Leveson inquiry: Lionel Barber, Chris Blackhurst, Tony Gallagher 1.23pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of today's evidence so far: Indy editor says Johann Hari plagiarism affair "damaged" reputation of the Independent Johann Hari will return to the Independent as a columnist - but not an interviewer - in four or five weeks, Blackhurst says Blackhurst says he is worried that the Leveson inquiry will "curtail" legitimate investigative journalism Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, says PCC "misstepped badly" over phone hacking 1.14pm: Blackhurst has finished giving evidence. The inquiry is now breaking for lunch. 1.07pm: Blackhurst is coming to the end of his evidence. His final marks are a warning shot to the inquiry. It's a matter of regret that the PCC has been found to be wanting. We all recognise the need for reform. My biggest worry is that the sort of journalism we do ... and some of the newspapers have been traduced - they do some fantastic work. I'm very worried that as the outcome of this inquiry the ability of our industry to investigate will be curtailed. Leveson is careful to say that the challenge is to separate what is good about the industry from "practices which are not entirely laudable." He says is keen that the inquiry will not "impact adversely on appropriate" journalism. Blackhurst mentions an "unwritten code" between newspapers to not criticise each other. Leveson says ..." and that's the problem." 12.54pm: Blackhurst says journalists shouldn't be licensed by the state. "I think the Press Complaints Commission has become tarnished in the eyes of the public ... I would certainly advocate the fining of newspapers ... and I think this new body should be much more proactive," he says. He adds that he would have been happy to pass over the Johann Hari file to the PCC, but "there's no means in the system for doing that." 12.51pm: Blackhurst says that he won't publish the Whittam Smith report because it relates to an internal matter. On the plagiarism, Johann genuinely believed he was doing nothing wrong. The fact that nobody complained, Johann did not believe he was doing anything wrong. He adds that Hari had no journalism training upon leaving Cambridge University in 2001 and becoming the Independent's star columnist in 2002. In terms of plagiarism it wasn't as stark and severe as the Jayson Blair case. He wasn't fabricating hard news. Hari produced his medical history "which showed that he acted in the way he did" in relation to the Wikipedia amendments. The columnist has now had four months without pay from the Independent and is doing ethics courses at a university in New York at his own cost. He will return to the paper as a columnist in four or five weeks' time. Blackhurst adds: "If you're publicly suspending people without pay ... his reputation has been very very severely damaged; the Independent's reputation in terms of Johann Hari has been severely damaged. He produced cogent reasons for why he did what he did. I don't think we covered up at all. 12.46pm: Blackhurst is tacitly asked whether there was a cover-up by others at the Independent to protect Hari when the allegations were made public. I'm surprised you say there was cover-up in the sense there were inclings before because that is genuinely news to me. One of the problems ... was that no one had ever complained ... Nobody had alerted us to the fact he had drawn his information from somewhere else. If there was we might have nipped it in the bud but in fact it continued. Blackhurst says one of his first acts as editor was to ask Andreas Whittam Smith to investigation the allegations of plagiarism. He says he had "no knowledge" about the alterations on Wikipedia at this time. 12.41pm: Blackhurst stresses that there was a gap between plagiarism allegations against Hari and claims that the columnist had amended Wikipedia entries. What I would want to stress is the shock this caused. Enormous shock to myself ... but a much deeper shock to his colleagues at the Independent. It was really profound and totally unexpected. 12.39pm: Blackhurst is asked about the plagiarism row rurrounding Independent star columnist Johann Hari. "I think the paper first became aware of the plagiarism allegations against him two days before I was publicly appointed," he says. Blackhurst points out that Hari is no longer an interviewer for the paper, but doesn't take issue with the description of Hari as a current Independent columnist. 12.37pm: Blackhurst says he was always wary of diary columns receiving tips out of the blue. He says he would only pay if the story was stood up independently. "If the story checked out they might get £50," he says. He adds that the paper doesn't actively ask for "nasty stories." 12.35pm: Blackhurst is asked about private investigators. He says in his written statement that he has no knowledge of use of private investigators during his 10 weeks (at the time of writing his statement) at the paper. However, Blackhurst says he will not rule out use of private investigators if the information is already public and if the story is in the public interest. "If a story was of such paramount public interest," he says. And there was a piece of information in the public interest then I would sanction it, but it hasn't happened. 