25/04/2012 Daily Politics

Good morning, folks, this is Daily Politics. Culture secretary Jeremy

Hunt's special adviser Adam Smith, just as we were coming on air, has

resigned. There was a call for the Culture Secretary himself to resign

over contacts with the Murdoch. Jeremy Hunt is making a Commons

statement at 12:30pm, and we will bring it to you live after PMQs.

Yesterday it was the son and today it is the media mogul himself. He

is under oath at the Royal Courts of Justice and we will bring you

the latest from the Leveson Inquiry. We are in recession, it is the

official. The economy shrank by 0.2% in the first three months of

this year, the second consecutive quarter in which the economy has

contracted. The news could hardly be worse for

the Prime Minister as he faces Ed Miliband in what could be the final

PMQs of this parliamentary session. Joining us for the next 90 minutes

of action packed public service broadcasting at its finest, can I

say more? Double-dip Britain, here we are. We have got the

universities minister of David Willetts and the shadow environment

secretary Mary Creagh go. Welcome to you both on this very busy news

day. In a moment we will bring you more on the resignation of Jeremy

Hunt's special adviser at the latest on the Rupert Murdoch

evidence at the Leveson Inquiry, but first to the Office of National

Statistics. The economy shrank by 0.2% in the first three months of

this year. That is the second consecutive quarter in which the

economy contracted, the technical definition of a recession. It is

just the first estimate of the first quarter from the LMS, but the

City thought we would avoid the double-dip. -- from the Office of

National Statistics. It is a big blow for the Chancellor. It is very

disappointing news and it is a tough economic situation when you

are recovering from these enormous debts that the Government build up

in the good years. That is not made easier by the fact that much of

Europe is in recession or heading into recession. And we have got to

go on dealing with those debts, making our businesses more

competitive so they can create jobs, helping young people get into work,

and making sure we do not deliberately add to borrowing, do

not deliberately spend more and make the difficult situation worse.

I am joined now by the chief UK economist at Capital Economics,

Vicky Redwood. We said that there was an expectation that there might

be a slight inching up of growth and it has gone the other way. Why

do you think that is? Construction output was a key factor pulling

down growth, but in fact that was widely expected. The big

disappointment was that services output was weaker than expected.

Even though consumers were spending on the High Street, they were

cutting back on things like eating out. Perhaps there was more

widespread weavers in the economy than was generally anticipated. --

widespread weakness. The Chancellor was blaming the eurozone. What

impact will this have on the deficit-reduction plans? So far the

deficit-reduction plans have been going broadly to plan. Borrowing

has been coming down as the Chancellor expected but I think

things will get much harder now. The plans to bring down borrowing

depend very crucially on a strong pick-up in economic growth over the

next year. If that is not mad, then borrowing will be harder to bring

down, if it is not brought down at all. -- if that is not met. Will

there be a change of course for the Government? The Chancellor faces a

tricky dilemma. Spending more money to boost the economy and risking an

adverse reaction or sticking to austerity plans and wrapping them

up further if borrowing does not come down as he expects? I think he

will want to remain wedded to the fiscal plans at the moment. We

might see even more spending cuts in the future. This is only a

preliminary estimate. Do you predict that it could change? More

positive the further on we go perhaps? I think it could be

revised up a bit, this estimate. It might be that down the road the UK

did not fall back into recession at all. But I think the underlying

picture will still look very weak and it is very disappointing that

the economy is even stagnating at this stage, and it is certainly

doing worse than in other developed economies. I think even revisions

further ahead will not change the bleak picture. Thank you. We all

thought that Rupert Murdoch's testimony was going to dominate the

news today but the fact that we are in recession is bigger news where

everybody else and matters much more to people around the country.

What is it like to preside over this double-dip, the worst since

the 1970s? We knew when we came into office that we would face a

big challenge, inheriting record levels of borrowing. And also a

deep financial crisis in the banking system. He did not tell us

you would take us back into recession. We did not do that

deliberately. You have done. have done everything to get the

economy going and sort it out. In my area of speciality, science,

when I was with the Prime Minister in Asia, he was taking people into

British businesses. The eurozone is dragging us down, but exports

outside the eurozone are growing well. We should have confidence in

the ability of our economy to perform, even when we have got a

terrible problems in the eurozone holding us back. How can we have

confidence in your macro-economic policy once the size of the British

economy is still 4% smaller than it was in 2007? In 2012, five years on,

this economy is 4% smaller, it under your Government. That is not

true of the American economy or the German economy. It is the British

economy. The American economy had a far smaller financial sector.

Britain had become an unbalanced economy, with not just excessive

levels of Government borrowing. You will see that the banking sector

has shrunk. It is the exporting industries that we are backing,

outside the troubled eurozone. The Government is doing the right thing

to tackle the problems in private and Government debt, that we

inherited. Minister, you are presiding over a shrinking economy.

It is not flat lining. It is not anaemic growth. This country is

shrinking under your policy. Today, this morning, your economic

credibility lies in shreds. Look behind those totals at what is

growing and what is shrinking. Yes, there is a problem of exporting to

the eurozone because of the problems in the eurozone at exports

outside the eurozone are growing. Yes, the banking sector is

shrinking, and that is the part of the process of focusing on what

matters, with manufacturing growing. We are backing industries that will

bring as income in the future. When I look at the sectors that we are

focusing on backing, we have got a success in exporting outside the

eurozone. When you have got the local market in Europe suffering

and when you have inherited an economy with a far bigger banking

sector than the USA, you have a unique set of challenges. If you

knew all that, it would have been nice if you had told us at the time

but he did not. Is it Labour's policy now in result of these

figures, that the deficit reduction programme that the Government has

introduced, not all that different to Alistair Darling's now, should

that be torn up and should you start to borrow more? We have

always said that the Chancellor should change tack and we believe

the figures today emphasise that even more. We set out our

alternative plan for jobs and growth. We talked about a tax on

bank are bonuses to create 25,000 affordable houses. -- bankers's

bonuses. We looked at infrastructure spending which would

not have involved more spending but as bringing it forward. Should

there now be a bigger fiscal stimulus? The Government should

change track to secured jobs and growth in the economy. When we left

office, unemployment was falling and growth was running at 2% a year.

Growth needs to be at 2% a year before unemployment will start

coming down. Let me get this clear. The British Government should now

go into the bond markets and borrow more to increase the fiscal

stimulus? We are saying the Government should bring forward

infrastructure spending... You have said that already. I will repeat my

question. It is a specific question and I think it deserves a specific

answer, so we can understand your economic policy. Because of what

has happened and because of your previous critique, which many

people think you have been vindicated as the result of these

figures, so should the British Government in your view go into the

bond markets and now borrow more to increase the fiscal stimulus?

we are saying is that the Budget has failed to deliver. You are not

going to answer my question, are you? Instead of giving a

corporation tax cut to the shrinking financial services sector,

we should spend within the envelope but... I don't know what spent

within the envelope means. She is not answering my question. With

these figures today, you deficit- reduction plan is in danger of

being shot to hell. We are committed to our plan. You maybe.

We are committed to it because it enables us to key interest rates

down. If interest rates went up, then mortgage prices would go up.

