James Murdoch hearing - live-blog

Instant coverage and analysis as the MPs question the News International chairman about phone-hackin

*** Press refresh or F5 to update the page ***

13.37: And on that note, the inquiry is over. Thanks for joining us.

13.32: Why were Mulcaire's legal costs paid, asks Farrelly? Murdoch replies that his understanding is that legally, if he was acting on the company's behalf, then it was their responsibility to pay his legal costs. Farrelly presses the point of how unpalatable it is to be paying the legal fees of the man who hacked Milly Dowler's phone.

13.27: Back to Paul Farrelly for a final question on Glenn Mulcaire. He asks whether Murdoch was involved in anyway with the rumoured £1m payment to Max Clifford. Murdoch says he was not directly involved with this settlement. Farrelly points out that Clifford, too, is not a member of the royal family and repeats his line about the elder Murdoch: "I've got this Australian voice rattling around in my head..."

13.23: Murdoch tells Therese Coffey that the people who are allowed to make cash payments has been seriously restricted.

13.17: Bit of a digression here, as Steve Rotheram asks about the Hillsborough case. "Is it in the public interest to tell lies?" he says. Murdoch apologises for the coverage. Rotheram asks whether the Sun will be closed too if it is found that there was phone-hacking there. Murdoch says he can't "prejudge" what the corporate response would be but nothing is ruled out. This is the first time a News International executive has said that they could close other papers.

13.13: It gets personal. Watson says that a former NI employee claimed Rebekah Brooks had a "pathological dislike" for him (Watson). He reads out comments Brooks allegedly made to Tony Blair, calling on the then PM to reign the backbencher in: "he's mad". Watson asks if Murdoch knows about this. Murdoch is awkward, and says he had very little to do with the former prime minister.

Watson says that "the diktat went out" to staff to "dig up as much dirt as you can" on the culture committee. Murdoch says he had no knowledge of this.

13.09: Watson gets Murdoch to check with his counsel whether they knew about computer hacking in cases that were settled. After a pause, Murdoch says "they'd like to come back to you".

13.06: Whittingdale (the chair) turns back to Watson, given Mensch's line of questioning. Murdoch accepts that the use of surveillance of public figures was too widespread, in answer to Watson, who has listed the names of private investigators who worked for NI. He says that new guidelines at News International ban the use of private investigators without approval from the chief executive.

13.02: Mensch suggests it would have been better for News International to give a full disclosure rather than allow the damaging drip drip drip of revelations. Murdoch says that in future, the company will be "transparent and appropriate as possible".

12.58: She's asking about the surveillance of lawyers of plaintiffs. He says that it is "unacceptable" behaviour that he would "never condone" and that he was shocked to find it out. "The whole affair is just not acceptable, and not on," Murdoch says. On the surveillance of committee members (including Tom Watson), Murdoch apologises and says that although there is sometimes cause to trail public figures in investigative journalism, in this case it was unjustifiable.

12.53: Louise Mensch takes over, saying that she will have to leave as soon as she's finished asking questions so that she can collect her children from school. She asks how many other News International titles have been hacking phones, "to your knowledge". Murdoch looks unsettled. He says he can't speculate, but that they are taking it very seriously.

She's following up on accounts of people being hacked on American soil. He says he has no knowledge of this. "You're coming up blank," she says.

12.50: "Do you think you have handled this competently?" Murdoch pauses, and then says that he behaved reasonably given the information that he had. He says that he "shares" responsibility for the fact that the company took a long time to see the issue as legitimate criticism rather than simply attacks, and he will make sure this doesn't happen again.

Farrelly presses the issue, asking whether Murdoch's failure to ask screamingly obvious questions makes him incompetent. "No, it does not," says Murdoch, adding that he would not characterise it that way.

12.48: The complete contradiction between Myler/Crone's testimony and Murdoch's is being spelt out. Farrelly says that if they are telling the truth, Murdoch is lying, and vice versa. Murdoch replies by questioning the reliability of their testimony, saying it is full of supposition.

12.41: Farrelly says that Murdoch was "possibly the only person in London" to still believe that the hacking was the fault of one rogue reporter.

12.35: Farrelly is going over the same ground: why didn't Murdoch ask any further questions about what else Glenn Mulcaire was doing. He points out that Gordon Taylor was not royal -- and the "rogue reporter" narrative pinned the blame on Clive Goodman, the royal reporter. Would Rupert Murdoch not have asked how much more Mulcaire was going to cost? "I couldn't possibily speculate".