12.33pm: Nine times out of 10 the sources in stories are obvious, says Blackhurst. Rarely is the provenance of the source an issue. If he does have questions about stories he will ask the news editor where the story came from, which he has done occasionally. 12.32pm: The Independent has a corrections column on the letters page but it only appears once or twice a week, says Blackhurst. He says he will try and publish apologies as prominently as he can. If someone asked for a front-page apology he would be reluctant to concede but would do it if ordered. Blackhurst says he has no problem with page 2 corrections if they became an industry-wide standard. 12.28pm: On sourcing and attribution, Blackhurst says that he doesn't like phrases like "sources said" and prefers to be as specific about the provenance as possible. He says he will generally try to avoid using anonymous sources and attempt to get quotes on the record. Blackhurst says that if the Independent had more resources a readers' editor would be a "nice thing to have" but that he has not felt the need for one during his career. He says he will personally read emails from readers before passing them to his managing editor. 12.25pm: Blackhurst says that some organisations "play games with the press" and will tip off other journalists if a newspaper gives them prior notification of a story. He adds that organisations where "there's constant press attention on them" will sometimes leak to rival outlets if given prior notification, "so you've got to be careful." 12.23pm: Blackhurst says some papers have "a different culture, a different mindset" than others, mentioning the importance for Sunday titles of breaking exclusives. Blackhurst describes the Independent as "fairly small, extremely collegiate" and therefore it is easier than at other papers to find out what journalists are doing. He notes that the Independent has about 200 journalists compared with the FT's 600. 12.22pm: Blackhurst has been at the helm of the Independent for six months, but drafted his Leveson witness statement only 10 weeks into his tenure. He says that "When the Independent was founded back in 1986 it did take a very different stance ... It certainly likes to think it's free from editorial interference." 12.17pm: Independent editor Chris Blackhurst is next to take the witness stand. He has been editor since July 2011. 12.16pm: Andreas Whittam-Smith has conducted an internal review of the Independent which cleared the company of wrongdoing in relation to telephone interception. Malhotra says that Whittam-Smith "verbally interviewed a series of journalists and editors to get a sense what the editorial practices were." Malhotra's evidence has now concluded. 12.15pm: Malhotra says he was involved in setting up the group's new code of conduct, along with the legal team, in September 2011. He says the Independent guidelines are a "wider document" than the PCC code because they include policies on hospitality and mention the commercial side of the business. 12.12pm: Malhotra is being asked about financial governance of the Independent. He says it is important to have this governance in place in a way that will sure editorial independence for the paper. Asked about the potential for illicit payments to police officers, Malhotra says: "Clearly there is a risk that those payments might be paid ... but we have a system that makes sure that payments made are proper. We don't have any cash in the system so there's no way for ... journalists to make those payments. He adds that the company has rigorous safeguards that would uncover any unlawful payments. "I'm confident the controls we have in place would pick up these kind of payments," he says. Leveson inquiry: Manish Malhotra 12.07pm: Manish Malhotra, finance director and company secretary of Independent Print Ltd and Evening Standard Ltd, takes the stand. 12.06pm: Mullins has now finished giving evidence. 12.05pm: Mullins says the Independent is not considering appointing a readers' editor - "we're not looking to take on more people than we possibly can" - and adds that the Independent sister paper i has a good dialogue with readers. 12.04pm: On sourcing and attribution at the Independent, Mullins says that the newspaper "stressed certain issues we think important which might not have been stressed as much" before columnist Johann Hari was found to have plagiarised last year. Carine Patry Hoskins, counsel to the inquiry, suggests she'll ask the editor Chris Blackhurst more on this later today. 12.00pm: Mullins is asked about the code of conduct that applies at the Independent, Independent on Sunday and the London Evening Standard. Mullins was involved in drawing up a single code following the papers' takeover by Alexander Lebedev. He adds that if the phone-hacking saga hadn't taken place "I think we'd have taken longer to get our code of conduct out." 11.57am: Mullins says that "certain newspaper groups ... have more pressure" because of the nature of the stories they publish, but that he doesn't interfere in the editorial side of the Independent. On editorial independence, Mullins says that it has "built up over history ... and if it ain't broke don't fix it." At the Independent, he says, the system works well. Leveson inquiry: Andrew Mullins 11.52am: Andrew Mullins, managing director of the Independent's parent company, Independent Print Ltd, is now giving evidence. Mullins is also managing director of Evening Standard Ltd, and formerly a senior executive at News International. 