to begin exploring beyond that. to see if there were immediate safety and security issues that came out of that that could cause us to do something right now. that is something we have engaged on and worked on.

right now we don't see an immediate concern with safety. >> extreme weather. we are seeing more -- is this greater risk to nuclear power? is that embodied in recommendation? >> that is one of the recommendations, to make sure we have a good understanding of natural phenomena. the way we have always looked at it is to look at what the worst thing that happens is, make sure the plant can deal with that kind of thing. as we get new information and better ways to withstand and predict what could happen from natural phenomena we want to revise and update our requirement. the commission prior to the events in japan is re-examining two fundamental issues that deal with natural hazards. one has to do with earthquakes

in the central and eastern part of the united states and the potential to understanding of those wasn't as good as it was when we initially likened of those facilities and the other had to do with flooding. and the potential for significant flooding events than we initially planned on. doesn't mean any of those will require a changes. no immediate concern for any of those but we're constantly a learning organization and we get information and work to apply that information. >> in the 70s and 80s a fair amount of public protest around nuclear power. one is referencing what they are seeing today and ultimately the question is what do you think is the level of public support for nuclear power. as a follow-up is there an increased level of opposition in the united states as a result of this? >> it difficult one for me to answer.

a lot of people do polling to answer these questions and what i generally see is i would probably say support for nuclear power in this country. but i think there is opposition as well. i had a chance a few months ago to go to the india point nuclear power plant in new york with a lot of public interest. outside the gate of the plant were ten people who were protesting and were their partially because i was visiting so you have a press conference and on my way down i got out of the car, and what are finding general is there are lots of people with legitimate questions about the safety of nuclear power and ultimately it is the job of the nrc to make sure we

take the appropriate steps to ensure the safety of the public. in the seven years i have been at the nrc, what i found is people who are dedicated every day to doing that, making sure we protect their health and safety is what we do. our have been impressed to see it so many ways as a commissioner. >> i will ask you to stand by. a couple of last housekeeping matters to take care of. i would like to remind our audience of the upcoming speakers. congresswoman michele bachman, presidential candidate of minnesota will be out here and the break goes on. governor gary johnson, former governor of new mexico and also presidential candidate. october 13th secretary ray lahood of the secretary of transportation, and tom brokaw will talk about his new book. officially i would like to

present our guests with the traditional mud. one last question -- [applause] -- i can remember growing up there were any number of movies that tended to demonize nuclear power, the china syndrome and in modern culture been very popular simpson's where homer simpson works and doesn't always seem to have a level of education he brings to the podium. when you see those popular portrayals of nuclear power does it bother you? >> i would say it bothers me. i think it is very funny. ultimately it is the job of the nrc to communicate to the public about what we do. i know the people who work at the nrc are dedicated to safety. at tremendously talented group of people. as i look at the power plants in

this country, dedicated people in those plants as well. it doesn't mean we don't have disagreements but if everyone does their job right -- >> how about a round of applause for our guest speaker? [applause] >> thank you for coming today and i would like to thank the national press club staff including library and broadcast center for organizing today's event. uconn find more information about the national press club on our web site www. press.org. you can find a copy of today's programs streaming future events as well. thank you very much. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> now live coverage from the british committee. in two hours rupert murdoch and his son james along with former news international executive rebecca bob brooks will testify at a british parliamentary

committee of allegations of phone hacking live on c-span3. now live to a hearing focusing on metropolitan police and its hearing on the previous and current investigations on phone hacking. chairman of the british home committee is speaking. >> -- which was hosted by the federation. and sponsored by the government. you both know about the owner of the champions but i was invited to the news international some party recently but did not attend. are there any other interested members who need to declare directly or indirectly? >> the events are declared with interest. and the chief executive -- >> thank you very much.

coming. let me express -- [inaudible] -- we'll read your statement very carefully that there is no impropriety to what has happened. you think you have done nothing wrong. you had no direct involvement as far as two investigations on the so-called review of the investigation but you felt you should resign. why did you do so?

>> i am quite sure i read my statement. i was quite explicit. it was very clear. when i took his post by made it very clear i would never willingly allow the story to be about me the leader for people who work for me or what they do. i saw the consequence of the destruction that can cause and it is wrong. that is the first thing. clearly there were significant stories. in the context of the job i do i might have -- we are in extraordinary times. we have gone through a short period. it seems to me -- if there were going to be continuous

speculation, stories come to continue to distract if i was going to do something i'd get in the words of william shakespeare and our hope ' him right, do it quickly. i have to take a decision on behalf of the organization to allow the authority to announce a place in time to have a firm hold on the biggest challenges. it is regrettable but i have to do that. >> we have to explore the issue of the relationship -- we have other witnesses and we will look into the previous investigations. if we could concentrate further -- i spoke it 6:00 on thursday, resignation did not seen in your mind. you met the man and spoke to the secretary. is it that they did not give you

the support to stay on following that? you didn't sound like you were in a resignation. when you spoke to me. when did you make up your mind you had to go? >> much speculation -- the full support. the secretary, lemaire, the prime minister -- i became much clearer when i was contacted saturday about the story and not apologetic by the way. when i became aware that mr. wallace -- i know you will understand this -- mr. wallace -- i should say nothing that prejudices his rights but when i became aware he was connected i felt that was a difficult story.

it was very unfortunate. this is going to be a significant story that will continue. if i am going to be a leader and do the right thing by my organization i will do something like that. >> as far as you are concerned nobody asked you to go. you made this decision also. neither the mayor nor the prime minister felt your position is untenable. they gave you support for the work you are doing. is that right? >> absolutely right. in reality when i did speak to the secretary, he accepted very reluctantly. he thought it was wrong. the secretary -- it was very sudden and she regretted my decision. it is my decision and my decision only. >> it was against the advice of

many colleagues including my wife. >> -- [inaudible] >> that was the implication. that is the implication i took from the response of the man. i would describe him without being overly emotional. he was very cross. he made it clear he thought it was wrong. >> we continue to ask questions on this. can i deal with the issue on one or two lines you putting your resignation statement concerning the comparison between mr. wallace and mr. coulson and we will explore that later, what happened concerning that. specifically you make reference -- this excited lot of interest

-- between what you did and the employment of mr. coulson and it sounds like you took a swipe at the prime minister bearing in mind that you said the prime minister has employed somebody who had resigned but mr. wallace has not resigned as a result of this. there was comment that you were resigning and they were just carrying on. you were treated differently or appeared to be treated differently? >> we always live in a world where the media interprets -- i was taking notice of the prime minister to mix something--make something absolutely clear. tried to make something absolutely clear. i do agree with the prime minister when he says of course the employment of mr. coulson

and mr. wallace were different. mr. wallace was never employed to be my personal assistant. i know we are going to this later. he was employed to provide advice -- he would give me some occasional -- that was one of the reasons and it certainly wasn't -- what i was trying to get across was simply this. when mr. coulson resigned, he said he resigned to do the honorable thing if you will be the leader and take responsibility. by definition he associated his name -- i was trying to draw the contrast. i have no reason to doubt mr.

wallace's integrity and no reason to link it to hacking and no reason -- in january of 2011 when i saw the name associated trekking together. i meant to impugn the prime minister -- i was trying to give an example that mr. wallace never came into this. >> commenting on your relationship with mr. wallace. will to concentrate on the statement and what the -- >> many of the public feel the positions rarely take responsibility by resigning and having done so, are you concerned that may have been undermined by what is being widely interpreted as a personal attack on the prime minister?