"It's remarkably incurious," he says. "Are you always so incurious?" All the MPs have made it clear they disbelieve Murdoch's account that he didn't know the extent of what was going on, but he is not budging. It is unlikely he will. The implication is that if he is not lying, he was recklessly hands off.

12.27: Paul Farrelly asks whether Murdoch will give Colin Myler (former NOTW editor) access to relevant documents so that he can "refresh his memory" as to whether a meeting took place. Murdoch evades the question, saying that he can show them his calendar, which has no reference to a meeting on that day. He pointedly refuses to say that he will grant Myler access to these documents, instead saying he will review News International procedures around that request.

12.22: The Guardian has a transcript of Watson's show-stopping revelation that he had spoken with Thurlbeck. Watson said:

Thurlbeck: I looked at it (the Neville email), no Tom, I never received it, I don't know. I'm looking at it and saying that surely somebody must have asked X to do this, X was asked to do so many of these by the newsdesk at the time.

So Tom comes to me and I tell him I had nothing to do with it. He tells me that it's gone through X in the office, so clearly News International are culpable, and I'm going to have to show this to James Murdoch.

He said is there any way we can get round this? And he says to me, Nev, I'm sorry I've got to show him this. I said Tom, I'm going to lose my job; he said not necessarily.

This is not some vague memory, I was absolutely on a knife edge. Tom took it to him. The following week I said "did you show him the email?" He said "yes I did". Now he can't remember whether he showed it to Mr Murdoch or not. He said "it's alright, it's fine, it's settled.

12.18: This is a clever line of questioning. Davies says that if, as Murdoch says, it was a culture where the top dogs basically ignored small parts of the business, then why would Crone have a strict ceiling on the level of payment he was allowed to authorise? (he couldn't authorise payments of more than £10,000). Murdoch responds:

The situation that we had here is one where a description was given very clearly by senior legal counsel that this case would be lost. There was an amount of money that was substantial, you are absolutely right. The way the company has always operated is to rely on executives responsible for a corner of the business to do what they need to do.

12.15: Davies says he can't even begin to believe that any self-respecting chief executive would fail to ask questions about such a substantial payment. He says he struggles to understand such a "cavalier" approach to money.

12.08: Philip Davies has taken over. "You seem more vague this time round than you were the first time round," he says, referring to Murdoch's repeated assertions that he does not recall exact details, etc. He continues to ask about the Taylor settlement.

He focuses on the advice given by Michael Silverleaf QC, which suggested the existence of evidence of a widespread culture of phone-hacking. Murdoch maintains that all he knew was what Silverleaf said about how much Taylor should receive in damages.

12.04: The general consensus is that Tom Watson has stolen the show. He has been building up to this moment. My colleague Jon Bernstein interviewed Watson in September, and discussed his questioning technique:

His probing was pithy and carefully sequenced, with the occasional leading question thrown in like a hand grenade. One lawyer suggested that all young barristers should be made to watch the exchange as part of their education.

Watson, who is now 44, puts the success of the session down, in part, to "massive preparation . . . For two years, I have been reading and absorbing this stuff. Then I worked for three days solid before we went in."

The other part, he says, was to work out what lay at the heart of the controversy. Once he had established that - "It's about the institutional culture at News International; this is about leadership" - he knew that Rupert, not James, should be his focus. Watson worked out how to order his questions. "At that point, I phoned up as many of my friends who are lawyers to say, 'This is how I want to do this - how would I lead it to this?'"

12.00: Murdoch continues to blame Myler and Crone, saying that he believed their advice on the Taylor case because he had "no reason at the time to believe they had anything other than the newspaper's best interests at heart". Collins is pushing the point though: why didn't Murdoch ask more questions when he was signing away half a million pounds? This is important: the real reason they settled is that going to court would have revealed evidence of wide-spread phone-hacking.

11.55: The Conservative MP Damian Collins has taken over, and there are none of Watson's theatrics. He is returning to the issue of exactly how much Murdoch knew when he agreed to the £425,000 out of court settlement for Gordon Taylor.

Murdoch reiterates his case: he was told it was "open and shut" that News International will lose the case. He saw evidence that Taylor's phone had been hacked, but not that anyone else's was.

11.50: Watson is enjoying this. "Are you familiar with the word mafia, Mr Murdoch?" He follows up: "Are you familiar with the word 'omerta', the culture of silence around the mafia? Do you accept that applies to the Murdoch empire?" Murdoch says he does not, and that this is an offensive statement.

