25 May 2012

Leveson Inquiry - Module 3 - Day 12 - Adam Smith (Part 2) and Jonathan Stephens

Useful Links:
Leveson Inquiry Witness Statements HERE 
Leveson Inquiry Witness Lists HERE 

Video Recordings of each day's proceedings HERE

Live Feed From Leveson Inquiry Site HERE

BBC Democracy Live Feed HERE 
Guardian Live Blog HERE
Previous Hearing HERE
Links to latest articles, comment and information relevant to the Leveson Inquiry:
Guardian Live Blog: 11:24 a.m. -
A 37-year-old woman has been arrested by police investigating inappropriate payments to public officials from journalists. The Met police said in a statement:
Police have today arrested a woman at Bromley police station.
She was arrested shortly after 09:00hrs by officers from Operation Elveden, the MPS investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments to police and public officials.
Operation Elveden is being supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and is being run in conjunction with Operation Weeting, the MPS inquiry into the phone-hacking of voicemail boxes.
The 37-year-old woman ['Elveden arrest 30'] attended Bromley police station by appointment and was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to corrupt under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, suspicion of conspiracy to cause misconduct in a public office, contrary to common law and suspicion of bribery, contrary to the Bribery Act 2010.
Today's arrest is the result of information provided to police by News Corporation's management and standards committee. It relates to suspected payments to a public official and is not about seeking journalists to reveal confidential sources in relation to information that has been obtained legitimately.

 Session to begin at 9:30 a.m. with Part 2 of Adam Smith's testimony.

Adam Smith

Adam Smith's Resignation Statement:
While it was part of my role to keep News Corporation informed throughout the BskyB bid process, the content and extent of my contact was done without authorisation from the Secretary of State. I do not recognise all of what Fred Michel said, but nonetheless I appreciate that my activities at times went too far and have, taken together, created the perception that News Corporation had too close a relationship with the department, contrary to the clear requirements set out by Jeremy Hunt and the permanent secretary that this needed to be a fair and scrupulous process. Whilst I firmly believe that the process was in fact conducted scrupulously fairly, as a result of my activities it is only right for me to step down as special adviser to Jeremy Hunt.
Guardian Live Blog HERE

Part 1 of Adam Smith's testimony HERE

Part 2:
Mr Jay explaining the remit of the Secretary of State (J Hunt) with regard to the BSkyB bid.
Adam Smith resumes his testimony...
We're off at ‪#Leveson‬. Judge asks Jay QC to explain what a quasi-judicial process looks like.

Smith had only one phone call from Ofcom boss Ed Richards during bid - but plenty with Fred Michel.
More on the nature of Hunt's quasi-judicial role under 2002 Enterprise Act, from @jameskirkup:
Smith: DCMS knew Smith was in contact with News Corp and Fred MIchel was point of contact
Smith: May have been a handful of conversations with Michel on office landline. Can't think when officials would have overheard.
Smith ws: I was not asked to provide any formal written reports in relation to my contact with Mr Michel or News Corp.
Smith ws: Even if other members of DCMS didn't know amount of contact I had with Michel, wouldn't be surprised by regular contact.
Smith: It wasn't uncommon to give advance notice of certain statements but I would use my judgment on what to say and what not to.
Smith says he felt "bombarded by information" from Michel. Was sent a substantial amount of correspondence - News Corp/Ofcom/OFT.
Smith: Concerned with managing News Corp relationship. Had no role in the Ofcom/OFT process, quite rightly.

#LevesonInquiry‬ shown email which shows a senior civil servant at the Culture Department was aware of Adam Smith's contact with News Corp
Smith to Zeff: I've also reiterated that Jeremy's point is to publish pretty much everything – unless there a good reason not to.
This sequence appears to show Smith was no rogue operator - his link with News Corp was known + understood by civil servants. 'sman
Emails between Smith and Jon Zeff, head of broadcasting policy at DCMS, show others knew of Smith contact with Michel[ie S hadnt gone rogue]
Smith sent Hunt analysis of UILs from NC. Imagine Hunt would have guessed received it from Michel ("News Corp's initial reaction").
Smith: I was fairly certain that Mr Hunt was aware of News Corp's position.
Smith ws: Emails also demonstrate that other key members of the department were aware of nature of contact receiving from Michel.
Jay starting with the internal News Corp email from Michel, on Hunt receiving "very strong legal advice" not to meet company.
Smith says first time quasi-judicial process was discussed with him.

