Leveson inquiry: Nick Davies, Chris Jefferies, Simon Hughes 11.41am: Hughes has now finished giving evidence and teh inquiry is taking a short break. 11.38am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has tweeted: 11.32am: Hughes says the industry should be ambitious with the successor to the Press Complaints Commission. Leveson says he has no shortage of ambition, but how to fulfil it? Journalists, unlike lawyers and doctors, can't be struck off, he says; they are just exercising their right to freedom of expression. 11.26am: Hughes also makes a broader point about government appointments. "Appointments of people to serve government who come from media backgrounds are in principle good things," he says. We need people in government service who understand the way the media works. It seems to me they should however by carried out carefully and mindful of the risks and disadvantages and it may be that they haven't always been so. Jay says what everyone else is thinking: "That was a very general comment." 11.23am: Jay asks Hughes about evidence of "subterranean" press influence on government policy and appointments. On policy? Yes," says Hughes. The issue that has worried parliament most is dominance of any particular organisation in the market. The suspicion has been that News International has been seeking to make its case privately as well as publicly to have as little restriction on acquiring interests as it would wish for its own commercial reasons. That is an example I am clear where there has been both public and private lobbying. That is a really important issue that goes to the heart of a free and diverse media. 11.20am: Hughes says: There shouldn't be people going into Downing Street by the back door. We need to have a system where it is open and transparent and we know the score. 11.18am: Hughes says he does not accept the Met police argument that phone hacking was not pursued because of the pressure of resources being devoted to anti-terrorist activities. "I don't think it would have been a resource-intensive activity," says Hughes. He says the police could have spoken to six witnesses without the need to talk to 500 potential victims. "It looks as if it would have secured convictions even on what I saw them." he adds. 11.16am: Hughes says that during his time in politics he saw Tony Blair fly around the world to meet Rupert Murdoch and became aware of a "growing, unhealthy relationship between politicians and the press." 11.14am: Hughes says there was a "far too close a relationship not just on this issue but in relation to a whole set of issues" between the police and News of the World and other newspaper groups. He says the police's decision not to pursue the phone-hacking investigation "needs to be looked at in the context of these other relationships, whether these decisions were affected by those relationships between ... News of the World and senior people at the Met. 11.09am: Hughes says public services and police officers must be free of buying and selling and acting illegally, such as taking money from reporters. He adds that the Met police "lost their way badly and at a senior level. 'Corrupted' may be an unfair word but they were tainted and overly influenced by inappropriate considerations. 11.06am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted: 11.04am: Here's more on what Hughes had to say earlier about the police failure to pursue the three other "first names" of News of the World journalists included in Mulcaire's notes. It was clear from September 2006 at the highest level the News of the World knew about this and therefore it was in the public interest that the News of the World and their employees should be held to account. It was not just a freelance agent employed on a contract basis. That's for me where the significant failure occurred and the police for a reason I don't understand decided not to. I understand why it may not have been easy to bring charges ... but there was no prosecution against anyone other than Clive Goodman and Clive Goodman only because of his work with the royal family. There was a whole range of people clearly acting in concert either directly or indirectly illegally and they were not touched. I find it impossible to find a good explanation for why that happened. 11.02am: Hughes says by August 2006, the police had more than 400 phone-hacking victims identified. In September, NoW lawyer Tom Crone wrote the email briefing Andy Coulson, apparently on the basis of information obtained by the police. 11.00am: Hughes's witness statement has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website. 10.59am: Hughes says there could have been a specimen count against GM and others on the basis of six public figures giving evidence, including him. 10.58am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted: 10.56am: Mulcaire received bank transfers of £569,000 from the News of the World, says Hughes. The judge was told that a £104,000 retainer was all for legitimate work, and this was not disputed at the time of the court case. 10.51am: Hughes points to the email read out yesterday from News of the World lawyer Tom Crone email to editor Andy Coulson, which stated "the only payment records they found were from News Int, ie the NoW retainer and other invoices; they said that over the period they looked at (going way back) there seemed to be over £1m of payments." He says when the Glenn Mulcaire case came to court, reference was made to only £12,300 in payments in the sentencing. Mr Mulcaire was sentenced on the basis of activity that he received £12,300. The fact the court did not have before it information that was clearly known, known to the police because they told Rebekah Wade, known to Tom Crone, Andy Coulson, that was not in the court's knowledge is a serious failure which meant the court was asked to do a job on the basis of incomplete evidence. It was evidence that was known to the police and they did not bring it to court. It is unforgivable and a completely unacceptable failure. Glenn Mulcaire. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA 10.48am: Hughes says the police were guilty of an "unforgivable" and "completely unacceptable failure" by not bringing to court full extent of News of the World payments to Glenn Mulcaire. 10.46am: Hughes says he was "surprised and disappointed" that the police did not pursue investigation against News of the World employees other than Clive Goodman. 10.41am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted: 10.40am: Hughes adds: "The police showed me the pages, they asked me to identify what I could. They indicated there may be in this book some names of other people with whom Mr Mulcaire was working ... They opened the issue without leading me to the answer. 10.39am: Hughes says there were "three names" of people employed by the News of the World that featured on different pages of Glenn Mulcaire's notebooks on which his name also appeared. Three "first names," he says. I would need to check if there was a surname anywhere. 10.38am: Police did not "open the books" to Hughes until last year, he says, including transcripts, call data, and details of friends numbers, addresses, and names of people he didn't know. "It looked to me a pretty general trawl of anything that might lead to a story," says Hughes. Jay asks whether Hughes expressed concern he wasn't shown this information in 2006. Hughes replies: "I think I expressed disappointment and frustration I hadn't been shown it earlier. I didn't vent much of my spleen on them. It wasn't their fault. 