Watson has his moment: "You must be the first mafia boss in history not to know he was running a criminal enterprise." Murdoch: "Mr Watson, please. That's inappropriate."

11.43: Watson says that since Murdoch will not answer his questions, he says that he will reveal that he met with Neville Thurlbeck. The meeting was supposed to be in confidence but he feels there is a public interest in sharing it. Thurlbeck recounts a conversation with Tom Crone where Crone said he was going to show the "for Neville" email to Murdoch.

Watson reads out a transcript of a conversation between Thurlbeck and Crone. Thurlbeck: "'Is there any way we can get round this?" Crone: "Nev, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to show him this, because it's the only reason we have to settle."

Murdoch is clearly rattled, but responds as calmly as he can to this attack, saying that he would like to see the transcript and couldn't comment on whether Thurlbeck's recollection is accurate.

According to Watson, Thurlbeck said: "This is not some vague memory. He was going to show this to James Murdoch."

11.39: Watson is incredulous at Murdoch's continued denial that he knew anything about the evidence of wide-spread phone-hacking.

Are you seriously asking me to believe that there was no mention of the 'for Neville' email, despite this being central to your discussions with Myler and Crone and in Crone's opinion, fatal to your case?

11.36: He is not wavering from his story: he did not see, and was not shown, any evidence that wide-spread phone-hacking existed. "Certain individuals" were aware of what was going on back in 2008, but "none of those things" were relayed to him. Murdoch suggests he was given a "narrower set of facts than I might have liked" because he would have said to "cut out the cancer" and get rid of anyone suspected of wrong-doing.

11.29: Watson: "Did you mislead this committee?" Murdoch: "No, I didn't". Watson: "If you didn't, then who did?"

Murdoch says that Myler (the News of the World's former editor) and Crone's (the paper's lawyer) testimony was "misleading, and I dispute it". Watson asks whether the Farrer's lawyer misled them. Murdoch stumbles, and says that he doesn't have reason to believe that.

11.26: Murdoch remains in control and calm -- he hasn't referred to his notes. He is riled though: "No, I don't accept that, Mr Watson". Watson continues to focus on how much Murdoch knew about the Taylor case, and alleges that Murdoch made an "unprecented payment to Taylor to buy his silence".

11.22: Labour MP and star of this inquiry, Tom Watson, is now questioning Murdoch. He is asking about the legal advice given by law firm Farrers, and an internal memo which said that the evidence unearthed in the Gordon Taylor settlement could be "fatal to our case". Murdoch continues to claim ignorance, saying that he knew this legal advice existed but not what it said.

He's sticking to his story that he was new to the News of the World, thought that phone-hacking was in the past, and paid Taylor without asking any questions.

11.21: Echoing his last appearance, Murdoch says that the News of the World was one small part of a global company, and that is why he did not know all the details.

11.18: Murdoch says "If I'd known then what I know today, the company would have acted differently." He's referring -- again -- to the "for Neville" email, which indicated that phone-hacking went beyond one rogue reporter (Goodman), as the newspaper had claimed.

11.16: Murdoch says that the company "pushed back too hard" on the Guardian's initial reports. Earlier, he said that their mistake was assuming attacks were politically or commercially motivated.

11.13: Adrian Sanders asks whether Murdoch has had time to consider the meaning of "wilful blindness" since his last appearance. "At no point so I think the company suffered from wilful blindness," says Murdoch. Since he has consistently been unaware of details, says Sanders, does this mean information was kept from him? He says the information held by the Metropolitan police "was not made clear to me". He essentially blames Colin Myler for not making the full story clear to him:

Senior management rely on executives to behave in a certain way. We have to rely on those executives, otherwise it's impossible to manage every single detail in a company of this scale.

11.10: Sheridan asks whether he is "humbled" by the affair, as Rupert Murdoch said he was. "I think the whole company is humbled," says Murdoch.

11.08: Jim Sheridan is asking him about the aftermath of the Clive Goodman case and what he was told. Murdoch said he did not see counsel opinion that phone-hacking was more widespread. He says that Les Hinton did not discuss the Goodman settlement with him when Murdoch became chairman: "It was some time before I had joined...the arrests were well over a year, a year and a half before."

11.04: As predicted, the questions have kicked off with how much Murdoch knew about the "for Neville" email. After his last appearance, Tom Crone and Colin Myler disputed his claim that he had no knowledge of this email (Sky News has a good summary of the claims that have been made so far).