>> all i can do is -- i did it to the best of my ability. it is plainly obvious, control the way the media spins things. i made no personal attack on the prime minister. >> that is how i accepted your statement. isn't one significant difference that you as commissioner of the metropolitan police should have been responsible for leading the investigation. >> i would have to remind you -- as he tried to point out -- he tried to describe the work of the commissioner. that might put in context your question. we received $6 million a year. we deal with 8,000 crimes every year. i look to the things most risky.

i don't investigate crime but i make inquiry and if i could tell you what i took office as commissioner and asked for a detailed briefing on the crimes that might have been committed, raping elderly people, and professional reputation -- and therefore a detailed briefing and we had success. and continue to ask detailed briefings because we did not have it. i did put in place briefs on counter-terrorism. i never asked a question about phone hacking. no reason to suspect it wasn't the successful operation. and have no reason -- [talking over each other] >> a lot of other people did ask that question and i would like to take credit for the guardian newspaper and the role it played

in that. >> the same thing as my resignation. >> also in your resignation speech at least implied the prime minister was in some way compromised and you couldn't share what you suggested with them. isn't it also the case that you didn't disclose the appointment previously. >> i certainly did not imply that at all. and if you look at my speech it is quite clear. why did i not tell the prime minister that coulson -- wallace's name was connected? i had no reason to. no reason to connect wallace with phone hacking. i had no reason -- nothing came to my attention. i have no knowledge of this inquiry and i had been given

assurances by a senior constable of nothing new. i had no reason to disclose a minor contract that was very part-time, someone giving me a case of advice. when he did -- or at least became a name all are was saying in my resignation speech was it seems to be sensible not to impugn the character of the prime minister but to consider is it right to allow anyone to ask any questions because i kept giving him operational information that someone could suggest because of his relationship -- that somehow that could open up some -- this is very relevant. my understanding is it was exactly the advice of a senior official so we don't compromise

the prime minister. >> we might respond to that later. it is a very sensible position that senior official -- we should not compromise the prime minister. it seems entirely sensible. >> did you not tell the mayor on that occasion before mr. green was arrested -- was he not compromised bearing in mind the fact he knew mr. green and spoke to the leader of the opposition about it? how could you have done it in that case but not this? >> i might tell the mayor but didn't tell the prime minister. secondly quite frankly we had a new relationship that went something significant is going to happen, the time it is going to happen, there -- not taken by

surprise. i worked very hard not to compromise anyone and if i may say so i make sure my people do no compromise, when it goes to wallace, i made sure they told me what i need to know. it was seven weeks ago -- it was only early last week i was told wallace may be arrested and thursday morning i was told he was arrested at day. [talking over each other] >> operation d.c. was happening in the fall. you were not to be kept informed of what was happening. you said these were questions to be asked to sue acres. you were kept informed was to be arrested? >> she informed me of pieces of that and told me he became a suspect. >> you were told rebecca brooks would be arrested?

>> yes. >> how long before? >> 80 ten days? >> two days? >> i can't remember. but that is entirely proper. >> can we stick to resignations? [talking over each other] [inaudible] >> i was simply trying to ensure that the exchanges between the employment of mr. coulson, why would i want to risk anyone being accused of any compromise? i would not suggest for one moment -- why would i risk that compromise? my understanding is the advice from the senior official in number 10 and it is very sensible not to compromise people or leave a suggestion of

compromise? >> it is not a question of keeping it secret from the home secretary. as commissioner of the metropolitan police, very substantial salary, you have great responsibilities and your predecessors had to tell the prime minister a lot of unpleasant things for many years. why is it this was a matter that you felt was something that you couldn't disclose? >> we were it is negative. let me remind you, wallace becoming a name in regards to packing, first time to my knowledge -- it was in an article in january of 2011. i never heard him connect data will before. [inaudible] [talking over each other]

>> i think it is relevant. it is for contract. prior to that i had no reason, no concern, why would i raise a minor contract? when they became concerned, why would i think compromise or allow the prime minister any suggestion of compromise even though -- [talking over each other] >> -- invested got -- by the metropolitan police. mr. wallace is hiring or being investigated. >> the difference is there was no investigation. >> you were investigating lieberman were you not? >> investigating news international in january of

2011. the first investigation started in december of 2005 and ended in january of 2007. >> continue that. do you think there should be conflict concerning mr. wallace? you would be responsible for sharing that. >> i don't know. as i said there was no suggestion from anywhere of that. i heard senior news international people say that this was a timing issue. i had no reason to suggest it was successful. i had no responsibility for it so i am not sure there's anybody able to say that apart from mr.

wallace himself. >> you volunteered that information for the criminal investigation ongoing that it might not -- your investigation might not have been necessary had there been a conflict even if it wasn't necessarily a conflict. it may not have made a difference. >> the contract in -- became linked with the investigation. when it became part of the investigation then to go public without evidence, they would tend to, that would be the operation. it is embarrassing to me but i would prioritize the integrity of this operation. >> we come to the integrity issue in a moment. [talking over each other] >> i find it strange the prime minister and secretary said that

this case should be investigated as far as it could go. in the resignation statement -- why wouldn't you have told about a resignation? the home secretary found out on thursday. >> what -- would thus have told him what? what would invite -- [talking over each other] >> you didn't want to compromise the prime minister in any way? why wouldn't you? >> i would not want to open the prime minister or anybody to such compromise. a don't recall sharing information of this respect or any operation to the home secretary. >> and what else may come from that? >> i have given a pretty open

and full answer. you might not like the answer but i am saying -- the advice from senior officials, by discussing this particular operation because of the unique circumstances and exchanges over mr. coulson's employment i would not like to compromise -- open to any allegations as responsible as they might be, that they could at all of the compromise. >> when you were told -- you did not tell the mayor about this or anyone else? >> i did not. >> julie and hubbard. -- julien hubbard. [laughter] >> i would not want to compromise the mayor. that is the difference between governments and operational

independence. >> you did tell the mayor about -- [talking over each other] >> it was my idea. at the time of making a significant arrest -- i am surprised -- are hardly think people were that surprised. >> your resignation -- one of the big issues is the question of morale. are stopped last week by an officer who described embarrassment to senior police. a real concern about more route or a number of changes and there are number of rules. you're the first to clean this up on the more outside. and what they can do to restore

that? >> us support public and private messages -- i will be doing that before i go. i had spoken to many police officers since my resignation. they spoke about their pride even though they don't feel they could walk away with it might interfere with their discharges in a few years so in a similar way in many areas of the organization there is great pride. what are point to is we have to restore some confidence. it is about -- we do have to make sure the meeting doesn't restore the public's fairness around this one hacking issue. >> i want to take you back to your resignation statement where

you stated you had no reason to suspect involvement in phone hacking. no reason or no knowledge of the expense of the disgraceful practice or the repugnant nature of the level that reach senior levels but over the year you have been reported in 2006, the idea of the report in which they said investigations have uncovered evidence of a widespread and organized under cover market. among the buyers of many journalists looking for a story. in one major case investigated evidence included records of information by 305 journalists looking for a range of spaces. in a follow-up report in the news of the world of one of those, 228 transactions were positively identified phone

hacking and 23 journalists. do you not think that might have alerted you to the fact that there might have been phone hacking at that time? >> i don't. i go back to what i said earlier. some newspaper publication -- [talking over each other] >> some newspaper organizations had a worse problem. [talking over each other] >> if you deal with your resignation statement -- [talking over each other] >> i come back to what i said when i spoke to the prime minister. i prioritize risk. [laughter] >> not yet prepared. when i became -- [talking over each other]

>> when i became commissioner looked at the risks and those high-profile risks and are have to say it is regrettable when you see the repugnant nature that was selected here and i support the statements about what he knows now. there is no reason for that to be on my desk. there was no reason--it hadn't come back for many years on counter-terrorism operations. major cases -- phone hacking was not. even with that report. >> thank you. >> in your own words -- [inaudible] -- over five years, personal friend of assistant

commissioner yates, mr of the 10's is you and mr. yates -- it seems the hospitality plea for a little he didn't move as he points out with him and to prevent that information. >> i am completely baffled as to how anyone would talk about that. >> and what about in pure business terms, having the hospitality of this establishment -- isn't it strange? you said in the resignation

statement -- others conveying the right information on assuming this. would you have thought someone would take the double -- accepting this hospitality and establishment that there was a business connection between an individual on this side to the organization that you run? >> the only way to know that is if mr. wallace declares that. i don't know of anyone who knows if he was connected. >> can you ask anyone when you said to the hospitality if there was anything you should do? >> if you ask anyone -- not the smartest thing to do.

