>> join us in about half an hour when british prime minister david cameron will be at the house of commons. he is expected to talk about why he has not ordered an investigation into the actions of his culture secretary. during an inquiry last week, it revealed he had ties to james murdoch. that is live atomic clock 30 zero cspan. a little bit later today, john brennan, the deputy national security adviser for a homeland security will speak at the wilson center here in washington. he is expected to discuss the president paused counter- terrorism strategy and that will be live in eastern. at 2:00 p.m., president obama will be joined by the japanese prime minister for a joint news conference live on c-span.

>> the aclu has believe for some time that police departments around the world are attracting people's cell phones and make regular basis off and not getting aeah staff attorney will talk about whether current law adequately protect an individual's right to privacy at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators," and cspan to. >>-2. >> i live in yukon, okla.. >> this weekend, our local content vehicles explore the culture of oklahoma city including the works of galileo at the history of science collection at oklahoma university. >> the most important part of this book is on motion and when this book was published in 1632,

the pope was angry that galileo had broken his promise to treat this hypothetically. this resulted in his trial and this is also a copy that contains his own handwriting so this is like being able to look over his shoulder in the months leading up to his trial and all next week and, the local content vehicle in oklahoma city on book-tv and american history tv. coming up next, a discussion on u.s. counter-terrorism strategy and use of military drone technology abroad. this is about half an hour.

>> the drone program has remarkably increased over the last couple of years since 2008. between 2008 -- between 2004-and the summer of 2008, there was only 10 drowned strikes inside pakistan and one outside in yemen that killed an al qaeda leader. from the summer of 2008 on, there has been an estimated 290 + stride inside -- strikes inside pakistan. a lot of this is due to the expanded fleet of drugs. i don't have a specific number but now there is hundreds in service. the drones are the unmanned vehicles being used. production of them has skyrocketed and we

are making more drugs than man fighter craft for the u.s. air force. the two primary drones' being used in pakistan and yemen and somalia are the predators and the more heavily armed reaper drones. they can loiter over the battlefield and not have a pilot so they don't have issues of fatigue for a pilot. they are remotely operated from about 9,000 miles away from the united states. it is easier to deal with and they are rather -- able to gather intelligence. in yemen, there has been bad least -- there has been at least 98 strikes and in somalia, it is tough to get the numbers but there has been probably about 7-10 strikes in somalia between cruise missiles

-- between cruise missiles and drums and manned aircraft. >host: how high up do they fly and where they built and how many different models are there? guest: the two main models are the predator and they reaper drone which are used to construct -- to conduct strikes and surveillance. there is also the beast of kandahar that loitered over the base of osama bin laden and there are a slew of smaller drones. they are about the size of a normal aircraft. they go smaller, although it way down to -- all the way down to small sizes.

the main drowns we are talking about can fly somewhere between 12-18 hours over a target and hover between 10,000 feet over the battlefield. they can be spotted by the taliban and al-qaeda but that is been shotof them have down. host: the cost of these drones ranges from $20 million up to $80 million per drawn. where are they built? guest: cost includes the aircraft and that also includes the systems that are used to fly them.

that is one of the benefits of the drones is that if you lose the aircraft, you don't lose a pilot and you don't lose the guidance system. you just lose the play and whatever weapons. that is one of the benefits. a bunch of different defense manufacturers and make of the drones. -- make the drones. host: in "the wall street journal" -- what was the policy change at the obama administration? guest: they have been seeking to expand the drawn operation in yemen. that is been clear that this has been relaxed well before this article came out. i was writing about this back in march actually, saying the of ministration appears to not just the targeting top level of

data leaders -- top-level al- qaeda leaders but they are actually targeting foot soldiers and local commanders inside yemen. there has been 13 drawn strikes of this year alone, six this month and six last month so it has been very clear that they ramped up. in the prior 10 years, there was only 16 strikes. it was not just drawn but other conventional aircraft as well. it would have been very clear that the administration is saying they fear al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula will conduct attacks on the united states but the actions show the united states is taking sides in the yemen civil war against al- qaeda.

host: we will go to calls out this but what is the down side of the increased drone use? guest: in my opinion, if we are not honest about how we are using these, if we are conducting these strikes or trying to conduct these strikes covertly, whenever there is a strike, they appear in the media almost immediately. when we pretend we are not conducting these operations, i think it generates a lot of bad will in the islamic world. it feeds the al qaeda narrative that the u.s. is slobbering muslims even though the drawn strikes have had historically low civilian casualty numbers. there are legal issues as well. these are military operations against a group in a country that we are not at war with.

in the case of yemen and pakistan, there has been under the table approval to do these by these governments. the problems are mitigated by you have a propaganda a nightmare. the u.s. is pretend and we are not conducting drone strikes but everyone knows we are doing it. the pakistani don't approve of it and parliamenta says we should stop. we had a strike the evening yesterday. you have the pakistani government feeding the negative propaganda against the united states. it is a real nightmare. you have the administration taking credit for strikes that kill senior leaders.

they take credit for this strikes but the american public should have an understanding of this. it is not let one or two covert operations but these are real military campaigns being conducted in foreign countries. host: dalton, ga., on our democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning, are the drones used in the united states? are they operated from a computer? how did they do their reconnaissance or the united states and abroad? have a good day. guest: they are operated from control centers and they have video of links -- uplinks.