Murdoch says that the suspicion of wider evidence of hacking was not discussed in May 2008 meetings with Crone and Myler, despite the settlement to Gordon Taylor. He concedes that he was told about the "for Neville" email but sticks to his line: he wasn't told that it showed wider evidence of hacking.

10.59: Here's the full list of the 10 members of the cross-party culture, media and sport select committee that will question Murdoch:

Thérèse Coffey (Conservative)
Damian Collins (Conservative)
Philip Davies (Conservative)
Paul Farrelly (Labour)
Alan Keen (Labour Co-operative)
Louise Mensch (Conservative)
Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat)
Jim Sheridan (Labour)
Tom Watson (Labour)
Steve Rotheram (Labour)

10.52am: Welcome to the live-blog. Stay with this page for up-to-the-minute coverage of James Murdoch's appearance in front of the culture select committee.

Since Murdoch was last questioned by MPs, back in July, a string of further allegations have surfaced. The number of potential phone-hacking victims has more than doubled from 2,000 to 5,800, and it has emerged that in addition to phone-hacking, the News of the World ordered covert surveillance of Prince William and more than 100 others.

The testimony he gave in July has been questioned by others at the News of the World -- in particular expect MPs to ask about the so-called "for Neville email" which would prove how much he knew when he signed off a 2008 out-of-court payment to footballers' union leader Gordon Taylor.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Anoosh Chakelian
Show Hide image

“We need an anti-Conservative force”: Nick Clegg wants to work with Labour after the election

On the campaign trail in Sheffield Hallam, the former Deputy Prime Minister talks about how to challenge Brexit and the “Boudicca” Theresa May.

It’s pouring with rain and Nick Clegg has forgotten his coat. “It was so nice this morning,” he groans, looking doubtfully down at his outfit – a navy v-neck, pale shirt, rumpled blue blazer and dark trousers with some dried dirt splattered on the ankles. Yesterday evening, he and his team of activists had decamped to a pub after the rain became too heavy for doorknocking.

We are taking shelter in the Lib Dem campaign office in Sheffield (this interview took place before the Manchester attack). Teetering towers of envelopes and flyers, rubber bands and canvass papers enclose a handful of volunteers sipping tea and eating mini flapjacks. Giant diamond-shaped orange placards – “Liberal Democrats Winning Here” – are stacked against every spare bit of wall.

Clegg has represented Sheffield Hallam, a largely affluent and residential constituency on the west edge of the south Yorkshire city, for 12 years. It has stayed with him throughout his “Cleggmania” popularity as Lib Dem leader in opposition and his difficult days as Deputy Prime Minister in coalition with the Tories. Now he hopes to win it over as a vocal anti-Brexit champion.

After a relentless campaign by the local Labour party in a bid to “decapitate” the Lib Dems in 2015, Clegg’s majority fell from 15,284 to 2,353. He is hoping Labour is unable to further chip away at his support this time round.

“I’m confident but I’m not complacent,” he tells me, nursing a cup of tea as we wait to go canvassing. He believes voters who punished him last time – for going into government with the Conservatives, and breaking his tuition fees pledge – are changing heart.

“I was a target with a great big cross on me,” he says, tracing across himself with his finger. “I personally always think it was this odd cartoon caricature both made of me but also of how people view me... People stop listening to what you have to say – I distinctly was aware at one point when I literally could’ve said ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ and it would’ve made no difference. Whereas now, people are very keen to listen again.

“Those who were critical in the past now take a more nuanced view, perhaps, than they did of what I’ve tried to do in politics, and feel I have a role to play in the big debate on Brexit.”

“I was a target with a great big cross on me”

Even when he’s not raging against Brexit, Clegg exudes Proud European. He uses a Norwegian weather app – “they’ve invented something better than the BBC one!” – on his phone (which appears to have failed him today), and keeps stifling yawns because he was up until 2am reading a Hungarian novel called Portraits of a Marriage. “I really recommend it. It’s by Sándor Márai,” he tells me, eagerly spelling out his name. “Of course, I’m reading it in translation.”

Although Sheffield Hallam voted Remain as a constituency (calculated at about 65 per cent), Clegg is still having trouble with his anti-Brexit message among voters. “It’s a very British attitude,” he smiles. “Lots of people who voted Remain sort of say, ‘oh, come on’. The phrase I keep hearing is: ‘We’d better make the best of it.’”