>> absolutely not. at gun think it was the smartest thing to do. i was recovering from a serious illness and wheelchair-bound and in pain and my intention was to come back to work as soon as possible. [inaudible] >> there was a connection between mr. wallace -- >> he had a connection with the establishment and this organization, not asking you to justify -- i am asking whether it is appropriate for hospitality and the establishment for a business connection in your organization, normal exercises are not normal and you -- your senior officers. >> we have to --

>> when it is a personal thing. >> personal friend of whom? >> mr. wallace has a personal friend. >> mr yates would have to tell you if he knew of the connection. i am confident he would not. >> just to clarify matters -- mr wallace was the head of news of the world with mr coulson. and mr. wallace, phone hacking and all the rest, with mr coulson. >> he was -- [talking over each other] >> wanted to get back on the record on the part of a few men. kenna come after the question --

i am not questioning the fault of your integrity. i want to make that quite clear but leaving aside the position of mr. wallace, was there not clearly -- was there not a situation inappropriate for any police officer, the most senior as the case may be to received substantial hospitality? >> in these circumstances -- a family friend connection. it was a generous offer. it enabled me to get back to work quickly. i do not think it is appropriate. it was unlucky that wallace was connected with this. >> if it changed the notice of

the mayor and came after you, free meals as the case may be, nowhere near the hospitality you received about some 12,000 pounds. would there be some questions about the person they followed, the police officer, and being offered such, free of charge and the rest of it. wouldn't there be questions? asking him relationship with the person who provided you with free meals? >> we would agree there most certainly would be. there was good reason for doing it and it was secretly. this was declared -- >> there was no need to do that? >> i put in my hospitality

registered -- [talking over each other] >> we have some questions to rescue before this goes on record. my appreciation of the metropolitan commission and the office -- are have no question what you said or any questions about this. there are some questions we need to ask and light of our inquiry particularly about the relationship between the police and the press. one of the things that strikes me looking at this is the extent of the connection between yourself and other metropolitan offices with news international particularly the amount of time you were speaking about the times you have lunch or dinner with them. you had 18 lunches or dinners with the news of the world and you have seven or eight with mr

wallace himself over a five year period. can you explain why that was necessary, and didn't the same thing happen with other newspapers? >> you are referring to the document which i am sure you have seen. if we could let you see it so we know what we were talking about? >> i declared -- [talking over each other] >> thank you very much. let me go back to what i said previously. there's a reason the commissioner met with the media to promote the reputation -- the context of policeing or make sure -- what i would say coming out of this inquiry is it is quite clear to me that we need

to change the way we do it. i am at the end of my term. are already pledged changing the way we have got to do this and explain what we're doing better. -- she would come in and talk foremost about that so that issue can revise not just transparency but why we do things. and i just put a little bit on news international? a little context. between 2005, and 2010, 17% of all my contacts, news of the world represents readership. in the same period 30% of my contacts -- an extraordinary percentage. it represents 42% of press

readership. if i maintain the relationship with the media it wasn't my decision to allow news international to be so dominant in the market but if i am in the top of the immediate and they make 42% of their readership in this country, did you have lunch or dinner with other newspapers? significant reach as well. that indicates 30% -- 70% of newspapers. >> the guardian -- the guardian carried a report that you had a meeting tuesday you tried to persuade the coverage of phone hacking would be incorrect and you have a meeting in 2009. is that right? so you know that you have --

particularly before january of 2010. they might be connected to mr. wallace. this was in december of 2005. before seeing a newspaper such as the guardian to persuade them that they would be wrong. i presume you must have looked back over the evidence and the case to be in a position that -- >> i have seen your -- mr yates, i'm sure you will get this evidence, gave me an assurances there was nothing new about it. we have to rely on those assurances. i have no reason to doubt his operation so they continue to run the content. we should be grateful to them. i went to them because -- >> one thing that came out came

out in the course of last year that in the meantime in 2006, we make inquiries by individuals that were hacked and taken individually, information about themselves from news of the world and news international coming to life. were you aware of that when you went to see the guardian in december of 2009 and what did you think of it? >> i can't tell you whether i was aware of the people making claims. unwanted to have an exchange and understand what they are saying. i wanted to say i am receiving these. i don't understand why you the effects of those assurances. it is clear to me they didn't. i suggested to them -- unwanted to keep that dialogue going. >> that is the fall of relationship with mr. wallace followed on the interest point. it does not seem -- you are a

very distinguished police officer. the news of the world seems to have an x employee working for the leader of your position and the news of the world had an excellent employee working for you. does that not strike you as a little bit odd? weather bar code incident for deliberately that the former editor of the news of the world ends up with leader of the opposition and deputy or editor of news of the world ends of the police commissioner? i said what you said about mr. wallace but no implication he was involved in a phone hacking? we accept that. it was not recorded anywhere else. isn't that a little odd? in some states you would miss the leader of the opposition before he became prime minister and mr. coulson would have been with him and mr. coulson, said mr. wallace was working for you. it is inconceivable that mr.

coulson would not have known that mr. wallace had a contract with the metropolitan police. >> by recollection i am right in saying i don't think i ever met mr. coulson at all before that background. >> you met mr. cameron before the prime minister? >> i think that did. >> it is inconceivable mr coulson would not have known one of the people working for you was an ex employee of news of the world. what was he -- he writes for news international. >> a close relationship between mr. coulson and mr. wallace, but i met mr coulson once. i didn't meet them together at all. >> is it conceivable they wouldn't have known about each other's jobs? >> it is inconceivable they wouldn't talk.

>> let's move to the contract. >> to say that mr. coulson worked for the prime minister, working for me. >> mr. wallace was not working directly for me. this is a minor part-time role for which i had some advice. >> were you one of the people consulted when mr fedorcio worked with him as a consultant? you have 69 press officers in the metropolitan police but needed another consultant? >> it is what you found out. [talking over each other] >> has it gone down? >> age 45. >> you needed an extra consultant. >> yes i was. let me say the benefits of what we know now, i regret we -- quite clearly the comparison.

this is the time when mr fedorcio's deputy was a long term absence with serious roles. >> you were consulted. >> i do think you need an additional portion. someone was known to me. wallace came up and are have no concerns about that. so i would have no concerns about that. mr fedorcio would have mentioned that to me. >> you even suggested his name. you said you were consulted but didn't make the final decision. >> i wasn't consulted but i had to say i would not be comforted by the fact that mr. wallace came out of that process. >> it is argued in the media that metropolitan police asked mr fedorcio to do this?

is that correct? >> the money is -- [talking over each other] >> we will shortly. did you know mr. wallace's daughter? >> at not know that until recently. >> when was that? >> it was a weekend or something like that? [talking over each other] >> don't know every single person. >> that may well be accurate. [talking over each other] >> very interesting. no information about the value of things like that and what i can't find here anywhere is a declaration of the family. whether that was appropriate not and we discussed that, it should have been publicly declared.