10.33am: Here's a link to the Sun's story on Hughes's private life from August 2007, written by Trevor Kavanagh. 10.32am: Hughes says now the police have "opened the box" it should "complete the task fully." He says: "If there had been robust action in 2006 a lot of the illegal action might have been shut down and a lot of the people who are now known to be victims might not be victims or might not have suffered as much." Leveson says he takes that on board. "There are several witnesses whose lives have been very dramatically affected by that delay," the judge says. 10.29am: Leveson interjects: "Whether it did or did not continue is an interesting issue. Now what is happening is probably far broader or wider than anything than might have been contemplated then. That might be a good thing or a bad thing. People clearly have different views about that. Hughes says he's keeping an open mind but says what is happening now is a "good thing." 10.28am: Hughes continues: "I am frustrated even now that there wasn't comprehensive action taken then, that was the window of opportunity, a lot of pain and grief could have been spared. Police ... could have prosecuted those who were clearly in the frame ... We lost three or four years in which illegal activity continued. Clive Goodman leaves the Old Bailey in November 2006. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters 10.26am: Hughes told the police he would collaborate with any Glenn Mulcaire trial. But as Mulcaire and NoW royal correspondent Clive Goodman had pleaded guilty, the politician's evidence was not needed. 10.25am: Hughes says he was given "very limited information" by police, including that Mulcaire had other phone numbers of Hughes, and also names and addresses and phone numbers of his friends. "I had very limited information given to me," he adds. 10.25am: Hughes says there was a "complete failure" by to investigate whether it was "appropriate to bring charges against the other people." It struck me as fairly obvious once everything was revealed if you had seen the names of the other journalists from the same paper you would at least have asked some questions and got them in for questioning and investigate what their role was. You would also have pursued Mr Mulcaire and potentially other people and ask them what his relationship was with the other people. 10.24am: Hughes says he wasn't told that the evidence showed that "other people who were journalists at the News of the World were clearly involved. Their names featured in the same place as Mr Mulcaire's name. Had I known that I would have been more robust in continuing my line of inquiry. 10.22am: Financial Times media correspondent Ben Fenton has just tweeted: 10.19am: Hughes says he was told by police that they had "incontrovertible" evidence his phone had been hacked. He asked whether other political colleagues were also the subject of interference. I was told they were [but] other colleagues were not willing to go public about it. Secondly I asked whether other people were involved. They said we were just proceeding against Mulcaire. 10.17am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll is at the inquiry and has just tweeted: 10.17am: Hughes says he later went from "odds on favourite" to not winning the Lib Dem leadership. He adds: There was apparently a direct impact between that revelation and the consequent press coverage and my political reputation and chance of winning the election. 10.16am: Hughes says the reporter did not explain how he came about the information. Although it was a hugely important and difficult matter I was in the middle of an election campaign. I admitted straightforwardly the nature of the calls, I did not think there was any reason not to do so, as a result I gave an interview to the Sun explaining that. They did not entirely accurately represent the key content of that. That is a separate issue. 10.13am: Hughes says his office received phone calls from somebody at the Sun who wanted to talk about a "private matter" during the Lib Dem leadership campaign. Hughes agreed to meet them and the reporter shared said the Sun had "come by" information - "records of telephone calls made by me." 10.11am: Hughes says he believes his phone was hacked in 2005 and 2006. He was unable to access messages, and there were occasions when messages were stored in the system and were not displayed as "new messages" and yet he had not heard them. 10.08am: Simon Hughes, Lib Dem MP and deputy leader, has taken the stand. 10.05am: The inquiry has begun. Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, says several more statements are to be taken as read. Leveson says "difficult decisions" have had to be made over who to invite to the inquiry because of time constraints. "No one who is not asked to come should feel their contribution is any less significant," he says. After yesterday's damning evidence from the Met's Sue Akers and the explosive News of the World email revealed by counsel Robert Jay QC, today offers another lively lineup. Of key interest will be Nick Davies, the Guardian journalist who has been central in exposing the level of phone hacking at the News of the World. Davies revealed in 2009 that the paper had secretly paid nearly £1m to the Professional Footballers Association chief executive Gordon Taylor and two others in relation to phone hacking. Davies and Guardian colleague Amelia Hill also revealed in a July article that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked, giving hope to her parents that she was alive. Davies previously gave evidence in November, when he described how he broke the phone-hacking story, and he is expected to give evidence today on links between the press and the police. Also returning to the inquiry today is Chris Jefferies, the Bristol landlord wrongly linked to the murder of Joanne Yeates. In November, Jefferies described his vilification by the press and said he will "never fully recover." Today, he is expected to speak about allegations he made in January that the police leaked information about him to journalists following his arrest on suspicion of her murder. Jefferies said evidence given to the Leveson inquiry confirmed his concerns about the way Somerset and Avon police handled his arrest in December 2010 and in particular about leaks to the media. He was responding to evidence - disputed by Avon and Somerset police - that the Daily Mirror editor, Richard Wallace, gave to the Leveson inquiry. Also appearing is Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes, who settled his phone-hacking claim with News International for £45,000 earlier this month. In a statement, Hughes said "Sadly the deficiencies of the original police inquiries, which failed to investigate the clear evidence of much of the criminal behaviour at one of the most important businesses in our country, are also all too apparent." Finally, Crimewatch presenter Jacqui Hames, the former police officer and wife of a detective put under surveillance by the News of the World, will also give evidence.