Liveblog: James Murdoch's evidence to the Leveson inquiry

Follow our live blog below from today's (24 April) Leveson inquiry hearing, where James Murdoch, deputy chief operating officer at News Corporation is giving evidence.

Here are links to Journalism.co.uk's reports on James Murdoch's evidence:

• James Murdoch: Contact with Hunt's office during BSkyB bid was not 'covert'
• James Murdoch: I did not 'storm' into Independent newsroom
• James Murdoch grilled about 'over the odds' settlement

16:19pm The session ends.

16:14pm Leveson says he has also been asked to consider ways to safeguard plurality and the independence of media, including their independence from government. He asks Murdoch if he has given consideration to a system that more effectively regulates plurality within the media.

Murdoch says there's a need to be careful and advises against a body that can intervene at any stage. "If we have 10 papers and one goes out of business, we can't have a body which intervenes saying there has been a failure to support plurality."

Murdoch queries what a tolerable decrease in plurality is, given the real world status of businesses, mergers and profits.

With respect to freedom of the press, Murdoch says he thinks we have a very independent press now which doesn't have much dependency on government and that is a credit to it.

16:11pm Jay thanks Murdoch for his answers.

Leveson asks Murdoch to comment on the PCC.

Murdoch says knowing what he does now he would have liked to have more training around the PCC code as there have clearly been failings in journalistic practices.

Murdoch sees a need for people in and around the PCC to provide a greater balance than the current working press.

16:09pm: Jay moves on to raise questions from other core participants.

He asks if Murdoch discussed the growing phone hacking scandal with his father between 2008-2010. Murdoch says he did after the Guardian raised the Taylor settlement in 2009. 

Jay then asks Murdoch about the 2008 internal report, in which he highlighted the Max Mosley story as example of great journalism.

Murdoch says he would have been asked to highlight it as a way to affirm to staff they were doing good work, and says the report was before the court case and that had he known what would have happened in the court case he wouldn’t have included it.

Murdoch confirms he saw the Mosley story when published, but didn’t read it in great detail.

16:05pm: Jay asks Murdoch about his views on regulation, and whether they've changed since MacTaggart lecture he gave in 2009.

Murdoch says they have not changed substantially.

Jay quotes from Murdoch's speech: "The only reliable regulator is profit".

Murdoch qualifies this by saying the durable and only qualifiers he added to that point are important.

There are other ways to do it, but he says he’s less sure about their durability compared to being able to make a profit.

Jay: "Do you agree that the weaker the external controls, the greater the need for stronger internal controls?"

Murdoch: "I would accept that would be the case, but I do not believe in weak external controls so would be hypothesising."

16:02pm: Leveson asks whether a framework could be customised for different forms and issues, for example how is republication affected?

Murdoch asks once the genie is out of bottle how do you enforce the right of reply, particularly with regards to retweeting?

Murdoch continues that you have to be practical and not say that nothing is possible because it's too complicated. A system is needed which is flexible, but doesn't create absurdities in regards to differential publishing.

Murdoch says it's "hard to slice off" and say there are differing regulations if something is printed online only or online and in print.

Leveson: "I'm not sure you’ve given me an answer or solution Mr Murdoch."

Murdoch: "That's a little above my pay grade, sir"

Leveson: "I doubt it."

15:59pm: Leveson says it may not be easy to find one solution to fit all, but asks Murdoch if he sees the value of a distinction between those who aggregate, those who disseminate information for profit, and as a third group, those who blog.

Murdoch answers that it is difficult to accurately distinguish between those three groups on the margin, one of the industry’s great challenges.

15:56pm: Murdoch says the body would need to cover people across the industry. He says he has learnt lessons about the dangers of a company investigating itself, and says this must be done transparently.

Leveson: "Given the diverse sizes of players in industry, do you think it becomes difficult for smaller players to control larger ones?"

Murdoch believes there will be fewer newspapers in the future than there are today due to the struggle to increase revenue. He says in a digital environment you have both journalists who are producing content for consumption by others and for Google and NewsCorp etc on a different level.

Leveson queries this comparison, describing Google as an aggregator, but Murdoch points out the way the search engine is configured affects the results and is relevant editorially.

15:54pm: Murdoch says there's "Also the question of enforcing the law. These things happened and people should be brought to account. Finally, and key, is where does the locus of the public interest live?" He adds this is something editors guard jealously.

Leveson: "There has to be some other method of regulation alongside the police, which can deal with issues that are less than criminal but also make sure the industry is protected from serious problems.

"It's a question of how one creates that system which binds everybody, but does not impact on the freedom of the press which everyone feels is so important."

Leveson asks for Murdoch’s thoughts on this.

15:49pm: Jay moves on to press regulation and asks Murdoch for thoughts on external regulation.

Murdoch says it's often appropriate and necessary, and adds that he has been subject of a lot of press coverage over the last year "and it has given [him] cause for reflection".

Murdoch adds: "I have thought a lot about right to reply and the prominence of corrections. This worries me, somewhere in the code some strengthening is needed regarding accountability.

"Statutory regulation is difficult, a slippery slope and a precedent, I'm not sure there's an easy answer."

Leveson says he’s not sure he grasps the slippery slope argument. According to him the only question that has to be decided is whether some framework described in a statute, then independently set up and administered might not better fit what this country requires.

Leveson asks for Murdoch’s opinion as a former executive in the press and a subject.

Murdoch: "The devil is in the details, there's a real issue about clarity with respect to the accountability around newsgathering.