>> it was publicly -- when i came back and made sure it was in the hospitality register, it is in my hospitality register and published at the end -- >> when did you finish receiving that? >> when i came back -- >> which -- >> i think i came back -- [talking over each other] [inaudible] >> you are laying down the law with mr wallace, a thousand times a day. is he? you say it was a minor role. >> i am told he was the chief person available. [talking over each other] >> you said in an early answer

to question that you left with the guardian. the answer was employing mr wallace. >> i know i met with him on two occasions. >> 2009-2010 -- >> if you could remind me of date. [talking over each other] >> december 10th, 2009. did you put pressure on anyone at the guardian to lay off the phone hacking story? >> the pressure to lay off, i was getting insurances that there was nothing in this. they seemed to disagree so it seemed appropriate that i meet with them and that it represent -- that is that this was nothing new and are have no reason for the first inquiry. it was clearly not that so i suggested they meet with john

yates. >> the guardian understood from you the phone hacking story was inaccurate and incorrect and wrong with implied that this was starting to occur. >> the story was correct? [talking over each other] >> to my knowledge it was not engaged in a conspiracy. >> was not inaccurate or incorrect. >> metropolitan police came first. i have no international support. [talking over each other] >> i want to continue on that vein. you left with the chief of the guardian on december 10th complaining you believe they were wrecking the investigation over phone hacking. you went to the editor in february of 2010 and in it you actually say once again --

continued damage the case had not been handled properly. following that a meeting of the nineteenth of february, was mr. wallace employed in 2009 consulted about these meetings? >> absolutely not. he didn't work for my office and didn't work for me and never made a concession with mr wallace and no one else had that conversation. had nothing to do with it. >> so did you import the discussions after this? >> i was not taken by mr. wallace at all about meetings. that wasn't the purpose. he was actually employed to give media supports. nothing to do with my administration more meetings or any investigations.

[talking over each other] >> it is normal when you take on a contractual -- to fill that in. when you look at that background would it not be normal to ask when you take on someone with consultants? >> you would have to ask mr fedorcio. i have no room in procurement for any contract. it is better that way and i played no role in this procurement. >> thank you. david winnick. >> in october -- to let you know -- that was a period when the system was taken not further, the allegations of phone

hacking. >> the decision -- couldn't tell you when the decision was taken. i think he came in july of 2009. he had nothing new. >> in october of 2009. >> so the decision not to go further was taken prior to that point. >> he was known as deputy editor of the news of the world. doesn't it seem amazing that they already looked into phone hacking? or not to pursue it any further and yet the person who was involved actively in the paper gets the editor of news of the world. no contradiction whatsoever. >> i don't see a contradiction. i have no reason whatsoever to

meet with -- expect to be successful. i have no knowledge of the commission being held and i receive the assurances there's nothing new in 2009. are had no reason to become concerned about mr. wallace. and her international figures saying people at senior level did not know about it. why would i have any reason -- >> phone hacking was very much basically looking into serious allegations not to pursue the matter further in 2009 and get the news of the world -- accused of phone hacking. that was employed by the police and investigating phone hacking. absolutely nothing wrong with that. >> the police were supposed to be investigating phone hacking

between december of 2005 and january of 2007. that was very successful investigation. >> you asked mr. yates to look at this again and a few weeks later mr. wallace was given his job. maybe the evidence -- you are a police officer with years of experience. you think to yourself is very odd former news international employees. one is working with the leader of the opposition. one is working with me. almost like a fashion accessory that people leave the news of the world and come and work for politicians. at your offices, leaving the police off -- you must of read his comments. didn't you have any suspicions about it? i said there was no hard evidence but you are a police officer.

>> there was no evidence -- not hard evidence. he was the deputy commissioner. i don't read his comments. >> you didn't know he worked at the times? >> you asked me to read his column is. [talking over each other] >> no regrets. [talking over each other] >> i always said no internationals came out. [talking over each other] >> we read mr yates having been the associated brand of mr. wallace in 12 years, characterized in one newspaper that yates thought wallace was a fantastic guy and one of the best journalists around. strange thing is he was regarded as a monster by most of the people in the newspaper but -- i just wonder if you feel that in

some of the decisions made around the hacking perhaps the personalities might have been reminded by friendship and judgment might be clouded in the relationships of the news international journalists. .. assessment of the material in 2009, and we asked him if he

felt that there was a need to do the minimum in order to get to review off his desk as quickly as possible and focus on more important things, he said he thought that probably was the case. and i just wonder to what extent it is possible his relationships with a news international journalists might -- and to what extent you know mr. yates that might be possible? >> i think i have answered that. i've got no reason to believe that whatsoever. >> quick questions of members as we must move on. >> i apologize, but you might see why it's become significant now. you told us that he was appointed because mr. fedorcio

needed some short-term support. but he was appointed to work in specialist operations, the director of public affairs and commissioner's office for strategic and medication advice and support. what was he there to do there for you and your office? >> he wasn't appointed to work in my office. he never worked in my office. i don't recall him ever come into my office. >> mr. fedorcio says that was when the rules he was given. >> no, he was appointed -- mr. fedorcio was give me occasional advice on speeches. [inaudible] >> occasional advice on speeches. he didn't work in my office or direct me. >> james clappison. >> we have to ask you questions about the inquiry and the review. you've been giving us a full account.

spent i suspect that's why i'm here. >> indeed. did not occur to you at the time, this is a question which i think the people, they would see this as an obvious question. knowing that mr. yates was a great friend of mr. wallis, known them for a long time, and that neil wallis had been the deputy of the "news of the world" at the time the original phone hacking accusations, teaching not think there might be conflict of interest to as ms. yates to do the investigation at that point? >> i think you are conflating several things. firstly, i've got to repeat, i had no reason to doubt mr. wallis, that's all. there was no reason for me to do that. so i can see how there's a conflict. i knew mr. yates was a good friend of wallis but it was about to do what i asked him to be prefilled reason i asked mr. yates to do is because he was in charge of the business group that originally did the

investigation. >> the review was to look up where the original investigation and whether on the phone hacking was more extensive than originally appeared in the case but you went on to give regarding assurances which you gave him. certainly mr. wallis had been unemployed news international, at the time the deputy editor, did not create a conflict of interest? >> of course your statement is not the case. can i remind you what i asked mr. gates to do? and i read from -- >> will get to the investigation in a second. >> quite simply, i did not ask mr. yates to review it. i asked him to study the facts of the case and look in the detail and i would anticipate a statement later. >> on that basis how did you go, but given that was a very limited review which had been carried out, how did you feel confidence that they got this all wrong because they

exaggerate? >> there was no reason not to think the original investigation wasn't a success. people have been sent to prison for. mr. gates looked at it. he came to view there was nothing in it. >> let's move on to the investigation because members do want to ask you about that. in respect to the first investigation with hindsight and you mentioned eyesight when you resign, do you accept now that the so-called hayman clogged investigation was not as thorough as you would have expected otherwise much of what we're seeing now would have come out in? do except that now? >> i would characterize that investigation and i heard the evidence, it's quite clear the investigation, by peter clarke. secondly, to accept -- >> assuming mr. heyman is not a man of -- >> i'm seeing amanda rand