This is a tough fiscal policy that is delivering. Excuse me, I want to

ask this question. Your fiscal deficit reduction plan is not

predicated on a return to recession. And it follows that if we return to

recession, as we have, then the deficit will get bigger. If you

want to stick to your deficit reduction targets, you will have to

cut more tax more. Correct? We have got a commitment on public spending.

We have also got a clear commitment to reducing the structural deficit

on... Is it your plane today that even though we are now back in

recession, that you can hit your deficit reduction targets without

either additional tax or additional cuts? It is very hard to make these

judgments on the basis of one- quarter's figures. It is two

quarters. The Office for Budget Responsibility has set out figures

for public borrowing, spending and growth, and it would be wrong two

weeks later to change that Government. -- to change that

judgment. We are committed to our plan. The plan assumed growth and

we have not got any growth, minister. Do they still do O-level

economics? Not in Britain. O-level economics tells you that when the

economy slows down, you lose tax revenue, welfare spending goes up.

You will have to borrow more. have to allow for those effects and

those are allowed for an Office for Budget Responsibility's reports.

Behind that is the structural deficit, the underlying position of

these public finances. That is absolutely the commitment of the

Government. All right. We should move on. Yesterday was James

Murdoch, today his father, Rupert Murdoch. The media mogul himself is

that the Royal Courts of Justice giving evidence before the Leveson

Inquiry into the culture, the practice and the ethics of the

press. It has had a pretty slow start this morning but we will

bring you some in a minute. Yesterday the inquiry looked at the

cash of emails releasing the extent of contact between News Corp

lobbyists and Government over the proposed take-over of BSkyB. Of

course it never happened. Labour have called for the resignation of

the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt. More revelations are expected today

when we eventually get round to that. Here is Jo to say what has

happened so far. Yesterday was a day of dramatic

revelations at the Royal Courts of Justice, because the Leveson

Inquiry heard of the close contact between News Corporation and senior

politicians during the company's failed bid to take over broadcaster

BSkyB. A cache of emails exposed discussions between Murdoch

lobbyist Fred Michel and the office of the culture secretary, Jeremy

Hunt. They appeared to reveal details of a Commons statement

before the minister had delivered it. This has been described by Fred

Michel as absolutely illegal. Others suggested that Jeremy Hunt

was predisposed to backing the BSkyB deal, quoting him saying that

they would get there in the end. Jeremy Hunt insists that he has

acted with propriety at all times. The BSkyB deal was signed off by

top officials. Now it is the turn of Rupert Murdoch to appear before

Lord Leveson, where he is being asked to talk about his

relationships with politicians for decades. They are probing for

evidence that he traded support from his newspapers for the BSkyB

bid. This could make uncomfortable listening for any of the recent

inhabitants of Number 10. Let's get the flavour of what has been

happening so far. Why do you say there is a need for this inquiry,

Mr Murdoch? Well, I think the need is fairly obvious. There have been

some abuses shown. I could say there are many other abuses, but we

can go into that in time. And, you know, the state of the media in

this country is of absolutely vital interest to all its citizens.

Frankly, I welcome the opportunity because I want to put certain myths

You use the term abuses, is it your perception or understanding that

abuses go further than the issue of phone hacking or are they limited

to the issue of phone hacking? they go further. Some recent tweets

of yours betray a hostile approach to right-wingers and toffs. Who

were you referring to? Don't take my tweets too seriously. LAUGHTER.

I think I was really saying that the extremists on both sides were

piling in on me. I never gave instructions to the editor of the

Times or the Sunday Times. I didn't say what are you doing, what are

you saying? Sometimes when I was available on a Saturday I would

call and say what's the news today, idle curiosity perhaps. Other times

I would ring on a Tuesday, in New York, say that was a dam fine paper

you had this week. I probably wouldn't have read the editorial.

Colourful answers there from Rupert Murdoch. We can speak to Adam

Fleming who has been watching developments. What about

information relating to relationships between Rupert

Murdoch and the corporation and politicians over decades? Watching

some of that evidence from Rupert Murdoch was like watching rolling

news from 1981, if it existed, they were going back to historic things.

Things like lunches at Chequers, Rupert Murdoch had with Margaret

Thatcher. They were talking about a dinner on polling day for the

election in 87 which might seem strange to people watching but what

the QC for the inquiry is trying to do is establish a pattern of

influence over politicians by Rupert Murdoch that goes back

several decades. Of course, Rupert Murdoch has denied any of that. He

said he wasn't trying to influence Margaret Thatcher to smooth his

passage of trying to buy the times and Sunday Times in 81. Robert Jay

saying you wouldn't do that blatantly, you would try it more

subtlely. The other line of questioning has been about how much

influence Rupert Murdoch had over his editors of his titles. Rupert

Murdoch says hardly any, I am a guy who has strong opinions and I find

it hard to bite my tongue but never told editor what is decisions to

make. We might have a debate on that later. Let's bring it up to

date with the resignation of the special advisor of Jeremy Hunt,

what more do we know about the statement? While Leveson is looking

at the 1980s, we are up to date with events here. Yesterday we got

all the e-mails released between James Murdoch's public affairs man

and Jeremy Hunt's office. Adam Smith has resigned in the last 15

minutes, we are had a a statement from the department on his behalf.

He says while he was authorised to be the point man with News

International during that merger talks about BSkyB, he said the

content and extent of his contacts were done without the authorisation

of the Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt. He says that he doesn't

recognise everything that Fred Michel said in his e-mails,

nevertheless it's given the perception that the department was

too close to News International, that's why he has decided to resign.

That's been welcomed by Downing Street. The Prime Minister's

official spokesman saying it's the right decision but Downing Street

not commenting on the content of the e-mails. Thank you.

Adam Smith, the special advisor to Jeremy Hunt, now knows what the

invisible hand really means. University Minister David Willets

and shadow Environment Secretary Mary Creagh are here.

There was a lot of communication, including texts between Mr Smith

and the News Corp. Mr Smith on resignation says I appreciate my

activities at times went too far and I have taken together created

the perception that News Corp had too close a relationship with the

department, contrary to the clear requirements set out by Jeremy Hunt.

It's right, therefore, for me to step down. Are you still calling

for Jeremy Hunt's resignation? are and this is an attempt by the

Culture Secretary to put distance between himself and his special

advisor. I went and looked through these e-mails. We have all done

that. There's one from the 15th of 11th, just as Jeremy was about to

take over the review of the decision, the BSkyB takeover, it's

very clear, it says: My advice advice don't meet Jeremy today, it

could be counterproductive. I will liaise with the team. We don't know

if that call took place. It could be a game-changer, understand that,

but we don't know if that call took place. It's secondhand reporting.

It's the chief lobbyist who had an incentive to big himself up in the

eyes of James Murdoch, that he was right at the centre of what was

going on. But we heard from Adam Smith, now resigned, he is implying

that he bigged himself up in this process and he thinks - he says: I

firmly believe the process was conducted scrupulously, fairly.

That's what he said. Why are you still call fog for Mr Hunt's --

calling for Mr Hunt's resignation? We have evidence in the e-mails

that the Culture Secretary needs to build political cover on the

process. Who is saying that? wants ammo against the Ofcom report.

