The Leveson Inquiry

Lord Justice Leveson also invited Lloyd Embley, editor of the People, to respond to claims made by Matt Sprake of NewsPics picture agency last week. The inquiry heard how Sprake had been commissioned hundreds of times to follow and photograph public figures and celebrities – largely by the People and the News of the World.

In a written statement, Mosley criticised sections of the industry for breaking the law and adopting a “bullying and dishonest approach” to legal challenges. He also said justice for defamation and privacy breaches was denied to most of the population because of legal costs.

Mosley, who in his previous evidence discussed his privacy case, this time put forward a proposal for a press tribunal for handling disputes and a ‘Press Commission’ to replace the current Press Complaints Commission. He told the inquiry the press should be allowed to make rules for regulation with outside help.

He said: “I think keeping [the bodies] separate then overcomes any suggestion of state control of the press, because the only thing you’d need a statute for would be the body to enforce the rules.

“We need the public to be involved in making the rules but then [the regulator] can be a non-statutory body, provided there is a statutory body to stop breaches of the rules.”

The tribunal would be given powers to define the public interest, provide a public interest defence for journalists, impose a requirement for prior notification on story concerning medical details, sexual and family matters, and be given powers under the Harassment Act. It would be funded by a levy on publications with circulations above a set level and fines – which could equal 10 percent of group turnover.

He added: “Let’s take an extreme case. The pursuit of the McCanns in the Daily Express… At a certain point the tribunal, had it existed then, would have said to the Express, ‘This is not acceptable’ and imposed a significant fine if it had continued – the fine would have been very significant indeed – and undoubtedly [Northern & Shell owner] Mr Desmond would have given orders to stop.”

He also suggested tweets, social media posts and blogs should be covered by a press regulator.

Concentration of media ownership to blame for press malpractice

Concentration of media ownership has produced the problems emerging in the industry over the last year, the Leveson Inquiry was told by Steven Barnett, the professor of communications at the University of Westminster.

Barnett said the inquiry was a “transformative moment” in British public life and called on Lord Justice Leveson to consider media ownership when making recommendations.

In his written proposal Barnett said corporate culture determined cultural output, including drama and comedy programmes, and plurality issues go beyond politics and current affairs.

He told the inquiry BSkyB spent £1 million in legal fees last year trying to rebuff regulatory enquiries by broadcast regulator Ofcom, citing this as an example of unaccountable corporate power being used to generate greater control. He said that last year the company’s £6.6 billion revenue almost exceeded those of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 put together.

He recommended that the discretion for initiating an inquiry – of the kind ordered by Vince Cable and later Jeremy Hunt into the BSkyB bid – should be shared by minister and Ofcom, and that final decisions on mergers should not be left to politicians alone.

The inquiry also heard from Dr Damian Tambini of the London School of Economics, who recommended a press council jointly formed by owners and journalists, with public representation.

He told the inquiry: “Privacy violations provide a huge amount of resource. They provide front pages, which sell newspapers. No economist, as far as I know, has actually valued that, but if you have a self-regulating body [it] might have the value of keeping statutory regulation at bay.”

Lord Justice Leveson replied: "That might be the sole entire common interest of everybody [in the industry], keeping statues away.”

Stuart McIntosh and Steven Unger – from broadcast regulator Ofcom – appeared before Lord Justice Leveson to discuss a report giving advice to the culture secretary on media plurality.

The report, made public on the inquiry’s website last month, recommended the government consider how to strike the right balance between promoting plurality and encouraging economically sustainable news media organisations on the otherThe inquiry also heard from Philip Coppel QC – a barrister specialising in data protection and freedom of information law – gave evidence on the Data Protection Act in relation to the press. He told the inquiry the Act was often confusing to use in privacy cases.

“My experience is that whenever the Data Protection Act is raised in court, it doesn't get a very favourable reception because it is daunting to most. The concepts are unfamiliar and the way in which the Act is worded and structured doesn't help to that level of understanding, so one immediately is confronted which difficulties, which it's very often impossible to overcome."

Coppel said he had looked into raising fines for breaches of the Act in certain cases.

He said: “If something has a very wide dissemination of very sensitive personal information – let's say a person's medical reports were disseminated in a national newspaper. I find it difficult to see why that should be only modestly compensated. That, it seems to me, is a fundamental breach of what the Act is there to protect.

“In particular, sensitive personal data has been disseminated abroad, and the fact that the individual doesn't break out into boils or doesn't show some other physical manifestation of the nakedness of that individual's personal medical details being put in a public forum is, so far as I'm concerned, neither here nor there.”

The proposal, compiled after a series of round table discussions with lawyers, academics and journalists, calls for a ‘Media Standards Authority’ with a mediation arm to resolve small legal complaints against publications, before they reach the courts. Tomlinson said the body could also mediate disputes between newspapers and complainants in other cases.

He said: “Take a not atypical case, where a newspaper writes about a dead family member in a way which is extremely upsetting to the family, which is not actionable in law because the person who is being written about is dead, or there’s no cause of action.

“Even if there is a victim, if the victim chooses not to complain, the MSA should still consider it. Either it’s a breach of the code or it’s not. And people often don’t complain for all kinds of reasons.”

Tomlinson said it is important newspapers are able to demonstrate they are acting in the public interest.

He added: “It seems to me that once you get into the land of misleading implied claims, then that opens up a can of worms. It means that it can be really open season on anybody, because you can see by implication, by walking down the street with your wife, you are implying that you’re a faithful person, and therefore you’re life can be exposed by the newspapers if it’s not entirely in accordance with the expectations of the editor.”

The inquiry also heard from Lara Fielden from the Reuters Institute, who talked through her report on media regulation abroad, and said the UK could find ways to “weave independence” through a new regulator by learning from foreign systems.

She added: “There is an issue about convergence… what should our expectations be of content that’s out there? How is it that broadcasting is regulated by comprehensive statutory rules, whereas the press is subject to voluntary rules – online [has] barely any rules at all. Combined with influential bloggers, new media, a whole debate is going on there that simply doesn’t fit currently comfortably within the regulatory structures.”

Fielden advocated a system of kitemarking publications that fall under an approved regulator, to demonstrate commitment to the public.

She added: “[Citizens] may choose to access information and publications within the regulatory fold or they may choose to go outside. That’s their choice, but they need to know what’s there – and I would defy anybody currently to be able to go to a newsstand or go online and identify who is inside and outside the regulatory fold.

“Every time we invoke [Northern & Shell owner] Richard Desmond, we have a fear of who will sit outside, and it seems to me it’s already not just him who sits outside. There’s a whole multitude of online providers that will only grow in size that sit outside, and the public should be able to make informed choices about where they go.”

The CCMR proposal recommends publishers owning a 15 percent share of a given market should make sure journalists and editors have a voice in the organisation. It also wants companies to contribute to a trust funding public interest journalism by individuals or small start-ups.

His written statement read: “I think self-regulation could, and should, have worked. It did not. I have struggled to come to terms with the need for some kind of state involvement. In order to clean the house and to restore public confidence in our journalism, I reluctantly agree that parliament will need to provide enough power to a regulatory system to ensure that it has real teeth."

He said today a new regulator should have statutory underpinning but pointed out the state should not have involvement in the running of the body or the appointment of executives. He said a plan put forward by the Press Standards Board of Finance chairman Lord Black was a “bureaucratic spider’s web”.

He said: “[PressBoF have] obviously spent a huge amount of time trying to do this, but it stuck me that it’s a sort of bureaucratic spider’s web, and the spider is the industry still at the centre of the web, controlling everything, and it seemed that they still have far too much control in order to alleviate public disquiet that this is still an industry organisation in which [owners and editors] still have too many levels of influence.”