investigation, did not run the investigation. secondly, do i accept them into with hindsight we would have committed an investigation? yes, i do. thirdly, did i accept, i listen to mr. clarke, i accept the reasons why, i think that is for mr. clarke to justify and i do think it's a metaphor that judicial review. >> let's go into the second review. mr. michaels is going to ask questions of this. the reason why you asked john gage to review this. this was the ninth of july. he said he took eight hours to look at that evidence. when you asked him to do this, how long did you expect him to take? >> i had no expectations how long. if you go back to my statements, even in my letter to you, the last word in my statement and it was i would anticipate making a

statement later today perhaps. that statement would be about letting people know what we're up to but i had no anticipation of what the timescales would be. i asked him to take another look at it. just take a look and come to conclusion [talking over each other] >> in july 2009 when you asked john yates to take a fresh look at the material in respect of phone hacking, what did you expect that fresh look to involve? >> i'm sorry to say this again, it was a big story on radio in manchester. "the guardian" article. i had no knowledge of it. i didn't have a great deal of expectation other than getting it to the person who's in charge of the business group to investigate it, to have a look to see was anything for us to do. >> did you expect at that time and in retrospect would you have expected the material to be

reviewed? >> no, i wouldn't. unless there was a reason for the original investigation and regrettably we didn't see any reason to doubt there was an investigation. i would have expected to look at the new information coming to light, camped review. didn't materially -- mr. yates came to a view that there was no new information. >> let me get this straight. essentially you didn't think it was anything to be discovered? >> it wasn't whether i felt there was or not. i asked mr. yates to look at it. >> we now know there was massive material, i underline the word's massive material, which we now know was not reviewed at that time. does that surprise you in retrospect? >> in terms of what mr. yates -- it doesn't surprise me but these are questions of matters.

you have to put to mr. yates. i'm not surprised that he had no reason to suspect the original investigation wasn't successful. it's very regrettable that information was now within police possession. >> can you tell us how decisions are made? in retrospect what we know is the original material was looked at in terms of seeking information for the potential prosecutions that were being pursued. we also know the massive of the material, which as in consequence related to serious investigations. we heard from mr. clarke that the reason there wasn't greater investigation of that material was because, there was a massive pressure, massive pressure on him and his offices in terms of

getting with potential terrorists threats and investigations. in retrospect, do you think the issue should have been accelerated or escalated to your attention, in order to review the decision, not to go further into the examination of the massive material that was there? >> i don't know, and less what we are saying is dishonest, and that is we had no reason to doubt the success of the original investigation. >> the original investigation as we've been told was a narrow one, and as already indicated we now know there is a massive material that may not have been relevant to the individuals being investigated at that time. but was extremely relevant to all the massive concerns that have come out since.

at some point as we understand it, a decision was taken at the resources were not available to undertake them. >> i was going to go on to say, the second part of your question, i would have no way of knowing -- with the promises were of the original investigation or indeed that it wasn't so narrowly drawn, or indeed there was a resourcing issue. i wasn't involved in the original investigation. i have no knowledge. >> do you think that should've been escalated to your attention? >> i don't know how it could have been because i guess nobody else had that knowledge. >> thank you. in september 2010 we are asking whether or not there was a fresh investigation at that time mr. yates wasn't able to give us a yes or a no. did she believe there was a new investigation going on at that stage? >> from recollection i think mr. yates would have to confirm this, mr. yates was looking again, scoping it, because i think that followed disclosures

in "the new york times." he did brief the mayor of london that this was politically motivated, attempt to regenerate this issue. mr. yates said to the mayor, did he say that to you? what did he tell you of the results? >> firstly, i don't think mr. yates said that the. >> that's what the mayor said. >> i don't think mr. yates would have said that. but secondly, you would have to ask mr. yates. i know mr. yates did brief the mayor. >> did you see the review? brief you at the end of the eight hours? >> he gave me -- i was in manchester and he was in london. >> so he told you i tried to start the facts and this is my result? >> from memory i don't know whether he told me before he advanced it. but that would not be a problem to me. i gave him a job to do.

>> did he mention -- in his article, he mentioned evidence being put in bin bags spent i don't recall. >> you never heard of the factor all these documents in bin bags until now or have ever? >> i think i have spent when did you find out there was massive evidence that was being kept? >> the only way i could've found out was when the operation, the investigation was reopened, operation weeting in general 2011. >> and is a crack that after six years it is a policy of the met to dispose of evidence that is no longer required, or what is the policy of the met? >> i couldn't give you detailed policy. >> would you, because i'm very keen to know. nicola blackwood. >> i will let someone on the committee notes. >> you had no reason to think that the first investigation hadn't been completely successful and there were no further need for follow-up, but

peter clarke when he gave us evidence like in the original investigation to a fraud in that there were 11,000 documents and it was necessary to set very narrow parameters in order to be able to use the evidence effectively, and to gain prosecution. and necessary a lot of evidence not to be examined for possible additional indictments. and then due to the fact that there were problems of resources and their hike terror threat level at the time, there was then the decision not to have an exhaustive analysis following in the afterwards in 2005-6. was this not disclose to you in 2009, giving you the sense of perhaps it would be necessary in 2009 to do more than one days review in order to assess the 11,000 documents? >> no, absolutely not. phone hacking did not come a

priority to -- >> but the nature of the evidence which was in your possession was not revealed to you by your office is? >> no. >> julian huppert. >> brief questions. spent i will do my best. do you think the standard recording -- [inaudible] was a source, was providing information to the mayor, and that any changes given confidential information from the police? if that's true that raises even more concerns about what's happening to police information, getting it to journalists. the questions about information being given and questions about the close connection. if this is correct would you have been aware of it? would mr. yates had been aware of it? would it have affected not to work out? i think it was obvious who it was.

>> i certainly would not have been aware that the i expect mr. yates wouldn't have been aware of it. i certainly would not have been aware of it. >> brigette philipson. >> regarding asking missy h. to establish facts of the case, what discussions he had with mr. yates? [inaudible] >> i told him could he have a look. >> did you advise him as to what practical steps that might involve? [inaudible] >> at what point were you aware of the ongoing civil action taken by individuals that was going out further information? >> i really couldn't help you with that. i don't know at what point i was aware. but i do have to say still

wouldn't have been made a priority. if i had known about. >> just one final question. the comments you made at the start regarding not wanting to compromise the prime minister. correct me if i'm wrong, you said about not wanting, you talk to number 10 official who told you not to share that information with mr. cameron, is that correct? >> let me make it quite clear, i do not believe that the prime minister would be compromised. all i was trying to do is guard him against any accusations that he might. simple as that. secondly, i did not say the senior official sal me. is my understanding that it is consistent with advice from a senior official. i think mr. yates might don't. >> well-positioned? >> i don't know that. may i suggest you ask mr. yates? >> we will ask mr. yates. >> to the extent that mr. yates felt that he was certainly

expected to do the minimum with this review, or whatever it is to be described as, is that not understandable? i notice you're now saying the reference to statement, something formal might happen that day, but do you understand why it might be that mr. yates could have felt under pressure to produce quick results when you were told your colleague at the conference i've asked assistant commissioner john yates to establish the facts of that case and look into that detail, and i would anticipate making a statement later today. >> if i can finish, perhaps what i said. no, i don't think that was pressure that i think it does make a difference actually because it might be mr. yates could make a statement later that day. what i was trying to do was the big story in headlines, lots of questions, and i should indicate we would say something more about it but i don't think that put pressure on this yates and i don't think mr. yates would