He is saying that. It's the News Corporation lobbyist saying that

sarplt of being briefed by Adam Smith - as a result. A specialist

advisor in a Minister's office. The idea that a special advisor would

have these type of back channels without the knowledge of their

culture secretary is unthinkable. He may have had knowledge that he

was speaking, but what he is saying is that the Minister didn't have

knowledge of what I was saying. I created the perception that I had

too close a relationship. That's what he is saying. He is saying

it's not Mr Hunt's fault, it was my fault. I made too much of it. I

implied too much. We have no evidence whether that's true or not,

but you have no evidence that's not true and yet you are still calling

for Mr Hunt to resign. Absolutely right and he will see what he has

to say at 12.30. David Willets, it's quite clear from everything we

know Jeremy Hunt was a self-styled cheerleader for Rupert Murdoch,

it's on his website. It's pretty clear from what we know he wanted

this to go ahead. It really is incredible that you put it all on

the head of an unknown special advisor. What's clear is that at

every stage Jeremy acted on independent advice and nobody's

been able to provide evidence that he took a decision that was in

conflict with independent outside advice. Second, which gets to the

heart of the reason why we set up the inquiry and indeed which the

Labour Party welcomed, and that is it's for the judge to take an

overall assessment when he has heard everyone's account of what

happened as to what he then thinks we should conclude and he himself,

as I think rightly, warned today that you shouldn't take one set of

e-mails - I think he says you can take one set of documents out of

context and they can bear different interpretations. We have to let the

judge in this inquiry get to the bottom. I understand that, judges

don't have a monopoly of opinion or even judgment in this country. We

are all allowed a say and we are all allowed to make a judgment. If

you take the e-mails Mary has got there, and there are more than that,

you take them in the aggregate, and they do show an unhealthy

relationship between the company that wants to do the biggest

takeover in British media history and the Ministerial office of the

Minister responsible for determining that takeover. It

doesn't look good. Andrew, there are indeed a whole host of opinions

floating around today. The judgment that I will respect is the judgment

that's finally reached by the the judge after he has heard everyone's

account, including Jeremy's and Jeremy is an honourable man. I

believe what Jeremy says. As a minimum, Jeremy has the right to

explain what he did and Jeremy has made it clear throughout he acted

on independent objective advice. understand that and we will hear

this at 12.30 what he has to say. Have you met Adam Smith? I don't

recall. Possibly I have. It's not a trick question. I have no direct

recollection, I probably have at some point. I tended to think of

him as a great 18th century political economist, as you said.

From the University of Glasgow. My point is, I spoke to political

correspondents this this morning, most of them hadn't heard of him.

This is not a special advisor known for going off the reservation, he

was a special advisor who kept it low key, did little briefing,

didn't say things that he couldn't - didn't big himself up as how

important he was. I think given his previous behaviour until these e-

mails came out, there's a kind of credibility test that isn't quite

passed that suddenly he goes completely off the reservation on

this. Some people I suggest to you will be suspicious that he has been

made the fall guy. Andrew, these are your ingenious speculations

about the character of someone that you have never met. I think that

what we should do is let the process agreed go its course. We

have to allow, as as Lord Leveson has said, we are to accept these e-

mails can be interpreted in different ways. All I can say is so

far the one thing we know, nobody's been able to show any decision he

took in conflict with the advice. What about the Ministerial code? It

states the responsibility for the management and conduct of special

advisers, including discipline rests with the Minister who made

the appointment. You stand by that? Absolutely and Jeremy does, too.

It's clear from the statement that's been released that the

special advisor was not... Sorry, we are going to crash PMQs, I

wouldn't as a Labour MP wouldn't want me to do that today. Of all

days! Our weekly guess the year competition might be excluding some

viewers with its complexity. We are concerned about one particular

viewer, Mrs T May of Westminster. We don't want to exclude anybody

here. So Mrs May, here is your own Can I get back to you. Mrs May, to

tenner Guess the -- to enter Guess the Day: Let's see if you can

Special masks are the latest # With love that's true

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 42 seconds

From Sandringham to Windsor, the We love the music. To be in with a

chance of winning a Daily Politics mug send your answer to our special

quiz e-mail address. You can see the full terms and

conditions on our website. Coming up to midday, a couple of

minutes to go. Let's look at Big Ben.

Soon to be Queen Elizabeth Tower, we are told, we will see about that.

The tkroulgt is going -- drought is going well! Prime Minister's

questions on the way and Nick Robinson is here. A veritable

cornupio of things. Hunt and Murdoch? I would think so. The Adam

Smith resignation. There are more resignations on a Wednesday than

any other day of the week, why? They're to save the Prime

Minister's skin. Midday on a Wednesday is a day people go.

Usually Ministers go to protect the Prime Minister's skin. The advisor

has gone to protect the Minister, to protect the Prime Minister's

skin. The question is simply is it enough? We know the Ministerial

code says the Minister is responsible for his advisor. Jeremy

Hunt, as late as yesterday, was telling colleagues his advisor had

done nothing wrong, that the contact between the advisor and the

Murdoch empire was approved by the permanent Secretary. What has

obviously gone wrong is the content, rather than the contact. What

Jeremy Hunt is going to face in half an hour's time and the Prime

Minister might now, is the question of is he really saying he didn't

know anything about the content of what his advisor was saying to the

Murdoch empire? At no stage his individualser say -- his advisor

say what shall I say? Have you come across Adam Smith? No. He was low

key. There are advisers who are spin doctors and he was policy.

understand that, but the point I was trying to make to the Minister

is that Adam Smith was not well known as some special advisers are

around Westminster for being very gobby when it comes to briefing or

bigging himself up. People I speak to in the BBC and the BBC of course

has to have have its own contacts, say Adam Smith is not the sort of

guy who talks without talking on behalf of his his Secretary of

State. He is not someone who just goes around - doesn't mean that his

choice of phrase is approved by the Secretary of State, e-mails are

read by the Secretary of State, but the decision of a constant traffic

of reassurance and information, it is stretching credibility to say

the Secretary of State knew nothing. And you put your finger on

something that's dawned on me, because you said it, that's why we

have you on the programme, you are brighter than me! Reassuring.

are other reasons. Last night the Secretary of State said that his

special advisor had done nothing wrong. 12 hours later he says

actually I did do a lot wrong and I have had to resign. That doesn't

pass the smell test. possibilities. Three possibilities,

one they woke up and thought we were wrong. Secondly the civil

service pulled the plug that the Secretary said this is intolerable

or the Prime Minister's pulled the plug. Let's go straight to the

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure the whole House will want to join

me in paying tribute to Sapper Connor Ray, who died on 18th April

from wins that he sustained in Afghanistan. He was described by

ordinary servicemen as a superb soldier. His courage will never be

forgotten and we send our condolences to his family and is

loved ones. This morning I had meetings with ministerial

colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will

have further such meetings later today.

I would like to associate myself with the Prime Minister's tribute

to Sapper Connor Ray, and in doing so ask my right honourable friend

if he will confirm that although British servicemen are due to leave

Afghanistan in 2014, the actual pace of withdrawal will be

determined first and foremost by then need to minimise the risk to

members of the armed forces serving in Afghanistan at that time?

honourable friend makes an important point. I can confirm that

by the end of 2014, we won't have anything like the numbers we have

now and we will not be in a combat role. Post 2014 we do believe in

having a training role with the Afghan army, particularly the

officer training role that Hamid Karzai has personally asked for us

to undertake. The speed of the reductions between now and the end

of 2014 will be done in accordance with the conditions on the ground

and what is right in terms of transition length from Allied

Control to Afghan control. What is paramount in our minds is the

safety and security of our armed forces, who I pay tribute to today.

