This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/14/leveson-inquiry-alastair-campbell-live

The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 12 Version 13
Leveson inquiry: Alastair Campbell, Lord O'Donnell - live Leveson inquiry: Alastair Campbell, Lord O'Donnell appear
(40 minutes later)
5.47pm: A small splinter group calling itself the "Anon A-Team" has claimed responsibility for an attack which took the Leveson inquiry website offline for several hours during Alastair Campbell's testimony, reports the Guardian's James Ball. 9.52am: Welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog.
In a statement on a Tumblr blog, the group said it had launched the attack as the inquiry was a "farce", due to its reporting to Jeremy Hunt: Today Alastair Campbell, former director of communications and strategy for Tony Blair, gives evidence for a second time.
"The Leveson inquiry has become a farce, with the Lord Justice Leveson reporting to a member of cabinet Jeremy Hunt who has already been identified as having engaged in Malfeasance in Office via fraudulent release of data to Newscorp (Rubicon). In November, Campbell typically pulled no punches at the inquiry, describing a "frankly putrid" press with some sections "barely worth defending". His targets included Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and his former employer the Daily Mirror, which he accused of hiring private eyes to investigate him and Peter Mandelson.
"Instead of Jeremy Hunt appearing before a criminal court we have a show trial along with the minister and his boss, Prime Minister David Cameron also exposed as having engaged in Malfeasance in Office." He is expected to be similarly forthright today as he is questioned about his relationship with journalists as Tony Blair's press chief and his role in persuading Rupert Murdoch's Sun to back Labour at the 1997 general election.
The full statement can be read here. Also giving evidence is Lord O'Donnell, who as Sir Gus O'Donnell was cabinet secretary for three prime ministers from 2005 to 2011.
The group's Twitter accounts have a few hundred followers – against about 270,000 for the most established one – and is not regarded as one of the "usual" channels for operations by longstanding members of Anonymous. In No 10, O'Donnell was responsible for ensuring ministers' advisers had the correct security clearance, and he is likely to be asked why former News of the World editor Andy Coulson was only given mid-level SC clearance and whether he had access to top secret papers.
Elsewhere, bloggers have suggested the site was attacked through a security weakness in its setup. The Leveson inquiry uses a free blogging platform known as WordPress, which can be vulnerable to attack if not kept to date, or if default passwords are not modified. O'Donnell is also expected to be asked whether he persuaded Gordon Brown not to set up a phone-hacking inquiry before the last general election.
5.41pm: JK Rowling has written to the inquiry raising a number of what she describes as "factual inaccuracies" from the evidence of Darryn Lyons, founder of the paparazzi agency Big Pictures. Please note that comments have been switched off for legal reasons.
In her second witness statement, Rowling takes issue with a number of points made by Lyons in his appearance before the inquiry on 9 February. 9.56am: Here's how the Guardian's Stephen Bates described Campbell's evidence before the Leveson inquiry in November:
The Harry Potter author has also instructed her solicitors to write to Big Pictures so that she be placed on their "no shoot" list. He was determined to have his day in court and, for three hours, he had it entirely on his own terms, to settle scores and disdain his former trade. "I have a very, very thick skin," he told the inquiry, demonstrating perhaps the opposite. "I frankly have reached the point where I genuinely don't care what the papers say about me at all. I have never sued a paper … most of the bile, I couldn't give a damn."
5.30pm: The Leveson inquiry has published a batch of witness statements from core participants, including JK Rowling and the Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre. The press was relentlessly negative, its agendas swamped its news-gathering, its journalists invented quotes and made up stories: "This is routine, this is endemic. The attitude is, 'How do we turn this to fit what we think of the world?' If the public knew the truth about the way certain sections of the media operate, it would be absolutely horrified."
5.11pm: Alastair Campbell's second witness statement has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website. Campbell produced a 55-page witness statement, detailing some of the horrors, but a draft had already been leaked on the web. "I think British journalism is the best in the world and the worst in the world, sometimes in the same edition. I do defend a free press, but this press is barely worth defending."
5.05pm: Lord O'Donnell's witness statement has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website, which seems to be back up. He turned his ire especially on Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail. This was Campbell in St Sebastian mode, assailed by lies and smears by a newspaper constructed entirely in its editor's image. The Mail had only printed a correction after it reported his father had died, when he was demonstrably still alive.
4.59pm: A spokesman for the Leveson inquiry says it is looking into reports its website has been taken offline. You can read the full article here.
4.56pm: Campbell has now completed his evidence. 10.04am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
4.53pm: Campbell says he fears that many politicians, including Michael Gove, hope the Leveson inquiry will go away. NewsInt going to make opening statement to Leveson this am, big legal guns present, so expect something interesting..
4.50pm: Campbell says new press regulator will end up with a "redefinition of what a journalist is" in relation to tweeting, blogging and broadcasting.
"The new PCC … will have a big impact on the blogosphere," he adds.
4.40pm: Campbell believes the successor to the Press Complaints Commission should examine trends and not just deal with complaints.
The PCC code is a good basis for this reconstituted regulator, he says.
He says that an outside body should make media groups be more open about "what the motives of its owners are", and that readers should be given the context around their news.
4.35pm: The Leveson inquiry website was taken offline as Alastair Campbell was giving evidence, with social media users blaming an attack by hacking group Anonymous for the disruption, reports the Guardian's James Ball.
A significant portion of would-be visitors to the site, which hosts a live stream of testimony in addition to witness statements and supporting materials, were instead greeted by a blank page giving no access to files.
While Twitter users have been quick to lay blame for the downtime to hackers' collective Anonymous, none of the group's usual accounts claimed responsibility for the attack.
The @anonymousIRC account, which has the largest following, has been silent since 6 May, while the @anon_central account which co-ordinated attacks against the Home Office and Soca websites, had posted nothing on the topic.
Anonymous and Lulzsec have previously targeted websites owned by both the UK government and News International. At one stage the Lulzsec group offered to provide details from emails allegedly obtained from the Sun to help authorities investigating the organisation, though these emails never materialised.
The attack also does not appear to be of the sort usually employed by Anonymous. The group typically uses "denial of service" attacks, which prevent people from visiting a website by flooding it with false traffic.
The Leveson site, however, appears to some users to have been wiped. This could be due to a misconfigured server, accidental data erasure, or potentially hackers actually gaining access to one of the site's servers through a more sophisticated attack and then wiping content.
Reports Anonymous were responsible for the attack originated with Sky News reporter Mark White.
4.35pm: Jay asks Campbell about the rumours that he leaked the 2001 general election date to the Sun.
He denies having leaked it to the Sun's Trevor Kavanagh, but says he did speak to the Sun's former political editor almost every day as it was the runup to the election.
4.25pm: Campbell is asked about a row over a story in the Mail on Sunday about Blair's plans to meet the Queen Mother's coffin in April 2002.
Campbell complained to the PCC, but his stance was undermined by a letter from parliamentary usher Black Rod. The PCC said it could not adjudicate on a matter of fact, and the press attacked Blair, saying the complaints body had not supported the prime minister.
He repeatedly insists the story was untrue, alleging that Black Rod himself later joined the PCC.
4.24pm: Asked about special advisers such as in the Jeremy Hunt row, Campbell says that advisers "even as senior as I" would not have done anything without specifically checking with their employer. They are "a very personal appointment," he adds.
4.22pm: Campbell says that politicians need to step back from day-to-day media work – such as commenting on news stories – because their job is to govern.
4.20pm: Campbell says he believes David Cameron and Nick Clegg are getting "disproportionately whacked" by the media for setting up the Leveson inquiry.
4.15pm: Meanwhile, Twitter is abuzz with reports that the Leveson inquiry website has been attacked by the "hacktivist" group Anonymous.
The attack is not yet confirmed, but the site is proving difficult to access for a number of users.
The Guardian's James Ball has just tweeted:
Leveson server seems to have been wiped, not DDoSed. And none of the main Anon accounts claimed responsibility.
— James Ball (@jamesrbuk) May 14, 2012
4.07pm: Campbell says his New Labour media strategy was at times "too controlling" and that it "did hang on to some of the techniques of opposition when we should have dumped them at the door of No 10".
He adds" "Was I robust? Yes. If a newspaper wrote something I wanted to refute would I do it? Yes. But this bullying thing is nonsense."
Campbell says he did have "complete and utter contempt" for some reporters but never kicked them out of briefings.
He adds that he dealt with thousands of stories and handled thousands of press briefings and he would defend their honesty and integrity.
3.59pm: Over on his Politics blog, Andrew Sparrow explains what happened in the Commons regarding Jeremy Hunt just now. John Bercow, the Speaker, has effectively ordered Hunt to answer questions tabled by MPs about his dealings with News Corporation. He was responding to Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader and shadow culture secretary, who asked Bercow whether it was acceptable for a minister to refuse to answer parliamentary questions on the grounds that he would be giving evidence in due course to an inquiry. Hunt is refusing to answer questions about what he knew about the contacts between his special adviser and News Corporation because he says he will address this in his evidence to Leveson. This is how Bercow replied:
As a matter of general principle, I should make it clear that the accountability of a minister to this House is not diluted or suspended by a minister's engagement with inquiries or other proceedings outside of this House. When parliamentary questions to ministers are tabled, those questions should receive substantive and timely answers.