accept such pressure spent we will ask them. don't you think that you said a statement we made later that day, whether perhaps or not, that that meant that john yates was going to be under pressure to produce a result and that the public may well think that the decision at the met not to reopen this investigation was made at the top? >> well, the first part of the question i just entered, i do not think that would put pressure on somebody with experience. i can't answer what public might think that i don't see why. it is something we would do, big stories running early morning on radio four. we would try and put something out as soon as possible as to what we're doing about big story. >> that would come from your press office? >> it might come from senior officer, it might come from whoever is willing to make such a statement. >> thank you. we have all the witnesses. quickly. >> you told us to take another look and as a cursory look, and you knew it to be a grocery look

because he only gave you a report later in the day, is that right? >> i was aware later in the day he said he didn't think there was anything new. >> how come "the guardian" told you there was more to it, at that time had been in the public domain? >> all i can tell you back as mr. yates looked and he didn't think there was anything new. >> stephen mccabe. nicola blackwood. >> your formal request to mr. yates was regarding your do, i wonder if you have any off the record discussions which might have given him a suggestion as to the crammers which you prefer that he used in his review of? any discussions? any informal remarks he might have given him that would've suggested him on this particular issue? any informal remarks that you might remember having with him about this investigation. >> no, i don't think -- we had a discussion on the telephone that

i would've asked him to pick it up. >> à la michael, final question. >> i never occasions to senior members of your team, i think i quote you quickly, senior chief constable. achieve constable is in charge, or will you in the past in lancashire. these are members of your team. they are not independent chief officers of police in that sense, are they? they are accountable to you. the implication of what you said seems to suggest then that operates as a series of empires almost. would you like to clarify the? >> i certainly would. some might say that might have been the case. certainly not the case that the column trying to extend the context, and the context is when people are asked me that i supervised john gates, did i give them guidelines, i think

john yates would have said he is a senior grade constable. one of the most senior grade in demand. extraordinary experience. >> yes, that's a helpful clarification but it is in that context i think that we are expressing some surprise that you were the chief officer responsible with a deputy to stand in in the event that you were otherwise occupied. that some of these matters were not escalated to consideration at that level by these very experiencing members of the metropolitan police team. >> i think i've given answers as i can as to why this would not be seen as a priority. until such time as we had what we thought was additional information, my understanding is that new additional information came in january. of course, i was aware at the time. it was at that stage we started operation weeting. >> we were already asking the question as to whether there was

a fresh investigation. so outside the met there seems to be an -- [inaudible] spent my understanding is when you ask this question, my understanding is we were saying there was a scoping exercise based on "the new york times" information. my understanding is weeting, you have to ask mr. yates or perhaps others, they reopened the investigation. but i can't be sure of that. i was a death. >> can i ask you questions and conclusion? alex mayor jack, a name that you may not be for money with, but you became the familiar with yesterday. a journalist was a translator. did you know that? >> i -- >> do you know of anyone else who was a former employee of the "news of the world" who now works at the met? or is this a question we should put two other? >> it was in the letter you sent

to me last week. i will try and be as simple as possible without providing information that would be fairly to individuals. i understand that 10 members of the staff have worked at news international has some capacity in the past. in some case journalist and some working with organization. i can't play the onset. [inaudible] >> ten members of dba staff, mr. fedorcio has given that. department of public affairs. >> in your staff that are 10 out of 45? >> that's the information i've got. >> you have just given us information presumably have discovered is. >> you asked the question. >> we are most grateful. in respect to short for, give information on what we've seen in the public domain? >> nothing.

>> commission, this may be the last time that you're appearing before this committee as commissioner. can i ask you where you think your resignation, and the resignation of john yates which i think we will accept a shock, leaves the service that you have been involved so many years? you had many years of distinguished service. every person i've spoken about you essential resignation refers to you as an honorable man, a man of integrity. i am actually puzzled why you've resigned bearing in mind you're no involvement with the investigation, and you had no involvement with mr. wallis is a point other than being consulted and mr. wallis didn't do very much for you. given that you have resigned, and that's now a fact, where does this leave the met? >> i think there are two issues. why does it leave the met and your puzzled. let me say what's in the met. clearly these are huge events. regrettably events. and i would say that i sincerely

regret that mr. yates is gone. i think the work is done, counterterrorism of this country is limited and i think we're poorer for his passing, quickly. however, the met will recover. the met has a large, 50,000 people. the vast majority of you are decent, honest, hard-working professionals who have been welded. i am confident they will work very well. i sincerely regret going but i'm confident the met will maintain -- >> it is damaged by this very badly? >> it's certainly not been very helpful. having a commission resigned cannot be helpful. however, good, bad or indifferent to the commission. >> but you're confident it can be restored with respect to what can happen in the future? >> i most certainly do. i think we need to make changes in the way we handle meetings. some of those changes are being made. come in and give us independence

advice. i do think we need to handle the media different in future, more transparent way. those already in place. but you asked me, a little bit of why i resigned that i think i gave you a very fair and full statement. you mentioned this may be the last time i appear before you. well, this is almost certain in my final professional engagement after 36 years. and i'm not going to try to -- i'm not going to -- i think it was rather a matter of public record. but fair to say that contrary to ill-informed media speculation i am not leaving because i was pushed or i am not leaving because i have anything to fear or threaten. i'm not leaving because any lack of support from the mayor, the prime ministers or indeed the home secretary. and until the point of an form of resignation their support was very strong. and afterwards the comments most

generous. because i'm a leader, leadership is not about popularity. it's about making decisions that put your organization, your mission of the people you lead first. it's about doing things that will make them proud of the leaders, and that's much different than being popular. it's about making decisions that make difficult and i personally thankful. that's leadership and that's why i'm going. >> as always shipping very courteous to this committee. if answered question for over an hour and a half. and on behalf of the committee we wish you best of luck in in e future. thank you for coming in. order. could we have mr. fedorcio, please. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] mr. fedorcio you have had most of that all the evidence so i think we will go straight into it.

without long introductions, go straight to the questions. could you tell us the position that you hold in the metropolitan police service? what is the job that you just because i'm the the director of public affairs which means i'm responsible for the met media, i'm responsible for any communications. >> and in respect to these matters, and we specifically want to talk about these matters, were you the person who signed off contract to employ mr.? >> yes. >> why did you employ mr. wallis knowing full well that in your tenure as public affairs there have been many, many questions about the "news of the world," phone hacking allegations? you knew obviously about the peter clarke investigation. even knew about the yates investigation because i think that you organize the press to be outside scotland yard, or

your department did when he made his statement saying that he was not taking matters further. why did you employ him knowing this? >> i want to be as open and helpful as akin to the committee, but as you will be aware on a couple hours ago -- [inaudible] for investigation. i have not been able to take advice in the times i hope that you'll bear with me and perhaps guide me. [inaudible] spent all of our witnesses have been referred to the independent commission and that didn't stop the commissioner, so you can take your guidance of him. this is a committee of parliament which is sovereign, and we can take evidence where ever we want and tell summit is charged with a criminal offense and there's no risk of you being charged, is the? >> i don't believe so.

