I refute these accusations utterly. I have always been truthful in my dealings with the committee and its findings are unfounded, unfair and erroneous.
To be clear, not once in my testimony before the committee did I seek to mislead it or pass blame for decisions to others. Nor did I participate in a 'cover-up'. Furthermore, there is nothing in my evidence to support the committee's findings that I did.
I will be writing to John Whittingdale, the chair of the committee, to object formally.
Colin Myler, the former editor of the News of the World who now edits the New York Daily News, has also released this:
While I respect the work that the Select Committee has carried out, I stand by the evidence that I gave the committee. I have always sought to be accurate and consistent in what I have said to the committee.
The conclusions of the committee have, perhaps inevitably, been affected by the fragmented picture which has emerged from the various witnesses over successive appearances and by the constraints within which the committee had to conduct its procedure.
These issues remain the subject of a police investigation and the Leveson judicial inquiry and I have every confidence that they will establish the truth in the fullness of time.
2.56pm These are indeed extraordinary times for newspapers. Here is the front page of today's (Murdoch-owned) Times website:
2.34pm We've just put this piece together: MPs' phone hacking report: what they said about the key players.
Meanwhile Katherine Rushton has written on what the Select Committee report means for Murdoch's empire:
No wonder James Murdoch jumped as chairman of BSkyB and News International before he was pushed. The question is, did he jump far enough and should Rupert Murdoch have stepped down too?
Today’s Select Committee report into Phone Hacking and News International is irrevocably damaging for both men.
Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, was judged not to be “a fit person” to run an international company, because of “wilful blindness” to wrongdoing at the media empire he founded.
Meanwhile his son James, who remains deputy chief operating officer of News Corp and a non-executive director of BSkyB, was found guilty of an “astonishing” lack of curiosity and even “wilful ignorance” about the extent of phone hacking.
2.31pm The editor of the Daily Telegraph Tony Gallagher is highlighting some of the more damning findings in the report on Twitter:
1.37pm Ed Miliband has given his reaction to BBC news:
I take extremely seriously what the committee is saying. It was a thorough investigation and a considered verdict. I think now what needs to happen is the regulator Ofcom needs to come to its own conclusions.
1.14pm Louise Mensch tells Sky News she thinks Tom Watson has actually let Murdoch "off the hook" by inserting the clause about him not being fit to run an international company.
The story will now be about divisions in the committee, she says, rather than focussing on the findings. The credibility is now "fatally damaged" she added.
1.09pm Ofcom has put out a statement:
We note the publication of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report, which we are reading with interest. Ofcom has a duty under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 to be satisfied that any person holding a broadcasting licence is, and remains, fit and proper to do so. Ofcom is continuing to assess the evidence that may assist it in discharging these duties. As part of this we are considering the Committee report.
12.56pm The Daily Telegraph's chief leader writer David Hughes writes that Labour's hatred for Rupert Murdoch has blunted the Culture Committee's report:
Rarely has there been quite so damning a verdict from a House of Commons committee. The investigation into phone hacking at News International by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has uncovered a systematic attempt to mislead Parliament...
The only problem with the report is that not one of the Tory MPs on the select committee voted for it. The committee split down the middle on party lines. Labour MPs, led by Tom Watson, Murdoch’s self-appointed nemesis, appear to have pushed things too hard in an attempt to damn News International and its bosses and all their works. As a consequence, the opportunity to present a united front on a matter of deep public concern has been wasted.
12.50pm Katherine Rushton, our Media and technology editor, has written that the MPs' phone hacking report puts pressure on James Murdoch to cut ties with News Corp and BSkyB:
In a damning 117 page report, the Committee tore into News Corp’s corporate governance standards, painting a picture of a company that professes to be helpful and responsible, at the same time as deliberately obfuscating.
It accused the company of a “deliberate strategy” to exaggerate any evidence in its support, whilst failing to mention key documents that could have helped the Committee or various other investigations to establish the truth about the extent of phone hacking at the News of the World.
Instead, the company tried to “buy silence in this affair” with large payouts to hacking victims, “and to pay to make this problem go away”, the report said.
“Senior News of the World and News International executives have tried to have it both ways. They have been to quick to point to ‘investigations’ which supposedly cleared the newspaper of wider wrongdoing, but have also distanced themselves from the detail when it suited them,” the report said.
“Despite the professed willingness of witnesses from News International to assist the Committee, the company has continued to downplay the involvement of its employees in phone-hacking by failing to release...documents that would have helped to expose the truth,” it added.
12.47pm Tom Watson has released the statement he made at the press conference via his blog:
It’s been 10 years, 1 month and nine days since the News of the World hacked Milly Dowler’s phone.
Five days ago Rupert Murdoch admitted there was a cover up at News Corporation.
We found that News Corporation carried out an extensive cover-up of its rampant lawbreaking. It’s most senior executives repeatedly misled Parliament and the two men at the top, Rupert and James Murdoch – who were in charge of the company – must now answer for that.
In the view of the majority of committee members Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run and international company like BSkyB.