11.42am: It has emerged in written evidence from News International director of legal affairs Simon Toms that an unnamed Times journalist illicitly tried to access information from a computer in 2009. His evidence states: I am not aware that any NI title has ever used or commissioned anyone who used computer hacking in order to source stories. I have been made aware of one instance on The Times in 2009 which I understand a journalist attempting to access information in this way. However, I also understand that this was an act of the journalist and was not authorised by TNL. As such, I understand it resulted in the journalist concerned being disciplined. 11.41am: Barber has now finished giving evidence. The inquiry is having a short break. 11.41am: Finally, on the public interest, Barber says there is a strong public interest "in freedom of expression itself." He adds that, on that issue, he is "right alongside editors like Paul Dacre [of the Daily Mail]" and as a country "we lose that at our peril." "I'm not condoning lawbreaking but I am condoning, and I will to the very last breath, freedom of expression," Barber adds. 11.38am: The final question for Barber is on libel. Lord Justice Leveson mentions again this idea of an arbitration body - "which I actually think has value" - for privacy claims and small libel claims. Barber discusses the "chilling effect" in the present system of libel. Every time we write about the rich and famous we get a very threatening bullying letter from a law firm - and I'm thinking of one law firm in particular - that is simply outrageous. If you do not capitulate before noon on Saturday you will be hung at dawn on Sunday. This can have a chilling effect because you are aware of the cost of a libel action. Barber adds that it is the one area that concerns him most. 11.31am: Asked about readers' editors - who deal with complaints to a newspaper - Barber says: When this first came up I was sceptical, because I consider myself to be the reader's editor, or my number two, or my number three. I now think that perhaps, as part of this qualitative different, I may think again... But I think if you have a strong culture in a news organisation that is committed to upholding the highest standards... that's the starting point. Dominic Mohan, editor of the Sun, told the inquiry yesterday that he is considering appointing a readers' editor. The Daily Mail said it would appoint one late last year. 11.29am: Lord Justice Leveson says he understands the importance of cost in any new system of regulation, after Barber notes that the press "are not exactly flush with cash." Leveson says there is "more that needs to be addressed simply than phone hacking." Barber agrees, but says that phone hacking has been the "trigger" for the inquiry. If you are referring to libel, if you are referring to privacy... If recklessness has taken place in the publishing of stories, that needs to be looked at... It is beyond just phone hacking, yes sir," says Barber. 11.25am: Barber says that PCC chairman Lord Hunt is expected to put forward proposals for a new system of independent regulation before the end of the Leveson inquiry. "We're serious about this," he adds. But the principle of free expression is really principle. 11.22am: Barber harks back to two decades ago, noting that the press is "in the last-chance saloon, drinking our last pint." On the phone-hacking saga, Barber says passionately: This has been a real shock what happened at the News of the World ... Not just the industrial scale... but the lies. And the shocking closure of a newspaper ... This was a shocking episode... We need to change the way we do business. If this is not a wakeup call, I don't know what is. That is the lesson of the phone hacking scandal and to a lesser degree that's the lesson that has come out of this inquiry... Everybody should read what Lord Judge said last year [that we need a free press]. 11.21am: Barber says the new body shouldn't be made up of editors, but experienced journalists and "outsiders." On the current setup, he says: "It's not a tenable position - we need outsiders. For too long, the PCC was dominated by insiders. Leveson says he's not interested in setting up a body full of lawyers, to which Barber replies: "I'm relieved." Journalists are members of the community. Journalists need to be accountable... We should have nothing to fear [from being open and accountable, from outsiders being brought into the process]," he adds. He says outsiders should have a seat on the body so it doesn't look like a "cosy stitch-up." 11.16am: Barber says the PCC does important, valuable work but "seriously misstepped" with the phone-hacking scandal. They were lied to. News International lied to them. So in that case it's pretty difficult because you have a major news organisation ... and it's not telling you truth. Also you don't have the powers to do that. The misstep - and it was a serious misstep - was to criticise the Guardian for its reporting ... and that's why it lost credibility. Barber wants a new regulatory body with new powers and a new