56:45.apparently he did nothing. Then in October the Prime Minister's chief

:56:45. > :56:50.of staff was approached again by the Guardian about the serious

:56:50. > :56:56.evidence they had about Mr Coulson's behaviour. Once more,

:56:56. > :57:00.nothing was done. Mr Speaker, this cannot be put down to gross

:57:00. > :57:10.incompetence. It was a deliberate attempt to hide from the fact about

:57:10. > :57:14.

:57:14. > :57:18.Mr Coulson. Order! Members are shouting out should not be doing so,

:57:18. > :57:23.they must calm themselves, keep on an even keel, it is better for

:57:23. > :57:28.their health and the house. Mr Ed Miliband. The Prime Minister, Mr

:57:28. > :57:32.Speaker, was caught in a tragic conflict of loyalty between the

:57:32. > :57:38.standards and integrity that people should expect of him and his staff

:57:38. > :57:44.and his personal allegiance to Mr Coulson. He made the wrong choice.

:57:44. > :57:49.He chose to stick with Mr Coulson. So, Mr Speaker, my second question

:57:49. > :57:54.is, can he now explain why he failed to act on clear information,

:57:54. > :57:59.and why those around him build a wall of silence between the facts

:57:59. > :58:02.and the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister's conflict of interests

:58:02. > :58:07.had a real effect. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner resigned on

:58:07. > :58:12.Sunday. The Prime Minister did not talk about the reasons for his

:58:12. > :58:16.regulation but the house must talk about it. -- for his resignation.

:58:16. > :58:21.Sir Paul Stephenson was trapped between a Home Secretary angry at

:58:21. > :58:26.not being told about the hiring of Mr Coulson's Deputy Neil Wallis and

:58:26. > :58:30.Sir Paul's belief that, in his own words, doing so would have

:58:30. > :58:35.compromised the Prime Minister, compromised him because of Mr

:58:35. > :58:40.Coulson. Why did Sir Paul think that? Because his own deputy, John

:58:40. > :58:44.Yates, had been told by the Prime Minister's chief of staff that the

:58:44. > :58:49.Prime Minister should be told nothing. So, Mr Speaker, this

:58:49. > :58:53.catastrophic error of judgment, hiring Andy Coulson, hanging on for

:58:53. > :58:58.him too long, directly contributed to the position Sir Paul found

:58:58. > :59:02.himself in and his decision to resign. My third question, Mr

:59:02. > :59:07.Speaker, is does the Prime Minister accept that his conflict of

:59:07. > :59:10.interest for the Metropolitan -- put the Metropolitan Police

:59:11. > :59:16.Commissioner in an impossible position? Three questions are about

:59:16. > :59:18.BSkyB, warnings about Mr Coulson that were consistently ignored, and

:59:18. > :59:22.about the Met Police Commissioner. These and many other questions will

:59:22. > :59:29.have to be answered by the Prime Minister over the coming months.

:59:29. > :59:34.But there is one other question which matters now. He says that in

:59:34. > :59:39.hindsight he made a mistake by hiring Mr Coulson. He says that if

:59:40. > :59:49.Mr Coulson lied to him, he would apologise. Mr Speaker, that is not

:59:50. > :59:52.

:59:52. > :59:55.good enough. It is not about hindsight, Mr Speaker. It is not

:59:55. > :00:00.about whether Mr Coulson or lied to him. It is about all of the

:00:00. > :00:06.information and warnings that the Prime Minister ignored. He was

:00:06. > :00:13.warned, and he preferred to ignore the warnings. So that the country

:00:13. > :00:18.can have the leadership we need, why doesn't he do more than give a

:00:19. > :00:27.half apology and provide the full apology now for hiring Mr Coulson

:00:27. > :00:31.and bringing him into the heart of What I would say to the honourable

:00:31. > :00:36.gentleman is, stop hunting conspiracy theories and start

:00:36. > :00:41.rising to events. Most of that was a tissue of... I will try to answer

:00:41. > :00:45.every point, but let me first thank him for what he said about

:00:45. > :00:51.recalling Parliament and about Lord Levison. Let the thank him for what

:00:51. > :00:54.he said about the panel. -- let me thank him. On most of the other

:00:54. > :01:04.questions, I feel he wrote to the questions before he heard my

:01:04. > :01:10.statement. He asks about the issue of BSkyB. The Cabinet Secretary has

:01:11. > :01:14.said there was no breach of the ministerial code. You heard the

:01:15. > :01:19.evidence of Rebekah Brooks yesterday saying there was not one

:01:19. > :01:25.single and appropriate conversation. Where comes to setting up meetings

:01:25. > :01:28.with News Corporation, I have set out every single meeting since last

:01:28. > :01:34.session. The honourable gentleman published a list this morning but

:01:34. > :01:43.it does not go back to the last election. Indeed, when are we going

:01:43. > :01:53.to see the transparency from Tony Blair and from Gordon Brown. --?

:01:53. > :01:55.

:01:55. > :02:05.Second, his questions about Andy Coulson. The houses getting over-

:02:05. > :02:06.

:02:06. > :02:10.excited again. I am glad it has now calmed down. Let me just remind him

:02:10. > :02:15.of this point. No one has raised a single question about Andy

:02:15. > :02:24.Coulson's conduct at Number Ten. There is only today one party

:02:24. > :02:29.leader with a News International executive sitting in his office.

:02:29. > :02:34.The questions he raises about my chief-of-staff, Ed Llewellyn. Is he

:02:34. > :02:37.honestly saying that when it comes to this issue of the proposed

:02:37. > :02:40.meeting with John Yates, is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting

:02:40. > :02:44.that he knows better than the chairman of the Home Affairs Select

:02:44. > :02:47.Committee, than the Cabinet Secretary, than John Yates, Sir

:02:47. > :02:52.Paul Stephenson and all these people, including Jeremy Heywood,

:02:52. > :02:56.who worked diligently for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? Is the same

:02:56. > :03:03.all of those people are wrong and he is right? I think that shows a

:03:03. > :03:08.staggering lack of judgment. Let me answer the question about Sir

:03:08. > :03:11.Paul's resignation. I know it is inconvenient for the right

:03:11. > :03:14.honourable gentleman, but Sir Paul Stephenson set out the reasons for

:03:14. > :03:18.his resignation yesterday in detailed evidence and explained how

:03:18. > :03:22.the situation was so different to the situation in Number Ten. Most

:03:22. > :03:26.of the questions he asked I had already answered. The role of the

:03:26. > :03:30.chief of staff, answered, the parallels with the Metropolitan

:03:30. > :03:34.Police, answered, the role of Mr Wallis, answered. Let us be clear

:03:34. > :03:42.about what we heard yesterday, Rupert Murdoch said "The politician

:03:42. > :03:49.I was closest to was Gordon Brown as Chancellor." Let us just

:03:49. > :03:55.remember, who was the adviser when Gordon Brown was the Chancellor?

:03:55. > :04:01.STUDIO: Were going to leave proceedings for a moment. -- we are

:04:01. > :04:04.going. We have heard comments from the Prime Minister and the Leader

:04:04. > :04:08.of the Opposition. We will bring you more of these exchanges between

:04:08. > :04:13.backbenchers on both sides of the House and the Prime Minister. Let

:04:13. > :04:20.us take stock of where we are. The Prime Minister announced the

:04:20. > :04:26.composition of the Levison judicial inquiry into the media, the police

:04:26. > :04:31.and politics. Three journalists, which may raise an eyebrow in some

:04:31. > :04:36.quarters. To many, some may think, but also a former Ofcom director, a

:04:36. > :04:42.former police chief, and Shami Chakrabarti, the Liberty director.