"I think greater certainty for people who are making those decisions about public interest is important, we can’t rely on the attitude of the CPS, this seems to not be firm enough."

15:45pm: Jay asks Murdoch if Hunt fulfilled the quasi-judicial role he occupied.

Murdoch: "I can't say he didn’t, he folllowed advice from a variety of sources. It was an incredibly rigorous process, he never ultimately decided, but at every step in the process he followed the advice of independent specialists and extracted a significant undertaking and then strengthened it."

Jay: "Are you to invite us to say there's nothing surprising in these emails and that it’s exactly what you’d expect to see? Or are you inviting us to consider there are surprising things about government business in there?"

Murdoch: "You would see a very active public affairs element in any transaction of this size. I think this is a separate question to politicians and the press. Active public affairs engagement isn't a surprise and you would find active engagement to be the norm rather than the other way round. I really can't say about departmental behaviour, I don't know the ins and outs of Westminster protocol."

Jay suggests Murdoch is not showing much surprise because he would expect the government to respond favourably to a bid by News Corp since support had been given to the Conservative Party by the Sun in 2009.

He says Murdoch might be somewhat blind to "what appears obvious to the rest of us, a quid pro quo deal".

Murdoch says it was absolutely not a quid pro quo arrangement and that the lengthy negotiation and regulatory process around the BSkyB transaction was entirely separate from the Sun’s endorsement.

15:43pm: In the final email, from July 11, Michel says Hunt is going back to Ofcom and OFT for further advice after phone hacking revalations.

Murdoch: "At this point we'd also volunteered that the bid should be referred to Competition Commission."

15:39pm: Jay resumes, moving on to an email from May 2011 from Michel saying Hunt might call Murdoch directly in coming the days.

Murdoch says he can’t recall if there was a call following that email.

In another Michel email, it's detailed that Hunt was "very happy with how today went", especially "idiotic statements by Watson and Prescott".

Jay says to Murdoch that gave him further insight into Hunt’s thought process.

Murdoch responds that it seems to him there was a parliamentary debate and this was just Hunt providing feedback on that.

The next email was written two days after the Milly Dowler article in Guardian. In the email, Michel says Hunt suggests there may be two inquiries, one judge-led into what had happened.

Jay suggests private information was again being disclosed to Murdoch and News Corp.

15:35pm: Leveson: "The bid was pursued by News Corp and for commercial reasons was the subject of objections from competitors. Advice you've received is that Hunt won't speak to you except informal meetings and you don't know if he's speaking to others. But here there is a reference to him meeting editors to explain his decision. Is that a press conference including your editors or something else?"

Murdoch: "I don’t think that it is either, he just called them up bilaterally and tried to explain what he was doing."

Leveson: "I don’t know if that’s unusual or not, has he ever explained his decision formally and openly to you?"

Murdoch: "I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know what he said to those people either because I wasn’t there."

15:31pm: Jay refers to another email from Michel discussing a talk with Salmond. The email says Salmond asked if he could help smooth the process in any way. Jay focuses on the Scottish Sun’s support for Salmond in 2011 and whether this influenced Salmond's willingness to help.

15:27pm: Jay reads from an email from Michel saying Hunt said he didn't want the deal to go to the Competition Commission and neither did his officials, as they believe it would kill the deal, despite advice from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and Ofcom to refer it. The email claims Hunt said Ofcom wasn’t taking a subjective approach.

Jay asks Murdoch if he was happy to receive confidential information of this sort in advance.

Murdoch says no as the email did not contain positive news and that up to this point Hunt had followed advice given to him from the OFT and Ofcom.

15:24pm: Back from break.

Jay resumes, continuing to work his way through the Michel emails.

15:15pm: Break

15:12pm: Jay now refers to Alex Salmond discussing coverage in Scottish papers and how the Scottish Sun was more favourable of him. Jay asks if the favourable coverage made Salmond more likely to lobby Hunt on News Corp's behalf. Murdoch says any such suggestion is categorically false.

Murdoch: "Politicians seek the favour of the press at all times."

15:08pm: Jay says the emails seem to show Hunt believed News Corp were in a good place with the bid and Michel was trying to get access to documents submitted to Hunt by other parties regarding the bid.

Murdoch, trying to justify this, says they wanted to see arguments being made, but doesn’t recall ever seeing the documents.

Jay seeks clarity on whether Michel was speaking to Hunt or his adviser, in relation to who was going to a performance of Swan Lake. Murdoch believes the two had gone together.

15:05pm: Another Michel email says Ofcom had a very biased political approach. It goes on to say that given that the bid's opposition still had very few arguments about plurality, they were trying to make the issue political. The email ends by saying "Hunt believes we're in a good place tonight."

15:01pm: Hunt appears to have asked News Corp, through Michel, to help draft a statement to be given in Parliament.

Murdoch: "I think it's crucial to take into account the enormous amount of documentary submissions and the back and forths in the negotiations at that time."

14:59pm: The phrase“absolutely illegal’ being used in an email by Michel is treated by Murdoch as a joke. Jay is less sure and questions if Michel's actions were at the very least unethical.

14:56pm: Jay reads from another email from Michel saying he had spoken to Hunt and that Hunt was willing to consider the undertakings offered, but would still publish the Ofcom report.

Murdoch says he was still very worried about the transaction and the longer it went on the more concerned he became.

The undertakings mentioned were supposed to avoid the 32 week delay a referral to competition commission would have led to.