This raises the possibility of an interesting clash between Leveson and parliament, because Lord Justice Leveson has said that witnesses to his inquiry should not reveal the contents of their witness statements to the public until they are published by the inquiry.
3.57pm: Campbell does not believe newspapers have power – "politicians have real power" – and hopes that the Leveson inquiry will result in a recasting of where power really does lie.
"Newspapers can influence all of those debates," he says, referring to current policy matters. "I don't think that is real power."
Lord Justice Leveson says that newspapers have "longevity", whereas politicians do not. "Rupert Murdoch has been there or thereabouts for 40 years, which is a very very long time," he adds.
Leveson asks if that gives Murdoch more influence.
"Yeah, in Rupert Murdoch's case it would be," agrees Campbell.
He says that George Bush once asking him what Rupert Murdoch was like "because he'd never met him, which I found rather surprising".
3.52pm: Newspapers were given a sense of power under Margaret Thatcher, says Campbell, but that changed under John Major.
He admits that New Labour may have given the media "too much of a sense of their own power and we should have challenged that more".
3.51pm: Campbell does not believe newspapers derive power from their readers, as argued by Paul Dacre, Rebekah Brooks and others.
He says that any newspaper can launch an effective campaign and argues that some of the small circulation titles are among the most influential.
He adds that national newspapers can set the terms of debate, referring to the Daily Mail's present campaign against online pornography, but that this will not regularly dictate a policy response.
3.46pm: Politicians have done a "very very bad job standing up for themselves" in explaining why they need to maintain frequent contact with the media, Campbell says.
He adds that there must be a "proper reckoning" of power and status between media and politicians.
3.43pm: Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman has just tweeted:
I've just raised a point of order in the House of Commons about Jeremy Hunt and his accountability to Parliament harrietharman.org/raising-a-poin…
— Harriet Harman (@HarrietHarman) May 14, 2012
3.40pm: Jay asks if Rebekah Brooks amplified the fractious relationship between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.
Campbell says not, but that Brown's people might have said things to her that they would not have said to Blair's people.
Jay asks if Campbell ever fed stories to the Sun.
"Yeah, so were other papers," he says. Every newspaper felt rivals were better treated by the Labour government, he adds.
3.39pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
House of Commons has woken up to the point that Jeremy Hunt is accountable to Parlt, not Leveson. Cult Sec shld give full statment to Parlt.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 14, 2012— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 14, 2012
3.38pm: Paul Waugh of PoliticsHome has just tweeted: 10.05am: The inquiry has begun.
Tory MP Edward Leigh: "this House is supreme and Sovereign" + shd get documents 1st. Bercow agrees Parl shd be 'pre-eminent' Lord Justice Leveson opens by turning to the Independent on Sunday's story about Andy Coulson on 6 May.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) May 14, 2012 Leveson says he will publish later today a detailed ruling in relation to this incident. He will not take action under section 36 of the Inquiries Act.
3.36pm: The BBC's Rebecca Keating has just tweeted: However, he warns anyone considering publishing material not yet heard by the inquiry to read the judgment very carefully.
Speaker Bercow rules Jeremy Hunt's accountability to Parliament is "not diluted or suspended by... engagement with an inquiry" #leveson 10.09am: News International is making an opening statement about module three, the inquiry probe into relations between press and police.
— Rebecca Keating (@RebeccaKeating) May 14, 2012 Rhodri Davies, the News International counsel, is on his feet.
3.30pm: Campbell is asked about Rebekah Brooks. He attended Brooks's first wedding and her later marriage to Charlie Brooks. Davies criticises the inquiry's lead counsel, Robert Jay QC, for implying in his statement that there was a "sinister" relationship between News International and politicians. He says this is "quite wrong" and newspapers are perfectly entitled to support politicians if they agree with them.
"We were friendly, very friendly, and I liked Rebekah, but I think 'friendship' overstates it," he says, adding that he was "independently friendly" with her husband. "The problem comes when proprietors prostitute their papers," he adds.
Campbell says he always had a sense that Rupert Murdoch really liked Rebekah and that she was "a rising star". Davies says it seemed at times from Jay's opening statement that it was "discreditable to own or edit the Sun".
He adds that Brooks "overstated it" when she told the inquiry that Blair and his cabinet were a "constant presence" in her life for a number of years. 10.17am: Davies says that Jay claimed deals were done using "finely tuned antennae" and "this is the stuff of fantasy".
3.29pm: The inquiry has resumed. "Documentary evidence does not support any thesis that the rules were bent … Deals cannot be done on telepathy," he says.
Campbell is asked about media proprietors using the back door of No 10 to avoid being seen. Murdoch did not ask Thatcher to cut any corners for him over the Times deal, he adds.
He says that Rupert Murdoch – who famously used the back door to visit the Tories – was seen as "uniquely neuralgic" and would spark a flurry of media interest if seen entering Downing Street. 10.20am: Davies says there was "no express deal, no implied deal either" for the Times takeover. "To call this thesis speculation is to use too dignified a term," he says.
3.18pm: Here is a summary of Campbell's evidence so far: Davies adds that it is "against the rules" for Jay to accuse Murdoch of selective amnesia after – and not during – the News Corp boss had given evidence.
• Alastair Campbell has denied there was an "express or implied" deal between Tony Blair government and Rupert Murdoch before 1997 election "There is no basis for Mr Jay's delayed airing of doubts over [Murdoch's] credibility," he says.
• Campbell played down three phone calls between Murdoch and Blair in runup to Iraq war in 2003 Davies has now finished the News International statement.
• Michael Gove speech critical of Leveson inquiry was part of Tory political strategy, claimed Campbell 10.24am: Lord O'Donnell, the former cabinet secretary, has taken the witness stand.
3.17pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break. Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is doing the questioning.
3.14pm: Campbell reiterates that the phone calls between Murdoch and Blair did not strike him as odd. 10.28am: Jay asks about Lord O'Donnell's time as press secretary for John Major during his prime ministership, between 1990 and 1997.
"Even at times like this he would have spoken to all sorts of people. No, I wouldn't read too much into it, to be absolutely frank." O'Donnell says his job was to make sure all newspapers were represented in the lobby system, following the Guardian and Independent's exit under his predecessor Sir Bernard Ingham.
3.06pm: Campbell is asked about Blair's three phone calls with Murdoch in the runup to the Iraq war in March 2003. He was the impartial explainer of government policy he says, adding that he does not believe the election of John Major in 1992 was influenced by the press.
Leveson asks what Blair was attempting to achieve with the phone calls. 10.32am: Jay asks if Major was obsessed with press coverage.
Campbell explains that most non-Murdoch papers were against the war and Blair would have "appreciated the support" of Murdoch's titles. Major felt "quite strongly that it was important that the press should be accurate," O'Donnell says. "He took a keen interest".
He says: "I wouldn't overstate the significance of a couple of phone calls with Rupert Murdoch." O'Donnell adds that Major "got particularly upset" when subject to criticism of a personal nature and once sued the New Statesman over "incorrect statements," he says.
3.04pm: Campbell says he was "not too involved" in government discussions over media policy and the Communications Act 2003. 10.34am: O'Donnell opposed televising lobby briefings because he believed that would turn the press secretary into a public figure.
He says he was much more engaged with foreign policy at the time. He describes "the dark arts" as when politicians would spin policies to suit a particular newspapers. He says the lobby briefing was meant to be a "definitive guide" to policies to "keep the system honest".
3.01pm: Campbell says when Tesssa Jowell took over as culture secretary she made it clear to Blair and Campbell that she wanted to take the job without any pacts or deals having been made on media policy. He says Blair gave her that assurance. 10.39am: O'Donnell is asked about the perceived closeness between newspaper proprietors and top politicians.
3.00pm: There was no appetite within the Labour government for a public inquiry into the standards and ethics of the press, Campbell tells the inquiry. "The degree of relationships increased through time, there's no doubt about that," he says. "But I am not aware of anything … where I think something happened that shouldn't have done."
He says it is not unreasonably for politicians to "take account of political factors" when taking these decisions, including whether to wage war on the press. O'Donnell says it is in politicians' "strong interests" to talk to editors and proprietors to explain policies and attempt to win their support.
2.57pm: Campbell says it became apparent there was a problem with the press, but Blair took the view it was not politically sensible to take them on. "As long as you have newspapers which are allowed to strongly support political parties … that relationship is going to continue."
He says the cultural issues of the press have been ongoing for some time and both politics and the media "have not faced up to that". O'Donnell says he would like to see a shift to a US model for newspapers, which largely separate "pretty straight" news stories from editorial opinion.
Jay asks if there is an appetite now. 10.46am: O'Donnell asks for the inquiry to explore the potential for separating news and comment in newspapers; he says these two are "much more mixed up than I think it should be".
"No, if I'm being frank," Campbell answers. Lord Justice Leveson asks whether it is tenable for broadcasters to remain impartial.