composition. He adds that, as he stated in his Fulbright lecture, he wants it to have "powers of investigation." He says there must be a way to make sure "everybody comes under the tent," including all newspapers and potentially some online organisations. Barber also warns the inquiry not to underplay the importance of corrections in newspapers, saying that editors loathe making them. 11.14am: Barber says web-based journalists look at the mainstream media and think "That's the past; I don't want to be part of that." "Certainly those web-based news organisations that are aggregators - I'm thinking of the Huffington Post for instance [should be part of a new system of regulation in this country]," he adds. Barber briefly says the UK should have a First Amendment safeguard for free expression, as in the US. 11.13am: Lord Justice Leveson intervenes to sum up Barber's thoughts. Barber praises the judge for "cutting to the heart of the matter." "You don't need to be polite," says Leveson. Barber replies: "I wasn't being polite, I was being flattering." 11.10am: Still on the internet, Barber raises a similar problem to that mentioned by Dominic Mohan, editor of the Sun, yesterday at the inquiry. There is a real problem when some people on the internet, web-based news organisations outside this jurisdiction, can publish information about a famous footballer and his affairs and a popular newspaper can't - that puts them at a competitive disadvantage. This is not neccessarily a new problem - he gives an example of the US press "having a field day" with Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson's 1936 affair - which the British media at the time couldn't touch. 11.06am: Asked about regulation, Barber says that online bloggers cannot be regulated. He adds: "I wouldn't seek in any way to regulate the internet." We shouldn't think just about the press because the press ... have successful online publications, so they are news organisations ... you need to think about the general ecosystem. We need to establish practices that are so credible, so robust ... that others would wish to join the body of regulation. He says that blogs such as the Huffington Post would be encouraged to join a system of regulation were it a credible one. 11.03am: Asked about the relationship between editors and politicians, Barner says he was given Piers Morgan's memoirs to reacquaint himself with the British political system when he returned to the UK from teh US several years ago. He says he found it "quite extraordinary how much time Tony Blair spent with Piers Morgan," adding: "You would think he would be busy enough running the country, but apparently not." It was taken as conventional wisdom that in order to govern in what is known as today's 24-hour news environment ... that you needed to have somebody very close to you as prime minister, or as chancellor, who had worked in the popular press. 10.58am: Asked about deception, Barber discusses the Telegraph's Vince Cable sting last year and the MPs' expenses scandal of 2009. "Yes they paid for the [MPs' expenses] disk, but the journalism and series of articles they did clearly met the public interest test ... I have absolutely nothing but praise for that particular story," he says, adding on the Vince Cable sting: "Personal view, I felt it was wrong for journalists to misrepresent themselves to an MP." He quotes last year's Hugh Cudlipp lecture, in which he quoted Fleet Street veteran Harold Evans's view that "deception may ultimately be justified in the pursuit of the public interest. But it must only be used in the most exceptional circumstances. The reason is that can be deeply corrosive not just to the newspaper's bond with its readers but also to the body politic. 10.50am: Barber stresses the importance of being clear about where information is coming from. He says attributing stories to anonymous sources is frowned upon at the FT, and the phrase "sources say" is banned; "sources close to" is acceptable in some circumstances. This applies particularly if the anonymous sources are voicing criticism. 10.48am: Barber says in the six years since he's been FT editor he doesn't know of any instance in which a journalist has gone "undercover." He adds that one journalist went into Burma to interview Aung San Suu Kyi but didn't misrepresent himself once inside the country. "We do not misrepresent ourselves - we say we're from the Financial Times, that's important," he adds. 10.47am: Asked about prior notification, Barber says sometimes it's "a pain" because subjects might not reply before deadline, but adds that it is important to ensure accuracy. It's important we do our business in a dispassionate way. Journalists cultivate sources - they're important - but you never want to get so close to a source that you're offering prior notification or sharing everything. That's a dangerous path to go down. We are in on odd half-world where we need to be close but then be able to move away. Barber says journalists will go to companies when a story is finished - but rarely before that. 10.38am: Barber says the FT reviewed its safeguards in the wake of the 2003 Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times, which he describes as "one of the best news organisations in the world." A NYT reporter was found to have