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/jun/11/george-osborne-gordon-brown-leveson-inquiry

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

Version 12 Version 13
George Osborne and Gordon Brown at the Leveson inquiry - live George Osborne and Gordon Brown appear at the Leveson inquiry
(40 minutes later)
6.03pm: Our full story on Osborne's evidence is now live. Dan Sabbagh and Lisa O'Carroll write: 9.39am: Good morning and welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog.
Andy Coulson denied to George Osborne in 2007 that he knew that phone hacking at the News of World went beyond a single rogue reporter, according to evidence given by the chancellor in the Leveson inquiry. The chancellor, George Osborne, and former prime minister, Gordon Brown, will give evidence today in a key week of the inquiry, ending with testimony from David Cameron on Thursday.
The senior Conservative politician also admitted that "a third" of his meetings with media owners and top executives since 2005 were with News International, including a meeting at a chalet at Davos in early 2009 and a dinner in April 2011 as phone hacking revelations mounted. Osborne will face questions about his influential behind-the-scenes role in the Conservative party, including his hiring of Andy Coulson as the party's communications director.
Osborne said that as shadow chancellor he briefly asked Coulson about phone hacking in March 2007, when he was sounding him out for the job of director of communications for the Conservative party. The chancellor, who is also the Tories' head of strategy, personally approached the former News of the World editor over the job shortly after Coulson resigned over phone hacking at the now-closed Sunday tabloid.
This was two months after Coulson resigned as News of the World editor after the paper's royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed for phone-hacking related offences. Osborne will also be pressed on his role in ensuring Jeremy Hunt, the embattled culture secretary, was given responsibility for News Corporation's £8bn bid for BSkyB after Vince Cable was controversially stripped of the role in December 2010.
Coulson has always maintained that he had no knowledge of or involvement in phone hacking at the paper, but took responsibility for what happened on his watch and resigned. Appearing before him at the inquiry will be Gordon Brown, prime minister for three years until 2010.
Osborne said that he asked Coulson "in a general sense, as you might do in a social encounter, whether there was more in the phone hacking story that was going to come out, that was not already public, that we needed to know about – and he said no". Brown is expected to be asked about his falling-out with Rupert Murdoch after the Sun switched allegiance to the Tories in 2009, a move announced to overshadow his Labour party conference speech that year.
The Conservative minister was the man who recommended to David Cameron that he consider hiring Coulson. Brown has denied Murdoch's claims that he threatened to "make war" on News Corp after the switch, but will be pressed further on that today.
Osborne conceded that he thought the appointment was controversial, but said it was worth doing because "I thought in the end the balance was that it was worth hiring someone with real talent and ability, and weathering the adverse publicity of appointing someone who had had to resign from the News of the World". He will also be quizzed about his relationship with Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive. The inquiry has heard that Brown was furious after the Sun, under Brooks's supervision, published a front-page story about his son's diagnosis with cystic fibrosis in November 2006. Brown has denied Brooks's claim that he was content for the story to be published.
The chancellor and key Conservative strategist said that he had consulted Rebekah Brooks – then editor of the Sun and a close friend of Coulson's – as Cameron deliberated on the potential appointment, but he sought to play down its importance. The inquiry begins at 10am.
"I don't want to overstate the importance of [talking to Brooks] I've just put it in here for completeness," he said. 9.52am: Lord Justice Leveson has published his "Draft criteria for a regulatory solution", indicating his initial thinking about a future regulator.
Carefully choosing his language, Osborne consistently sought to de-emphasise Coulson's links with News International, and said that the former News of the World editor was only helpful in dealing with the publisher of the Sun and the Times simply "because he was the director of communications". The Guardian's Roy Greenslade looks this morning at the Daily Mail's claims that these represent a "blueprint" for the reform of press regulation. He writes of the Mail article:
On the same theme, Osborne said that "it was not a consideration: let's hire the ex-News International man. It was: let's hire this very experience ex-newspaper editor". He added that he thought Coulson had "a particular talent and ability" he had detected in dealings with him during his time as shadow chancellor. It implies that Leveson has made specific recommendations, which include newspapers being given "kitemarks" for good behaviour and being fined for breaking rules.
He argued that the "endorsement of the Sun has been elevated to almost mythical status", which was "just one of a whole range of things we felt we had to get right in the runup to a general election". It further claims that the "blueprint" would see the establishment of a media regulator - independent of ministers, parliament and serving journalists - but not involving state regulation.
You can read the full story here. The document is not quite what it seems, however. Called "draft criteria for an effective regulatory regime", it is clearly aimed at concentrating minds on providing a practical solution.
5.54pm: Lisa O'Carroll has sent us this list of Osborne's meetings with media executives: It is there to stimulate debate about what should be done rather than making any firm proposals.
2005
/>17 May: ITV news reception – by invitation of ITV.
/>19 May: Drinks with James Murdoch. No record; general political and economic discussion.
/>15 June: News International reception – by invitation of News International. Informal drink reception attended by more than 100 people.
/>21 June: FT reception – informal drinks receptios attended by more than 10 people, at which senior members of the Labour government, senior members of the opposition parties, and media proprietors, editors and senior executives were present.
/>16 December: Matthew Freud's Christmas party 		Instead of mapping out plans for journalists, as the Mail article implies, Leveson has set down criteria "against which the inquiry proposes to measure potential regulatory solutions" and seeks comments on them.
2006
/>3 May: Dnner James Murdoch. Murdoch's invitation.
/>4 July: Dinner James Murdoch. Osborne invitation 		Most of the criteria are uncontroversial and, in many ways, echo the current regime administered by the Press Complaints Commission.
2007
/>18 January: Lunch with Rupert Murdoch, Les Hinton, Rebekah Wade.
/>28 February: Dinner with Robert Thomson, editor of the Times.
/>3 May: Dinner with James Murdoch, hosted by James Murdoch.
/>11 May: Breakfast with FT editorial board.
/>15 May: Dinner for Sony CEO Howard Stringer – hosted by NI. Dinner attended by more than 20 people from business, media and political community. 		It says that any future system should "actively support and promote compliance by the industry, both directly (for example by providing confidential pre-publication advice) and indirectly (for example by kitemarking titles' own internal systems)."
2008
/>16 June: News International reception.
/>1 July: Lunch with the Times editorial board.
/>6 September: Dinner with Rebekah Wade, Elisabeth Murdoch, James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch. Invitation from Rebekah Wade. 		In other words, kitemarks are suggested, not proposed. Similarly, in the section on "powers and remedies", though the Mail article mentions "hefty fines", there is no reference whatsoever to fines.
2009
/>January: Meeting at Davos with Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch.
/>19 December: Dinner with Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch 		As the Mail does say, one of the criteria in the document states:
2010
/>21 January: Drink with Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch.
/>28-30 January: World Economic Forum, Davos.
/>22 February: Drink with James Harding.
/>9 March: Lunch with Colin Myler, editor of the News of the World.
/>29 November: Phone conversation with James Murdoch.
/>17 December: Dinner in New York with Rupert Murdoch. 		"Enforcement of ethical standards, by whatever mechanism, must be operationally independent of government and parliament. The system must provide credible remedies, both in respect of aggrieved individuals and in respect of issues affecting wider groups in society."
2011
/>5 April: Dinner with Rebekah Brooks, Will Lewis and James Murdoch. UK Press Awards. 		That, says the Mail, "suggests Lord Justice Leveson is intent on providing opportunities for groups to launch class action complaints against newspapers."
5.16pm: Here is a brief summary of evidence to the Leveson inquiry today: It concludes: "Although widely expected, the move will face resistance because it is likely to give rise to vexatious complaints by pressure groups that disapprove of a paper's political stance."
That final sentence - like the references to blueprint, kitemarks and fines - is, of course, the newspaper's spin, just one of those typical ethical lapses that form part of everyday journalism - despite the Leveson inquiry.
You can read the full article here.
9.57am: Roy Greenslade has written more on Leveson's "Draft criteria for a regulatory solution". He writes:
Further to my earlier posting about the Leveson inquiry's draft criteria for a solution to the problem of press regulation, note this paragraph:
"The setting of standards must be independent of government and parliament, and sufficiently independent of media interests, in order to command public respect."
And then note this paragraph:
"Enforcement of ethical standards, by whatever mechanism, must be operationally independent of government and parliament, and sufficiently independent of media interests, in order to command public respect."
Should these references to both the standards and the enforcement being independent of the state but only "sufficiently independent of media interests" mean that the inquiry still sees some form of self-regulation as viable?
Newspaper publishers certainly believe that to be a possibility. It is the key feature of a "draft contractual framework for a new system of self-regulation" circulated to editors in March by the Press Standards Broad of Finance (PressBof), the body that oversees the Press Complaints Commission.
In essence, the document aims to stave off statutory regulation by creating a new watchdog with sweeping powers. These would include the right for its investigators to enter newspaper offices in order to requisition documents and emails and tape interviews with journalists.
The regulator would be able to levy fines and there would not be any appeals process. However, decisions would be open to judicial review. (I see lawyers rubbing their hands).
What is less certain is how the new regulator, without any state involvement whatsoever, would be able to compel publishers to sign its proposed five-year contract.
The document does not say what sanctions should exist to deal with refusenik publishers.
You can read the full article here.
10.00am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Judge to make opening statement about future direction of the Inquiry this am.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
10.10am: Sarah Brown has just tweeted:
Gordon has just gone up to court room ready to present his evidence to Mr Jay #leveson
— Sarah Brown (@SarahBrownUK) June 11, 2012
10.16am: The inquiry has begun.
Lord Justice Leveson is making an opening statement on the future direction of the inquiry and David Sherborne's application for newspapers to investigate their own practices outlined by the information commissioner's Operation Motorman inquiry.
10.18am: Leveson emphasises the importance of cross-party support for his inquiry.
He says he is very keen to avoid "inter-party politics and the politics of personality".
His opening remarks could be read as a warning to Westminster not to politicise his recommendations on the future of press regulation.
10.20am: Leveson says the purpose of his inquiry is not to challenge the government.
He describes News Corporation's BSkyB bid as a "small but significant part of the story".
10.21am: Leveson says it is essential that cross-party support for his inquiry is not jeopardised.
10.21am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Leveson calls for "cross party support" for his inquiry - call I think for Tory support - says sky bid is "small but significant" element.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
10.23am: Leveson stresses that nothing he says should be taken as concluded opinion.
He adds that he will be paying close attention to how the inquiry is reported, warning that it should not be portrayed as an examination of the politics of personality.
10.24am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Leveson wants to hear more from people with ideas for PCC reform in Module 4, incl from chmn Lord Hunt. PCC not out of woods.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
10.24am: The inquiry will not sit next week, Leveson says, but will later hear from more witnesses from the media on the future of press reform.
10.25am: Leveson has now finished his opening statement. He has not yet handed down judgment on Sherborne's Operation Motorman request.
10.26am: Rhodri Davies, the counsel for News International, takes to his feet to complain about witness statements that do not set out the questions they are answering. It was a particular problem with Tony Blair's evidence, he says. The counsel for Associated Newspapers rises to support Davies's complaint.
10.27am: Gordon Brown takes the witness stand.
Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is leading the questioning.
10.29am: Brown opens by saying his concern is "who will defend the defenceless?", a play on Leveson's summation of the inquiry as "who guards the guardians?".
He says he has had a "period of enforced reflection, courtesy of the British people" to think about the relationship between Westminster and Fleet Street.
10.33am: Brown says the Times guide to parliament had a photograph of him as a 19-year-old, but described him as 57 and a Westminster "veteran" and "stalwart".
Brown jokes that this was an honest mistake, but that it had consequences including him being inundated with letters offering pension plans.
10.34am: Brown says press regulation has never worked.
He adds that it is not not just a matter of rooting out the bad, but incentivising the good too.
10.35am: One of the key problems of the press is the conflation of fact and opinion, Brown says.
10.38am: Brown says in the electronic age there is a "mass of information available to everyone" and says the amount of information online is "about to increase exponentially".
"And that is putting pressure on the quality of ordinary journalism," he says, adding: "And the question arises, then … who is going to support quality journalism?"
10.38am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Brown advocates sharing of BBC licence fee to fund quality journalism - extraordinary - publicly funded newspapers?!
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
10.39am: Print media can claim that they are competing with internet media which has "no standards", Brown says.
He believes there is a huge debate to be had about internet publications coming under some form of regulation.
10.39am: Brown is now talking about press coverage of Afghanistan.
One newspaper "did not want to take on the difficult issues" so reduced its coverage of British troops in Afghanistan was that the government "did not care", he says.
10.40am: Brown criticises the Sun which he says reported that he fell asleep at a memorial for the troops. He says he was praying.