14:53pm: Jay: "Let's accept there's a difference between you saying you have a brilliant case and the judge telling you you have a brilliant case."

Murdoch is unwilling to address the question, saying he still believes he had a strong case on plurality but that the case was lost when Ofcom issued its report.

Murdoch says at this point a new case begins, and this was how to negotiate the undertakings concerning the separation of Sky News.

Jay begins to get frustrated by Murdoch’s failure to answer his question, leading to Murdoch repeating his claim that he took all information coming out of Hunt's office with a pinch of salt

Murdoch says he can not speculate on whether they would have got the remaining BskyB shares after this process, but says he had high hopes the transaction would have proceeded following the undertakings given.

14:48pm: Jay and Murdoch discussing the issue of Sky News.

Murdoch says removing it from BSkyB meant the deal's opponents had won, he removed Sky News from the transaction and therefore removed any plurality issues.

Murdoch: "I would have thought the opponents had won the argument because they got what they professed to want."

Jay says that in this case the judge (Hunt) appeared to be telling Murdoch he shared his view that Murdoch would get what he wanted.

Murdoch disagrees, saying the game was over because the undertaking had been given.

14:47pm: Jay asks Murdoch if he is making the point that he "can't necessarily trust what appears here".

Murdoch agrees, saying he took everything with a grain of salt, saying politicians will spin one way and the next. He adds that was Michel merely doing his job by having the conversations.

Murdoch: "Most of these are emails about the process and our concerns that the process was being done in the appropriate way. This is a large scale transaction that was in the hands of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and it was entirely reasonable to try to communicate with the relevant policy makers about the merits of what we were proposing.”

14:43pm: Murdoch responding to Jay’s interpretation of these negotiations:

"Mr Hunt met with me in January. There was a formal meeting process where we could make our case and I understand he also took meetings with other constituents in this case, people who were against the deal and so forth, but co-ordination by staff was a normal part of moving that process along."

Jay says that Hunt's special advisor gave Michel direct feedback on what Hunt was thinking about bid, and that Michel's emails gave Murdoch an insight into Hunt’s confidential discussions with Ofcom representatives.

Jay asks Murdoch if he thinks it was appropriate for him to receive such insights.

Murdoch says he’s not sure it's correct and points out that Hunt followed Ofcom's advice the whole way through the process.

14:39pm: Jay refers to an email dated 24 December 2010 from Michel. In the email he claims to have spoken to Hunt and advisors directly and says it was "fine to liaise at that level politically" between himself and Hunt's special advisor while legal teams also communicated.

This email was dated after Hunt had taken on responsibility for deciding on the bid.

14:38pm: Jay reads from an email, in which Clegg's office are described as being furious at Cable’s remarks and say that Clegg had described Cable's comments as unacceptable.

14:36pm: Jay highlights the word "blackmail" in an email from Michel to Murdoch relating to the Telegraph sting on Vince Cable.

Murdoch pauses to consider his response before responding and suggests it was related to the Telegraph holding back comments made by Cable about "declaring war on Murdoch".

14:32pm: Murdoch: "Six months into this process we hadn't been able to get a meeting with the relevant advisor and had heard conflicting accounts of whether or not he was willing to listen to evidence. The whole thing at this point was very frustrating."

Jay reads from another email from Michel, revealing communication between himself and Clegg’s chief of Staff, saying Clegg saw it as a view for Cable in his role as Secretary of State, not as a Lib Dem. The email goes on to detail Clegg’s Chief of Staff asking why News Corp tried to make it a political issue by lobbying other Lib Dems.

Murdoch claims to have simply been trying to make it clear the proper legal test should be applied.

14:30pm: Jay reads an email from Michel revealing Rebekah Brooks had spoken to either Osborne or his office and saying his office are baffled at Ofcom’s view. Murdoch confirms this, saying most people assumed News Corp controlled Sky already.

14:26pm: Jay moves on to an email dated 2 December 2010, in which Michel reports speaking to advisers of the David Cameron and Nick Clegg, which is described as "honest discussion of the importance of getting Labour on board", which "will influence Cable a lot".

Jay cites this as another example of the political dimension of the bid.

Jay asks Murdoch if he interpreted references to Hunt in emails as to being to Hunt personally, or more generally to his office and advisers. Murdoch says the latter and says content, not channel was of primary interest to him. Murdoch says the notes confirmed his concerns about the process.

14:25pm: Jay refers to another Michel email saying Jeremy Hunt had asked for documents about the BSkyB bid to be sent to him privately. Murdoch says he is unsure if Hunt then read them.

14:23pm: A presentation by Murdoch to an investor conference on 17 November 201 is referred to. Jay says it was interpreted by some as a threat to the UK government. Murdoch says it was miscast, he simply made an argument about the economic benefits of the deal, and that it was a clear message to say a lengthy regulatory process was a disincentive to invest.

14:21pm: Murdoch says these emails and other behaviour make clear Cable's department did not want to have a dialogue about the process as it was clear they had not undergone one.

Leveson intervenes saying the emails make it clear Michel was "told to back off" by one of Cable’s advisers.

14:16pm: Jay reads from email in which Michel says it would be best not to meet Hunt, but should be fine to call him on his mobile.

Murdoch says he had no intention of trying to make contact surreptitiously and that there were a number of other issues on the agenda that they were unable to discuss with Hunt due to the idea that they could not have government meetings.

Murdoch believes Hunt called him to apologise for cancelling their meeting.