>> so you're free to answer our questions because the point i may, i have not had the opportunity of independent advice were others may have. >> if you could answer our questions. we know the facts, or background anyway. you can give us the facts. you were the decision to employ mr. wallis. you needed another consultant. why mr. wallis, bear in mind that mr. clarke, just complete an investigation into thousand six and conducted a review at the request of the commissioner, why did you give it to the man who was the deputy editor of the "news of the world"'s? >> where shall i start? the need that i had for external advice and support came out of the commission. was undergoing recuperation, recovery of an elephant and even today he has yet to return to full work.

this meant that i was working effectively doing two jobs at the top of the department. it was a strategic level of work that is working on. i was under great pressure. and i felt that i needed some help and assistance and the commission suggested i should look and find such a. >> why -- we understand that. >> i have been looking sometime to find someone who i felt had the right experience and background and knowledge that could provide that assistance to me. i come over a period of time, spoke to a number of colleagues, professionals outside the organization who i know to seek their views on how i could go about this if i came to the view, what i needed was what i called a retainer of contract or it was a contractor would give me access at short notice to someone, and advisor, and that he would base -- >> but why him?

.org. >> why mr. wallis? >> that contract in place, real quickly. one of the things that was put to me was following his departure. [inaudible] >> i was aware of it. i can't remember to be honest. but i was made aware of him having left the "news of the world" was available for consultancy work. i saw mr. wallis -- >> who you never met before? >> i saw him on a number of occasions. i should say i know mr. wallis as a business colleague. i've known him since 1997 as a business colleague. by that i mean, i'm at the metropolitan police, public affairs, at that stage is deputy editor of "the sun." that's what i first met him. >> isn't he a professional

person, not a college but some and you do with regularly? >> professional. >> you are both in business? >> yes, sorry. professional. >> so you have known of him, but? >> i did not socializing outside of work that i want to make that clear. i had known him in the role, the very senior roles. >> but you are aware of the background of all the phone hacking investigations, aware on the ninth of july just a few months after he was appointed? when did you give him the contract? >> i gave him -- the contract was awarded at the end of september 2009. >> and mr. yates finished his review on the ninth of july? >> three months earlier, yes. >> so eight weeks after the review is completed you gave him the contract? >> yes. >> david winnick. >> all about phone hacking, allegations before mr. wallis was appointed, that's quite

clear? >> what i knew was the police investigation had taken place. i knew the decisions of the metropolitan police about that. i knew all the statements were made by the metropolitan police. i was aware of the media coverage that had taken place, so it was in that context that i made that decision. >> and two people had been convicted and sent to prison for phone hacking? >> in 2006 -- 2007 i think when that took place, two and half years later. >> wasn't the first question, and i speak as a layman and not as a journalist, within the first question one would ask of mr. wallis is that since you were the deputy editor of the "news of the world," the center of the allegations of phone hacking, can you tell us, in my view, what you know about phone hacking? did you ask that question? >> if i can explain very quickly

is that, having considered him as a consultant and so i could take on among the other names i'd had in mind, i spoke to john yates and advised them what i was thinking about doing. john yates conducted a form of due diligence of the source, and he can explain it too better than i can later get as far as i was concerned there was nothing in the previous phone hacking matters to embarrass him, john yates, commissioner of the metropolitan police. >> as i understand, you didn't ask mr. wallis information of the question which i assume would be, because he'd been asked by mr. yates, is that right? >> mr. yates may be aware of that. >> what did mr. yates say to you? did mr. yates say you can't employ mr. wallis because mr. wallis was no way involved in phone hacking because he told

you that? >> i can't know the actual words of the conversation. [talking over each other] spent what was the purpose of what he said? >> he said to me as far as he was concerned, there was nothing that could embarrass any of those. >> how long had you been involved in public relations? >> probably 40 years this year. >> and it wouldn't have occurred to you to put the question yourself to mr. wallis, bearing in mind phone hacking even in had been quite in the news and called for convictions, people being sent to prison, enacted with the "news of the world"? wouldn't it have occurred to you to say mr. wallis, let's get the position quite clear, the job were taken on at the met, can you tell me anything about what happened when you deputy? >> i think mr. yates asking mr. wallis that on one occasion was

enough times. >> thank you. >> your head of public affairs. you see your response those include marketing. and you knew mr. wallis as another pr consultant. i mean, i may be naïve in this but wouldn't it be better if the met concentrate on catching criminals? >> they are concentrate on catching criminals spent watching of the 50 odd or whatever it is people npr? why not just concentrate on the basic? >> i don't believe so. like it or not they me have a strong interest in policing. they put significant demands on the metropolitan police and officers are doing their investigation, wanting information. the police officers would be spending their time trying to deal with that approach. and i feel a having press officers in place, that we are able to take the pressure off the investigative officers to get on with their jobs, and if the main press officers --

[inaudible] >> could some savings be made in your department? >> there's always savings to be made. my department has contributed in the last 10 years. >> could we make a quick, please? >> mr. fedorcio, you were the main contact at the met with some of these journalist. your name all over meetings. it's important to be transparent about these things and the met has a publication about what we've are discussed. when i look on line however, it appeared as no gift hostile these passionate hospitality since 2009. 12 lunches, two dinners. was what's going on, were you trying to not tell the public about these meetings? why not declare openly and transparent sea as the rules

said? >> until recent only the commissioner and the deputy commissioner of the hospitality registers were published on both sides. that work is now being done to backdate all of the rest of the organization of the registers at a senior level. or the last three or four years. and they will be published shortly. that was not my responsibility at a recent decision was made to expand publication of hospitality. >> it seems rather bizarre that the window, it doesn't say anything about who it was from, what the fight was. will you please accept that that, there is not a record of key contacts between senior people at the met like yourself and these journalist, that it's not recorded in any way publicly? and i should've been a priority to look at. >> i think you will find my hospitality is, or whoever i've been with, it may not be, not on the pda side.

>> not on the commission aside either. your name is not listed there. >> in the books. [inaudible] spent if you would supply us that would helpful. >> thank you, chairman. cannot ask -- >> -- >> on the employment to mr. wallis spent on the employment of mr. wallis -- [laughter] did you go after tender for this contact? >> initially. my understanding at the time of the procurement was that the option of single term was in place. i asked about that. this would require 34th the size and scale of the. at the stage i went and got three quotes. and of those three quotes mr. wallis was by far the cheapest. >> you said you'd employed mr. wallis because you needed to beef up your department.

you said he was very good. why then did you feel the need to employ mr. wallis for eight months because my deputy was out sick? >> so two days a month would help that? there's nobody else in your department who is not good enough to take is positioned? >> he was still relatively new with the post. my professional assessment was i needed some external help which was not available internally spent so you employ 45 people in your department. you felt no one was -- >> not at the senior level i was looking for. [inaudible] >> not at all. i can be very clear, the sort of work i put mr. wells to assist on would be around corporate policy matters. issues of investigation, issues of operational activity. i dealt with my press officers, 45 press officers.