10.41am: Brown says: "If the media only had a political view and said we are Conservative, you could accept that ... but to use that to conflate fact and opinion, and to sensationalise and trivialise is where the danger lies."
10.45am: Brown is asked about Blair's "feral beasts" speech on the media in 2007. "His remarks were exactly what I'm saying," Brown says.
The Sun has been "virtually silent" on the issues faced by troops in Afghanistan since 2010, Brown claims, accusing the paper of being more interested in the political attack on himself than of forcing change in the Middle East country.
10.47am: Brown denies that his government declined to take on the "feral beasts" of the media because it enjoyed the support of the Sun.
10.47am: "At no point in the three years I was prime minister did I feel I had the support of the Sun," Brown says. "What changed was when News International decided its commercial interests came first."
10.48am: Brown describes James Murdoch's MacTaggart lecture in 2009 as "breathtaking in its arrogance and ambition".
Murdoch's speech criticised the size of the BBC and the interference of Ofcom.
10.49am: Brown adds: "The remarkable thing about this period in government, and I say this with great regret, was that we could not go along with this … and while we resisted it, on each of these issues the Conservative party supported each and every one of the issues Mr Murdoch raised."
10.50am: Brown adds that the "commercial interests" of News International were "very clear" before he became prime minister, "and they had the support of the Conservative party long before that".
10.52am: Jay turns to the Sun's front-page story about his son Fraser being diagnosed with cystic fibrosis in November 2006.
Brown says he has never sought to bring his children into the public domain.
10.53am: The Sun claimed to have a story from a man in the street, he says, adding: "I never believed that could have been correct. At best he could have been the middleman because there were only a small number of people who knew that our son had cystic fibrosis."
10.55am: Brown says that Fife health board now believes "a working member of NHS staff" passed unauthorised information to the Sun through a middleman about his son, Fraser.
Fife health board has apologised for this unauthorised disclosure, Brown says.
10.56am: Brown says that a Sun journalist phoned his press office saying they had the information about Fraser and that the story was going to published.
Brown then phoned his wife Sarah to ask if the story was to be published they needed to put out a statement drawing a line under the story.
"Unfortunately this was unacceptable to the journalist," he says, claiming that the journalist then suggested it would not approach them for comment in the future if the Brown family put out a statement to the media on the story.
10.57am: Then the editor of the Sun telephoned Sarah, says Gordon.
"I don't think there's any parent in the land who would have given explicit permission for this story," he adds. "There was no question of explicit permission."
10.59am: Brown tells the inquiry he was presented with a "fait accompli" over the story and there was "no question" that it would not be published.
10.59am: Brown "absolutely" denies that he or his wife ever gave consent to the story being published, as claimed by Rebekah Brooks at the inquiry last month.
Jay asked: "Did you have the express agreement of the Browns, freely given, to publish this story about their son?"
Brooks replied: "Absolutely."
11.00am: Brooks told the inquiry that the Sun has a written affadavit from a man whose son also has cystic fibrosis. She said:
… we, at the time, and again in July 2012, were absolutely satisfied that the father had got the information from legitimate means and we were very sure about that … He'd got the information because his own child had cystic fibrosis and he'd got the information, I should say, through a very small – it's not a small charity, but there is a charity aspect to the Cystic Fibrosis Society – and he got it slightly by involvement through there.
However, she refused to say any more for fear of identifying the man.
11.02am: "The idea that we did nothing after this incident is quite wrong and is offensive," Brown says.
He adds that his family approached newspaper editors to reach an agreement on restricting publication of information about his children after the incident.
11.05am: Jay asks why Sarah remained friends with Brooks after the Sun published this story.
"Sarah is one of the most forgiving people and I think she finds good in everyone," Brown says.
11.06am: Sarah wrote Brooks a number of personal letters between 2006 and 2011 expressing her thanks for support, Jay says.
Brown maintains that Sarah is a forgiving person and that this did not amount to consent for the story about Fraser to be published by the Sun.
3.09pm FFOTILLAC.
11.07am: News International had an aggressive public agenda under James Murdoch, Brown tells the inquiry.
He refers again to Murdoch's public stance on BBC, Ofcom, rights issues and regulation.
11.08am: "What became a problem for us is that on every single one of these issues the Conservative party went along with them while we were trying to defend the public interest," Brown says. "We did so and did so to our cost."
11.09am: Brown says it became clear in summer 2009 that News International "had a highly politicised agenda for changes in media policy in this country" and there was "little point" talking to the media group about this.
11.10am: In his witness statement, Brown says that has been the subject of a number of "fishing expeditions," including of his bank account and of the police national computer.
11.13am: Brown adds: "In every area when I was chancellor, there was actually a breach or a break in in each of these areas ... and I can now say that was on behalf of the media".
He says he has passed a tape to the police of a recording of Sunday Times journalists discussing how to use "underhand" techniques to obtain information about him.
"In every area during the time that I was chancellor, there was either a break-in or a breach of these records. In most cases I can show now that that happened because of an intrusion by the media."
11.21am: Brown says of the Sunday Times:
I was accused of buying a flat in an under-the-counter sale by a Sunday Times insight team. They suggested that I'd bought this flat and it hadn't appeared on the open market and I got it at a knock-down price, and they would not accept that the starting point of any investigation was something that they would not acknowledge, that this very flat that I was supposed to have bought in an under-the-counter sale, had first of all been advertised in the Sunday Times itself. We him personating me to get bank information, we had blagging by lawyers, we had what's called reverse engineering of telephone. Someone passed me a tape which I passed on to the police where the Sunday Times reporters are talking about how they're going to use these illegal techniques and tactics – but there was no public justification for this because there was no wrongdoing, and even now I'm afraid the editor of the Sunday Times has come to your Inquiry and said that he had evidence of something he was never able to prove and there was no public interest justification for the intrusion and the impersonation and the breaking into the records. I accept a huge amount has to be tolerated in the interests of a politics that is free of corruption, but I don't think a newspaper, when it resorts to these tactics and then finds that there's nothing to report, should hold to a story which they know patently to be absolutely wrong. If you can laugh at it now that they were claiming that something that actually was advertised in their own paper was not correct, we have lessons to learn from that. It's about free being exercised with responsibility and where irresponsibility is the way that freedom is exercised, it cast as doubt on the motives of the media.
11.22am: Brown is asked about his own relations with media executives.
He disagrees with Peter Mandelson, who said that Brown and others became too close to some media bosses.
Brown refers to his Presbyterian upbringing, then describes as "faintly ridiculous" any suggestion he was influenced by Rupert Murdoch's views.
11.24am: Brown says between 1997 and 2007, his meetings with Rupert Murdoch were "few and far between".
"I don't think he was in slightest bit interested in what I was doing," he adds.
He says the media tycoon would have had the UK as the "51st state of the US" and at war with France and Germany if he had been heavily swayed by his personal views.
11.27am: Jay asks whether there are any lessons to be drawn from the then Labour government's relation with the media.
"We accepted to easily a closed culture where it was possible for stories about political events to be told to a few people rather than openly," Brown says.
The heart of this problem is the Westminster lobby system which is yet to be reformed, he adds.
11.29am: Brown says he was not surprised at all when the Sun switched its allegiance to the Tories on 30 September 2009. However, he says that the Sun's announcement on Labour party conference day was a "very strange" way to do it.
11.30am: Brown says he never asked the Sun directly for the support of the paper, or complained directly when it ditched the Labour party. He adds:
I think the manner they did it was offensive, but that was their choice. I don't think I was stung at all.
11.31am: Jay asks whether Brown is obsessed by the news.
Brown says sarcastically he is "so obsessed by the newspapers I rarely read them".
This was also true of his time in No 10, he adds.
11.32am: Brown telephoned the editor of the Sun, Dominic Mohan, and other editors on the afternoon of his conference speech.
Mohan asked him about Afghanistan, but did not mention at all that the Sun would in two hours switch its support to the Tories.
11.33am: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
11.36am: Here is a brief summary of Brown's evidence so far:
• Fife NHS board has apologised after details of Brown's son's cystic fibrosis were leaked.• Fife NHS board has apologised after details of Brown's son's cystic fibrosis were leaked.
• Brown "absolutely" denied giving the Sun permission to run front-page story about his son's illness, and said he was presented with a "fait accompli".• Brown "absolutely" denied giving the Sun permission to run front-page story about his son's illness, and said he was presented with a "fait accompli".
• George Osborne defended the decision to hire Andy Coulson and claimed his News International links were not relevant. • Brown told inquiry he has passed to police a recording of Sunday Times reporters discussing "illegal [newsgathering] techniques".
• Osborne was satisfied with Coulson's "one rogue reporter" assurances on phone hacking. • News International's "commercial interests" took over under James Murdoch, Brown claimed.
• He criticised the Sun for its "sensationalised" coverage of the Labour government's stance on the Afghanistan conflict.
11.39am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Remarkable morning of testimony from Brown where he attacks News International repeatedly. Critics will see him as unhinged; fans....
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
11.43am: The inquiry has resumed and Brown is asked about the Rupert Murdoch's account of a telephone call between the pair in 2009.
A record of the pair's phone calls between 2007 and 2009 shows 11 in total, according to reporters at the inquiry.
11.45am: Brown says he would not make a phone call to Murdoch without "someone else on the call" so that notes could be taken
11.48am: Brown says he sent Murdoch three letters on Afghanistan following telephone calls between the pair.
11.49am: On Murdoch's claim that Brown threatened to "make war" on News Corp after the Sun switched its support to the Sun, Brown says:
This conversation never took place ... There was no such conversation.
I'm surprised that first of all there's a story that I slammed the phone down, and a second story from Mr Murdoch himself that I threatened him. That did not happen.
11.51am: Murdoch said in his evidence to the inquiry:
He [Brown] said, and I must stress no voices were raised, he said: 'well, your company has declared war on my government and we have no alternative to make war on your company. I said 'I'm sorry about that Gordon, thank you for calling' and that was that.
Murdoch claimed that Brown was "not in a balanced state of mind" at the time. He then suggested that Brown wilfully misled people when he claimed that the Sun had illicitly obtained the private medical details of his son.
11.55am: Brown says of his alleged threat to Murdoch:
The problem about this is that I can see why it may suit people to say now that there was some pre-orchestrated campaign against News International and that I was threatening on a phone call and this is the justification, so this is nothing to do with telephone hacking, it's all to do with some political campaign against News International, but this call did not happen. The threat was not made. I couldn't be unbalanced on a call that I didn't have, and a threat that was not made. I found it shocking that we should get to this situation, sort of some time later, when there is no evidence of this call happening at the time that he says it happened, and you to be told under oath that this was the case and to be backed up by other people from News International who had been continuing to make comments about such a position.
... There is absolutely no evidence for this phone call or for the threat or for the judgment that Mr Murdoch made as a result of something that he was never party to. The only call that ever happened was in November, and it was about Afghanistan, and it was weeks after when people allege the call took place.
11.57am: Murdoch asked Brown to telephone Brooks who "he hinted, wanted to apologise for what had happened", he says, when asked about the Sun's "Bloody disgrace" front page over his letter to a bereaved mother of an Afghanistan soldier.
11.59am: Brown says Murdoch offered assurances to him that the Sun would withdraw the personal element of its coverage of Afghanistan.
12.01pm: The Guardian's editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:
GB directly contradicts Rupert M's sworn evidence tt GB threatenedto declare war after Sun withdrew support #Leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) June 11, 2012
12.02pm: Dan Sabbagh has just sent us this list of Brown's phone calls with Murdoch, while he was prime minister, as disclosed to the Leveson inquiry.
2007 (date and time)
19/07 - 19.05
04/10- 15.25
09/10 - 12.30
2008 (date and time)
14/02 - 16.50
10/05 - 10.27
18/07 - 19.40
03/09 - 16.05
03/10 - 20.07
12/10 - 23.00
2009 (date and time)
03/03 - 19.12
10/11 - 12.33
12.05pm: Brown is asked about Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail.
He says the two met rarely but he was "personally very kind".
However, the Daily Mail was "totally against" Labour, he adds.
12.07pm: Dan Sabbagh has just sent us this list of Brown's meetings with Rupert Murdoch, while he was prime minister, as disclosed to the Leveson inquiry.
2007
05/10 - Meeting 13:05-13:10
29/10 - Lunch 13:30-15:00
2008
22/01 - 12:35-14:00 Lunch
06/06 - 19:10 Dinner with Mrs Murdoch
16/06 - 21:50 Dinner
2009
13/01 - 07:00-08:30 Breakfast
26/06 - 19:00-21:30 Dinner
14/12 - 08:30-10:00 Breakfast
12.11pm: Jay now turns to Brown's oversight of the Data Protection Act.
Brown says he was in favour of a public interest clause in the act to protect journalists.