14:13pm: Jay highlights an email from November 15 2010, in which Michel informs Murdoch that Jeremy Hunt was trying to call him. "Hunt received strong advice not to meet us today."

Murdoch says he understood it to be cancelled as Hunt advised that as a minister he should not meet with someone who had an issue currently being considered by the government.

Jay says it is a judicial issue and not a policy one, and asks Murdoch if he understood it was inappropriate to meet with cabinet members on the issue. Murdoch says he did not have any informal meetings.

14:09pm: Murdoch: "I think it would have been entirely appropriate to have a meeting with Mr Cable and his advisers to lay out some of the issues as we saw them and our analysis of the relevant plurality issues and concerns. It was evident he was taking other people's advice which was very frustrating. All we wanted to do is sit down and make our case."

Emails lay out how Michel was lobbying senior Lib Dems, including Nick Clegg and David Laws in an effort to get Cable to meet with News Corp.

14:02pm: The inquiry returns from lunch.

Jay continues to question Murdoch about emails regarding the BSkyB bid. An email from Michel to Murdoch highlights a Lib Dem MP who was a former Sky employee and would contact Cable.

The email also mentions Alex Salmond’s willingness to talk to Cable, and says he was willing to talk to Murdoch about the bid and brief the Scottish press.

Murdoch says these emails are an example of legitimate advocacy. He says he had a discussion with Salmond, making many of the same points in support of the BSkyB bid.

13:00pm: Break for lunch.

12:58pm: Jay asks if press coverage of parties lead to differing views of the bid for Cable and Hunt.

Murdoch says he doesn't believe Hunt did anything inappropriate and that he followed the legal advice offered to him at every turn.

When asked whether there was a link between support for the Conservatives and the bid, Murdoch appears frustrated at the line of questioning.

"I'm sorry Mr Jay, but that's absolutely not the case and the question of support of a newspaper for a politician or party is not something I would link to a transaction like this, and I wouldn’t expect a politician to account for it. It's simply not how I would do business, ever.”

12:55pm: Jay reads an email from June 2010 that advised Cable to avoid meeting Murdoch "until things had calmed down".

Leveson interjects to say this backs up what Murdoch said about being unable to secure a meeting with Cable.

Debating the Lib Dems and their role in discussing the bid, Jay asks Murdoch if the "unfavourable" press coverage of the Lib Dems and Labour had played a part in this.

Murdoch retorts that he could have expected a minister working in a quasi-judicial role to rise above party politics, and says you can "call him naive for believing a senior minister would do his job properly".

12:51pm: Jay refers to a blog by Robert Peston for the BBC where Peston claims Ofcom were expected to refer the bid to competition commission.

Jay asks Murdoch about role of News Corp public affairs executive Fréd Michel in trying to find out from Hunt his views on this blog, and Michel reporting back within 10 minutes of reading the blog.

Murdoch says throughout this period he sought a meeting with Vince Cable but was unable to secure one.

Jay asks Murdoch if an email shows they were trying to work around Vince Cable and find a secretary of state who would be more helpful to them. Murdoch says he doesn't think the email from Michel shows this.

12:44pm: Jay refers to notes on call from Hunt in June 2010 in which Hunt said there shouldn’t be an issue with the BSkyB bid on plurality grounds, despite Hunt having no role in assessing the bid at that point.

Murdoch doesn't see a problem with Hunt offering his view, and says it was similar to what Vince Cable had told him at the time.

12:38pm: The focus turns to events after Hunt had assumed responsibility from Vince Cable for deciding on the BSkyB bid.

Jay asks about notes made by Hunt, including Hunt being minded to refer the bid to the competition commission after hearing legal advice.

Murdoch: "Essentially the Secretary of State said he had received advice from Ofcom to refer the bid, and it was within his remit to weigh it up against undertakings which might deal with the issues. Given the amount of time the competition commission might take we would simply offer an undertaking which would solve the issue – separating Sky News from the transaction completely and investing substantial sums over a 10 year period."

12:35pm: Jay tries to get comment from Murdoch on who was a 'cheerleader' for News Corp in UK politics, business and media and who was not.

Jay asks if Ofcom were against the bid. Murdoch says he did express concerns about the way Ofcom handled the bid.

12:32pm: Murdoch says that the point about competition dimensions to plurality was very relevant.

Other newspapers had a distinct commercial fear around cross-promoting and bundling of News Corp’s platforms in the UK if the bid was successful. Other organisations said plurality was at risk as such moves could put their future viability at risk.

Murdoch claims this was not a factor in the legal consideration of plurality.

12:29pm: Returning again to the BSkyB bid, Jay tries to establish who determined what, whether the EU ruling was made over the competition aspect and UK government ruled over plurality.

Murdoch says this was broadly the case.

The EU ruled there was no risk of harm in December 2010, leaving the only legal issue that of plurality, which could have contained a competition aspect.

Jay asks if News Corp believed they had a good case in law on the plurality issues. Murdoch said he was given advice to support this and believed it himself.

12:28pm: Jay asks if Rebekah Brooks bore brunt of majority of meetings with politicians due to her relationships, Murdoch confirms she was closer to the situation than he was.

Murdoch: "From time to time Brooks would communicate issues to me, but would also talk to my father with some frequency."

12:27pm: Jay asks if Murdoch has met Osborne's advisor Rupert Harrison. Murdoch says he has no recollection of ever meeting him.

12:23pm: Jay refers to an incident at the Independent when Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks allegedly visited their building and swore at the editor over an ad titled "Rupert Murdoch won't decide this election, you will".

