ticked this one. that is what happened and he was pretty inexperienced at the time. he had just been there a few months and they came to him and put it to him in a relatively short conversation. >> [unintelligible] >> there's the floor box and the infinitely higher one. is there evidence of your son was still to pick the lower one or the infinitely higher one? >> take a bill one that did not have the triple damages and what not. >> the much higher box was the one that said if we don't settle this case, there's a risk there will be many more cases. >> i never told him that. >> are you sure?

>> yes. anyone who puts faith in confidentiality agreements -- it's too by eve to be true. >> you knew there was a confidentiality agreement associated with that assessment, didn't you? >> i was told that. >> you might have assumed it wasn't worth the paper was written on. >> i thought about it. yes. >> didn't you think about it? >> know. -- no. i have a lot of things to think about and i didn't give it a lot of attention. >> in july of 2011 -- just bear with me.

these conversations with your son, was there any discussion about the need to avoid reputation with to the company? >> not on those terms, no. anything that involves ethical behavior or unethical behavior or reputation of behavior you don't have to state them and those words. [unintelligible] this guy was blackmailing us to keep quiet because there was a massive reputation of harm to the company. >> he did not say that. >> anything like that? >> no.

>> did you suspect by july, 2009, the one road reporter defense was wearing a bit thin? >> no, because that article in "the guardian" was very hostile. put that aside. it was [unintelligible] and we chose to take the word of the police over the word of the guardian. we based it on that until the beginning of 2011 with cnn miller and then we'll meet. -- we immediately realized.

>> should we just take five minutes? >> thank you. >> tonight at 9:00 eastern, we will prepare the prime minister's questions in which david cameron response to questions about the situations are surrounding his culture secretary. jeremy hunt appeared before the house of coming -- house of commons saying he did not -- >> it secretary of state. order. order. we have a statement first.

as far as i am concerned, the point of order come past the statements. [unintelligible] the statement is from from the -- from the secretary of state about -- mr. secretary. [unintelligible] >> with permission, mr. speaker, i like to make a statement following yesterday's developments at the inquiry. although i intend to respond fully to allegations about my conduct and that of my department when i present my evidence to lord justice levin, i believe the actions are being taken as a result of evidence

released yesterday. mr. speaker, we are 273 days into a process that will last until october. this is not the time to jump on a political bandwagon. what the public want to hear is not my views, but the review of lord justice love someone he has considered all the evidence. i do think it is right to set the record straight on a number of issues in light of evidence heard yesterday at the inquiry. specifically on the merger of new score with bskyb -- news corp. with bskyb. first, i have strictly followed due process.

seeking the advice of independent regulators, something i did not have to do, and after careful consideration, acting on their advice. i have published all the advice i have received together with correspondence between myself and news corp., including details of meetings about the process of this. as part of this process, my officials and i engaged with news corp. and its representatives and other interested parties, both supporters and opponents of the merger. transcripts of conversations and texts published yesterday between my advisor, adam smith, and a news corp. representatives have been alleged to the say there is a back channel through which news corp. were able to influence my decision. this is categorically not the case.

>> the house must calmed down a bit. there will be a full opportunity for questioning of the secretary of state, which he expects that whether he expects it or not, that is what will happen. it is right and proper the statement should be heard with courtesy. take your seat. >> the volume and tone of those to be vacations' or not appropriate in a clause by judge judicial process and adam smith has resigned as my special advisor. although adams smith accept that he overstepped the mark on this occasion, i want to set the record that i believe he did so unintentionally and did not believe he was doing anything more than giving advice on process. i believe him to be someone of

integrity and decency and it is a matter of huge regret to me that this has happened. i only saw the transcripts of these communications yesterday. they did not at influence my decision any way at all because i insisted on hearing the advice of the independent regulators at every stage of the process. i will give my full record of events when i give evidence, however i would like to resolve this issue as soon as possible which is why i have written to the lord justice asking of my appearance can be brought forward. i am totally confident that when i present my evidence, the public will see i conducted this process with scrupulous this throughout. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for your statement. everyone recognizes the 8

billion pounds was a huge commercial importance and has profound implications for newspapers and all broadcasting, including the bbc. the business secretary has been stripped of his responsibility for deciding on the bid because he had already made up his mind against it. but the culture secretary had made up his mind in favor of the bid so how could he have thought it proper to take on that decision? of course he could take advice, but the decision as to whether he should do it and could do it fairly was a matter for him and him alone. the secretary of state took on responsibility and assured this house he would be acting in a quasi-judicial role and be transparent, and partial, and fair. but, mr. speaker, is that the case that james murdock was receiving information in advance