:04:42. > :04:45.It is a panel of six plus the judge himself. Interesting that the Prime

:04:45. > :04:49.Minister announced that the inquiry will be widened, not just a

:04:49. > :04:53.relationship between police, press and politicians, but their

:04:53. > :04:57.individual conduct, too. It looks like broadcasters and social media

:04:57. > :05:06.are going to be included as well, which will make it a very broad

:05:06. > :05:11.inquiry. Perhaps quite a long sitting. Before I get the reaction,

:05:11. > :05:16.a couple of e-mails. Yes, we have had e-mails to the

:05:16. > :05:20.initial statement from David Cameron. This has come from

:05:20. > :05:24.Bernard's in Worcestershire. "David Cameron is trying to apportion all

:05:24. > :05:28.the blame on to the police and trying to use this as an excuse to

:05:28. > :05:32.change the way people are recruited into the police. This is not just

:05:32. > :05:39.about alleged corruption, it is about corrupt relationships between

:05:39. > :05:47.the media and the politicians." "Calls and lied to him, that excuse

:05:47. > :05:51.is very pathetic. -- that Andy Coulson lied to him." This is from

:05:51. > :05:56.a man in Manchester. "Once again, we get politicians buying time in

:05:56. > :06:03.the hope that after the recess, it will have blown over." "In the

:06:03. > :06:08.meantime, bankers receive �14 billion in bonuses." No-name on

:06:08. > :06:14.this one. "Labour are intent on raising minor issues when the issue

:06:14. > :06:18.of Eurozone crisis looms ever larger." And this from David in

:06:18. > :06:24.Bury St Edmunds: "People do not want to see Labour politicians

:06:24. > :06:27.trying to score party political points, it trivialises it." The

:06:27. > :06:30.Prime Minister has come as close as you can get to saying "In

:06:30. > :06:37.retrospect, it was a mistake to higher Andy Coulson.

:06:37. > :06:41." He is saying that if he had foreseen what was going to happen,

:06:41. > :06:45.he would not have offered him the job. I'm sure he is right in saying

:06:45. > :06:49.that Andy Coulson would not have wanted to take the job.

:06:49. > :06:54.retrospect, the Prime Minister is saying this. The Prime Minister is

:06:54. > :06:57.saying now, in respect, it was a mistake. It was a judgment that he

:06:57. > :07:02.made at the time as he has been upfront about saying it was his

:07:02. > :07:06.decision, that he takes responsibility for. He sought

:07:06. > :07:12.assurances as he was given them. He has said to us that if it turns out

:07:12. > :07:19.that those assurances were lies, then he will all an apology and he

:07:19. > :07:22.will deliver it. It looks like it was a mistake. We do not know of.

:07:22. > :07:26.That is will the Prime Minister has said and he has never gone this far

:07:26. > :07:31.before. He also said he believes in the presumption of innocence until

:07:31. > :07:36.guilt is proven. I think we have to be careful. I understand that, but

:07:36. > :07:39.I was not talking about guilt or innocence. Leader of the Opposition

:07:39. > :07:46.document of a number of occasions, warnings from Mr Clegg and the New

:07:46. > :07:51.York Times report, Mr Yates himself, when evidence was growing that it

:07:51. > :07:58.had been a mistake to hire Mr Coulson and yet the Prime Minister

:07:58. > :08:01.ignored them. Why? The Nick Clegg example. He has said himself that

:08:01. > :08:06.he brought no evidence for a new information, he simply expressed a

:08:06. > :08:10.view that he was uncomfortable with the decision to hire Andy Coulson.

:08:10. > :08:16.That is fair enough. But what Ed Miliband is trying to do this

:08:16. > :08:24.morning, instead of rising to the occasion and expressing a wish to

:08:24. > :08:32.work together to sort this out, and he is inviting people to look at

:08:32. > :08:36.issues with the benefit of Tyneside -- Heinz state, reinterpreting

:08:36. > :08:41.things with the benefit of what we now know, in a way that is

:08:41. > :08:46.completely inappropriate. From the evidence I have seen, I think the

:08:46. > :08:53.information, or tittle tattle brought to Downing Street and to

:08:53. > :08:56.Peace People in Mr Cameron's staff, was dealt with appropriately. It

:08:56. > :09:01.would be wrong for him to have had a private briefing with John Yates,

:09:01. > :09:05.as Sir: All -- Sir Gus O'Donnell and Keith Vaz have acknowledged. It

:09:05. > :09:15.seems to me that Ed Miliband is clutching at straws trying to

:09:15. > :09:15.

:09:15. > :09:19.reinterpret the stuff of. You think incredible investigative reporting

:09:19. > :09:24.of the New York Times in September and the Guardian in October was

:09:24. > :09:30.tittle-tattle? They were people of... You call them tittle-tattle.

:09:30. > :09:38.Some of what was brought to David Cameron's staff... You said the New

:09:38. > :09:42.York Times. I did not. It is easy from where we sit right now, with a

:09:42. > :09:47.picture of wrong doing emerging, to put these in context, begging the

:09:47. > :09:53.question, why would they not acted upon? At the time, they were

:09:53. > :09:55.isolated of -- isolated piece of journalistic work, of which sat in

:09:55. > :09:59.confirmation of the fact that the investigation was completed.

:09:59. > :10:07.now we know what the police were saying that. With the best of that

:10:07. > :10:10.of hindsight. -- with the benefit of hindsight. Tessa Jowell, four

:10:11. > :10:15.questions there to the Prime Minister. In the end, demanding a

:10:15. > :10:18.full apology for hiring Mr Coulson. In the grand scheme of things, you

:10:18. > :10:24.think anyone outside the Westminster village cares whether

:10:24. > :10:28.he gives a full apology are not? Whether we're talking to ourselves

:10:28. > :10:36.or to the contrary, I'm aware of this question. He said it was a

:10:36. > :10:42.mistake. By have had more e-mails about this and the BSkyB bid that I

:10:42. > :10:47.have had since fox-hunting 13 years ago. -- than I have had. I think we

:10:47. > :10:53.could have a much broader discussion about that. This comes

:10:53. > :10:57.back to not that the Prime Minister disregarded tittle-tattle and idle

:10:57. > :11:02.gossip. There were four or five serious representations to

:11:02. > :11:06.challenge his judgment about taking Andy Coulson into the heart of

:11:06. > :11:15.Downing Street. I understand that. On the leader made these points,

:11:15. > :11:17.but in the grand scheme of things, does a full apology...? Everybody,

:11:17. > :11:23.everybody from the Prime Minister down is saying yeah, it was a

:11:23. > :11:29.mistake. For people-watching today, who may be worried about their jobs

:11:29. > :11:35.and prices rising and living standards, whether or not is a full

:11:35. > :11:42.apology, does it matter? There has to be a moment of absolutely

:11:42. > :11:45.unqualified apology from which the inquiry can then take over. I

:11:45. > :11:49.absolutely accept all the strictures about people being in

:11:49. > :11:53.this until proven guilty. We're not even talking about that, we are

:11:53. > :11:57.simply talking about whether he was the right man for the job. Whether

:11:57. > :12:04.he is guilty of criminality is a different issue. Let me ask you,

:12:04. > :12:10.who among us and permissions -- in positions of responsibility has not

:12:10. > :12:15.made a wrong appointment? We all have. So? And if you make a wrong

:12:15. > :12:20.appointment, you warm up to the fact that you made the wrong

:12:20. > :12:26.appointment. The Prime Minister has been clear, he accepts

:12:26. > :12:34.responsibility for the apartment. Here, you had warnings that could

:12:34. > :12:39.not have been clearer. -- for the appointment. And he made a mistake.