the drones are getting used in the united states by border patrol and some local police departments and federal agencies. there is not a lot of usage right now. i believe in north dakota, they used a drawn to help get a family that was stealing cattle and conducting other illegal activities. there is a lot of controversy over this. one of the problems that exists is that this is not a revolution in military hardware or avionics. it is just the next e. aleutians. evolution. you have a pilot flying 20,000 miles over the battlefield and he pushes a button and conducts an attack. it is remote control warfare and in the case of drones the pilot

does not happen to be in the aircraft. this is just the natural evolution. one concern with the drones being used domestically which is an issue of a fear of the increasing surveillance by the federal and state and local governments on americans. that is not a problem with the drones. if you have a concern, you have to pick up that concern with your government. host: next call is from reno, nev., independent line. >caller: i was curious about the legal ramifications and other countries. i would assume that we would not permit the use of drugs by other countries to do any activity in the united states. what about the consistency of

that? guest: i am not a legal expert when it comes to the drones. i think that is a valid concern. we are setting an example and this is why i believe we should be more open about what we are doing. we should be making the case as to why we are conducting this program. this is really part of the problem. the bush administration and the obama administration wanted to conduct these drawn strikes in the shadows but the result of the strikes are available for the public to see. i think they have a responsibility. in the case of yemen, pakistan, and somalia, the local governments approve but how legal is it? this would not apply to against dan or when we were in the iraq.

the case becomes more difficult in yemen and somalia and pakistan and wherever else we plan on using the drones. there is a lot of animosity out there for this program and a lot of suspicion and i think a lot of it is warranted. host: you said currently the u.s. is building more drugs than pilots and aircraft? guest: that's correct. it was either this your last year was the first year that they produced more unmanned systems than they do manned systems. they are cheaper and easier to maintain that they are not as technologically advanced. compare a drawing to an f-22, there is just no comparison. the drones are slow. they have limited defense. i believe you can mounted

stinger missiles which is nothing like anything else can clock -- that can engage aircraft. stealth't have capabilities. you could shoot down a drone with a world war two fighter. they're good on counter insurgency were the enemy does not have a robust anti aircraft and defense systems. if you wanted to fly drones against any modern nation, the odds are good that they would be shut down unless -- that they would be shot down. we lost one of those over iran last like -- late last year and you can be pretty sure that technology will be shared with the chinese by the iranians. host: mass., a democrat, hi there. caller: since general petraeus

has taken over the cia, is he the one relaxing the use of drones? someone developed this technology. they could even use that against us. guest: any technology can be used. you will have more americans killed by firearms or automobiles this year than will be killed by an unmanned drones in the next decade. general petraeus has advocated for the drug strikes in yemen. the drone program is operated by the cia but in yemen, the programs are operated by the cia and the joint special operations command.

there have been reports of naval bombardment but the reality is that the drone program was at its peak two years ago with 117 strikes in pakistan. the number of strikes their last year went down to 64 and we are on a pace to conduct about 50 strikes in pakistan. the program was in its twilight or winding down and pakistan. that is because al-qaeda is defeated but i think the reason is because of the political problem that we have with pakistan. they say the drones are being used as a tool by the pakistani government to get supply lines back open. the program is expanding in yemen but i don't see expanding

to that high of 117 strikes after 2010. host: next call comes from new york, richard, republican. caller: good morning -- i was reading an article about the 30,000 drones being ordered for the united states. it was authorized by obama for the next 20125-2020. they want to have it so they can spy in your backyard so that if you are growing a garden for illegal activities they can see it. this is part of a danger that the border fence might be used to keep the american people in. ron paul one alaska and he is

doing real good. guest: the drones are a piece of technology. the issues of surveillance of american citizens is something they citizens have to take up with the government. the government can tap your funds, look at your e-mails, they ask for people over the summer to observe be illegal crops. surveillance has been occurring by the federal, state, and local groups for years. groans as just another tool that will be put in the toolbox. - drones are just another tool that we put a metal box. i don't know how the government should or should not take up surveillance of american citizens but people are fee

fearful of the drone itself. host: next call comes from kenosha, wisconsin, independent line. caller: do we coordinate with other countries to get some type of air space approval? guest: yes. ♪ caller: can you talk a little about the long war journal? guest: yes, in the case of pakistan, they have set up fake kill box over two travel agencies. the drones can operate unfettered and the united states rarely strays outside of this

kill box. the problem is al qaeda is not just locate in north and south waziristan. we caught a top al-qaeda out leader. we have agreements and the same thing with yemen. we know these aircraft are operating in those areas and they will match up and down. i established long war journal back in 2007 and we are tracking the xmo's. we try to be apolitical and explain what is happening.

in the major theaters of war and the shadow war against al qaeda. host: in the journal, you can see some charts about different air strikes and how many. this is number of u.s. air strikes in northwest pakistan and. the red area is the number of strikes. 199 air strikes and then a handful of other places. here is a tweet -

newport, n.c., on our democrats line. james? caller: all the information gathered, how is it gets sorted out to? ? host: i think he means militarily. guest: before president bush expanded the program in august of 2008, the approval process had to go all the way up to the president himself. he loosened a rains on that and

allowed, i believe the decision went to the secretary of defense. that has been loosened even further. i believe teh cia now has the approval process. the strikes were happening every few days and i can't imagine being the cia director being embroiled in such a tactical issue. as far as the intelligence gathered, it is going through the entire intelligence process to pick out top al qaeda leaders, top taliban and allied leaders. there are leaders of other groups.

leaders of these groups have been targeted in these strikes and there is what they call signature strikes. they are for more controversial. they're looking for patterns of behavior. they will say there is a whole bunch of guys with guns meeting and night or in might be an all day of known local taliban commander. those are very controversial strikes. you mentioned the casualty numbers. the civilian strikes are somewhere between the numbers of 05% and 10%. those numbers could be tripled but i think that is the most

reliable information. i often been criticized for writing about these numbers and the administration claims zero. the strikes are occurring in an area where there is no government control. you cannot just walk in there. a lot of different information comes in different ways. host: go ahead with your question -- caller: you mentioned earlier that you are concerned about the transparency and a propaganda nightmare.