He adds that he believes David Cameron is reluctant to take on this issue and that a recent speech by Michael Gove in which the education secretary warned that the inquiry could have a "chilling effect" on the press was part of a "political strategy. O'Donnell says any regulation of the media should "look at" all media, including broadcasters and newspapers, because to do otherwise would "create incentives" for the different mediums.
Campbell says it would very difficult for Cameron not to go along with the majority of the recommendations the Leveson inquiry produces, but he doesn't think there's much appetite for change. "Do the readers understand that they are actually subject to different sets of regulation?" asks O'Donnell. He is worried that specific legislation to cover the media would cover today's technology, but adds that it is very complex "which is why we have such an eminent inquiry..."
2.56pm: The PoliticsHome.com editor, Paul Waugh, has just tweeted: "Don't start," interrupts Leveson, to laughter.
Worth watching out for a Commons point of order on J Hunt at 3.30pm I hear... 10.50am: O'Donnell says he agrees with David Cameron that relationships between proprietors and top politicians got too close.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) May 14, 2012 He is asked about special advisers.
2.52pm: Hacked Off campaigner Natalie Peck is at the high court and has just tweeted: O'Donnell says that special advisers often have a media or PR background and he believes some of them may leak or spin stories to newspapers.
AC statement:Gove speech on chilling effect of inquiry may be part of political strategy to ensure Tories don't lose media support. #Leveson 10.51am: O'Donnell is asked about self-regulation of the press.
— Natalie Peck (@nataliepeck) May 14, 2012 He says phone hacking has "dented the public perception" of self-regulation and that the PCC "didn't solve the problems; didn't foresee them" and "in a sense, there was no regulator" because it did not see itself as one.
2.49pm: Campbell is asked about the row in 1998 over Tony Blair being accused of intervening on behalf of Rupert Murdoch to help him buy the Italian TV firm, Mediaset. 10.58am: Jay turns to the ministerial code, which O'Donnell agrees is "a series of high-level principles rather than strict rules".
He maintains that this was not an intervention, despite Murdoch saying in an interview he had asked Blair to contact the Italian prime minister about the planned deal. O'Donnell says ministers take the code very seriously. He says, over history, "amazing conflicts" have been allowed to place.
2.40pm: Campbell repeats that there was no deal between Labour and News International. Here is the ministerial code that O'Donnell is discussing.
Jay cites a half-page article the Sun offered Blair during the 1997 election that was headlined "Why I love the pound", when Labour's policy was to join the euro. Campbell admits that he felt "a little bit queasy" about the headline, but insists that the article was merely repeating existing Labour policy on Europe. O'Donnell says he recommended changes to the code in a bid for transparency over ministers' meetings with media proprietors and editors.
2.38pm: Jay asks Campbell about an "implied trade-off" between Labour and Murdoch, as suggested by former special adviser Lance Price. "The whole principle behind this was err on the side of caution," he says.
Campbell denies Blair's thinking on cross-media ownership policies was influenced by Murdoch. 11.02am: O'Donnell says it would be "disproportionate" to record all details of meetings between politicians and journalists – these conversations are the "basic lifeblood" of media and politics, he says – so he sets the bar at editors and proprietors.
2.30pm: Jay reads out former Australian prime minister Paul Keating's reported advice to Blair on dealing with Murdoch: "These should be noted in a transparent way, but they shouldn't be stopped," he adds.
He's a big bad bastard, and the only way you can deal with him is to make sure he thinks you can be a big bad bastard too. You can do deals with him, without ever saying a deal is done. But the only thing he cares about is his business and the only language he respects is strength. O'Donnell says that if a minister is personal friends with an editor he would urge transparency over their meetings and caution over what they discuss.
Campbell repeats that no deal was done, adding there are lots of areas of media policy where one would struggle to say the Murdochs got a good deal out of the Labour government. 11.09am: BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins has just tweeted:
He says: Cons MP Chris Heaton-Harris dubs #leveson Inquiry "pathetic Westminster village navel gazing"
I was never witness to a discussion where he [Rupert] said, 'Tony, if you do this and this and this, we'll back you'. It just never happened. — Ross Hawkins (@rosschawkins) May 14, 2012
2.29pm: Campbell is asked whether a deal was made between Rupert Murdoch and Tony Blair to support New Labour 11.12am: O'Donnell is asked about an amendment to the ministerial code on meetings with the media he recommended in July 2011.
"I don't think there ever was such a deal," he answers. Does this include social interactions?
Do you have any evidence to support any idea that there was a deal? "No, absolutely not," he says. Yes, O'Donnell says, lunches should be included. "It goes back to not just the reality but the perceptions," he says.
2.26pm: Campbell contrasts Murdoch's hands-off attitude when he was at Today with Robert Maxwell, the former Mirror Group proprietor, who he says had a "fairly interfering" approach at the Daily Mirror. Leveson asks if there needs to be further clarity about the category of these meetings, ie is "general discussion" transparent?
Murdoch was "certainly the most important media player, without a doubt," says Campbell, adding that Murdoch backed New Labour because it was going to win the election; New Labour did not win because Murdoch backed the party. O'Donnell suggests there should be greater disclosure of the detail of these meetings, but warns that this throws up questions of whether notes from these meetings are subject to freedom of information requests.
2.25pm: Campbell says he was never in any doubt whether to fly Tony Blair out for a Hayman island conference at which Rupert Murdoch attended. 11.17am: O'Donnell is asked about the role of special advisers.
He says it was his idea to "use that event as a broader public platform and set out for a huge number of editors and executives what New Labour was about". He suggests that a rule requiring special advisers to work in the coalition government's interest will become strained towards the end of parliament.
2.21pm: The Sun was a "significant player" and there was a sense of hierarchy of the importance of newspapers, Campbell says. Special advisers are able to represent ministers' views to the media, according to the special advisers' code as read by Robert Jay QC.
Dealing with "the Murdoch press", as Robert Jay QC puts it, was part of the job and Murdoch was the most powerful proprietor in Britain. O'Donnell says in his witness statement that when special advisers have to resign it is usually because they became a bigger story than the minister they represent.
Campbell says he "felt a little uneasy at times" about dealing with the Sun, but that it was part of his job. His remark about feeling uneasy was in the context of the Sun asking for an article about Europe from a government minister, he says: "We didn't change policy, but we knew what they wanted rhetoric-wise". 11.18am: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
2.18pm: Campbell says he was vetted to the DV level when he entered No 10. He cannot recall whether he signed a confidentiality agreement in opposition.. He was covered by the Official Secrets Act when in government. 11.28am: The inquiry has resumed and O'Donnell is asked about the appointment of Alastair Campbell as Tony Blair's director of communications in 1997.
Campbell says it was always assumed that he would be involved in "sensitive" areas that Blair had to deal with, citing Nato issues and Northern Ireland. Campbell was given the power to direct civil servants below him, according the Robert Jay QC. O'Donnell says: "I didn't think this was a good idea and I was glad when it was abandoned" because it gave the perception that impartial civil servants could be influenced politically.
2.12pm: Campbell was hired by Blair in 1994. Blair told Campbell he wanted someone who was strategic and who understood the press but "not particularly someone from the tabloids". Campbell was previously political editor of the Daily Mirror. Now, the prime minister's director of communications has no power to direct civil servants.
Campbell believes he had to be "pretty robust and not shy of engaging in difficult debate" with the press as it was developing at the time. 11.37am: O'Donnell explains that the prime minister has a number of press secretaries and advisers in No 10, but most are senior civil servants. Only Craig Oliver, the prime minister's current director of communications, is technically a special adviser on the media.
He says there was a sense that Gordon Brown "had his own team" which Campbell wanted to lead, and that Peter Mandelson would also attempt to do Campbell's job. He says that the shift to special advisers with a media rather than a policy background is regrettable. He cites Ed Balls as a former special adviser who was a trained economist and so on top of his subject.
Jay reads from Blair's book A Journey, which says: 11.44am: O'Donnell gave the green light for Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, to be given responsibility for the News Corp-BSkyB bid when it was removed from Vince Cable, the business secretary, following his comments about Rupert Murdoch.
Peter [Mandelson] would slip into the castle through a secret passageway and, by nimble footwork and sharp and incisive thrusts of the rapier, cleave his way through to the throne room. Meanwhile, Alastair would be a very large oak battering ram destroying the castle gates, and neither boiling pitch nor reinforced doors would keep him out. The prime minister asked O'Donnell whether there was "any legal impediment to moving it to Mr Hunt", says Robert Jay QC.
Jay reads on "… he had great clanking balls as well". O'Donnell says he received legal advice and told the prime minister he was "satisfied those statements [on Hunt's personal website in support of Murdoch] do not amount to a pre-judgment of the case in question".
Campbell says: "Ah, right." 11.48am: O'Donnell says elected politicians are best placed to rule on big business transactions, including media mergers, rather than a judge.
Leveson comments: "Let's move on." He says ministers should be entirely open about how they dealt with the bid and why they made decisions at every step.