I’m disappointed that some members didn’t feel sufficiently convinced or confident to hold the most powerful to account. (They felt they couldn’t support sections 216-229 of the report)
Many hacking victims have still not been informed of what was done to them. And Rupert Murdoch has not said his last apology to the families of murdered children.
12.46pm The press conference finishes with Paul Farrelly MP:
Glenn Mulcaire was not operating in isolation ... other private detectives were doing other things at the same time including mounting surveillance of at least one member of this committee [and] computer hacking. All the pieces of the jigsaw have yet to be put together.
The human cost of the intrusion into people's lives has to be at the forefront of our thoughts. This was an organisation that through its newspapers gave moral lectures to the public that acted immorally and criminally and felt itself above the law.
12.42pm Our political correspondent James Kirkup has written this about the "shambles" of the press conference:
You may have thought the moment a self-publicist attacked Rupert Murdoch with a foam pie during a Culture select committee hearing was the low point for parliamentary organisation and management. Think again.
The press conference by the committee today makes the pie-throwing incident look calm and well-orchestrated. Shambles is too kind a word for the spectacle of MPs calling a televised press confernce to explain grandly why they do or do not endorse various parts of the report they’re presenting to the world today. What is the view of Parliament on Rupert Murdoch, News Corp, the News of the World, the rest? Honestly, I’m not sure I’m any the wiser.
At first glance, then, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is a loser here: far from appearing a respectable, credible organ of parliamentary scrutiny, it looks like a sack of querulous ferrets.
But peer into the sack and you’ll see that some ferrets are doing better than others.
12.39pm The committee is asked by Harry Cole, from the Guido Fawkes blog, about the publication of Tom Watson's book "Dial M for Murdoch" before the publication of the committee's report.
Watson replies by saying "I hear your servers (for the blog) are abroad, so I cannot sue you for libel..."
12.26pm Louise Mensch highlights her hope that those criticised in the report will face consequences:
She also reveals that it was put to Tom Watson that if the line about Murdoch not being fit to run a company was removed from the report then she and others would vote in favour of the report.
She says "He chose to press amendment anyway and he is completely in his rights to do so. Not a bad thing or a shambles, he had every right."
12.23pm Here is the committee accusing News Corp execs of misleading parliament.
12.13pm News Corporation has issued a statement saying: "News Corporation is carefully reviewing the Select Committee's report and will respond shortly. The Company fully acknowledges significant wrongdoing at News of the World and apologises to everyone whose privacy was invaded."
12.08pm Tory Philip Davies has spoken in defence of Rupert Murdoch and explained his opposition to the line in the report that he is "not fit" to run a company.
He says it is not only "way over the top", but "completely ludicrous" to say that Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run a major international company.
"We all make mistakes, we all wish we'd done things differently," he says.
12.07pm Committee chairman John Whittingdale says the committee "did in large part find it astonishing that James Murdoch particularly stated to us that he did not become aware of the 'For Neville' email until much later. How you interpret that individual members of the committee would like to explain for themselves why they supported that and in one case did not."
He adds: "On the main findings which relate to misleading evidence, the committee was wholly agreed."
As for consequences, Whittingdale says: "not for the first time we are exploring uncharted water".
The last person to be called before Parliament to apologise for contempt is thought to be the former newspaper editor John Junor, who was called to the bar of the house in Jan 1957 to apologise for an article in the Sunday Express the previous month which questioned the way petrol was allocated to political parties in the constituencies.
12.02pm Conservative MP Louise Mensch tells the press conference that the Tories on the committee did not vote together and often had disagreements. But she says they could not support the report because of the line calling Rupert Murdoch "not fit" to run an international company.
"That line was left in and on that basis not one of us could agree that this report ought to be placed before the house and it was carried on political lines. A great shame," she said.
12.01pm Here is the most up-to-date Telegraph story
11.55am The committee's report calls on News Corporation to waive legal privilege to leagal advice from Burton Copeland that has so far been withheld.
Mensch says that it is "quite right. We call on News International management and standards committee to release Burton Copeland from privilege at once so we can have transparency to ensure there is nothing further being concealed."
11.50am Martin Moore, of Hacked Off, which campaigns for press reform on behalf of victims of the press, has released this statement:
The conclusions of this report, in particular that News international misled Parliament and that News Corporation was guilty of ‘wilful blindness’, are devastating to the reputation of the parent company and the family that runs it.
The Select Committee is effectively saying that the most senior figures at News International, either knowingly or by a culpable failure to act properly, covered up illegal activities and sustained intrusion into the private lives of hundreds and hundreds of people”.
These findings cannot help but raise serious questions about the fitness of News Corp to hold a broadcasting licence.
The company could start making amends by coming clean even at this late stage by waiving legal privilege in respect of the Leveson Inquiry over documents held by its law firm, Burton Copeland, as the Committee recommends.
"If we didn't have the Leveson Inquiry we would certainly need it now. It remains the task of the inquiry to establish how much further wrongdoing went in this company, who else colluded in the cover-up, both inside and outside the company, and whether these activities went further than News International.