are you suggesting that pakistan should have a veto over our use of the drones or is this more that you want us to say we are doing this and continue to do it? guest: at this point, the pool has been poisoned in pakistan concerning the drone program and we are rapidly poisoned apple in yemen, as well. what would have been proper years ago is for the u.s. and pakistan to come to an agreement. they should have been honest. pakistan is explaining why the shares had to occur in the u.s. is saying it is working but astead, you'll have nonessential of's are saying yes we do are now we don't.

it is a game of smoke and mirrors and unfortunately it plays into enemy propaganda. you don't have to detail the actual time of when you strike, just be honest about the program and occasionally give a briefing on the status of this pair you turn around and say we have had this effect. they say they will compensate the families. war is not bloodless. there's no such thing as having a war with no civilian casualties. i think the drone program is the best attempts to limit those casualties. when the conduct of the strikes and that's happening now we're not take responsibility for the failures of the program. host: last call comes from richmond, va.. guest: to the edison people have

a right to sue the u.s. government? as a given the many -- as a -- you have people disagreeing with their own government. do they named these terrorists? guest: path thank you for the question. as far as the legality, there are some attempts on the u.s. side and i believe the british government as well -- >> we will leave this segment and you can see "washington journal"every morning.

we go live to london where david kaufmann -- david cameron will answer questions of not addressing his culture secretary, jeremy hunt. >> let me set out the position again. i sat out the levenson inquiry last summer to question the ethical at practices of the media and the relations between the media and the police and the media and politicians. it is a full inquiry with evidence given under oath and full access to papers and records. no government before has ever taken such comprehensive action. it is this government that is putting these issues properly on the table and getting them dealt with. let me deal of the three issues in this question. the conduct of the secretary of straight, the culture of media and sports, the nature of inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of issues and the wider

issues of the relationship between politicians and the media. first the culture secretary -- as was made clear in his statement last wednesday, with regard to the news corp. bid, the culture secretary followed up. he acted fairly and impartially and in line with the advice of his permanent secretary. as he sat at in his statement last wednesday, he acted against the interest of news corp. on four key decisions, referring the bid to the competition commission, on refusing to accept news corp.'s undertaking without advice first from oft and extending the consultation and on going back oft-comm on the importance of phone hacking. i see no evidence that he acted in a way that was contrary to the ministerial codes.

in terms of the secretaries, the chairman of approved the approach. that included small number of people acting as contact points with these corporations as is required and rollins to process. required and follows in the process. it is quite clear that this contact became improper and inappropriate and went on the requirements set out by the secretary of state or the permanent secretary. that is why the special adviser resigned and he was right to do so. there are correct procedures to follow in this regard and they need to be followed scrupulously. that is why last week, i ask the cabinet secretary and head of the seacoast predicts its service to write to the department's clarifying the rig is procedures that should be in

place for handling cases of this nature. the second issue is the nature of the inquiry. all inquiries best suited to get to the bottom of this issue. i consulted the cabinet secretary and decided it was right to allowed lord justice average and to conduct his inquiry and not commission a parallel process to address _ the facts. we have a judgment inquiry with witnesses required to give evidence under oath, to access papers and records, all live on television. there is nothing is difficult for this rigorous that the cigarette -- that the rigorous civil servants can provide. is not for the judge to determine whether a minister has broken the minister of code. that is an issue for me and i will do it properly. >> we must and shout at the

prime minister. i want to hear what he has to say. it must be heard with courtesy. >> i will not wait until the end of 11 setting gori to take action if action is needed. new evidence emerges from 11 cents inquiry that the ministerial code has been broken, i will either seek the advice alex allen or take action directly. in order to do this, it is neither necessary nor right to have a parallel investigation that could duplicate or possibly preempt what lord justice said he was doing. you're just as offered his view on wednesday when he said " although i have seen requests for other inquiries and other investigations, it seems to me the better course is to allow this inquiry to proceed." i agree with him entirely. i am and always will be a fierce defender of the freedom of the

press in this country. is what the central pillars of our soccer is a. the relationship between politicians and the media has been too close for decades. the levenson inquiry that this government set up gives power and politicians of all parties the opportunity to get this right for the future. already, we have been introduced transparency. everyone here can see which proprietor or as their i need. like other party leaders, in our country for decades, i have tried to convince media outlets to support the policies of my party and now my government. there was not and has never been any grand bargain between the conservative oregon and rupert or james murdock perr and. .

the idea that there was some agreement that in return for their support would somehow allow the merger to go through is simply not true. if that was the case, while i respect him deeply, what on earth was i doing making the right hon. member for detrick responsible for this? >> members must calm down. there will be opportunity to question. >> the proprietors of news corp. have testified under oath and denied any type of deal and i will do the same period on like the party, we were not trying to convince a center-right proprietor of a cent of newspapers with solidly center

news to on a change that position. we argued that the last government was irresponsible, exhausted, and that for our country and often goes. i have said that the relationship between politicians and the media has been too close, i know that none of the people opposite have disclosed any of the meetings. they did that for other newspaper executives while there were in office. they just lie one-sided party politics. it is time they are honest about what they did in government and face up to the real mess they have left. mr. speaker, the reason this was essential for the prime minister to come to the house today is

because the culture secretary is in clear breach of the ministerial code. the prime minister stands by and does nothing. he asks why this matter is? it matters because we need a government that stands up for families, not the rich and powerful. he is scaling back fans. playing for time, he says we should wait for the levenson inquiry. lord justice leverson could not be clearer. he said that he is not the arbiter of the minister tell code. whatever anybody else says, there is somebody else who has that role, alex alun. lord justice leverson is doing his job and it is time the prime minister does his. there are no fewer than three breaches of the military codes by the sun -- by the culture

secretary. he told us "all the exchanges between my department and news corp. are being published." he has now admitted that he knew when he gave that answer that there was exchange's key himself authorized between his special adviser and news corp. now those changes were disclosed. we have won this -- we have 160 pages to prove this. will he confirm to the house that this is a breach of the code but said that ministers must provide full and accurate information for parliament? second, the culture secretary gave a speech to this house on january 25 and renown no that two days before that statement, news corp. was given confidential inside information darie.