Mr Ed Miliband. Mr Speaker, can I join the Prime Minister in paying

tribute to Sapper Connor Ray? He carried out his duties with the

utmost courage, saving many Afghan and British lives by what he did,

and our deepest condolences go to his family and friends. Today we

had the catastrophic news that Britain is back in recession. I am

sure the Prime Minister has spent the last 24 hours thinking of an

excuse as to why this has nothing to do with them. What is his excuse

this time? These are very, very disappointing figures. I don't seek

to excuse them. I don't seek to try and explain them away. Let me be

absolutely clear, there is no complacency at all in this

Government in dealing with what is a very tough situation that frankly

has just got tougher. I believe that the truth is this. It is very

difficult recovering from the deepest recession in living memory,

accompanied as it was by the debt crisis. Our banks had too much debt.

Our households had too much debt. Our Government had too much debt.

We have got to rebalance our economy. We need a bigger private

sector, more exports, more investment. This is painstaking,

difficult work, but we will stick with our plans, stick with the

lower interest rates and do everything we can to boost growth

competitiveness and jobs in our country. Mr Speaker, typical of

this arrogant Prime Minister, he tries to blame everyone else. The

reality is this is a recession made by him and the Chancellor in

Downing Street. Over the last 18 months since his catastrophic

spending review, our economy has shrunk. And this is now a slow

recovery from recession event than the 1930s. -- even compared to the

1930s. It is families and businesses paying the prices for

his arrogance and complacency. Why doesn't he admits that it is his

catastrophic economic policy and his plan for austerity, cutting too

far and too fast, that has landed us back in recession? There is not

a single business organisation or serious commentator or

international body that thinks these problems emerged in the last

24 months. The debt crisis has been long in the making, the failure to

regulate our banks has been long in the making, the Government

overspending has been long in the making. This is a tough and

difficult situation that the economy is in. But the one thing

that we must not do is to abandon public spending and deficit-

reduction plans because the solution to a debt crisis cannot be

more debt. We must not put at risk the low interest rates that are

absolutely essential to our recovery. That would be absolute

folly and that is why there is no business organisation, their

international economic organisation, that suggests that we follow that

course. -- no international economic organisation. It is all

bluster. His plan has failed. That is the reality. They are the people

but said that Britain is a safe haven, the Chancellor even said it

on Monday, and we are back in recession. He was the person who

said we are out of the danger zone and this is what has happened. Even

his own backbenchers are saying that the complacent, arrogant posh

boys just don't get it. Now let's turn from the economic disaster of

this Government to the political disaster that is the culture

secretary. We now know that throughout the time the culture

secretary was supposed to be acting in an impartial manner, he and his

office were providing a constant flow of confidential information to

News Corporation about statements to be made in this House in advance,

his private discussions with the regulators, and his discussions

with the opposing parties. Having seen a 163 pages published

yesterday, is the Prime Minister seriously trying to tell us that

the Secretary of State was acting as he should have done in a

transparent, impartial and fair manner? Let me just finish off on

the economy, which he has moved off. Order. Let's hear what the Prime

Minister has to say on the economy and anything else. The Prime

Minister. We will not let anyone forget who got us into this mess in

More spending, more borrowing, more debt. That is what caused these

problems. It cannot be the solution to these problems. Now let me turn,

Mr Speaker, to the Leveson Inquiry. I set up the Leveson Inquiry, the

terms of reference of the inquiry were agreed by the leader of the

Liberal Democrat Party, and the leader of the Labour Party. And I

believe that to step in and try and prejudge that inquiry would be

And let me be clear, let me be clear. Lord Justice Leveson has

made that precise point this morning. Let me read to the House

what he has said. Perhaps the House would like to listen? Let's hear

what the Prime Minister has to say, and then the questioning will

continue. The Prime Minister. Justice Leveson said this this

morning. It is very important to hear every side of the story before

drawing conclusions. And then he said this. Although I have seen

requests for other inquiries and investigations, and of course I do

not seek to constrain Parliament, but it seems to me that the better

course is to allow this inquiry to proceed. Having set up this inquiry,

having agreed with this inquiry, he should listen to the inquiry.

Speaker, Lord Justice Leveson is responsible for a lot of things,

but he is not responsible for the integrity of the Prime Minister's

Government. In case he had forgotten, that is his

responsibility, Mr Prime Minister. It beggars belief that the Prime

Minister can defend the culture secretary, because he was not

urging this bid. He was helping the bid by News Corporation. -- not

judging this bid. On 25th January, the culture secretary's office was

colluding with the score to provide them information in advance and

they were hatching a plant to ensure, and I quote, that would be

game over for the opposition to the bid. Does the Prime Minister really

believe that that is how a judge and his advisers should act?

Leader of the Opposition clearly does not think that what Lord

Leveson said this morning matters. Let me remind him what he said

yesterday about the Leveson Inquiry. He said this. I think that it is

right that the Leveson Inquiry takes its course. He went on, the

most important thing is that the Leveson Inquiry gets to the bottom

of what happened, of what Labour did, for the Conservatives did, and

we reach a judgement about that. Isn't it typical of the right

honourable gentleman? In the morning he said that his very clear

position but in the afternoon he cannot resist the passing political

Total... Totally, totally... Order. I said the Prime Minister must be

heard. The Leader of the Opposition must be heard. Both will be heard,

however long it takes. It is very clear. Mr Speaker, totally pathetic

answers. He is the Prime Minister! If he can't defend the conduct of

his own ministers, his ministers should be out the door. He should

fire them. He does not even try and defend the Secretary of State on

what he did. The Secretary of State told this House on 3rd March this

year, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Banbury,

and I quote, today we are publishing all the consultation

documents, all the submissions we receive, all the exchanges between

my department and News Corporation. But he did not. 163 pages have now

emerged. The Prime Minister does not defend her in over giving

controversial information to one party in the case. -- defend him.

He does not offend him over collusion so is he really going to

defend him about not being straight with the House of Commons? That may

be absolutely clear about the culture secretary, who has my full

support for the excellent job that he does. -- let me be absolutely

clear. The culture secretary will be giving a full account of himself

in this House of Commons this afternoon and in front of the

Leveson Inquiry. And he will give a very good account of himself for

this very simple reason, that in judging this important bit, the

culture secretary sought independent advice from independent

regulators at every stage, although he did not need to, and the culture

secretary took that independent advice at every stage, although he

did not need to. The way that the culture secretary has dealt with

this issue is in stark contrast to the Government of which he was a

member. I do so this to the Prime Minister. While his culture

secretary remains in place, one who refuses to come clean on his

meetings with Rupert Murdoch, the shadow of sleaze will hang over

this Government. Mr Speaker, Andy Coulson, Rebekah Brooks and another

culture secretary. When is he going to realise it is time to stop

putting his cronies before the interest of the country? I have to

say to the right honourable gentleman, he called for an

independent judicial inquiry and that is the inquiry I have set up.