about what the secretary of state was going to do and what is going to say? information that has not been given to those opposed to the bid and before it was given to this house? does he think it acceptable that murdoch not -- murdoch knew not only about what is it going to do and say, but crucially, the regulator said on the 10th of january, 2011 and what the opponents have said on the 20th of march and 31st of march, 2011. is he really going to suggest to this house that james murdoch's advisers, and knowing all of this was just a coincidence, can the secretary of state explain to the house how, beginning on the 23rd of january, they were in a position to tell murdoch the full detail of a statement the secretary of state was not

going to give it to this house until two days later? what ever interpretation is put on e-mail, there can be no doubt the e-mail accurately and in detail describes meetings the secretary of state has had and accurately foretold what the secretary of state was going to do? when it comes to the transparency, the secretary of state promised there appeared to be a great deal of transparency for murdoch but precious little for opponents of this bid before this house. it is being suggested he was in a good shooting with murdoch. why didn't he tell the opponents to the bid and why didn't he tell the house? will he tell the house now whether he believes himself to be negotiating? on the third of march, he told

this house he published details of all the exchanges between his department and news corp.. in light of all the information we know he had, does he still maintain that is the case? his special adviser admitted his activities went too far and he has resigned. but will the secretary of state confirm under paragraph 33, it is the secretary of state himself who was responsible for the contact of his special advisor? this is a controversial bid. because he refused to take on it didn't come me could have referred it to the competition commission, but he didn't. his role was to be impartial, but he wasn't. is, that should have been cause i-judicial, but it fell far short of that and fell short of the standard required by as

office. the reality is he is not judging this bid, he was backing this bid and should resign. >> can i just say i am hugely disappointed by the right hon. lady? she has the opportunity to rise above party politics and work toward a solution to a problem has bedeviled british politics for years but instead has chosen to jump on the political bandwagon. let me remind her the labour party spent over a decade in power and did nothing other than cozy up to the press barons and their families. she speaks for a party whose prime minister, when in opposition, flew halfway around the world to in rupert

murdoch's words, make love to him like a scorpion. [unintelligible] >> order. order. order. can i politely but explicitly suggest to the secretary of state order in addressing these matters, he seeks to address the questions are put to him and addressing matters for which he is responsible, which obviously does not include the conduct of other political parties. >> i will happily do that. but i do think the hon. members of the opposite need to show a

degree of humility. because of we are going to solve this problem, it needs the whole house to work together and not to jump on bandwagons. let me come to the specific points -- she said i was backing the bid. that i had made my mind that. that is not true. when i was appointed to be responsible for the bid, views about the bid, some of which had been made public, were explicitly reported to the cabinet secretary who decided it was appropriate for me to take responsibility for the bid in a quasi-judicial role. this is important. she has to understand that is because i had expressed some sympathy for the bid when i was not responsible for at.

i change the process so that at every stage before i made a decision, i get the advice of independent regulators, which i carefully considered and followed. i put it to her that if i was backing the bid, i would not have sought the advice of independent regulators to may well have opposed the bid. let me also say this. i took full decisions in this process. each of those decisions was against what news corp. wanted. you are making a very serious allegations i was supporting the bid and not acting qualify- judicially. -- quasi-judicially. there were four decisions. the first decisions that i was

reminded to refer this bid to the competition commission. precisely what james murdoch did not want me to do. i then had an obligation to consider undertakings in lieu of a recommendation to the competition commission and that i would not accept those until i received and considered advise as to whether they dealt with the plurality concerns. that was something about which james murdock was extremely angry. the third decision might to a request to extend the consultation. at any stage i could have accepted those undertakings. to again and insist that careful sight of the undertaking and i would see their advice and i

would follow their advice after careful consideration. the final decision at the very end of the process was when the royal revelations were made at that stage i wrote and asked whether these allegations should have any impact on my decision with respect to accepting those undertakings because i thought there is a question over corporate governance procedures which might affect a decision. for decisions that were taken against what news corp. wanted. the idea i was backing this bid is laughable, mr. speaker. she talked about the e-mail's. let me just say in that evidence, -- you should listen to the evidence that was actually presented yesterday.