the prime minister does not need to wait to leverwson inquiry. will he agree with the high standards of propriety? the culture secretary was on a freelance mission. six months of daily e-mails leak in a leak of confidential information. on one of the biggest media blitz is today is the prime minister really reduced to the news of the world's defense. one roby individual acting a lot. if the culture secretary was that close about the previous issues facing his department, he should be sacked any way.

the central answer that the prime minister must kiev - must give, why doesn't he refer a it tolex allen. the prime minister is defending the inf accord -- indefensible and he knows it. the special adviser had to go to protect the culture secretary perry because a secretary had to stay to protect the prime minister. the prime minister has shown today he is incapable of doing his duty, he is too close to a powerful few and out of touch with everyone else. weak and wrong, that is what we learned. >> members on both sides -- need

to calm down. the prime minister is used to being heard and i wish to hear him. prime minister? >> 15 years of secret meetings, pajama parties, christmas and all the rest of it and not one word of apology. let me answer very directly the three points he made. first he spoke about the responsibility to my hon. friend but if he had done as research, if you're going to make these accusations, get your facts right. the second issue, he raised specifically the information provided to news corp. which was completely wrong and a special adviser has said that while it was part of my role to keep and was corporation informs

throughout the process, the content and extent of my compact was done without authorization from the secretary of state. that is the second accusation completely wrong. the third accusation is also about the special adviser and the ministerial code. my friend took responsibility and can the house and explain what happened and gave a good account of himself. can anyone remember the minister taking responsibility cha forrley wieman or mc eni inbride. what a lot of self-serving double standards we have. let me just make two further points -- he says this is an issue of judgment about what steps to take. let us examine briefly what the deputy leader of the labor party pastas and wise.

she was asked and said you called for the secretary of state's resignation within 23 minutes of getting the evidence. she was asked if she read the evidence and c saidno, i didn't need to. she said because i heard the evidence of james murdoch. he is the arbiter of standards. what complete nonsense. i am not be levelling this issue but it is not as serious as the euro is done, the jobs, the investment and the debts. it is time to focus on that. your endlessly questioning someone who does that have the credibility will come back on you. simon hughes "

-- order. simon hughes. >> every leader has sought to break these video relationships between the neighbor and the tory government. the leverson and korea is doing a credible job. this will be referred to the top adviser. it should be done independently. >> i agree with what my hon. friend says. the opportunity provided for the

inquiry, we should be frank. the relationship between the media and the police chief and the media and politicians and some of the ethics and problems in the media have not been dealt with properly. this gives us an opportunity to deal with it. on this specific issue of the secretary, what is more robust than a judgment inquiry with minister is under oath holding the bible, wang larose, answering questions. that is the point. >> on wednesday, the secretary of state told this body that the permanent officers have agreed to authorized and approved of this action. on thursday, the permanent secretary refused to 10 times concern for my committee that this was the case. on friday, he then wrote to me

stating merely that the tea was aware and content. the secretary of state failed to provide full information to parliament or the secretary of state failed to require his subservience to provide accurate information to a assembled committee. both are breaches. of the ministerial code. >> rather than brained noisily, let's allow the question to be finished. >> both sides of ride roughshod over the rights of parliament. >> there was an appearance and

what the ministry secretary said he backed with his assistance said. when asked to clarify, he made clear that he agrees the arrangements within the department as i said in my statement and he was pleased with the role of the special adviser. i know the gentle lady allows our committee to drift into these kinds of things but she is completely wrong. >> there is an urgent need to restore public confidence and the processes lead to decisions in this process and to achieve that, an increase to be held in the open in which witnesses give evidence in public subject to cross-examination and under oath. well the concern -- if there is concern is that questions remain, he will refer that to someone else. >> i can give you an insurance -- having seen some of the

inquiry on television, it is mentally powerful that people are questioned under oath. that is far more robust than anything the independent adviser or sell the service can provide. i am not waiting for leverson to complete his investigation. if an amazing comes out that shows anyone has breached the code, i would act. this is the right way to approach it and i think people should respect the integrity of the fact-finding mission. it does not remove from me the necessity to plead for the military code. that is my job. isone of the clear duty iies before the conduct of the special advisers. given what the prime minister

knows already about the possible dereliction of duty, why is the minister still advising him? are there not matter is under the ministerial code which now merits investigation by the independent adviser? no one understands why you are seeking to shut this behind a smokescreen. the duty to do this is on you. >> i respect your right of the gentleman and his experience in government and he would know that i consulted with the cabinet secretary. what is the right process to follow to make sure we get to the truth and we deal with this issue? the right process is to allow lord leverson to find the facts of the case and if there is any question about the minister of code being broken, i can then

acts. the ministerial code is absolutely clear. ministers are responsibile. >> given that the role of the adviser of a ministerial code is purely to advise the prime minister on whether the minister's actions are in breach of that code and not to investigate or establish the facts of those actions, is an essential to allow the inquiry to establish the fact and the advance that they discover there is a prime offensive, then they need to refer it -- referred to the ministerial adviser. >> you are entirely right. it is worth examining what would happen if you commission that the independent adviser to set down a process of factual discovery. you have to look at all the information that is about to be

provided l to theeverson finding and would duplicate the facts. >> the prime minister has just claimed began at in relation to theb sky b, that the government had independent advice every stage. will he confirm that on december 31, 2010, the government was advised to refer the bid to the competition's commission. the government did not do so. they both said last week and it is simply not true. >> we were acting in accordance with a law passed by is government, the enterprise act. this requires you to consider the company's reputation to you

in terms of reference to the competition commission. if you don't take that into account, you could be subject to judicial review. i said that aid each stage, he took in a bad advice and all that independent advice of correct. >> all sensible people will welcome the approach. but will he agree with me? what appeared wrong to rest the judgment and that he has a duty to follow as does the process? >> i think this is right. this is something we can recognize if you go back over 10 years in politics, it is the easiest thing in the world for a prime minister to say to a member of congress that it is getting a bid to the gulf, you have to let go -- be let go.