He agreed the terms of reference. Now he is flip-flopping all over

the place on it. The fact is that the problem of closeness between

politicians and media proprietors had been going on for years and it

is this Government that is going to sort it out. Whether it is the

proper regulation of the press, or whether it is cleaning up our

financial system, whether it is dealing with our debt, I don't dock

my responsibilities. What a pity he Order. Order. Mr Carl McCartney.

Thank you. Is my right honourable friend aware of recent good news in

the manufacturing and engineering sectors in Lincoln, an increase in

turnover over 20%, and investments in a new tooling press and a new

engineering school in our country for 20 years. Would my honourable

friend accept my personal invitation to see for himself the

excellent process our city is enjoying. I am grateful to my

honourable friend's invitation and I will try and take it up. As I

said earlier, what's happening in our economy with the disappointing

news today, but underneath that there is a rebalancing that needs

to take place and that is taking place in terms of manufacturing and

investment and in terms of exports and in terms of the Government

getting behind that with more investment in apprenticeships, more

investments in technical hubs at our universities, like the one at

the University of Lincoln, and cutting business taxes so we get

Britain working and making things again.

Mr Speaker, on Monday the Prime Minister said that an economic

rescue mission, is it not fair to say that mission has failed

spectacularly in light of the figures released today?

The point I would make is if you look at the recession that we

suffered, a 7% contraction of our GDP, that was much bigger even than

what happened in America. It is worth remembering the biggest bank

bail-out anywhere in the world, it wasn't in America, it was here in

Britain, getting out of the recession, the financial crisis and

the debt crisis is difficult pain- staking work but this Government is

committed to doing just that. week I met the chief executive of

the fourth largest manufacturing group in the UK, who have a

substantial factory in Burnley, He has been instructed by his US board

to increase the turnover of his UK operations, so as to take advantage

of the Government's industrial strategy. He is concerned about the

lack of skills. Can my right honourable friend assure me that

the Government investment in apprenticeships and technical

colleges will increase over the coming years?

What is interesting, Mr Speaker, is that if any member of parliament

wants to talk about manufacturing success or business success in

their constituency, they are shouted down by the opposition.

Because all they want to hear is bad news and to talk our economy

down. We are investing in skills. We are putting more money into the

apprenticeship schemes. We are putting money into the university

technical colleges. I was at Airbus in Filton this week seeing

expansion and growth plans there and it's good to hear what's

happening in his constituency. the Prime Minister agree with his

Chancellor who said in 2008 that once you have a downturn you cannot

possibly slash public expenditure, will he stick to his complacent

plan of cutting too far and too fast which is's delivered a double-

dip recession? Well, well read. The point is we

inherited from the party opposite a budget deficit of 11%. The budget

deficit we inherited was bigger than Greece, than Spain, bigger

than Portugal. If you don't deal with your debts and your deficit,

you will never keep interest rates low and it is low interest rates

that offer us the best prospects of getting out of this difficult

economic situation we are in. you, Mr Speaker.

Order. At least half a million children

died from malaria last year. On world malaria day may I thank the

Prime Minister for his personal commitment to combating this

disease and will he join me in recognising the international

leadership which British scientists, aid workers and volunteers,

including in my constituency, show in combating malaria.

I am very grateful to join the honourable gentleman and to wish

the people well. He did rather better in convincing the people to

vote for him than I did in 1997. He is absolutely right to raise the

issue of malaria, 15,000 children die every week from what is a

preventable illness. That's why I am proud of the fact that Britain

is leading on this issue, is putting money into our aid budget,

putting money into malaria bed nets and to the scientific advances that

he refers to. This is a vital agenda and even in difficult

economic times I think we are right to pursue it.

Does this out of touch Prime Minister still believe that the

British economy is out of the danger zone?

One of the biggest problems we faced on taking office was the

danger that financial markets would take a view of Britain like they

had taken a view of Greece or Spain or Portugal where interest rates

were rising. The fact that we have such low interest rates in Britain

demonstrates that we have credibility. These are difficult

decisions to get on top of debt and deficit and to deal with public

spending, but they're the right decisions, not least because the

Shadow Chancellor once said that low interest rates are the mark of

economic credibility. The head teachers have within

calleder valley both very much welcome the educational reforms.

Two schools who never qualified from the previous Government

because they abstained too highly. Can the Prime Minister tell the

pupils of those schools when they can expect an announcement on the

priority school buildings project to which they both applied?

What I can tell him is that compared with the first two

parliaments of the party opposite ran, we are investing more in

school building than they did. I think the figure now is something

along the lines of �17 billion during this spending review period,

so there are opportunities for new classrooms and new buildings and I

am sure the Secretary of State for education is listening carefully to

my honourable friend and will be in touch with him about the prospects.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the member from mid-Bedfordshire

when she said that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor...

Order. Order. Let's hear the question. Posh boys showing no

compassion or understanding for the lives of others and will he admit

admit further evidence of being out of touch and why we are in a

double-dip recession? I agree with my honourable friend

about many, many things. Over the last two years UK exports

have grown by 23%, with faster growth to the - with my friend join

me in congratting the 150 winners of the Queen he is award for

enterprise this week for success in international trade, particularly

in my constituency. I certainly join him on congratulating this

business. When we look at some of the fastest growing markets in the

world, whether India or China our export performance compared with

2009 in some of those markets is up by as much as 60%. As well as those

markets, we also have to remember our old friends as it were, and the

fact that we still export more to the Republic of Ireland than to

Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. So expanding our existing

markets but much more work to get into the fast growing markets in

the world. Recently the Prime Minister conceded that the

Government had made an important mistake in the handling of the fuel

crisis. Can I ask him wouldn't it be a positive step in correcting

that mistake if the Government were to scrap the 3p increase in August,

in order to help motorists, haulage companies, and hard-pressed

families in the United Kingdom? First of all, the Government has

actually used around �4 billion of budget money to keep petrol prices

down and petrol prices are about 6p lower than they would be under the

plans of the party opposite. Let me update the honourable gentleman and

the House on the issue of the fuel strike. It now looks as if there is

a longer period of time before any potential strike could take place.

I am determined that we use that time to make sure there is every

piece of resilience in place. The plans we inherited would have

allowed the military to provide maybe 10% of our fuel needs. We

have now managed to lift that to something like 60 or 70 %. We are

in much better place now because of the proper emergency planning that

this Government has done, rather than the party opposite that just

crossed their fingers and hoped the best from the trade unions. Next

Wednesday my mother will celebrate her 100th birthday. Living as she

does five minutes from the Olympic stadium, she has agreed to be Usain

Bolt's pace-maker in order to give the other athletes a chance. Will

my right honourable friend now call on the indomitable spirit of former

land army girls such as my mother, and encourage our Olympic athletes

to go for gold? I will certainly do that. I have

written to Maude to congratulate her on this fantastic milestone. I

am sure that as she speeds past Usain Bolt she will just turn round

and reflect that indeed the only way is Essex.

I am delighted the Prime Minister has written to her, that makes two

of us. Thank you. The Prime Minister has spent plenty of time

cosying up to News Corporation, in return for political support. I can

wait. I can wait. So he is well qualified to answer this question,

when Alex Salmond agreed to to act as a lobbyist for News Corp was he

acting in self-interest or in the interests of Scotland?