2.08pm: Alastair Campbell has taken the witness stand. 11.48am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
Campbell was Tony Blair's press secretary from 1997 to 2000 and then the No 10 director of communications and strategy until 2003. O'donnell written statement: need to find better ways of policing the compliance of special advisers with their code #Leveson
2.00pm: In the light of News International's denial that Rupert Murdoch has "selective amnesia" about his 1981 meeting with Margaret Thatcher, it is worth re-reading Bernard Ingham's notes of the meeting, and Rupert Murdoch's "thank you" letter (at the end of the document linked here). — lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 14, 2012
1.56pm: Lord Justice Leveson has published his ruling on the Independent on Sunday's publication of Andy Coulson's shareholdings. 11.49am: O'Donnell says there is a "need in the whole process to show absence of bias or perception of bias".
The judge confirms that he will take no further action against the newspaper, after its editor, John Mullin, was summoned to give evidence last Thursday. Ministers must be subject to "very careful rules about process" when ruling on business deals, he says.
However, Leveson warns that he will "unhesitatingly" refer the source of any future leaks from the inquiry to the high court for breach of an order. 11.51am: Jay turns to Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor and director of communications to David Cameron until July 2011.
1.16pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of the key points from this morning's evidence: On the vetting process, O'Donnell says Coulson was cleared to SC (or "security clearance") level, which allowed him access to secret papers but not to the higher DV (or "developed vetting") level, which was necessary for regular access to top-secret documents.
• The former cabinet secretary, Lord O'Donnell, said Andy Coulson should have disclosed News Corp shares when he entered No 10. He says only a small number of people in No 10 were vetted to DV level. However, he says that Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications, probably was cleared to this level.
• Coulson was not given top security clearance despite it applying to other former No 10 spin doctors. 11.58am: O'Donnell says that up to the airline bomb plot the vetting of Coulson "hadn't been an issue" because he was not heavily involved in security issues.
• Jeremy Hunt's ex-special adviser, Adam Smith, should have treated News Corp's BSkyB bid process fairly, said O'Donnell. Developed vetting takes a while, O'Donnell says, and it was felt "given Mr Coulson's interests" that general security clearance was sufficient.
• O'Donnell suggested that the information commissioner could take over press regulation. O'Donnell says that developed vetting is whether you are "blackmailable" and personal finance issues.
• Some senior police officers were too close to the media, O'Donnell told the inquiry.
1.01pm: O'Donnell has now completed his evidence. The inquiry has broken for lunch and will resume with evidence from Alastair Campbell at 2pm.
1.00pm: O'Donnell warns that it would be "very dangerous" to cover social networks such as Twitter and Facebook with regulation that also applied to newspapers.
However, he suggests that blogs may be covered if they have a relatively high readership.
Lord Justice Leveson says that the future of regulation will be covered in the next module of the inquiry, starting in July.
12.48pm: O'Donnell is asked about the advice he gave to former prime minister Gordon Brown just before the May 2010 general election on whether there should be an inquiry into phone hacking.
O'Donnell's advice to Brown setting out the options, which was sent to Brown's principal private secretary, Jeremy Heywood, in March 2010, read:
From the limited information available it is doubtful whether this case would merit holding an inquiry under the 2005 act.
Any decision to hold such an inquiry could be challenged by judicial review particularly if the inquiry were extended to the media in general and it is not inconceivable that such a challenge might succeed.
You can read the Guardian's full story on the advice here.
O'Donnell says at that time evidence of widespread phone hacking was limited, there was no all-party support, and the timing, just before a general election, was not ideal. In addition, any such inquiry could have been subject to a judicial review.
He adds:He adds:
Well, I would say it's clearly a big potato, if you like to use that phrase. The timing wasn't ideal. If you're going to do this, actually it would be good to have – where stated, all-party agreement, and it would be much better to do that – trying to broker such a thing in the weeks running up to a general election was always going to be very difficult, so I think it's quite got good that we have something set up now with all-party agreement and hopefully when we come to the recommendation stage, you can get all parties to agree to that. I think that will give us something secure and lasting in what is a very, very difficult task, I admit, you have been given." It wouldn't have gone into enormous detail about phone hacking, for example.
12.43pm: Jay asks whether there should be further enhancements to the ministerial code in relation to social interactions between ministers and the media. He says he is aware of the danger of leaks, adding:
O'Donnell says his advice to the prime minister was that "the social side does have to be there". When people say to me, 'do you know how many people there are DVed?' I say 'actually we should look at that and keep it as tight as we need to.' So these should be on a need-to-know basis. So I think I do have a bias towards trying to keep the numbers low.
"I would strongly recommend to my successors that in the light of this inquiry whether that requires any amendments to the ministerial code," he adds. 12.00pm: Andy Coulson did not disclose his shareholding in News Corp on his entry into No 10 when he should have done, says O'Donnell.
He says that the current cabinet secretary should consider the outcome of the Leveson inquiry and whether to make relevant amendments to the ministerial code. Coulson signed a disclosure form in May 2010 but did not reveal his shares in News Corp. He told the inquiry last week that he should have declared the shareholding.
12.36pm: O'Donnell is asked about the future of press regulation. He says:
He says that the new regulatory body should be chaired by someone independent of the press and with no media background. A form was signed, but it didn't disclose the shareholding and it should have done.
Newspaper journalists should use the civil servants' code – emphasising impartiality – when reporting news, he suggests. 12.11pm: O'Donnell is asked whether he gave any advice to Gordon Brown about his former press secretary Damian McBride when the former Labour leader was prime minister.
The information commissioner could undertake the role of a regulator but would have to be "very significantly enhanced". He says the Information Commissioner's Office is clearly independent and perceived as such. He says:
12.27pm: O'Donnell is asked about the relationship between the press and police. I did have a conversation with Gordon Brown when he was chancellor by felt that what Damian McBride was getting into as press secretary was in the areas where it would be more appropriate for Damian McBride to be a special adviser than a civil servant and that status change was made.
He says a number of senior police officers were "too close" to members of the media. "I happen to think it's not the right way to operate". 12.13pm: O'Donnell repeats that it is crucial for the prime minister's press spokesperson to be a civil servant, because they speak on behalf of the government without party political influence.
It was quite apparent to me that a number of senior police officers had very strong links with the media, and they were very close, and in my view, I would say too close. Their defence of this was that this was necessary, and this was true of a number of senior police officers. I happen to think it's not the right way to operate. He says:
12.18pm: Lord Justice Leveson turns to the relationship between Jeremy Hunt's special adviser, Adam Smith, and the News Corp lobbyist Fred Michel over the BSkyB bid. I think it's really important that the prime minister's official spokesman is a civil servant and that's the clear government line. If there is a desire to get some political spin on that, then you can talk to the special adviser, but everyone knows that what the prime minister's official spokesman says is the government's position and there's no wriggle room.
Leveson: Without making any decisions, because of course you are not there to do that any more, is there any assistance or light that you can shed on how the relationship should have worked, who should have got authority for what and how that should have happened?
O'Donnell: Well, the… I think it's clear in the special advisers' code that in terms of authorisation, ministers should authorise their special advisers as to what they do, for example, with the media. I would have expected the minister to be clear about what he thought his special adviser should be doing. Particularly, I think, the minister and permanent secretary will make clear what the nature of engagement should be in a – if we're going to use the shorthand – quasi-judicial procedure, absolutely.
Leveson: And would you expect that to be documented?
O'Donnell: Not necessarily. I mean, these are fairly regular and routine things. They're slightly different in every particular case. If, for example, you're in … and you're dealing with a planning issue, it's different. If you're dealing with a technical, economic or financial issue, again it's different. So these areas have slightly different aspects to them, but in general, the principles of keeping all parties informed about process is perfectly reasonable, but not getting into substance. I think that's a general accepted principle.
Leveson: Do you have any other observations upon the – not the detailed fact, which I don't think it would be fair to ask you to comment upon – but upon the principles in relation to this particular case?
O'Donnell: I think the principles should be very clear, that it should be made absolutely clear to all concerned that the way they should operate is fairly … talking about process is fine, but you should make sure that the same information is passed on all parties in a case, so that – I mean, this is not least to protect against a future judicial review, so fairness is absolutely crucial to what happened. And – well, that should be at the heart of the whole process, that everyone should be clear that that's the way they should operate.
12.15pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:12.15pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Remarkably shaky answer from normally silky Gus O'Donnell on Coulson (non) vetting at #Leveson. Few points...Remarkably shaky answer from normally silky Gus O'Donnell on Coulson (non) vetting at #Leveson. Few points...
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012
andand
1. O'Donnell v uncomfortable whn asked if Coulson's predescessors DV vetted. Claimed hd to work out which previous roles analagous. Nonsense1. O'Donnell v uncomfortable whn asked if Coulson's predescessors DV vetted. Claimed hd to work out which previous roles analagous. Nonsense
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012
andand
2. O'Donnell says some prev No 10 press secs were not initially DV vetted but later chose to be.Have heard no evidence of that.2. O'Donnell says some prev No 10 press secs were not initially DV vetted but later chose to be.Have heard no evidence of that.