He says he made up his mind on this before a September 2007 meeting with Dacre, Telegraph Media Group's Murdoch MacLennan and News International's Les Hinton.
12.14pm: Media veteran Andrew Neil has just tweeted:
Refreshing lack of 'I can't recall' and 'not to my recollection' in Brown's testimony #Leveson
— Andrew Neil(@afneil) June 11, 2012
12.15pm: Brown wanted a public interest amendment made to the Press Complaints Commission editors' code, he says.
12.18pm: "I felt that America branded itself to the world that it was a country of liberty and ... but liberty originated in Britain and I wanted to make that clear," Brown says.
12.21pm: Brown confirms he would have had a conversation with Jack Straw, then justice secretary, before 10 September 2007 on the Data Protection Act and his concern to ensure a public interest defence.
12.21pm: Brown is asked about special advisers.
Alastair Campbell told the inquiry there was a "real problem" with Brown's special adviser in the Treasury, Charlie Whelan.
12.22pm: Brown says there was "tittle-tattle" but that each of his special advisers' dealings with the media would go through a civil servant, the Treasury's head of communications.
"It would be without my knowledge and without my sanction," Brown says, of the claim that his Treasury aides anonymously briefed the media.
Were they engaged in systematic anonymous briefings? "I wouldn't say that at all," Brown says.
Did they brief against Blair? "No."
12.24pm: Brown says he "would hope not" when asked if his aides attempted to force Blair from office.
He denies he instructed his aides to have off-the-record briefings with the press.
12.26pm: The Sun's political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, has just tweeted:
Despite Brown's old #Leveson rant, here again is the truth about Sun's source for cystic fibrosis story; another dad -thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/n…
— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) June 11, 2012
12.28pm: The ITV News political editor, Tom Bradby, has just tweeted:
Gordon Brown's comments on the activities of his press aides are prompting gasps of incredulity in the parliamentary lobby.
— tom bradby (@tombradby) June 11, 2012
12.33pm: Brown says that Damian McBride, his former media adviser, made a "bad mistake" and had to go. He adds that Peter Mandelson did not like McBride, when asked about a passage in Mandelson's book.
12.33pm: Brown denies asking Charlie Whelan to brief against Alastair Darling when he was chancellor.
The one thing I can say to you that is absolutely clear ... is that nobody in my position would have instructed any briefing against a senior minister, and Alastair Darling was a friend of mine as well as a senior colleague.
12.35pm: NHS Fife has issued a statement on how the Sun obtained information about Gordon Brown's son:
John Wilson, chief executive of NHS Fife, said: "Any breach of confidentiality in the NHS is unacceptable. We now accept that it is highly likely that, sometime in 2006, a member of staff in NHS Fife spoke, without authorisation, about the medical condition of Mr Brown's son, Fraser.
"With the passage of time it has not been possible to identify all the circumstances.
"We believe, however, that there was no inappropriate access to the child's medical records. We are quite clear that conversations about patients are just as much a breach of confidentiality as looking into their medical records.
"In the six years which have passed, NHS Fife has tightened up its procedures on patient confidentiality, and staff have had appropriate training.
"I have apologised to Mr and Mrs Brown and we have taken steps to ensure that what happened to Mr and Mrs Brown and their family should not happen again."
12.36pm: Brown says he asked his advisers to operate under tough guidelines, especially on the use of work computers for personal use.
12.38pm: Brown also denies briefing against John Major, after the former Tory prime minister wrote to the inquiry accusing Brown of instructing either Charlie Whelan or Damian McBride to brief against him.
12.41pm: Brown calls for an end to the lobby briefings in favour of public hearings in front of TV cameras.
"We should have changed the lobby system and had a far more open and transparent system of addressing the country through the press," says Brown, when asked what lessons he learned about media while in power.
12.43pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
Gordon Brown's letter to the inquiry re the 'declare war' on Murdoch phone calllevesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/upl… #leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) June 11, 2012
12.45pm: Jay asks Brown about the Labour MP Tom Watson.
On a phone call, Brown says he told Watson that News International had historically called for him to be sacked. He adds that he gave him no new information.
12.47pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
GB written statement: my wife Sarah received a text from rebekah brooks questioning the continuation of Tom Watson as a minister #leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) June 11, 2012
12.50pm: Brown says Watson's trip to Scotland before the "curry house coup" against Tony Blair had nothing to do with politics; the MP was delivering a present for his newborn baby.
12.51pm: BBC News political correspondent Robin Brant has just tweeted:
jay says he will request the inquiry is given access to the brooks/sarah brown text (from SB phone) about tom watson's future as minister
— Robin Brant (@robindbrant) June 11, 2012
12.52pm: Jay turns to Brown's proposals for future regulation of the press.
Brown says the PCC's handling of complaints is satisfactory. He adds quality journalism should be "incentivised" and there would be cross-party support for that.
12.56pm: Brown says there is problem about financing quality journalism in the future and that new avenues should be explored.
He adds: "Is the BBC model of any use to us? I think we ought to look at that."
1.00pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
GB written statement: editors form too large a part of PCC. Penalties in no way commensurate with offences #Leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) June 11, 2012
1.01pm: Brown says that without an investigative arm the Press Complaints Commission cannot be successful. He adds that the relationship between the press and politicians "needs to be reset" with more openness and transparency.
He is in favour of a statutory backstop to the reconstituted press regulator.
1.05pm: Rhodri Davies QC, counsel for News International, asks if he can put questions to Brown about the disputed phone call with Murdoch.
Davies asks about Peter Mandelson's evidence on the phone call.
1.10pm: Mandelson told the inquiry he was not on a call but assumed there was one. He said he seemed to recall Brown telling him Murdoch's reaction.
Brown answers by saying that he had one phone call on 10 November with Murdoch about Afghanistan. He says that is the only phone call he had in a year with Murdoch.
1.11pm: hHere is the transcript of Mandelson's evidence on the Brown phone call:
Jay: You might be able to throw direct light on that belief by a piece of evidence. We heard from Mr Murdoch – and he said it twice, sitting where you are – that there was a telephone call between him and Mr Brown when
Mr Brown delivered what was tantamount to –
Mandelson: But the interesting thing about the phone call –
Jay: Can I –
Mandelson: – is Mr Murdoch himself said that he did not agree with the method and timing of what had been done.
Jay: Yes, but we don't know yet from your evidence whether you know whether there was such a call, and that was the question.
Mandelson: Oh, I'm sorry.
Jay: The allegation is – or rather the evidence was from Mr Murdoch – that Mr Brown said or uttered the words "declare war on News International" or words to that effect. From your own knowledge, Lord Mandelson, can
you assist us as to whether there was such a call?
Mandelson: Well, I wasn't on the call. I hadn't been patched into the call.
Jay: No, of course not.
Mandelson: I assume that there was the call because I seem to remember the Prime Minister telling me that Rupert Murdoch was not at all happy with the method and timing of James and Rebekah's action.
Jay: What did the Prime Minister tell you, Lord Mandelson, about the call? Did he communicate to you that that's
what he told Mr Murdoch?
Mandelson: No, he didn't say that. He told me what Mr Murdoch had said to him.
Jay: So there was nothing about what Mr Brown said to Mr Murdoch? Is that your evidence?
Mandelson: Yes, it is. I cannot remember being told by Mr Brown what he said, and I have no way of knowing. But I – but I know what he said to me about Rupert Murdoch's reaction, which was to say basically: "I don't like how it's been done and I think it's a bad day to do it and I wouldn't have done it this way myself, but that's life and we have to get on with it."
Jay: Mr Murdoch's reaction to what, though, Lord Mandelson?
Mandelson: The decision of the Sun to switch support from New Labour to the Conservative party, which he has said, if I recall correctly, was James and Rebekah's decision.Not the editor's, incidentally.
Jay: Can you at least assist us with the timing of this call? We know that there was a later call relating to the letter to the mother of the soldier who died in Afghanistan. We're talking about an earlier conversation, if it took place.
Mandelson: There would have been a number of – I mean, Gordon did not hold back in talking to Rupert Murdoch. He did telephone him, he had every right to do so, and when he thought that he was being traduced, as he did, by the Sun, he wanted to give vent to his feelings about that. I mean, who can blame him in the circumstances? Personally, I think it is better to go to editors rather than proprietors, but he did have a good relationship with Rupert and he invoked that friendship.
1.15pm: Brown says that on 30 September 2009, the day the Sun switched support to the Tories, there was no call or discussion with Murdoch or the Sun.
He adds: "News International is doing itself a great deal of harm trying to suggest a telephone call took place that never happened."
"I do find it very strange that we are being asked to debate a call that never took place and for which News International have no information," he says.
1.16pm: The inquiry has now broken for lunch and will resume at 2pm with evidence from George Osborne.
1.19pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of Gordon Brown's evidence:

• Fife NHS board has apologised after details of Brown's son's cystic fibrosis were leaked.
• Brown "absolutely" denied giving the Sun permission to run front-page story about his son's illness, and said he was presented with a "fait accompli".
• Brown did not declare war on News Corp in a phone call with Murdoch in 2009, he told the inquiry.• Brown did not declare war on News Corp in a phone call with Murdoch in 2009, he told the inquiry.
• He denied special advisers Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride briefed against government colleagues.• He denied special advisers Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride briefed against government colleagues.
• Brown told inquiry he has passed to police a recording of Sunday Times reporters discussing "illegal [newsgathering] techniques".• Brown told inquiry he has passed to police a recording of Sunday Times reporters discussing "illegal [newsgathering] techniques".
• News International's "commercial interests" took over under James Murdoch, Brown claimed.• News International's "commercial interests" took over under James Murdoch, Brown claimed.
4.35pm: The Guardian's Patrick Wintour has just tweeted: • He criticised the Sun for its "sensationalised" coverage of Labour government stance on the Afghanistan conflict.
Osborne at end of Leveson evidence session declares the imminent death of the newspaper, (thanks)but emerges wholly unscathed. 2.08pm: George Osborne has taken the witness stand.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) June 11, 2012 Osborne is sworn in under his full name: George Gideon Oliver Osborne.
4.34pm: Former Sun editor David Yelland has just tweeted: Leveson says that the decision to call Osborne to give evidence was made before Jeremy Hunt appeared, and not as a result of information that came to light from the culture secretary.
Gordon and Sarah were bullied and I'm afraid my old paper behaved awfully in his last year or so. It was brutal stuff. 2.12pm: The public are aware if a politician is "craven" to a newspaper, Osborne says.
— David Yelland (@davidyelland) June 11, 2012 He adds that it is up to a newspaper to judge whether they are reflecting the interests of their readers.
4.12pm: Osborne has now completed his evidence. 2.14pm: Osborne says the issue of media practices became of such national importance because of the revelations about the hacking of Milly Dowler's telephone, "a totally outrageous intrusion".
The inquiry will resume tomorrow at 10am with evidence from Ed Miliband, Sir John Major and Harriet Harman. 2.14pm: Jay asks about the fusion of news and comment in newspapers.
4.10pm: Osborne says everyone will have been "wasting their time" if changes to media regulation focus on one particular medium. Osborne says he believes it is a "bit of a blind alley for the inquiry".
He says any future regulation will have to deal with the internet age. He explains that trying to distinguish between fact and opinion in newspapers would be "extremely difficult".
"I have a 10-year-old and an eight-year-old. I doubt they will ever buy a newspaper in their lives," he adds. 2.17pm: The significance of a story is "massively elevated" if it is at the top of a major broadcast news bulletin, Osborne says, when asked whether broadcasters follow newspaper stories or set the agenda themselves.
4.09pm: The ITV News political editor, Tom Bradby, has just tweeted: 2.19pm: Jay turns to Osborne's meetings with media proprietors.
So that is Osborne and Gove hinting to Leveson they don't want press regulation. Could be an interesting face-off. Osborne caveats his record of meetings while shadow chancellor, from 2005 to 2010. He says some meetings may not have been removed from the diary if they did not actually happen.
— tom bradby (@tombradby) June 11, 2012 News International counts for about a third of entries between 2005 and 2010, Osborne says, adding: "Which I think is roughly their share of the newspaper market at that time."
4.07pm: Sky News has just tweeted: 2.25pm: Osborne says he did not discuss media regulation with James Murdoch but did talk about the BBC licence fee.
Scotland Yard hands the Crown Prosecution Service files on five journalists for decisions in relation to phone hacking Murdoch complained about a taxpayer-funded state broadcaster, Osborne says, adding that he made clear the Tories would not change that if in government.
— Sky News Newsdesk (@SkyNewsBreak) June 11, 2012 2.26pm: Osborne says his meetings with media proprietors are "off the record" and informal.