Murdoch admits he is a direct person and that he went to visit Simon Kelner, who he already knew.

Murdoch says he found Kelner, spoke to him in private and told him of his concerns but denies swearing.

12:20pm: Murdoch refers to BSkyB investing in UK domestic cricket as an example of him trying to keep debate on a legal footing, highlighting intervention by parliament through an Early Day Motion and speeches arguing in favour of keeping Cricket on terrestrial TV.

Jay asks Murdoch to discuss one more politician, Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister. Jay opens by asking how many people NI employ in Scotland - Murdoch estimates 5,000-6,000 but will find out the precise figure.

Murdoch says he has only met Salmond recently and after discussions about why the Sun did not endorse the SNP in 2007.

12:15pm: Murdoch: "There's always a risk that a business transaction can be politicised."

Jay says with past NI purchases this has always been the case and highlights the purchase of the Times in 1981, saying there is always a political debate alongside the legal debate.

Murdoch agrees, describes it as unfortunate and says he always tries to keep the focus on legal debate.

12:14pm: Jay argues you can't prove that a paper's support has a positive impact on a party's performance in election, but politicans certainly believe it can.

Murdoch skips around the question slightly, forcing Jay to ask him if he agrees or disagrees that politicians believe support of papers is important. Murdoch says it is really a question for politicans.

12:11pm: Back to Jay's line of inquiry, he asks if politicians expressed an interest in who Murdoch's papers were going to support. Murdoch agrees with this, says politicians wanted to avail themselves of the megaphone (to use Leveson's phrase) to broadcast policies.

12:09pm: Leveson: "The press clearly have an enormous megaphone, but do you think that you obtain greater access for yourself as a businessman because you have the weight of press interests behind you?"

Murdoch: "I don't know about all the other meetings the PM and others take in general. I think it's true to say politicans are very eager to get their points across and like to talk to the press. But from the standpoint of a business person I don't think I've personally experienced that, because I've not spent that much time with politicans personally. Most of my interaction has been around BSkyB where politics don't really fit in."

Leveson: "I understand that, but don't you think it may have been an advantage that NI have other interests that have been capable of at least potentially making a difference?"

Murdoch: "I just don't think that's there. I think it's a question for the politicians as to how they saw it. I think the press have to make the decision on behalf of their readers and the country and what they think is right."

12:05pm: Now on to Murdoch's relationship with Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.

Jay: "You’re a close friend of Osborne, is that right?"

Murdoch says he "wouldn’t say close".

Jay highlights a piece in the Guardian from October 2009 and asks if Murdoch has visited Dorneywood, the Chancellor's "grace and favour home".

Murdoch says he has once and says he had one discussion about the BSkyB bid with Osborne, but this discussion reflected his public grumpiness over referral of the bid to Ofcom.

11:59am: Jay moves on to the relationship between Murdoch and Jeremy Hunt. He describes Hunt as an ally of BSkyB, which Murdoch disputes.

Jay asks if the purpose of private phone calls between Murdoch and Hunt was to try to speed the process of the bid along. Murdoch denies this and claims the calls would have been to update Hunt on the bid more generally.

Jay asks if Murdoch ever asked Hunt to drop the Tory policy of top-slicing the BBC licence fee. Murdoch said he did not agree with top-slicing, but would not have asked directly, though he may have given his opinion if asked for it

Murdoch: "I was very upset when they announced the licence fee settlement with the BBC. The whole industry including BSkyB would have welcomed wider consultation with regards to the settlement."

11:56am: Jay returns again to whether Murdoch and others made a political decision about who they would prefer to see win the election in regards to the BSkyB bid. Murdoch says any such calculation, at least for him personally, would have been about who was best for the British economy more generally.

Murdoch doesn't "think it’s controversial to say that in regards of business interests and the markets the Conservatives made a case that they were the better option for that"

11:53am: Murdoch says the company needed to save over a number of years as the bid was intended to be cash only. He adds that in 2007 the company acquired Dow Jones for 5.5 billion in cash and trying to contemplate another transaction of that size after that and the financial crash would have been difficult. It was not until 2009-2010 that he realised they could do it.

11:52am: Jay asks if it was part of News Corp strategy to wait until the outcome of the election before pursuing the BSkyB bid further.

Murdoch says it was to wait until election had finished, regardless of outcome.

11:49am: Two meetings of interest to Jay took place in November and December 2010, after Cameron became PM.

Jay accepts the first was social, but asks what was discussed in relation to the BSkyB bid at second.

In his witness statement Murdoch said there was some discussion.

The Second meeting (Dec 23) took place two days after Cable had been removed from his position overseeing the BSkyB bid following Telegraph and BBC revelations about his views.

Murdoch said discussion was exactly as outlined in the witness statement, he expressed a hope the matter would be dealt with legally and correctly.

11:46am: The topic moves on to a September 2009 meeting about potential endorsement of Cameron by Sun.

Jay asks exactly what Cameron was told.

Murdoch says it was made clear to Cameron that an endorsment or at least ending of support for Labour was likely and that any such move would be made at the end of the conference season. Editors were waiting to see what would arise from the party conferences.

Murdoch says the focus of meetings leading up to the election was more likely to be politics than media regulation.

11:43am: Debate still ongoing between the two. Jay is clearly keen to establish if political calculations affected the BSkyB bid.

Murdoch says he's not sure governments approach such bids from a political standpoint.

11:41am: Meetings between Murdoch and Cameron covered a wide range of topics.