>> you never discuss the phone hacking scandals of mr. wallis, is that what you're saying? >> notes. never? >> you must know, surely you couldn't possibly do your job if you didn't know about what was happening in the metropolitan police. on a daily basis someone was giving you a complete set of cuttings as to what the metropolitan police was involved spend i didn't say i did know. i said i never discussed it with mr. wallis. spent so you did know about phone hacking? you did know there were investigations going on? >> i knew the initial investigation was taking place. i knew that it had closed. i knew that mr. yates had conducted that work in july. and i know that in january this year the investigation reopened. >> when you knew what happened on the ninth of july and the

eight weeks that led to the issue of the contract, and you knew that mr. yates was conducting that review, and you knew that mr. yates was a personal friend of mr. wallis -- >> yes. >> but you still relied on mr. yates to give you the all clear to employ mr. wallis. >> yeah, i accept the integrity of mr. yates. a senior officer of the organization spent what about your integrity of someone who needs to show due diligence when you signed off his contact? >> i was satisfied that device by mr. yates was suffice. >> thank you. >> on the question, there were three people tendered, mr. wallis' company was by far the cheapest. the specification that was advertised available to the committee so that you can see what was being judged --

>> yes, indeed. a contract of that size could be less by october 3 quotes, central supplies within the metropolitan police. it wasn't advertised. >> i'm just trying to figure out how it was he won the contract. >> i prepared a short specification which i e-mailed to the three people asking them to provide the cost for the work i was looking for, based on an assessment of the around two days a month. >> could you make of able to the committee? >> that documentation is in the police commission now. >> right. >> one other thing, when you employ people or in this case, any other basis, who are they required to provide any disclosure of their other

business dealings or connections? >> there is a contract -- i can't recall the details of the contract [talking over each other] someone who worked at the met, you wouldn't want someone who had connections, so there must be some way that you like people to provide a disclosure of their business connections, is that right? >> i know in this case mr. wallis just left the "news of the world." at that stage is looking to obtain new contracts. >> did you find out what other business interests he may have? >> i asked was he was working with and he said i've just set off on my own. i'm just starting this. [inaudible] >> 5000. >> when you asked mr. dh to conduct due diligence, was that the normal process? would you have normally asked

mr. yates to conduct that due diligence, how did you select mr. yates for the? >> one, i knew that keeping new in post, in the special operations department would particularly need some assistance of a senior level. so part of this work would have assisted him. so i spoke about him specifically because of his involvement in phone hacking. i was aware of the investigati investigation. >> you thought it was a good idea for mr. yates to do due diligence on a news of the would employ because he had been investigating "news of the world" employees? >> mr. yates is a senior police officer of the metropolitan police. i've no reason to doubt his integrity. >> that isn't what i asked. what i asked was why did you select mr. yates to do due diligence on a new employee that you are considering a contract with? >> because in this phase he was aware, or he had been leading

the phone hacking when it was going on, and i thought that was an appropriate place. >> when you selected him were you aware that mr. yates had been a close friend of mr. wallis since 1998? >> not since 1998 suspected mr. yates inform you hit been a close friend of mr. wallis since 1998? >> i believe the last few years, but i -- >> sorry. in answer to ms. blackwood, could we have precise answer. you said to me previously you knew he was a friend be? i knew he was a friend but i did know back in 1998. >> but you knew he was a friend. >> did that surprise you at the time to do due diligence, did you know he's a close friend of mr.? >> i couldn't say he was a close friend, but i knew he was a friend. >> did you think of by not be appropriate for someone who is a close friend or it a potential employee to do due diligence exercise on that potential

employee? did you not think it might have clouded his judgment? >> i had no reason to doubt specters by his integrity, and might put them in a difficult decision should he have discovered something? >> i have no reason to doubt mr. yates. >> your integrity and how you, we'll make our own conclusions on that. ms. blackwood is asking you, do you think in hindsight you did the right thing? >> i think with hindsight which i know a number of my colleagues have said too, lots of things would have been done different differently. >> would you reappoint him knowing what you know no? >> certainly not. >> who recommended mr. wallis to you? you say you had a recommendati recommendation. >> i had been out, i'm trying to think him in mid-august. i just found out he was working

individually. >> was it from someone from "news of the world" or news international? >> eyed honestly cannot recall. spent you can't recall? >> despite having giving evidence under careful consideration comes you can't recall who suggested that you higher mr. wallis? >> at the end of the day -- >> wasn't rebekah brooks? >> certainly not spent was it someone else out there news of the international? >> certainly not. >> it could've been someone at news international because you said you can't remember the? >> i said i can't remember but i do not believe. >> were you particularly close to the "news of the world" or news international? did your closeness, if you are close to them cause friction with press officers under your control's? >> i read that suggestion. which i am dismayed about to be honest.

i placed stories with all sorts of papers and all sorts of journalist. >> were you placing stories, we giving preference to the "news of the world" in placing stories? >> certainly not. you would know different flavors and different interest. >> did you know mr. wallis' daughter worked at the met? >> i didn't until yesterday. >> and that was the first i'm? >> yes. >> mr. wallis' contract ended when? >> on the seventh of december, 2010. >> isn't not the case that he was offered another contract? >> yes. >> when was he offered the second contract? >> the situation with my deputies as i said continued. i had the first contact. i reviewed -- >> look at your notes pleased to get absolute right. how long was the first contract? >> the first contract runs until the 31st of march --

>> when did it start and in? >> it was issued on the first of october spent and and? >> on the 31st of march. >> is the correct -- >> story. the contract i think had a longer potential to but as i said i was initially the option of an extension. >> so the 31st of march and has offered another contract on the first of september. >> he was offered and extension before the first of april, six months. to take it to the end of august. he was bent on -- first offered another six-month extension, et cetera a few days after that i suspect. i think the first of september "the new york times" article appeared on the other side of the atlantic. we will hear that later in the day. only a few days the story developed i think in some ways

which asked mr. dh to make statements about some certain factors spent and then you terminated him? >> i laid him on the sixth of september -- i relieved him on the sixth of september. i received an e-mail from mr. wallis to start at 10:00 on the evening of the sixth thing was going on here, i fear this is going to embarrass you and i don't want to do that. so i wish to suspend the contract. >> so he volunteered? >> he got there a couple hours ahead of me to say i'm sorry, and accepted his proposal to release the contract. >> can you clear up one other point concerning and heyman. is made very clear before he went to meeting and dinners and's with news international that he spoke to you and that you said it was fine for him to

go to these meetings? can you for the record explained your position? >> certainly, and i will try as briefly as i can. i need to take this in reverse order in the way i wrote to you. first, i became aware of phone hacking taking place was when i return for a period of leave in august 2006. the only dinner that i attended with mr. heyman, during, or before that during, or before that was in april 2006, which is while the investigation was ongoing. i attended that dinner with no knowledge whatsoever of phone hacking investigation taking place spirit and mr. heyman didn't take the investigation was happening even before there? >> no. >> did he go to -- did you go to dinner together? >> yes. >> he was in a major investigation? >> no. i'm not briefed on operation matters until i need to no.

>> but these matters were not in the newspaper's? >> no. there was only, it became public on the arrest of -- >> you never advised mr. heyman not to attend any dinners with news international? >> i did not follow the investigation going on. spent we have a final question. >> is it correct that you actually employed mr. wallis before your deputy became ill? >> no. my deputy became ill in the middle of february 2009. [inaudible] >> if it is brief. spent it is very brief. i asked the commissioner about a number of meetings he had with "news of the world" and he told me there was a strategy whereby you would try to reach out to newspapers with particular high

percentage of the market, 40% with news international. were you aware of this? >> you use the word strategies. it's not a word i exit. i deal with all of the news and i need to deal with all of them all the time. so the "news of the world" -- sorry, news international newspapers, naturally we would spend time with them. >> i have seen a list of the hospitality accepted by the commissioner. not award ceremonies or parties or things like that, but lunch or dinner, it would appear i might be wrong about this, i've only had a cursory look, that you only went to lunch or dinner with news international organization, particularly "news of the world." what was the strategy? >> i wouldn't know.

>> i know. [talking over each other] >> my experience is these news outlets have their own ways of reaching commissioners or police officers. some for dinner. some prefer lunches. some prefer meetings in the office. some prefer having sandwiches. some prefer it with coffee. some prefer it was known. you go with the mood. that was at the met and that's something i inherited. >> thank you for coming in. i'm not sure we are clear at the end of the session then when we started the we may be asking you i can't about these matters. thank you for coming. order. and we have witnessed john yates. can we have the witness, john yates. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] .. it came as a surprise to many of us. i'm not saying it is connected in any way that my call to your office that you announced your