4.02pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted: 2.28pm: Osborne describes a pre-Christmas meal at Rebekah Brooks' home with James and Rupert Murdoch.
Osborne dined w R Brooks, Will Lewis and J Murdoch on April 5 2010 [day of first hacking arrests] but doesn't remember discussing BSkyB bid He says there was no discussion of News Corp's commercial interests, but more about the British economy.
2.30pm: Osborne denies having a private meeting with News International in a chalet in Davos in 2010, but there was a lunch in January 2009 with Osborne, David Cameron, Rebekah Brooks, James and Rupert Murdoch.
The focus of the lunch was the global financial crisis, he says. Osborne and Cameron tried gently to bring the focus onto domestic politics, he adds.
"In all these encounters either with the Murdochs or other proprietors we were trying to set out our stall," he adds.
2.33pm: Osborne says he does not believe this meeting was the "crucial encounter" in the News International titles' decision to switch support to the Tories.
"If it was just a question of out-lunching them I don't think we'd have beaten New Labour," Osborne adds.
2.37pm: New Labour were "very aggressive" when in government in treating the media the way they did in opposition, Osborne says, adding that the Tories did that "and we were more relaxed about fighting for every single headline or every single broadcast bulletin".
2.39pm: Osborne is asked about his conversations in the runup to the BBC licence fee settlement in October 2010.
He says James Murdoch was "clearly disappointed" with that decision and was "quite angry" in a phone call with him after the licence fee settlement was announced.
2.41pm: Osborne says he does not remember any conversation with Murdoch about his MacTaggart lecture.
"It was typical. It was what he thought and was telling anyone who wanted to listen to him at the time," Osborne says.
"I disagreed with him, basically. Certainly David Cameron also disagreed with him."
Osborne and Cameron disagreed with Murdoch about the size and scale of the BBC, he adds.
2.43pm: Osborne says neither News Corp's BSkyB bid, nor the BBC or Ofcom were raised at a dinner in New York on 17 November 2010 with the Murdochs.
Rupert Murdoch was mainly talking about his new online news publication, says Osborne, presumably a reference to The Daily.
2.45pm: Osborne confirms he did speak about the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch in a phone call on 29 November 2010.
2.46pm: Osborne is asked about a dinner conversation with Rebekah Brooks on 13 December 2010 which, she said, included a discussion about the BSkyB bid in which the chancellor "expressed bafflement" at Ofcom's issues letter over the takeover.
2.49pm: Osborne says of News Corp's BSkyB bid: "I didn't have a strong view about its merits because I felt it was going to cause us trouble one way or the other."
He adds that he felt the takeover was a "political inconvenience" because, whatever happened, it would lose the Tories favour with some media groups.
"I think that judgment has been borne out by events," he adds.
2.50pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Osborne "on strict politics" of it you had two Tory papers for bid, two Tory papers against it. Hence "politically inconvenient for us".
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
2.51pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Fascinating insight into Osborne way of thinking: saw BSkyB bid entirely in terms of which friends any decision on it would offend #Leveson
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) June 11, 2012— ian katz (@iankatz1000) June 11, 2012
4.02pm: Defamation laws and the courts do not provide much of a remedy for those who have been libelled, Osborne says, but then the PCC "has lacked teeth". 2.54pm: Jay presses Osborne on whether he really had such little interest in the bid.
He adds that the PCC is "too reactive" and should foster a new set of standards for the industry. Osborne repeats that he believed it was a "political inconvenience" and that there was little he could do to get involved in the bid so did not have a strong view on its merits or demerits.
3.59pm: Osborne is asked about press regulation. 2.55pm: Osborne says there was "no substantive discussion" with Jeremy Hunt or Vince Cable about the bid.
He says the Press Complaints Commission needs a "complete overhaul" and that victims of press mistreatment need "better redress". Osborne says he was "not aware" of Hunt's view of the bid, or Cameron's.
3.58pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted: "I assumed, speaking about Mr Cameron, that the whole thing was a political inconvenience," Osborne says.
Osborne: remain a friend of Coulson though sadly not been able to speak to him for a year #leveson Osborne says that several newspaper groups and, "rather extraordinarily", the director general of the BBC opposed the bid.
— Ross Hawkins (@rosschawkins) June 11, 2012 2.59pm: Osborne is asked about Rupert Harrison, his economics adviser.
3.54pm: Osborne describes Times columnist Daniel Finkelstein as "a very good friend". He says that Harrison tried to politely brush off approaches from Fred Michel, the News Corp lobbyist.
He says Finkelstein "occasionally provides good one-lines and jokes" for his speeches, and has done so for senior Conservatives for about 20 years. Harrison disputes Michel's interpretation of his conversation with Michel.
3.50pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted: 3.01pm: Jay turns to text messages.
[So #Osborne checked out Coulson's poss reputational risk by a)asking Coulson about it b) asking his mate/boss if he was a good chap] Michel texted Harrison in November 2010 to say:
— Ben Fenton (@benfenton) June 11, 2012 Rupert just spoke with James. It would be helpful if George were to send a letter to Vince on our Sky merger and its economic importance, separate from the Ofcom process. Do you think it is a possibility? I can of course help with the content. Best, fred
3.49pm: Osborne says the endorsement of the Sun was "one of a range of things" the Tories wanted to achieve, but adds he believes the party would have done well in the 2010 election without the tabloid's backing. Harrison replied: "Will have to discuss with g when he's back from china. R".
"I certainly think you can win an election without the endorsement of the Sun," he adds. Osborne says Harrison was being diplomatic and he "behaved properly".
3.47pm: Osborne says he spoke to Rebekah Brooks a couple of weeks after he saw Coulson. 3.07pm: Osborne is asked about the text messages between him and Jeremy Hunt on the day Vince Cable was stripped of responsibility for the BSkyB merger.
He asked her "Tell me about Andy Coulson: is he a good person? Is he a good person to work with? I was simply asking for her opinion as him as a professional". Osborne says he had no discussion with News Corp about this issue on that day. He did discuss it with Cameron.
Osborne says that Coulson had told Brooks he had been approached about the job. 3.08pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
3.45pm: Coulson was "somewhat surprised" by being asked about the job, Osborne says, adding that he agreed to consider the role. Osborne's spad, Rupert Harrison, denying through his boss that he lobbied Cable's dept over Sky bid although Michel Nov 9 mail said he would
3.44pm: Osborne says he assumed that there was nothing more to be revealed on phone hacking because of assurances from Coulson, the Press Complaints Commission's statements and the trial of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire.
3.43pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Every part of Osborne's answers on Coulson emphasises non-NewsInt points, downplaying the Murdoch link. Well rehearsed.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
3.42pm: Osborne sasy the Conservative party knew that hiring Coulson would attract controversy because of the nature of his resignation from the News of the World. 3.08pm: Osborne went to the 4pm meeting in No 10 with Cameron, the senior civil servant, the No 10 permanent secretary, and the prime minister's "close political team" and his private office.
3.42pm: Osborne says he asked Coulson about phone hacking when the pair met for a drink to discuss the job. "The principal concern was that this was not something that should lead to the resignation of Dr Cable," Osborne says.
I asked him in a general sense ... whether there was more in the phone-hacking story that was going to come out that we needed to know about and he said 'no'. 3.10pm: The No 10 permanent secretary, Jeremy Haywood, suggested moving responsibility for the bid to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Osborne says.
3.41pm: Osborne continues: Osborne says he is "pretty sure" that it was Haywood's idea to move responsibility for the bid to DCMS, when pressed by Jay.
If anything we knew it would be controversial hiring someone who had resigned from the News of the World so we certainly had to consider that. How long did this solution take? "Less than an hour I'd have thought," says Osborne.
It was not a consideration 'let's hire the ex-News International man'. 3.12pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
That's the second awkward decision that has been chalked up to Jeremy Heywood. It was supposedly him who decided to to vet Coulson too.
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) June 11, 2012
and
Here's a reminder of how that key day - Dec 21, 2010 - unfolded bit.ly/MbfhtF
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) June 11, 2012
3.13pm: Osborne says he would have seen Hunt's texts to him after the No 10 meeting and then replied "I hope you like the solution".
3.14pm: Osborne explains that he thought Hunt would like the fact he was taking on more responsibilities.
3.14pm: Osborne says legal advice was sought over Hunt's suitability for taking responsibility for the BSkyB bid given his previous comments in favour.
However, Jay points out that this was only given after Osborne's text to Hunt.
3.16pm: Osborne says he doesn't recollect being particularly surprised by Hunt's public comments broadly in support of News Corp's BSkyB bid.
3.16pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Osborne: we had a political problem after Cable gaffe and "the senior civil service provided a neat Whitehall solution"
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) June 11, 2012
3.17pm: "On the day I remember the pressure was enormous to do something about the political problem that had been unleashed on the government," Osborne says, when asked why there was such a rush to resolve the issue.
He adds that you have to be "on top of the news management cycle".
3.20pm: Osborne says it was "not considered" that passing the responsibility to Hunt presented the government with the "equal and opposite problem" that Cable's comments had.
3.20pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
3.30pm: The inquiry has resumed and Jay asks Osborne about the recruitment of Andy Coulson as No 10 director of communications in July 2007.
There were three or four candidates including Guto Harri, Osborne says, and he thought Coulson "would be a very strong candidate".
As editor of a major national newspaper Coulson had a wealth of professional experience, Osborne says.
3.34pm:Osborne says he and Coulson had met a few times and "he struck me as someone who had Conservative views and shared my Conservative values."
He says Coulson's contacts within News International were not relevant factors.
What we were interested in hiring is someone who was going to do the job going forward. We thought he had the experience and the personality to do that.
3.37pm: Coulson brought a broader experience to No 10 than Alastair Campbell for New Labour because he edited a national newspaper, Osborne says.
"He brought a whole range of experiences and values to the job," he says, adding that "Basildon beats close to the heart of the Conservative party" – a reference to Coulson's first job in journalism, at the Basildon Echo.
3.38pm: Our full story on Gordon Brown's denial that he made a threatening call to Rupert Murdoch is now live. Dan Sabbagh and John Plunkett write:3.38pm: Our full story on Gordon Brown's denial that he made a threatening call to Rupert Murdoch is now live. Dan Sabbagh and John Plunkett write:
Gordon Brown has insisted that he did not make an "unbalanced" and threatening phone call to Rupert Murdoch in 2009, contradicting evidence given by the media mogul to the Leveson inquiry in April.Gordon Brown has insisted that he did not make an "unbalanced" and threatening phone call to Rupert Murdoch in 2009, contradicting evidence given by the media mogul to the Leveson inquiry in April.
The former prime minister released Downing Street phone records to the inquiry on Monday to show that he had spoken to Murdoch on 10 November of that year at 12.33pm. Brown said that the two had spoken about the war in Afghanistan.The former prime minister released Downing Street phone records to the inquiry on Monday to show that he had spoken to Murdoch on 10 November of that year at 12.33pm. Brown said that the two had spoken about the war in Afghanistan.
The disputed call happened, Brown told the inquiry, a day after the Sun attacked him over a hard to read handwritten note of condolence, and was intended to discuss the tabloid's coverage of the war in Afghanistan.The disputed call happened, Brown told the inquiry, a day after the Sun attacked him over a hard to read handwritten note of condolence, and was intended to discuss the tabloid's coverage of the war in Afghanistan.
However, the former prime minister said that there had been no such call on or close to 30 September 2009, as Murdoch had previously suggested, the day the tabloid announced its backing for the Conservatives at the forthcoming general election.However, the former prime minister said that there had been no such call on or close to 30 September 2009, as Murdoch had previously suggested, the day the tabloid announced its backing for the Conservatives at the forthcoming general election.
Brown said that "this is the conversation that Mr Murdoch says happened", during which "I threatened him and where I'm alleged to have acted in an unbalanced way". "This conversation never took place," he added.Brown said that "this is the conversation that Mr Murdoch says happened", during which "I threatened him and where I'm alleged to have acted in an unbalanced way". "This conversation never took place," he added.
The former prime minister said "I'm shocked and surprised that it should be suggested, even when there's no evidence of such a conversation, that it should have happened".The former prime minister said "I'm shocked and surprised that it should be suggested, even when there's no evidence of such a conversation, that it should have happened".
He added that he believed there was no point in speaking to Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch after the Sun had switched to the Tories. "I decided after 30 September … that there was no point in contacting them [the Murdochs]," Brown said.He added that he believed there was no point in speaking to Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch after the Sun had switched to the Tories. "I decided after 30 September … that there was no point in contacting them [the Murdochs]," Brown said.
He added that "this was a matter that was done" and that "I didn't phone – I didn't return calls to News International. I didn't phone Mr Murdoch, I didn't talk to his son, I didn't text him, I didn't email him".He added that "this was a matter that was done" and that "I didn't phone – I didn't return calls to News International. I didn't phone Mr Murdoch, I didn't talk to his son, I didn't text him, I didn't email him".