:12:39. > :12:44.Who among us has not made a mistake? But I think, Andrew, it is

:12:44. > :12:48.a question of the scale of the mistake and what we now see is the

:12:48. > :12:52.Prime Minister constraints by the conflict of interest that Andy

:12:52. > :12:55.Coulson began. One of the viewer has suggested that we should make a

:12:55. > :13:02.deal but when Gordon Brown apologises for selling the gold

:13:02. > :13:05.reserves when they were $300 an ounce, and his is now 1600, and Mr

:13:05. > :13:15.Cameron can apologise for Mr Coulson. I think that is a good

:13:15. > :13:18.deal. There is not a politician of a senior level he does not -- who

:13:19. > :13:24.has not done things for which they should apologise, but let's not

:13:24. > :13:33.lose focus on this specific issue in relation to the Prime Minister's

:13:33. > :13:39.judgement. Do you believe it important that the Prime Minister

:13:39. > :13:43.issues a full apology? No. I do not understand why we're so obsessed

:13:43. > :13:48.with this particular issue. But Prime Minister was given advice by

:13:48. > :13:51.Nick Clegg and others that this was not an advisable Parliament. Why

:13:51. > :13:54.did they give that advice? Not because they knew of any criminal

:13:55. > :14:00.wrongdoing or that he was not suitable for the job, it was about

:14:00. > :14:04.the impression it would create. That was sorely it. So far, if he

:14:04. > :14:09.is still innocent until proven guilty, we see that it made an even

:14:09. > :14:12.worse in question -- and even worse impression than we might have

:14:12. > :14:16.expected. It is an error of judgment but it is not the crucial

:14:16. > :14:21.issue. I think we had a powerful statement from the Prime Minister

:14:21. > :14:26.giving us details of the inquiry and extending and detailing the

:14:26. > :14:29.remit of that inquiry. I think the section to broadcasting is a huge

:14:30. > :14:33.mistake. Telling us what Mauresmo to be done about the concerns of

:14:33. > :14:38.the British people, which is corruption in the police are

:14:38. > :14:43.concerned about a Lee Bowyer committee by the press. Telling us

:14:43. > :14:48.what more is to be done. Given our previous discussion, with an eye on

:14:48. > :14:54.the back of his head to his own backbenches, the Prime Minister

:14:54. > :14:59.wanted to appear decisive and in control. And there is another

:14:59. > :15:02.crucial thing. He wanted to appear like he got it about Andy Coulson.

:15:02. > :15:07.He was being brought down every time he tried to talk about an

:15:07. > :15:11.inquiry or the police or the press or even politicians pay in general.

:15:11. > :15:14.He was being dragged back to that decision about Andy Coulson. Taking

:15:14. > :15:18.what would have been a big step to take about someone he still

:15:18. > :15:23.describes as a friend and admits that he met at Chequers after his

:15:23. > :15:28.resignation, he has done it for political reasons and he has said

:15:28. > :15:34.with 2020 hindsight, he wished he had not appointed Mr Coulson. You

:15:34. > :15:44.live and learn was his Murrell phrase, believe me I have learnt. -

:15:44. > :15:45.

:15:45. > :15:49.- memorable phase -- memorable He says people will make judgments

:15:49. > :15:53.about it and of course I regret and am sorry for the furore it has

:15:54. > :15:58.caused, which is as close as anything to say he regrets it.

:15:58. > :16:01.Ed Miliband is doing is this, making an investment for the future

:16:01. > :16:06.for the reasons we said, this is not the end of the matter, Mr

:16:06. > :16:11.Coulson will or will not be charged, will or will not face court action,

:16:11. > :16:16.orders, too. Ed Miliband is trying to lodge in the public's mind that

:16:16. > :16:22.there was what he regards as a catastrophic error of judgment. He

:16:22. > :16:24.is also trying to say this is the Prime Minister -- the sort of Prime

:16:24. > :16:29.Minister who is deaf to criticism, that when people say, you are

:16:29. > :16:32.making a mistake, he does not listen. I would be surprised if

:16:32. > :16:35.that is not be issued next week when the economic figures come out

:16:35. > :16:39.saying growth is not great in this country and he will again say Mr

:16:39. > :16:43.Cameron is the sort of man who does not listen to the warnings he is

:16:43. > :16:48.given. I think this is an investment by the Labour Party and

:16:48. > :16:52.a theme about the Prime Minister put it is a reflection that

:16:52. > :16:56.politically I felt this story, currently, isn't going very far,

:16:56. > :17:00.that there was not much debate about the inquiry or police. If we

:17:00. > :17:04.look back in 10 years, there is one thing we have not discussed at all,

:17:04. > :17:08.which may be the most significant. The Prime Minister signalled he

:17:08. > :17:12.wants to smash the way the police force is currently run. He wants to

:17:13. > :17:16.bring in chief officers from abroad, bring in officers directly rather

:17:16. > :17:21.than recruiting from the ground. In other words, he thinks the culture

:17:21. > :17:26.of the police force in Britain is wrong and needs, and I don't use

:17:26. > :17:30.the word lightly, to be smashed. And he is even bringing in the two

:17:30. > :17:35.net investigations currently going on, one into the hacking scandal

:17:35. > :17:39.and the other into corruption in the police, he is bringing in the

:17:39. > :17:43.former head of the Liverpool Merseyside police to be who they

:17:43. > :17:51.will report to and not a policeman in the Met Police, the implication

:17:51. > :17:59.is that he is not sure he can trust the matter. -- trust them at police.

:17:59. > :18:05.What do you make of the composition of the judicial inquiry? I think it

:18:05. > :18:11.is a very distinguished inquiry. All of us know a number of the

:18:11. > :18:16.members of it. Are there too many journalists? Three out of the six.

:18:16. > :18:20.Eleanor Goodman, Channel 4 political editor formally, George

:18:20. > :18:24.Jones, former Daily Telegraph political editor, was a journalist

:18:24. > :18:30.of mine at the Sunday Times, David Bowie, former Financial Times

:18:30. > :18:36.journalist. I think they are all regarded right across the spectrum

:18:36. > :18:46.as journalists of great distinction and independence who believe in the

:18:46. > :18:49.highest values. So you don't think the public will think, we have

:18:49. > :18:55.already criticised the PCC for being journalists investigating

:18:55. > :19:02.journalists, there are too many? Are I think the hearings will sit

:19:02. > :19:07.in public, went they? I think you have always got to think about how

:19:07. > :19:14.the public are engaged and a continuing basis, rather than in

:19:14. > :19:18.inquiry like this disappearing into a room in White Wolf -- in

:19:18. > :19:22.Whitehall behind closed doors. But that depends on the public's

:19:22. > :19:28.continuing appetite. They will be calling the Murdoch's again. They

:19:28. > :19:33.will be calling Nick Robinson. knows! I think there will be a

:19:33. > :19:37.different criticism made, which is they are political journalists. I

:19:37. > :19:40.think the people who produce tabloid newspapers who say it is a

:19:40. > :19:44.competitive market and they are fighting to retain successful

:19:44. > :19:49.businesses will say people like me and them do not get the things you

:19:49. > :19:54.have to do in order to get tabloid stories. I am not dogear that

:19:54. > :19:57.criminality, of course, but that you live in the closed world of

:19:57. > :20:02.chatting to not friends who are politicians in context and I would

:20:02. > :20:10.not be surprised if Paul Baker who runs the Daily Mail will say, who

:20:10. > :20:13.gets what it takes to produce a tabloid? Let me ask you about this

:20:13. > :20:20.broadening of the rematch for broadcasters and social media.