We encounter this attitude when out doorknocking in Lodge Moor, Fullwood, on the rural edge of the constituency. The streets we visit are inhabited by elderly couples and families in detached bungalows with low, steep rooves and immaculate driveways, and rows of whitewashed semi-detached houses.

One father opens the door, as his young son drags an overzealous yellow labrador away from the threshold. He is an occupational therapist and his wife is a teacher. They also have a child with special needs. Although “Brexit’s a bit of a stress”, he says his family’s priorities are education and the NHS. “I haven’t made my mind up who to vote for,” he tells Clegg. “I do know that I won’t be voting Conservative, but I want to vote for an independent.”

“I’m very keen on staying in Europe but I can’t see a way around it,” says a retired man with fine white hair in a scarlet jumper who lives on the road opposite. Clegg counters: “It may all be too late, it may all be hopeless, but I wouldn’t underestimate how public opinion may shift.” The man will vote Lib Dem, but sees battling Brexit as futile.

“Labour’s days as a party of national government have ended”

“The frustrating thing for us, as Lib Dems” – Clegg tells me – “is I would lay a fairly big wager that it will be precisely those people who will then say in a year or two’s time that this Brexit’s an absolute nonsense,” though he does admit it’s “politically tough” for his party to make Brexit central to its campaign.

“It would be much better if you were leader,” the retired man’s wife chips in, pulling on a blue cardigan as she joins them at the doorway. “Tim [Farron] – he’s a nice man, but he’s not quite the same.”

Clegg as an individual gets a lot of love at almost every doorstep. “You should come to Knit and Natter,” beams one woman involved in the local church. “You don’t have to knit – as long as you can natter!”

When I ask whether he feels nostalgic for Cleggmania, Clegg says he does not “hanker after past glories”. He does, however, miss being in government – and compares Theresa May’s current persona with the woman he knew and worked with in cabinet.

“She has been converted from what I found to be a rather conventional, not wildly exceptional politician by the sort of hysterical sycophancy of the Daily Mail and others into this colossal political figure, this sort of Boudicca,” he splutters. “I’m sure she would say this about herself – she has very little peripheral vision. She’s not an innovative politician. She’s not a big picture politician.”

Although Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has ruled out coalition deals with May’s Conservatives and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, Clegg urges his party to work with Labour following the election. “The Labour party is still operating under this illusion that it can win an election – it can’t!” he cries. “It’s irrelevant who’s leader. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Jeremy Corbyn or David Miliband – there is no way that the Labour party can beat the Conservatives under this electoral system . . . It’s impossible.”

“I am self-evidently a pluralist – why else would I go into coalition?”

He believes that because the “pendulum of politics” is stuck on the right that “we can’t continue with business-as-usual after 8 June”.

“If we all just carry on talking to ourselves in our own rabbit hutches, all that will happen is we will carry on with this dreary, soulless, almost perpetual one-party domination by the Conservatives,” he warns. “The dam needs to break within the Labour party, and the moment they understand that they can never win again – that their days as a party of national government have ended – can you start thinking about how to mount a proper challenge to Conservative hegemony.”

Clegg clearly wants an active role in future cooperation. “I am self-evidently a pluralist – why else would I go into coalition?” he asks. “I’ll always be happy to play my part in doing what I think is right, which is that we need a proper anti-Conservative force or forces in British politics.”

Labour’s campaign in Sheffield Hallam is not spooking local Lib Dems as much as in 2015, when it was polling ahead of them in the build-up to the election. Concerns about Corbyn’s leadership and Labour’s vote in favour of Article 50 appear to have dented its once surging support here.

“I’m voting Lib Dem,” declares a middle-aged man in big aviator-framed glasses and a silver chain, opening the door and looking distinctly unimpressed. “But not because it’s you.”

“Ah,” grins Clegg.

“I’m voting Lib Dem because I don’t want Labour in. I don’t want anybody in at the moment; I don’t like anybody’s politics,” he rumbles. “But it made me cringe when I heard Corbyn speak. Because he’s got the giant-sized ripe-flavoured carrots out, and people don’t realise they’ve got to pay for them.”

Clegg will be relying on such voters to keep his seat. But even if he doesn’t win, don’t expect him to disappear from political life until the Brexit negotiations have well and truly concluded. “It would be a dereliction of duty to the country to fall in line with the conspiracy of silence on the terms of Brexit both Labour and the Conservatives are trying to smother this election campaign with,” he says. “It’s the question of the day.”

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496