11.46am The Labour MP Tom Watson, who has led parliament's campaign to get to the bottom of the phone-hacking scandal, said:
It has been 10 years, one month and nine days since Milly Dowler's phone was hacked. Five days ago Rupert Murdoch admitted there was a cover-up and we have found evidence of an extensive cover-up of rampant law-breaking.
The two men at the top, Rupert and James Murdoch, must now answer for that...Powerful people were involved in a cover-up and they have still not taken personal responsibility.
Morally the deeds are his (Rupert Murdoch's) - he paid the piper and he called the tune.
Watson added that he had "reason to believe" the Serious Organised Crime Agency is in possession of computer hard drives that could contain lists of victims of computer hacking.
"There could be a Mulcaire Two out there."
He went on that he was "disappointed" by some other members of the committee who "didn't feel inclined or confident" to hold the most powerful to account.
"In the view of the majority of the committee members, Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run an international company like BSkyB," he said.
"Many hacking victims have still not been informed of what was done to them, Rupert Murdoch has not said his last apology to the families of murdered children."
11.42am Committee chairman John Whittingdale introduced the report before handing over to Paul Farrelly MP, who said: "We have been led up the garden path and so were the readers of its (News Int) newspapers, the general public and the victims of phone hacking."
11.41am Top executives including Les Hinton, the former chief executive of News International, lied to the committee and News International as a whole showed “blatant contempt” for the select committee by seeking to mislead it, the report states.
Witnesses who gave evidence to the committee about phone-hacking could now be “punished” by being summoned before Parliament to apologise – something which has not happened for more than 50 years.
11.35am Our chief reporter Gordon Rayner has been studying the report. Here is his take:
Rupert Murdoch is “not a fit person” to run an international company because he showed “wilful blindness” to the extent of phone-hacking at the News of the World, a devastating report by MPs has concluded.
The News Corporation chairman “turned a blind eye” to what was going on at News International as it sought to “cover up wrongdoing”, the culture, media and sport committee said.
The culture of cover-up “permeated from the top throughout the organisation”, the report says, “and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International”.
“Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company,” it adds, and together with his son James should take “ultimate responsibility” for the scandal.
11.34am News International is accused of "willful blindness" over phone hacking.
11.32am The report has been published. The first explosive finding: Rupert Murdoch is "not a fit person" to run an international company.
11.14am Based on what he's read in this morning's papers, media lawyer Chris Hutchings, says he thinks the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry will be of more interest than the DCMS report:
Despite the evidence given to the Committee by two senior employees of News International, including of its in-house lawyer, that James Murdoch was well aware of phone-hacking, the Committee has refused to go as far as to make such a finding.
They have chosen instead to criticise the internal communications and structure at the company and as such to criticise James Murdoch, whilst failing to endorse his father's controversial claim of having been the victim of a cover-up.
In any event, the findings of Lord Leveson are likely to be of more interest given that they will based on evidence of very wide range of witnesses, including phone hacking victims, and are more likely to be free of any political influence".
11.10am For an overview of the phone hacking saga, we have put together a timeline of all of the key events, dating right back to 2000.
10.54am Here are some highlights from James and Rupert Murdoch's joint appearance before the CMS select committee in July last year:
10.34am The Guardian newspaper today leads on the DCMS report, which it claims will "formally criticise" James Murdoch but fall short of accusing him of misleading parliament:
James Murdoch will be formally criticised by MPs investigating the phone-hacking scandal on Tuesday, but their assessment of his conduct is expected to fall just short of accusing the former chairman of News International of misleading parliament about the extent of his knowledge of the affair.
The all-party culture, media and sport select committee has concluded that it cannot reach a final decision about whether Murdoch misled them because of what MPs describe as conflicting evidence, according to a source close to the process. However, there was enough evidence to lead members to agree that Murdoch had not asked the questions that would help determine the true extent of phone hacking at the News of the World for several years.
Some Conservatives on the committee are understood to have argued that Murdoch should not have been criticised at all in the long-awaited report. But in a three-hour meeting in which much of the debate was taken up with agreeing the final wording about Rupert Murdoch's son, their amendments are understood to have failed.
10.32am We have put together this preview of what we can expect from today:
MPs are expected to rule whether Parliament has been misled over who knew what about the extent of hacking at the now-defunct News of the World.
Rupert Murdoch, his son James and Rebekah Brooks were all hauled before the the Culture, Media and Sport select committee at the height of the hacking furore.
Former News of the World editor Colin Myler, ex-legal manager Tom Crone and Les Hinton, who worked for Rupert Murdoch for more than 50 years, were also grilled during the investigation.
The trio are expected to come in for stern criticism in the report, according to reports.
James Murdoch will be criticised for his handling of the scandal but MPs will stop short of claiming he was involved in covering up the scale of the problem, it has been suggested.
10.30am Good morning and welcome to our live coverage as the Culture, Media and Sport select committee releases a report delivering its verdict on the role the Murdochs and their senior executives in the phone-hacking scandal. The report is under lock and key until 11.30am.