Smith doesn't remember telling Michel that civ servants had warned Hunt he couldn't meet Murdoch.

[There appears to be advice from civil servants to Hunt not to lobby Cable. Developing.]

5/11/10: Hunt's "strong legal advice" not to meet News Corp.Smith says JH was frustrated, wanted to spk to Murdoch
Smith says "I don't particularly recall [Hunt]being that frustrated about [not being allowed to speak to Cable]."
Smith: Don't remember saying it was appropriate that James Murdoch should phone Hunt after meeting advised against.
'Might you have given them (News Corp) advice of what to include in their documentation?

Smith doesnt remember series of calls with Michel in early January.Jay is asking about tone of emails with Michel.
"I think his use of positive words reported by Michel not words I would have used." Smith begins to challenge Michel's reliability.

Smith: Words like "making a plea", more positive things - don't think I would have phrased them like that (to Michel,then relayed).
Smith: I don't think the department was bothered about cost to the bid or potential damage for bid - DCMS didn't mind either way.
Smith: I'm not sure we did discuss consequences of bid referral to Competition Commission (interdepartmentally).  
Smith: Substance of Michel email came from me but News Corp were aware of Hunt's points because of meeting (4 days before email).
Smith: Was present of Hunt/Richards (Ofcom) meeting. Mr Hunt had been quite clear wanted to share views with News Corp.  
Smith: I was reconfirming something Hunt told News Corp, timetable he set out three days previously.
Smith: Didn't tell Michel would all definitely be done by mid-Feb. Could have been discussed in a chatty conversation.
Smith: I don't remember saying "game over for the opposition" but imagine we had conversation along those lines about the process.

Smith: "I don't remember saying 'game over for the opposition' but i imagine we had a convo along those lines "

[Michel overreported. Smith has incomplete memory. Neither really making 100 per cent convincing witnesses for ‪#leveson‬]

["Game Over" was what "JH" (actually Smith) supposedly said wd happen once News had offered a strong "UIL" i.e. spinning off Sky News]

Smith: At this stage Hunt didn't describe UIL as strong. If OFT/Ofcom came back with advice, would have gone to consultation.
Leveson is clearly not believing Smith at this point. Smith trying to put all responsibility for colourful "game over" language onto Michel
Smith disputes whether Hunt ever described the Sky News spin-off as being "strong" as a UIL.

[for those asking, a UIL is an "undertaking(promise to do something) in lieu" of being referred to Comp Commission]

Smith: News Corp securing the bid wasn't Hunt's objective. His objective is to carry out his legal and statutory duties.
[Smith saying he wouldn't have told Michel Hunt shared News Corp's objectives.

Now Jay presses Smith on whether Hunt had prejudged the event because of his memo [see most front pages this morning] Smith says No
Smith says Hunt was primarily concerned with doing his formal duty. Jay counters, but in part of his mind he was v supportive of the bid?

#Leveson‬: Reading this email it is at least implicit thay there is a common cause being fought here. Smith: If you take it as 100% accurate.

Smith rejects ‪#Leveson‬ interjection that a Michel email was either distorted, or accurate showing common cause between Hunt and News.
[The Michel email they are focusing on speaks of "common cause" and essentially makes Hunt look like and advocate for News]
Smith says the email is not accurate in tone or in all its content, but does summarise a conversation he had with Michel at the time.
Smith says the email is not accurate in tone or in all its content, but does summarise a conversation he had with Michel at the time.
Smith agrees that his relationship with Michel began as "warm and friendly".Chilled after 6 mths of weekend calls.I was getting frustrated.

Jay: Is it possible gave Michel impression he was getting a sneak preview of plans? Smith: These points already explained by Hunt.
Smith: I would not have been saying anything here that hadn't already been said to News Corp, not sure why email tone is excitable.
Smith: "Brilliant" was attempt to pacify by being slightly disingenuous. If you read what Hunt said,didn't say UILs were brilliant.

Smith agrees that part of his text to Michel was "too flippant and jokey".
Smith: "Brilliant" was attempt to pacify by being slightly disingenuous. If you read what Hunt said,didn't say UILs were brilliant.
Smith says that when he texted that he "agreed" with Michel that "we are in a good place" that was because he was referring to Hunt...
...being pleased with the way his statement to the Commons [in which he indicated support for UILs] had gone. 
[In my opinion, Smith has so far admitted nothing that could really constitute behaviour so bad as to justify his resignation]
I was flippant and too loose with my language, not giving away what Hunt thought about the UILs.