First of all, I think Alex Salmond can answer for himself. Secondly,

think-tank this is another issue that -- I think that is another

issue the Leveson inquiry properly set up, that's going to interview

all the politicians, including all sorts of people who cosied up to

News International over the years, and I think on all sides of the

House there is a need for a hand on heart, we all did too much cosying

up to Rupert Murdoch, I think we would agree, on that basis I am

sure that Lord Leveson will make some important recommendations.

the Prime Minister seen the research published today by the

Taxpayers' Alliance which shows that there are 3,097 town hall

employees earning more than �100,000 and 52 earning more than

�250,000. My conconstituteents can't understand the salaries. What

can we do about it? I think he is entirely right to

raise this issue. The important thing that we have done is made

completely transparent the pay in our town halls and in local

Government. Sadly, I believe there is still one local council, a

Labour-controlled council in Nottinghamshire, that's not making

this information available. Every council should be transparent about

how they spend council taxpayers money.

to those people warning him that cutting too far and too fast would

cause a double-dip recession should apologise. Now he's delivered a

double-dip recession, shouldn't he appoll apologise? The point I make

is this, we faced a very difficult situation with an 11% budget

deficit. If we had listened to the plans of the party opposite and

spent more, borrowed more and increased our debt, that would have

only made the debt crisis worse. How can the answer to a debt crisis

be more borrowing? That is the question the party opposite can

never answer. After weeks of ducking and diving, Ken Livingstone

has given a partial publication of his tax affairs. Sadly, he refuses

to publish the tax affairs of the company he set up to avoid paying

his fair share of tax. Does my right honourable friend agree that

Ken Livingstone has ceased to be the old pretender and now become

the artful tkopbler -- dodger? think my friend speaks for all of

London when he makes this point, Ken Livingstone owes the people of

London some proper transparency about this company and about his

tax bill. There are still several days to go before this key election.

He should make that information available. I have to say, Mr

Speaker, I had something of a shock this week when I hardly ever agreed

with anything Alan Sugar has ever said, but in saying Londoners

shouldn't back Ken, he was spot on. Now that the Prime Minister's

admitted that he's created the economic mess the country's in, can

I be helpful to the Prime Minister? Drop his ridiculous proposals for

regional pay cuts and accelerate the capital programme for schools

in the West Midlands. We are spending more on capital on schools

in this parliament than either of the first two Labour parliaments. I

am happy again for Education Ministers to look specifically at

the case in his constituency and see what can be done. I also hope

that he will be joining me and inviting people in Coventry on the

3rd May to vote yes to a mayor for Coventry. Every year millions of

British people donate money to charities. They do it for the

simple reason they want to help the cause and help others worse worse

off than themselves. Wye call these actions by members of the public as

being honourable, kind and selfless. We have all heard recently that

some, not all, but some of our wealthy citizens only want to

donate money to charity if they can tb to trb trb continue to reduce

their tax bill. Does the Prime Minister think their motives are

honourable and selfless? We should support in our country people who

give money to charity. And that's why this Government has expanded

Gift Aid in a generous way and made available a change to help people

with inheritance tax if they leave quests to charity. There were set

out in the Budget a number of limits to relieves, we specifically

identified the potential problem for charities and my friend the

Chancellor is going to consult widely about how we can make sure

we encourage charities and encourage what they do in our

country. The Prime Minister's dismissive response to the fact the

UK is back in recession suggests that his mind is on other things.

Shouldn't he just sack his Culture Secretary and concentrate properly

on the job of sorting out the British economy? I think the

honourable lady would recognise there is absolutely nothing

dismissive about either my reply on the economy, or indeed what I think

we need to do. We are in a difficult economic situation in

Britain. Just as you see now recessions in Denmark, in Holland,

Italy, in Spain, that's what is happening across the continent that

we trade with. What is absolutely essential is we take every step we

can to help our economy out of recession. Investing in

apprenticeships, setting up enterprise zones, cutting business

taxes, prioritising investment in our Africa, we are -- in our our

infrastructure, we are doing all of these things to help get our

economy out of the mess the last Government left in.

Far from being dismissive, the Prime Minister acknowledged that

the figures were disappointing. But would he agree with me that getting

out of a debt crisis you don't spend more money and there is no

international organisations suggesting this country changes its

force and spend more money to get out of a debt crisis?

My honourable friend is right, it's not just there is no international

body body that's making that case, there is no business organisation

making that case. Indeed, the IOD and the CBI are both saying that

while these figures are disappointing, we must not give up

the low interest rates and the credible fiscal policy we have,

that would be the way to land our economy in the problems that they

left it in. It's a sorry state of affairs, in two years the economy

is in deep recession and now the Government is deep in sleaze. Same

old Tories? I think Russell Brand got it about

right yesterday. Order. STUDIO: We are going to stay

in the Commons now. We are going to stay because Jeremy

Hunt, the culture secretary, whose special advisor resigned this

morning, just as we were coming on air, because of revelations in the

Leveson inquiry yesterday, over his communications with the chief

lobbyist for News Corp as they were trying to buy BSkyB, he has fallen

hpb oeus sword this morning. Here is Jeremy Hunt.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement

following yesterday's developments in the Leveson inquiry. Although I

intend to respond fully to allegations about my conduct and my

department when I present my evidence to Lord Justice Leveson,

it's important to update the House on actions that have been taken as

a result of evidence released yesterday. We are 273 days into a

process that's first stage will last until October. This is not the

time to jump on a political bandwagon. What the public want to

hear is not the right hopb honourable gentleman's views, not

my views, but the views of Lord Justice Leveson when he has

considered all the evidence. I do, however, think it is right to set

the record straight on a number of issues in the light of evidence

heard yesterday at the inquiry. Specifically, on the merger of News

Corp with BSkyB, I would like to remind the House of the process I

followed. Throughout I have strictly followed due process.

Seeking the advice of independent regulators, something I didn't have

to do, and after careful consideration acting on their

advice. I have published all advice that I have received from Ofcom and

the OFT, together with core respondence with myself including

details of all meetings I have heard in relation to this process.

As part of this process, my officials and I have engaged with

News Corporation and its representatives as well as other

interested parties, both supporters Messages have been alleged to

indicate that there was a back channel through which News

Corporation were able to influence my decisions. This is categorically

not the case. Order. The House must calm down a bit. The statement must

be heard. There will be a full opportunity for questioning of the

Secretary of State, which he would expect, and whether he expected or

not that is what will happen and that is right and proper. But it is

also right and proper that the state and be heard with courtesy.

However, the volume and tone of those communications were clearly

not appropriate in a quasar judicial process, and today Adam

Smith has resigned as my special adviser. -- quasi-judicial process.

Although Adam Smith accepts that he overstepped the mark on this

occasion, I want to set on record that I believe he did so

unintentionally. I did not believe that he was doing anything more

than giving advice on process. I believe in to be someone of

integrity and decency, and it is a matter of huge regret to me that

this has happened. Mr Speaker, I only saw the transcripts of these

communications yesterday. They did not influence my decisions in any

way at all. Not least because I insisted on hearing the advice of

independent regulators at every stage of the process. I will give

my full record of events when I give evidence to Lord Justice

Leveson. However, I would like to resolve this issue as soon as

possible, which is why I have written to Lord Justice Leveson,

asking if my appearance can be brought forward. I am totally

confident that when I present my evidence, the public will see that

I conducted this process with scrupulous fairness throughout.