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012
andand
3. GOD says aim wasto to minimise no of people with access to Top Secret papers but Coulson had access to Top Sec papers - without vetting3. GOD says aim wasto to minimise no of people with access to Top Secret papers but Coulson had access to Top Sec papers - without vetting
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012
andand
4. O'Donnell says DV process wd not have looked in into hacking - only seeks to establish "if you're blackmailable". Err, contradiction?4. O'Donnell says DV process wd not have looked in into hacking - only seeks to establish "if you're blackmailable". Err, contradiction?
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012
andand
5. #Leveson has askd for full record of whether prev press secs DV vetted - big prob now for No 10 if they were. (I know just 1 who wasn't)5. #Leveson has askd for full record of whether prev press secs DV vetted - big prob now for No 10 if they were. (I know just 1 who wasn't)
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012
andand
6. Key question now is who was involved in discussions about Coulson's security clearance. #Leveson must call Jeremy Heywood + Ed Llewellyn6. Key question now is who was involved in discussions about Coulson's security clearance. #Leveson must call Jeremy Heywood + Ed Llewellyn
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 14, 2012
12.13pm: O'Donnell repeats that it is crucial for the prime minister's press spokesperson to be a civil servant, because they speak on behalf of the government without party political influence. 12.18pm: Lord Justice Leveson turns to the relationship between Jeremy Hunt's special adviser, Adam Smith, and the News Corp lobbyist Fred Michel over the BSkyB bid.
He says: Leveson: Without making any decisions, because of course you are not there to do that any more, is there any assistance or light that you can shed on how the relationship should have worked, who should have got authority for what and how that should have happened?
I think it's really important that the prime minister's official spokesman is a civil servant and that's the clear government line. If there is a desire to get some political spin on that, then you can talk to the special adviser, but everyone knows that what the prime minister's official spokesman says is the government's position and there's no wriggle room. O'Donnell: Well, the… I think it's clear in the special advisers' code that in terms of authorisation, ministers should authorise their special advisers as to what they do, for example, with the media. I would have expected the minister to be clear about what he thought his special adviser should be doing. Particularly, I think, the minister and permanent secretary will make clear what the nature of engagement should be in a – if we're going to use the shorthand – quasi-judicial procedure, absolutely.
12.11pm: O'Donnell is asked whether he gave any advice to Gordon Brown about his former press secretary Damian McBride when the former Labour leader was prime minister. Leveson: And would you expect that to be documented?
He says: O'Donnell: Not necessarily. I mean, these are fairly regular and routine things. They're slightly different in every particular case. If, for example, you're in … and you're dealing with a planning issue, it's different. If you're dealing with a technical, economic or financial issue, again it's different. So these areas have slightly different aspects to them, but in general, the principles of keeping all parties informed about process is perfectly reasonable, but not getting into substance. I think that's a general accepted principle.
I did have a conversation with Gordon Brown when he was chancellor by felt that what Damian McBride was getting into as press secretary was in the areas where it would be more appropriate for Damian McBride to be a special adviser than a civil servant and that status change was made. Leveson: Do you have any other observations upon the – not the detailed fact, which I don't think it would be fair to ask you to comment upon – but upon the principles in relation to this particular case?
12.00pm: Andy Coulson did not disclose his shareholding in News Corp on his entry into No 10 when he should have done, says O'Donnell. O'Donnell: I think the principles should be very clear, that it should be made absolutely clear to all concerned that the way they should operate is fairly … talking about process is fine, but you should make sure that the same information is passed on all parties in a case, so that – I mean, this is not least to protect against a future judicial review, so fairness is absolutely crucial to what happened. And – well, that should be at the heart of the whole process, that everyone should be clear that that's the way they should operate.
Coulson signed a disclosure form in May 2010 but did not reveal his shares in News Corp. He told the inquiry last week that he should have declared the shareholding. 12.27pm: O'Donnell is asked about the relationship between the press and police.
He says: He says a number of senior police officers were "too close" to members of the media. "I happen to think it's not the right way to operate".
A form was signed, but it didn't disclose the shareholding and it should have done. It was quite apparent to me that a number of senior police officers had very strong links with the media, and they were very close, and in my view, I would say too close. Their defence of this was that this was necessary, and this was true of a number of senior police officers. I happen to think it's not the right way to operate.
11.58am: O'Donnell says that up to the airline bomb plot the vetting of Coulson "hadn't been an issue" because he was not heavily involved in security issues. 12.36pm: O'Donnell is asked about the future of press regulation.
Developed vetting takes a while, O'Donnell says, and it was felt "given Mr Coulson's interests" that general security clearance was sufficient. He says that the new regulatory body should be chaired by someone independent of the press and with no media background.
O'Donnell says that developed vetting is whether you are "blackmailable" and personal finance issues. Newspaper journalists should use the civil servants' code – emphasising impartiality – when reporting news, he suggests.
The information commissioner could undertake the role of a regulator but would have to be "very significantly enhanced". He says the Information Commissioner's Office is clearly independent and perceived as such.
12.43pm: Jay asks whether there should be further enhancements to the ministerial code in relation to social interactions between ministers and the media.
O'Donnell says his advice to the prime minister was that "the social side does have to be there".
"I would strongly recommend to my successors that in the light of this inquiry whether that requires any amendments to the ministerial code," he adds.
He says that the current cabinet secretary should consider the outcome of the Leveson inquiry and whether to make relevant amendments to the ministerial code.
12.48pm: O'Donnell is asked about the advice he gave to former prime minister Gordon Brown just before the May 2010 general election on whether there should be an inquiry into phone hacking.
O'Donnell's advice to Brown setting out the options, which was sent to Brown's principal private secretary, Jeremy Heywood, in March 2010, read:
From the limited information available it is doubtful whether this case would merit holding an inquiry under the 2005 act.
Any decision to hold such an inquiry could be challenged by judicial review particularly if the inquiry were extended to the media in general and it is not inconceivable that such a challenge might succeed.
You can read the Guardian's full story on the advice here.
O'Donnell says at that time evidence of widespread phone hacking was limited, there was no all-party support, and the timing, just before a general election, was not ideal. In addition, any such inquiry could have been subject to a judicial review.
He adds:He adds:
It wouldn't have gone into enormous detail about phone hacking, for example. Well, I would say it's clearly a big potato, if you like to use that phrase. The timing wasn't ideal. If you're going to do this, actually it would be good to have – where stated, all-party agreement, and it would be much better to do that – trying to broker such a thing in the weeks running up to a general election was always going to be very difficult, so I think it's quite got good that we have something set up now with all-party agreement and hopefully when we come to the recommendation stage, you can get all parties to agree to that. I think that will give us something secure and lasting in what is a very, very difficult task, I admit, you have been given."
He says he is aware of the danger of leaks, adding: 1.00pm: O'Donnell warns that it would be "very dangerous" to cover social networks such as Twitter and Facebook with regulation that also applied to newspapers.
When people say to me, 'do you know how many people there are DVed?' I say 'actually we should look at that and keep it as tight as we need to.' So these should be on a need-to-know basis. So I think I do have a bias towards trying to keep the numbers low. However, he suggests that blogs may be covered if they have a relatively high readership.
11.51am: Jay turns to Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor and director of communications to David Cameron until July 2011. Lord Justice Leveson says that the future of regulation will be covered in the next module of the inquiry, starting in July.
On the vetting process, O'Donnell says Coulson was cleared to SC (or "security clearance") level, which allowed him access to secret papers but not to the higher DV (or "developed vetting") level, which was necessary for regular access to top-secret documents. 1.01pm: O'Donnell has now completed his evidence. The inquiry has broken for lunch and will resume with evidence from Alastair Campbell at 2pm.
He says only a small number of people in No 10 were vetted to DV level. However, he says that Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications, probably was cleared to this level. 1.16pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of the key points from this morning's evidence:
11.49am: O'Donnell says there is a "need in the whole process to show absence of bias or perception of bias". • The former cabinet secretary, Lord O'Donnell, said Andy Coulson should have disclosed News Corp shares when he entered No 10.
Ministers must be subject to "very careful rules about process" when ruling on business deals, he says. • Coulson was not given top security clearance despite it applying to other former No 10 spin doctors.
11.48am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted: • Jeremy Hunt's ex-special adviser, Adam Smith, should have treated News Corp's BSkyB bid process fairly, said O'Donnell.
O'donnell written statement: need to find better ways of policing the compliance of special advisers with their code #Leveson • O'Donnell suggested that the information commissioner could take over press regulation.
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 14, 2012 • Some senior police officers were too close to the media, O'Donnell told the inquiry.
11.48am: O'Donnell says elected politicians are best placed to rule on big business transactions, including media mergers, rather than a judge. 1.56pm: Lord Justice Leveson has published his ruling on the Independent on Sunday's publication of Andy Coulson's shareholdings.
He says ministers should be entirely open about how they dealt with the bid and why they made decisions at every step. The judge confirms that he will take no further action against the newspaper, after its editor, John Mullin, was summoned to give evidence last Thursday.
11.44am: O'Donnell gave the green light for Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, to be given responsibility for the News Corp-BSkyB bid when it was removed from Vince Cable, the business secretary, following his comments about Rupert Murdoch. However, Leveson warns that he will "unhesitatingly" refer the source of any future leaks from the inquiry to the high court for breach of an order.