Brown went on to discuss the November phone call, which he said was to discuss the war on Afghanistan. He added that "there was no reference to threats or Conservative parties or anything" and said that the conversation ended with Brown agreeing to discuss the subject further with Rebekah Brooks, then News International chief executive.Brown went on to discuss the November phone call, which he said was to discuss the war on Afghanistan. He added that "there was no reference to threats or Conservative parties or anything" and said that the conversation ended with Brown agreeing to discuss the subject further with Rebekah Brooks, then News International chief executive.
In April Rupert Murdoch told the Leveson inquiry he stood by "every word" of an account he had given of a phone call between himself and Brown in the autumn of 2009, in which the media mogul said the then prime minister pledged to "declare war" on News Corp. At that time Murdoch said, of Brown, "I don't think he was in a very balanced state of mind".In April Rupert Murdoch told the Leveson inquiry he stood by "every word" of an account he had given of a phone call between himself and Brown in the autumn of 2009, in which the media mogul said the then prime minister pledged to "declare war" on News Corp. At that time Murdoch said, of Brown, "I don't think he was in a very balanced state of mind".
Responding to Brown's Leveson evidence on Monday, a News Corporation spokesman said: "Rupert Murdoch stands behind his testimony."Responding to Brown's Leveson evidence on Monday, a News Corporation spokesman said: "Rupert Murdoch stands behind his testimony."
Later at the inquiry Brown was again challenged on his evidence by Rhodri Davies, counsel to News International, citing evidence given previously by Lord Mandelson to the inquiry in May.Later at the inquiry Brown was again challenged on his evidence by Rhodri Davies, counsel to News International, citing evidence given previously by Lord Mandelson to the inquiry in May.
Mandelson appeared to acknowledge that there was a Brown/Murdoch phone call when asked if he was aware that the former prime minister had uttered the words "declare war on News International". Mandelson had replied: "Well I wasn't on the call."Mandelson appeared to acknowledge that there was a Brown/Murdoch phone call when asked if he was aware that the former prime minister had uttered the words "declare war on News International". Mandelson had replied: "Well I wasn't on the call."
Responding to Davies's repetition of Mandelson's evidence, Brown said: "News International have produced not one shred of evidence that a call took place, not one date for the call or time for the call. You're not able to tell us what happened except you have these statements from Mr Murdoch that this happened, and I do find it very strange that we're being asked to debate a call which never took place, for which you have no information about when it took place."Responding to Davies's repetition of Mandelson's evidence, Brown said: "News International have produced not one shred of evidence that a call took place, not one date for the call or time for the call. You're not able to tell us what happened except you have these statements from Mr Murdoch that this happened, and I do find it very strange that we're being asked to debate a call which never took place, for which you have no information about when it took place."
You can read the full article here.You can read the full article here.
3.37pm: Coulson brought a broader experience to No 10 than Alastair Campbell for New Labour because he edited a national newspaper, Osborne says. 3.41pm: Osborne continues:
"He brought a whole range of experiences and values to the job," he says, adding that "Basildon beats close to the heart of the Conservative party" – a reference to Coulson's first job in journalism, at the Basildon Echo. If anything we knew it would be controversial hiring someone who had resigned from the News of the World so we certainly had to consider that.
3.34pm:Osborne says he and Coulson had met a few times and "he struck me as someone who had Conservative views and shared my Conservative values." It was not a consideration 'let's hire the ex-News International man'.
He says Coulson's contacts within News International were not relevant factors. 3.42pm: Osborne says he asked Coulson about phone hacking when the pair met for a drink to discuss the job.
What we were interested in hiring is someone who was going to do the job going forward. We thought he had the experience and the personality to do that. I asked him in a general sense ... whether there was more in the phone-hacking story that was going to come out that we needed to know about and he said 'no'.
3.30pm: The inquiry has resumed and Jay asks Osborne about the recruitment of Andy Coulson as No 10 director of communications in July 2007. 3.42pm: Osborne sasy the Conservative party knew that hiring Coulson would attract controversy because of the nature of his resignation from the News of the World.
There were three or four candidates including Guto Harri, Osborne says, and he thought Coulson "would be a very strong candidate". 3.43pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
As editor of a major national newspaper Coulson had a wealth of professional experience, Osborne says. Every part of Osborne's answers on Coulson emphasises non-NewsInt points, downplaying the Murdoch link. Well rehearsed.
3.20pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
3.20pm: Osborne says it was "not considered" that passing the responsibility to Hunt presented the government with the "equal and opposite problem" that Cable's comments had.
3.17pm: "On the day I remember the pressure was enormous to do something about the political problem that had been unleashed on the government," Osborne says, when asked why there was such a rush to resolve the issue.
He adds that you have to be "on top of the news management cycle".
3.16pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Osborne: we had a political problem after Cable gaffe and "the senior civil service provided a neat Whitehall solution"
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) June 11, 2012
3.16pm: Osborne says he doesn't recollect being particularly surprised by Hunt's public comments broadly in support of News Corp's BSkyB bid.
3.14pm: Osborne says legal advice was sought over Hunt's suitability for taking responsibility for the BSkyB bid given his previous comments in favour.
However, Jay points out that this was only given after Osborne's text to Hunt.
3.14pm: Osborne explains that he thought Hunt would like the fact he was taking on more responsibilities.
3.13pm: Osborne says he would have seen Hunt's texts to him after the No 10 meeting and then replied "I hope you like the solution".
3.12pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
That's the second awkward decision that has been chalked up to Jeremy Heywood. It was supposedly him who decided to to vet Coulson too.
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) June 11, 2012
and
Here's a reminder of how that key day - Dec 21, 2010 - unfolded bit.ly/MbfhtF
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) June 11, 2012
3.10pm: The No 10 permanent secretary, Jeremy Haywood, suggested moving responsibility for the bid to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Osborne says.
Osborne says he is "pretty sure" that it was Haywood's idea to move responsibility for the bid to DCMS, when pressed by Jay.
How long did this solution take? "Less than an hour I'd have thought," says Osborne.
3.08pm: Osborne went to the 4pm meeting in No 10 with Cameron, the senior civil servant, the No 10 permanent secretary, and the prime minister's "close political team" and his private office.
"The principal concern was that this was not something that should lead to the resignation of Dr Cable," Osborne says.
3.08pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Osborne's spad, Rupert Harrison, denying through his boss that he lobbied Cable's dept over Sky bid although Michel Nov 9 mail said he would
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
3.07pm: Osborne is asked about the text messages between him and Jeremy Hunt on the day Vince Cable was stripped of responsibility for the BSkyB merger. 3.44pm: Osborne says he assumed that there was nothing more to be revealed on phone hacking because of assurances from Coulson, the Press Complaints Commission's statements and the trial of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire.
Osborne says he had no discussion with News Corp about this issue on that day. He did discuss it with Cameron. 3.45pm: Coulson was "somewhat surprised" by being asked about the job, Osborne says, adding that he agreed to consider the role.
3.01pm: Jay turns to text messages. 3.47pm: Osborne says he spoke to Rebekah Brooks a couple of weeks after he saw Coulson.
Michel texted Harrison in November 2010 to say: He asked her "Tell me about Andy Coulson: is he a good person? Is he a good person to work with? I was simply asking for her opinion as him as a professional".
Rupert just spoke with James. It would be helpful if George were to send a letter to Vince on our Sky merger and its economic importance, separate from the Ofcom process. Do you think it is a possibility? I can of course help with the content. Best, fred Osborne says that Coulson had told Brooks he had been approached about the job.
Harrison replied: "Will have to discuss with g when he's back from china. R". 3.49pm: Osborne says the endorsement of the Sun was "one of a range of things" the Tories wanted to achieve, but adds he believes the party would have done well in the 2010 election without the tabloid's backing.
Osborne says Harrison was being diplomatic and he "behaved properly". "I certainly think you can win an election without the endorsement of the Sun," he adds.
2.59pm: Osborne is asked about Rupert Harrison, his economics adviser. 3.50pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted:
He says that Harrison tried to politely brush off approaches from Fred Michel, the News Corp lobbyist. [So #Osborne checked out Coulson's poss reputational risk by a)asking Coulson about it b) asking his mate/boss if he was a good chap]
Harrison disputes Michel's interpretation of his conversation with Michel. — Ben Fenton (@benfenton) June 11, 2012
2.55pm: Osborne says there was "no substantive discussion" with Jeremy Hunt or Vince Cable about the bid. 3.54pm: Osborne describes Times columnist Daniel Finkelstein as "a very good friend".
Osborne says he was "not aware" of Hunt's view of the bid, or Cameron's. He says Finkelstein "occasionally provides good one-lines and jokes" for his speeches, and has done so for senior Conservatives for about 20 years.
"I assumed, speaking about Mr Cameron, that the whole thing was a political inconvenience," Osborne says. 3.58pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
Osborne says that several newspaper groups and, "rather extraordinarily", the director general of the BBC opposed the bid. Osborne: remain a friend of Coulson though sadly not been able to speak to him for a year #leveson
2.54pm: Jay presses Osborne on whether he really had such little interest in the bid. — Ross Hawkins (@rosschawkins) June 11, 2012
Osborne repeats that he believed it was a "political inconvenience" and that there was little he could do to get involved in the bid so did not have a strong view on its merits or demerits. 3.59pm: Osborne is asked about press regulation.
2.51pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted: He says the Press Complaints Commission needs a "complete overhaul" and that victims of press mistreatment need "better redress".
Fascinating insight into Osborne way of thinking: saw BSkyB bid entirely in terms of which friends any decision on it would offend #Leveson 4.02pm: Defamation laws and the courts do not provide much of a remedy for those who have been libelled, Osborne says, but then the PCC "has lacked teeth".
He adds that the PCC is "too reactive" and should foster a new set of standards for the industry.
4.02pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Osborne dined w R Brooks, Will Lewis and J Murdoch on April 5 2010 [day of first hacking arrests] but doesn't remember discussing BSkyB bid
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) June 11, 2012— ian katz (@iankatz1000) June 11, 2012
2.50pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted: 4.07pm: Sky News has just tweeted:
Osborne "on strict politics" of it you had two Tory papers for bid, two Tory papers against it. Hence "politically inconvenient for us". Scotland Yard hands the Crown Prosecution Service files on five journalists for decisions in relation to phone hacking
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012 — Sky News Newsdesk (@SkyNewsBreak) June 11, 2012
2.49pm: Osborne says of News Corp's BSkyB bid: "I didn't have a strong view about its merits because I felt it was going to cause us trouble one way or the other." 4.09pm: The ITV News political editor, Tom Bradby, has just tweeted:
He adds that he felt the takeover was a "political inconvenience" because, whatever happened, it would lose the Tories favour with some media groups. So that is Osborne and Gove hinting to Leveson they don't want press regulation. Could be an interesting face-off.
"I think that judgment has been borne out by events," he adds. — tom bradby (@tombradby) June 11, 2012
2.46pm: Osborne is asked about a dinner conversation with Rebekah Brooks on 13 December 2010 which, she said, included a discussion about the BSkyB bid in which the chancellor "expressed bafflement" at Ofcom's issues letter over the takeover. 4.10pm: Osborne says everyone will have been "wasting their time" if changes to media regulation focus on one particular medium.
2.45pm: Osborne confirms he did speak about the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch in a phone call on 29 November 2010. He says any future regulation will have to deal with the internet age.
2.43pm: Osborne says neither News Corp's BSkyB bid, nor the BBC or Ofcom were raised at a dinner in New York on 17 November 2010 with the Murdochs. "I have a 10-year-old and an eight-year-old. I doubt they will ever buy a newspaper in their lives," he adds.
Rupert Murdoch was mainly talking about his new online news publication, says Osborne, presumably a reference to The Daily. 4.12pm: Osborne has now completed his evidence.
2.41pm: Osborne says he does not remember any conversation with Murdoch about his MacTaggart lecture. The inquiry will resume tomorrow at 10am with evidence from Ed Miliband, Sir John Major and Harriet Harman.
"It was typical. It was what he thought and was telling anyone who wanted to listen to him at the time," Osborne says. 4.34pm: Former Sun editor David Yelland has just tweeted:
"I disagreed with him, basically. Certainly David Cameron also disagreed with him." Gordon and Sarah were bullied and I'm afraid my old paper behaved awfully in his last year or so. It was brutal stuff.