i believe we need to get to the facts, it is natural justice and we should have more. >> the prime minister is aware that machinery has been in place for investigations in relation to the preacher codes of conduct for many years because of context of a citizens and members of the house of commons. why doesn't the fight -- prime minister implement that instead of going to a third party? >> kenyon across as that is more robust and that a minister having to provide under of information to incorporate the answer questions and under oath and knowing that all the time, anything in that information if it breaches the ministerial code can trigger another judgment. that is what is happening. that is what i agree with the cabinet secretary. i am absolutely convinced it is the right approach. >> this morning, i checked with

my office to see if there are lots of complaints about the department that colfer made during sports. mrs. bone said there were hundreds and hundreds. they wanted to know why harried was not becoming the football coach. she wants to let the prime minister get on with running the country and getting results. >> this is important but there are many more important issues like jobs and living services and dealing with the debt that we should be getting on with. >> all these problems stem from the prime minister's original judgment. having taken responsibility for the news corp.bid for b sky b

away from the business secretary because he was sympathetic to news corp., it was stupid of him than to handed over so that because the secretary was already on record and in favor of the bed >> i don't accept that at all. it was not just antipathy. he was recorded as saying he wanted to destroy this visit. he could not carry on running that part of his department. i sought advice from the cabinet secretary and the cabinet set -- cabinet secretary as to the secretary of state. >> the prime minister just reassure the house that we are getting maximum value for money in these cash-strapped towns in the office of the independent adviser. [laughter] >> yes, i can. >> i was at the meeting of the

public committee where, according to the prime minister's the statements just now, the press secretary said he approved the approach which was taken by the department in relation to using adam smith as a conduit. the press secretary said the secretary of state made a statement and made it clear he is providing full written evidence for looking forward to providing normal evidence l to theeverson inquiry. this makes no reference to the ministers of parliament, how can lleverson deal with this? >> let me be clear -- the approach was approved taken by the department to the clause i- judicial process.

this included adams met acting as a contact point with news corp.. it is normal and required to have contacts and a promise secretary has made clear that he was aware and content for adam smith to be one of those was a contact. you can keep digging into this area but i'm afraid is not getting anywhere. >> could the prime minister tell us if he like other prime ministers have zero telephones of the murdoch empire? does he think what we see here today, but call for openness? >> i am perfectly prepared to with a relationship between politicians and media proprietors and it got too close. the party opposite has not revealed any of the meetings they had while they were in

government. we have been completely transparent. >> of prime minister has relied l on theeverson process. in doing so, by providing the leveson to mr. frederick about b sky b. >> it is a judgment inquiry. he is able to ask for any papers or materials and this government will provide it. >> mr. speaker. the principles of fair play and natural -- it should be determined after the secretary

of state had the opportunity to give his side. the most -- it is more about the failure of opposition and the people of britain. >> i think the motivation is they would do anything than campaign. >> i am willing to keep them here as long as they like. that's my guess. >> the one fact that they cannot get away from is the fact that james murdoch knew in terms what the secretary of state was going to say before he said it had before commercial operators in opposition to murdoch knew it. is that clear example of

collusion and a shabby deal between the prime minister and murdoch? >> i would have thought that when he stands up in this house should make an apology. he stood up last week and claimed a series of facts, based on privileged access he has had. the facts turned out to be wrong. a man of honor would stand up and apologize. >> speak up. [unintelligible] >> that is in sharp contrast to a process, directed by the high

bidder. >> order, order. most questions have focused on the terms of the urgent questions. that was a million miles away from it, completely out of order. >> a proposed takeover bid it was given the same level of scrutiny as the b sky b has been given. >> the transparency and scrutiny has been a proper process. he took steps that were not welcomed by news corp. he was open and taking transparent advice.

>> getting better employment rights than the rest of the workers in britain? is it possibly because he knows that whatever the culture secretary is in the private life, it presents the bully from hitting him, the prime minister. >> he can take his pension at any time and i advise him to do so. >> mr. speaker, i welcome the open process. i welcome the prime minister who will be responsible for insuring his government -- require lord justice leveson to report directly to him. >> the report is going to be a

major political media and regulatory event. he is reporting to everybody in parliament and politics and in public life that cares about these issues. we have an opportunity to deal with relations between politicians and the media, which have not been right in this country. >> the secretary of state -- the only way the minister's communicate with the special advisers is through e-mails. why has the prime minister forgot the letter that a resignation delays is a disgrace? >> what i would say is if he is concerned to make sure that all

the information is properly looked into. what is preferable -- where you can look at papers and ask questions or a inquiries with ministers asking questions under oath where all of the documents have to be revealed. this is what i do not understand or the opposition is coming from. if you want full disclosure before making a judgment, this must be the process. >> in a previous scandal, a respected member of this house suggested the prime minister did not take responsibility. why he thinks the situation is

any different now? >> taking responsibility for your special advisers means coming to this house and explaining what is happening. he gave his reasons for resigning. he has not broken the ministerial code. >> when they have the opportunity to question the this is an-- important issue. when the parliamentarians get the opportunity -- a key person was the special adviser. >> it is up to the door justice leveson. -- it is up to lord justice leveson.

