Leveson inquiry: Paul Stephenson, Elizabeth Filkin, Roger Baker 11.41am: The inquiry is now taking a short break. 11.39am: Stephenson says he supported that decision to reopen the phone-hacking investigation in 2011. However, he says things looked different in 2009. "There is a justification as to why he [DAC Peter Clarke] took the decisions he made ... you've then got to look at a different situation in 2009," he adds. 11.38am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted: 11.36am: Stephenson says in his written statement that the chair of the MPA, Kit Malthouse, told him in 2011 that the Met "should not be devoting this level of resources" to Operation Weeting. Malthouse said Operation Weeting was largely driven by "level of hysteria" in politics and media. 11.30am: Stephenson says that in 2009 the Met developed a "fixed mindset and defensive mindset" about the phone-hacking issue. He adds that the Met got "fixed" on a defensive strategy that wouldn't expand its resources without new evidence. Stephenson says there was a "flawed assumption" that the 2006 investigation was sufficient, and this was never challenged. The Met believed it was "inconceivable" that DAC Peter Clarke had not widened the 2006 inquiry if he had known there was extensive evidence. 11.25am: Stephenson says when he returned to work in April 2011 after a four-month break, he was told Wallis "was becoming a person of interest." Wallis was arrested in July; Stephenson says he was told that morning. He says he told the Metropolitam Police Authority about Wallis's contract, and this was leaked to the media. 11.24am: The Guardian's Josh Halliday has just tweeted: 11.20am: Stephenson says he played no part in selecting Wallis's PR firm Chamy Media as a consultant to the Met. He says Fedorcio handled the recruitment as his deputy was off sick. "I would have been concerned that Dick was doing the right thing by the organisation, and doing the right thing by his deputy ... out of that I've no doubt came the recruitment of neil wallis," he adds. He adds that he had no reason to doubt that Wallis was a fit and proper person to get the contract. 11.16am: Stephenson says restraining senior officers' ability to write memoirs when they leave the force is "worthy of consideration." "This inquiry and matters around it has put the Met in difficult position," he adds. 11.15am: Stephenson's written statement has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website. 11.12am: Jay says the News of the World conducted the Met's press office about the cricket bribery scandal. They then put editor Colin Myler in touch with Stephenson, and there were meetings between the Met's Cressida Dick and the paper. Stephenson says this was "unusual" and it was uncommon to be contacted by newspapers in this way. 11.11am: Press Gazette has tweeeted: 11.08am: Asked about police leaks, Stephenson says 16 police officers and police staff have been prosecuted for misusing police information in the past decade, of which 11 have been found or pled guilty. 11.07am: Here is Stephenson's resignation statement in full: I have this afternoon informed the palace, the home secretary and the mayor of my intention to resign as commissioner of the Metropolitan police service. I have taken this decision as a consequence of the ongoing speculation and accusations relating to the Met's links with News International at a senior level and in particular in relation to Mr Neil Wallis who as you know was arrested in connection with Operation Weeting last week. Firstly, I want to say what an enormous privilege it has been for me to lead this great organisation that is the Met. The recent example of the heroism and bravery of Met officers in chasing armed suspects, involving the shooting of one of my officers, is typical; but is in danger of being eclipsed by the ongoing debate about relationships between senior officers and the media. This can never be right. Crime levels in the Met are at a 10-year low. You have seen the Met at its glorious and unobtrusive best on the occasion of the royal wedding; the professional and restrained approach to unexpected levels of violence in recent student demonstrations; the vital ongoing work to secure the safety of the capital from terrorism; the reductions in homicide; and continuing increased levels of confidence as the jewel in our crown of Safer Neighbourhoods Teams serve the needs of Londoners. I am deeply proud of the achievements of the Met since I became commissioner. Let me turn to phone hacking and my relationship with Neil Wallis. I want to put the record straight. I met Mr Wallis in 2006. The purpose of that meeting was, as with other journalists, to represent the context of policing and to better inform the public debate carried out through the media on policing issues. I had no knowledge of, or involvement in, the original investigation into phone hacking in 2006 that successfully led to the conviction and imprisonment of two men. I had no reason to believe this was anything other than a successful investigation. I was unaware that there were any other documents in our possession of the nature that have now emerged. I have acknowledged the statement by John Yates that if he had known then what he knows now he would have made different decisions. My relationship with Mr Wallis continued over the following years and the frequency of