Osborne and Cameron disagreed with Murdoch about the size and scale of the BBC, he adds. — David Yelland (@davidyelland) June 11, 2012
2.39pm: Osborne is asked about his conversations in the runup to the BBC licence fee settlement in October 2010. 4.35pm: The Guardian's Patrick Wintour has just tweeted:
He says James Murdoch was "clearly disappointed" with that decision and was "quite angry" in a phone call with him after the licence fee settlement was announced. Osborne at end of Leveson evidence session declares the imminent death of the newspaper, (thanks)but emerges wholly unscathed.
2.37pm: New Labour were "very aggressive" when in government in treating the media the way they did in opposition, Osborne says, adding that the Tories did that "and we were more relaxed about fighting for every single headline or every single broadcast bulletin". — Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) June 11, 2012
2.33pm: Osborne says he does not believe this meeting was the "crucial encounter" in the News International titles' decision to switch support to the Tories. 5.16pm: Here is a brief summary of evidence to the Leveson inquiry today:
"If it was just a question of out-lunching them I don't think we'd have beaten New Labour," Osborne adds. • Fife NHS board has apologised after details of Brown's son's cystic fibrosis were leaked.
2.30pm: Osborne denies having a private meeting with News International in a chalet in Davos in 2010, but there was a lunch in January 2009 with Osborne, David Cameron, Rebekah Brooks, James and Rupert Murdoch.
The focus of the lunch was the global financial crisis, he says. Osborne and Cameron tried gently to bring the focus onto domestic politics, he adds.
"In all these encounters either with the Murdochs or other proprietors we were trying to set out our stall," he adds.
2.28pm: Osborne describes a pre-Christmas meal at Rebekah Brooks' home with James and Rupert Murdoch.
He says there was no discussion of News Corp's commercial interests, but more about the British economy.
2.26pm: Osborne says his meetings with media proprietors are "off the record" and informal.
2.25pm: Osborne says he did not discuss media regulation with James Murdoch but did talk about the BBC licence fee.
Murdoch complained about a taxpayer-funded state broadcaster, Osborne says, adding that he made clear the Tories would not change that if in government.
2.19pm: Jay turns to Osborne's meetings with media proprietors.
Osborne caveats his record of meetings while shadow chancellor, from 2005 to 2010. He says some meetings may not have been removed from the diary if they did not actually happen.
News International counts for about a third of entries between 2005 and 2010, Osborne says, adding: "Which I think is roughly their share of the newspaper market at that time."
2.17pm: The significance of a story is "massively elevated" if it is at the top of a major broadcast news bulletin, Osborne says, when asked whether broadcasters follow newspaper stories or set the agenda themselves.
2.14pm: Jay asks about the fusion of news and comment in newspapers.
Osborne says he believes it is a "bit of a blind alley for the inquiry".
He explains that trying to distinguish between fact and opinion in newspapers would be "extremely difficult".
2.14pm: Osborne says the issue of media practices became of such national importance because of the revelations about the hacking of Milly Dowler's telephone, "a totally outrageous intrusion".
2.12pm: The public are aware if a politician is "craven" to a newspaper, Osborne says.
He adds that it is up to a newspaper to judge whether they are reflecting the interests of their readers.
2.08pm: George Osborne has taken the witness stand.
Osborne is sworn in under his full name: George Gideon Oliver Osborne.
Leveson says that the decision to call Osborne to give evidence was made before Jeremy Hunt appeared, and not as a result of information that came to light from the culture secretary.
1.19pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of Gordon Brown's evidence:

• Fife NHS board has apologised after details of Brown's son's cystic fibrosis were leaked.
• Brown "absolutely" denied giving the Sun permission to run front-page story about his son's illness, and said he was presented with a "fait accompli".• Brown "absolutely" denied giving the Sun permission to run front-page story about his son's illness, and said he was presented with a "fait accompli".
• George Osborne defended the decision to hire Andy Coulson and claimed his News International links were not relevant.
• Osborne was satisfied with Coulson's "one rogue reporter" assurances on phone hacking.
• Brown did not declare war on News Corp in a phone call with Murdoch in 2009, he told the inquiry.• Brown did not declare war on News Corp in a phone call with Murdoch in 2009, he told the inquiry.
• He denied special advisers Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride briefed against government colleagues.• He denied special advisers Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride briefed against government colleagues.
• Brown told inquiry he has passed to police a recording of Sunday Times reporters discussing "illegal [newsgathering] techniques".• Brown told inquiry he has passed to police a recording of Sunday Times reporters discussing "illegal [newsgathering] techniques".
• News International's "commercial interests" took over under James Murdoch, Brown claimed.• News International's "commercial interests" took over under James Murdoch, Brown claimed.
• He criticised the Sun for its "sensationalised" coverage of Labour government stance on the Afghanistan conflict. 5.54pm: Lisa O'Carroll has sent us this list of Osborne's meetings with media executives:
1.16pm: The inquiry has now broken for lunch and will resume at 2pm with evidence from George Osborne. 2005
/>17 May: ITV news reception – by invitation of ITV.
/>19 May: Drinks with James Murdoch. No record; general political and economic discussion.
/>15 June: News International reception – by invitation of News International. Informal drink reception attended by more than 100 people.
/>21 June: FT reception – informal drinks receptios attended by more than 10 people, at which senior members of the Labour government, senior members of the opposition parties, and media proprietors, editors and senior executives were present.
/>16 December: Matthew Freud's Christmas party
1.15pm: Brown says that on 30 September 2009, the day the Sun switched support to the Tories, there was no call or discussion with Murdoch or the Sun. 2006
/>3 May: Dnner James Murdoch. Murdoch's invitation.
/>4 July: Dinner James Murdoch. Osborne invitation
He adds: "News International is doing itself a great deal of harm trying to suggest a telephone call took place that never happened." 2007
/>18 January: Lunch with Rupert Murdoch, Les Hinton, Rebekah Wade.
/>28 February: Dinner with Robert Thomson, editor of the Times.
/>3 May: Dinner with James Murdoch, hosted by James Murdoch.
/>11 May: Breakfast with FT editorial board.
/>15 May: Dinner for Sony CEO Howard Stringer – hosted by NI. Dinner attended by more than 20 people from business, media and political community.
"I do find it very strange that we are being asked to debate a call that never took place and for which News International have no information," he says. 2008
/>16 June: News International reception.
/>1 July: Lunch with the Times editorial board.
/>6 September: Dinner with Rebekah Wade, Elisabeth Murdoch, James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch. Invitation from Rebekah Wade.
1.11pm: hHere is the transcript of Mandelson's evidence on the Brown phone call: 2009
/>January: Meeting at Davos with Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch.
/>19 December: Dinner with Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch
Jay: You might be able to throw direct light on that belief by a piece of evidence. We heard from Mr Murdoch – and he said it twice, sitting where you are – that there was a telephone call between him and Mr Brown when
/>Mr Brown delivered what was tantamount to – 		2010
/>21 January: Drink with Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch.
/>28-30 January: World Economic Forum, Davos.
/>22 February: Drink with James Harding.
/>9 March: Lunch with Colin Myler, editor of the News of the World.
/>29 November: Phone conversation with James Murdoch.
/>17 December: Dinner in New York with Rupert Murdoch.
Mandelson: But the interesting thing about the phone call – 2011
/>5 April: Dinner with Rebekah Brooks, Will Lewis and James Murdoch. UK Press Awards.
Jay: Can I – 6.03pm: Our full story on Osborne's evidence is now live. Dan Sabbagh and Lisa O'Carroll write:
Mandelson: – is Mr Murdoch himself said that he did not agree with the method and timing of what had been done. Andy Coulson denied to George Osborne in 2007 that he knew that phone hacking at the News of World went beyond a single rogue reporter, according to evidence given by the chancellor in the Leveson inquiry.
Jay: Yes, but we don't know yet from your evidence whether you know whether there was such a call, and that was the question. The senior Conservative politician also admitted that "a third" of his meetings with media owners and top executives since 2005 were with News International, including a meeting at a chalet at Davos in early 2009 and a dinner in April 2011 as phone hacking revelations mounted.
Mandelson: Oh, I'm sorry. Osborne said that as shadow chancellor he briefly asked Coulson about phone hacking in March 2007, when he was sounding him out for the job of director of communications for the Conservative party.
Jay: The allegation is – or rather the evidence was from Mr Murdoch – that Mr Brown said or uttered the words "declare war on News International" or words to that effect. From your own knowledge, Lord Mandelson, can
/>you assist us as to whether there was such a call? 		This was two months after Coulson resigned as News of the World editor after the paper's royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed for phone-hacking related offences.
Mandelson: Well, I wasn't on the call. I hadn't been patched into the call. Coulson has always maintained that he had no knowledge of or involvement in phone hacking at the paper, but took responsibility for what happened on his watch and resigned.
Jay: No, of course not. Osborne said that he asked Coulson "in a general sense, as you might do in a social encounter, whether there was more in the phone hacking story that was going to come out, that was not already public, that we needed to know about – and he said no".
Mandelson: I assume that there was the call because I seem to remember the Prime Minister telling me that Rupert Murdoch was not at all happy with the method and timing of James and Rebekah's action. The Conservative minister was the man who recommended to David Cameron that he consider hiring Coulson.
Jay: What did the Prime Minister tell you, Lord Mandelson, about the call? Did he communicate to you that that's
/>what he told Mr Murdoch? 		Osborne conceded that he thought the appointment was controversial, but said it was worth doing because "I thought in the end the balance was that it was worth hiring someone with real talent and ability, and weathering the adverse publicity of appointing someone who had had to resign from the News of the World".
Mandelson: No, he didn't say that. He told me what Mr Murdoch had said to him. The chancellor and key Conservative strategist said that he had consulted Rebekah Brooks – then editor of the Sun and a close friend of Coulson's – as Cameron deliberated on the potential appointment, but he sought to play down its importance.
Jay: So there was nothing about what Mr Brown said to Mr Murdoch? Is that your evidence? "I don't want to overstate the importance of [talking to Brooks] I've just put it in here for completeness," he said.
Mandelson: Yes, it is. I cannot remember being told by Mr Brown what he said, and I have no way of knowing. But I – but I know what he said to me about Rupert Murdoch's reaction, which was to say basically: "I don't like how it's been done and I think it's a bad day to do it and I wouldn't have done it this way myself, but that's life and we have to get on with it." Carefully choosing his language, Osborne consistently sought to de-emphasise Coulson's links with News International, and said that the former News of the World editor was only helpful in dealing with the publisher of the Sun and the Times simply "because he was the director of communications".
Jay: Mr Murdoch's reaction to what, though, Lord Mandelson? On the same theme, Osborne said that "it was not a consideration: let's hire the ex-News International man. It was: let's hire this very experience ex-newspaper editor". He added that he thought Coulson had "a particular talent and ability" he had detected in dealings with him during his time as shadow chancellor.
Mandelson: The decision of the Sun to switch support from New Labour to the Conservative party, which he has said, if I recall correctly, was James and Rebekah's decision.Not the editor's, incidentally. He argued that the "endorsement of the Sun has been elevated to almost mythical status", which was "just one of a whole range of things we felt we had to get right in the runup to a general election".
Jay: Can you at least assist us with the timing of this call? We know that there was a later call relating to the letter to the mother of the soldier who died in Afghanistan. We're talking about an earlier conversation, if it took place. You can read the full story here.
Mandelson: There would have been a number of – I mean, Gordon did not hold back in talking to Rupert Murdoch. He did telephone him, he had every right to do so, and when he thought that he was being traduced, as he did, by the Sun, he wanted to give vent to his feelings about that. I mean, who can blame him in the circumstances? Personally, I think it is better to go to editors rather than proprietors, but he did have a good relationship with Rupert and he invoked that friendship. 6.11pm: We are now wrapping up the live blog for today, but will be back tomorrow at 10am with evidence from Ed Miliband, Sir John Major and Harriet Harman.
1.10pm: Mandelson told the inquiry he was not on a call but assumed there was one. He said he seemed to recall Brown telling him Murdoch's reaction.
Brown answers by saying that he had one phone call on 10 November with Murdoch about Afghanistan. He says that is the only phone call he had in a year with Murdoch.
1.05pm: Rhodri Davies QC, counsel for News International, asks if he can put questions to Brown about the disputed phone call with Murdoch.
Davies asks about Peter Mandelson's evidence on the phone call.
1.01pm: Brown says that without an investigative arm the Press Complaints Commission cannot be successful. He adds that the relationship between the press and politicians "needs to be reset" with more openness and transparency.
He is in favour of a statutory backstop to the reconstituted press regulator.
1.00pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
GB written statement: editors form too large a part of PCC. Penalties in no way commensurate with offences #Leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) June 11, 2012
12.56pm: Brown says there is problem about financing quality journalism in the future and that new avenues should be explored.
He adds: "Is the BBC model of any use to us? I think we ought to look at that."