Greenslade said he was surprised when Lord Hunt – chairman of the Press Complaints Commission – agreed that the PCC was not a regulator.

He added: “I was consistently saying this was not a regulator and suddenly from July 2011 onwards everybody now seems to be agreeing with what I’ve been saying for 20 years.”

He told Lord Justice Leveson: “We have this chance to improve the standards and ethics of our profession, trade, craft, whatever you care to call it, and I think that we've had periodic bouts of bad behaviour and we need to devise a final system that for the moment, while we still have print, can actually stop the dominance and power of large organisations to make life incredibly miserable for other people.”

Statutory underpinning not state control, says former Number 10 advisor

Tim Suter, a former Downing Street advisor and Ofcom executive, has today warned against regarding the statutory underpinning of a new regulator as state control.

He told the inquiry: “Everybody has set up this dangerous notion that the state would dictate what the press could do, would dictate the standards by which the press had to operate and would form limits as to what was or was not acceptable. I see statutory underpinning as being further removed from that, as setting a framework within which the regulation happens, but where the regulation itself is carried out by independent bodies dealing directly with the press and the related entities.”

Suter – who heads advisory group Perspective – recommended the broadcast regulator act as a backstop for a future press body, and said publishers could be directly regulated by Ofcom if they chose not to join an independent system.

He added: “The reason for inserting the [Ofcom] content board’s role in there is to create an additional layer between those who are directly appointed by government and the regulatory bodies who are charged with regulating the press.

“What I do think will be helpful is for there to be a single framework within which all of the content that we as the public believe needs to be regulated, that that framework can encompass everything and can authorise the necessary regulatory bodies who will be able to carry that out in a way that is in response to the way that industry is developing, the way that audiences are consuming content, but that is still rooted in what the public believes should be delivered in terms of safeguarding our standards.”

Lord Justice Leveson also heard from barrister Sir Charles Gray on a proposal for an arbitration system for small libel and privacy disputes. Gray said his company – Early Resolution – could form part of a new regulator and would allow publications and complainants to resolve issues in a fast and cheap way rather than resorting to legal actions.

Gray said complaints could be dealt with in a day, by an experienced lawyer, and any hearings would be held in private.

He added: “You will achieve in a day with a competent silk what might take several days for a jury certainly, or even a judge who is less versed in these matters."

Gray – who told the inquiry a future regulator should be mandatory – said the arbitrator was no risk to press freedom as it would only cover problems arising after articles are published.

David Thomas, of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association, discussed how an independent ombudsman could fit into a future regulator to oversee decisions on complaints and standards. He told the inquiry the individual would be able to handle issues people are unable to take to court, or chose to divert from the legal system.

He said although the ombudsman would be independent from a regulator, a free flow of information on emerging industry issues would be important. Robert Jay QC, inquiry counsel, suggested that the public would automatically trust an ombudsman figure, if appointed.

Dr Martin Moore – also a founder of the Hacked Off campaign – gave evidence today following proposed plans from the Press Complaints Commission, the Press Board of Finance and the National Union of Journalists.

He said: “What we’ve tried to do this time, and I think others have as well, is to demonstrate that actually there is a significant spectrum which, if you put on the one hand statutory regulation and on the other hand voluntary self-regulation, there a significant number of possibilities in the middle, which are better than the existing system and don’t go nearly as far as statutory regulation.”

The Media Standards Trust proposal, called A Free and Accountable Media, sets out a plan for self-regulation, with large media organisations – defined under the Companies Act 2006 as having over 50 employees or annual £6.5 million revenue – having to exceed a set of criteria and be approved by independent auditor set up under law. Moore said submissions from Lord Black of PressBoF and PCC chairman Lord Hunt were “insufficiently different” to the current regulatory system.

He added: “I think it’s insufficiently independent. I think it’s insufficiently robust. And I think the incentives that have been proposed are regressive and potentially in some cases dangerous for journalism.

“We talked to lawyers about the use of commercial contracts, most of them felt that the contracts were, in these circumstances, not really suitable and would necessarily need to be crowbarred into being used.”

The proposed system obliges large news organisations to join an independent self-regulatory organisation, that ensures the system works by establishing a backstop independent auditor recognised in statute, introduces basic internal complaints mechanisms and transparent compliance mechanisms within large news organisations, and protects free speech by imposing no regulatory obligations on anyone but large news organisations. It also recommends a public interest defence in law to protect investigative journalism and support self-regulation.

Moore said it was important large organisations set up internal compliance and complaints mechanisms and joining an external self-regulatory system. The auditor – or Backstop Independent Auditor – would then oversee organisations to ensure standards are upheld, with powers to sanction and fine. He said the public needed an independent body that accepts, resolves and offers redress for complaints.

He added: “We wanted to provide a system and an environment, an ecology, where actually one could see this lasting for 10, 15, 20, 30 years because it would be flexible enough to allow for other self-regulatory organisations in the future.”

Asked by inquiry counsel Robert Jay QC why the proposal excluded smaller organisations, Moore said the main purpose of regulation is to deal with “disparities in power” and individuals were more able to deal with smaller news outlets when making complaints about accuracy.

He said: “The problem, particularly in the case of phone-hacking, as we’ve seen, is that because not only was there no regulation, but there was the impression that there was regulation, some of these practices did become routine and institutionalised and it got to the stage where the police were and are going into newsrooms and arresting journalists and taking material - and part of the purpose of regulation is to prevent that happening.

“In that sense it is to protect journalism and to protect journalists from the strong arm of the law. Regulation and particularly regulatory codes ought to be both consistent with and supplementary to the law and part of the purpose of a regulator would be not only to make journalists extremely clear of the code and of law.”

He added: “I think we have to recognize that not only is there precedent in other industries, there is a precedent in the press, and we are working from the basis of experience of 60 years looking at what has and what has not been effective.”

You can read more on the Media Standards Trust proposal here. The report, co-authored by Dr Moore and Dr Gordon Ramsay, was written in consultation with an advisory group consisting of chair Anthony Salz (Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, formerly Vice Chairman of the BBC Governors), Professor Steven Barnett (University of Westminster, formerly specialist adviser to the House of Lords select committee on Communications), Martin Dickson (Deputy Editor, Financial Times), Carolyn Fairbairn (formerly director of strategy at the BBC and ITV), Richard Hooper (founding deputy chairman of Ofcom and the first chairman of Ofcom’s Content Board), Professor Stewart Purvis (City University, formerly Chief Executive and Editor-in-Chief of ITN, President of EuroNews, and Ofcom Partner for Content and Standards) and David Yelland (partner at Brunswick Group LLP, formerly editor of The Sun).

Submissions and evidence to the Leveson Inquiry from the Media Standards Trust can be found here.

Michelle Stanistreet – NUJ general secretary – told the Leveson Inquiry proposals by Press Complaints Commission chairman Lord Hunt and Lord Black, of the Press Board of Finance, would only maintain the status quo.

She said: “It seems to us that this is nothing more than an attempt by the vested interests of the owners and editors, to have a continuation of the status quo and obviously it’s in their interest that that would be the outcome of this inquiry, but it would be a monumental waste of a golden opportunity for change and a waste of everybody’s time here.”

The general secretary said the proposals amounted to “nothing but more of the same”. A joint statement prepared by Stanistreet and Professor Chris Frost, of Liverpool John Moores University, criticised the “industry-fostered” structure of the PCC for leading to the body’s failure.

Frost told the inquiry: “Lord Hunt in his evidence said editors set the standards and they’re leaders. I have to say they’ve not shown a very good lead over the last few years and that’s partly because they’ve been able to bully our members into doing what they see as commercially appropriate rather than what they see as good journalism.”