Jay presses Murdoch on whether issues around media and regulation was discussed specifically as these would be of commercial interest. Did Murdoch try and establish these views in a private context?

Murdoch: "That’s not the way that I do business, I would have been curious to listen to what he had to say about a variety of topics."

Jay is not satisfied and refers back to 2009 and the beginnings of the BSkyB bid. He asks if Murdoch would have been curious to establish where Cameron stood on the issue.

Murdoch says the company's focus would have been on legal requirements. Jay continues to press, asking if they examined the differing possibilities under Labour or Conservative governments and rejecting Murdoch’s denial that it wouldn’t have been.

Murdoch: "There was a view later on, to try to avoid it becoming a political issue in the middle of an election, but not with a view of what the likely outcome of the election was."

11:37am: Meetings with David Cameron are to be tackled chronologically, starting when he was Leader of the Opposition. Jay says a number of meetings can be seen throughout 2006-2008, and asks who Mr Adlington was. Murdoch doesn't recall, but thinks he may have been a banker.

Murdoch: "I don't think I would have thought about doubts about Cameron's suitability to be PM. Most of these were social events at people's houses."

Murdoch: "Politicians [are] likely to convey their views on the economy and society, [and] will try and convince anyone they are not wrong."

An exchange follows about what it took for the Sun to endorse Cameron. Jay asks if macroeconomic issues are considered. Murdoch says they would be at any newspaper

11:35am: Jay briefly mentions Murdoch's meetings with Gordon Brown, saying they were mostly of a social nature, which Murdoch confirms.

11:34am: Murdoch says the conversation was to make the PM aware of issues, that football is a major British franchise and it was unclear whether Blair would be aware what some of the EC proposals flying around would be like.

Jay assumes Murdoch would never make a direct request of the PM, but says he was subtly conveying the company's view.

Murdoch says he wanted the PM to understand these policies may have adverse consequences for football.

11:32am: Starts with  notes of a conference call between then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Murdoch in 2005, looking at the commercial rights to the Premier League.

Murdoch: "I recall the telephone conversation, though not exactly. I believe it was a legitimate example of business advocacy."

Jay: "This could also be described as lobbying, a private phone call with the PM expressing your company's commercial concerns."

Murdoch says it was entirely consistent with public statements the company had made against further intervention into the market.

11:31am: Back underway, moving on to examine the relationship between press and politicians.

11.23am: The inquiry takes a short break.

11:21am: Jay asks if it was a cultural problem at NI that led to these issues. Murdoch says he thinks there was a wider culture at newspapers, but is not trying to excuse this behaviour. He says the culture was very tribal and about knocking back allegations, and was not as forensic as it should have been.

Murdoch says the big lesson was that allegations weren't automatically untrue just because they came from a commercial rival, and NI should have been more forensic in investigating allegations.

Murdoch: "Knowing what we do now about culture at NotW in 2005-6 and the widespread nature of these practices, they must have been cavalier about risk and that's a matter of huge regret."

11:19am: January 2011, Sienna Miller litigation. Jay asks if Murdoch was by then aware that the rogue reporter defence was no longer viable. Murdoch confirms he was and claims he couldn’t remember if he had discussions with Myler at the time but will look into it.

Murdoch says he insisted an internal investigation was reopened in light of the Miller case and moved to bring in new legal counsel to get to the bottom of what was going on. Murdoch acted on new evidence this discovered and wishes he had this evidence sooner.

11:17am: Now moving on to the 2010 select committee report, Murdoch says it was not his responsibility at time to handle them and he had a chief exec to deal with such things. He says he was told the report was politically motivated and regrets not taking it more seriously at the time.

11:15am: Jay says the Guardian alleged that Taylor had been paid hush money and asks Murdoch if he made the connection to the meeting he had with Myler and Crone?

Murdoch said he did, asked question and was assured this wasn’t the case, and that there was no other evidence.

Jay: "Did Myler reiterate to you the reasons for the settlement?"

Murdoch: "No, they said these allegations weren’t true."

11:11am: Leveson asks Murdoch if he had been told "‘there isn’t anything in this but a lot of mud is going to be thrown and there are reputational risks which we think you ought to be aware of. But the amount of money being sought is ludicrous." Leveson says it’s to some extent hypothetical, but what is Murdoch’s attitude towards buying off reputational risk with more money than would otherwise be justified?

Murdoch: "My attitude would have been to say 'let's understand those allegations, show me that they are wrong' and I think if you do fast-forward to 2009 the company did see those allegations come and asserted investigations had been done. To Mr Jay's point about governance failure I think I would have got the same answer that police had investigated and nothing further found."

Leveson is unhappy with this answer and says he asked a slightly different question – would Murdoch support overpaying litigation to prevent reputational risk?

Murdoch: "I wouldn't do that, but I would be concerned with respect to reputational risk what it's nature really was and try to understand the real facts of what was going on."

11:08am: Jay is unrelenting in his line of questioning. Murdoch says he was given sufficient information to negotiate at a higher level, but was not given sufficient information to investigate further. He repeats that he was given assurances a thorough investigation had been carried out.

11:07am: Murdoch says he can't believe the purpose of that meeting had been to go through all the context surrounding phone hacking, Goodman and the current case otherwise it would have been a longer meeting and they would have told him about it before that date.

11:03am: Jay asks if blackmail was ever referred to in the meeting. Murdoch says he doesn’t recall blackmail or words like it being discussed or communicated to him.