Harriet Harman. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We are going to leave the Commons now, but worry not, we will listen

to what Harriet Harman has to say at she responds to Jeremy Hunt and

we will bring you what the shadow culture secretary says in response

to that statement. He said that he followed to process throughout in

the Murdoch bid for all of BSkyB. Murdoch owned 40% of it and he

wanted to buy the 60% who did not have. He acted on independent

advice, he said from Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading, two of the

regulators in media takeovers. He said that the emails and texts

published in the Leveson Inquiry yesterday showed a close

relationship between his special adviser and the chief lobbyist at

News Corp, but he claimed that did not amount to a back channel. He

said that the special adviser Adam Smith had resigned this morning,

but he believed that if Adam Smith had acted in appropriately, he had

not done so intentionally. He said there was a huge regret and he now

wants his day in court in front of Leveson. Our panellists is still

here, and Nick Robinson has also stayed with us. What happened, do

you think, between the minister saying last night that he had

complete faith in Adam Smith and that he had done nothing wrong, and

Adam Smith resigning this morning? Presumably just a review of exactly

what happened, the messages and e- mails, and the decision that they

had gone too far. It was suggested last night that the civil servant

in charge of Culture, Media and Sport had designated Adam Smith to

be the point of contact with News Corporation, and you would expect

such contacts in a high-profile media bit. Jeremy Hunt said that he

had contacts with opponents of the bid as well. These were minuted

meetings with civil servants present. Yes, indeed. The adviser

accepts that he went too far and he resigned. But it is a mark of

Jeremy Hunt's character that he defended him in the Commons today.

Is it credible when you read the substance of these emails and text

messages, in which to details all sorts of things that are going to

happen, all of which did then happen, he was a particularly well-

informed special adviser, and that he also in a number of text

messages which are more interesting than the emails said that things

are going well, fine, things are in a good place, is it credible that

he did all of that unintentionally? Yes, I think so. He was a point of

contact from the department with News Corporation but he probably

went too far. For that reason he has quite properly offered his

resignation but I am certain that Jeremy Hunt is right that he did

not intend to do that. It is your contention that the special adviser

had this extensive correspondence digitally with the head of lobbying

at News Corp and that Jeremy Hunt knew nothing about that? I do not

intend that at all. The special adviser was authorised to be the

point of contact with News Corporation, as you would expect

there to be content with News Corporation over the bird and other

interested parties, but he went too far. -- the bid. I have no doubt

that Jeremy Hunt did not authorise him to reveal special information

and did not expecting to do so and there is no doubt in my mind about

that. At a point in this whole process, when things have gone well

for BSkyB, at this point, I know they did not in the end, but at

this point they did, the chief lobbyist texted Mr Smith and said,

we are in a good place tonight, I think. Mr Smith replied, yes, I

think we are. But let's see what the press says tomorrow. This is

complicit in BSkyB's bid. It is the fact that he gave the impression

that the Government was too close to BSkyB that prompted his

resignation. You are right, that cannot be defended and that is why

he had to resign in the end. would he do so? A key overstepped

the remit that he was given by the Secretary of State. -- he

overstepped the remit. But why would he do that since we know that

without his master's voice giving him support, when we know from

Jeremy Hunt's previous statements, that he is a cheerleader for Rupert

Murdoch, that he wanted the BSkyB bid to go ahead, that he was in

favour of that sort of thing? You must only have thought he was doing

his master's bidding. I don't think so. Jeremy Hunt took extreme care.

He took independent advice when that was not compulsory. In order

to seek the proper form, he had proper advice given to him at every

stage when he did not have to. That is how seriously he took his quasi-

judicial responsibility and it is important that he would have an

opinion on this when Vince Cable said that he would go to war on

Rupert Murdoch. But he sought independent advice. What do you say

to that? It beggars belief that when Jeremy Hunt was publishing a

cache of emails and meetings between himself and Murdoch over

the BSkyB bid, that Adam Smith sat in the office, next door to the

culture secretary, I did not say, hold on, boss, there is something

that I have to tell you. That is extraordinary. These emails were

carried on on his private account. The idea that Jeremy Hunt had

absolutely no idea about this simply beggars belief. I think that

is exactly the question that will now be pursued by the Labour Party

in the state bed and potentially by end of the inquiry. What did Jeremy

Hunt know? -- in a statement. It is perfectly possible that there could

be some point of contact between the department and an interested

party. Why make that party political contact and not official?

Why make it as special adviser rather than a civil servant who

would take notes? They think that his question number one. If you are

News Corp with an �8 billion bid and you are an important company

for Britain, the Government will keep you informed about the dates

of processes and give you copies of statements, all sort of background

information, provided that we are not giving you things that you

should not have before Parliament, before the markets and before the

public. That his Test No. 1, so why did he do it? The impression

created here is that the department wanted to give the impression that

it was acting in a semi- judicial way, while simultaneously giving

news got the impression that it was on its side. -- News Corp. The next

question is whether Jeremy Hunt new about this duality. He is based in

this way and his minister, his adviser, a party political

appointment, is facing the other way. Just to boil it down, what is

critical is whether he is the Minister for Murdoch or the

minister for public interest and the only way of establishing that

is if we find the e-mail traffic with officials about what he knew

with his special adviser. Let me bring in the minister among us, who

knows how things operate in Government. If there was a

necessity to create a link between the Department and the interested

parties, why was that Labour given to a political adviser and not his

civil servant? -- that link. We know that these meetings are toxic.

The meetings with Margaret Thatcher have been a running problem since

1981. Why was it not given to the civil servant? Why was it to only

one side of the argument? Why was the information only given to BSkyB

and not to the coalition of media companies that were against BSkyB?

The judgment would have had to have been taken within the department,

including by somebody who was best able to advise a News International

on the process that was being followed. That should be a civil

servant. Special advisers are subject to most of the regulation,

remember. They have special status. But special advisers cannot run

amok. They are also bound by large obligations on how they should

behave. I think the answer to Nick Robinson's challenge of how they

are behaving, we actually know the answer because we know the

decisions that were taken. The decisions at each stage that were

taken by that department followed objective, independent, external

advice. Something that was not suggested yesterday by James

Murdoch or anything else, is that Jeremy was looking after the

interest of News International. Jeremy Hunt was following the due

process to the frustration of News International sometimes. Why was

the flow of information only to the BSkyB side and not of the coalition

of interest against BSkyB? I don't know. Well, I can tell you because

I have spoken to those opposing the BSkyB bid, and they got nothing.

Nothing like the information that Adam Smith was passing to the News

Corp lobbyists. They have won rather stilted meeting that was

called wooden and that was the end of it. -- they had one meeting.

is the end of speculation... That is not speculation, it is factual.