:20:20. > :20:25.Broadcasters you can kind of understand, social media seems to

:20:25. > :20:30.me to be as long as a piece of string? What happened, as I

:20:30. > :20:34.understand it, if somebody had the bright idea of extending the remit,

:20:34. > :20:37.produced an early day motion and thrust it in under the noses of

:20:37. > :20:43.select committee chairs who signed it and I told to a couple is said,

:20:43. > :20:46.I am not sure why I did that. I think it is a big, big mistake

:20:46. > :20:51.because the broadcasting regulation is very different from the press

:20:51. > :20:55.regulation. I think it is much tougher already, there are no real

:20:55. > :20:59.concerns about issues to do with who owns the media, we need to sort

:20:59. > :21:03.that out, and once you get into social media we will be bogged down

:21:03. > :21:07.the years. But the great thing about having so many journalists,

:21:07. > :21:12.and if I, on the earlier point, is that all three are good at asking

:21:12. > :21:16.tough questions, and that is what a thing, above all, it is not just

:21:16. > :21:21.their experience within the media that their ability to ask the right

:21:21. > :21:24.questions cricket. The reason I suspect broadcasting is included is

:21:24. > :21:34.that the distinction between broadcasting and print is less and

:21:34. > :21:40.less need -- less meaningful. And too has his -- Andrew has his iPad

:21:40. > :21:46.there. There are long-term questions about the business and I

:21:47. > :21:54.would say it is hard to make the distinction that is currently made.

:21:54. > :21:59.We will not have any newspapers left by 20 -- 2020! It is a vast,

:21:59. > :22:05.vast topic. We are going to say goodbye to our panel this morning,

:22:05. > :22:09.we thank you for being with us on another interesting morning.

:22:09. > :22:14.One extra thing that was announced just before the statement, a

:22:14. > :22:17.parliamentary investigation has been launched by the tend of a man

:22:17. > :22:20.to attack at Rupert Murdoch with shaving foam yesterday. He will

:22:20. > :22:25.appear before magistrates court but they will have a parliamentary

:22:25. > :22:28.investigation tip. We have been keeping an eye on

:22:29. > :22:32.proceedings in the Commons and will pick up on David Cameron's response

:22:32. > :22:37.to Ed Miliband, where he criticise Labour's close relationship with

:22:37. > :22:40.News International. Let us remember who was the adviser

:22:41. > :22:44.to Gordon Brown when he was the Chancellor? The Right Honourable

:22:45. > :22:48.Gentleman! On the issue of the action we have taken, let us

:22:48. > :22:52.remember during the last Parliament reports of the Information

:22:52. > :22:56.Commissioner ignored, reports of the select committee, ignored, the

:22:56. > :23:00.failure of the police investigation, ignored. We know exactly which

:23:00. > :23:07.party was, if you like, the slumber party, and it was the party

:23:07. > :23:12.opposite. Frankly, everyone can see exactly what he is doing, and ate

:23:12. > :23:16.hands to play this for narrow party advantage. The problem has been

:23:16. > :23:19.taking place over many years. The problem is for both our main

:23:19. > :23:23.parties, and the problem is one that the public expect us to stop

:23:23. > :23:33.playing with it to rise to the occasion and deal with it for the

:23:33. > :23:35.

:23:35. > :23:39.good of the country. Order! Mr David Davies. Under the previous

:23:39. > :23:41.Labour government, when my Right Honourable Friend the Member for

:23:41. > :23:45.Ashford Damian Green was arrested by the Metropolitan Police, the

:23:45. > :23:50.Prime Minister and Home Secretary of the day were not notified of the

:23:50. > :23:54.details of that investigation. At the time, the Labour front bench in

:23:54. > :23:57.this did -- insisted that they were not told. Is it not therefore the

:23:57. > :24:00.case that not only has Mr Ed Llewellyn not done wrong, but has

:24:00. > :24:07.done exactly what are public servants should do and to say

:24:07. > :24:10.otherwise is hypocrisy? He makes a very good point. When you read the

:24:10. > :24:14.exchange of e-mails and you see what Ed Llewellyn said, you see

:24:14. > :24:19.that it was cleared in advance by Jeremy Hayward, it was absolutely

:24:19. > :24:29.right. We do not live in a country where the Prime Minister orders who

:24:29. > :24:34.

:24:34. > :24:39.should be arrested and who The Home Secretary made a statement

:24:39. > :24:45.on Monday of over 1,000 words, but the two words Neil Wallis were not

:24:45. > :24:50.mentioned. She, like me, was not aware of his appointment, but we

:24:50. > :24:55.were not in a situation where Neil Wallis' best buddy was working for

:24:55. > :25:00.us. The Prime Minister was. Did he know that Neil Wallis was giving

:25:00. > :25:04.advice to the Metropolitan Police? No I didn't know that. And as I

:25:04. > :25:09.have said, in relation to the work he did for Andy Coulson, I was not

:25:09. > :25:13.aware of that. This is an important point because one of the issues is

:25:13. > :25:17.the transparency and information that there was about Neil Wallis

:25:17. > :25:21.and the Metropolitan Police. One thing everybody has to say about 10

:25:21. > :25:26.Downing Street, there was no hiding the fact we had employed Andy

:25:26. > :25:28.Coulson. Mr Simon Hughes. I joined the Prime Minister in paying

:25:28. > :25:33.tribute to Paul Stephenson and thank him for the announcements he

:25:33. > :25:37.has made, but will he explicitly say that he accepts that all

:25:37. > :25:44.governments from this one back, five the 20 years, have been far

:25:44. > :25:50.too close to the media giants in this country, and that that has to

:25:50. > :25:54.end, which means no more back door visit to Number Ten? And that we

:25:54. > :25:59.should be able to have not just sight of party political papers but

:25:59. > :26:03.if necessary cabinet papers and the recommendations of the Information

:26:03. > :26:08.Commission and others should be implemented to increase criminal

:26:08. > :26:12.penalties for criminality immediately. I accept that point he

:26:12. > :26:15.makes about transparency. What I have set out is not just official

:26:15. > :26:20.meetings with media executives and proprietors but also private

:26:20. > :26:23.meetings as well, and in relation to a meeting I held with Rupert

:26:23. > :26:28.Murdoch, the fact is not whether he came through the front or back door,

:26:28. > :26:33.but was it declared in the proper way? Yes, it was. In the old days,

:26:33. > :26:37.the only way you found out if Rupert Murdoch has met someone was

:26:37. > :26:40.to wait for Alistair Campbell's diaries! We have been transparent

:26:40. > :26:44.about this, going back to the election, including private and

:26:44. > :26:47.official meetings, whether at Chequers or Downing Street, and I

:26:47. > :26:51.think we need to go further in this regard and this should be the new

:26:51. > :26:54.standard. I say to the right honourable gentleman who published

:26:54. > :26:59.information from when he became leader of the Labour Party, why can

:26:59. > :27:05.we not see back to the general election? Mr Jack Straw. When the

:27:05. > :27:10.Prime Minister read of the extensive investigation in the New

:27:11. > :27:15.York Times on the 1st September last year, what was his reaction to

:27:15. > :27:18.that, and what did he do? question I asked myself all the way

:27:18. > :27:22.through his, is there new information that Andy Coulson knew

:27:22. > :27:27.about hacking at the News Of The World? I could not be clearer about

:27:27. > :27:32.this. If it turns out he knew about the hacking, he will have lied to

:27:32. > :27:35.the select committee, police, to a court of law, and to me. I made the

:27:35. > :27:39.decision to employ him in good faith because of the assurances he

:27:39. > :27:45.gave me. There was no information in that article that would have led

:27:45. > :27:51.me to change my mind about those assurances. But if it turns out...

:27:51. > :27:55.As I said, I could not be clearer, if it turns out that he knew about

:27:55. > :27:59.the hacking, then that will be a matter of huge regret, great

:27:59. > :28:03.apology, a disgrace not only that he worked in government but also,

:28:03. > :28:12.vitally, something that will be subject to criminal prosecutions.