The NUJ proposal calls for a statutory underpinning. Stanistreet told the inquiry the union believed it was wrong for publishers to be able to opt in or out of regulation and compulsory membership would be the only way to achieve change.

She added: “We heard yesterday from Lord Black if we see any form of statutory involvement, whether its underpinning or regulation, that members of the industry would up sticks and leave the country and set up elsewhere, so in terms of relying on their goodwill to be part of a new process, if it’s a voluntary process, I would have doubts... making it a compulsory process seems to me the only sensible, pragmatic way forward.”

She later told the judge: “You’ve made it very clear that you have no intention of doing anything akin to the jeopardy of putting press freedom in peril, and that doesn’t have to be the choice before us.”

Frost said several methods – including assessing circulation, turnover and VAT registration – could be used to decide which organisations should fall under the body, allowing smaller organisations to carry the kitemark of the system.

On complaints, he said: “[They] could come from individuals, they could come from groups, but those should be entertained by the new body to look at how they line up against the code and practice that I was talking about so they could say ‘Well, good practice in these types of stories would be...’ and the PCC does do a little bit of that, although not as much lately as it has done in the past.”

It’s an argument you can’t actually disprove, but it’s also weak and speculative. The underlying implication is that politicians inevitably tend to want control of the press, but where is the evidence for that? The history of the past 60 years shows that parliament and governments have stubbornly resisted engaging with press regulation, even at moments when they and the public have been outrageously provoked.The Media Standards Trust proposals for reform include a useful account of that history that is worth reading in full, but here is a brief summary:1949: The first Royal Commission on the Press told the industry to set up a self-regulatory General Council of the Press. The industry did nothing.1953: After MPs threatened statutory regulation the industry finally created the Press Council, but it was a far weaker body than the Royal Commission suggested.1962: A second Royal Commission gave the industry another chance to make self-regulation effective. Some changes followed, but the Press Council continued to be seen ‘more as a champion of the press than as a watchdog for the public’.1969: The Younger Committee on Privacy recommended reform of the Press Council. The industry took four years to act and then implemented only some changes.1977: The third Royal Commission demanded change and threatened a statutory solution if it did not come. Again, only a grudging minimum of changes were made.1983: The independent Robertson Report on the Press Council recommended major changes. None were made.1990: The Calcutt Committee on Privacy gave the industry ‘one last chance’, demanding the replacement of the Press Council with a Press Complaints Commission and setting a time limit for action. The industry set up the PCC, but it was far weaker than Calcutt intended, indeed in many ways weaker than the Press Council.1993: The Calcutt Review declared the PCC a failure, said the industry had no intention of regulating itself properly and recommended establishing a statutory Press Complaints Tribunal. Instead, the PCC was allowed to continue.

It is a picture, not of relentless meddling with the press by politicians, but of astonishing reluctance to meddle with the press. And it continues. The past decade has seen the Commons media select committee, for example, repeatedly decline every opportunity to propose even the most minimal statutory intervention.

And if there isn’t much historical evidence of politicians being desperate to gag the press, there isn’t much current evidence either. Every current party leader has stressed the paramount importance of freedom of expression and so – many times – has Lord Justice Leveson; indeed no significant politician or group of politicians has argued for constraints on free expression. And it may be relevant that parliament is currently debating a defamation bill that extends the freedom of the press rather than constricts it.

The history, by contrast, supports the second interpretation of the plans put forward by the editors and proprietors: that they just want to keep control.

From 1949 to today, control of regulation has clearly been central to their concerns and whatever has happened they have been determined to avoid accountability to outsiders, notably the public. That’s what self-regulation means.

And even when the systems have looked impressive, as Lord Black’s and Lord Hunt’s ideas may seem to some today, they have been less so in practice. And the press has always used its megaphone in the effort to drown debate. The PCC was criticised from the outset but as recently as 2009 the editors and proprietors not only defended it but insisted there were no grounds for the criticism.Their submission to the Commons media committee in that year declared defiantly: "The PCC and self regulation work well, and it is difficult to discern any grounds for its fundamental tenets to be questioned."

That was after the McCann affair, and even after the conviction of the phone hackers Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire. Against that background in 2009 the editors and proprietors found the PCC perfectly satisfactory.

Have we seen evidence in recent months of a transformation in their attitudes sufficient to convince us that they really mean to be rigorous in future? Have editors trailed before Leveson saying they were sorry and they got it all wrong? No. They have been, for the most part, chippy and defiant.

Lord Black is appealing to our instinct to say "I just don’t trust politicians". But do we trust the editors and proprietors of the national papers any more? Look at their record.

As we shall see over the next fortnight it is not beyond the wit of man to contrive a system that makes the press accountable to the public and is grounded in statute, without handing government the power to dictate what the press can publish. The judge himself has pointed out that we have independent judges, and their arrangements are fixed by statute.

Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and is a founder of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart

Jillian Brady told the Leveson Inquiry today the individual, unnamed during the hearing, had admitted passing information to picture agency Big Pictures after denying the allegation. The scandal was first reported in the Guardian in April, and later industry publication Press Gazette. Both are said to have received legal threats from the agency since publishing articles on the matter.

The company confirmed on April 5 the data – including flight details of actress Sienna Miller and footballer Ashley Cole – must have come from internal data and reported it to the Information Commissioner. The Guardian story was published the same day.

The employee was interviewed again on April 16 and confirmed she had written the emails to Big Pictures, having already resigned. Brady said the employee had deleted all the emails sent from her account and closed it down. Big Pictures have not responded to Virgin Atlantic on the matter.

In a written statement, Big Pictures UK chief executive Nigel Regan said: “l am asked to give a full account of what occurred, and to answer a number of specific questions regarding the allegations made in The Guardian articles. For legal reasons I am not in a position to answer these.”

Guardian reporter Josh Halliday, who wrote the initial story, submitted emails from his source to the inquiry but refused to name the individual forwarding the information.

One email sent to the Virgin employee said: "Just trying to sort you out some money with accounts".

Lord Justice Leveson said the case was an important example of how an organisation separate from the press industry deals with leaking allegations. Brady said the company had investigated a team of people to find evidence to back up the claims.

In May, Cable told the inquiry he heard from colleagues “veiled threats” had been made against the party if he made the wrong decision from News Corp’s perspective.

He added: “I think somebody used the phrase ‘done over’ in the News International press, and I took those things seriously, I was very concerned.”

The inquiry was shown a handwritten note made by Lamb days after the October 27 meeting, in which he referred to the meeting as “extraordinary”.

It read: “0900 meeting Fred Michel News International. An extraordinary encounter. FM is very charming. He tells me News Int papers will land on VC's desk in next 2 weeks. They are certain there are no grounds for referral. They realise the political pressures. He wants things to run smoothly. They have been supportive of coalition. But if it goes the wrong way he is worried about the implications.

“It was brazen. VC refers case to Ofcom – they turn nasty. Then he talked about AV – how Sun might help the debate – use of good graphics to get across case. James M has met Nick – worth working on him to he could be receptive to case. Times will give it fair hearing.

“So refer case and implication was clear. News Int turn against coalition and AV.”

He added: “I left that meeting with a very clear understanding that they had tried to be helpful in the period since the election through their newspapers, but that if things went the wrong way in terms of the actions that Vince Cable took exercising his responsibility then he was concerned that things could change, and I took that to mean very clearly that the positive coverage that they had – he said they had given might change.”

Lamb said he discussed the conversation with Nick Clegg on November 2, 2010, and said in another note made at the time the deputy prime minister had been “horrified” that the party would lose News International support.

