OK, we'll be there: climbdown by Murdochs

Alongside him will James Murdoch, head of News Corp in Europe and Asia, who stands accused of making payments to silence the scandal.

Both men had initially refused to appear, with Mr Murdoch snr stating he would give evidence to the judge-led inquiry set up by the Prime Minister and his son suggesting alternative dates to appear. But on another dramatic day, the committee sent formal summonses to the pair, through the Deputy Sergeant of Arms, to appear before them.

Next to them will be Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, who was editor of the News of the World when the paper hacked into the phone of murdered teenager Milly Dowler but has resisted calls for her to be removed from her post.

Earlier, there had been some confusion at Westminster as to how the committee would proceed if the Murdochs ignored the summonses. During business questions in the House, Leader of the House Sir George Young suggested that, if they ignored the summons, the Murdochs could be fined or end up in prison.

However, he told MPs this had not happened since 1666.

But within hours of the summons being sent to Wapping, News International's headquarters, the Murdochs agreed to appear before the committee.

In his letter accepting its demand for them to appear, James Murdoch urged members not to cut across the police inquiry in their questioning.

"We have been advised that, in the light of the fact that there are to be multiple reviews of the issues, this does carry the risk of prejudicing other judicial proceedings and in particular the ongoing police investigation and any potential subsequent prosecutions," he wrote.

"I would therefore respectfully ask you to take the utmost care in ensuring that the committee hearing does not run any risk of prejudicing that investigation and subsequent prosecutions."

The announcement that they would, after all, be appearing was welcomed by the committee chairman, Conservative MP John Whittingdale, who said he hoped they would take the opportunity to apologise for what had happened.

"They will be appearing before a parliamentary committee, so I would hope they would take it seriously and they will give us the answers that not just we want to hear but I think an awful lot of people will want to hear," he said.

Hacking scandal latest:

• In pictures: Hacking - the key names and faces

• Now US turns on Rupert Murdoch as FBI probes '9/11 hacking'

• Top official warned Brown over 'motivation' for public inquiry

• Son's fury after Murdoch Snr withdraws BSkyB bid

• De Menezes family targeted

• Questions that the inquiries will have to answer"Obviously, the committee would not want to do anything to jeopardise a police investigation or criminal prosecution, but nonetheless I think there is considerable opportunity for her (Mrs Brooks] and her bosses to set the record straight.

"One of the problems with the judicial inquiry is that it won't start looking at this matter for a long, long time to come.

"I think it is important that the British public hear Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks give an account of what has been going on in their newspaper and apologise."

The three executives will be grilled by, among others, Labour's Tom Watson, one of the MPs to bring the scandal to public prominence.

He said: "Like everything with this company, they were dragged into it kicking and screaming.

"We've still not seen anyone at the top take responsibility for creating a culture in a newsroom that would allow a journalist to target the phone of an abducted 13-year-old girl. Until somebody carries the can and somebody apologises at the top of that company I just think this is going to run on and on."

Labour MP Chris Bryant, another leading figure in the campaign for News International to be brought to account, urged the committee to use its powers to require them to give evidence on oath. "If they then perjure themselves, they can be had up for perjury," he said.

"It may be that their lawyers tell them to stonewall, but I think that would be a big mistake."

Rupert Murdoch had written to say he wanted to notify the judge-led inquiry, announced yesterday by David Cameron, of his willingness to give evidence to it before discussing how he could give evidence to the committee.

His son had said he was unavailable to attend on Tuesday and offered instead to give evidence on 10 or 11 August.

Business Secretary Vince Cable, who was stripped of his powers on media regulation after he told undercover reporters he had "declared war" on Rupert Murdoch in December last year, yesterday made clear he thought the rules on who could own media outlets should be looked at again. He said the rules on what constituted a fit and proper owner for broadcasting firms "may need to be revisited".

Mr Cable added: "It is a little bit like the end of a dictatorship when everybody suddenly discovers they were against the dictator."