The prime minister asked O'Donnell whether there was "any legal impediment to moving it to Mr Hunt", says Robert Jay QC. 2.00pm: In the light of News International's denial that Rupert Murdoch has "selective amnesia" about his 1981 meeting with Margaret Thatcher, it is worth re-reading Bernard Ingham's notes of the meeting, and Rupert Murdoch's "thank you" letter (at the end of the document linked here).
O'Donnell says he received legal advice and told the prime minister he was "satisfied those statements [on Hunt's personal website in support of Murdoch] do not amount to a pre-judgment of the case in question". 2.08pm: Alastair Campbell has taken the witness stand.
11.37am: O'Donnell explains that the prime minister has a number of press secretaries and advisers in No 10, but most are senior civil servants. Only Craig Oliver, the prime minister's current director of communications, is technically a special adviser on the media. Campbell was Tony Blair's press secretary from 1997 to 2000 and then the No 10 director of communications and strategy until 2003.
He says that the shift to special advisers with a media rather than a policy background is regrettable. He cites Ed Balls as a former special adviser who was a trained economist and so on top of his subject. 2.12pm: Campbell was hired by Blair in 1994. Blair told Campbell he wanted someone who was strategic and who understood the press but "not particularly someone from the tabloids". Campbell was previously political editor of the Daily Mirror.
11.28am: The inquiry has resumed and O'Donnell is asked about the appointment of Alastair Campbell as Tony Blair's director of communications in 1997. Campbell believes he had to be "pretty robust and not shy of engaging in difficult debate" with the press as it was developing at the time.
Campbell was given the power to direct civil servants below him, according the Robert Jay QC. O'Donnell says: "I didn't think this was a good idea and I was glad when it was abandoned" because it gave the perception that impartial civil servants could be influenced politically. He says there was a sense that Gordon Brown "had his own team" which Campbell wanted to lead, and that Peter Mandelson would also attempt to do Campbell's job.
Now, the prime minister's director of communications has no power to direct civil servants. Jay reads from Blair's book A Journey, which says:
11.18am: The inquiry is now taking a short break. Peter [Mandelson] would slip into the castle through a secret passageway and, by nimble footwork and sharp and incisive thrusts of the rapier, cleave his way through to the throne room. Meanwhile, Alastair would be a very large oak battering ram destroying the castle gates, and neither boiling pitch nor reinforced doors would keep him out.
11.17am: O'Donnell is asked about the role of special advisers. Jay reads on "… he had great clanking balls as well".
He suggests that a rule requiring special advisers to work in the coalition government's interest will become strained towards the end of parliament. Campbell says: "Ah, right."
Special advisers are able to represent ministers' views to the media, according to the special advisers' code as read by Robert Jay QC. Leveson comments: "Let's move on."
O'Donnell says in his witness statement that when special advisers have to resign it is usually because they became a bigger story than the minister they represent. 2.18pm: Campbell says he was vetted to the DV level when he entered No 10. He cannot recall whether he signed a confidentiality agreement in opposition.. He was covered by the Official Secrets Act when in government.
11.12am: O'Donnell is asked about an amendment to the ministerial code on meetings with the media he recommended in July 2011. Campbell says it was always assumed that he would be involved in "sensitive" areas that Blair had to deal with, citing Nato issues and Northern Ireland.
Does this include social interactions? 2.21pm: The Sun was a "significant player" and there was a sense of hierarchy of the importance of newspapers, Campbell says.
Yes, O'Donnell says, lunches should be included. "It goes back to not just the reality but the perceptions," he says. Dealing with "the Murdoch press", as Robert Jay QC puts it, was part of the job and Murdoch was the most powerful proprietor in Britain.
Leveson asks if there needs to be further clarity about the category of these meetings, ie is "general discussion" transparent? Campbell says he "felt a little uneasy at times" about dealing with the Sun, but that it was part of his job. His remark about feeling uneasy was in the context of the Sun asking for an article about Europe from a government minister, he says: "We didn't change policy, but we knew what they wanted rhetoric-wise".
O'Donnell suggests there should be greater disclosure of the detail of these meetings, but warns that this throws up questions of whether notes from these meetings are subject to freedom of information requests. 2.25pm: Campbell says he was never in any doubt whether to fly Tony Blair out for a Hayman island conference at which Rupert Murdoch attended.
11.09am: BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins has just tweeted: He says it was his idea to "use that event as a broader public platform and set out for a huge number of editors and executives what New Labour was about".
Cons MP Chris Heaton-Harris dubs #leveson Inquiry "pathetic Westminster village navel gazing" 2.26pm: Campbell contrasts Murdoch's hands-off attitude when he was at Today with Robert Maxwell, the former Mirror Group proprietor, who he says had a "fairly interfering" approach at the Daily Mirror.
— Ross Hawkins (@rosschawkins) May 14, 2012 Murdoch was "certainly the most important media player, without a doubt," says Campbell, adding that Murdoch backed New Labour because it was going to win the election; New Labour did not win because Murdoch backed the party.
11.02am: O'Donnell says it would be "disproportionate" to record all details of meetings between politicians and journalists – these conversations are the "basic lifeblood" of media and politics, he says – so he sets the bar at editors and proprietors. 2.29pm: Campbell is asked whether a deal was made between Rupert Murdoch and Tony Blair to support New Labour
"These should be noted in a transparent way, but they shouldn't be stopped," he adds. "I don't think there ever was such a deal," he answers.
O'Donnell says that if a minister is personal friends with an editor he would urge transparency over their meetings and caution over what they discuss. Do you have any evidence to support any idea that there was a deal? "No, absolutely not," he says.
10.58am: Jay turns to the ministerial code, which O'Donnell agrees is "a series of high-level principles rather than strict rules". 2.30pm: Jay reads out former Australian prime minister Paul Keating's reported advice to Blair on dealing with Murdoch:
O'Donnell says ministers take the code very seriously. He says, over history, "amazing conflicts" have been allowed to place. He's a big bad bastard, and the only way you can deal with him is to make sure he thinks you can be a big bad bastard too. You can do deals with him, without ever saying a deal is done. But the only thing he cares about is his business and the only language he respects is strength.
Here is the ministerial code that O'Donnell is discussing. Campbell repeats that no deal was done, adding there are lots of areas of media policy where one would struggle to say the Murdochs got a good deal out of the Labour government.
O'Donnell says he recommended changes to the code in a bid for transparency over ministers' meetings with media proprietors and editors. He says:
"The whole principle behind this was err on the side of caution," he says. I was never witness to a discussion where he [Rupert] said, 'Tony, if you do this and this and this, we'll back you'. It just never happened.
10.51am: O'Donnell is asked about self-regulation of the press. 2.38pm: Jay asks Campbell about an "implied trade-off" between Labour and Murdoch, as suggested by former special adviser Lance Price.
He says phone hacking has "dented the public perception" of self-regulation and that the PCC "didn't solve the problems; didn't foresee them" and "in a sense, there was no regulator" because it did not see itself as one. Campbell denies Blair's thinking on cross-media ownership policies was influenced by Murdoch.
10.50am: O'Donnell says he agrees with David Cameron that relationships between proprietors and top politicians got too close. 2.40pm: Campbell repeats that there was no deal between Labour and News International.
He is asked about special advisers. Jay cites a half-page article the Sun offered Blair during the 1997 election that was headlined "Why I love the pound", when Labour's policy was to join the euro. Campbell admits that he felt "a little bit queasy" about the headline, but insists that the article was merely repeating existing Labour policy on Europe.
O'Donnell says that special advisers often have a media or PR background and he believes some of them may leak or spin stories to newspapers. 2.49pm: Campbell is asked about the row in 1998 over Tony Blair being accused of intervening on behalf of Rupert Murdoch to help him buy the Italian TV firm, Mediaset.
10.46am: O'Donnell asks for the inquiry to explore the potential for separating news and comment in newspapers; he says these two are "much more mixed up than I think it should be". He maintains that this was not an intervention, despite Murdoch saying in an interview he had asked Blair to contact the Italian prime minister about the planned deal.
Lord Justice Leveson asks whether it is tenable for broadcasters to remain impartial. 2.52pm: Hacked Off campaigner Natalie Peck is at the high court and has just tweeted:
O'Donnell says any regulation of the media should "look at" all media, including broadcasters and newspapers, because to do otherwise would "create incentives" for the different mediums. AC statement:Gove speech on chilling effect of inquiry may be part of political strategy to ensure Tories don't lose media support. #Leveson
"Do the readers understand that they are actually subject to different sets of regulation?" asks O'Donnell. He is worried that specific legislation to cover the media would cover today's technology, but adds that it is very complex "which is why we have such an eminent inquiry..." — Natalie Peck (@nataliepeck) May 14, 2012
"Don't start," interrupts Leveson, to laughter. 2.56pm: The PoliticsHome.com editor, Paul Waugh, has just tweeted:
10.39am: O'Donnell is asked about the perceived closeness between newspaper proprietors and top politicians. Worth watching out for a Commons point of order on J Hunt at 3.30pm I hear...