Smith: "Brilliant" was attempt to pacify by being slightly disingenuous. If you read what Hunt said,didn't say UILs were brilliant.
Jay suggests Smith much too close to News Corp's Michel - had crossed a line and shd hv turned his mb phone off.  
Jay, sounding sceptical, asks whether he is claiming he was answering Michel in a tone of "studied neutrality".
Some of Michel's phone calls to Smith were lasting 20 - 30 minutes.
Smith can't remember giving Michel impression that led him to quote Smith saying "we are in a good place"

Now "surreptitious" text in which Smith offers to show News Corp objections to Sky bid from other parties
Smith sent text to Michel when he was meeting Lord Black (who opposed bid) telling him to "takes stab proof vest with you".
Jay says accumulation of text msgs give rise to a particular perception you were onside with Mr Michel.

Smith: I can see how that perception could be created, yes.

Smith acknowledges the number of texts exchanged between himself and Fred Michel could give impression he was on News Corp's side
Smith confirms he was not at Swan Lake, and Hunt thinks he went the following week.

Guardian Live Blog:
Evening Standard journalist Joy Lo Dico has just tweeted:
Jay says DCMS thought Ofcom were against the bid and wd do anything they could to stop it. No, says Smith.
Smith: News thought Ofcom were agst it. but not department view. Hunt holds Ed Richards in v high regard.
Smith agrees that Michel has given [in this instance] a "complete misrepresentation" of his position. [the Swan Lake email]
Smith: This is a case of Mr Michel putting News Corp's views and me simply acknowledging them. ‪#Leveson‬ not quite so sure.
Smith's explanation of Michel email comes close to dissembling once Lord Justice Leveson has finished dissecting his answer
Jay: Would you have expressed an opinion to Mr Michel which was not Mr Hunt's opinion? Smith: Would have done at some stage.
Smith: I'm sure I often say things that aren't Mr Hunt's opinion.
Smith: I spoke with Hunt on all sorts of different things at different times. For me to call him at 7pm was not unusual.
Smith being asked if he knew Hunt's opinion on all these issues. Not giving a Yes/No answer. But in some cases, Yes.
Says he "pretty much" knew Hunt's opinions on the big issues.

Jay: Hunt's ultimate goal was to avoid a CC reference, and you knew that didn't you? Smith: I don't particularly think so, no.
Smith: I don't particularly understand Michel's reference to Ofcom "intruding in the process" - I wouldn't have said that.
Smith: Some of the terms that Michel has used have previously not been accurate.

Smith agrees he "may well" have passed onto News Corp DCMS officials' view re Ofcom process on Sky big
#Leveson‬ suggests 3am conversation with Michel inappropriate.Smith says was in the office working with officials on Hunt statement.
Smith: I was asked to put some pressure on News Corp to agree with DCMS on redactions.
Smith: A lot of the calls were to try and put pressure on me to go and then interfere in the process that was happening.

Smith was involved with the department's knowledge in 3am negotiations with News Corp over redactions ahead of Sky update to Parlt.
Smith unclear how Michel knew what Paul Dacre had told Hunt. Says he doesn't remember Hunt briefing him on Dacre call; or him telling M

Amnesia alert: Smith "doesn't remember" passing on private comvo between Dacre and J Hunt to News Corp

Guardian Live Blog:
Smith is asked about a text message in which he told Michel "but we can't tell journalists that, can we?" in relation to a certain date the DCMS was going to make an annoucement.
Jay says this was another example of "surreptitious" information being passed to News Corp.
Smith says he did not want it properly to enter the public domain.
He adds:
Some of my language was too flippant and loose but I don't think the substance of what we've been through was inappropriate.
Smith to Michel "I've been causing chaos & moaning (within DCMS) on your behalf" Jay: evidence of collusion?
Michel denies collusion. regrets text. Claims he was at end of tether & was trying to get Michel off his back
Here's the "chaos and moaning" mail Smith says he regrets the most
Jay asking about Michel telling his bosses on June 3 "everyone [at dcms] is getting very heated".