12.52pm: Jay turns to Brown's proposals for future regulation of the press.
Brown says the PCC's handling of complaints is satisfactory. He adds quality journalism should be "incentivised" and there would be cross-party support for that.
12.51pm: BBC News political correspondent Robin Brant has just tweeted:
jay says he will request the inquiry is given access to the brooks/sarah brown text (from SB phone) about tom watson's future as minister
— Robin Brant (@robindbrant) June 11, 2012
12.50pm: Brown says Watson's trip to Scotland before the "curry house coup" against Tony Blair had nothing to do with politics; the MP was delivering a present for his newborn baby.
12.47pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
GB written statement: my wife Sarah received a text from rebekah brooks questioning the continuation of Tom Watson as a minister #leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) June 11, 2012
12.45pm: Jay asks Brown about the Labour MP Tom Watson.
On a phone call, Brown says he told Watson that News International had historically called for him to be sacked. He adds that he gave him no new information.
12.43pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
Gordon Brown's letter to the inquiry re the 'declare war' on Murdoch phone calllevesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/upl… #leveson
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) June 11, 2012
12.41pm: Brown calls for an end to the lobby briefings in favour of public hearings in front of TV cameras.
"We should have changed the lobby system and had a far more open and transparent system of addressing the country through the press," says Brown, when asked what lessons he learned about media while in power.
12.38pm: Brown also denies briefing against John Major, after the former Tory prime minister wrote to the inquiry accusing Brown of instructing either Charlie Whelan or Damian McBride to brief against him.
12.36pm: Brown says he asked his advisers to operate under tough guidelines, especially on the use of work computers for personal use.
12.35pm: NHS Fife has issued a statement on how the Sun obtained information about Gordon Brown's son:
John Wilson, chief executive of NHS Fife, said: "Any breach of confidentiality in the NHS is unacceptable. We now accept that it is highly likely that, sometime in 2006, a member of staff in NHS Fife spoke, without authorisation, about the medical condition of Mr Brown's son, Fraser.
"With the passage of time it has not been possible to identify all the circumstances.
"We believe, however, that there was no inappropriate access to the child's medical records. We are quite clear that conversations about patients are just as much a breach of confidentiality as looking into their medical records.
"In the six years which have passed, NHS Fife has tightened up its procedures on patient confidentiality, and staff have had appropriate training.
"I have apologised to Mr and Mrs Brown and we have taken steps to ensure that what happened to Mr and Mrs Brown and their family should not happen again."
12.33pm: Brown denies asking Charlie Whelan to brief against Alastair Darling when he was chancellor.
The one thing I can say to you that is absolutely clear ... is that nobody in my position would have instructed any briefing against a senior minister, and Alastair Darling was a friend of mine as well as a senior colleague.
12.33pm: Brown says that Damian McBride, his former media adviser, made a "bad mistake" and had to go. He adds that Peter Mandelson did not like McBride, when asked about a passage in Mandelson's book.
12.28pm: The ITV News political editor, Tom Bradby, has just tweeted:
Gordon Brown's comments on the activities of his press aides are prompting gasps of incredulity in the parliamentary lobby.
— tom bradby (@tombradby) June 11, 2012
12.26pm: The Sun's political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, has just tweeted:
Despite Brown's old #Leveson rant, here again is the truth about Sun's source for cystic fibrosis story; another dad -thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/n…
— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) June 11, 2012
12.24pm: Brown says he "would hope not" when asked if his aides attempted to force Blair from office.
He denies he instructed his aides to have off-the-record briefings with the press.
12.22pm: Brown says there was "tittle-tattle" but that each of his special advisers' dealings with the media would go through a civil servant, the Treasury's head of communications.
"It would be without my knowledge and without my sanction," Brown says, of the claim that his Treasury aides anonymously briefed the media.
Were they engaged in systematic anonymous briefings? "I wouldn't say that at all," Brown says.
Did they brief against Blair? "No."
12.21pm: Brown is asked about special advisers.
Alastair Campbell told the inquiry there was a "real problem" with Brown's special adviser in the Treasury, Charlie Whelan.
12.21pm: Brown confirms he would have had a conversation with Jack Straw, then justice secretary, before 10 September 2007 on the Data Protection Act and his concern to ensure a public interest defence.
12.18pm: "I felt that America branded itself to the world that it was a country of liberty and ... but liberty originated in Britain and I wanted to make that clear," Brown says.
12.15pm: Brown wanted a public interest amendment made to the Press Complaints Commission editors' code, he says.
12.14pm: Media veteran Andrew Neil has just tweeted:
Refreshing lack of 'I can't recall' and 'not to my recollection' in Brown's testimony #Leveson
— Andrew Neil(@afneil) June 11, 2012
12.11pm: Jay now turns to Brown's oversight of the Data Protection Act.
Brown says he was in favour of a public interest clause in the act to protect journalists.
He says he made up his mind on this before a September 2007 meeting with Dacre, Telegraph Media Group's Murdoch MacLennan and News International's Les Hinton.
12.07pm: Dan Sabbagh has just sent us this list of Brown's meetings with Rupert Murdoch, while he was prime minister, as disclosed to the Leveson inquiry.
2007
05/10 - Meeting 13:05-13:10
29/10 - Lunch 13:30-15:00
2008
22/01 - 12:35-14:00 Lunch
06/06 - 19:10 Dinner with Mrs Murdoch
16/06 - 21:50 Dinner
2009
13/01 - 07:00-08:30 Breakfast
26/06 - 19:00-21:30 Dinner
14/12 - 08:30-10:00 Breakfast
12.05pm: Brown is asked about Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail.
He says the two met rarely but he was "personally very kind".
However, the Daily Mail was "totally against" Labour, he adds.
12.02pm: Dan Sabbagh has just sent us this list of Brown's phone calls with Murdoch, while he was prime minister, as disclosed to the Leveson inquiry.
2007 (date and time)
19/07 - 19.05
04/10- 15.25
09/10 - 12.30
2008 (date and time)
14/02 - 16.50
10/05 - 10.27
18/07 - 19.40
03/09 - 16.05
03/10 - 20.07
12/10 - 23.00
2009 (date and time)
03/03 - 19.12
10/11 - 12.33
12.01pm: The Guardian's editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:
GB directly contradicts Rupert M's sworn evidence tt GB threatenedto declare war after Sun withdrew support #Leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) June 11, 2012
11.59am: Brown says Murdoch offered assurances to him that the Sun would withdraw the personal element of its coverage of Afghanistan.
11.57am: Murdoch asked Brown to telephone Brooks who "he hinted, wanted to apologise for what had happened", he says, when asked about the Sun's "Bloody disgrace" front page over his letter to a bereaved mother of an Afghanistan soldier.
11.55am: Brown says of his alleged threat to Murdoch:
The problem about this is that I can see why it may suit people to say now that there was some pre-orchestrated campaign against News International and that I was threatening on a phone call and this is the justification, so this is nothing to do with telephone hacking, it's all to do with some political campaign against News International, but this call did not happen. The threat was not made. I couldn't be unbalanced on a call that I didn't have, and a threat that was not made. I found it shocking that we should get to this situation, sort of some time later, when there is no evidence of this call happening at the time that he says it happened, and you to be told under oath that this was the case and to be backed up by other people from News International who had been continuing to make comments about such a position.
... There is absolutely no evidence for this phone call or for the threat or for the judgment that Mr Murdoch made as a result of something that he was never party to. The only call that ever happened was in November, and it was about Afghanistan, and it was weeks after when people allege the call took place.
11.51am: Murdoch said in his evidence to the inquiry:
He [Brown] said, and I must stress no voices were raised, he said: 'well, your company has declared war on my government and we have no alternative to make war on your company. I said 'I'm sorry about that Gordon, thank you for calling' and that was that.
Murdoch claimed that Brown was "not in a balanced state of mind" at the time. He then suggested that Brown wilfully misled people when he claimed that the Sun had illicitly obtained the private medical details of his son.
11.49am: On Murdoch's claim that Brown threatened to "make war" on News Corp after the Sun switched its support to the Sun, Brown says:
This conversation never took place ... There was no such conversation.
I'm surprised that first of all there's a story that I slammed the phone down, and a second story from Mr Murdoch himself that I threatened him. That did not happen.
11.48am: Brown says he sent Murdoch three letters on Afghanistan following telephone calls between the pair.
11.45am: Brown says he would not make a phone call to Murdoch without "someone else on the call" so that notes could be taken
11.43am: The inquiry has resumed and Brown is asked about the Rupert Murdoch's account of a telephone call between the pair in 2009.
A record of the pair's phone calls between 2007 and 2009 shows 11 in total, according to reporters at the inquiry.
11.39am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Remarkable morning of testimony from Brown where he attacks News International repeatedly. Critics will see him as unhinged; fans....
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
11.36am: Here is a brief summary of Brown's evidence so far:
• Fife NHS board has apologised after details of Brown's son's cystic fibrosis were leaked.
• Brown "absolutely" denied giving the Sun permission to run front-page story about his son's illness, and said he was presented with a "fait accompli".
• Brown told inquiry he has passed to police a recording of Sunday Times reporters discussing "illegal [newsgathering] techniques".
• News International's "commercial interests" took over under James Murdoch, Brown claimed.
• He criticised the Sun for its "sensationalised" coverage of the Labour government's stance on the Afghanistan conflict.
11.33am: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
11.32am: Brown telephoned the editor of the Sun, Dominic Mohan, and other editors on the afternoon of his conference speech.
Mohan asked him about Afghanistan, but did not mention at all that the Sun would in two hours switch its support to the Tories.
11.31am: Jay asks whether Brown is obsessed by the news.
Brown says sarcastically he is "so obsessed by the newspapers I rarely read them".
This was also true of his time in No 10, he adds.
11.30am: Brown says he never asked the Sun directly for the support of the paper, or complained directly when it ditched the Labour party. He adds:
I think the manner they did it was offensive, but that was their choice. I don't think I was stung at all.
11.29am: Brown says he was not surprised at all when the Sun switched its allegiance to the Tories on 30 September 2009. However, he says that the Sun's announcement on Labour party conference day was a "very strange" way to do it.
11.27am: Jay asks whether there are any lessons to be drawn from the then Labour government's relation with the media.
"We accepted to easily a closed culture where it was possible for stories about political events to be told to a few people rather than openly," Brown says.
The heart of this problem is the Westminster lobby system which is yet to be reformed, he adds.
11.24am: Brown says between 1997 and 2007, his meetings with Rupert Murdoch were "few and far between".
"I don't think he was in slightest bit interested in what I was doing," he adds.
He says the media tycoon would have had the UK as the "51st state of the US" and at war with France and Germany if he had been heavily swayed by his personal views.
11.22am: Brown is asked about his own relations with media executives.
He disagrees with Peter Mandelson, who said that Brown and others became too close to some media bosses.
Brown refers to his Presbyterian upbringing, then describes as "faintly ridiculous" any suggestion he was influenced by Rupert Murdoch's views.
11.21am: Brown says of the Sunday Times:
I was accused of buying a flat in an under-the-counter sale by a Sunday Times insight team. They suggested that I'd bought this flat and it hadn't appeared on the open market and I got it at a knock-down price, and they would not accept that the starting point of any investigation was something that they would not acknowledge, that this very flat that I was supposed to have bought in an under-the-counter sale, had first of all been advertised in the Sunday Times itself. We him personating me to get bank information, we had blagging by lawyers, we had what's called reverse engineering of telephone. Someone passed me a tape which I passed on to the police where the Sunday Times reporters are talking about how they're going to use these illegal techniques and tactics – but there was no public justification for this because there was no wrongdoing, and even now I'm afraid the editor of the Sunday Times has come to your Inquiry and said that he had evidence of something he was never able to prove and there was no public interest justification for the intrusion and the impersonation and the breaking into the records. I accept a huge amount has to be tolerated in the interests of a politics that is free of corruption, but I don't think a newspaper, when it resorts to these tactics and then finds that there's nothing to report, should hold to a story which they know patently to be absolutely wrong. If you can laugh at it now that they were claiming that something that actually was advertised in their own paper was not correct, we have lessons to learn from that. It's about free being exercised with responsibility and where irresponsibility is the way that freedom is exercised, it cast as doubt on the motives of the media.
11.13am: Brown adds: "In every area when I was chancellor, there was actually a breach or a break in in each of these areas ... and I can now say that was on behalf of the media".
He says he has passed a tape to the police of a recording of Sunday Times journalists discussing how to use "underhand" techniques to obtain information about him.
"In every area during the time that I was chancellor, there was either a break-in or a breach of these records. In most cases I can show now that that happened because of an intrusion by the media."
11.10am: In his witness statement, Brown says that has been the subject of a number of "fishing expeditions," including of his bank account and of the police national computer.