fabricated and plagiarised dozens of stories, leading to the resignation of the newspaper's top two editors. "We took the view that if such a thing could happen at the New York Times we needed to review our processes," Barber says. I worked for 10 years in the US. I was shocked that it could happen. "If you see the best in class suffering a scandal like that, you need to react and we did," he adds. 10.37am: Still on the FT's sourcing and attribution policy, Barber says: I'd rather be right than first. In fact not rather - that's the way we operate. We'd rather get it right than get it wrong ... You can't rely, if you're in the business we're in, on hearsay. We deal with primary sources wherever we can. 10.35am: Barber says he knows of "no instance of phone hacking or blagging for information at the FT." "The appointment of the news editor of the Financial Times is one of the most critical appointments I can make as editor," he says, adding that they deal with the journalists daily and "share how stories are obtained." He adds: "If the story is especially sensitive ... the news editor will come and discuss it with me. We have a system of checks and balances at the FT; we are open. First of all two sources works. And secondly we're not using illegal or questionable activity [to get sources]. Asked how he can be sure that FT sources are not using questionable methods, Barber says: "Ah, well that presumes that we are relying for example on private detectives or other people engaged in illegal methods ... I don't mean to be prescriptive for the whole industry but I'm just talking about Financial Times practices... We've made mistakes in the past and we apologise for them. 10.30am: Barber is asked about sourcing stories. He reaffirmed the importance of "dual sourcing" - having two sources to confirm the veracity of a story. Patry Hoskins asks if this happens in practice. You bet it happens ... Because it is standard practice at the FT and has been for some time ... If you rely on single source, you could potentially be manipulated," Barber says. If you've got a single source, it's like standing at top of mountain with a glorious view. But then getting a second source is like getting a view over the other side of the mountain. 10.30am: Still on whistleblowing, Barber argues that the FT doesn't need such a policy because of various other safeguards at the paper. "We don't want to be complacent, but we don't think we need to have a whistleblowing function in the newsroom at the Financial Times," he tells the inquiry. 10.26am: Patry Hoskins asks Barber if it is necessary to have an FT editorial code of conduct as well as a company-wide code of conduct. Barber says the FT is a "discreet entity" within the Pearson group and that the two codes of conduct can "live happily with each other." He adds that there is no whistleblowing policy at the FT - unlike at Pearson more widely - but that if there are concerns members of staff will raise issues with Barber or his deputies. 10.22am: Barber mentions one instance where a member of the FT's staff was dismissed related to the company's "investment register," but clarifies that he hasn't personally dismissed a journalist over this kind of breach. He argues that "self-certification" is sufficient regulation for the FT "because the penalties for not getting right are severe, potentially." 10.21am: Barber sent a warning email to all FT editorial staff after a Thomson Reuters financial journalist was found last year to have traded in shares in the sector he wrote about. "Nobody sent me an email saying they had not complied with the code," he adds. Barber made sure every editorial staffer - more than 600 people - signed and returned an attached form confirming that they had behaved in accordance with the FT's rules. "I think the FT should be the gold-standard in journalism, and that means we needed to uphold the highest standards ... and why we need to have full compliance from our journalists," he says. The penalty of not upholding those standards - and damaging the reputation of the Financial Times - is dismissal. 10.16am: Barber says that the PCC code "needs to be enforced, before it's substantially amended," adding that "in the case of phone hacking, it clearly wasn't enforced." He says that one of the parties in the phone hacking case - News International - "did not represent itself [accurately]" to the PCC in that saga. 10.13am: Barber says that the FT has "specific clauses" about financial holdings for journalists which go above and beyond the Press Complaints Commission editors' code. "We are making sure that we are not in any way conflicted or behaving unethically," he says, adding that a journalist trading in shares related to his or her "beat" would be likely to be dismissed. To trade in shares while you are covering that sector would be unethical ... and would be grounds for dismissal. 