Leveson inquiry: Peter Wright gives evidence 11.52am: The Mail on Sunday is a large and successful newspaper, he says, hence he has been in the editor's chair since 1998. He says the Mail group is making money but that it is "becoming more difficult." Mail Online has its own editor but takes some Mail on Sunday content, he confirms. "We've a very very broad church newspaper," he says of the Mail on Sunday. We want to publish groundbreaking exclusive stories. But readers buy us for many other things. 11.50am: Wright is asked how the culture has changed since he first joined the Daily Mail group in the late 1970s. The subject matter of what newspapers cover has "changed enormously," he says. Previously the industrial correspondents were the star reporters - now most national papers don't employ industrial correspondents. He says that TV channels have created a large number of people who claim celebrity status and are covered "in much the same way as" sports stars or film stars. 11.45am: Peter Wright, editor of the Mail on Sunday, has taken the stand. 11.33am: Silva has now finished giving evidence and the inquiry is taking a short break. 11.31am: Asked if he has any recommendations, he says the PCC and NPA should get involved were there another situation like the McCanns. If you take the McCann situation, if we are unfortuately in that situation again, an organisation like the PCC should be stepping in. He suggests a PCC training scheme for freelance photographers "where they're aware of their responsibilities." 11.29am: Silva is being asked why the paper's normal policy on pictures of children did not apply to the McCanns. "It was the most intense story I've ever worked on," he says. One of the most difficult I've ever had to work with. 11.28am: Silva says that most pictures used of the McCanns were from outside agencies, rather than Daily Mail photographers. He adds all of the photographs used would have been approved by the McCanns' press officer, Clarence Mitchell. He admits the paper used unblurred pictures of the McCanns' children. "This was a unique situation ... where we'd been allowed to stand in a certain position ... and take pictures of the children," he says. Silva says he understands the point that using the pictures was against the Mail's general policy. Jays asks whether he should not have used the pictures. "In hindsight, possibly ... but there was no objection raised at the time," he adds. 11.25am: Silva is questioned about Kate and Gerry McCann. 11.14am: Jay asks why the Mail did not wait for the green light from Grant before sending a photographer to his house. Silva says he just didn't: "That's the way we've done it for years." He says he did not ask the photographer whether Grant had given his consent to have his picture taken outside his house. He adds that he "probably wasn't surprised" when Grant kicked up a fuss about the pictures, but insists that the actor gave his implicit consent for the pictures to be taken. "No, I wasn't surprised, given the buildup of photographers [over the next couple of days]," he adds. 11.13am: Jay presses Silva on whether the Hugh Grant case was a naturally private occasion, therefore out of bounds. When asked if it was obvious that Hugh Grant wouldn't have wanted photographers outside the house given his dealings with the press, Silva replies: "No." Jay responds: "Is that really your answer, Mr Silva?" Silva confirms that it is. 11.12am: "The whole thing was brought into the public domain," Silva says, adding that an agent confirmed the birth of the child following a press release issued by a US magazine. "There was no inclination in that statement that there was a privacy problem or a problem ahead," Silva says. A story breaks, we then go to their home, we ask them to pose up, if they say no we'll move on and go away. 11.10am: Asked why he sent photographers to Hong's house following the birth of the child, Silva says: "It was a major showbiz story of great interest to our readers." He adds it was to get a "posed-up picture" of the family and that this case is no different to what they've done in the past, citing David Cameron and David Jason after the birth of their respective children. In an ideal world it would have been nice if Hugh issued a picture ... We didn't have to take it ourselves ... It means it's such a nice picture it just brightens things up [in the paper]. 