some of my e-mails may incorrectly suggest i had contact, would affect my contact was solely with mr. hunt's adviser. i excepts and e x of says communications overstepped the mark. what i am telling the house today is all of the evidence is absolutely clear, that none of those conversations influence the decisions i took. and let me just say this -- their party had 13 years to do something about it. the last year of the cabinet under the last labor government discussed press behavior and decided to do nothing. she faces a prime minister and cultures secretary to set up

letters to the inquiry within two weeks -- to put in place a process that while fully protecting freedom of expression will oversee some of the most fundamental reforms of press practices in a generation that has shown more commitments to transparency and the openness and her government ever did. >> will my right hon. friend confirm that whatever his advisers may have said, the only advice he took was from offcom and he followed it? will he agree that in circumstances like this the first thing the opposition does is to call for a judicial inquiry? given that is precisely what we have, is it not sensible to wait until it completes its work and not jump to

conclusions? >> my right hon. friend is exactly right on that and i think it's curious the leader of the opposition -- the leader of the opposition said i think it's right the inquiry take its course. the most important thing is the inquiry gets to the bottom of what happened: labour did, what the conservatives did, and we reach a judgment about that. why is he trying to prevent that? >> the secretary and prime minister said today that they always follow advice. they did not. this should have been referred to the competition commission. why did he change that policy? >> i know he was disappointed

because he is looking for a smoking gun that indicated this process had not been properly pursued. the very first decision i did was to say [unintelligible] the proper process, if you want to refer to the competition commission, is to tell the interested party you are minded to refer a bid to the competition commission and they have the opportunity to come back with undertakings which you have a duty to consider. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister reminded us earlier today that for far too long, conservatives and labor politicians and their advisers have been cozying up to that

media. in the light of that ended the light of the secretary of state 's on experiences, does he agree it is inappropriate for a politician to make decisions in relation to media ownership when those politicians, however hard day think are the impartial, shouldn't these decisions be made a openly and independently by the appropriate regulator? >> my right hon. friend makes a powerful point. he knows that i have said this is an issue that needs to be considered because the perception of impartiality is as important as the impartiality itself and we will wait to see what lord justice says. >> mr. secretary of state -- did

the secretary of state tried to convince the nation this is all the work of a single road advisor? -- single rogue adviser,? >> i think the gentleman needs to be careful about declaring someone guilty before there is a due process. >> order. a question has been asked. the answer must be heard. >> be used the word incriminating. i think he overstepped the mark and it's important to processes followed. the hon. gentleman wanted an inquiry. he's got an inquiry. let's listen to the results of that inquiry. >> does my right hon. friend agree that what this shows is the shocking expense to which

lobbyist's exaggerate, embellish and the actual degree of access and influence they have? >> my friend is absolutely right. there are countless examples in this e-mails of things that did not happen, not just with me that things -- members of my department that simply did not happen. it is important we hear all the evidence so we can get to the bottom of what is truth in what is fiction. >> every counselor in the land and knows whatquasi-judicial means. you have to be cleaner than clean, wider than white. the secretary of state and the prime minister have both a third for the last two years that no inappropriate conversations with rebecca brooks and every one of their meetings has been published. can i give one final chance to the prime minister to come clean

on all the meetings because i think you might find it's going to be a very difficult for him later on today. >> let me say this. the prime minister had no inappropriate conversations because he is not responsible for this decision. >> we have heard with the culture secretary has had to say about his own conduct and i believe them. [unintelligible] does the secretary of state think he should report directly to the prime minister instead? >> i think the lord justice is reporting to me in the home secretary on the express wishes of the prime minister pierre -- prime minister. >> some 6800 people are employed by bskyb in scotland.

what message has he got for them today? >> we want to have a thriving media industry. the great strength of our media industry is that we have a strong bbc and strong competition to the bbc. those employees play good part in that and we want to see all sectors thrive. >> we have heard today there are indeed many cases in political history of lobbyists with [unintelligible] fred michel claimed he had [unintelligible] will my right hon. friend tell us today how many conversations he did have. >> the answer is zero.