10.13am: Barber says the FT sets a high bar on ethics and responsibility. "People have to be able to rely on the FT for accurate information, which is set in context, multiple sourced, and they can rely on it ... for their decisions," he says. It is fundamental to the integrity and success of the Financial Times that it upholds the highest standards ... and is seen to do so. 10.09am: Carine Patry Hoskins, counsel to the inquiry, questions Barber about financial journalism. Barber says he is "extremely grateful" to be called to give evidence. He describes the FT as a global but "niche" publication that writes about politics and financial news. "But that is not say that we are not interested in what might be called private lives," Barber adds, mentioning the FT's recent story about the chief executive of Lloyds Bank taking leave due to stress-related illness. Leveson inquiry: Lionel Barber 10.05am: Lionel Barber, the editor of the Financial Times, has begun giving evidence. There was no mention of the Times story (see below) about the prime minister being called to give evidence. 9.59am: Here are brief profiles of three of the editors giving evidence today. Lionel Barber Lionel Barber is editor of the Financial Times, a paper he joined more than 20 years ago. He replaced Andrew Gowers as editor in 2005. Barber took on the rest of Fleet Street in January, using his Hugh Cudlipp lecture in January 2011 to accuse other papers of a "conspiracy of silence" over the phone-hacking issue, "almost certainly because they too were involved in similar practices." He warned editors they risked political "retribution" in the form of statutory regulation if they did not reform. The FT was one of the few UK newspapers to cover the phone-hacking affair in any depth before July last year. Barber began his career at the Scotsman and the Sunday Times, and has reported from New York, Washington and Brussels. Chris Blackhurst Blackhurst returned to the Independent as editor in July 2011, taking over from Simon Kelner at the paper where he was previously deputy editor. Blackhurst trained as a lawyer at Cambridge but entered journalism, starting out at a legal magazine but then rising rapidly, becoming City editor at the Sunday Express in 1990 at the age of 30. His career has included stints as deputy editor at the Daily Express and Sunday Express and the Independent and its Sunday sister title. He edited the London Evening Standard's well-respected City pages between 2002 and 2011, before taking over the helm at the Lebedev-owned sister paper, the Independent. Along with the FT, the Independent was the only national to pursue the Guardian's phone-hacking revelations with any vigour before July 2011 and Blackhurst has continued in that vein. Tony Gallagher Tony Gallagher joined the Daily Telegraph as head of news in 2006, after six years as the Daily Mail's news editor. He became Telegraph deputy editor the following year and editor in November 2009. Gallagher was a senior member of the team that oversaw the Telegraph's MPs' expenses coverage, which dominated the news agenda with a string of exclusives in the summer of 2009 and earned the paper a hatful of prizes at the British Press Awards including paper of the year. However, the Telegraph suffered the embarrassment of being beaten to its own story by the BBC in late 2010 with Vince Cable's remarks about Rupert Murdoch, which were taped by undercover reporters from the paper. 9.52am: Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, is expected to give evidence first today. The BBC's Ross Hawkins has just tweeted: Editor of the FT Barber expected 1st up at #leveson (though not in crt yet). Big q - will we hear more about Times story PM to be called? David Cameron. Photograph: David Gadd/Allstar/Sportsphoto Ltd./Allstar 9.45am: The Times reports that Lord Justice Leveson is "99.9% certain" to call the prime minister to give evidence about his relationship with Rupert Murdoch and other senior News International executives. The paper splashed on the story - headed "Leveson to question PM" - and also states that Gordon Brown, former prime minister, and Labour leader Ed Miliband are expected to be called to appear. It quotes a source close to the inquiry as saying: "I can't see how you can look at the relationship between the press and politicians without talking to top politicians, including the prime minister, the previous prime minister and the leader of the opposition." A No 10 spokesman told the Guardian on Monday evening that David Cameron would give evidence to the inquiry if asked. "A request has not yet been received," he said. If asked, the prime minister would of course attend. 9.41am: Welcome to the Leveson inquiry liveblog. This week of the inquiry is dedicated to the press and today will see a whistlestop tour of three newspapers and their respective editors. Lionel Barber, long-serving editor of the Financial Times, will appear, as will Chris Blackhurst, the recently-installed editor of the Independent. Tony Gallagher, editor of the Daily Telegraph, will give evidence, and Will Lewis, former editor of the Telegraph and now an executive on News Corp's management and standards committee, will also appear. As well as the editors, a string of other executives from the Independent and Telegraph are listed to give evidence. Murdoch MacLennan, chief executive of Telegraph Media Group, is perhaps one of the best-known names on Fleet Street, owing to a distinguished career at a number of the national newspaper groups. Finbarr Ronayne, the Telegraph Media Group finance director and former Mirror executive, will give oral evidence, as will Manish Malhotra and Andrew Mullins of the Independent. Join us for live coverage from 10am.