11.09am: Brown says it became clear in summer 2009 that News International "had a highly politicised agenda for changes in media policy in this country" and there was "little point" talking to the media group about this.
11.08am: "What became a problem for us is that on every single one of these issues the Conservative party went along with them while we were trying to defend the public interest," Brown says. "We did so and did so to our cost."
11.07am: News International had an aggressive public agenda under James Murdoch, Brown tells the inquiry.
He refers again to Murdoch's public stance on BBC, Ofcom, rights issues and regulation.
3.09pm FFOTILLAC.
11.06am: Sarah wrote Brooks a number of personal letters between 2006 and 2011 expressing her thanks for support, Jay says.
Brown maintains that Sarah is a forgiving person and that this did not amount to consent for the story about Fraser to be published by the Sun.
11.05am: Jay asks why Sarah remained friends with Brooks after the Sun published this story.
"Sarah is one of the most forgiving people and I think she finds good in everyone," Brown says.
11.02am: "The idea that we did nothing after this incident is quite wrong and is offensive," Brown says.
He adds that his family approached newspaper editors to reach an agreement on restricting publication of information about his children after the incident.
11.00am: Brooks told the inquiry that the Sun has a written affadavit from a man whose son also has cystic fibrosis. She said:
… we, at the time, and again in July 2012, were absolutely satisfied that the father had got the information from legitimate means and we were very sure about that … He'd got the information because his own child had cystic fibrosis and he'd got the information, I should say, through a very small – it's not a small charity, but there is a charity aspect to the Cystic Fibrosis Society – and he got it slightly by involvement through there.
However, she refused to say any more for fear of identifying the man.
10.59am: Brown "absolutely" denies that he or his wife ever gave consent to the story being published, as claimed by Rebekah Brooks at the inquiry last month.
Jay asked: "Did you have the express agreement of the Browns, freely given, to publish this story about their son?"
Brooks replied: "Absolutely."
10.59am: Brown tells the inquiry he was presented with a "fait accompli" over the story and there was "no question" that it would not be published.
10.57am: Then the editor of the Sun telephoned Sarah, says Gordon.
"I don't think there's any parent in the land who would have given explicit permission for this story," he adds. "There was no question of explicit permission."
10.56am: Brown says that a Sun journalist phoned his press office saying they had the information about Fraser and that the story was going to published.
Brown then phoned his wife Sarah to ask if the story was to be published they needed to put out a statement drawing a line under the story.
"Unfortunately this was unacceptable to the journalist," he says, claiming that the journalist then suggested it would not approach them for comment in the future if the Brown family put out a statement to the media on the story.
10.55am: Brown says that Fife health board now believes "a working member of NHS staff" passed unauthorised information to the Sun through a middleman about his son, Fraser.
Fife health board has apologised for this unauthorised disclosure, Brown says.
10.53am: The Sun claimed to have a story from a man in the street, he says, adding: "I never believed that could have been correct. At best he could have been the middleman because there were only a small number of people who knew that our son had cystic fibrosis."
10.52am: Jay turns to the Sun's front-page story about his son Fraser being diagnosed with cystic fibrosis in November 2006.
Brown says he has never sought to bring his children into the public domain.
10.50am: Brown adds that the "commercial interests" of News International were "very clear" before he became prime minister, "and they had the support of the Conservative party long before that".
10.49am: Brown adds: "The remarkable thing about this period in government, and I say this with great regret, was that we could not go along with this … and while we resisted it, on each of these issues the Conservative party supported each and every one of the issues Mr Murdoch raised."
10.48am: Brown describes James Murdoch's MacTaggart lecture in 2009 as "breathtaking in its arrogance and ambition".
Murdoch's speech criticised the size of the BBC and the interference of Ofcom.
10.47am: "At no point in the three years I was prime minister did I feel I had the support of the Sun," Brown says. "What changed was when News International decided its commercial interests came first."
10.47am: Brown denies that his government declined to take on the "feral beasts" of the media because it enjoyed the support of the Sun.
10.45am: Brown is asked about Blair's "feral beasts" speech on the media in 2007. "His remarks were exactly what I'm saying," Brown says.
The Sun has been "virtually silent" on the issues faced by troops in Afghanistan since 2010, Brown claims, accusing the paper of being more interested in the political attack on himself than of forcing change in the Middle East country.
10.41am: Brown says: "If the media only had a political view and said we are Conservative, you could accept that ... but to use that to conflate fact and opinion, and to sensationalise and trivialise is where the danger lies."
10.40am: Brown criticises the Sun which he says reported that he fell asleep at a memorial for the troops. He says he was praying.
10.39am: Brown is now talking about press coverage of Afghanistan.
One newspaper "did not want to take on the difficult issues" so reduced its coverage of British troops in Afghanistan was that the government "did not care", he says.
10.39am: Print media can claim that they are competing with internet media which has "no standards", Brown says.
He believes there is a huge debate to be had about internet publications coming under some form of regulation.
10.38am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Brown advocates sharing of BBC licence fee to fund quality journalism - extraordinary - publicly funded newspapers?!
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
10.38am: Brown says in the electronic age there is a "mass of information available to everyone" and says the amount of information online is "about to increase exponentially".
"And that is putting pressure on the quality of ordinary journalism," he says, adding: "And the question arises, then … who is going to support quality journalism?"
10.35am: One of the key problems of the press is the conflation of fact and opinion, Brown says.
10.34am: Brown says press regulation has never worked.
He adds that it is not not just a matter of rooting out the bad, but incentivising the good too.
10.33am: Brown says the Times guide to parliament had a photograph of him as a 19-year-old, but described him as 57 and a Westminster "veteran" and "stalwart".
Brown jokes that this was an honest mistake, but that it had consequences including him being inundated with letters offering pension plans.
10.29am: Brown opens by saying his concern is "who will defend the defenceless?", a play on Leveson's summation of the inquiry as "who guards the guardians?".
He says he has had a "period of enforced reflection, courtesy of the British people" to think about the relationship between Westminster and Fleet Street.
10.27am: Gordon Brown takes the witness stand.
Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is leading the questioning.
10.26am: Rhodri Davies, the counsel for News International, takes to his feet to complain about witness statements that do not set out the questions they are answering. It was a particular problem with Tony Blair's evidence, he says. The counsel for Associated Newspapers rises to support Davies's complaint.
10.25am: Leveson has now finished his opening statement. He has not yet handed down judgment on Sherborne's Operation Motorman request.
10.24am: The inquiry will not sit next week, Leveson says, but will later hear from more witnesses from the media on the future of press reform.
10.24am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Leveson wants to hear more from people with ideas for PCC reform in Module 4, incl from chmn Lord Hunt. PCC not out of woods.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
10.23am: Leveson stresses that nothing he says should be taken as concluded opinion.
He adds that he will be paying close attention to how the inquiry is reported, warning that it should not be portrayed as an examination of the politics of personality.
10.21am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Leveson calls for "cross party support" for his inquiry - call I think for Tory support - says sky bid is "small but significant" element.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
10.21am: Leveson says it is essential that cross-party support for his inquiry is not jeopardised.
10.20am: Leveson says the purpose of his inquiry is not to challenge the government.
He describes News Corporation's BSkyB bid as a "small but significant part of the story".
10.18am: Leveson emphasises the importance of cross-party support for his inquiry.
He says he is very keen to avoid "inter-party politics and the politics of personality".
His opening remarks could be read as a warning to Westminster not to politicise his recommendations on the future of press regulation.
10.16am: The inquiry has begun.
Lord Justice Leveson is making an opening statement on the future direction of the inquiry and David Sherborne's application for newspapers to investigate their own practices outlined by the information commissioner's Operation Motorman inquiry.
10.10am: Sarah Brown has just tweeted:
Gordon has just gone up to court room ready to present his evidence to Mr Jay #leveson
— Sarah Brown (@SarahBrownUK) June 11, 2012
10.00am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Judge to make opening statement about future direction of the Inquiry this am.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) June 11, 2012
9.57am: Roy Greenslade has written more on Leveson's "Draft criteria for a regulatory solution". He writes:
Further to my earlier posting about the Leveson inquiry's draft criteria for a solution to the problem of press regulation, note this paragraph:
"The setting of standards must be independent of government and parliament, and sufficiently independent of media interests, in order to command public respect."
And then note this paragraph:
"Enforcement of ethical standards, by whatever mechanism, must be operationally independent of government and parliament, and sufficiently independent of media interests, in order to command public respect."
Should these references to both the standards and the enforcement being independent of the state but only "sufficiently independent of media interests" mean that the inquiry still sees some form of self-regulation as viable?
Newspaper publishers certainly believe that to be a possibility. It is the key feature of a "draft contractual framework for a new system of self-regulation" circulated to editors in March by the Press Standards Broad of Finance (PressBof), the body that oversees the Press Complaints Commission.
In essence, the document aims to stave off statutory regulation by creating a new watchdog with sweeping powers. These would include the right for its investigators to enter newspaper offices in order to requisition documents and emails and tape interviews with journalists.
The regulator would be able to levy fines and there would not be any appeals process. However, decisions would be open to judicial review. (I see lawyers rubbing their hands).
What is less certain is how the new regulator, without any state involvement whatsoever, would be able to compel publishers to sign its proposed five-year contract.
The document does not say what sanctions should exist to deal with refusenik publishers.
You can read the full article here.
9.52am: Lord Justice Leveson has published his "Draft criteria for a regulatory solution", indicating his initial thinking about a future regulator.
The Guardian's Roy Greenslade looks this morning at the Daily Mail's claims that these represent a "blueprint" for the reform of press regulation. He writes of the Mail article:
It implies that Leveson has made specific recommendations, which include newspapers being given "kitemarks" for good behaviour and being fined for breaking rules.
It further claims that the "blueprint" would see the establishment of a media regulator - independent of ministers, parliament and serving journalists - but not involving state regulation.
The document is not quite what it seems, however. Called "draft criteria for an effective regulatory regime", it is clearly aimed at concentrating minds on providing a practical solution.
It is there to stimulate debate about what should be done rather than making any firm proposals.
Instead of mapping out plans for journalists, as the Mail article implies, Leveson has set down criteria "against which the inquiry proposes to measure potential regulatory solutions" and seeks comments on them.
Most of the criteria are uncontroversial and, in many ways, echo the current regime administered by the Press Complaints Commission.
It says that any future system should "actively support and promote compliance by the industry, both directly (for example by providing confidential pre-publication advice) and indirectly (for example by kitemarking titles' own internal systems)."
In other words, kitemarks are suggested, not proposed. Similarly, in the section on "powers and remedies", though the Mail article mentions "hefty fines", there is no reference whatsoever to fines.
As the Mail does say, one of the criteria in the document states:
"Enforcement of ethical standards, by whatever mechanism, must be operationally independent of government and parliament. The system must provide credible remedies, both in respect of aggrieved individuals and in respect of issues affecting wider groups in society."
That, says the Mail, "suggests Lord Justice Leveson is intent on providing opportunities for groups to launch class action complaints against newspapers."
It concludes: "Although widely expected, the move will face resistance because it is likely to give rise to vexatious complaints by pressure groups that disapprove of a paper's political stance."
That final sentence - like the references to blueprint, kitemarks and fines - is, of course, the newspaper's spin, just one of those typical ethical lapses that form part of everyday journalism - despite the Leveson inquiry.
You can read the full article here.
9.39am: Good morning and welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog.
The chancellor, George Osborne, and former prime minister, Gordon Brown, will give evidence today in a key week of the inquiry, ending with testimony from David Cameron on Thursday.
Osborne will face questions about his influential behind-the-scenes role in the Conservative party, including his hiring of Andy Coulson as the party's communications director.
The chancellor, who is also the Tories' head of strategy, personally approached the former News of the World editor over the job shortly after Coulson resigned over phone hacking at the now-closed Sunday tabloid.
Osborne will also be pressed on his role in ensuring Jeremy Hunt, the embattled culture secretary, was given responsibility for News Corporation's £8bn bid for BSkyB after Vince Cable was controversially stripped of the role in December 2010.
Appearing before him at the inquiry will be Gordon Brown, prime minister for three years until 2010.
Brown is expected to be asked about his falling-out with Rupert Murdoch after the Sun switched allegiance to the Tories in 2009, a move announced to overshadow his Labour party conference speech that year.
Brown has denied Murdoch's claims that he threatened to "make war" on News Corp after the switch, but will be pressed further on that today.
He will also be quizzed about his relationship with Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive. The inquiry has heard that Brown was furious after the Sun, under Brooks's supervision, published a front-page story about his son's diagnosis with cystic fibrosis in November 2006. Brown has denied Brooks's claim that he was content for the story to be published.
The inquiry begins at 10am.