>> [unintelligible] why didn't he do the decent thing? get out and resign. >> mr. speaker. adam smith's resignation as a matter of huge regret to me. he is someone i believe to be of integrity and decency. my responsibility is to the integrity of this process, the objective the and impartiality with which this process was conducted and i believe i presented evidence that demonstrates that they're out, i behaved in a judiciously

impartial way. >> let me remind the house that whatever strongly held positions are held, the importance of moderation in the use of language in this house. >> mr. secretary of state -- did the secretary of state right on his website that he was a cheerleader for the murdoch's? >> i had on my article 8 -- at my website an article from broadcast magazine and i hope the evidence i will present this morning will show that is not the case. >> what the website? >> why did the culture secretary offer to help murdoch influence the process >> when you are

responsible for any sector, whether it's the aerospace sector, chemicals sector or automobile sector, you talk to all the people involved in that industry. it's my job to talk to the bbc, to sky, to newspaper proprietors because i want the industry to be successful. this bid had some implications for media policy so it was perfectly proper to be appraised of the spirit was not right was to be involved in the decisionmaking process, which i wasn't. >> does the secretary of state recognize the conversations attributed to him by fred michele? >> i do not. throughout the bid process, when i got responsibility, the content i had was only at official meetings with other people present. the fact is there was a whole

pile of e-mail where he talked about having contact with me which simply did not happen. >> if this occurred -- is the secretary of state saying he should report to him about him? >> i want him to report everything he thinks without fear, including his opinion in to the integrity of my conduct. >> a man i note to be of the utmost integrity -- the previous government knew of phone hacking and illegal media practices for years but failed to take any action. contrast their action with their inaction. >> we had 13 years and to

information report that one select committee, two people sent to prison and the party did absolutely nothing, which is why it is totally inappropriate for them to be suggesting this is a government problem, when it is an issue that affects all political process and that's what we need to work together to sort out more thoroughly. >> one of the main concerns about the fallout of the phone hacking is how widely news international's tentacles reached. bskyb launched its bid in 2010 and irrespective of when he took responsibility, could the secretary of state tell the house whether there was any communications or [unintelligible] about news corp.'s interest in bskyb. >> i had no communication about this bit when i was responsible for it.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to ask my friend who i have seen it serve this house with great integrity, could he clarify the role the independent regulators play in this process? >> my reasons to involve them in this process to a much greater extent than i was required to do under the enterprise s -- enterprise act of 2002 was to address the concerns members of this house and the public might have about me prejudging this issue. at every stage, i took for major decisions and each were not the decisions news corp. wanted. on every ruling i made, the independent i -- i considered the independent advice and followed it. >> the culture it secretary did

not answer the question of my friend. did he know of the exchanges between his adviser and mr. michele? did he know the content of those exchanges? >> that information was set out in a statement made by adam smith when he resigned. >> order. let's calm down and hear the answer. >> i knew about his contact. that was authorized. he was authorized to be the point of contact between my department and news corp.. what i did not know was the communications themselves -- the first time i saw that was yesterday, nor did i know the volume of communications or the town of those communications.

>> can the secretary of state explain how referring the bskyb -- [unintelligible] >> if you look at the evidence of the decisions i actually made, it is clear that at every stage, i made the decision news corp. did not want, including the final decision, which was to act whether i should take account of the revelations that precipitated the collapse of the entire bid. >> the secretary of state did not need to speak because his right hand man was feeding him all the information he needed. >> those conversations were inappropriate, but they did not affect my decision and the evidence is in the decisions i actually took, which were for

decisions james murdoch did not want. >> could my right hon. friend tell us what measures were emplace over and above what was in place to ensure the proceeding was there, transparent, and open. >> the most important thing was when james murdoch offered undertakings in lieu of a referral to the competition commission, which is his right to do in my duty to consider, instead of accepting those undertakings, which i was completely entitled to do legally, i said i would not do so until i had proper advice from the regulators as to whether it would be appropriated to do so. when i got the advice, i considered it carefully and follow it. that was required by the law but i chose to that because of my commitment to integrity of the process. >> why was the special advisor a nominated person in the

department if it has been so important -- why would this specialist advisor nominate a person? >> he was not the only person. contact on all sorts of level. when you have complex undertakings in a huge merger, it is a very, very complex process and there are a range of contacts. i have tried to be as transparent as possible in all those contacts. i think in this particular case, the contacts overstep the mark, which is why adams smith has decided to resign. let me just say that adam smith, in his statement said, whilst it was part of my role to keep news corp. informed throughout the bskyb process, the extent of my

contact was done without authorization from the secretary of state. >> thank you. [unintelligible] he knew that the bskyb deal was controversial when he came to the department. can he explain what measures he took to ensure the bid process was fair, transparent, and open? >> i have talked at length about the role of independent regulators but let me make this response to my hon. friend. one of the points of of getting that independent advice was i published what they advised me to do before i make my decisions so that when i announced my decision, the whole country could see whether i acted in

accordance with the independent advice, which i did at every stage, and that's why this house can be assured and the country can be reassured that this extremely difficult bid was conducted with unscrupulous impartiality. >> does he not accept that the secretary of state followed due process or not? we should be fighting in defense of his innocence. if he did not follow due process, he should be using humility. he is using 9 there. >> due process means i have taken my decision objectively, setting aside my own prejudices. that is exactly what i did.