Jay says emails suggest Myler was angry as he felt Taylor was blackmailing the company by holding out for higher costs and moving towards not wanting to settle. Murdoch says he can't comment on what Crone reported back to Pike and that he had been given strong advice to settle at the figure discussed.

10:59am: Murdoch: "They did not communicate to me that this was a new issue. I knew attempts had been made to settle the case already and that an offer had been made to Taylor that was rejected, I can’t remember the exact number they told me."

Jay says the figure was £350,000. "Did you not think this was an extraordinary figure?"

Murdoch says there's no way to put the figure in context. The QC's opinion had put the potential liability at a very large cost as well.

Jay quotes from the QC's opinion, which suggested a highest point of £250,000, but that it could be higher depending on the judge. Murdoch can’t remember if this exact aspect of the QC's opinion was disclosed to him, but says he recalls a figure of £425,000 being described to him.

Jay says it is frankly ridiculous to believe they did not give him a breakdown of the figure plus costs rather than one global figure. Jay asks Murdoch why a sum of £350,000 had been offered without his authority.

Murdoch: "They came to me because it was getting to a figure where they felt they had to talk to me about it. There was a budget of approx 1 million for legal settlements at the NotW and I left it to them to negotiate."

10:56am: Jay continues to press about attitudes of Myler and Crone to the Taylor case, and asks if they were anxious when the matter of settling the case was discussed. Jay says they were very keen to settle and feared reputational risks to the company if it went to court.

Murdoch says anxiety is a subjective issue.

10:55am: Jay highlights the For Neville email.

Murdoch says it was important for two reasons: It linked NotW to Mulcaire and the Taylor case and secondly highlighted wider issues within NotW.

Murdoch says this second aspect was not imparted to him at the time.

10:51am: Murdoch says many meetings at NI don't have a written or agreed agenda beyond a general heading, and that this is not unusual. Jay highlights a specific meeting on 10 June 2008 and asks if the Pike email was used as the agenda for the meeting. Murdoch says it was not and does not remember if files were brought to meeting.

Murdoch: "[It's] in the best interests of the company not to have this matter from the past dragged through the courts again. It's all in the past and finished, we don't want to have to go through it again."

Jay asks why this concern existed if they believed it was just a rehash of Mulcaire/Goodman and if so there would have been no new reputational damage.

Murdoch says he was given strong legal advice that the Taylor case would be lost and should be settled. It was established that because the case would be lost and to avoid dragging up a painful incident in the past, the strategy should be to settle.

Murdoch says he followed this advice and assumed it could be a confidential settlement as many were, and believes both sides sought the settlement be confidential.

10:50am: Jay asks Murdoch not to comment on the email chain yet. Jay says Myler’s email to Murdoch at 14:31 Saturday 7 June 2008 highlights Pike's concerns about [Gordon] Taylor.

Jay presses on Taylor's belief that the organisation was rife with wrongdoing and that Myler tried to highlight this to Murdoch. Murdoch claims there was no proactive desire to inform him of these allegations, otherwise he would have been informed in April when the Taylor allegations first surfaced.

10:45am: Leveson intervenes again, asking if Murdoch can think of a reason why Myler or Crone would want to keep information from him? Leveson says he is "trying to understand what's going on".

Murdoch: "I've struggled with this as well, why wouldn’t they just come and tell me, I was a new person coming in, this was an opportunity to get rid of this. I don't want to conjecture, but that must be it: They thought I would say 'cut out the cancer' and they did not want to do that."

Leveson says that if Murdoch looks at the emails and the point Mr Pike made about problems throughout the organisation, it is consistent with alleged Myler concerns from the conversation of May 27 2008.

Murdoch: "I don’t believe I read this correspondence at the time, I responded to it within minutes and invited him to ring me later that evening."

10:41am: Jay asks if Myler believed Goodman's allegations were unsubstantiated. Murdoch says he can't speak for what Myler believed.

Jay: "Myler said there were bombs under the newsroom floor and Crone never believed the rogue reporter defence was valid."

Murdoch reiterates that he was never told of any deviation from the public line that internal investigation had revealed no wrongdoing, by either Myler or Crone.

10:40am: Murdoch disputes Jay’s distinction, claiming no knowledge of the second bullet point which refers to Clive Goodman and that he would draw the line earlier in conversation. Murdoch claims the typed note makes divides much clearer than the original handwritten note.

Jay disagrees, saying the typed version is a faithful transcription. Murdoch claims his view at the time would have been to wait for legal opinion.The rest of the note to him is a conversation between Pike and Myler about surrounding context.

10:36am: Jay returns to his line of questioning, asking about a specific phone call between Myler and [NI legal advisor Julian] Pike in 2008. He refers to a phone call mentioned in notes between Murdoch and Myler, about waiting to see what the leading counsel said.

Murdoch has no direct recollection, but says Myler left the conversation believing there was no option but to wait for legal opinion.

10:35am: Leveson: "It's not merely you put into place afterwards, but why did all of this get to that position?" Someone didn’t pick up that things had gone wrong.

Murdoch interrupts stressing it was before he arrived and he had since ensured systems were strengthened to ensure journalists were aware of ethical requirements and conformed to them.

10:33am: Leveson intervenes, says he can understand that Murdoch could take the view he had been given some assurances, but asks if he ever asked "How did this happen, how did a very senior reporter who you obviously relied upon and thought highly of, get himself in this position and why didn’t our internal governance pick up that something had gone wrong? Did you probe the adequacy of the internal governance that you had in place?"