our meetings is a matter of public record. The record clearly accords with my description of the relationship as one maintained for professional purposes and an acquaintance. In 2009 the Met entered into a contractual arrangement with Neil Wallis, terminating in 2010. I played no role in the letting or management of that contract. I have heard suggestions that we must have suspected the alleged involvement of Mr Wallis in phone hacking. Let me say unequivocally that I did not and had no reason to have done so. I do not occupy a position in the world of journalism; I had no knowledge of the extent of this disgraceful practice and the repugnant nature of the selection of victims that is now emerging; nor of its apparent reach into senior levels. I saw senior figures from News International providing evidence that the misbehaviour was confined to a rogue few and not known about at the top. One can only wonder about the motives of those within the newspaper industry or beyond, who now claim that they did know but kept quiet. Though mine and the Met's current severe discomfort is a consequence of those few that did speak out, I am grateful to them for doing so, giving us the opportunity to right the wrong done to victims - and here I think most of those especially vulnerable people who deserved so much better from us all. Now let me turn to the suspicion that the contractual relationship with Mr Wallis was somehow kept secret. The contracting of Mr Wallis only became of relevance when his name became linked with the new investigation into phone hacking. I recognise that the interests of transparency might have made earlier disclosure of this information desirable. However my priority, despite the embarrassment it might cause, has been to maintain the integrity of Operation Weeting. To make it public would have immediately tainted him and potentially compromised any future Operation Weeting action. Now let me turn to the reported displeasure of the prime minister and the home secretary of the relationship with Mr Wallis. The reasons for not having told them are two fold. Firstly, I repeat my earlier comments of having at the time no reason for considering the contractual relationship to be a matter of concern. Unlike Mr Coulson, Mr Wallis had not resigned from News of the World or, to the best of my knowledge been in any way associated with the original phone hacking investigation. Secondly, once Mr Wallis's name did become associated with Operation Weeting, I did not want to compromise the Prime Minister in any way by revealing or discussing a potential suspect who clearly had a close relationship with Mr Coulson. I am aware of the many political exchanges in relation to Mr Coulson's previous employment - I believe it would have been extraordinarily clumsy of me to have exposed the Prime Minister, or by association the Home Secretary, to any accusation, however unfair, as a consequence of them being in possession of operational information in this regard. Similarly, the Mayor. Because of the individuals involved, their positions and relationships, these were I believe unique circumstances. Consequently, we informed the chair of the MPA, Mr Malthouse, of the Met's contractual arrangements with Mr Wallis on the morning of the latter's arrest. It is our practice not to release the names of suspects under arrest, making it difficult to make public details of the arrangements prior to Mr Wallis's release the same day. The timing of the MPA Committee that I appeared before at 2pm that day was most unfortunate. Now let me briefly deal with the recent story in relation to my use of Champneys facilities. There has been no impropriety and I am extremely happy with what I did and the reasons for it - to do everything possible to return to running the Met full time, significantly ahead of medical, family and friends' advice. The attempt to represent this in a negative way is both cynical and disappointing. I thought it necessary to provide this lengthy and detailed account of my position on aspects of the current media questions and speculation concerning my conduct. I do this to provide the backcloth to the main purpose of this statement. There are a great number of things I value as part of my professional life - very high in this list are my reputation for judgement and integrity. On judgement: running a large and overwhelmingly successful organisation like the Met must be dependent to a great extent on others providing the right information and assurances. I could reiterate that I had no reason to doubt the original investigation into phone hacking or be aware of the documents and information in our possession and only recently provided by News International. I could point to the many other successes of the Met. I could point to the long history of how and why the relationship between the Met and media has developed a way of doing business that has brought real benefits but perhaps runs the risk of misinterpretation or worse. In this particular regard it is clear to me that the current furore marks a point in time, a need to learn and change. However, as Commissioner I carry ultimate responsibility for the position we find ourselves in. With hindsight, I wish we had judged some matters involved in this affair differently. I didn't and that's it. I do not believe this on its own would be a matter for me to consider my