:28:12. > :28:15.Mr John Whittingdale. Does my right honourable friend agree that what

:28:15. > :28:19.people really care about is the appalling revelations of what has

:28:19. > :28:21.been going on in the newsroom at the News Of The World and the

:28:21. > :28:26.involvement of the Metropolitan Police, and that the public anger

:28:26. > :28:30.about that is expressly found by thousands of hard-working and

:28:30. > :28:34.honest journalists and thousands of dedicated and courageous police

:28:34. > :28:38.officers? For that reason, it is essential that the police

:28:38. > :28:42.investigation should be completed as quickly as possible, the IPCC's

:28:42. > :28:46.investigation should be completed and the judicial requiring --

:28:46. > :28:48.judicial inquiry should be completed as soon as possible, and

:28:48. > :28:53.canny give assurance they will be given the priority they should have

:28:53. > :28:57.been given a long time ago. He is entirely right. At the absolute

:28:57. > :29:01.heart of this we have got to keep the victims of the hacking scandal,

:29:01. > :29:06.and those are people who suffered appallingly already and were made

:29:06. > :29:10.to suffer all over again. The key thing here is the extent and scale

:29:10. > :29:14.of the judicial inquiry. An inquiry like this into the media,

:29:14. > :29:18.malpractice, the police and politicians, too, has not been held

:29:18. > :29:21.for many years. It has been talked about and debated and will now be

:29:21. > :29:28.underway, and I wanted to get on with its work as rapidly as

:29:28. > :29:33.possible. Tom Robson. I must challenge the Prime Minister on the

:29:33. > :29:37.accuracy of one of his assertions. He said that nobody raised Andy

:29:37. > :29:43.Coulson's conduct with him whilst he worked for the Prime Minister. I

:29:43. > :29:46.did in a letter on 4th October last year after new allegations that he

:29:46. > :29:51.had listened to tapes of intercepted voicemail messages came

:29:51. > :29:56.through, and they said in the letter that this cast doubt on the

:29:56. > :30:01.accuracy of Mr Coulson's Stegmann. I am still waiting for a reply. --

:30:01. > :30:07.Mr Coulson's statement. Let me pay tribute to the honourable gentleman

:30:07. > :30:11.and what he has done. But the point I am making is simply this, that

:30:11. > :30:15.the time that Andy Coulson spent at Number Ten Downing Street, the work

:30:15. > :30:18.he did for the government, no one has complained against, and that

:30:19. > :30:23.seems to me to be important, because what I have said is that I

:30:23. > :30:26.gave him a second chance after he had resigned from the News Of The

:30:26. > :30:30.World because of what happened under his watch, and no one has

:30:30. > :30:40.raised with me any of his conduct at Number Ten while he carried out

:30:40. > :30:40.

:30:40. > :30:43.The Prime Minister has said that contact with the media will be

:30:43. > :30:47.published since the general election. I have to say they do not

:30:47. > :30:50.think that is good enough. We need to know the context of that the

:30:50. > :30:54.Government -- the contacts that the Government have had over the last

:30:54. > :31:00.10 years with the media and an investigation into the Home Office

:31:00. > :31:03.and what they were doing. This inquiry is specifically looking at

:31:03. > :31:09.the relationship between politicians and the media and at

:31:09. > :31:16.the request of Hacked Off and the down -- our family, the conduct of

:31:16. > :31:21.both. -- downer family. I think we'll need to be clear,

:31:21. > :31:25.particularly the two main parties, that the level of contact has been

:31:25. > :31:30.too great and we spent too much time trying to get on with media

:31:30. > :31:37.companies to get our message across. As a result, we have put on the

:31:37. > :31:42.back-burner too often the result -- the issues of how to regulate the

:31:42. > :31:47.media. That is the mistake we made. We have to be honest about that. It

:31:47. > :31:51.is not just the relationship with News International, it is also

:31:51. > :31:54.about the work we do try to win over the BBC or the Independent or

:31:54. > :32:01.the Guardian. Let us be frank and transparent about the meetings we

:32:01. > :32:07.have had. Then we can learn lessons and use this as a cathartic moment

:32:07. > :32:13.to sort out the relationship. not sure that the Prime Minister

:32:13. > :32:16.was a wake at 5:00am this morning, but I'm glad to hear that. The Home

:32:16. > :32:20.Affairs Committee published a unanimous report which points out

:32:20. > :32:24.the fact that we believe there were serious misjudgments in the police

:32:24. > :32:27.investigation. As well as that, that News International had

:32:27. > :32:30.deliberately thwarted the investigation. He will not have a

:32:30. > :32:35.chance to read the evidence of Lord MacDonald who said he took five

:32:35. > :32:39.minutes to look at the file to realise there was criminality. The

:32:39. > :32:43.file was with his firm for four years. Will the send the message

:32:43. > :32:48.out that anyone who has information about this matter should handed

:32:48. > :32:52.over immediately to Sue Akers and explain why it has been withheld.

:32:52. > :32:54.will send out that message from this dispatch box at the same time

:32:54. > :33:00.as thanking the right honourable gentleman for the workers'

:33:00. > :33:02.committee has done. I did not look at all the evidence of a look that

:33:02. > :33:06.the key conclusions of the report. I think the work is committee is

:33:06. > :33:12.doing, drilling into the conduct of News International and the police,

:33:12. > :33:19.is extremely valuable. We now have to lead the police investigation

:33:19. > :33:22.happen, properly resourced, to get underway, to get to the truth and

:33:22. > :33:28.make the proper conclusions. I think the right honourable

:33:28. > :33:32.gentleman has played a good role in making that happen. Does the Prime

:33:32. > :33:36.Minister share my concern that at a time when this House is involved in

:33:36. > :33:39.a very important discussion about this awful issue of phone hacking,

:33:39. > :33:42.and at a time when most people and the country are most concerned

:33:42. > :33:46.about what is going on in the Eurozone area and the impact that

:33:46. > :33:53.that might have on their jobs and their employment in this country,

:33:53. > :33:59.that the Leader of the Opposition is so narrowly focused on party

:33:59. > :34:02.political points? The point a wall made to all honourable members is

:34:02. > :34:07.that the public want us to sort this out. One of the reasons they

:34:07. > :34:10.want us to do it on a cross-party basis is they want us to get on to

:34:10. > :34:15.the other issues that they care so deeply about. Everyone has to

:34:15. > :34:19.recognise the threat and the problems that we face. There are

:34:19. > :34:22.difficulties in the Eurozone that will affect us in the UK. I

:34:22. > :34:32.understand and recognise that we have to deal with this before we

:34:32. > :34:32.