"That's not true either Mr Smith" says Jay [I don't think he has previously accused S of not being truthful]
[One reason perhaps for not making someone with little experience main liaison with big biz is in case they have to appear at pub. inquiry]

Jay asks about comms between Smith and Michel on day responses to first consultation and Hunt's statement happened.
Michel told News Corp (on plurality): They are going very strong with journos today on the strength of UIL and Ofcom/OFT approval.

Guardian Live Blog:
Smith, now hunched forward with his arms firmly crossed, is struggling to convince Jay and Leveson that did not implicitly communicate a view to Michel about the bid and how long it was taking.
He says News Corp's view of Ofcom is widely knows and of the OFT was "definitely annoyed that it had taken both bodies and outside lawyers of the DCMS so long".
Jay asks about the two public inquiries email. Smith: Can't remember whether I knew that was the case at the time.
Smith: Lots of other people would presumably have known much more than I would have done.
Jay: I'm not saying that you did impart it to Michel but you shouldn't have. Smith: I would say so, yes.
Smith: Hunt would discuss with me if he'd been in meetings in No 10, or I would go with him.
Smith: I would never have asked to be guided [by Michel].

Smith says he "possibly" gave confidential information to Michel. [Mr Jay is building up his ammunition store again]
Smith: We had all taken the view that Mr Hunt should be kept out of all that sort of contact.
Jay moves onto April this year. Smith warned in advance James Murdoch's evidence might be relevant to the department.
Smith ws: Surprised to hear evidence about emails which it was said I had sent to NC as I did not recognise much of what was said.
Smith reviewed table of emails when on inquiry website - felt was not the whole picture.
Smith: Hunt told me "It won't come to that" when I offered to resign if pressure became too great.
Smith: Drinks in the office that evening for about 45 mins. It was very pressured and one of most stressful days I'd dealt with.

Next morning, Hunt held a meeting at DCMS Smith didn't attend.Then he met Hunt."Everyone here thinks you need to go," Smith says.

"It wasn't just a one-line conversation. Said it was going to be tough." [Smith sounds emotional not surprisingly]

J:What did you think of him saying no-one was criticising you but everyone thinks you need to go? S:I was thinking the same thing already.
Cabinet office drafted part of Smith's resignation statement. It included him taking blame for "believing" his role was to be close to News.

J: Anything you wish to add. S: No, thank you. That is it. [so no killer question. Very typical of ‪#leveson‬ modus operandi]
[The point being that Jay doesn't need to "prove" in public that Smith took a bullet for Hunt, just to obtain evidence for the final report]

Smith's evidence now complete.
From Guardian Live Blog:

Here is a lunchtime summary of today's evidence so far:
Jeremy Hunt and key DCMS officials knew of ex-aide Adam Smith's contact with News Corp over BSkyB bid.
• Smith said he regretted the "perception of collusion" with News Corp over bid.
• Hunt told Smith he would not have to resign after his emails to News Corp's Fred Michel were released, then hours later told him: "Everyone here thinks you need to go."
• Smith would not have been as strong as Hunt in his outspoken memo to Cameron in support of News Corp's BSkyB bid.
• Cameron said he stands by decision to give Hunt quasi-judicial oversight of the BSkyB bid, despite the minister's controversial memo.
• Metropolitan police have arrested a 37-year-old woman, understood to be a journalist who works for News International, over suspected payments to police officers.

Jonathan Stephens

  • Jerry Hayes - Dale and Co:
I'm afraid that the knives are out for Jonathan Stephens, the Permanent Secretary in Jeremy Hunt's Chateau Despair, the DCMS, who made a complete arse of himself by vacillating before La Belle Hodge about whether he was aware of what Adam's Smith's role was with News International. My mole in the pin stripes and bowler tells me that Stephens  is regarding as a complete dickhead by his peers. However, I am told that Smith was regarded very highly by civil servants as one of the most competent bods in the department. They are looking forward to the day that all the emails are produced as they will show that Smith, far from tonguing the corporate backside did his best to keep Frederic Michel off the department 's back. Even better, headhunters are tripping over themselves to employ the boy. And what new challenges face young Stephens? The Home Office or the MOJ would be a particularly fitting and gruesome reward.
Guardian Live Blog HERE
Jonathan Stephens begins his testimony..
...questioned by Mr Jay.
@nataliepeck: Stephens: Drew Hunt's attention to the Smith-Michel emails once I'd seen them.
@rosschawkins: DCMS perm sec says he wasn't responsible for conduct or discipline of SpAds and couldn't dismiss them
Stephens said if there was any indication of untoward conduct by Special Advisors it would be his job to raise issue with the Minister
Stephens: Was particularly concerned with short notice with which we took over the bid and wanted to make sure properly undertaken.
Stephens: Hunt and Smith had clearly formed a close working relationship in opposition.