position as Commissioner. However, the issue of my integrity is different. Let me state clearly, I and the people who know me know that my integrity is completely intact. I may wish we had done some things differently, but I will not lose sleep over my personal integrity. Nevertheless, I must accept that the intense media coverage, questions, commentary and indeed allegations, as demonstrated by this weekend's attempt to misrepresent my arrangements for my recovery from illness, not only provide excessive distraction both for myself and colleagues, but are likely to continue for some time. In particular the Public Inquiry must take time, with even the first part scheduled not to report within a year. A year in which the Met must face not only the enormous challenges that are the staple diet of this incredible organisation, but also the Olympics. This is not a 12 months that can afford any doubts about the commissioner of the Met, I have seen at first hand the distractions for this organisation when the story becomes about the leaders as opposed to what we do as a service. I was always clear that I would never allow that. We the Met cannot afford this - not this year. If I stayed I know that the Inquiry outcomes would reaffirm my personal integrity. But time is short before we face the enormous challenge of policing the Olympics - this is not the time for ongoing speculation about the security of the position of the Commissioner. Even a small chance that that there could be a change of leadership must be avoided. Therefore, although I have received continued personal support from both the Home Secretary and the Mayor, I have with great sadness informed both of my intention to resign. This will allow time for the appointment of my successor and for that person to take a firm hold of the helm of this great organisation and steer it through the great challenges and necessary change ahead, unencumbered by the current controversy. I will miss many things, but most of all it will be the overwhelming majority of honest, hard working professionals who it has been such a great pleasure to lead. 11.04am: Stephenson says he resigned because he has always held the view that if story becomes about a leader, that's a bad place to be. Because of a combination of ill health ... my resilience was not what it once was ... I didn't think I had any alternative and out of a sense of duty and honour I decided to resign. 11.03am: Stephenson says he paid for some treatments at Champneys. He says he only became aware of Wallis's connection to Champneys until July 2011. 11.02am: The Guardian's Jonathan Haynes has tweeted: 11.00am: Stephenson says he was told about Champneys spa through a friend of his father-in-law. He says he felt under "significant personal pressure" to go back to work. 11.00am: Stephenson met Andy Coulson for dinner when he was editor of the News of the World. 10.57am: Jay asks if Stephenson took a policy desicion not to involve himself with News International. Stephenson says he was briefed on Operiation Weeting when he returned to work in April 2011 after a four-month break. "I realised it was off a different order, I would have been much more circumspect with meeting News International," he says. 10.55am: Stephenson stresses that he met Wallis once in 2008, three times in 2009 and twice in 2010. 10.54am: Jay says in 2011, there were no recorded entries as relating to News International, a couple of dinners relating to Murdoch MacLennan with the Telegrpaph, and a meeting with the Daily Mail. 10.53am: Stephenson says he would describe Wallis as "an acquaintance" rather than "a friend" - "that would be taking it too far." 10.50am: Jay points out that Stephenson did not claim expenses for some of his meetings with Wallis, for example on 10 December 2009. They are described in his diary as "a private dinner." Wallis says on some occasions he paid for the meals. 10.42am: Between February and May 2009, when Stephenson became commissioner, there was a large number of dinners with the media. These included the the Mirror group and Daily Mail. Stephenson also met the editor of the Sun on 19 February, went to a News Corp reception at the Oxo tower on 22 June and ate with Wallis at Luciano's. Later that year he met the Times, the Sunday Times, Independent and the Guardian. 10.39am: In 2008 there was a one-to-one dinner with Wallis. Stephenson says: "I don't recall that, I don't recall having dinner with Mr Wallis alone ... it is possible I don't recall this." He also met the Guardian and Evening Standard, and had another dinner with Wallis and Fedorcio. Stephenson says he'd discuss the context of policing and government policy as well as some social interaction, insisting that the meetings were "appropriate." 10.35am: Jay says in 2006 there was a lunch with the Times in February, drinks with the Daily Mail in May, dinner with Neil Wallis and Dick Fedorcio on 19 September, and a Crime Reporters' Association Christmas party in December. In 2007 there was dinner with the Daily Mail, and another dinner with Wallis and Fedorcio (14 months after the previous dinner). 10.34am: Jay says in 2005 when Stephenson was deputy commissioner there were very few interactions with the press, and none with News International. 