Lamb said he found Michel – News Corp’s director of public affairs for Europe – “charming” during the first meeting on June 10 but had no recollection of the matters discussed, admitting the BSkyB bid may have been raised. The meeting took place five days before News Corp officially announced the intention to acquire the remaining BSkyB shares.

Michel told the inquiry in May he was only aware the bid would be launched the day before the official announcement, but was aware it was the intention of News Corp to acquire the remaining shares.

He added: “I think my role was to represent, as best as I could, our arguments for why this bid was strong – had a strong case, and to make representations across all political parties as much as I could.”

Asked by Robert Jay QC, inquiry counsel, why he had waited to come forward with the story, Lamb said he had decided to give evidence after Vince Cable’s appearance at the inquiry. He said he had only just found the handwritten note after texting his wife, asking her to look through his papers.

Rhodri Davies QC, representing News International, said Michel stood by his position he made no threats to any politicians over the bid. Lord Justice Leveson said the lobbyist could reply to the allegations in writing.

Earlier today, Nick Clegg’s special adviser Tim Colbourne denied offering strategic advice to News Corporation over the BSkyB bid.

Colbourne contradicted an email sent to James Murdoch by Michel on December 2, 2010. The lobbyist told colleagues Colbourne had insisted on the need for the company to meet with Vince Cable once the Ofcom report on the bid was published, and had said it was important to have the support of the Labour Party.

He told the inquiry: “I have to say I have no particular insight into the thoughts and workings of the Labour Party on this and most other matters. But in this case I suspect that a passing reference has been overinterpreted and exaggerated, and Mr Michel’s record doesn’t reflect the conversation which took place.”

The special adviser said an email from Michel in November 2010, asking for a meeting, had come “out of the blue” but was not surprised the lobbyist wanted to talk to him about the bid. He said he would not have agreed to the meeting if he knew the bid would be on the agenda, and initially the pair had talked about the Digital Economy Act.

Michel followed up the December meeting with an email five days later, telling Colbourne: “Don’t hesitate to let me know if there is anything I can do to help Nick in the coming weeks. We should keep in contact regularly going forward.”

Colbourne added: “For the record I don’t think it is the role of special advisers to insist that ministers should meet with people they are not inclined to meet.”

“I personally think the level of advice and guidance which is given to special advisers is minimum, that a lot could be done to improve it. I recall that when I was employed I was given a copy of the code of conduct together with my contract but there was no more detailed guidance.”

In his written statement, the presenter said the relationship between Downing Street, the government, public bodies and the media had become more “stage managed” and called for an independent regulator to replace the PCC.

He said: “The regulator needs to be proactive, it needs to be prepared to say, ‘Oi’ when they see some indiscretion going on, or some foul play... I think it should be about maintaining standards as much as anything else, and integrity, and if, for example, there has been some glaring failure, it would be interesting to know why.

“What is so shameful about being wrong? We are all human beings. Let’s admit it. There is nothing exceptional about an editor. Editors are human beings, they can apologise.”

He told the inquiry setting out recommendations for a new regulator would be a “terrible challenge” but said newspapers were better for regulation.

The inquiry also heard from Mail on Sunday political editor Simon Walters, who said the relationship between News International and the government got “much too close”.

He said the newspaper group had been treated to privileged information when New Labour were in government and claimed Downing Street would pick up the phone and “dictate an article in certain News International journals” in return for support over issues including the Iraq war.

He defended his own contact with politicians, saying it was important to gather information from individuals, including politicians and officials. He said the Mail on Sunday had the balance “about right” when it came to reporting on the private lives of politicians in the paper.

Political journalists and editors also gave evidence today - it is the last week of module three, where Leveson is examining the relationship between the press and politicians.Peter Riddell, formerly of the Times, said the tension between journalists and politicians was inherent but was dangerous when mutual dependence is too great.

He told the inquiry he had never seen a formal deal between political parties and proprietors but admitted politicians would be well aware of the views of Rupert Murdoch and other newspaper owners.

He added: “The idea of a formal deal I never observed, anyway. What I observed was slightly jarring - it was more social praising rather than anything specific.”

He went on to say editor and proprietors should treat the relationship more professionally and be more distant. He advocated the “Private Eye test” – meaning any contact between politicians and journalists could be easily defended if details were published in the satirical magazine.

On regulation, he added: “It is a competitive environment, young reporters want to get their stories in the paper, it is hard to get political stories in the paper compared with a few years ago, so the story is too good to check. It is that kind of culture, that is why I say it is very much how news operations are run, what political editors do, leading teams, that would make a change rather than specific rules. I am just sceptical about what the rules will actually do.”Andrew Grice, the political editor of the Independent, said he knew several backbench MPs who were reluctant to become ministers because of the threat of press intrusion into their private lives and those of family members.

He added: “I don’t regard myself as part of some cosy club at Westminster where we all have fun and the media are, so to speak, in it together with the politicians. Our job is to shine a light on some of the decisions that politicians don’t always want to talk about.”

He told the inquiry the industry accepted that things needed to change, following the exposure of unethical and illegal press practice, and said journalists are “ready to embrace those changes”.Philip Webster, editor of the Times Online and former political editor of the paper, recommended newspapers provide an audit trail to back up the public interest of publishing stories involving subterfuge or other controversial techniques.

He argued that a public interest defence written into law would benefit journalists carrying out legitimate investigations but was challenged by Lord Justice Leveson, who said newspapers would be able to construct defences on paper for “more trivial” exposes.

He told the inquiry he had helped organise News International receptions for politicians and those in the media, often with "high quality champagne and late-night bacon sandwiches” but denied certain individuals had been blacklisted and prevented from attending.

The judge opened the morning hearing with a statement on a Mail on Sunday article, published last week, which claimed he had made an “angry” phone call to the cabinet secretary over comments made by education secretary Michael Gove on the “chilling effect” of the inquiry.

Leveson said: “It is absolutely correct that the press should be able to hold this inquiry, in general, and me, in particular to account... [but it is] arguable that what’s has happened is an example of an approach which seeks to convert any attempt to question the conduct of the press as an attack on free speech. For my part I will not be deterred from seeking to fulfill the terms of reference that gave been set for me.”

Gove criticised the inquiry during a speech to the House of Commons Press Gallery in February. Leveson said he had phoned the cabinet secretary after David Cameron appeared to support Gove’s comments the following day.

The judge added: “It seemed to me at the time (as, indeed, the Daily Mail of 18 June has now sought to suggest by saying that the Prime Minister was ‘defending’ Mr Gove) that the Prime Minister’s response was open to the interpretation that he was, indeed, agreeing with Mr Gove’s views. I also recognised that it was open to the interpretation that the Prime Minister was not saying that free speech was being chilled but only that ‘we do not want to see it chilled’. "Of greater concern to me was the question whether what he had said was or had become the Government’s position in relation not just to the effects of the Inquiry, intended or otherwise, but also that that there was a danger that I (as a judge) had an interest in taking over as arbiter of what a free press should be, imposing either soft or hard regulation and that it was sufficient vigorously to uphold the laws and principles that are already in place while encouraging ‘the maximum of freedom of expression’. “He said an open letter from Hacked Off - sent to Cameron to seek assurances over that the government was Government was still “fully committed to the inquiry and its validity and need” - had been drawn to his attention by a core participant.

He added: “I recognised that the Prime Minister had said that it was right to set up the Inquiry, but I wanted to find out whether Mr Gove was speaking for the Government, whether it was thought that the very existence of the Inquiry was having a chilling effect on healthy vibrant journalism and whether the Government had effectively reached a settled view on any potential recommendations. Put shortly, I was concerned about the perception that the Inquiry was being undermined while it was taking place."

He said the education secretary had been called to give evidence before the February speech but it was also important he had the chance to say more on his views to the inquiry in person.

He said finally: “I understand only too well the natural anxieties of editors, journalists and others of the dangers of a knee-jerk response to the events of last July. Whilst I continue to state my belief in a free press at every possible opportunity (and not a single witness has sought to suggest that healthy and vibrant journalism is not essential to our society) I also understand that on every day of the Inquiry, every exchange I have with a witness will be analysed and considered in order to reveal a hidden agenda. There is none.

“No recommendations have been formulated or written; no conclusions have yet been reached. Testing propositions is not any equivalent to the expression of views concluded or otherwise."

Lord Justice Leveson’s comments can be read in full here.

On Monday morning, the inquiry heard from former prime minister Gordon Brown, who denied giving the Sun permission to run a story on his son’s medical condition. He said the NHS Fife board had sent him a letter of apology, explaining it was highly likely medical details about his son Fraser’s cystic fibrosis were leaked to the press by a member of staff.

Brown – who told the inquiry he had tried to keep his children out of the public eye – contradicted evidence given to the inquiry by Rebekah Brooks, who said she had sought permission from the Brown family before publishing the story. The newspaper had claimed the story came from the father of a fellow patient. He said:“I find it sad that even now in 2012 member so the News International staff are coming to this inquiry and maintain this fiction that a story that could only have been achieved or obtained through medical information or through me and my wife leaking it, which we never did of course, was obtained in another way. If any mother or any father was presented with a choice as to whether a four month old son’s medical condition, our child’s medical condition, should be broadcast on the front page of a tabloid newspaper and you had a choice in this matter, I don’t think there’s any parent in the land would have made the choice that we are told we made, to give explicit permission for that to happen.”

Asked why his wife Sarah had continued a friendship with Brooks after the incident, Brown called her “one of the most forgiving people I know”. The inquiry previously heard Sarah Brown wrote Brooks a series of personal letters between 2006 and 2011. Brown denied he had “declared war” on Rupert Murdoch and said an alleged telephone call with the proprietor, following the Sun’s withdrawal of support for Labour in 2009, never took place.

Robert Jay QC, inquiry counsel, questioned the former prime minister on the alleged Murdoch phone call. Brown denied the call had ever taken place, saying he had spoken to the proprietor on November 10, 2009, about the war in Afghanistan. The conversation was followed up with an email and three letters. Brown said he was“shocked and surprised” the inquiry heard from Murdoch, and other witnesses including former Cabinet minister Lord Mandelson, that a conversation about the Sun switching support from Labour to the Conservative Party had taken place. Murdoch told the inquiry in April that Brown had said: “Well, your company has declared war on my government and we have no alternative but to make war on your company.”

Brown admitted he had a good relationship with Murdoch but said the idea he was influenced by his views while in office was “frankly ridiculous”. He added: “I think the similar background [we shared] made it interesting because I think I understood where many of his views came from. And I do also that he’s been a very successful businessman.”

Brown told the inquiry he instructed his political advisers – including Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride – to follow strict rules and denied asking them to brief against senior ministers, including John Major, Tony Blair and former Chancellor Alistair Darling. He said any claims his staff gave anonymous briefings to the media were without his knowledge or sanction. Last month, former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell told the inquiry there had been a “real problem” with Whelan, Brown’s Treasury adviser. McBride was forced to resign in 2009 after it was revealed he sent a series of email smears about Conservative ministers. He added:“I can say to you that it is absolutely clear nobody in my position would have instructed any briefing against a senior minister, and Alistair Darling was a friend of mine as well as a senior colleague.”

During the afternoon hearing the inquiry heard from George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said a cabinet secretary suggested Jeremy Hunt take over the handling of News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB. Hunt was given oversight of the bid in December 2010 after business secretary Vince Cable was secretly recorded saying he had “declared war” on Rupert Murdoch.

Osborne was present at an afternoon meeting with Number 10 on the day the comments were made public, and told the inquiry today it was decided in under an hour that Hunt should replace Cable in the quasi-judicial role following a suggestion from permanent secretary Jeremy Heywood.

He said it had been Heywood’s idea to pass responsibility from Cable to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Osborne sent a text message to Hunt, who had been in contact over Cable’s comments, shortly after the meeting saying: “I hope you like the solution!”He dismissed a conspiracy theory that Hunt was allowed to handle the bid in News Corporation’s favour after Jay QC suggested the politicians present at the meeting were of the “same community of opinion” that News Corp should be allowed to buy up the remaining BSkyB shares in an £8 billion deal. He said:“You have to be a real fantasist to believe that come these events, we had knowingly allowed Vince Cable to be secretly recorded, we knowingly allowed the Telegraph not to publish that information, that information then emerges in the middle of the afternoon and we then – all part of this cunning plan – put Mr Hunt in charge. It doesn’t stack up. We were following procedure, process, and I think Mr Hunt followed procedure and process as Secretary of State.”

Osborne told the inquiry today he thought the bid was a “political inconvenience” and assumed from speaking to David Cameron that the Prime Minister had the same view. He said Cable’s comments were wrong but did not merit his resignation or a Cabinet reshuffle. He added:“It was pretty clear that there were a lot of people out there who were not going to be happy with the deal went through, and equally News International wouldn’t be happy if the bid didn’t go through, but there was nothing they could do or would want to do or should do to influence that process.”

Osborne denied his special adviser Rupert Harrison had lobbied the business department in November 2010, when Cable was still in charge of the bid, after contact with News Corp’s Frederic Michel. Adam Smith, adviser to Hunt, resigned last month over excessive contact with Michel before and after the culture secretary took over the role.

Michel sent Harrison a text message asking the chancellor to send Cable a letter on the proposed merger and its economic importance. Osborne was also asked about the appointment of former News of the World editor Andy Coulson as director of communications for Number 10. The pair met in March 2007 to discuss the job. Osborne told the inquiry:“What we were interested in hiring is someone who was going to do the job going forward. We thought he had the experience and the personality to do that.”

He said he knew hiring Coulson would be controversial and asked the former editor about phone hacking, before calling News International Rebekah Brooks for her professional opinion.

Osborne denied Coulson’s appointment was to obtain contacts or ensure the support of the Sun before the 2010 general election. Coulson was asked last month whether he had underplayed allegations printed in the Sunday Mirror and the News of the World in 2005 that Osborne had taken drugs with dominatrix Natalie Rowe in the 1990s. The former editor told the inquiry:“‘Top Tory, coke and the hooker’ I don’t think in any way can be described as career enhancing for George Osborne and the idea that we some way or other went easy on him I think it ridiculous when you look at the paper.”

On Tuesday morning former conservative prime minister Sir John Major told the inquiry Rupert Murdoch asked him to change European policy during a private dinner. He alleged he was asked by the proprietor to reconsider the government’s position on Europe, or News International papers would not back the party in the 1997 general election. He told the inquiry he had not spoken about the dinner with Murdoch, Elisabeth Murdoch and his wife Norma, in 15 years but had chosen to reveal the conversation under oath.

Sir John Major – who said he was not an admirer of the proprietor’s activities – contradicted evidence given to the inquiry by Murdoch, who said in April he had “never asked a prime minister for anything”.

Major said:“As I recall, he used the word ‘we’ when referring to his newspapers. He didn’t make the usual nod towards editorial independence. It is not very often someone sits in front of a prime minister and says to a prime minister, ‘I would like you to change your policy, my organisation cannot support you’….it’s not often that point is directly put to a prime minister in that fashion, so it’s not likely to have been something I would have forgotten.”

Major admitted he had been too sensitive to media coverage during his time in office and said he had a more hostile relationship with the press than predecessor Margaret Thatcher, who was admired for turning the convictions and prejudices of proprietors“into political flesh”.He described a number of personal intrusions by the media into his family, telling the inquiry a journalist had repeatedly followed his son on a motorbike, and someone claiming to be from a hospital had contacted his office in order to find out whether his son’s girlfriend was pregnant. He said his wife had called then Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie after reporters accessed the family’s holiday home to take pictures. The editor allegedly hung up on her after saying “you have no right to privacy”. Major said he had called MacKenzie in 1992 – following Black Wednesday – but did not recall the same conversation as the editor, who told the inquiry he had said: “I’ve got a bucket of shit on my desk, prime minister, and I’m going to pour it all over you”.

Major told the inquiry a distinction should be drawn between the “good, the bad and the ugly” in the press and urged Lord Justice Leveson to protect quality journalism. He added:“I think if what they put in their papers is grotesque, then I think there is a balance between the freedom of the press to print what they like and the liberty of the individual to be protected from things that are untrue, unfair or malicious.”

During the afternoon hearing, Labour leader Ed Miliband said News International has“too much” control of Britain’s newspaper market and the “arrogance” of Rupert Murdoch’s company came from its 34 percent market share. He asked Lord Justice Leveson to consider a limit on cross-media ownership and said it had been included in the inquiry’s terms of reference during discussions with David Cameron and Nick Clegg. He said:“I don’t believe that one person should continue to control 37 percent, or it’s now 34 percent post the Sun on Sunday, 34 percent of the newspaper market. My strong instinct is that’s too much and, I would like to see the inquiry looking at the question of whether we should have lower limits. There’s a question of about where these limits should be set. I should say we should have no worries of someone owning up to 20 percent of the newspaper market. I think there is then a question of between 20 percent to 30 percent where you should set a limit. That’s where I’m coming from. I think it’s good for our democracy to have plurality in the market.”

Miliband said there was a huge responsibility on politicians to make sure the inquiry’s recommendations for press reform were enacted and promised the judge he would seek to work with other ministers on a cross-party basis.

The opposition leader admitted he had been too slow to act on allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World, calling it a “failure of the establishment”. He added:“The failure to get to grips with this earlier was a failure on the part of the police who failed to adequately investigate it, and politicians who, with a few exceptions, failed to challenge early enough what was happening.”

Miliband first called for a public inquiry into the scandal on July 5, and told the inquiry he knew he was “crossing a Rubicon” because it would be seen by News International as an act of war. He also called for chief executive Rebekah Brooks to consider her position. Earlier that year, Tom Baldwin – the party’s director of communications – had written to Labour MPs dissuading them from linking News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB with phone hacking.

Miliband said he should have raised phone hacking with Rupert Murdoch at the June 2011 News International summer party. Records showed the he had 15 contacts with the company from September 2010 – when appointed leader of the opposition – until July 2011 but only one since the hacking scandal broke.

He said he spoke to James Murdoch on March 3, 2011 about the BSkyB bid but described it a courtesy call. He took a phone call with Brooks in December 2010 following the removal of business secretary Vince Cable from overseeing the bid.

Jay QC asked whether Miliband was aware Ed Balls, Charlie Whelan or Damian McBride had briefed against Tony Blair when prime minister. Miliband said he had raised concerns with Brown about McBride’s activities in 2009 and Whelan was well-known for briefing, but had no knowledge on Balls.

The inquiry also heard from Harriet Harman MP, who said she had been meeting editors to discuss regulation, said a “moment of opportunity” had arrived and current proposals for a reformed regulator were not good enough. She added:“I think that we could have a firm cross-party consensus where actually, if the front benches agree, then [the press] don’t need to face a slippery slope because we can give assurances that we would back up what went forward and stop it getting out of shape.”

Miliband said he was unsure PCC chairman Lord Hunt’s proposal for a reformed commission was independent enough from the industry, and said a future body would have to be accessible to ordinary members of the public.

On Wednesday morning the inquiry heard from deputy prime minister Nick Clegg MP, who said enough opportunities have been given to a “pure judge and jury self-regulation method” to prove itself. Clegg said he believed steps needed to be taken to protect freedom of speech, but also to ensure against the abuse of power in the press. He said:“We’ve given enough opportunities to that pure judge and jury self-regulation method to prove itself and each time it seems to have come a cropper.”

Clegg suggested in his witness statement the press need to have a regulator genuinely free from the interference of editors, proprietors and politicians. He reminded the inquiry of the treatment given by newspapers to the Dowler family and Chris Jefferies, who was wrongly accused of the murder of Joanna Yeates. He said:“It’s outrageous that innocent people who haven’t asked to be put forward in the public eye at all are destroyed like that.”

In his written statement, he suggested a new regulator should not only be independent from government and media, it should also have the power to initiate investigations and impose meaningful sanctions, liberate journalism in the public interest, and be open to complaints from individuals and third parties.

Referring to the “Desmond problem”, Clegg told Lord Justice Leveson he had not yet heard anyone make a persuasive case that you can have independent regulation with teeth and full participation of all parts that doesn’t involve some sort of statutory backing. He said:“It’s bad for politics, it’s bad for Parliament, for democracy, it’s bad for the press, it’s offensive and distressing to public to let things carry on as they are.”

During his evidence, Clegg denied having ever discussed the BSkyB bid with News Corp lobbyist Fred Michel. He explained they had met socially and formally on a number of occasions when Clegg was in opposition. His children went to the same school as Clegg’s children, in Putney.

He said he asked questions about the timing of the process, and was open-minded on how process evolved, but sceptical about dangers of concentration of power in hands of News Corp. He wrote:“On several occasions while in government, senior executives and editors have raised their objection and opposition to the BSkyB bid. On these occasions I listened to their concerns but explained that this was a matter for the Secretary of State and had to be dealt with in accordance with his statutory obligations.”

In relation to Vince Cable’s sting by the Telegraph, Clegg said he heard about it at the same time as David Cameron, and thought he should hear from Cable first. He said: “I recognised, and that was partly why I was quite frustrated, that it made it impossible for him to carry on being responsible for the decision.”

Clegg said he sought assurances on the appointment of Jeremy Hunt to oversee the quasi-judicial process. He said:“I remember asking questions of Gus O’Donnell… if I could be sure the bid would be dealt with objectively and appropriately by Mr Hunt.”

On the current process to decide issues of plurality, Clegg said:“What is flawed at the moment is that the instruments available to us are quite imprecise. They’re poorly defined. They’re subject to a huge amount of interpretation. Notably, in this case, the plurality test. If you read in the Enterprise Act how the public interest and plurality are defined, you can run a coach and horses through it.”

Clegg was asked about some of his meetings with the Murdochs and senior newspaper executives. A list of the meetings is available on the Leveson Inquiry website. He joked at the inquiry about being sat at the end of the table “where children sit” at a dinner with Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch.