in this house, you are able to call whenever you like and you can ask those questions. about the way the department ran the process -- all the parliaments have been written to. >> would my honorable friend agree that a company which would sack the director would never achieve anything worthwhile at all? >> this argument -- if ministers resigned every time something was wrong, we would have a new government virtually every week. >> the real reason the prime minister is reluctant -- if as a

result the secretary of state were forced to resign, he would find himself on the front line having to answer from every revelation of the code between the empire -- as a result, is it not inappropriate that the prime minister who has a vested interest should take this position rather than parliament itself based on a stunted motion of the house. >> you can find any kind of explanation you wanted. you could go to the simple one. the best way to find out the facts is to allow it to run its course. that is the answer.

sometimes the simple explanation is the right one. >> if any major business was bidding for a company, it would be normal for them to of dialogue with the departments involved. >> it is important that the dialogue is carried out appropriately. the special adviser to not act properly and that is why he resigned. there are wider issues. we should get this right. >> people will compare this to the cavalier way for television in wales. this is small in the grand scheme of things.

>> i did not accept that. we have done right. this has been a great success. look, all media companies have their great causes and lobbies. you get as much pressure from the bbc, from regional newspapers about things that they are concerned about. that is worth putting on the record. >> we should remember just a week ago he said we should let them do their job. >> that is exactly what he said. i think it is right that the

leveson inquiry take its course. a good headline 23 minutes after the -- >> mr. speaker, this is something that concerns me, the role of the special advisers. people work closely with their minister. i do not believe the prime minister does not know that the special adviser must have known everything that was going on, hour by hour, day by day. >> all of that information it is going to be provided to the leveson inquiry. the special adviser has been clear about the role he plays

and that he went beyond anything he was authorized to do. the difference is these people are going to be answering questions under oath, questioned by barrister in a court. >> they would almost be heavily guided by the leveson inquiry. >> i think my good friend makes a good point. you cannot guarantee an independent adviser would be quicker. it will be cutting across cutting what levelord leveson is doing.

i could not be clearer about it. >> he did not discuss this with james murdoch. i wonder why he felt unable to admit -- >> i have not had any inappropriate conversation about this issue and indeed i haven't . it is important to record everything you possibly can -- to report everything you possibly can. a minister said he was trying to destroy it a media company. it was inappropriate for me to say that was not correct.

that was a sensible thing to say. >> i share the mystification -- this has been a breach of the ministerial code. >> she put her finger on it. he does not want to wait for the evidence or the information. he saw a crossing band wagon and he jumped on board. >> the culture secretary said he would publish all the documents, all the exchanges between my department and news corp. does he no no problem whatsoever? >> his answer was given to

explain the situation. >> mel stride. >> a civil service inquiry would have no power to summon the minister under oath. would you agree that the best way to give the secretary state the best way to find the truth? >> i do not want to belittle what the cabinet secretary is capable of in terms of proper inquiries, because this has happened in the past. the process we are engaged in is many times more robust in terms of getting to the case about the facts. >> mr. speaker, what does the

prime minister agree that sensitive information -- in advance of an announcement that that would bring a breach of the code but also illegal/ ?i >> i agree. that does need to be properly investigated. >> charlie and david were special advisers. both resigned in disgrace. there was an inquiry at the time. >> that is a very good point. special advisers have misbehaved and the minister has tried to

shrug it off. >> did the secretary of state out by was being sent special advisers? if he did not know, how could he argued he was in charge of the department? >> i agree with the first half. it is important we establish the full facts of the case. the difference between this case and other cases is this will be examined by a judge in a court. >> newspapers were driving an illegal market in personal information, yet there was no judicial inquiry.

now that we have the leveson inquiry, they should be given the chance to explain why they did so little. >> it is a point for the opposition. there were powerful reports. our political system did not react to them. we should try to get to a situation where, so that when problems show up they are properly dealt with. >> do you think this exceeded his authority. this will benefit smith in pleasing the murdochs. >> adam smith has made clear his role.

he said it was part of his role. this was done without authorization by the secretary of state. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister recall the words of his predecessor who said advisers' advice and ministers preside? a socialist yahoo make up his mind in 23 minutes. >> my old friend is quite right. it is the easiest thing in the world to react to any opposition politician, calling for a scalp. you have to take the time and get the issue right.

people are going to have to be patient. >> as a former competition minister who dealt with some of these judicial matters, why eight special adviser -- why a special adviser was used? how could the prime minister get to the bottom of whose idea it was? that's something that has not been told. >> there were a range of people who were authorized to have contact with the news corp. there have to be some contact with the department. the authorization was given. i think he is barking up the wrong tree.

>> throughout the process, senior teams on a regular basis -- in the interest of transparency, all parties should publish all correspondence between their representatives. >> i think that is a very good idea. we all need to be transparent. >> i have heard 42 and to receive replies. we have another urgent question and we must move on to that. >> you have been watching live coverage of david cameron answering questions about the phone-hacking incident.

up next, his statement from last week would be denied any wrongdoing after calls were made for is resignation over what has been referred to as the legal advice given to james murdoch. james brock testified before a panel -- james murdoch testified before a panel. prime minister cameron said he had full confidence about the secretary. this is just under an hour. >> order, order. we have a statement first.