The coalition did not get any of the updates or briefings on process

that the BSkyB people got. Why? Jeremy Hunt, the Prime Minister,

all of us in the Government, a trust Lord leathers and to reach an

overall judgment on the conduct of what was done. -- trust law Leveson

to reach an overall judgment. is not what I was asking. You can

go to the Daily Mail, the BBC, the other newspapers. I will ask Louise

Mensch if I cannot get an answer from you. If it was important that

the interested parties had a man, but decide whether that should have

been a civil servant or not, why was the flow of information to only

First of all, Jeremy will publish his contact. It was the permanent

Secretary who decided that Adam Smith should be the point of

contact. Why was it all one-way. if Adam Smith had contact with

those opposing the bid. Should Adam Smith now publish the unauthorised

corerespondence with the anti-BSkyB people? Jeremy Hunt has said that

he is going to publish details of all his meet stphaogs and all his

contacts with. Every interested party pro and kropb. Let's hear

what the shadow Culture Secretary had to say in response to Jeremy

Hunt's statement a few minutes ago. Here is Harriet Harareman. Everyone

-- Harman. Everyone recognises the bid was of huge commercial

importance and had profound implications for newspapers and for

all of broadcasting, including the BBC. The Business Secretary had

been stripped of his responsibility for deciding on the bid because he

had already made up his mind against the bid. But the Culture

Secretary too had made up his mind, in favour of the bid. So how could

he have thought it proper for him to take on that decision? Of course

he could take advice, but the decision as to whether he should do

it and could do it fairly was a matter for him and him alone. The

Secretary of State took on responsibility and assured this

House that he would be acting in a quasi-judicial role, like a judge

and be transparent, impartial and fair. But, Mr Speaker, isn't it the

case that James Murdoch was receiving information in advance

about what the Secretary of State was going to do and what he was

going to say. Information which was given only to one side, which had

not been given to those opposed to the bid and before it was given to

this House. Does he think it's acceptable that Murdoch knew not

only about what he was going to do and say, but crucially, what the

regulator Ofcom had said to the Secretary of State on 10th January

2011 and what the bid's owe opponents had said on 20th March

and 31st March, 2011? Is he really going to to suggest to this House

that James Murdoch's advisor, Fred Miclel, knowing all this was just a

coincidence? Can the Secretary of State explain to the House how Fred

Michel in a series of e-mails beginning on 23rd January was in a

position to tell Murdoch the full detail of a statement the Secretary

of State was not going to give to this House until two days later?

Whatever interpretation is put on e-mails, there can be no doubt that

Michel's e-mail accurately and in detail described meetings that the

Secretary of State had had and accurately foretold what the

Secretary of State was going to do. Either Michel was Mystic Meg, or he

had been told. When it comes to the transparency the Secretary of State

promised, there appear to be a great deal of transparency for

Murdoch, but precious little for opponents of this bid or for this

House. If, has been suggested on his behalf in the media, he was

negotiating with Murdoch, why didn't he tell the opponents to the

bid and why didn't he tell the House? Will he tell the House now

whether he believed himself to be negotiating, is that what he says

is going on? On 3rd March he told this House that he had published

details of all the exchanges between his department and News

Corporation. In the light of all the information that we now know

that Fred Michel had, does he still maintain that's the case? His

special advisor has admitted that his activities at times went too

far and he has resigned. But will the Secretary of State confirm that

under paragraph 33 of the Ministerial code, it is the

Secretary of State himself who is responsible for the conduct of his

special advisor? Mr Speaker, this was a controversial bid. He could

have refused to take it on, but he didn't. He could have referred it

to the Competition Commission, but he didn't. His role was to be

impartial, but he wasn't. His conduct should have been quasi-

judicial, but it fell far, far short of that. And fell short of

the standards required by his office. The reality is that he

wasn't judging this bid, he was backing this bid and so should

resign. Harriet Harman asking questions off

Jeremy Hunt after he made his statement. This morning, it's like

waiting for a bus, nothing happens and three come at once. While we

have been broadcasting all of that, Rupert Murdoch has continued to to

testify to the Leveson Inquiry. We are going to keep our panel for a

few moments. Jo, give us an update. We are going to find out more on

what Rupert Murdoch has been saying, that had been going on just before

Prime Minister's questions. He was giving evidence to the Leveson

Inquiry and they had actually focused at the Royal Courts of

Justice on relations between Rupert Murdoch and previous Prime

Ministers over the decades. We left it when he was talking about

relationships with Margaret Thatcher. Our correspondent Adam

Fleming has been watching and I believe they've moved on to to

relations between Rupert Murdoch and the former Labour leader Tony

Blair. Yes, in the last hour, Rupert Murdoch's been talking about

that period running up to the 97 election where the News

International titles decided to swing their support behind Tony

Blair. It's resembled a book club at times, they've been quoting from

books, diaries, books by Lance Price as well, and one by someone

called Andrew Neil who used to work for Rupert Murdoch. Who is he!

They've been talking about why Rupert Murdoch changed his mind. He

said he got to know Tony Blair and decided to make the endorsement of

Tony Blair when Mr Blair wrote a eurosceptic editorial piece for the

Sun and that was when the Sun decided to support Mr Blair. He

denied there was any deal done with Mr Blair in return for that support,

he said if there had Tony Blair chucked it out the window by

creatinging Ofcom which had powers to interfere with BSkyB and they've

moved from the Blair era to the Brown era in the last few minutes.

Interesting, I have to say. But not exactly surprising. I am not quite

sure of the relevance of going through all this questioning of

past relations with Prime Ministers. I think they're trying to establish

a pattern as to what the relationship was between press

proprietors and politicians from the left and right. What is the

reply to the Harriet Harman point that under the Ministerial code

Ministers are responsible for the behaviour of their special advisers.

That's absolutely true but Ministers are responsible for the

terms of of reference they set hout how special advisers should act. A

Minister cannot know at all times if he employs a special advisor and

they're doing nothing wrong, that would be ridiculous. Jeremy Hunt

would be at fault if it were to be shown he had instructed Adam myth

to act inappropriately. I am certain he has not done so. Last

night Jeremy Hunt was telling colleagues his special advisor had

done nothing wrong. That was my first question. I think there is

something important here, if on the publication of these e-mails there

had been a look of shock and horror, my goodness what has been done in

our name, in my office, out you go, that's one thing. But if the

message coming from Whitehall all day is actually there's nothing

incriminating, lots embarrassing, that doesn't look great, but

nothing wrong. And then hours later you say the following morning,

after perhaps a little intervention from someone in Whitehall or indeed

from treat, no, no, the special advisor has to go. Some explanation

is required as to how you move from position one to two. A lot of

unravelling to go yet. Mary Creagh, you need to pick the Guess the Year

winner. I want to know whether David Cameron had a chat with James

Murdoch. There we go. 1952.

The year there. Graham Sowter from Blackburn.

Could be Bradford if you are George Galloway, I think it's Blackburn.

He is the one who has won. A couple of seconds. The final 30 seconds on

this whole business, on the Jeremy Hunt situation. It's clear from the

e-mails Jeremy Hunt had to build political cover on the process.

When he talks about the process he carried out he was building his own

cover. The tide of scandal is lapping at his feet and the

question is also about David Cameron. What was he he doing

discussing the bid in the fringes of the dinner party at Rebekah

Brooks house? I would like an answer, I would have like to be

there actually! Thank you all of you for doing here today. 1 o'clock

news is starting on BBC1 now. We will be back tomorrow at noon with