He also said he was never in “anyone’s pocket”, and that before General Elections there was indifference at best and derision at worst by the press towards the Liberal Democrats. When asked whether he believed a “chilling effect” was emanating from the inquiry and its possible outcome, Clegg said that was an important question. He said:“There’s been a slight mawkish quality to some of the more breathless predictions that somehow the press is under the cosh.”Alex Salmond MSP gave evidence during the afternoon hearing, and told the inquiry he asked the Scottish Sun to back the Scottish National Party and backed the BSkyB bid “as it benefited the Scottish economy”. The Scottish first minister said:“I believe that my bank account was accessed by the Observer newspaper some time ago, in 1999 and my reason for believing that is I was informed by a former Observer journalist, who gave me a fairly exact account of what was in my bank account that could only be known to somebody who had seen it. For example, I had bought some toys for my then at that time young nieces in a toy shop in Linlithgow high street which was called Fun and Games, and the person who informed me told me that this caused great anticipation and hope in the Observer investigation unit because they believed that perhaps Fun and Games was more than a conventional toy shop. And enormous disappointment when it turned out to be just a toy shop. I have to say that on the high street, it seemed to me unlikely that it would be anything else, but anyway, the point I’m making is the person concerned had detail which could only have been known by somebody who had full access to my bank account at that stage.”On Thursday, the inquiry heard from prime minister David Cameron. He praised Lord Hunt’s proposals for a new PCC, but thought they should be “rigorously tested” to define whether they can deliver. He had to explain his closeness to Rebekah Brooks, and what steps he took in 2007 to ensure Andy Coulson had had no involvement in phone hacking, before hiring him. He told Lord Justice Leveson newspapers were currently trying to respond to the failure of self-regulation through the work that Lord Hunt was doing with the Press Complaints Commission. He said:“I’ve looked carefully at what David Hunt is suggesting. I think he has some very good ideas there. I think they have to be rigorously tested as to whether they can deliver independence, penalties, compulsion, toughness, public confidence and all the rest of it.”

Cameron said he did not want to commit himself “too deeply”, despite the fact that he would never forget the meeting with the Dowler family in Downing Street to run through the terms of the inquiry with them and hear what they had been through, “and how it had redoubled, trebled the pain and agony they’d been through over losing Milly”. He said:“I think as we go at this, we have to understand the real concern there is about statutory regulation. That doesn’t mean you rule it out, but it means try and make everything that can be independent work before you reach for that lever.”

Lord Justice Leveson reminded the Prime Minister that Robert Jay, inquiry counsel, was not suggesting any form of statutory regulation. He said:“I think what Mr Jay is really getting to is not suggesting any form of statutory regulation, but perhaps a system whereby what was required was described by a statute which similarly provided the same constitutional independence for the press that section 3(1) of the Constitution Reform Act provides the judiciary, and if I occasionally peddle that particular provision it’s because it was an idea I had some months ago. … Which provides the structure onto which a system that is entirely independent of government, of politicians and carries with it perhaps not serving editors but those who have got the experience of the industry as well as independent members would satisfy the criteria which we’ve been discussing.”

Cameron went through an embarrassing moment when Jay QC read out a text message sent by Rebekah Brooks days before his party conference speech, on October 7, 2009. The text read:“But seriously I do understand the issue with the Times. Let’s discuss over country supper soon. On the party it was because I had asked a number of NI people to Manchester post endorsement and they were disappointed not to see you. But as always Sam was wonderful — (and I thought it was OE’s that were charm personified!) I am so rooting for you tomorrow not just as a proud friend but because professionally we’re definitely in this together! Speech of your life? Yes he Cam!”

The prime minister explained the issue with the Times was that he had not attended the Times party at party conference, and had apologised for it. He said:“I think that is about the Sun had made this decision to back the Conservatives, to part company with Labour, and so the Sun wanted to make sure it was helping the Conservative Party put its best foot forward with the policies we were announcing, the speech I was going to make and all the rest of it, and I think that’s what that means.”

He added:“I think what [professionally] means is that we were, as she put it, we were friends, but professionally, we as leader of the Conservative Party and her in newspapers, we were going to be pushing the same political agenda.”

He explained the “country supper” invitation was probably due to the fact they were neighbours in Oxfordshire.

Following the evidence given by News Corp lobbyist Fred Michel, Jeremy Hunt’s special adviser Adam Smith, the secretary of state himself, Vince Cable, George Osborne andNick Clegg, it was Cameron’s time to explain his views in relation to the BSkyB takeover bid. He said:“My view about this and about all these sorts of things is in a free market enterprise economy, you should allow mergers, takeovers, acquisitions to go ahead unless there is a public interest in them not going ahead, so I could quite understand why News Corporation would want to make this acquisition, but there are important processes that had to go through. Competition processes, plurality processes, and the rest of it, so that was my view. It was very important that that happened.”

He explained how the decision to replace Vince Cable after the Telegraph sting was made and explained why it was made in less than 24 hours.

Cameron had a series of meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister, his Chief of Staff, other members of staff, including the Permanent Secretary at Number 10 Downing Street, Jeremy Heywood, “because obviously Vince Cable could not continue adjudicating this bid”. He said Jeremy Heywood came up with the idea of moving the process over to DCMS and Jeremy Hunt, and he thought it was the “neatest and most straightforward way of dealing with this issue”.

Cameron was probed about which steps he had taken to ensure Andy Coulson had not been directly involved in phone hacking in relation to the Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman trial, and that there was no evidence the practice was widespread.

He said Coulson was the best candidate for the job, because of his tabloid background, and because running the news flow when someone is running a political party is “very fast, it’s very furious, and you need someone seriously good at handling it”, so that to him was one of the key qualifications.

On what assurances he had sought on Coulson’s involvement in phone hacking, he said:“My recollection is that I raised the issue of phone hacking and sought the assurance in the face-to-face meeting we had in my office. That’s my recollection. I vaguely remember the further telephone call, but that’s — I’ve obviously racked my brains to try and remember exactly the sequencing, but my recollection is that I knew it was very important that I needed to ask him that question, and therefore did so, as it says in my evidence.”

At one point, Jay QC asked if Cameron had been made aware of the New York Times piece on hacking, from December 1, 2010, which made direct accusations at Andy Coulson. He said:“I can’t remember the exact sequence of events that day, but yes, I was made aware of it, and I think the key point is that Andy Coulson directly denied and a statement was put out on his behalf by Number 10 Downing Street about this accusation.”

Cameron explained near the time of his resignation, in 2011, Coulson knew it was time to go, because that was what happened when “the spokesman needs a spokesman”.The witnesses giving evidence to the inquiry next week are Peter Riddell, Andy Grice, Phil Webster, Jon Snow, Simon Walters, John Lloyd, Tim Colbourne, Giles Crown, Norman Lamb MP, David Mellor, Jillian Brady.

Strong stuff, you may think, putting the inquiry in its place. But if you took the trouble to rummage around in the Times website you might have found your way to this page. And if you went to Table 9 on that page you found something curious.

The Times didn’t just ask Populus to put those three propositions to respondents. There was a fourth proposition and it was this:The Leveson Inquiry will lead to more effective regulation of the press offering better protection to members of the public against unwarranted intrusion into their private lives.

And 59 per cent of people, a comfortable majority, agreed with that statement, while 27 per cent disagreed.

Though the Times asked the question and got a pretty clear answer – a big vote of confidence in the Leveson inquiry, you might say – the paper chose not to report this. Instead of getting the whole picture, in fact, Times readers were shown just that part of the picture that cast the Leveson inquiry in a bad light.

And it doesn’t end there, because the survey seems to have been loaded from the start.

It is a cliche of polling that if you phrase the question right you can greatly increase your chance of getting the answer you want. Ask people if ageing, useless, tree-hugging adulterer Prince Charles is a fit person to be king and they may well say no, but ask them if witty devoted father Prince Charles deserves to inherit after all these years of loyal patience and they are more likely to say yes.

Now look at two of the propositions put to people by the Times about Leveson:The Leveson Inquiry has lost its way as a procession of politicians, journalists and celebrities have simply tried to defend themselves against one another's allegations.The Leveson Inquiry has received too much coverage in the media given how many other issues of more direct importance there are to report on at the moment.

If the Times has phrased those two propositions as follows, would it have received different responses?