:34:32. > :34:36.can get on with those dishes. his conversations with the Murdochs,

:34:36. > :34:43.with Mrs Brooks and other News Corp people, was there ever any mention

:34:43. > :34:46.of the BSkyB Brit -- BSkyB bid? There was never a conversation that

:34:46. > :34:51.could have been held in front of the Select Committee. He asked me

:34:51. > :34:56.to answer the question, perhaps he will now be transparent, as he was

:34:56. > :34:59.Culture Secretary, about all the contacts he has had with News

:34:59. > :35:06.International over the years. I have set out the clearest possible

:35:06. > :35:10.position. It is for others to now do the same thing. In light of

:35:10. > :35:14.Rebekah Brooks' revelations about her cosy relationship was between

:35:15. > :35:18.Tony Blair and News International, and the secret backdoor meetings

:35:18. > :35:22.under both the last and present governments, does the Prime

:35:22. > :35:28.Minister agree that this explains why successive governments have

:35:28. > :35:33.been so reluctant to Act in response to the 2003 Culture, Media

:35:33. > :35:41.and Sport recommendation, the 2006 Media Report and the call from Lib

:35:41. > :35:44.Dem MPs for a judicial inquiry last year. People should not showered

:35:44. > :35:48.the honourable lady down because she is making a valid point. It

:35:48. > :35:57.does not reflect well on Labour or can the Conservatives. There were

:35:57. > :36:03.warnings about what was going on from the Select Committee. We did

:36:03. > :36:07.not put the issue of regulating the media high up and off -- high up

:36:07. > :36:15.the agenda. We need to work on this and get it right, respond to those

:36:15. > :36:18.reports and put some of these proposals into the law. My right

:36:18. > :36:23.honourable friend the member who chairs the Home Affairs Committee

:36:23. > :36:31.referred earlier to the file compiled in 2007 which was sent off

:36:31. > :36:33.to Harbottle and Lewis. In that, according to the former GP, there

:36:33. > :36:37.is blindingly obvious elements that police officers were paid for

:36:38. > :36:43.information by the newspaper. News International are still refusing to

:36:43. > :36:46.allow that to be fully considered and are insisting on client

:36:46. > :36:50.confidentiality so Harbottle and Lewis are an important British firm

:36:50. > :36:56.and they are unable to put their side of the argument across. Is

:36:56. > :37:00.this not clear evidence that News International, contrary to the

:37:00. > :37:05.potential military yesterday, are still refusing to co-operate fully?

:37:05. > :37:10.The point I would make is that that information if it is important to

:37:10. > :37:15.the inquiry, needs to be given to the police and to the inquiry. We

:37:15. > :37:18.need for the police and the inquiry to go in pursuit of the truth. If

:37:18. > :37:21.people have been paying police officers, those police officers

:37:21. > :37:26.need to be prosecuted and the people who did the paying need to

:37:26. > :37:30.be prosecuted. It is as simple as that. After hearing the evidence

:37:30. > :37:33.given to the Home Affairs Select Committee, can I warmly welcome

:37:33. > :37:36.what my honourable friend has said today that the attention given to

:37:36. > :37:40.the victims of phone hacking, including a wide variety of people

:37:40. > :37:44.including many members of the public who have suffered tragedies?

:37:44. > :37:49.Is aware that in the evidence, it emerges that it will take a

:37:49. > :37:58.considerable rate of time -- length of time of the current rate of

:37:58. > :38:04.process for all of those to be contacted? Will be do what they can

:38:04. > :38:08.to make sure those are investigated? I take the point.

:38:08. > :38:11.With the current rate of progress, it could take too long a time to

:38:11. > :38:14.get this done. I know there will be conversations with the police and

:38:14. > :38:18.the Metropolitan Police Authority to make sure adequate resources are

:38:18. > :38:25.put into this investigation. It is already a far bigger investigation

:38:25. > :38:27.than the first, failed investigation. They are welcome the

:38:27. > :38:31.Prime Minister's decision to widen the terms of reference for the

:38:31. > :38:36.inquiry to include not just the press and broadcasters and social

:38:36. > :38:39.media as well. Can I be reassured that it will also include other

:38:39. > :38:44.illegal and unethical activities such as blagging, hacking into e-

:38:44. > :38:49.mail accounts, and it will extend to all parts of the United Kingdom,

:38:49. > :38:53.and that in interest -- in the interest of the victims of crime

:38:53. > :38:56.and terrorism, that both of the main parties will be open about the

:38:57. > :39:02.extent of their relationship with the Murdoch empire? On the last

:39:02. > :39:07.point, I have been totally transparent and will go on being

:39:07. > :39:14.transparent. On the issue awful the terms of reference mention, of

:39:14. > :39:18.course this inquiry can look at blagging and all of the crimes that

:39:18. > :39:23.have been documented. One of the issues were -- was that if you

:39:23. > :39:29.mention some forms but not others, you give additional priority. Lord

:39:29. > :39:31.Justice Levison can go wherever the evidence leads. Does my right

:39:31. > :39:35.honourable friend agree that after the extraordinary events of the

:39:35. > :39:45.last few days, last thing the general public wants to see is

:39:45. > :39:49.

:39:49. > :39:53.cheap partisanship. We want to hear the honourable lady and a focus on

:39:53. > :40:01.Andy Coulson comes ill from the party of Tom Baldwin and Damian

:40:01. > :40:05.McBride. The honourable lady makes an -- a good point. Can I commend

:40:05. > :40:07.her for her questioning and what she did yesterday on the Select

:40:07. > :40:17.Committee were a thing she showed commendable plot, if I can put it

:40:17. > :40:23.

:40:23. > :40:27.that way, as well as asking some extremely pertinent questions?

:40:27. > :40:34.the course of the past few minutes, the Prime Minister has been asked a

:40:34. > :40:40.simple question twice and refused to answer it. As Prime Minister,

:40:40. > :40:45.did he ever discuss the question of the BSkyB bid with News

:40:45. > :40:54.International at the meetings they attended? I never had one in

:40:54. > :41:00.appropriate conversation. And let me be clear, I completely took

:41:00. > :41:04.myself out of any decision-making about this bid. I had no role

:41:04. > :41:07.limits, in when the results were going to be made, in when the

:41:07. > :41:12.announcements were going to be made and that is the point. When the

:41:12. > :41:16.honourable gentleman makes signals like that. Order. The House, again,

:41:17. > :41:23.needs to come down. The question was probably heard, the Prime

:41:23. > :41:29.Minister's answer must be properly heard. I have answered the question.

:41:29. > :41:33.The pointer would make his, unlike the party he has been supporting

:41:33. > :41:37.for the last god knows how many years, this party set out all its

:41:37. > :41:44.meetings, everything it did, in stark contrast to the party

:41:44. > :41:48.opposite. Judging the mood of the chamber, this might be unpopular

:41:48. > :41:53.thing to say but outside the Westminster bobble, I get the

:41:53. > :41:57.impression that the nation has had its fill on the subject. It is

:41:57. > :42:01.actually getting fed up. It wants answers about the police corruption

:42:01. > :42:05.and about the hacking and the relationship between the press and

:42:05. > :42:10.the media. But there is an inquiry underway and that is where the

:42:10. > :42:15.answers will come. I think it is time that the Westminster frenzy is

:42:15. > :42:20.placed on hold. There are other pressing matters, Mr Speaker, that

:42:20. > :42:24.the nation expects us to deal with. My honourable friend makes a good

:42:24. > :42:28.point. We have set up the fullest possible inquiry, an inquiry never

:42:28. > :42:33.held under the 13 years of a last government. We have to let that

:42:33. > :42:38.inquiry find the answers to all of these questions. It looks at the

:42:38. > :42:41.police, media, BSkyB, the conduct of politicians, and it is able to

:42:41. > :42:47.ask all of those questions and we should be able to allow it to get

:42:47. > :42:53.on with the job. Yesterday, News International's defence seems to

:42:53. > :42:57.have shifted from one role reporter to one possibly more role lawyer.

:42:57. > :43:01.They still have not fully revealed to Newport and when and to

:43:01. > :43:05.participate at that the cover-up. Rupert Murdoch said to be Select

:43:05. > :43:09.Committee that that was unsatisfactory. What would you urge

:43:09. > :43:17.News International to do now to resolve the situation? Simple, tell

:43:17. > :43:23.the truth to the police and to the inquiry. Does the Prime Minister

:43:23. > :43:28.agree with me that having failed the victims in 2006, when the

:43:28. > :43:31.Government ignored the ICO's warnings, and having failed victims

:43:31. > :43:37.in 2009 when the Met dismissed evidence in their own position, we

:43:37. > :43:41.should not fail them now by simply apportioning blame? -- in their own

:43:41. > :43:44.possession. We need reform of our police, our media and our politics.

