I think the first three of these are points which occur in Mr Watson's statement and have not been covered in his oral evidence. The first is submission of accounts by News International. Mr Watson says that we have not filed accounts up to date. The position is that all the accounts have been filed. 62 sets of accounts were filed on time. Two were delayed until 8 May 2012. That was due to the reorganisation which has been explained to Companies House. It's now all up to date.

Right.

Second point, the emails relating to Mr Huhne, Mr Watson suggests that those were produced voluntarily by the Sunday Times. I'm not going to say very much about this because of the criminal proceedings but the position --

There was litigation.

There was a production order, which we opposed and it was made.

Yes.

Mr Mulcaire's position. As the Inquiry may know, Mr Mulcaire has been resisting answering interrogatories in the civil proceedings as to the information, as Mr Watson has put it, contained in his head. That is his choice in that litigation. It's not controlled by us. We tried to stop paying his legal fees --

That's gone to the Supreme Court.

That's gone to the Supreme Court. We were told we had to continue paying his legal fees despite the fact we didn't want to. It's not within our control.

Lastly, surveillance of members of the Select Committee. As we have informed the Select Committee, no evidence has been found to suggest that any member of the committee other than Mr Watson was placed under surveillance. That is the case after an email search carried out for the MSC and after interviews conducted by Linklaters with three senior members of the News of the World staff.

So far as Mr Watson is concerned, it is the case that he was under surveillance for a period between 28 September and 2 October 2009. We believe that that came about to stand up a tip for a story, not as a result of his membership of the committee, and that appears to us to be consistent with the terms of the emails which Mr Watson refers to in his statement, and which we provided to him on 20 March this year.

Right.

That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Is there any observation to any of that?

Yes, sir, there is. Firstly, a former chief reporter of the paper has alleged a conspiracy to blackmail with the surveillance, and if that is the case, I don't understand why James Murdoch would feel the need to apologise to a parliamentary committee for the surveillance. He said it was inappropriate and therefore I can't understand why they would take that position.

Yes.

On the matter of the accounts, I did check the accounts in early April, and the company issued a statement that said the accounts would be filed by the end of the month. So they were clearly eight days late and I apologise for not checking.

Don't worry about that.

I'd better not mention the Huhne production order. On Glenn Mulcaire, I merely point that the company paid nearly a third of a million pounds to pay his legal fees.

The argument there is that he's contractually entitled to that and that's a debate that I know has been argued but not yet decided in the Supreme Court, and in relation to production orders, I'm sure you've followed the way in which that has sometimes worked and sometimes, particularly recently, not worked.

I understand, sir.

Right. Mr Watson, this is a topic on which you obviously have very strong views, I understand that. Is there any aspect of your evidences that you feel that we have glaringly omitted?

I don't think so, sir.

Thank you very much indeed. We'll have a break.

Yes, Mr Barr.

Good morning. Our next witness is the Right Honourable Alan Johnson.

Thank you.