>> the statement is from the secretary of state and sport. mr. secretary. permission, i would like to make a statement. i intend to respond fully to allegations about my conduct will represent my evidence to lord justice leveson, actions have been taken as a result of evidence that was released yesterday. we are 273 days into a process

that will last into october. this is not the time to jump on a political bandwagon. but -- but -- -- what the public wants to hear, not my views but the views of lord justice leveson when he has considered all of the evidence. i think it is right to set the record straight, specifically on the merger of news corp. with b sky b. i have followed due process, seeking the advice of independent regulators.

i have published all of the advice i have received together with correspondence between myself and news corp., including all meetings. my officials and i have engaged with news corp. and its representatives as well as other interested parties. transcripts of conversations publicist yesterday between adam smith and a news corp. representative indicate there was a back channel to which news corp. were able to influence my decisions. this is categorically not the case. >> the house must calm down a

bit. the statement must be heard. this is right and proper that the statement should be heard with courtesy. the volume and tone of those communications were not appropriate in a quasi-judicial process. agnes smith has resigned as my special adviser -- adam smith. although adams smith has overstepped the mark on this occasion, i will say for the record that he did so on and potentially and he did not believe he was doing anything more than giving advice on process. it is a matter of huge regret that this has happened.

i only saw the transcript of these communications yesterday. they did not influence my decision at all. i insisted on hearing from independent regulators. i will give my full record of events. i would like to resolve this as soon as possible. i am confident that when i present my evidence, the public will see that i conducted this process with scrupulous -- throughout. >> i thank the secretary of state. this was of a huge commercial importance and have profound

importance for all of broadcasting including the bbc. the business secretariat has been stripped of his responsibility because he had already made up his mind against the bid. the culture secretary made up his mind in favor of the bid. how did he think it was proper to take on that decision? the decision of whether he could do it was a matter for him and him alone. the secretary of state assure this house he would be acting in a quasi judicial role, as a judge. case that james murdock was receiving information in advance about what the secretary of state was going to do and about what he was going to say, and before it

was given to this house. does he think it is acceptable and what the regulator said to the secretary of state on january 10, and what the opponents said it on the 20th of march, 2011. is he going to suggest that james mark adviser -- james murdock adviser said this was just a coincidence? can he explain how fred michele was in a position to tell murdoch the full details of the statement the secretary of state was not going to give to this later?ntil two statedays

there can be no doubt that the e-mail describes meetings that the secretary of state has had as foretold what the secretary of state was going to do. either he was mistaken -- when it comes to the transparency, the secretary of state comments, there appears to be a great deal of transparency . it has been suggested that he was negotiating with murdoch. why didn't he tell opponents to the bid and the house? is that what he said is going on? he published details on all the exchanges between his department

and news corp. in light of the information, does he still maintains that that's the case? his activities when too far at times and he has resigned. it is the secretary of state who is responsible -- this is a controversial bid. he could have referred it to the competition commission, but he did not. his role was to be impartial but he was not. his contract fell far short. the reality is that he wasn't judging this bid, he was backing this bid.

>> i am hugely disappointed. she has the opportunity to rise above party politics and work towards a solution to a problem that has bedeviled politics for many years but instead she has chosen to jump on the bandwagon. the labour did nothing but cozy up to the press barons. she speaks to a party whose prime minister went halfway around the world to make love to him like a scorpion, in rupert

murdoch's words. a party whose prime minister's wife organized a sleepover at checkers. >> order, order, order. can i suggest to the secretary of state that this is order, order. he seeks to address the questions that are put to him and addressing matters to which he is responsible which does not include the conduct of the political parties. >> i will happily do that. i think the honorable members need to show a degree of humility.

if we're going to solve this problem, we need the house to work together and not jump on a bandwagon. let me get to the specific points she made. she said i was backing tehe bid, i have made my mind up. this is not true. my views about the bid were recorded to the cabinet secretary who decided it was appropriate for me to take responsibility for the bids. she has to understand that because i have expressed some sympathy for the bids when i was not responsible for it, i changed the process so that at every stage i got the advice of

independent regulators which i considered and followed. if i was backing the bid, i would not have sought out independent regulators who might have opposed the bid. i took off full decisions in this process. each of those decisions was against what news corp. wanted. you are making a serious allegation that i was supporting his bid. you have to listen to the evidence of what happened. there were four decisions. i was minded to the competition committee, precisely what james murdoch did not want me to do.

i have an obligation to consider undertaking this, and i took my second decision, that i would not except the undertakings until i had considered the advice as to whether they dealt with the plurality concerns. that was something that james murdoch was angry about. i had a meeting. the third decision was to extend the point of consultation. i could have accepted those undertakings and anytime. they had to have full sight of the undertaking. i followed their advice after careful consideration. at the end of the process was

one the revelations were made. i wrote and asked thte wem whether these should have any impact on my decision. this might affect any decision to except those undertakings. four decisions that were taken against what news corp. wanted. the idea i was back in this bid is laughable, mr. speaker. she talked about e-mails between frederick michelle and myself. frederick michelle also says -- let me just quote. "some of my e-mails may suggest to a reader that i had contact

with the secretary of state, jeremy hunt. my contact was with his adviser solely. i except that he except that those communications overstep the mark. " all the evidence is clear that none of those conversations influenced the decisions that i talkeook. her party had 13 years to do to something about it, 13 years. decided to do nothing. the leveson inquiries were set up within two weeks.

some of the most fundamental reforms of first practices in a generation. transparency and openness. john wittingdale. >> will my friend confirm that the only advice that he took was from off-com and that he followed it? does he agree, the first thing the opposition does is to call for a judicial inquiry? is it not sensible to wait until it completes its work and not jump to conclusions? >> my friend is right on that.

it is curious that the leader of the opposition -- he said i think it is right that the leveson inquiries take its course. the most important thing is that the leveson get to the bottom of what happens and we reach a judgment about that. >> ben bradshaw. >> the secretary and prime minister have repeated that the always followed off-com's advice. why did he change that policy? >> i know he was disappointed yesterday. he was looking for a smoking gun.

let me save him. that is the proper process if you take -- to tell the interested parties that you work minded to refer to the competition commission and they come back with opportunities which you have an opportunity to consider. that is what i was saying. >> john foster. >> the conservatives and labor politicians have been cozying up to the media. so -- so in the light of that,

mr. speaker, and in the light of the secretary of state, does he agree that it is inappropriate for a politician to make decisions in relation to media ownership when the politicians are perceived to be under pressure? shouldn't these decisions be made openly by the appropriate regulators? >> that is a powerful point. this is an issue that needs to be considered. the perception of impartiality is as important as the impartiality itself. >> tom waton. tston. >> these texts are the work

of a single advisor? >> i think he needs to be careful about declaring somebody guilty before there's been due process. >> order, order. question has been asked. >> he used the word " incriminating." i think he overstepped the mark. he wanted an inquiry. he has an inquiry. >> what these e-mail shows is the extent to which lobbyists exaggerate and invest the actual degree -- which they have?