:43:44. > :43:50.The honourable lady is right. We will go back over these reports and

:43:50. > :43:55.over the missed warnings. The inquiry will be able to do that,

:43:55. > :43:59.too, and we should use that information to use this once in a

:43:59. > :44:06.generation chance to get media regulation right. This is about

:44:06. > :44:10.public confidence. Can I ask the Prime Minister this question? Does

:44:10. > :44:18.he really feel that his conduct as Leader of the Opposition and then

:44:18. > :44:21.as Prime Minister should inspire confidence, bearing in mind the

:44:21. > :44:24.phone hacking allegations and the way in which he employed the former

:44:24. > :44:28.editor of the News of the World? Does he not realise that too many

:44:28. > :44:36.people, how he has acted in the last few years has been pretty

:44:36. > :44:41.sordid? My reply is yes, because which government has set up a

:44:41. > :44:45.judicial inquiry? This one. Which government has made sure there is a

:44:46. > :44:49.fully resourced and staffed police investigation? This one. Which

:44:49. > :44:52.government it is being totally transparent about its conduct and

:44:52. > :44:57.contact with the media and asking others to do the same? That is what

:44:57. > :45:03.this Government has done. His government for 13 years had these

:45:03. > :45:06.opportunities and failed to take them. Would the Prime Minister

:45:06. > :45:10.agree that in the past, when the House of Commons has been faced

:45:10. > :45:13.with big issues, it has had a tendency for knee-jerk over-

:45:13. > :45:17.reaction? Would he agree that actually newspapers are a force for

:45:17. > :45:21.good in this country and that actually what we want at the end of

:45:21. > :45:25.this process is criminality weeded out of the media, but nothing that

:45:25. > :45:32.impinges on a free press, free speech, and holding people in

:45:32. > :45:36.authority to a counter? -- holding people in authority to account.

:45:36. > :45:39.have to make sure that in the debate we have about this, we show

:45:39. > :45:42.an element of restraint in the regulation of the media because the

:45:42. > :45:49.result was a danger that the pendulum swings too far the other

:45:49. > :45:52.way and we start and -- we start to threaten independent journalism, a

:45:52. > :45:56.strong and independent media. When we consider the scandals uncovered

:45:57. > :46:00.in recent years, it has often been the press that have done it, and

:46:00. > :46:10.not the regulators. I'm sure we will come on to this in the debate

:46:10. > :46:11.

:46:11. > :46:15.we have later but it is vital to Rebecca Brooks yesterday described

:46:15. > :46:25.the Prime Minister as a friend and a neighbour. We heard from Jeremy

:46:25. > :46:26.

:46:27. > :46:32.Clarkson about Christmas walks and conversations over sausages. Order!

:46:32. > :46:39.This is the mother of Parliament where we have free speech. This

:46:39. > :46:43.question will be heard, that is the end of it. Given the Butler review

:46:43. > :46:48.in the last Parliament, does the Prime Minister believe that such

:46:48. > :46:52.informality on his behalf was consistent with what is expected?

:46:52. > :46:56.What I would say to the honourable gentleman is that one of the things

:46:57. > :47:00.that came out of the evidence yesterday is that, whereas Rebekah

:47:00. > :47:04.Brooks was invited six times in year to Number Ten Downing Street

:47:04. > :47:10.under both the former prime ministers, she has not been invited

:47:10. > :47:15.to Number Ten Downing Street by me. Of course, I have set out... The

:47:15. > :47:19.great contrast is I have set out all of the contacts and meetings

:47:19. > :47:23.that I have had in complete contrast to the party opposite, and

:47:23. > :47:33.I can say this to the Honourable Gentleman, I have never held a

:47:33. > :47:34.

:47:34. > :47:42.slumber party or seen her in her pyjamas! Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

:47:42. > :47:52.confidence of my constituents in Northamptonshire... Order, order! I

:47:52. > :47:53.

:47:53. > :47:56.want to hear and the House wants to hear. I will start again. The

:47:56. > :48:01.confidence of my constituents in Northampton in the political

:48:01. > :48:07.process has been progressively undermined and can be traced to the

:48:07. > :48:13.dismal example of politicians in the mid- 1990s laying all before

:48:13. > :48:16.the older of media barons. How can we change that culture, address the

:48:16. > :48:20.miserable failure of political oversight and leadership, and

:48:20. > :48:26.ensure that never again will we allow the propriety to be

:48:26. > :48:30.sacrificed whilst those responsible are asleep on what? Are I think the

:48:30. > :48:36.short answer to the honourable gentleman is that transparency is

:48:36. > :48:42.the correct answer. I will -- I touched on this one I opened the

:48:42. > :48:48.debate in my speech, but I think that everyone should see how often

:48:48. > :48:53.that we need. The Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasised that he

:48:53. > :48:58.has no evidence of any complaint or questions about the conduct of Andy

:48:58. > :49:03.Coulson while he was heading a government media service. Will the

:49:03. > :49:05.Prime Minister confirm that a year ago, during the period when Mr

:49:05. > :49:09.Coulson was director of communications, the Cabinet

:49:09. > :49:13.Secretary was alerted to evidence of illegal phone hacking, covert

:49:13. > :49:19.surveillance, and hostile media briefing directed against a senior

:49:19. > :49:22.official in the government said this? What action, if any, was

:49:23. > :49:26.taken to investigate what appears to have been disgraceful and

:49:26. > :49:30.illegal conduct close to the heart of government? I have to look

:49:30. > :49:34.closely at what the honourable gentleman says, but the point I

:49:34. > :49:38.have made, and I have never seen evidence to go against it, is in

:49:38. > :49:41.the period Andy Coulson worked at Number Ten Downing Street as head

:49:41. > :49:46.of communications, there was no complaint about the way he did his

:49:46. > :49:49.job. I take responsibility for employing him, I take

:49:49. > :49:53.responsibility for that decision and I have laid out today what I

:49:53. > :49:56.think of that now and all that has been learned, and you have to learn

:49:56. > :50:00.these lessons if you are going to get things right in the future.

:50:00. > :50:03.What I would say in my defence is in the time he was at Downing

:50:03. > :50:08.Street, he did not behave in a way that anyone that was inappropriate,

:50:08. > :50:11.and that was important because the decision was to employ him, the

:50:12. > :50:19.decision was his to leave, and during that period people cannot

:50:19. > :50:22.point to his conduct and say that was a misjudgment. Many

:50:22. > :50:25.constituents have contacted me regarding this issue and they will

:50:25. > :50:29.join me in Markham in a statement today, but many others have been in

:50:29. > :50:34.touch concerning other important issues such as the crisis in the

:50:34. > :50:36.eurozone and the situation in Africa. Can the Prime Minister

:50:36. > :50:41.reassure my constituents that this government is dealing with all

:50:41. > :50:45.issues and not focusing on phone hacking? The honourable lady is

:50:45. > :50:48.right, people wanted to get on with the other issues at a time when we

:50:48. > :50:53.need the economy to grow, need to provide more jobs, have to get to

:50:53. > :50:56.grips with problems of the cost of living, they want reforms and

:50:56. > :50:59.welfare and immigration. Yes, they want us to deal with it issue but

:50:59. > :51:03.they want us to get on with the other issues this country needs to

:51:03. > :51:07.deal with. A flavour of the Commons debate

:51:07. > :51:11.with MPs questioning David Cameron. It continues all afternoon in the

:51:11. > :51:14.Commons and you can much coverage on BBC Parliament. But let's

:51:14. > :51:18.discuss that debate and where this episode leaves British politics

:51:18. > :51:23.with Kevin Maguire from the Mirror and Tim Montgomery from

:51:23. > :51:28.Conservative time. What about David Cameron's

:51:28. > :51:33.performance? It was a big day today, cutting short his trip to Africa.