>> i am grateful for my honorable friend for say that. the appearance for impartiality is important. the prime minister has asked the cabinet secretary to write to all departments to handle all cases of a judicial nature. all contacts by ministers, officials, and special advisers are carefully controlled and properly recorded so that the independent integrity and impartiality of the process is not held and seems to be upheld.

>> did he agree with the prime minister that the next great scandal in his administration is lobbying? >> in this process, we have seen the role of one corporate affairs adviser. that is why this government is conducted -- conducting a review to look at the role of lobbyists to see that we do have proper transparency in the entire process. >> can the secretary of state comment on the allegation that he went to sea swan lake after speaking to fred michelle? >> that was one e-mail-fred michelle cent. he called me just before i went

to see swan lake. we need to stop before making judgments on the nature of these e-mails. >> the secretary of state said yesterday that he has written to the lord justice to ask the way -- to ask about the way he accelerates his evidence. is it now incumbent on them to do likewise so they can clear up these issues? >> there are questions for politicians of all parties to ask in this process. we have an independent judicial review to decide the timing. i think it is important in this process that all parties engage constructively. this is actually an opportunity to solve the problem for a long time. construct engagement and not

jumping on bandwagons is the way forward. >> can you confirm to the house that the process you described was approved by the cabinet secretary and the permanent secretary? >> the permanent secretary was closely involved in this important decision at every stage of the process. he particularly gave me strong advice about how to make sure the process was handled objectively and fairly and seemed to be handled objectively and fairly. >> on the 20th of january 2011, the minister was responsible for competition policy. i advised him to hand over this decision to somebody else because of his own previous role with bskyb and the murdochs and

the fact that he used adam smith as his and his hand two monumental errors in judgment? >> why did i take the full decision to go against what news corp. wanted? the reality is this was a quasi-judicial process that i took enormous trouble to make sure was decided fairly. >> would the secretary of state agree with me that fred michelle's view of the business secretary saw no problem with the mitt -- with the bid demonstrates the state that he is living in? >> we must look at all evidence from all sides and allow the lord justice, who is truly independent without any

political bandwagon to jump on, to come to his political conclusion. >> secretaries of state speak more to their advisers than they do to members of their own families. the house is being invited to believe that either the relationship between the secretary of state and adams met was so dysfunctional that the secretary of state was unaware of the communication between them and the news corp. and that there was a good relationship or the secretary of state must take full responsibility of the conduct of his political advisers. >> i do not know what adam smith said this morning. i will go back to what adam smith said this morning. he said the content of my authorization was done without advice from the secretary of state. >> we can see the secretary of

state's integrity highlighted by the way he went about it. there is a gap between some of the evidence we have hard. this highlights why we should wait for this inquiry to finish. >> he is absolutely right. this is a huge opportunity to get things right. we have heard evidence that has some flaws in it. anyone looking at it objectively will say that we need to look at all of the evidence and not jump to conclusions. >> there is a takeover bid. >> i am happy to identify all communications with his office. i will look into that matter. >> mr. speaker, the secretary of

a came to the house -- is harming the house in the way he is answering questions. can the secretary of state clear up the statement and say it was absolutely untruth? >> there are allegations in an e-mail that that did not happen. i am unable to come to the house and say what the truth was or otherwise. the account of the conversation made by fred michelle contained a number of exaggerations. that is exactly why we have the lord justice looking into this whole matter, someone who is independent who will get to the bottom of it. >> the secretary of state has said that he did not know of the continent between the communications between his advisers and bskyb, but he knew

they were happening and it would publish all of the communications between his department as andbsky -- and bskyb. why weren't the communications he did know of not included. we know the prime minister did discuss the bid on the 23rd of december. did the prime minister act in a transparent manner by communicating what he said to his department from the 23rd of december or thereafter. ? >> the prime minister did not communicate with me any communications he had. he is not responsible for this bid. i am solely responsible for this bid. with respect to the communications, i did not know the contents of the

communications until yesterday when i saw them. nor did i know the volume of the communications. i knew that adam smith was one of a number of contact point within my department. it is clear that having seen those communications that the volume and content was inappropriate. what is significant is that they did not in any way affect my decision. the evidence of that is simple. the decisions itel corp. not the decisions that news corp. wanted. >> the secretary of state is a man of honor and substance. i have just learned that rupert murdoch has just told the inquiry that the form -- the former prime minister telephoned him and told him he had declared war on him when he learned that some newspaper had switched sides to the conservative.