10.30am: Stephenson outlines his contacts with the media in his written statement. He says the feedback he got from the press and from the head of the DPA, Dick Fedorcio, was journalists complained that their rivals had got scoops. "The fact that the complaints seem to be mroe general seemed to be a more healthy situation, rather than complaints from one area of the media," he adds. 10.28am: Stephenson says there was a danger of the organisation including senior officers becoming obsessed with newspaper headlines; he includes himself in that. He adds: Of course it is very dificult if you are the subject of unfair reporting ... it is very difficult to be detached about it. You can become obseesssed by headlines, which are here today, gone tomorrow. 10.27am: Asked about inquiries about leaks, Stephenson says: "Sometimes one would have a leak inquiry ... remind people of the leadership to do whatever it can to enforce standards of probity." 10.26am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted: 10.23am: Stephenson says he decided that a member of the Met's Directorate of Public Affairs (DPA) should be present when senior officers met the press. "As a starting point I thought it was very helpful if matters came through the DPA ... that might discourage the gossiping ... people being a bit too loose lipped," he says. He says that this did not stop a small minority making calls to the press. 10.17am: Jay says that Stephenson states in his written statement that some contact between some senior colleagues and the written media was "closer than he would have liked." Stephenson says he prefers not to name individuals, but there were some on the management board who gossiped and leaked to the press, creating a "dialogue of disharmony" that was "distracting." "I'm satisfied that there was a little too much gossiping about things that ought to have been kept confidential," he adds. 10.14am: Stephenson says his predecessor Sir Ian Blair came under a lot of criticism from the media. "That was constantly distracting for senior officers," he says. He adds that when he took over as Met commissioner in 2009 he wanted to try and effect a situation that was more about what the police did than who they were as senior officers. 10.11am: Former Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has taken the stand. Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is doing the questioning. 10.10am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll, who is at the inquiry, has just tweeted: 10.04am: The inquiry has now begun. Neil Garnham, the Met's QC, says former DAC Peter Clarke said last week that the police had briefed John Reid about the 2006 phone-hacking investigation when he was home secretary. Garnham says a Met briefing paper, dated 9 August 2006, has now been unearthed and will be given to Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry. He says a internal Home Office memo produced by Richard Reilly, working in the private office and with the same date, also exists, and will be tracked down. Tessa Jowell's lawyer interjects to say she is denying denying Keith Surtees' claim last week that she refused to co-operate with phone hacking proscutions. He notes the revised Guardian story of last week. 9.56am: Welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog. The inquiry continues into its second week of evidence on the relationship between the press and the police. Today's best-known witness is former Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson. Stephenson quit the Met in July 2011 following the furore furore surrounding his relationship with the former deputy editor of the News of the World, Neil Wallis. It was revealed that Stephenson had a free stay, worth £12,000, at a luxury health spa promoted by Wallis, who was arrested and bailed over alleged phone hacking and has himself already appeared before Leveson. Former parliamentary standards commissioner Elizabeth Filkin will also give evidence. Filkin wrote an independent report, titled Ethical Issues Arising from the Relationship Between Police and Media and published in January, that warned the Met against "cosy relationships" with the press. It said that speculation about press-police links had "damaged trust in the impartiality of the police." The recommendations of Filkin's report included a "change of culture" at the Met regarding transparency in dealings with the press. She also warned of the danger of flirting and drinking with journalists. Drinking with officers "may be seen as inappropriate hospitality," her report said. Mixing the media with alcohol is not banned, but should be an uncommon event. She urges officers to watch out for "late-night carousing, long sessions, yet another bottle of wine at lunch - they are all longstanding media tactics to get you to spill the beans. Avoid. Finally, Roger Baker, Her Majesty's inspector for the northern region, will give evidence. Baker was chief constable of Essex police from 2005 to 2009. Before that, he was deputy chief constable of North Yorkshire police for two years, with responsibility for performance, crime and operations, audit, review and inspection. From 2001 to 2003, Baker was assistant chief constable of Staffordshire police, with responsibility for territorial policing, crime and operations. Baker was HMIC lead for the Without Fear Or Favour report, published in December 2011, into police integrity. Here is an interview with Baker conducted on the publication of the report: