David Cameron should not hide behind a judge Opening yesterday's session of the inquiry that he chairs, Lord Justice Leveson said it was important not to jump to conclusions about the evidence until all sides had been heard. This is wise advice, and we would expect nothing less from a judge conducting a trial. But, despite appearances, including the taking of an oath, this inquiry is not a trial. Normal political discourse does not need to be put on hold while we await its conclusions. Yet this is what David Cameron suggested should happen when he was questioned in the Commons about the way the Government handled the attempted takeover of BSkyB by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. The Prime Minister robustly defended the decisions taken by Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, who has been accused of favouring the Murdoch case despite occupying a quasi-judicial role that required impeccable impartiality. In a statement to MPs, Mr Hunt insisted that he scrupulously followed the correct procedures, even though dozens of emails sent by his special adviser Adam Smith to News Corp suggested otherwise. Mr Smith resigned yesterday, claiming that he had unwittingly misrepresented Mr Hunt's position. Even if we accept Mr Hunt's protestations of innocence, the fact remains that his adviser was keeping the Murdoch camp fully informed not only of the takeover process, but also of the position adopted by the bid's opponents. This was not so much "inappropriate" - as Mr Hunt put it during his somewhat querulous statement - as unacceptable and unethical. Clearly, whoever was responsible could no longer work in government; but we only have Mr Hunt's word for it that he had no idea what was going on. There is a precedent here. Liam Fox had to resign as defence secretary last year when he was found to have breached the ministerial code through his relationship with Adam Werritty, an unofficial adviser. Section 3.3 of the code makes it clear that "the responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment. Individual Ministers will be accountable to the Prime Minister, Parliament and the public for their actions and decisions in respect of their special advisers. We do not suggest that Mr Hunt has breached the code, for the simple reason that we do not know what occurred. In Mr Fox's case, an internal inquiry was conducted by the then cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, which reported within a fortnight. Something similar is needed, though it should be carried out by a mandarin at some remove from No 10, to ensure absolute impartiality. Indeed, this is a task tailor-made for the independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan. His post, set up in 2008, was intended for just such an eventuality. It is simply not good enough for Mr Cameron to say that we must wait for Leveson to report before we find out exactly what happened. The issue of the BSkyB takeover is not the main purpose of the Leveson Inquiry - and neither is a judge, however eminent, responsible for the good governance of the nation. That is the Prime Minister's function. He should get on with it.