does the secretary of state think that the party opposite is using this as a self-serving opportunity? >> yes. >> mr. speaker, given the intimate relationship between any such adviser and a secretary of state, is he seriously contending that he did not know the content and the volume that was being transmitted? why didn't he released all of the contacts when he was -- when he promised to do so? >> i did not know about the volume and content of those messages until yesterday. i have said that. my former special adviser has said that he did not have those communications without authorization from me.

they are not published. that is why we have taken the actions we have. >> the secretary of state is a man of integrity and honor. when he recognizes any of the conversations that have been attributed to him in mr. michelle's e-mails -- >> mr. machel has acknowledged that in the 54 e-mails in which -- mr. machel has acknowledged that in the 54 e-mails 40 -- mr. michelle has acknowledged that in the 54 e-mails where he mentioned to me, he did not have conversations with me. >> the party opposite has some lessons to learn about managing special advisers. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

sentence first. verdict after. it may well be a principal sufficient in alice in wonderland. it is not sufficient in english law. it is not observed in this house. does my right honorable friend share my disappointment that the opportunism we have heard from the right honorable gentleman demonstrates contempt for due process, the precise form of content that he himself is accused of? >> he makes an excellent point. let me remind him of what the lord justice said this morning. he said, i do not seek to constrain parliament. it seems the better course is to allow this inquiry to -- to succeed. >> the secretary brings in a special adviser and

actually does not know what he is doing. many i asked the secretary a simple question. -- may i ask the secretary a simple question. why did he decide that the contact would be a special adviser? >> it was a process authorized by the parliamentary secretary. there were a large number of points of contact. you need to do that. we set up a process. that was approved by the parliament secretary. we put in place a large number of safeguards to make sure my decision was taken objectively. i have to say to the honorable gentleman that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of those conversations had any influence on them whatsoever. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i congratulate the secretary of state on his salience. under this government, actions on phone hacking, actions on the inquiry, actions on media speculation reform. and more action in favor of the murdoch empire and the decisions he made. the only actions of the previous government [unintelligible] >> that is absolutely right. that is why we are trying to draw a line. we are trying to sort this problem out. it is time that the honorable gentleman opposite took a different line. we are trying to do something about this problem honestly and conscientiously. >> the more the government back

bench has claimed that the secretary of state is a man of integrity, the less the public is likely to believe them. my honorable friend asked about who suggested it was a special adviser -- that me say to the honorable gentleman, he should not impugned the integrity -- he should not impugn the integrity. the honorable gentleman asked a question that was answered. he should ask his question without the aspersions. >> to answer the question, we need to know who suggested it was that adam smith should be the point of contact for news corp.?

why was it a special adviser and not a civil servant? >> we will look into all the processes that happened. we are happy to learn lessons about the way this was structured. let me say to the honorable gentleman that he can take one element of what happened and he should not enjoy -- ignore the big picture. we put a huge flock in the process to make sure my decisions were impartial or seemingly impartial. that is what demonstrates that my decisions were taken -- taken on the basis of objective evidence. >> undermining the inquiry process itself. >> i do wish they would allow these issues to be considered in a calm manner.

they are difficult issues and we need to get the right solutions. we on this side of the house are not saying we got everything right in our policy over the years. there is a process to reform and to protect freedom of expression, which is the founder of our democracy. that is the way to deal with these issues. not to the rank opportunity we have seen this morning. >> he did not take independent advice. he did not have mr. murdoch's interests. he wanted to find some political cover. >> i did take the independent advice. the independent advice was that they should be referred. i meet the dead as i was required to do.

i wrote and said, i am minded to refer to this to be competition commission. they have the right to opposite -- to offer undertakings. i have the duty to consider undertakings. the independent regulators again to get their opinions before i make any other decisions. we have been scrupulously fair during this entire process. we make decisions that most people did not like. >> it is wrong to jump on the political bandwagon of resignation without telling people that. >> absolutely right. that is why i am looking forward that is why i am looking forward to