:51:33. > :51:37.How did he do? I think he did very well, and I say that as someone who

:51:37. > :51:41.thinks he has been behind the curve for the last few weeks. He was very

:51:41. > :51:44.authoritative today and was where the British people want that Prime

:51:44. > :51:48.Minister to be. He has taken tough action to deal with the problems

:51:48. > :51:51.that occurred during the Labour years, and getting the British

:51:51. > :51:55.people now have seen the Prime Minister take action and what their

:51:55. > :51:59.government to get focused on the issues they are concerned about,

:51:59. > :52:02.like the euro, immigration, crime, and I think enough has been done

:52:02. > :52:06.now for him to have earned the right to move on. Has he done

:52:06. > :52:10.enough to persuade his own backbenchers? They probably will

:52:10. > :52:16.have sat there and C Ed Miliband having had a pretty good time of it

:52:16. > :52:20.through the phone hacking scandal, and perhaps think the Prime

:52:20. > :52:24.Minister has been behind the curve. They were warring their support

:52:24. > :52:29.today, they were very enthusiastic, and they think we are beginning to

:52:29. > :52:34.see the signs of a overreach from Ed Miliband. He has had a good

:52:34. > :52:38.couple of weeks, but there was an element today where he could see

:52:38. > :52:41.conspiracy theories behind every corner. He needs to address his

:52:41. > :52:45.fundamental weakness as Labour leader, that people do not trust

:52:45. > :52:50.him on the economy, and as we are going into a summer when the

:52:50. > :52:54.economy will be dominant, he needs to change focus. Do you think,

:52:54. > :52:58.Kevin, that Ed Miliband hit the wrong note today? That having had a

:52:58. > :53:01.few weeks of putting pressure on David Cameron, today was a day to

:53:01. > :53:06.say, we all have to look at relationships with the press, with

:53:06. > :53:13.the police, rather than a continuing on the, why did you hire

:53:13. > :53:17.Andy Coulson? Today was party political on both sides. David

:53:17. > :53:20.Cameron did do well, it was very feisty, although I am sure some of

:53:20. > :53:24.his answers on what he did or didn't know on Andy Coulson

:53:24. > :53:33.probably would not stand up to sustained questioning if he came

:53:33. > :53:37.and sat here. Let's take the BSkyB question. He was asked several

:53:38. > :53:43.times, in all of the meetings of News International, has he ever

:53:43. > :53:49.raised the issue of BSkyB? His first answer to that was, as

:53:49. > :53:53.Rebecca Brooks said yesterday, the second was, I have never had an

:53:53. > :54:01.inappropriate discussion. I am afraid most people would think that

:54:01. > :54:06.he did, then, not inappropriate but he did discuss BSkyB. Yes, that he

:54:06. > :54:09.did discuss it. The meetings, he has been transparent about

:54:09. > :54:12.discussing the meetings between News International and the

:54:12. > :54:17.government, but not about those informal social interactions.

:54:17. > :54:20.has always been a case in Downing Street, you go downstairs it is

:54:20. > :54:25.recorded, you go upstairs for a private meeting that never was. He

:54:25. > :54:30.has had so much social contact, as did Gordon Brown and Tony Blair...

:54:30. > :54:35.Much has been made of Gordon Brown even by a Rupert Murdoch himself

:54:35. > :54:39.yesterday, how cosy they were with the Murdochs. A very good line with

:54:39. > :54:45.David Cameron, I have never seen Rebekah Brooks in her pyjamas!

:54:45. > :54:53.haven't, have you? I am glad to year that! No one would admit it

:54:53. > :54:57.now anyway! I have never seen her dressed in appropriately! In terms

:54:57. > :55:02.of inappropriate relationships, where it comes to Labour's

:55:02. > :55:05.relationships with the Murdochs, not just Tony Blair and Gordon

:55:05. > :55:10.Brown, are they putting themselves in the firing line if they continue

:55:10. > :55:14.in that vein? Yes, you cannot ignore the past and Labour was too

:55:14. > :55:18.close. Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell ran their media operations

:55:18. > :55:23.through News International. Gordon Brown tried to cosy up,

:55:23. > :55:29.unsuccessfully. Successful for a while. True, but in the end he got

:55:29. > :55:37.his fingers burned. Ed Miliband has got quite clean hands on this.

:55:37. > :55:42.people would dispute that. Andy Coulson obviously was there at the

:55:42. > :55:45.Prime Minister's side but has been done for a few months. Still at Ed

:55:45. > :55:50.Miliband's side is Tom Baldwin who used to work at the Times and News

:55:50. > :55:54.International. But there is no indication of wrong doing. That was

:55:54. > :56:00.the position of Andy Coulson for a while. Very specific allegations

:56:00. > :56:07.have been made about him black ink into bank accounts. The killer

:56:07. > :56:13.facts have yet to come out -- about him blagging. When will we get

:56:13. > :56:19.them? He has not spoken to me since the five o'clock interview on

:56:19. > :56:24.election night! I am not surprised! For someone trying to ride his high

:56:24. > :56:27.horse, as Ed Miliband is doing, saying he is whiter than white, and

:56:27. > :56:30.have a guy with significant question marks hanging over him, is

:56:31. > :56:34.dangerous, as well as Rupert Murdoch agreeing to was yesterday

:56:35. > :56:38.the scale of the meetings that have taken place between past Labour

:56:38. > :56:44.leaders and the Murdoch empire. What about the political benefits

:56:44. > :56:46.for Ed Miliband and the Labour Party? There were polls that said,

:56:46. > :56:51.how are engaged is the public generally in this when you have the

:56:51. > :56:56.other issues? But also the Labour Party has not improved that much.

:56:56. > :57:02.Ed Miliband's standard has improved, he will be pleased about that?

:57:02. > :57:05.should be, because it was very low! He has made himself safe within the

:57:06. > :57:09.Labour Purdie. Murdoch is a bogeyman for many in the Labour

:57:09. > :57:14.Party. But he has not yet broken through with the country as a whole,

:57:14. > :57:19.but it is a slow burner. It may never explode fully, it may not be

:57:19. > :57:23.the dynamite fact to nail David Cameron to Andy Coulson knowing

:57:23. > :57:29.things he should not have known, because that may not exist, but if

:57:29. > :57:34.it does then I think Ed Miliband will look very different. In terms

:57:34. > :57:39.of David Cameron, over the last few days we had a bitter debate earlier

:57:39. > :57:44.about whether senior Tories have been -- we had a bit of a debate

:57:44. > :57:48.about where the senior Tories have been batting for David Cameron. We

:57:48. > :57:53.were told they did not know what the line was. What do you say to

:57:53. > :57:57.that? I think David Cameron will be OK after this. Overall approval

:57:57. > :58:01.ratings have not changed but I think there are lessons to be

:58:01. > :58:05.learned. Traditionally, you have a Tory party chairman in the media

:58:05. > :58:11.every day batting for the Prime Minister. I rang Central Office

:58:11. > :58:14.about this the other day, I wondered whether she was unwell or

:58:14. > :58:19.abroad, and apparently she is preparing for the party conference

:58:19. > :58:25.which is three months of. She has not spoken to me since the Tory

:58:25. > :58:30.party conference either! Or a car crash into the! Cameron desperately

:58:30. > :58:37.needs that kind of figure out there doing this stuff he needs to be

:58:37. > :58:40.above -- a car crash into view. He needs to go puzzle of the

:58:40. > :58:46.hypocrisies and contradictions in Labour's positioned.

:58:46. > :58:50.That is it for today, we thank all of our guests. That really is it

:58:50. > :58:53.for the summer after two false start! We will not be back tomorrow,