Murdoch says he can't recall specific language of conversation, but says: "It became clear to me that it had not been clear enough in the past. That’s why a new editor had been appointed and had spent time to improve system of newsroom governance."

Murdoch repeats that it is an issue for the editor and legal manager. "It was my understanding that in 2006 the structures had not been good enough as the editor and legal manager claimed they did not know about it."

10:31am: Jay asks if Myler ever expressed any doubt about the possible extent of phone hacking in 2005 and 2006. Murdoch says no, he was given the assurances that were given to select committee. Murdoch was told the paper had been investigated thoroughly and police had found no new evidence.

Murdoch says he wasn’t at the company at time of initial incident, so only had a general awareness of what had went on with Mulcaire. He understood it was an incident in the past.

10:30am: Jay now moves on to phone hacking, saying it is already well-trodden ground, but that he wants to establish whether or not Murdoch knew about the For Neville email when he gave evidence to select committees last year. Murdoch confirms that he did not and he stands by testimony he gave to committees.

10:29am: Jay asks if Mohan's ability to interpret the wishes of Murdoch played a part in his appointment. Murdoch says it did not as he was Brooks's choice and would report to her.

10:27am: Murdoch: "I think the suggestion of an editor is not simply [made] around [their] political views, but ability to lead a newsroom and to make judgements, the ability of an editor to be thoughtful and about how readers will react to what they put in the paper."

10:26am: Jay asks Murdoch why he supported Mohan’s appointment.

Murdoch: "He was [Rebekah] Brooks’s strong suggestion for the post and someone I knew personally."

Murdoch claims he did not – and still does not – know [Dominic] Mohan's political views.

10:25am: Murdoch says NotW profitability was built on connection with readers and popularity with advertisers. There are many things about any newspaper or TV programme which appeal to readers. This can be the way you tell stories, or things like Fabulous, the glossy magazine. These can also be the exposes. Every reader has his or her own reasons for buying a paper.

10:24am: Jay asks Murdoch if the ends justify the means in such cases and if profit was the sole touchstone.

Murdoch: "The way we do business is part and parcel of the relationship with the customers. In the end the profitability of the NotW did not save it."

10:23am: Murdoch: "On a day-to-day basis it's up to the editor what goes in their paper."

Murdoch claims a strong indication was given to Myler that a similar case shouldn’t happen again.

10:21am: Jay returns to the Max Mosley case and asks Murdoch if he did internal work on what went wrong and how similar cases could be prevented in future.

Murdoch: "The editor was really defiant on this point, I wasn’t told the judge’s specific ruling."

Jay continues to press – the judge said NI got it spectacularly wrong. So why wasn’t more done?

10:20am: Murdoch says his role at News International (NI) was to develop longer term-strategy and digital models, but he did not deal with day-to-day management issues, instead leaving those to executives.

10:18am: Murdoch says he was aware of the yearly legal bill and that provisions were made for it in the budget. When asked about the Mosley story, says it shouldn't have been run. Murdoch doesn't remember the exact legal fees for the case. The substantial legal bill was a cause for concern, but he doesn't recall if an appeal was discussed.

10:17am: Murdoch: "The NotW brand as an investigative brand wasn’t only concerned with celebrties and gossip, did real investigations into wrongdoing"

At the time Murdoch doesn't recall discussing risks of the stories built about celebrities and gossip.

"I think the ethical risk was something that was very much in the hands of the editor and the decisions on public interest and the like were made by the editor in consultation with legal advice. I was given assurances by them, which sometimes proved to be wrong."

10:16am: Murdoch admits he didn’t read all of News of the World (NotW) on weekly basis, but did read some from time-to time and tried to "familiarise" himself with what was in the Sun

10:14am: Jay asks Murdoch if there was a connection between legal and ethical risks.

Murdoch: "I think that's the right connection to make. However I was assured that from a standpoint of journalistic ethics extensive training had gone on and continued to go on. I was given strong assurances they went on, especially given the voicemail incident in 2006."

10:12am: Last summer the board began to do more than just comply with requirements and began to strengthen what they could to ensure everything remained above board, claims Murdoch.

Murdoch: "I think I would have had a reasonable expectation that having the senior legal managers closely associated with the newsrooms was a protection that it turned out was not provided."

10:11am: Murdoch: "I think with respect to newsgathering practices, I think it's self evident and knowing what we know now, whatever controls were in place failed to give sufficient transparency. There were senior legal managers who were working closely with the newsrooms and at the time I didn’t know if they were sufficient or not."

10:10am: Murdoch says he had no reason at the time to believe his dealings with former NotW news editor Colin Myler were anything but open.

10:08am: Asked if he ever discusses business issues at News Corporation with his father, simply replies yes.

Robert Jay QC asks if Murdoch sought to foster an open management culture in which top execs would share information.

Jay: "Did you find an open management culture when you arrived in 2007?"

Murdoch: "When I arrived the business had a handful of priorities to be tackled, one was general growth and I also wanted to have a tight management team which shared regular information about the business. The new part of it that I started was to include some of the editors, so issues around newspapers and titles themselves could be discussed in the open. We had monthly title meetings in addition to commercial meetings."

10:05am: Murdoch quizzed on his history at News Corporation, asked why he resigned chairmanship of BSkyB.

Murdoch: "For the simple reason that I wanted to avoid becoming a lightning rod. I thought it was better not to provide a distraction for the board and resign my role as non-executive chairman. I remain on the board."

10am: James Murdoch's evidence has now started.

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).