11.07am: Silva is asked about recent photographs of Hugh Grant and the mother of his child, Ting Lan Hong. 11.04am: Silva says there is "no reason, no justification" to publish photographs of Pippa Middleton going about her business in the street since the royal wedding. He adds that there's no justification to print pictures of "her just coming out of her door every day." 11.00am: Silva says Mail Online "should apply the same standards" as the Daily Mail newspaper. "The guidelines are given out to my photographers," he adds. Jay says there is clearly a distinction between staff photographers and freelancers. He is then asked about photographs of Liam Fox, the defence secretary who resigned. Silva defends the pictures, saying they're in the public interest and were taken in a public street. 10.56am: Jay asks Silva about pictures on Mail Online of Sandra Bullock and her son in a park. I'd have to see the picture. We wouldn't put it in the paper... But I don't know the circumstances so I can't really comment," says Silva. "What's disturbing about these photographs is that the faces of the children haven't been pixellated ... would you like to see the pictures?" says Jay. Silva says he doesn't know the circumstances around the Mail Online pictures. "All the questions I've listed would all be asked in relation to those pictures," Silva says, if they were being considered for the newspaper. On a picture of Bullock trying to shield her child from photographers, he says: "If that was a British celebrity taken in a British park we'd be asking a lot of questions, yes." 10.52am: Robert Jay QC asks Silva about photographs on Mail Online. He says he only deals with pictures for the newspaper. Jay asks about a picture on Mail Online today of picture of Simon Cowell on his yacht, and whether that would be a private place. Jay says the pictures is from Matrixpictures.co.uk. which Silva describes as "one of the paparazzi agencies." Silva says he hasn't seen the picture as he was off-desk yesterday preparing for the inquiry. 10.51am: Silva says the Daily Mail will avoid pictures of celebrities if they are engaged in legal action with the paper. He says the Mail is more interested in Kate Winslet than Sienna Miller, because of the brand and readership of the paper. 10.48am: Silva says that "as a family man" he would agree - and comply - with celebrities who do not wish their children to be photographed. Leveson says he is reluctant to make suggestions, but adds: "If those in the public eye and do not court publicity wish to protect themselves and their privacy they should be able to go to somebody and say 'I'm just not interested in any of this'... In the normal run of situations they should just be left alone. "Yes, I would agree with that," says Silva. 10.46am: The Daily Mail is very careful about using photographs of celebrities' children, Silva says, and will crop or blur images if necessary. Asked if there is an argument that the photographers should not be taking those pictures at all, if the children's faces are later blurred, Silva says: "Possibly, yes." 10.44am: In terms of pictures of celebrities on holiday, Silva says celebs are fair game on public beaches or in a public place, but not in hotel grounds or other private property. "The main principle is 'is it a public beach or a public place' where they are on holiday," he says. 10.41am: Robert Jay QC asks Silva whether it is right that some celebrities go to certain restaurants in the hope of being photographed. "I believe so, yes," Silva replies. 10.39am: Silva says he started asking picture agencies a number of questions - on issues such as harassment, media scrums, the type of lens used - three or four years ago. When I started 20 years ago I don't think we asked any questions. "Times have changed and we've had to change accordingly," he says. We've reacted to the change in the culture at the moment. 10.37am: Long-lens cameras can take pictures from a distance equivalent to the length of a football pitch, says Silva. Leveson inquiry: Sienna Miller. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP A number of celebrities - including JK Rowling and Sienna Miller - specifically complained about long-lens cameras when they gave evidence to the inquiry before Christmas. 10.35am: If a photographer has been following a celebrity all day long, they will have to justify that, says Silva. But not if they have been there "two minutes." "There would have to be a special reason for them being there that long, for that period of time," he says. 10.33am: Robert Jay QC asks Silva how he would discover whether a celebrity has been harassed when a photograph was taken. Silva says he looks at the demeanor of the person in the picture. If a celebrity looks uneasy or harassed in a photograph he will ask the picture agency for their take on events. There are "various indicators" of whether a celebrity is harassed, he says. 10.32am: Silva says that if a celebrity is on a public street they are fair game - even if it's a matter of yards from their home, which is private. Silva says he cannot recall a complaint about photographs taken of celebrities leaving their house to get in their car on a public street. 