"The degree of relationships increased through time, there's no doubt about that," he says. "But I am not aware of anything … where I think something happened that shouldn't have done." — Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) May 14, 2012
O'Donnell says it is in politicians' "strong interests" to talk to editors and proprietors to explain policies and attempt to win their support. 2.57pm: Campbell says it became apparent there was a problem with the press, but Blair took the view it was not politically sensible to take them on.
"As long as you have newspapers which are allowed to strongly support political parties … that relationship is going to continue." He says the cultural issues of the press have been ongoing for some time and both politics and the media "have not faced up to that".
O'Donnell says he would like to see a shift to a US model for newspapers, which largely separate "pretty straight" news stories from editorial opinion. Jay asks if there is an appetite now.
10.34am: O'Donnell opposed televising lobby briefings because he believed that would turn the press secretary into a public figure. "No, if I'm being frank," Campbell answers.
He describes "the dark arts" as when politicians would spin policies to suit a particular newspapers. He says the lobby briefing was meant to be a "definitive guide" to policies to "keep the system honest". He adds that he believes David Cameron is reluctant to take on this issue and that a recent speech by Michael Gove in which the education secretary warned that the inquiry could have a "chilling effect" on the press was part of a "political strategy.
10.32am: Jay asks if Major was obsessed with press coverage. Campbell says it would very difficult for Cameron not to go along with the majority of the recommendations the Leveson inquiry produces, but he doesn't think there's much appetite for change.
Major felt "quite strongly that it was important that the press should be accurate," O'Donnell says. "He took a keen interest". 3.00pm: There was no appetite within the Labour government for a public inquiry into the standards and ethics of the press, Campbell tells the inquiry.
O'Donnell adds that Major "got particularly upset" when subject to criticism of a personal nature and once sued the New Statesman over "incorrect statements," he says. He says it is not unreasonably for politicians to "take account of political factors" when taking these decisions, including whether to wage war on the press.
10.28am: Jay asks about Lord O'Donnell's time as press secretary for John Major during his prime ministership, between 1990 and 1997. 3.01pm: Campbell says when Tesssa Jowell took over as culture secretary she made it clear to Blair and Campbell that she wanted to take the job without any pacts or deals having been made on media policy. He says Blair gave her that assurance.
O'Donnell says his job was to make sure all newspapers were represented in the lobby system, following the Guardian and Independent's exit under his predecessor Sir Bernard Ingham. 3.04pm: Campbell says he was "not too involved" in government discussions over media policy and the Communications Act 2003.
He was the impartial explainer of government policy he says, adding that he does not believe the election of John Major in 1992 was influenced by the press. He says he was much more engaged with foreign policy at the time.
10.24am: Lord O'Donnell, the former cabinet secretary, has taken the witness stand. 3.06pm: Campbell is asked about Blair's three phone calls with Murdoch in the runup to the Iraq war in March 2003.
Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is doing the questioning. Leveson asks what Blair was attempting to achieve with the phone calls.
10.20am: Davies says there was "no express deal, no implied deal either" for the Times takeover. "To call this thesis speculation is to use too dignified a term," he says. Campbell explains that most non-Murdoch papers were against the war and Blair would have "appreciated the support" of Murdoch's titles.
Davies adds that it is "against the rules" for Jay to accuse Murdoch of selective amnesia after – and not during – the News Corp boss had given evidence. He says: "I wouldn't overstate the significance of a couple of phone calls with Rupert Murdoch."
"There is no basis for Mr Jay's delayed airing of doubts over [Murdoch's] credibility," he says. 3.14pm: Campbell reiterates that the phone calls between Murdoch and Blair did not strike him as odd.
Davies has now finished the News International statement. "Even at times like this he would have spoken to all sorts of people. No, I wouldn't read too much into it, to be absolutely frank."
10.17am: Davies says that Jay claimed deals were done using "finely tuned antennae" and "this is the stuff of fantasy". 3.17pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
"Documentary evidence does not support any thesis that the rules were bent … Deals cannot be done on telepathy," he says. 3.18pm: Here is a summary of Campbell's evidence so far:
Murdoch did not ask Thatcher to cut any corners for him over the Times deal, he adds. • Alastair Campbell has denied there was an "express or implied" deal between Tony Blair government and Rupert Murdoch before 1997 election
10.09am: News International is making an opening statement about module three, the inquiry probe into relations between press and police. • Campbell played down three phone calls between Murdoch and Blair in runup to Iraq war in 2003
Rhodri Davies, the News International counsel, is on his feet. • Michael Gove speech critical of Leveson inquiry was part of Tory political strategy, claimed Campbell
Davies criticises the inquiry's lead counsel, Robert Jay QC, for implying in his statement that there was a "sinister" relationship between News International and politicians. He says this is "quite wrong" and newspapers are perfectly entitled to support politicians if they agree with them. 3.29pm: The inquiry has resumed.
"The problem comes when proprietors prostitute their papers," he adds. Campbell is asked about media proprietors using the back door of No 10 to avoid being seen.
Davies says it seemed at times from Jay's opening statement that it was "discreditable to own or edit the Sun". He says that Rupert Murdoch – who famously used the back door to visit the Tories – was seen as "uniquely neuralgic" and would spark a flurry of media interest if seen entering Downing Street.
10.05am: The inquiry has begun. 3.30pm: Campbell is asked about Rebekah Brooks. He attended Brooks's first wedding and her later marriage to Charlie Brooks.
Lord Justice Leveson opens by turning to the Independent on Sunday's story about Andy Coulson on 6 May. "We were friendly, very friendly, and I liked Rebekah, but I think 'friendship' overstates it," he says, adding that he was "independently friendly" with her husband.
Leveson says he will publish later today a detailed ruling in relation to this incident. He will not take action under section 36 of the Inquiries Act. Campbell says he always had a sense that Rupert Murdoch really liked Rebekah and that she was "a rising star".
However, he warns anyone considering publishing material not yet heard by the inquiry to read the judgment very carefully. He adds that Brooks "overstated it" when she told the inquiry that Blair and his cabinet were a "constant presence" in her life for a number of years.
10.04am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted: 3.36pm: The BBC's Rebecca Keating has just tweeted:
NewsInt going to make opening statement to Leveson this am, big legal guns present, so expect something interesting.. Speaker Bercow rules Jeremy Hunt's accountability to Parliament is "not diluted or suspended by... engagement with an inquiry" #leveson
— Rebecca Keating (@RebeccaKeating) May 14, 2012
3.38pm: Paul Waugh of PoliticsHome has just tweeted:
Tory MP Edward Leigh: "this House is supreme and Sovereign" + shd get documents 1st. Bercow agrees Parl shd be 'pre-eminent'
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) May 14, 2012
3.39pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
House of Commons has woken up to the point that Jeremy Hunt is accountable to Parlt, not Leveson. Cult Sec shld give full statment to Parlt.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 14, 2012— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 14, 2012
9.56am: Here's how the Guardian's Stephen Bates described Campbell's evidence before the Leveson inquiry in November: 3.40pm: Jay asks if Rebekah Brooks amplified the fractious relationship between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.
He was determined to have his day in court and, for three hours, he had it entirely on his own terms, to settle scores and disdain his former trade. "I have a very, very thick skin," he told the inquiry, demonstrating perhaps the opposite. "I frankly have reached the point where I genuinely don't care what the papers say about me at all. I have never sued a paper … most of the bile, I couldn't give a damn." Campbell says not, but that Brown's people might have said things to her that they would not have said to Blair's people.
The press was relentlessly negative, its agendas swamped its news-gathering, its journalists invented quotes and made up stories: "This is routine, this is endemic. The attitude is, 'How do we turn this to fit what we think of the world?' If the public knew the truth about the way certain sections of the media operate, it would be absolutely horrified." Jay asks if Campbell ever fed stories to the Sun.
Campbell produced a 55-page witness statement, detailing some of the horrors, but a draft had already been leaked on the web. "I think British journalism is the best in the world and the worst in the world, sometimes in the same edition. I do defend a free press, but this press is barely worth defending." "Yeah, so were other papers," he says. Every newspaper felt rivals were better treated by the Labour government, he adds.
He turned his ire especially on Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail. This was Campbell in St Sebastian mode, assailed by lies and smears by a newspaper constructed entirely in its editor's image. The Mail had only printed a correction after it reported his father had died, when he was demonstrably still alive. 3.43pm: Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman has just tweeted:
You can read the full article here. I've just raised a point of order in the House of Commons about Jeremy Hunt and his accountability to Parliament harrietharman.org/raising-a-poin…
9.52am: Welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog. — Harriet Harman (@HarrietHarman) May 14, 2012
Today Alastair Campbell, former director of communications and strategy for Tony Blair, gives evidence for a second time. 3.46pm: Politicians have done a "very very bad job standing up for themselves" in explaining why they need to maintain frequent contact with the media, Campbell says.
In November, Campbell typically pulled no punches at the inquiry, describing a "frankly putrid" press with some sections "barely worth defending". His targets included Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and his former employer the Daily Mirror, which he accused of hiring private eyes to investigate him and Peter Mandelson. He adds that there must be a "proper reckoning" of power and status between media and politicians.