>> my friend is absolutely right. there are countless examples in those e-mails about meetings that did not h it is important that we have all the evidence so we can get to the bottom of what is truth and what is fiction. >> every counselor in the land knows what on-site judicial -- quasi-judicial means. the secretary of state and the prime minister have asserted that they had no inappropriate conversations with that woman and that every single one of their meetings has been published. can i give one final chance to the prime minister to come clean. it may get more difficult later

today. >> the prime minister had no inappropriate conversations and he is not responsible for this decision. >> i believe him. i hope they get to the bottom of it. lord leveson should be reporting to the cultures secretary. >> i think lord justice leveson will be reporting on the expressed wishes of the prime minister. what he reports is totally independent. >> 6,800 people -- we weill ill be watching.

what message does he have for them? >> we want to have a thriving media industry. i believe the great strength is that we have a strong bbc and a strong competition to the bbc. we want to see all companies in the sector thrives. >> there are many cases of lobbyists and the truth they are claiming. there were 454 separate conversations. how many conversations he did have. >> the answer is zero. now that the culture secretary of state's adviser has lost his job, when boys are in trouble,

they sack the servant. tell them to get out and resign. >> off you go. mr. speaker, adam smith's resignation is a matter of acute regret to me -- a matter of a huge regret to me. the impartiality with which this process was conducted. i believe i've presented evidence to this house that i behaved in a judicially and partial way. the importance of moderation in

the use of language in this house. jake berry. >> did the secretary of state right on his website he was a cheerleader for the murdochs? >> "broadcast" magazine wrote that. that was not the case. >> mr. secretary, why did the culture secretary offer to help monitor influence the process? >> when you are responsible for any sector -- the chemical sector -- you talk to the people

in that industry. it is my job to talk to bbc, it v, because i want that industry to be successful. some indications for media policy. it is preferably proper for me to be apprised on that. >> does the secretary of state recognize the conversations that are richer been to him by frederick michelle? >> i do not. the contact that i had was only of the official meetings that were with other people present. there was a pile of e-mails or talked-about having contact with

me and it did not happen. >> on to leveson report. is the secretary of state saying they should be reported to him about him? >> including his opinion into the integrity of my conduct. >> a man i know to be of the utmost integrity. a statement. knew of phone-hacking but failed to take any action. contrast his action with their inaction. we had 13 years. we had one select committee report. we had two people sent to

prison. it is inappropriate. this affects the entire political process. we need to work together to sort it out. >> how widely thecl reached? b sky b launched their bid in june. the secretary of state, tell the house whether he had any conversations with him in any shape or form about news corp.'s in b sky b. >> i had no conversation about this bid. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i would like to ask my friend -- could he clarify the role the independent regulators oversee and played in this process. >> my recent to involve ofcom to a much greater extent under the enterprise act was precisely because i wanted to address the concerns that members of this house and the public might have about me prejudging this issue. on every ruling that i made, i considered the independent advice and i followed it. >> the culture secretary -- can he tell the house now -- did he

know of the exchanges between the special advisers and of the contents of the exchanges? >> did he know anything? >> that was sent out in a statement by adam smith when he resigned. >> order. let's calm down. answer.ear tehe >> he was authorized to be the point of contact between my department and news corp. i did not know the communications themselves nor did i know the volume or the tone of those communications. >> can the secretary of explain

cheerleader for the murdoch corp.? >> look at the evidence and the decisions that i made. i made the decision that news corp. did not want, including the final decision. this is what precipitated the collapse of the entire bid. >> the secretary state did not need to speak with murdoch because his right hand man was feeding him all the information that he needed. >> those conversations were inappropriate but they did not sway my decisions. >> karen bradley. >> what measures he put in place

over and above that was necessary to make sure the process was fair? >> the most important thing was when james murdoch offered undertakings in lieu of pay, instead of accepting those undertakings, which i was entitled to do legally, i said i would not do so until i had a proper advice as to whether it would be inappropriate to do so. i got that advice and i followed it. i chose to do that because of my integrity of the process. >> why was the special adviser -- why would the special adviser

to nominate the person? >> his role was agreed to by the permanent secretary. we had contacts on all sorts of levels. when you have complex undertakings, it is a complex process. there are a range of contacts. i have tried to be as transparent as possible in those contacts. in this case, the context overstepped the mark. that is why adam smith decided to resign. its statement, he said, "the contact and expense of my contact was done without authorization from the secretary of state." >> thank you, mr. speaker.

a model professional. he knew -- >> hear, hear. >> he knew that the deal was controversial. can he explained what measures he talked to insure that the bid process was fair, transparent, and open? >> i have talked at length about the role of independent regulators. one of the points about getting that independent advice was that i published what they advised me to do before i made my decision. the whole country could see whether i acted in accordance with independent advice.

this house and the country can be assured. this was conducted with scrupulous impartiality. >> told of the communications and of not being appropriate. either the secretary of state -- they followed due process and they should be fighting in defense of the innocents. if not, there should be due humility. >> due process in this situation means i take my decision impartially, setting aside my own prejudices, and that is exactly what i did. >> show people throughout the country that