10.30am: Lord Justice Leveson questions Silva on what he says are the "rather arbitrary" distinctions between public and private places in the PCC code, relating to where celebrities can be photographed outside their home. Silva says that the pavement is a public place - where celebrities can be legitimately photographed - but not their driveway. "We are only talking about a matter of yards," Silva says. 10.26am: Silva says there have been "a handful" of complaints by celebrities over the past few years. The Daily Mail receives about 30,000 pictures a day from agencies all over the world, including paparazzi photographers. Silva describes paparazzi photographers as freelancers who are not attached to a particular newspaper. Leveson inquiry: Paul Silva 10.23am: Paul Silva, picture editor of the Daily Mail, is the first witness of the day. 10.22am: Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, confirms that the Daily Mail editor, Paul Dacre, was unavailable to give evidence today but will appear on 6 February. 10.19am: Leveson goes on to rebuke Kelvin MacKenzie, who he says questioned the credibility of a witness (likely to be Anne Diamond) when he appeared before the inquiry on Monday. "He should not have done so," says Leveson. I think his evidence was rather more of opinion than fact, but that's as far as it goes. 10.19am: Lord Justice Leveson is addressing press coverage of his comments at the inquiry yesterday on the future of press reform. [These comments] have been reported as emerging findings. They are not in fact that. I am testing possibilities. One of the ways of doing so is asking those who are likely to be affected for their views ... I wouldn't like it to be reported that I have reached conclusions, because I have not. 10.07am: Paul Silva, the picture editor of the Daily Mail, appears to be the first surprise witness of the day. The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted: Unexpected witness up first. Paul silva the veteran picture editor at the daily mail. 10.05am: Could there be a surprise addition to today's Leveson inquiry lineup? Ben Fenton, the FT's media reporter, has just tweeted: Could there be a surprise (ie unscheduled) witness at #leveson today? Just seen Richard Wallace, D Mirror ed, sitting between lawyers in Ct73 9.54am: Both Wright and Hartley are likely to be asked how the Mail on Sunday came to accuse Hugh Grant of "mendacious smears" following his evidence in November. Grant suggested that the Mail on Sunday must have intercepted his voicemail in order to obtain information about an alleged relationship between the actor and a "plummy-voiced" woman based in the US. The Mail on Sunday swiftly rejected Grant's claims, saying that the information came from a source close to Jemima Khan, a former partner of Grant. Lord Justice Leveson said he was concerned about the tone of the Mail on Sunday's statement, which read: "Mail on Sunday utterly refutes Hugh Grant's claim that they got any story as a result of phone hacking. In fact in the case of the story Mr Grant refers to the information came from a freelance journalist who had been told by a source who was regularly speaking to Jemima Khan. Mr Grant's allegations are mendacious smears driven by his hatred of the media. 9.50am: Welcome to the Leveson inquiry liveblog. Peter Wright, editor of the Mail on Sunday, will give evidence on the third day of a week devoted to newspapers. Wright has been editor of the Daily Mail's sister paper since 1998. A long-serving employee of publisher Associated Newspapers, Wright previously served as Paul Dacre's deputy at the Daily Mail and as editor of that paper's Femail section. Wright is widely tipped to take over Dacre when he relinquishes his editorship of the Daily Mail. The Mail on Sunday benefited along with rival tabloids from the closure of the market-leading News of the World in July, inheriting its mantle of the biggest-selling Sunday paper. After an initial boost of more than 320,000 copies in July, Wright's paper slipped backed to an average weekly sale of about 2m, less than 100,000 above where it was at in June 2011, and about 200,000 ahead of the Sunday Mirror. Liz Hartley, head of editorial legal services at Associated Newspapers, the publisher behind Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, will also give evidence. The inquiry will publish written evidence from Kevin Beatty, managing director of Associated Newspapers, and James Welsh, finance director of the publisher. Join us from 10am for live coverage.