He is expected to be similarly forthright today as he is questioned about his relationship with journalists as Tony Blair's press chief and his role in persuading Rupert Murdoch's Sun to back Labour at the 1997 general election. 3.51pm: Campbell does not believe newspapers derive power from their readers, as argued by Paul Dacre, Rebekah Brooks and others.
Also giving evidence is Lord O'Donnell, who as Sir Gus O'Donnell was cabinet secretary for three prime ministers from 2005 to 2011. He says that any newspaper can launch an effective campaign and argues that some of the small circulation titles are among the most influential.
In No 10, O'Donnell was responsible for ensuring ministers' advisers had the correct security clearance, and he is likely to be asked why former News of the World editor Andy Coulson was only given mid-level SC clearance and whether he had access to top secret papers. He adds that national newspapers can set the terms of debate, referring to the Daily Mail's present campaign against online pornography, but that this will not regularly dictate a policy response.
O'Donnell is also expected to be asked whether he persuaded Gordon Brown not to set up a phone-hacking inquiry before the last general election. 3.52pm: Newspapers were given a sense of power under Margaret Thatcher, says Campbell, but that changed under John Major.
Please note that comments have been switched off for legal reasons. He admits that New Labour may have given the media "too much of a sense of their own power and we should have challenged that more".
3.57pm: Campbell does not believe newspapers have power – "politicians have real power" – and hopes that the Leveson inquiry will result in a recasting of where power really does lie.
"Newspapers can influence all of those debates," he says, referring to current policy matters. "I don't think that is real power."
Lord Justice Leveson says that newspapers have "longevity", whereas politicians do not. "Rupert Murdoch has been there or thereabouts for 40 years, which is a very very long time," he adds.
Leveson asks if that gives Murdoch more influence.
"Yeah, in Rupert Murdoch's case it would be," agrees Campbell.
He says that George Bush once asking him what Rupert Murdoch was like "because he'd never met him, which I found rather surprising".
3.59pm: Over on his Politics blog, Andrew Sparrow explains what happened in the Commons regarding Jeremy Hunt just now. John Bercow, the Speaker, has effectively ordered Hunt to answer questions tabled by MPs about his dealings with News Corporation. He was responding to Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader and shadow culture secretary, who asked Bercow whether it was acceptable for a minister to refuse to answer parliamentary questions on the grounds that he would be giving evidence in due course to an inquiry. Hunt is refusing to answer questions about what he knew about the contacts between his special adviser and News Corporation because he says he will address this in his evidence to Leveson. This is how Bercow replied:
As a matter of general principle, I should make it clear that the accountability of a minister to this House is not diluted or suspended by a minister's engagement with inquiries or other proceedings outside of this House. When parliamentary questions to ministers are tabled, those questions should receive substantive and timely answers.
This raises the possibility of an interesting clash between Leveson and parliament, because Lord Justice Leveson has said that witnesses to his inquiry should not reveal the contents of their witness statements to the public until they are published by the inquiry.
4.07pm: Campbell says his New Labour media strategy was at times "too controlling" and that it "did hang on to some of the techniques of opposition when we should have dumped them at the door of No 10".
He adds" "Was I robust? Yes. If a newspaper wrote something I wanted to refute would I do it? Yes. But this bullying thing is nonsense."
Campbell says he did have "complete and utter contempt" for some reporters but never kicked them out of briefings.
He adds that he dealt with thousands of stories and handled thousands of press briefings and he would defend their honesty and integrity.
4.15pm: Meanwhile, Twitter is abuzz with reports that the Leveson inquiry website has been attacked by the "hacktivist" group Anonymous.
The attack is not yet confirmed, but the site is proving difficult to access for a number of users.
The Guardian's James Ball has just tweeted:
Leveson server seems to have been wiped, not DDoSed. And none of the main Anon accounts claimed responsibility.
— James Ball (@jamesrbuk) May 14, 2012
4.20pm: Campbell says he believes David Cameron and Nick Clegg are getting "disproportionately whacked" by the media for setting up the Leveson inquiry.
4.22pm: Campbell says that politicians need to step back from day-to-day media work – such as commenting on news stories – because their job is to govern.
4.24pm: Asked about special advisers such as in the Jeremy Hunt row, Campbell says that advisers "even as senior as I" would not have done anything without specifically checking with their employer. They are "a very personal appointment," he adds.
4.25pm: Campbell is asked about a row over a story in the Mail on Sunday about Blair's plans to meet the Queen Mother's coffin in April 2002.
Campbell complained to the PCC, but his stance was undermined by a letter from parliamentary usher Black Rod. The PCC said it could not adjudicate on a matter of fact, and the press attacked Blair, saying the complaints body had not supported the prime minister.
He repeatedly insists the story was untrue, alleging that Black Rod himself later joined the PCC.
4.35pm: Jay asks Campbell about the rumours that he leaked the 2001 general election date to the Sun.
He denies having leaked it to the Sun's Trevor Kavanagh, but says he did speak to the Sun's former political editor almost every day as it was the runup to the election.
4.35pm: The Leveson inquiry website was taken offline as Alastair Campbell was giving evidence, with social media users blaming an attack by hacking group Anonymous for the disruption, reports the Guardian's James Ball.
A significant portion of would-be visitors to the site, which hosts a live stream of testimony in addition to witness statements and supporting materials, were instead greeted by a blank page giving no access to files.
While Twitter users have been quick to lay blame for the downtime to hackers' collective Anonymous, none of the group's usual accounts claimed responsibility for the attack.
The @anonymousIRC account, which has the largest following, has been silent since 6 May, while the @anon_central account which co-ordinated attacks against the Home Office and Soca websites, had posted nothing on the topic.
Anonymous and Lulzsec have previously targeted websites owned by both the UK government and News International. At one stage the Lulzsec group offered to provide details from emails allegedly obtained from the Sun to help authorities investigating the organisation, though these emails never materialised.
The attack also does not appear to be of the sort usually employed by Anonymous. The group typically uses "denial of service" attacks, which prevent people from visiting a website by flooding it with false traffic.
The Leveson site, however, appears to some users to have been wiped. This could be due to a misconfigured server, accidental data erasure, or potentially hackers actually gaining access to one of the site's servers through a more sophisticated attack and then wiping content.
Reports Anonymous were responsible for the attack originated with Sky News reporter Mark White.
4.40pm: Campbell believes the successor to the Press Complaints Commission should examine trends and not just deal with complaints.
The PCC code is a good basis for this reconstituted regulator, he says.
He says that an outside body should make media groups be more open about "what the motives of its owners are", and that readers should be given the context around their news.
4.50pm: Campbell says new press regulator will end up with a "redefinition of what a journalist is" in relation to tweeting, blogging and broadcasting.
"The new PCC … will have a big impact on the blogosphere," he adds.
4.53pm: Campbell says he fears that many politicians, including Michael Gove, hope the Leveson inquiry will go away.
4.56pm: Campbell has now completed his evidence.
4.59pm: A spokesman for the Leveson inquiry says it is looking into reports its website has been taken offline.
5.05pm: Lord O'Donnell's witness statement has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website, which seems to be back up.
5.11pm: Alastair Campbell's second witness statement has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website.
5.30pm: The Leveson inquiry has published a batch of witness statements from core participants, including JK Rowling and the Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre.
5.41pm: JK Rowling has written to the inquiry raising a number of what she describes as "factual inaccuracies" from the evidence of Darryn Lyons, founder of the paparazzi agency Big Pictures.
In her second witness statement, Rowling takes issue with a number of points made by Lyons in his appearance before the inquiry on 9 February.
The Harry Potter author has also instructed her solicitors to write to Big Pictures so that she be placed on their "no shoot" list.
5.47pm: A small splinter group calling itself the "Anon A-Team" has claimed responsibility for an attack which took the Leveson inquiry website offline for several hours during Alastair Campbell's testimony, reports the Guardian's James Ball.
In a statement on a Tumblr blog, the group said it had launched the attack as the inquiry was a "farce", due to its reporting to Jeremy Hunt:
"The Leveson inquiry has become a farce, with the Lord Justice Leveson reporting to a member of cabinet Jeremy Hunt who has already been identified as having engaged in Malfeasance in Office via fraudulent release of data to Newscorp (Rubicon).
"Instead of Jeremy Hunt appearing before a criminal court we have a show trial along with the minister and his boss, Prime Minister David Cameron also exposed as having engaged in Malfeasance in Office."
The full statement can be read here.
The group's Twitter accounts have a few hundred followers – against about 270,000 for the most established one – and is not regarded as one of the "usual" channels for operations by longstanding members of Anonymous.
Elsewhere, bloggers have suggested the site was attacked through a security weakness in its setup. The Leveson inquiry uses a free blogging platform known as WordPress, which can be vulnerable to attack if not kept to date, or if default passwords are not modified.
6.32pm: We are now winding up the live blog for today, but we will be back at 10am tomorrow for evidence from Sky's Adam Boulton and Lord Wakeham.
In the meantime, you can read the latest developments on the MediaGuardian homepage and our Leveson inquiry page.