Guardian Live Blog:
Stephens is asked whether he believed that the BSkyB deal was central to the concerns of the department.
He says he was concerned that "consideration of the bid was properly undertaken" once the DCMS was given oversight of the takeover from Cable's department.
Jay says overall accountability for the management of the bid was with Stephens.
Stephens accepts that overall management of the DCMS was his, and he describes the BSkyB bid as a "boiling hot potato" issue.
Stephens: I thought Smith was well tuned in to the Secretary of States’s thinking.
Stephens: The better the SpAd, the more reliable a guide they are to the SoS.

A DCMS official told Jeremy Hunt on 12 Nov 2010 to have no external conversations about BSkyB bid "nor write to BIS about it", Leveson hears
Stephens on bid: No role in the process for the DCMS and we recommend you do not have any external discussions on the merger.
DCMS wrote to Hunt on 12 Nov to tell him he had no role in BSKyb bid after Hunt had asked what powers he had -6 weeks before he got role
This advice came 7 days before Hunt drafted his controversial intervention to the prime minister supporting the bid
Jonathan Stephens, top civil servant in Hunt's department, says he was aware of Hunt's attitude to bid. Had advised him he had no role in it 
Stephens: I recall officials saying Hunt was asking whether as SoS he had a role and could express a view on the merger.  
Stephens: I recall officials saying Hunt was asking whether as SoS he had a role and could express a view on the merger.
7 Dec email from legal director: Might not be what JH wants to hear but amounts to: do not try and convey your thinking to Cable.

Also clear from DCMS lawyers that JH shd not convey thinking to Cable and that Cable wasn't going to receive it.
Stephens: I didn't have a conversation with Hunt about what he was trying to achieve.

When Cable disqualified himself by making "war on Murdoch" remarks, No.10 asked Stephens if he knew of any prejudicial comments by Hunt.
Hunt told them of a couple of press stories. didn't know about note to Cameron on Nov19. thought note was OK:concentrated on plurality.

[Clarity:Stephens' judgment that the Hunt note to Cameron was not a problem was post facto. He didn't see until much later]

Hunt got legal advice not to get involved in BskyB big the very day he sent memo to Cameron telling him why bid should go thru
Jay asks what Stephens would have done if he'd seen memo to DC. Says there was a focus on abiding by legal provisions on plurality.
Inquiry shown email from legal director, part of Hunt's evidence.

Legal director on Hunt's comments: When did JH say it? I assume it was shortly after News Int announced its intention to buy out the…...other shareholders in Sky. Therefore at a time when JH was not responsible for policy in this area... ...If so, it is not helpful and tends toward an element of pre-judging the issue.
Stephens: Bid was a hot potato, I recall Hunt being very concerned to handle it correctly.
Meeting with BIS officials to hand over bid: Stephens says quasi-judicial role was very likely discussed.
Stephens ws: He needed to take an even-handed approach, giving all sides an appropriate opportunity to make representations.

Officials briefed Hunt of need for "avoidance of bias or appearance of bias". No informal contacts with News Corp or opponents of bid.
[Importantly] Stephens says he knew that Adam Smith was in contact with News Corp, although didn't know who exactly it was.
Stephens "assumed Smith was talking to someone with access to chief executive" [CEO of News Corp Europe & Asia was James Murdoch]
Stephens says Smith's role was to follow up on process and procedure questions and reinforce any messages from SofS.

Stephens: I was at early internal meetings when requirements were repeatedly come back to, was crystal clear what those were.
Stephens: Quickly became aware Adam Smith was in contact with News Corp and was following up points of process and procedure.
Stephens ws: [After release of emails] told SoS number, extent, depth + tone of contacts suggested went beyond what was acceptable.
Stephens: It was not necessary but in my experience not unusual for these matters to be passed on this way [to SpAds].
Stephens: Experience in a no of gov deps is on any issues of central significance to a minister, the SpAd would often be involved.  
Stephens says Hunt was careful to enter the process with an open mind.
Stephens: Confident Smith hearing same advice in all meetings and the SoS was clearly saying there needed to be rigorous process.
Stephens: Confident Smith hearing same advice in all meetings and the SoS was clearly saying there needed to be rigorous process.
Stephens: In respect of officials I don’t think lines did become blurred (but did with Smith).  