Evidence to the Leveson Inquiry from politicians, editors and newspaper proprietors has shown that their relationships generally serve their own interests rather than the public interest. Do you agree or disagree?The press has reported what it wanted the public to hear about the Leveson Inquiry, rather than giving a balanced view. Do you agree or disagree?Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and tweets at @BrianCathcart

Brian Cathcart is a founder of Hacked Off and teaches journalism at Kingston University London. He tweets at @BrianCathcart

Lord Justice Leveson reminded the Prime Minister that Robert Jay, inquiry counsel, was not suggesting any form of statutory regulation [exchange here, from page 54].

He said: I think what Mr Jay is really getting to is not suggesting any form of statutory regulation, but perhaps a system whereby what was required was described by a statute which similarly provided the same constitutional independence for the press that section 3(1) of the Constitution Reform Act provides the judiciary, and if I occasionally peddle that particular provision it's because it was an idea I had some months ago.

He added: “Which provides the structure onto which a system that is entirely independent of government, of politicians and carries with it perhaps not serving editors but those who have got the experience of the industry as well as independent members would satisfy the criteria which we've been discussing.”

Invitation from Rebekah Brooks for ‘country supper’

Cameron went through an embarrassing moment when Jay read out a text message sent by Rebekah Brooks days before his party conference speech, on October 7, 2009.

The text read: "But seriously I do understand the issue with the Times. Let's discuss over country supper soon. On the party it was because I had asked a number of NI people to Manchester post endorsement and they were disappointed not to see you. But as always Sam was wonderful -- (and I thought it was OE's that were charm personified!) I am so rooting for you tomorrow not just as a proud friend but because professionally we're definitely in this together! Speech of your life? Yes he Cam!"

The Prime Minister explained the issue with the Times was that he had not attended the Times party at party conference, and had apologised for it.

He said: “I think that is about the Sun had made this decision to back the Conservatives, to part company with Labour, and so the Sun wanted to make sure it was helping the Conservative Party put its best foot forward with the policies we were announcing, the speech I was going to make and all the rest of it, and I think that's what that means.”

He added: “I think what it means (professionally) is that we were, as she put it, we were friends, but professionally, we as leader of the Conservative Party and her in newspapers, we were going to be pushing the same political agenda.”

He explained the “country supper” invitation was probably due to the fact they were neighbours in Oxfordshire.

The Conservatives and the BSkyb bidFollowing the evidence given by News Corp lobbyist Fed Michel, Jeremy Hunt’s special adviser Adam Smith, the secretary of state himself, Vince Cable, George Osborne and Nick Clegg, it was Cameron’s time to explain his views in relation to the BSkyB takeover bid.

He said: “My view about this and about all these sorts of things is in a free market enterprise economy, you should allow mergers, takeovers, acquisitions to go ahead unless there is a public interest in them not going ahead, so I could quite understand why News Corporation would want to make this acquisition, but there are important processes that had to go through.

“Competition processes, plurality processes, and the rest of it, so that was my view. It was very important that that happened.”

He explained how the decision to replace Vince Cable after the Telegraph sting was made and explained why it was made in less than 24 hours.

Cameron had a series of meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister, his Chief of Staff, other members of staff, including the Permanent Secretary at Number 10 Downing Street, Jeremy Heywood, “because obviously Vince Cable could not continue adjudicating this bid”.

He said Jeremy Heywood came up with the idea of moving the process over to DCMS and Jeremy Hunt, and he thought it was the “neatest and most straightforward way of dealing with this issue”.Hiring of Andy Coulson as director of communications

The Prime Minister was probed about which steps he had taken to ensure Andy Coulson had not been directly involved in phone hacking in relation to the Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman trial, and that there was no evidence the practice was widespread.

He said Coulson was the best candidate for the job, because of his tabloid background, and because running the news flow when someone is running a political party is “very fast, it's very furious, and you need someone seriously good at handling it”, so that to him was one of the key qualifications.

On what assurances he had sought on Coulson’s involvement in phone hacking, he said: “My recollection is that I raised the issue of phone hacking and sought the assurance in the face-to-face meeting we had in my office. That's my recollection.

“I vaguely remember the further telephone call, but that's -- I've obviously racked my brains to try and remember exactly the sequencing, but my recollection is that I knew it was very important that I needed to ask him that question, and therefore did so, as it says in my evidence.”

At one point, Jay asked if Cameron had been made aware of the New York Times piece on hacking, from December 1, 2010, which made direct accusations at Andy Coulson.

He said: “I can't remember the exact sequence of events that day, but yes, I was made aware of it, and I think the key point is that Andy Coulson directly denied and a statement was put out on his behalf by Number 10 Downing Street about this accusation.”

Cameron explained near the time of his resignation, in 2011, Coulson knew it was time to go, because that was what happened when “the spokesman needs a spokesman”.

Clegg suggested in his witness statement the press need to have a regulator genuinely free from the interference of editors, proprietors and politicians.

He reminded the inquiry of the atrocious treatment given by newspapers to the Dowler family and Chris Jefferies, who was wrongly accused of being architect Joanna Yeates’ murderer.

He said: “It's outrageous that innocent people who haven't asked to be put forward in the public eye at all are destroyed like that.”

In his written witness statement (paragraph 86), he suggested a new regulator should not only be independent from government and media, it should also have the power to initiate investigations and impose meaningful sanctions, liberate journalism in the public interest, and be open to complaints from individuals and third parties.

Referring to the “Desmond problem” (Richard Desmond, owner of Express and Star newspapers, who pulled out of the PCC), Clegg told Lord Justice Leveson he had not yet heard anyone make a persuasive case that you can have independent regulation with teeth and full participation of all parts that doesn’t involve some sort of statutory backing.

He said: “It’s bad for politics, it’s bad for Parliament, for democracy, it’s bad for the press, it’s offensive and distressing to public to let things carry on as they are.”

BSkyB bid issues show process needs to change

During his evidence, Clegg denied having ever discussed the BSkyB bid with News Corp lobbyist Fred Michel.

He explained they had met socially and formally on a number of occasions when Clegg was in opposition. His children went to the same school as Clegg’s children, in Putney.

He said he asked questions about the timing of the process, and was open-minded on how process evolved, but sceptical about dangers of concentration of power in hands of News Corp.

He wrote: “On several occasions while in government, senior executives and editors have raised their objection and opposition to the BSkyB bid. On these occasions I listened to their concerns but explained that this was a matter for the Secretary of State and had to be dealt with in accordance with his statutory obligations.”

In relation to Vince Cable’s sting by the Telegraph (when he told two undercover reporters he would wage war on Murdoch, while overseeing the BSkyB bid), Clegg said he heard about it practically at the same time as David Cameron, and thought he should hear from Cable first.

He said: “I recognised, and that was partly why I was quite frustrated, that it made it impossible for him to carry on being responsible for the decision.”

Clegg said he sought assurances on the appointment of Jeremy Hunt to oversee the quasi-judicial process.

He said: “I remember asking questions of Gus O'Donnell... if I could be sure the bid would be dealt with objectively and appropriately by Mr Hunt.”

On the current process to decide issues of plurality, Clegg said: “What is flawed at the moment is that the instruments available to us are quite imprecise. They’re poorly defined. They’re subject to a huge amount of interpretation. Notably, in this case, the plurality test. If you read in the Enterprise Act how the public interest and plurality are defined, you can run a coach and horses through it.”

Clegg was asked about some of his meetings with the Murdochs and senior newspaper executives.

A list of the meetings is available on the Leveson Inquiry website.

He joked at the inquiry about being sat at the end of the table “where children sit” at a dinner with Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch.

He also said he was never in “anyone’s pocket”, and that before General Elections there was indifference at best and derision at worst by the press towards the Lib Dems.

When asked whether he believed a “chilling effect” was emanating from the inquiry and its possible outcome, Clegg said that was an important question.

He said, however, “there's been a slight mawkish quality to some of the more breathless predictions that somehow the press is under the cosh.”