Stephens says once he read the Michel emails he thought "number, extent, depth and tone" were "beyond what was acceptable" in his wit stmnt
Stephens: Was a general expectation that it's sensible in external dealings when having exchanges to record and share with Dep. ‪
Stephens says Smith's contacts with Michel should have been minuted and documented.
Stephens says it would've been incredibly wise for Smith-Michel exchanges to have been minuted
Stephens: I thought the evidence we were seeing was by and large the extent of his interactions [with Michel].
Stephens: I didn't understand he was single point of contact and most contact I and officials aware of was through legal advisers.  
Stephens: Was a scrupulous process – our job was to reach fair and unbiased decision.  

Perm sec: to reach a fair and unbiased decision was Hunt's overriding concern to my observation throughout process
DCMS perm sec: making clear dept was worried about News Corp citing Cable war comments in a judicial review

Stephens ws: Was not asked for, and did not offer, separate advice on contacts with News Corp, spoke about overall conduct of bid,
Stephens ws: I did not have any communications with News Corp, or anyone acting on their behalf, during the bid.
Stephens: Quasi-judicial obligation was the meat and drink of the discussions.
Stephens: What Hunt wanted from regulators was clear and unambiguous advice.
Stephens wishes he had warned Smith about risks attached to contact with Mich

Guardian Live Blog:
Jay puts it to Smith that he may have shown excessive faith in the good judgment of special advisers.
Stephens says of Smith: "At the time I thought he showed good understanding of the role and good judgment and was careful in how he undertook the role".
Jay says special advisers needed to be aware of the risks from lobbyists.
Stephens says, in hindsight, Smith should have been "warned" of the "powers of advocacy" of Michel.
Jay says there are "obvious dangers" in special advisers speaking on behalf of the secretary of state.
Stephens says this applies to the whole department.
Jay asks whether it was part of Smith's role to "keep [News Corp] happy" over the process of the bid.
Stephens says it was part of Smith's role to explain process and procedure, whether it made News Corp happy or not.
He understood that Hunt believed it was important for regulators to take as much time over the issue as they needed to deliver "clear and unambiguous" advice.
Stephens says that Hunt "took the initiative" of seeking independent, legal advice.
He adds that Hunt knew there would be "intense criticism from one side or another" and he was most concerned to ensure the fairness of the process.
Back at ‪#Leveson‬ with Stephens. After seeing the emails (24 April) he suggested Smith should be asked to leave.
Stephens said the degree of contact hugely surprised him

Stephens says it was he who advised Jeremy Hunt to get rid of Special Advisor Adam Smith in the wake of the email revelations ‪
Stephens: It was difficult, traumatic situation for Adam and indeed for the Dep who had worked closely with him and respected him.
#Leveson‬ says this could probably be described for the department and Smith as a calamity.

#Leveson‬ : you have an extremely able highly regarded young man, very keen to do right thing - how has this happened?
Stephens: Mr smith against his will was drawn into a web of manipulation and exaggeration

Adam Smith was "against his will, drawn into a web of manipulation and exaggeration" by News Corp lobbyist – Hunt's top civil servant

#Leveson‬ asks how this happened: a highly-regarded young man, very keen to do the right thing, getting into inappropriate contact.
Stephens: The extent, number, nature of these contacts was in my judgment clearly inappropriate and not just in one or two cases.
Stephens: Government guidance issued to departments on quasi-judicial procedures (immediately after Smith resignation).  
(‪#leveson‬ gets cross if we read things into his words and attitudes, but seems real concern here for Smith, and about what happened to him)
Stephens: guidance was isssued in immediate aftermath of this

LJ Leveson expressing concern at the fate of Adam Smith and asking J Stephens whether a system of protection for SPADs couldn't be put in place in future....

Jonathan Stephens explaing that guidelines have already been introduced in Government Departments to avoid SPADs being tempted to go too far in inappropriate contact with outside interests. (not exactly what LJ Leveson was advocating!)
#Leveson‬: I'm not seeking to solve this problem but I would be very unhappy if some good didn't come out of this calamity.

Jonathan Stephen's testimony is complete.